Category: Big Food


by Sophie-Claire Hoeller, INSIDER

The INSIDER Summary:

• Nutella is often marketed as a nutritious hazelnut spread.
• A breakdown of the ingredients shows that Nutella has very few hazelnuts and is actually made mostly of sugar and palm oil.

Ever seen a Nutella commercial?

Generally, Nutella, a delicious hazelnut and cocoa spread, is marketed as “healthy,” despite basically being a liquid chocolate spread.

Ads feature cherub-cheeked children eating slices of whole-grain bread spread with a frugal amount of Nutella for breakfast.

In most countries, it’s marketed as a simple hazelnut cream, and ads highlight the fact that Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives.

But Nutella is not exactly a health food.

A now-viral image uploaded to Reddit (and originally created by the consumer center in Hamburg, Germany) shows exactly what is in a jar of Nutella.

While Nutella contains just five ingredients (palm oil, cocoa, hazelnuts, skimmed milk powder, and sugar), a whopping half of the stuff is sugar.

According to its nutritional label, a jar of Nutella has 21 grams of sugar per 37 grams of spread (two tablespoons), meaning that in reality more than half is sugar. Much of the rest is palm oil — solid fat some claim causes cancer.

The label also says that jars contain “over 50 hazelnuts per 13 oz. jar.”

Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, provided this comment:

“One of Ferrero’s core nutritional beliefs is that small portion sizes help people to enjoy their favourite foods in moderation. The labelling on all our products enables consumers to make informed choices and helps ensure that Nutella can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet.”

In other words, you may want to cut back on eating it from the jar by the spoon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nutella-ingredients-graphic-2017-2

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

by Paul Philips, Guest, Waking Times

Like many things — the food industry, the medical-pharmaceutical establishment, the mainstream media – the hidden corporate/bankers who control our governments have also standardized the education system through funding.

Many years ago in the USA, for example, much money was poured into education by the Rockefeller-created National Education Association, with the help of the Carnegie Foundation and later on the Ford Foundation. The result of the efforts of such organisations can be seen worldwide today in the real purpose of the education system which is to teach children and young people: 1) Reward comes from accurate memory recall from heavy repetition. 2) Non-compliance will be punished. 3) Acceptance that ‘truth’ and what is ‘real’ comes from authority.

Thus, the real purpose of the education system is to cultivate conformity and prohibit critical thinking about anything of real importance.

Starting at 4 years old (and what could be a better age to start a mass indoctrination?) and finishing by the time an individual comes out of the education system, some 12 years plus on, children have had more than their fair share of programming and brainwashing, and as a result are unable to really think for themselves. Moreover, any genuine outside-of-the-box thinking with significant potential humanitarian or Mother Earth-friendly benefit is ignored, quashed, ridiculed or suppressed by the influence of those hidden controllers if it is perceived as a threat to any of their businesses.

But, as Einstein said, ‘real thinking is to think the unthinkable…’

Introducing the ‘Unsung Heroes’

The following is a list of just some of history’s truly great humanitarian outside-of-the-box thinkers, with their innovative ideas/products that have never been able to see the light of day (due to the above reasons.)

Raymond Rife

Raymond Rife (1888-1971) and his Universal Microscope for curing cancer.

After successfully curing a number of cancer patients the Rockefeller owned American Medical Association (AMA) later had this work laid down to rest by closing down Rife’s set ups and seizing his equipment:

Essentially Rife refused to hand over the rights of his work to the AMA because he saw moneyed interests as hidden ulterior motives – that his the cancer curing machine would not be allowed to the world at large because the AMA and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment did not want patients’ cured.

That would mean customers lost and no more revenue for the cancer industry, so instead they push out real cures, and keep coming up with toxic treatments that never cure, instead create further symptoms (side effects) guaranteeing the cancer returns and thus repeat business until the patient eventually dies an unnecessarily harsh death.

After years of ensuing court cases with the ‘big boys’ of the cancer establishment, with little money to exist on, Rife exiled in Mexico to avoid imprisonment in the USA. He later died of alcoholism, a brilliant, but defeated man. The pressures of harassment related to the legal battles and constant threat of imprisonment had been too much for him.

The Associated Press: Apparatus of San Diegan Seen as Boon to Medical World

Linus Pauling

Pauling had worked with Matthias Rath and they came up with a unified approach to curing heart disease. (1901-1994) – ‘Unified Theory’ cure for heart disease.

Essentially, they found that heart disease is the result of a long-term vitamin C deficiency. The solution is to treat patients with frequent high doses (e.g. 6g/day) of vitamin C while using the amino acids lysine and proline to remove the atherosclerotic plaque lining the inner walls of the blood vessels that cause a narrowing or blocking of the lumen (space) of the blood vessels which is responsible for restricting blood flow and cardiovascular disease.

However, due to greater interests in corporate profitability and perceived financial threat, this highly successful cheap alternative therapy has not been allowed that much attention.

 

 

Nikola Tesla

Multi-talented Tesla cut across many disciplinary boundaries. His genius gave rise to a number of world-changing inventions. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) – Wardenclyffe Tower Project free energy.

One of his most famous experiments /inventions was the Wardenclyffe Tower Project. It was Tesla’s attempt to provide everyone on the globe with free energy through harnessing electricity from the Earth’s ionosphere by means of the towers. Without wires the towers could transmit the harnessed electricity to ground-level areas requiring it…

However, Tesla’s funding was stopped. His equipment and lab was burned down together with the related intellectual property because it posed a threat to undercutting the cost of the conventional electricity grid system. If Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower Project had been allowed to flourish and not be destroyed then today we could well be living in a utopia.  Tesla died a poverty-stricken lonely and forgotten man in New York City.

TIME Magazine Cover: Nikola Tesla – July 20, 1931

Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) – Drought-breaking weather control.

Wilhelm Reich built an instrument he called the cloudbuster which successfully induced weather change. It has been used to break many droughts by producing clouds that make rain.

This workable mechanism for making rainclouds for crop irrigation in drought areas was stopped by those ever watchful lackeys for the ruling elite.

 

Allowing something like this could lead to food abundance and greatly contribute to ending world hunger. However, the controllers don’t want world hunger to end. If this happened it would make it more difficult to control people in what would no longer be third world countries. .. Don’t forget, their hidden enslavement agenda

Consequentially Reich was hounded by the likes of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) having accused him of fraud and deception with his cloudbuster instrument. His equipment was seized and destroyed. His last days were spent in prison where it was claimed that he died of a heart attack

more…

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/16/another-brick-wall-modern-education-system-deception/

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

by Julian Rose, Contributor, Waking Times

As the New Year dawns, so does our thinking process have an opportunity to do likewise. And why not make it a first call to get your priorities sorted out about your 2017 eating habits? After all, it is the quality of the fuel that you put in the tank that ensures how well your engine runs.

Although they might look nice, the great majority of supermarket foods are just a brilliant con trick. And I’m telling you this, sensing that the majority reading this article are most likely still doing most of their food shopping in a supermarket or ‘superstore’.

Alright, so put on your safety belt, because I’m going to take you on a rapid ride down the isles of that ‘superstore’ just down the road from you.

First impression: Wow, so much choice! Wrong, the product range you are looking at is made up of many slight variations of ‘one food’, and that one food has a number of different manufacturers. So you go to get a litre or two of milk; Oh my! Six different mega dairies have their goods on display, all churning out the same white stuff (called milk), and they all look identical. Choice? Oh yes, you can have skimmed, reduced low-fat, or whole; all of which are pasteurised and homogenized. And, of course, there’s ultra heat-treated (UHT). But there’s no ‘milk’ available. I think you get my drift: each of those products is a denatured distortion of ‘real milk’. Real Milk is ‘illegal’ in these places – unless you’re in France. Raw unpasteurised milk, with nothing added or taken out: not allowed.

Stick with me on dairy, because in many ways it’s symbolic of all the rest of the junk in this ‘superstore’. Did you know that ‘homogenized’ milk involves forcing the cream layer (which normally floats on the top) to morph into the rest of the milk? Yes, that’s what happens; and it’s a particularly dodgy business because this forcing is done under very high pressures, where the milk is blasted through a metal plate perforated with many small holes, thereby forcing the cream into the milk and the milk into the cream, so you can’t see the difference. What comes out the other end resembles ‘another food’ – and by the time it’s also been heat-treated (pasteurised), squirted into a plastic bottle and stuck on the supermarket shelf for a few days, it is another food. Food? No sorry, shouldn’t really use that term.

According to the dairy industry, the end result is supposed to be ‘more attractive’. Sure, it’s beautiful isn’t it! Maybe, to the eyes of the advertisers. But what this ‘homogenized’ and pasteurised milk is doing in our gut is another thing altogether. It’s essentially indigestible. So let’s get serious: a report by a leading scientist/doctor in the UK some thirty years ago, exposed the fact that homogenized milk causes blockages in the arteries of the heart, leading to potential cardiac arrest. His report mysteriously disappeared soon after it was released and the author was quickly sidelined. Ever heard any stories like this before?

OK, so let’s jump back on our trolley and head for the ready prepared meat department. Wow, now here’s a great line up of tempting looking cuts; special ham, spicy sausages, acclaimed bacons, tender chicken nuggets and so forth. Now don’t tell me there’s no choice here!

Sorry, it’s all coming from two or three (at the most) huge factory farms. Probably in another Country or some place in your own homeland that you’d least expect. Places it would make you sick to set foot in. Places where 15,000 hens cram into one vast neon lit shed. Usually in ‘cages’ of eight to ten birds each. Hens fed antibiotic laced genetically modified soya and maize – and a bunch of other stuff like manioc from Thailand and rice husks from China; what ever is cheap and available and capable of fattening a chicken in just ten weeks. Ten weeks? Yes, that’s how long it takes to get them up to slaughter weight. Just keep the lights on and keep stuffing them – and that’s the full life-span of a typical supermarket chicken. The antibiotics are fed prophylactically so as to keep the hens from dying of diseases which are rife in this airless, sunlight-less, neon lit ‘natural’ environment… Egg production just the same horror story. Life span even shorter. Beaks clipped too.

Never see grass, let alone the light of day.

Lord, give me a break! What about the pork and ham cuts on display? Yes, exactly the same regime.

Hundreds, more often thousands, of pigs in the same style vast shed. Also fed GM maize and soya. Also given routine antibiotics. Also deprived of sleep and relentlessly fattened. Their life span of the fatteners is at best three to four months and the sows, maybe a year.

By way of contrast: sows on my farm, running free range on pasture, live for at least five years. Free range chickens on grass also around five to six years.

Take a look at those lovely cling film covered trays in which these remains are displayed, especially the ham. How many chemical stabilizers, synthetic preservatives and colouring agents?

But listen, it can’t all be that bad can it? I mean, these stores have ‘quality controls’ in place and very strict hygiene arrangements. Sorry, these are just sops to make you feel that the food you are buying is ‘safe’. The reality is that what you are eating – unless it is certified as organic (and most ‘supermarket organic’ pushes the term to its limit of credibility) then you are eating the remnants of an animal that has just been through a concentration camp. Put that in your trolley? Support animal genocide?

Listen, I’m feeling a bit queasy, not sure I want to buy anything here after all.. maybe just some loo roles and household detergents. Yes, of course, but the paper (unless you purchase recycled) for your loo roles is coming from strip-forest logging exercises, is heavily processed and then treated with chemicals and synthetic perfumes – ‘to give you a blissful toilet experience everyday!’ The household detergents? Do I need to tell you? Chemical paradise designed to kill anything that moves – including you!

Let’s get out of here. Please don’t tell me any more. Sure, good decision – but just in case you’re thinking of grabbing the odd veg for tonight’s dinner. Err, well, please understand that it’s almost certainly been sprayed ten to twelve times during its growing period with chemicals that destroy bees and sicken birds – so it might be better to give them a miss too, right?

Scene shifts to the supermarket car park. Orwellian looking arena, where strangely abstracted looking people wheel their cart loads of deadly packaged produce towards shiny waiting vehicles. Is there any choice? asks the by now pale-faced, shell-shocked consumer.

Yes, it’s called ‘real food’. I suggest you grow it yourself. But I suppose you’re not willing to countenance that idea. Then you must look around for the farms that do. Go to the farmer’s market.

Maybe a natural foods store. Places where a human being serves you, someone who knows something about the foods on sale in their shop and where they are grown and raised. Scale down your expectations. Look for that which is local, fresh and nourishing. Think human scale, not cyborgian mega-scale. Drop the ‘super’ and re-find ‘the market’. The market place. The real people with real smiles and earth worn fingers. Come to your senses. Realize that you have been duped, brow beaten and robbed – maybe for years. Give your body, mind and spirit the chance to heal. Give your money to people who deserve it; people who work with, rather than against, nature. Turn over a new leaf. And if a small bug falls off it, laugh out loud – and give praise for the diversity of the living environment. Rather than the sterility of a death cult dressed-up as ‘convenience’.

 

About the Author
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, international activist and author. Contact Julian at www.julianrose.info to find out more. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, and is the author of two books with some very powerful perspectives: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.
This article (Fake Food vs. Real Food – A Question of Life or Death) was originally created and published by Julian Rose and is re-posted here with permission. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/01/12/fake-food-vs-real-food-question-life-death/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

By Sara G. Miller, Staff Writer

In 2017, Live Science is bringing our readers a monthly series on personal health goals, with tips and tricks for reaching those goals with advice we’ve gathered from the countless health experts we’ve interviewed. Each month, we’ll focus on a different goal, and the goal for February is “Eat Better.” Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to connect with other readers who are working toward these goals.

It’s not uncommon to feel as if you’re drowning in a sea of diet advice: drink red wine for heart health; avoid bacon and processed meats; make sure your diet is filled with “superfoods.”

But eating a healthy diet is actually quite simple, if you know what to look for. Live Science pulled together the best advice and the most relevant stories about nutrition so you can eat better this year.

There is no single “perfect” healthy diet. But the U.S. government guidelines, which emphasize eating fruits, vegetables and whole grains and moving away from salt, added sugars and saturated fats, are a good place to start.

Are vegetarian diets really better for you? That may depend on what your goals are. But science shows that it is OK to have some meat in your diet — just don’t go overboard.

When it comes to healthy diets, it’s hard to find one with more accolades than the Mediterranean diet. Rich in fruits, vegetables, olive oil and fish, it has been linked in studies to numerous aspects of health, from the head to the heart.

If you’re not mad about the Mediterranean diet, there are other healthy ways to go. The American Heart Association’s “DASH” diet, which stands for Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension, is not only praised as a heart-healthy diet but also a good diet for people who want to lose weight. And the “Japanese diet,” or the general way that people commonly eat in Japan, has been linked to longer life, one study has shown.

The tables have turned on the sweet stuff: Although it was once considered not especially harmful, a slew of research now shows that sugar — specifically, added sugar — is particularly damaging to a person’s health. Too much sugar can raise a person’s risk for both Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Not all dietary fat is bad. Indeed, increasing evidence suggests that unsaturated fats can benefit health. However, trans fats have proved to be very damaging, leading the FDA in 2015 to ban them as an ingredient.

The body needs sodium – aka salt­ – in order to function. But too much of this mineral raises blood pressure, which can lead to a slew of heart problems, including heart disease. The salt you sprinkle on your dinner or add to a recipe isn’t the main cause of sodium in your diet; rather, the majority of dietary sodium comes from processed foods.

Reading food packaging can seem like doing a word search sometimes, but what do all the labels food manufacturers throw on your favorite snacks actually mean? Sometimes, a label doesn’t quite mean what it says. For example, “reduced sodium” products can still have a good deal of sodium — this label just means it has 25 percent less than the “regular” version of the same product. And in other cases, like with the word “natural,” it doesn’t mean anything at all…

more…

http://www.livescience.com/57290-eat-healthy-this-year.html

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

640px-vladimir_putin_and_barack_obama_2015-09-29_01

It is my contention here that Capitalism is a fatal delusion, and adherence to it without question is tantamount to willingly signing a species-wide death warrant.

Capitalism as we know it in the modern world is based on the assumption that there must be infinite growth, which on a finite planet means total consumption, total exhaustion of all resources that can be monetized.

Under a capitalist system, the highest goal of man is to increase his desires infinitely, in order to produce the desired goal of infinite growth. By increasing his desires infinitely, man also increases his sufferings infinitely.

As capitalism is forged on the basis of two delusions, one, that there can be infinite growth in a finite closed system, and two, that the highest aim of man is to infinitely increase his desires; we may say that to defend this system is to willingly subscribe to a suicidal form of madness.

Simply put, man will never be genuinely happy under the system of capitalism, for he is living a lie and calling it truth. There is no degree of enjoyment to be derived from the process of capitalism that is not logically offset by the inevitable cost of extinction it produces.

The history of the Western world, and of the world in general, is a history of man falling prey to the delusion that his living conditions are at base inadequate and must therefore be remedied through effort, technics and the creation of “solutions” to his “problems.”

It is almost as if somewhere in our distant past, an individual was struck by a thought in the back of his head that he couldn’t quite put his finger on, that perhaps somewhere something was a little bit wrong or off, and so he set about trying to discover this “problem” in the external world, and began to devise peculiar strategies for doing so.

In doing so, he creates more problems in the process, and must then turn his attention to solving those problems additionally, and so on. The basic illusion here is that there was ever anything “wrong” to begin with. The attitude that nature is “out of line” so to speak is itself perhaps the only example of nature being “out of line.” It is like a feedback loop of sorts, producing a painful shriek from a situation of far too much self-consciousness.

And so man has, down through the ages, chased the tail of happiness, presuming that it was anywhere but right here and now. Capitalism is just the latest form of this primal delusion, that the world is in error, and we may see it then as an extension of the Christian notion that the World is a sinful place, to be overcome, changed, or transcended.

And, ironically enough, all forms of this particular delusion do in fact create a situation of base unhappiness and unsatisfactoriness out of which their proposed solutions can rise. We see this in capitalist societies, which must necessarily produce poor millions so that we can recognise a rich few. We see it in Christian societies, where even the joy of making love has been reduced to pure mechanics, and distasteful mechanics at that.

So one should distrust any system of thought that seeks to alter what is basically a situation of harmony out of the spurious and unproven notion that it is inherently disharmonious, or the notion that there’s some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No-one can give a compelling argument to show why the problems that preceded us prior to these attempts at fixing the world were in fact considerably worse than those problems we have brought into existence through the act of trying to solve them.

Capitalism, and Christianity, among other worldviews, are attempts to bring under control the wiggly world, and we assume that this is what we have wanted all along. But a world completely under our control is like a game we have already finished playing: there is no surprise, no spontaneity, and as such it is as though we have already completed it. All events where the outcomes are known completely in advance may be said to have already happened. And so through trying to exercise total control, we ruin the fun of existence for ourselves, and make the world into a plastic sex doll instead of a real, intelligent, living woman. Through science, and particularly the bizarrely certain forms of scientism that are appearing more commonly today, we are slowly trending towards the same phenomena of rendering existence pointless through explaining it all and putting it under our technological thumb, turning the cosmos into dead knowledge, in many cases, rather than a living mystery.

What we need is, as a culture, to be honest with ourselves once more, and admit that no amount of material control is worth the cost of total boredom. No amount of shiny new playthings are worth the reality of child labour. No economic system can be said to work if it creates poverty as a matter of course, if it blindly trends towards total consumption of all things.

None of us genuinely want this to continue, so let’s just play a different game. As for what that is, well, finding out is half the fun.

http://disinfo.com/2017/01/capitalism-happiness-whos-fun/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+disinfo%2FoMPh+%28Disinformation%29

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Image: Top 7 causes of cancer and smart alternatives for prevention and healing

(NaturalNews) If you had been walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells all day, and a doctor told you to take some aspirin for the pain, would you go out the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, and walk on those same rocks and shells, expecting the aspirin to “do the trick” every time, for weeks, months and even years? Wouldn’t you expect that you would get such a horrible infection that you might lose your foot, your leg or even your life? That’s exactly what people do with toxic junk food – they eat it at every meal, every day for years, and then take antacids, IBS medicine, aspirin, ibuprofen, diet pills and prescription medicines for everything from inflammation to depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia … you name it.

Then, after years of abuse, these same people think that some oncologist is just going to magically cut out the damage, the polyp or the tumor, and they’ll be just fine. It rarely ever works out. Why? Cancer is the uncontrolled multiplication of mutated cells that thrive off chemicals, and the more toxic food you eat, the worse it gets. It’s like walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells for years and expecting the doctors to just patch you up and send you home. Well, you can forget about it. You need drastic, major lifestyle changes to prevent and/or beat cancer. Sounds difficult, but if you know what to cut out first, it’s actually pretty easy. Here we go.

These top seven causes of cancer are some of the most popular foods, beverages and even medicines known to Americans. Doctors, dentists and dermatologists refrain from telling their patients the truth, or they may lose all their “clients for life.” Many doctors don’t even know what to tell their patients, because there is zero nutrition education in medical school in America. It’s true. Let’s take a look at the major cancer culprits “cutting up” your health daily.

Top seven causes of cancer, and great alternatives for prevention and healing

#1. Fluoridated water: Want some insecticide in your tap water? You’re in luck! It’s already in there. Municipal tap water often contains toxic sodium fluoride imported from China. It causes cancer, brittle bones and a lowered IQ. The solution? Get a Big Berkey water filtration system for your home. It’s the best filter on the planet, and even removes other people’s medications, heavy metal toxins, bleach, artificial sweeteners and more.

#2. Artificial sweeteners: They should be called the sweet devils, because aspartame, sorbitol and sucralose trick your body into thinking it’s getting something sweet, increasing cravings for sugar and carbs and contributing to weight gain. And, because they’re synthetic and carcinogenic, they warp your cells and lead to cancer of the breasts, prostate, bladder and more. Look into safe alternatives like stevia or xylitol, or just moderate your sugar intake using organic sugar in the raw, or better yet, organic honey.

#3. Nitrites and nitrates in meat: Meat spoils easily, so manufacturers use extra strong preservatives – highly concentrated salts – to preserve them. This goes for nearly all deli meat, barbecued meat, spicy meat, hot dogs, most Chinese food, jerky treats, sausages, and of course, meat in soups. Watch out for monosodium glutamate (MSG), a genetically modified preservative used to add flavoring back into meat products that have been processed with ammonia and bleach to kill the E.coli and salmonella. These salts cause migraines, severe dehydration, and yes, cancer. Want safe alternatives? Use organic sea salt, organic garlic salt and organic jalapeño peppers.

#4. Vaccines: Contained in the infamous polio vaccine were nearly 100 million doses of SV40 – a cancer-causing virus that is now believed to be responsible for causing millions of cancer cases in America, according to the CDC. The information was posted on an official CDC fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40) and Polio Vaccine. Though the CDC removed it from their site, RealFarmacy.com archived the damning page before the CDC pulled it. Check it out yourself here.

#5. Chemotherapy: Most MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their relatives, knowing as do that it only has a 3 percent chance of success and totally wipes out the human immune system, while flooding the whole body with chemicals that cause new cancers to develop. Look into medicinal mushrooms and alkalizing the body to naturally beat cancer.

#6. Pharmaceuticals (prescription medications): The number one cause of cancer is consuming chemicals, so why would you ever take prescription medications that are all made in laboratories using chemicals?

#7. Conventional gluten: Also known as “food glue,” most gluten is processed with bleach and toxic dough conditioners, and it all sticks in your digestive tract for days, rotting everything that comes in behind it and fueling chronic inflammation, IBS, dehydration, polyps, and eventually, cancer.

Sources for this article include:

TV.NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-12-25-top-7-causes-of-cancer-and-smart-alternatives-for-prevention-and-healing.html

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para Spinning sugar... Photo by delihayat/Getty

Spinning sugar… Photo by delihayat/Getty

A potent toxin that alters hormones and metabolism, sugar sets the stage for epidemic levels of obesity and diabetes

Gary Taubes is an award-winning science journalist and the author of several books on physics, medicine and nutrition. His work has appeared in Discover and Science among others. His latest book is The Case Against Sugar (2016).

‘Virtually zero.’ That’s a reasonable estimate of the probability that public health authorities in the foreseeable future will successfully curb the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes, at least according to Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO) – a person who should know. Virtually zero is the likelihood, Chan said at the National Academy of Medicine’s annual meeting in October, that she and her many colleagues worldwide will successfully prevent ‘a bad situation’ from ‘getting much worse’. That Chan also described these epidemics as a ‘slow-motion disaster’ suggests the critical nature of the problem: ‘population-wide’ explosions in the prevalence of obesity along with increases in the occurrence of diabetes that frankly strain the imagination: a disease that leads to blindness, kidney failure, amputation, heart disease and premature death, and that was virtually non-existent in hospital inpatient records from the mid-19th century, now afflicts one in 11 Americans; in some populations, as many as one in two adults are diabetic. 

In the midst of such a public health crisis, the obvious question to ask is why. Many reasons can be imagined for any public health failure, but we have no precedents for a failure of this magnitude. As such, the simplest explanation is that we’re not targeting the right agent of disease; that our understanding of the aetiology of both obesity and diabetes is somehow flawed, perhaps tragically so.

Researchers in harder sciences have a name for such situations: ‘pathological science’, defined by the Nobel Laureate chemist Irving Langmuir in 1953 as ‘the science of things that aren’t so’. Where experimental investigation is prohibitively expensive or impossible to do, mistaken assumptions, misconceived paradigms and pathological science can survive indefinitely. Whether this is the case with the current epidemics is an all-too-regrettable possibility: perhaps we’ve simply misconceived the reality of the link between diet, lifestyle and the related disorders of obesity and diabetes? As the Oxford scholar Robert Burton suggested in The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), in cases in which the cures are ‘imperfect, lame, and to no purpose’ it’s quite possible that the causes are misunderstood.

The history of obesity and nutrition research suggests that this is indeed what has happened. In the decades leading up to the Second World War, German and Austrian clinical investigators had concluded that common obesity was clearly caused by a hormonal disturbance; starting in the 1960s, other research would link that disturbance to the sugar in our diets. But the German and Austrian thinking evaporated with the war, and the possibility that sugar was to blame never took hold, dismissed by a nutrition community who, by the 1970s, became fixated on dietary fat as the trigger of our chronic diseases. Now, with an explosion of the epidemic and compelling new research, it’s time to reconsider both our causal thinking on obesity and diabetes, and the possibility that sugar is playing the critical role.

When researchers and public health authorities today discuss their failure to curb the rising tide of obesity and diabetes, they offer the explanation that these disorders are ‘multifactorial and complex’, implying that failure is somehow understandable. But this obscures the reality that prescriptions to prevent and treat the two depend almost entirely on two simple causal concepts, neither one of which is necessarily correct.

The first assumption equates obesity and Type 2 diabetes (the common form of the disease, formerly known as ‘adult-onset’ until it began appearing in children as well). Because obesity and Type 2 diabetes are so closely associated in both individuals and populations, the assumption is that it’s the obesity – or at least the accumulation of excess fat – that causes the diabetes. By this logic, whatever causes obesity is ultimately the cause of the diabetes as well.

The second assumption then strives to explain ‘the fundamental cause’ of the obesity itself: an energy imbalance between calories consumed on one hand, and calories expended on the other hand.

This thinking, espoused by the WHO and virtually every other medical authority, is a paradigm in the true Kuhnian sense of the word. Researchers and public health authorities describe obesity as a disorder of ‘energy balance’. This conception underlies virtually all aspects of obesity research from prevention through treatment, and, by association, diabetes. As such, it has also shaped how we think about the role of what is now, finally, considered a prime suspect – refined or ‘added’ sugars, and specifically, sucrose (table sugar) and high-fructose corn syrup…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/sugar-is-a-toxic-agent-that-creates-conditions-for-disease

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para Photo by Lew Robertson/Getty

Photo by Lew Robertson/Getty

A new medical device enables the expulsion of stomach contents for weight loss. Are you feeling disgusted? Should you be?

Nitin K Ahuja is a gastroenterology fellow at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. He received his MD from the University of Michigan. He lives in Baltimore.

Edited by Pam Weintraub

The AspireAssist could be the most intuitive weight-loss therapy ever proposed. It works as a feeding tube in reverse: with the aid of an endoscope and a tiny blade, a physician places an internal catheter into the stomach and pulls it out through the skin. Shortly thereafter, the patient wakes up and goes home with a circular plastic window into the belly. For the next several months, about 20 minutes after every meal, the patient affixes an external drain to this implanted skin-port and spills a good bit of his or her gastric contents directly into the toilet.

This intervention is the latest in a series of minimally invasive devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of obesity. Its proponents cite data: there is no argument that ‘aspiration therapy’ helps people lose weight. Its detractors cite their revulsion: many argue that if one wanted to surgically induce an eating disorder, this would be the way. The tenor of grievances raised by both professional and lay observers has ranged from eye-rolling snark to complete outrage. For the bluntness of its method, this novel treatment strategy has struck numerous onlookers as ugly, reckless and dangerously transgressive.

These objections speak to a fundamental misunderstanding of obesity as a biological process. Indeed, the vocal anxiety over what constitutes morally acceptable intervention lays bare tacit and stubborn assumptions about weight as a reflection of character. The AspireAssist highlights an ongoing tension between two duelling narratives: obesity as a multifactorial epidemic, and obesity as a failure of will. A conscious acceptance of the former often masks a knee-jerk adherence to the latter, leaving the issue, at its roots, unresolved.

The steady rise in overweight and obese individuals on a global scale has been particularly noticeable since the mid-20th century, and a few sweeping cultural forces can help to explain it. The stage was likely set by industrialisation, which facilitated sedentary lifestyles and a progressive abundance of calorie-rich nourishment. More specific sociopolitical factors, such as income disparities, agricultural investment priorities and the recent ubiquity of highly processed foods, have also been scrutinised as drivers of obesity’s regional variation. These forces are pitted against metabolic tendencies that evolved over millennia in a very different milieu – that is, one of relative scarcity, where one ate when one could. In recent years, research into human physiology has provided a wealth of new insight about this system’s intricacy, variability and vulnerability.

The emerging science of weight gain has supported ‘the medicalisation of obesity’ – its configuration as a disease that should be addressed by healthcare providers in clinical spaces. This concept in turn has led to the development of a whole suite of dedicated obesity therapies over and above the conventional recommendation of diet and exercise. Multiple prescription medications are currently approved for weight loss. Bariatric surgery, in which parts of the stomach and small intestine are cut out and rearranged, dates back decades; it has become increasingly common thanks to improvements in technique and outcomes over time.

In an already crowded field of weight-loss therapies, however, there are no magic bullets: diets and drugs yield dividends that are often modest and temporary, while surgical intervention is relatively expensive and can bring complications. Thus, a spate of novel alternatives, more aggressive than dieting but less invasive than surgery, have emerged. These include devices that occupy space inside the stomach, creating a sense of fullness;bypass sleeves that physically separate food from the intestinal tissue that would otherwise absorb; and, of course, the AspireAssist. All are predicated on the same understanding of obesity as a mechanistic problem worthy of a mechanistic fix.

In this era of medicalised obesity, however, a quiet moral calculus about weight management still operates in the background. Being overweight is stigmatised despite its rising prevalence. Even when the pounds are successfully shed, the method of doing so is itself subject to judgments of personal virtue. Social science research, for instance, shows that patients who lose weight through bariatric surgery are viewed as lazier and less competent than those who lose weight through diet and exercise alone. Because the AspireAssist seems to work through an even more rudimentary approach, it has ushered these lingering prejudices into the light and provides a valuable opportunity to interrogate them explicitly.

Aesthetic objections to the AspirAssist have been raised on a fairly general basis, as reflected by the number of headlines that describe it as ‘disgusting’. Use of the AspireAssist trespasses the body’s natural boundaries, revealing its private workings rather unceremoniously to the world. The mental image of chyme – the half-digested slurry of our meals as they enter the bowels – can be as viscerally unpleasant as that of emesis or faeces. Yet the artificial exposure of stomach contents seems to be uniquely bothersome to others in the context of this intervention, this condition…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/does-a-stomach-pump-for-weight-loss-fuel-the-obesity-stigma

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

Do you drink Red Bull? This infographic explains how it affects your body over time

Do you drink Red Bull? This infographic explains how it affects your body over time

  • An infographic shows what Red Bull does to your body after you drink it
  • Within minutes, your blood pressure and sugar levels rocket
  • It takes 12 hours for the caffeine to level you, more for women on the Pill
  • And a day later you begin to feel withdrawal symptoms, craving another 

Despite all the health warnings against energy drinks, it seems appreciation for Red Bull has not wavered.

Whether it’s a boost for work, an energy-kick while driving, or a caffeine high mixed with spirits, millions of people guzzle the canned beverage on a daily basis.

But do we actually know what it is doing to our bodies? Probably not.

Here, in a step-by-step guide, we describe what happens 10 minutes, two hours, and even 12 days after you finish a can.

The data, courtesy of gift site Personalise, offers an alarming insight into the science of the drink.

And it comes just weeks after a study claimed Red Bull and liquor cocktails have the same effect as cocaine on a teenager’s brain.

Just as with the Class A drug, the cocktail can have a devastating affect on the chemical balance of the brain that lasts long into adulthood.

This is a taste of the effect it has on the body in the first 12 days of finishing a can:

FIRST 10 MINUTES AFTER FINISHING A CAN

The caffeine begins to permeate your bloodstream.

In turn, your heart rate and blood pressure start to pick up pace.

15-45 MINUTES LATER

If you drink it fast, you’ll start feeling more alert and concentrated around 15 minutes later. Slow drinkers may not feel the effects for about 40 minutes.

30-50 MINUTES LATER

Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.

Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat – of which there is plenty.

1 HOUR LATER

Your body starts to experience a sugar crash, as well as the effects of the caffeine dying down, you’ll start to feel tired and energy levels will start to feel low.

You’ve also now urinated out all the water that was in the Red Bull.

First, however, that water infused with valuable nutrients that your body could have used hydrate your system or strengthen your bone, which were also washed out.

5-6 HOURS LATER

It takes this long for the amount of caffeine to half in your body.

For women who take the Pill, it will take 10 hours.

12 HOURS LATER

The time that it takes most people to fully remove caffeine from their bloodstream.

The speed at which this happens does depend on many factors from age to activity.

12-24 HOURS LATER

Withdrawal symptoms kick in.

About a day after you had your caffeine hit, you’re in the mood for another.

If you have become used to a daily – or more regular – fix, you will start to feel lethargic, distressed, experience headaches and constipation.

7-12 DAYS LATER

Studies have shown this to be the time frame for your body to become tolerant to your regular caffeine dosage.

That means you’ll get used to it and won’t feel the effects as much.

THE PROS AND CONS OF DRINKING ENERGY DRINKS

PRO: Energy drinks like Red Bull are well within the national guidelines of 400 milligrams of caffeine per day. They contain 80 milligrams per 250ml can.

PRO: Coffee can be much higher in caffeine. For example, a venti americano at Starbucks contains 300mg of caffeine.

CON: It is high in sugar – and therefore calories. And caffeine, a stimultant drug, can cause anxiety, dehydration, nausea, and a dangerously high heart rate.

CON: The number of people hospitalized due to energy drinks doubled between 2007 and 2014 in the US, according to SAMHSA.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3962230/Red-Bull-gives-host-health-issues-Minute-minute-guide-reveals-energy-drink-REALLY-does-body.html#ixzz4QpvW6ADJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Adherants of the latest fad diet say it can ward off a host of modern diseases—but think twice about buying that next paleo product.

by PATRICK MUSTAIN

I laughed the first time I saw the block letters on a glossy package: PALEO Protein Bar (Glazed Donut flavored). I’ve since run across paleo breakfast cereals, paleo pizza crusts, paleo waffles, and most recently, paleo “bone broth” K-cups for your Keurig Machine.

You read that right. Paleo bone broth K-cups.

This is getting silly.

The underlying notion behind the paleo diet and lifestyle is that the human body evolved in an environment very different than the one we navigate today. Our modern lives are characterized by sedentary jobs, automated transportation, and an unprecedented availability of cheap, nutritionally empty calories. These conditions have led to a whole bunch of chronic health problems. In response, the paleo lifestyle tries to recreate our pre-modern conditions wherever possible. At face value, this seems like a good idea, especially if we try more to move more like our ancestors, which I’ve written about before.

But when it comes to eating like our ancestors, things get tricky.

A move from the Standard American Diet towards the more popular paleo eating patterns probably means fewer processed, high-sugar foods and more whole foods, fruits, and vegetables. That’s a good thing. But under further scrutiny, evidence for the paleo lifestyle gets shaky, especially the paleo dieters’ embrace of meat. In 2013 Ferris Jabr wrote a piece for Scientific American questioning some of the tenets of the paleo phenomenon, and concluded that it’s really hard to actually eat the way our ancestors ate (for example, many of those foods are no longer available in their original form). And even if it was, not a lot of evidence shows that eating like them would reap the benefits that many paleo adherents claim.

So, no, just because we didn’t drink milk 10,000 years ago, doesn’t mean that dairy is behind our high rates of chronic disease in the developed world. Nor are grains the culprit. Nor are beans.

Wait—no beans? Really?

That’s right, under a strict paleo diet, the musical fruit gets no play. Paleo rejects all things cultivated and developed by modern humans, including beans and peanuts. But some say we don’t need to go back millennia to determine which foods will help us thrive, or make us die.

Dan Buettner, founder of the organization Blue Zones and author of the eponymous book, has identified pockets of wellness and longevity across the world, where common staples include grains, and lo and behold, the humble (and apparently still virtuous) bean.

Buettner went to “Blue Zones” like Okinawa, Japan; Ikaria, Greece and even Loma Linda, California—places where people reach the age of 100 at ten times the average rate in the rest of the developed world. Buettner and his team looked at shared characteristics of these distinct regions and identified a number of factors that they say help contribute to relatively long and disease-free lives. These commonalities include a strong sense of community, daily physical activity, and notably, a mostly plant-based diet.

So what do we need to eat to help us live longer, better lives? More meat? Less meat? No beans? More beans?

Is there any consensus?

In his forthcoming book If Our Bodies Could Talk, James Hamblin, M.D. and senior editor at The Atlantic, describes attending a meeting last year that brought together some of the top nutrition experts in the country to try to answer that question. The goal of the meeting, he wrote, was “to undo the perception that nutrition science is chaos, and unite around some common principals about food and health that can be useful to the world.”…

more…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/20/is-paleo-bad-for-your-body.html

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

%d bloggers like this: