Weight Loss Without Dieting, Health Without Drugs - Free Health News

Permanent health solutions- updated often

December 23, 2008

The Truth About Calories And Cholesterol

Thomas Turk
45 Years in the Fitness industry and the author of gthairrejuvenation.com.


In this information age, one is bombarded with information and misinformation. Take the all important subject of calories and cholesterol. When one is confronted with diametrically opposed ideas on food trends, one tends to give up, and often chooses the idea that is more heavily promoted, and that is, unfortunately here, the misinformation. Where does it start? The professors of nutrition must teach whats in the `book`, ( so I have been informed, although they admit know better). From then on, doctors, dieticians, sports trainers, food writers and celebrity chefs will repeat, without any further thought, the same dogma.

Obesity is used as the first scare. The non-scientific calorific calculations of all foods removes or reduces valuable nutrient-rich food from the diet, such as eggs, butter and liver. Why don`t calories count? In human physiology, there are various homeo-stasis mechanisms. These attempt to maintain body fat and protein stores. These mechanisms probably evolved over miillions of years and some of their pathways have now been identiifed. One is thermic (Engl. thermogenic) effect. This is the rise of metabolic rate after a meal, depending partly on both what was eaten, and the bone-structure of the individual. Example. A light bone-structured individual may quaff down half a gallon of ice- cream, yet the next day they will weigh the same. Their metabolic rate rose about 50% after the meal, and burnt off the excess fuel. The body may have have needed to minimise fat stores for a hot climate. Conversely, a heavy bone structured individual, may eat a few pieces of fruit after dinner, and they gain fat. This is because their metabolic rate may rise only 25%, to allow fat stores to build up or stay high, for a colder climate. The body also prepares for famine by slowing metabolic rate as calories are reduced by eating less, and by eating less high calorie (but nutritious) foods. To further destroy the calorie myth, we have continuous vigorous exercise raising metabolic rate fifteen fold! Also, vigorous interval training it will maintain a raised metabolic rate for many hours. The oversimplifed formula of calories in equals calories out is both wrong and unhealthy.

The cholesterol scare. This is used for marketing toxic statin drugs, low fat diets and a variety of pharmaceuticals to depress appetite, block fat absorbtion etc. Stains, a 24 billion dollar fraud, block CQ10 production, (the heart-energy enzyme), cause kidney faulure and weaken muscles. There is no need to lower blood cholesterol nor to reduce dietary cholesterol, (nor take statin or other drugs), to prevent heart disease and stroke. This nonsense started with a faulty study in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1953. The study showed that the population had slightly elevated blood cholesterol, and also slightly elevated heart disease. The study mistakenly concluded that dietary cholesterol had caused the higher blood cholesterol, and that in turn, the raised blood cholesterol caused the higher rate of heart disease. This study is the Holy Grail of the cholesterol scarers and the scams.

What raised the cholesterol levels of the subjects in the study? One or more, or any combination of... insufficient omega 3 fatty acids in the diet, lack of vigorous exercise, overweight, insufficient Viatmin B3, (niacin), post menopausal period in woman, aging in men.

What caused the heart disease to be slightly above average in the study? One or more, or any combination of... high blood triglycerides, (blood fats elevated by sugar, alcohol and carbs); high lipo-protein alpha, (lowered with vitamin C); high homocysteine, (lowered with vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid); and to a lesser extent, smoking, dog heart worm, transfats, inflamation from obesity, (a new idea, but prevented by vitamin D3), nickel. To suplement or not? YES, we do need to supplement for optimum health, even if your doctor/dietician say DONT. (A study a few years ago showed 80% of doctors in USA self-supplementing with Vitamin E) !

Lets examine the benefits of some high calorie and high cholesterol foods. Butter contains the omegas in perfect proportion, arichidonic acid, short and medium chain fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acids . All good. Also present are selenium, iodine, manganese zinc, chromium, and lecithin. Butter synthesises Vitamin B6 through the friendly intestinal bacteria, thus reducing heart-disease causing homocysteine. This was shown in a large scale study in Lancet, whereby those on a very high ghee, (clarified butter) diet had one tenth the heart disease of the pure vegetarians. Eggs contain l-cysteine and selenium, powerful heart-protecting anti-oxidants. A study by Drs Cayley and Hammond of the American Cancer Society, showed that those that ate more than 5 eggs a week had less heart disease. Beef fat contains conjugated linoleic acid. Beef and beef liver are a rich souce of protein, minerals and B vitamins. All these nutrients protect.



Several diverse groups of people consume a very high saturated fat diet, but have no heart disease history. These are the Masai and Samburu in East Africa, the Eskimo, the Benedicitine Monks, the Irish in America, and various Pacific Islanders. The Amish in America is another group, but scientists now claim they have a special gene to combat the high fat diet, but that is just a smokescreen.

The so called Mediterranean diet, reputed to prevent heart disease, as it would be low in saturated fat, in reality does NOT exist. Italians traditionally cook with butter, goose fat and lard, depending on the region. The Greeks eat large amounts of high saturated fat feta goat cheese daily. The Spanish and Portuguese loads of fatty pork, beef and eggs. The French cook with butter and cream, and consume so much cheese. Less heart disease yes, but not from that mythical fish and olive oil diet.



The good (HDL) and the bad (LDL) cholesterol are risk indicators and not the causes. High fat diets, such as Atkins, showed improvement in these indicators.



The food pyramid. This is also designed to keep you away from nutritious foods. It is NOT science based, with its recommended high carbohydrate intake from fruit, (fructose) and grains (carbs and plant chemicals lectins and leptins), that cause heart disease, obesity, and diabetes risk.

If you already have narrowed arteries, EDTA, with its 20 beneficial side effects, cleans them out, despite desperate denial by the mainstream.

The cancer scare. High saturated fat foods have been implicated as possible cancer causes for the colon etc., this based on statistical studies. As science has moved ahead and we today have the identified causes and pathways of all cancers, these vague and inaccurate statistics no longer apply. (The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers. 2007. H R Clark PhD ND). You will not hear of the cancer cure from mainstream medicine for a long time, keeping in mind that it took them four hundred years to accept that Vitamin C cures scurvy.

Why have we been misinformed? Is it because the Universities, being mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, need to control information in order to keep the population sickly, so as to drive up profits? I suspect so.

Don't dismiss alternative ideas. Research well. Your health depends on these simple health choices.


Weight Loss Cover-Up EXPOSED! Dieting Secrets The Government Doesn't Want You To Know

Labels: , , , , ,

FDA Approves Stevia, or Does It?

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, naturalnews.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued letters of non-objection for the use of a natural, zero-calorie sweetener, called stevia, it once sought to wipe out from the U.S. marketplace. Following political pressure from powerful consumer product corporations (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, primarily), the FDA has once again fallen in step with the interests of Big Business and legalized a food and beverage ingredient that it once aggressively oppressed.

In this case, however, the approval of this ingredient happens to be in the best interests of consumers. Why? Because it will largely replace aspartame, an artificial sweetener chemical linked to numerous neurological disorders, including headaches, eye disorders and other problems.

It will also unleash a wave of stevia-sweetened products for consumers, and that's good news for diabetics or anyone seeking healthier products sweetened with an herbal extract rather than a synthetic chemical.

The circumstances surrounding this FDA approval of stevia reveal yet again the true loyalties of the agency. When stevia threatened the profits of aspartame, it was routinely suppressed by the agency. FDA thugs seized imports of stevia at the border, destroyed millions of dollars in stevia products, threatened companies with fines for daring to sell stevia, and even ordered one company to destroy its recipe books that mentioned stevia in dessert recipes. But now, when Coca-Cola and Pepsi want stevia approved, the FDA suddenly reverses its oppression and decides to legalize the herb.

Again, this is a rare case where the FDA's decision benefits consumers, but the circumstances behind the decision were in no way motivated by consumer interest. They were motivated by corporate profits.

Betty Martini's victory
What's so profitable about stevia? Well, thanks to the efforts of Betty Martini and others who have been warning about the dangers of aspartame, word has spread across the 'net to the point where informed consumers no longer want to consume aspartame at all. In other words, the aspartame opponents succeeded in destroying the consumer acceptability of aspartame! And that led the big players (Coke, Pepsi, etc.) to look for something that would be more acceptable to consumers.

That search led them to stevia. And once Big Business got behind the herb, it was only a matter of time before the FDA caved in to commercial interests and legalized the herb.

Realize this crucial point: The FDA's decisions these days are based entirely on corporate profits and have absolutely nothing to do with science, safety or consumer interests. Remember, it was just a few days ago that the FDA declared infants, children and even pregnant women could now eat essentially unlimited quantities of mercury in fish, without any negative health consequences whatsoever! This is the same agency that says children can "safely" eat melamine, bisphenol-A, MSG, sodium nitrite and all sorts of other dangerous, toxic substances that harm human health.

So don't be fooled for a minute into thinking that the FDA's approval of stevia has anything to do with serving the People.

Is Cargill's stevia really safe?
There is some speculation that the patented stevia being used by Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other big businesses is in some way less natural than the traditional stevia we've been buying at health food stores for years. Some have wondered how their patented stevia (Truvia) could actually be patented unless there were some synthetic molecules in it.

It's a reasonable question, but at the moment, I'm not aware of any evidence of Truvia being adulterated or synthesized in any way at all. In fact, I personally welcome the ingredient and applaud Cargill for pressuring the FDA into getting this GRAS approved. There is no evidence I'm aware of that their stevia is genetically modified or altered in any way. Of course, if such evidence emerges, I'll make it available here on NaturalNews, but at the moment I'm supporting this Truvia ingredient and would even consume it myself. That's always subject to change if new information emerges, of course.

Sherry Weiss Poall, who works for the RF Binder public relations agency that serves Cargill, has been distributing safety research data about Truvia since July, 2008, but since those studies were paid for by Cargill, many people might dismiss their objectivity.

In any case, I believe that the natural health community should cautiously embrace this ingredient for the time being. It is, after all, a hugely positive move for the food and beverage industry to be able to ditch aspartame and shift to an herbal sweetener. If anything, this is a monumental victory for natural health over synthetic chemicals. It's a victory that took over a decade to become a reality, but it has finally arrived in the United States thanks to this late decision by a reluctant FDA.

Watch for stevia-sweetened products to appear on store shelves everywhere. You'll also see lots of formulations that will combine stevia with other sweeteners to provide higher sweetness with fewer overall calories (and a lower glycemic index).



Stevia Cookbook

Labels: , ,

FDA Approves Stevia, or Does It?

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, naturalnews.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued letters of non-objection for the use of a natural, zero-calorie sweetener, called stevia, it once sought to wipe out from the U.S. marketplace. Following political pressure from powerful consumer product corporations (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, primarily), the FDA has once again fallen in step with the interests of Big Business and legalized a food and beverage ingredient that it once aggressively oppressed.

In this case, however, the approval of this ingredient happens to be in the best interests of consumers. Why? Because it will largely replace aspartame, an artificial sweetener chemical linked to numerous neurological disorders, including headaches, eye disorders and other problems.

It will also unleash a wave of stevia-sweetened products for consumers, and that's good news for diabetics or anyone seeking healthier products sweetened with an herbal extract rather than a synthetic chemical.

The circumstances surrounding this FDA approval of stevia reveal yet again the true loyalties of the agency. When stevia threatened the profits of aspartame, it was routinely suppressed by the agency. FDA thugs seized imports of stevia at the border, destroyed millions of dollars in stevia products, threatened companies with fines for daring to sell stevia, and even ordered one company to destroy its recipe books that mentioned stevia in dessert recipes. But now, when Coca-Cola and Pepsi want stevia approved, the FDA suddenly reverses its oppression and decides to legalize the herb.

Again, this is a rare case where the FDA's decision benefits consumers, but the circumstances behind the decision were in no way motivated by consumer interest. They were motivated by corporate profits.

Betty Martini's victory
What's so profitable about stevia? Well, thanks to the efforts of Betty Martini and others who have been warning about the dangers of aspartame, word has spread across the 'net to the point where informed consumers no longer want to consume aspartame at all. In other words, the aspartame opponents succeeded in destroying the consumer acceptability of aspartame! And that led the big players (Coke, Pepsi, etc.) to look for something that would be more acceptable to consumers.

That search led them to stevia. And once Big Business got behind the herb, it was only a matter of time before the FDA caved in to commercial interests and legalized the herb.

Realize this crucial point: The FDA's decisions these days are based entirely on corporate profits and have absolutely nothing to do with science, safety or consumer interests. Remember, it was just a few days ago that the FDA declared infants, children and even pregnant women could now eat essentially unlimited quantities of mercury in fish, without any negative health consequences whatsoever! This is the same agency that says children can "safely" eat melamine, bisphenol-A, MSG, sodium nitrite and all sorts of other dangerous, toxic substances that harm human health.

So don't be fooled for a minute into thinking that the FDA's approval of stevia has anything to do with serving the People.

Is Cargill's stevia really safe?
There is some speculation that the patented stevia being used by Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other big businesses is in some way less natural than the traditional stevia we've been buying at health food stores for years. Some have wondered how their patented stevia (Truvia) could actually be patented unless there were some synthetic molecules in it.

It's a reasonable question, but at the moment, I'm not aware of any evidence of Truvia being adulterated or synthesized in any way at all. In fact, I personally welcome the ingredient and applaud Cargill for pressuring the FDA into getting this GRAS approved. There is no evidence I'm aware of that their stevia is genetically modified or altered in any way. Of course, if such evidence emerges, I'll make it available here on NaturalNews, but at the moment I'm supporting this Truvia ingredient and would even consume it myself. That's always subject to change if new information emerges, of course.

Sherry Weiss Poall, who works for the RF Binder public relations agency that serves Cargill, has been distributing safety research data about Truvia since July, 2008, but since those studies were paid for by Cargill, many people might dismiss their objectivity.

In any case, I believe that the natural health community should cautiously embrace this ingredient for the time being. It is, after all, a hugely positive move for the food and beverage industry to be able to ditch aspartame and shift to an herbal sweetener. If anything, this is a monumental victory for natural health over synthetic chemicals. It's a victory that took over a decade to become a reality, but it has finally arrived in the United States thanks to this late decision by a reluctant FDA.

Watch for stevia-sweetened products to appear on store shelves everywhere. You'll also see lots of formulations that will combine stevia with other sweeteners to provide higher sweetness with fewer overall calories (and a lower glycemic index).



Stevia Cookbook

Labels: ,