Milk and Mucus Myths and Misdirection Posted on January 25, 2016
Milk and Mucus Myths and Misdirection Posted on January 25, 2016, 0 Comments
The more health claims made about a food, the worse it is for you.
In the case the dairy industry, the above statement is nothing less than spot on (shameless plug, I'll admit). Sick cows fed everything under the sun other than the grass they were designed to eat are not the ideal source for your dairy consumption. And if the producers opt to then pasteurize or homogenize or in some shape or form bastardize that dairy, then what was once an incredibly healthy source of nutrition soon becomes udderly unrecognizable as a food.
However, organic, grass-fed cows (and sheep, goats, etc) raised the way nature intended can produce quality dairy products which are extremely beneficial for health. Sufficient quantities of bio-available calcium (i.e. animal sources for those of us who aren't ruminant herbivores) keep parathyroid hormone low while also increasing the likelihood of tryptophan converting to niacin rather than serotonin (and that should make the health conscious happy). It also helps maintain a favorable calcium to phosphorous ratio in the diet, without which blood pressure, inflammation, and even tumor growth are often increased. Calcium also down regulates the production of adrenalin. Oh--and it's involved in muscle contraction and is an essential component in the electrical conduction system of the heart, too.
But does dairy cause mucus production?
Quite simply--yes. In those who are sensitive to it, dairy can create an immune response in the body...just like any and every food someone eats that isn't conducive to their specific digestive capabilities.
As one study from the journal Medical Hypotheses states:
Excessive milk consumption has a long association with increased respiratory tract mucus production and asthma. Such an association cannot be explained using a conventional allergic paradigm and there is limited medical evidence showing causality. In the human colon, β-casomorphin-7 (β-CM-7), an exorphin derived from the breakdown of A1 milk, stimulates mucus production from gut MUC5AC glands. In the presence of inflammation similar mucus overproduction from respiratory tract MUC5AC glands characterises many respiratory tract diseases. β-CM-7 from the blood stream could stimulate the production and secretion of mucus production from these respiratory glands. Such a hypothesis could be tested in vitro using quantitative RT-PCR to show that the addition of β-CM-7 into an incubation medium of respiratory goblet cells elicits an increase in MUC5AC mRNA and by identifying β-CM-7 in the blood of asthmatic patients. This association may not necessarily be simply cause and effect as the person has to be consuming A1 milk, β-CM-7 must pass into the systemic circulation and the tissues have to be actively inflamed. These prerequisites could explain why only a subgroup of the population, who have increased respiratory tract mucus production, find that many of their symptoms, including asthma, improve on a dairy elimination diet.
So I guess it depend on who you are and what you've done to your digestive capacity via nutrition and lifestyle practices. Let me 'splain:
Oftentimes an inability to digest/assimilate dairy begins secondary to another offending agent. Gluten is a prime suspect. Alcohol and medicinal drugs are also common culprits. Anything which is a stress to the biological system has the potential to inflame the gut wall (for more on this subject, see the Seesaw of Sickness in my book, Spot On: Nutrition found here: http://triumphtraining.com/collections/books/products/spot-on-nutrition). This microtrauma to the intestine causes tiny holes to form, allowing food particles to pass into the bloodstream undigested. The body then creates antibodies to that particular food, potentially causing you to have an immune response to whatever you’re eating. Additionally, the constant inflammation causes what's termed villous atrophy. Lining the wall of your intestines, you have little finger like projections called villi. These, in turn, have tiny little microvilli covering them--you have about 200 million per square millimeter. The job of the microvilli is to help you assimilate nutrition from your food by producing various enzymes. One of these enzymes, in the case of our current discussion, is lactase--the enzyme you need to do anything with the lactose in dairy. No micromilli equals limited lactase (and other digestive enzymes) which limits your ability to consume dairy without suffering ill effects.
Of course, raw dairy typically comes with the exact enzymes one needs to safely and effectively consume it. But pasteurization destroys all those enzymes along with most if not all of the heat-sensitive nutrients. This is one reason why folks who are "lactose intolerant" often do fine when eating raw dairy. These people also typically fare better with full fat dairy instead of skim or low fat versions which will have more lactose per serving than the unadulterated milk products. Sheep and goat dairy are often better tolerated than diary from cow (ask if you wanna know why); and still others are sensitive to the form--doing fine with hard cheeses or yogurt yet having trouble with milk. Lastly, quantity and frequency of exposure are also factors which need to be considered in regards to how a person reacts to dairy. While the healthy digestive system should be able to handle just about anything that's thrown at it or in it (up to a point), the sad truth is most of us have done such damage to ourselves that we need to do some serious rehab of the gut wall and our health in general before we're able to eat whatever we want.
And, personally, I think that level of consciousness--even if forced upon us due to digestive complaints or otherwise--is actually a blessing. It's a painful signal that we're moving in the wrong direction, and it's time to redirect.
For those who need their academic mind satisfied, I've included a couple of studies below. N = 1, however, so I suggest you experiment on you to find what works best for your specific biochemistry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2154152 In the first of three studies investigating the widely held belief that "milk produces mucus," 60 volunteers were challenged with rhinovirus-2, and daily respiratory symptoms and milk and dairy product intake records were kept over a 10-day period. Nasal secretion weights were obtained by weighing tissues collected and sealed immediately after use. Information was obtained on 51 subjects, yielding 510 person-days of observation. Subjects consumed zero to 11 glasses of milk per day (mean, 2.7; SE, 0.08), and secretion weights ranged from zero to 30.4 g/day (mean, 1.1; SE, 0.1). In response to an initial questionnaire, 27.5% reported the practice of reducing intake of milk or dairy products with a cold or named milk or dairy products as bad for colds. Of the latter group, 80% stated the reason as "producing more mucus/phlegm." Milk and dairy product intake was not associated with an increase in upper or lower respiratory tract symptoms of congestion or nasal secretion weight. A trend was observed for cough, when present, to be loose with increasing milk and dairy product intake; however, this effect was not statistically significant at the 5% level. Those who believe "milk makes mucus" or reduce milk intake with colds reported significantly more cough and congestion symptoms, but they did not produce higher levels of nasal secretions. We conclude that no statistically significant overall association can be detected between milk and dairy product intake and symptoms of mucus production in healthy adults, either asymptomatic or symptomatic, with rhinovirus infection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373954 There is a belief among some members of the public that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the production of mucus in the respiratory system. Therefore, some who believe in this effect renounce drinking milk. According to Australian studies, subjects perceived some parameters of mucus production to change after consumption of milk and soy-based beverages, but these effects were not specific to cows' milk because the soy-based milk drink with similar sensory characteristics produced the same changes. In individuals inoculated with the common cold virus, milk intake was not associated with increased nasal secretions, symptoms of cough, nose symptoms or congestion. Nevertheless, individuals who believe in the mucus and milk theory report more respiratory symptoms after drinking milk. In some types of alternative medicine, people with bronchial asthma, a chronic inflammatory disease of the lower respiratory tract, are advised not to eat so-called mucus-forming foods, especially all kinds of dairy products. According to different investigations the consumption of milk does not seem to exacerbate the symptoms of asthma and a relationship between milk consumption and the occurrence of asthma cannot be established. However, there are a few cases documented in which people with a cow's milk allergy presented with asthma-like symptoms.
Does Rheumatoid Arthritis begin in the Gut? Posted on October 16, 2015, 2 Comments
Is rheumatoid arthritis a disease that starts in the intestine? A pilot study comparing an elemental diet with oral prednisolone.
Original Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17308218
Health Risks from GMO foods and Glyphosate based herbicides Posted on June 10, 2015, 0 Comments
Worm now thrives on GMO Corn designed to kill it Posted on June 03, 2015, 0 Comments
By Zoe Schlanger
One of industrial agriculture’s biggest GMO crops may have just backfired. Scientists have confirmed that corn-destroying rootworms have evolved to be resistant to the Bt corn engineered to kill them.
Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, the name of the genetically modified corn’s “donor” organism. Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that produces protein crystals that bind to certain receptors in the rootworm’s intestine, killing it. For years, farmers have planted Bt corn as an alternative to spraying insecticides. Bt corn accounted for three-quarters of all corn planting in 2013. That may have to change.
After finding a cornfield in Iowa in 2011 that was decimated by rootworm despite being planted with the Bt corn, Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann and his team began to study the pests’ interactions with the genetically modified organism (or GMO) corn in a lab. Their study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describes the western corn rootworm’s rapid evolution after feeding on the engineered crop.
But Bt corn is still capable of warding off other pests, so farmers will likely keep planting it. Except now they’ll need to use pesticides to protect their crop from rootworms. As entomologists warned the Environmental Protection Agency in 2012, rootworm resistance means that the environmental advantage of Bt corn—that it could be raised pesticide-free—may disappear.
“Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,” Gassmann told Wired. “There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.”
Scientists have predicted for years that this could happen, but warnings were repeatedly ignored by regulators and farmers. It takes millions of dollars to develop seeds like Bt, so engineering an alternative is not an attractive option. Instead, the authors of another study on rootworm Bt resistance, which focuses on Nebraska, take a biodiversity approach.
“Crop rotation is the best tool,” University of Nebraska-Lincoln entomologist Lance Meinke told Farm & Ranch Guide. "Generally, one year of soybeans in a field with resistant western corn rootworms wipes out that population. The beetles will lay eggs that hatch, but when larvae try to feed on soybean plants, they don’t find the nutrients they need and they die.”
Crop rotation can suppress rootworm populations over time, reducing the threat posed by their new Bt resistance.
But as entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University told Wired, rootworm is just one symptom of a systemwide problem that will likely come back to bite the GMO seed industry’s focus on short-term profit. The next engineered seed trait “will fall under the same pressure,” said Shields, “and the insect will win.”
Original source found here: http://www.newsweek.com/worm-now-thrives-gmo-corn-designed-kill-it-study-says-232276
Feedback from a Client who is Free at Last Posted on August 29, 2013, 0 Comments
I just had to write to you and tell you how great I am feeling. I am trying to not be dramatic when I say that going GF is changing my life. I feel SO much clearer headed and have an outrageous amount of energy. I can't stop cleaning and organizing things. This has NEVER been my idea of fun. I feel almost as if I have had an awakening. So excited to see what happens next! Just thought you would like to know. :)
Non GMO and Orgnaic Shopping Guide Posted on May 24, 2013, 0 Comments
Download your own copy here:
Question about Irritable Bowel Syndrome Posted on April 02, 2013, 0 Comments
I am a certified health coach from IIN and a triathlete who just qualified for the London world championships. I wanted to introduce myself first and wanted also to thank you for the valuable information you are sharing with us. I concur with everything you write about.
--what a person drinks (i.e. red wine)
Carrageenan Concerns go Mainstream Posted on March 23, 2013, 3 Comments
Doubts surface about safety of common food additive, carrageenan
March 18–Sara Baker says the light went on in her head after a cup of hot cocoa set off a storm in her stomach.
“I went back and looked at the package, and there it was: carrageenan,” said Baker, a career services coordinator from Bloomington, in central Illinois.
Baker had been taking medication for ulcerative colitis for years but still suffered debilitating digestive flare-ups without warning. She had read warnings about carrageenan in a natural health newsletter but didn’t take them seriously. After all, researchers haven’t conclusively linked the common food additive to gastrointestinal problems in humans.
This time, though, “it really clicked,” she said. “It took awhile to learn just how many things it’s in, but now that know, I can avoid it, and I no longer have the problems.”
Experiences like Baker’s have led some people with gastrointestinal problems to sidestep mainstream medical advice and avoid carrageenan, a seaweed-derived texturizer found in meat, dairy and other processed foods — including some organic products.
For scientists, however, these are just anecdotes. Though studies on lab animals and human cells have suggested that carrageenan can cause gastrointestinal inflammation, many researchers and physicians say it’s unclear whether the additive has the same impact on people who consume it.
Scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago and University of Chicago are seeking to address that question with a controlled clinical trial that Baker is participating in.
“I believe it’s worth investigating and doing the science to find out,” said Dr. Stephen Hanauer, a medical professor and chief of gastroenterology and nutrition at University of Chicago Medicine.
His co-researcher, UIC physician and professor Joanne Tobacman, has been looking at the health effects of carrageenan for more than a decade and is concerned enough to have petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to prohibit the use of carrageenan in food.
Her petition cited decades of publicly funded, peer-reviewed science — including her own — on carrageenan-induced inflammation in animals and cells. In June, the FDA responded with a letter of denial.
Tobacman said “it was disappointing that, with such clear evidence about the effects of carrageenan on inflammation, the FDA did not restrict the use of carrageenan, particularly in infant formula.” Europe doesn’t allow the ingredient in formula.
The additive, which lends a uniform, creamy texture to food, can be found in soy milk, yogurt, ice cream, cheeses, some meats, diet soft drinks and even toothpaste.
Michael Adams, deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety, said the petition didn’t make a compelling case to re-examine the safety of carrageenan. “It has been reviewed repeatedly by FDA scientists and other international organizations, and in the judgment of those experts there hasn’t been a problem,” he said.
Adams called a rat study from 2006 “the gold standard for us because it exactly mimics the exposure consumers are going to get when they eat these carrageenan-containing foods.”
That study was funded and performed by a manufacturer of carrageenan. Adams said he didn’t know that but added: “If you look at the science and you believe it’s well done, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from.”
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic industry watchdog group, was expected to release a report Sunday night on carrageenan called “How a Natural Food Additive Is Making Us Sick.”
Charlotte Vallaeys, Cornucopia’s director of food policy, said the group felt “an ethical obligation” to raise awareness. “If government agencies weren’t going to protect consumers, then it seemed we needed to let consumers know about this so they could protect themselves.”
The institute also is challenging the FDA’s denial of Tobacman’s petition. Among other objections, Cornucopia’s letter to the agency asks why officials didn’t consider any studies on carrageenan published in the last four years.
Adams said the FDA’s scientific evaluation in response to the petition was finished in May 2009, after which it spent more than three years in what he calls the “administrative chain.”
Regarding infant formula, Adams said, Europe takes a different approach to food additives than the U.S., sometimes banning a substance when toxicity studies raise concerns but aren’t conclusive. “The Europeans do their business that way, but we don’t,” he said. “We would base it more on the science we have rather than waiting for science to be developed.”
While the Chicago researchers proceed with their work and advocates seek federal action, some consumers and activists have made an impact on their own by lobbying manufacturers directly to phase out the ingredient.
Last month Stonyfield joined a number of manufacturers who have removed or have pledged to remove carrageenan from their organic products. Organic Valley says it has removed the ingredient from most food items but is still working on reformulations for soy milk, chocolate milk and one version of its whipping cream.
A representative of the organic dairy company Horizon Organic and soy milk maker Silk (each majority-owned by Dean Foods) said both view carrageenan as safe and wouldn’t comment on any plans to remove it.
The U.S. National Organic Standards Board reapproved the use of carrageenan in most organic foods last year but decided to prohibit its use in organic infant formula.
Carrageenan manufacturers, the FDA, the United Nations food additives committee and some scientists say it is safe, as evidenced by centuries of use.
Marinalg International, a Brussels-based trade association representing producers of carrageenan, notes in an online statement that the U.N. additives committee has approved the use of carrageenan without a specific limit — with the exception of infant formula.
Among the studies the panel looked at, Marinalg said, was “a valuable, scientifically critical literature review” of carrageenan by Drs. Samuel Cohen and Nobuyuki Ito. The fact that Marinalg funded the 2002 report didn’t influence the “thorough and sound” review, according to Cohen, a physician and professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska.
James McKim, chief scientific officer at the toxicological research firm CeeTox Inc., said industry-funded science is not unusual and should be taken seriously. Marinalg recently hired McKim to review the last 30 years of carrageenan safety studies. His paper hasn’t been published yet, but he says it will affirm carrageenan’s safety.
The Tribune asked Marinalg and McKim if they were aware of any peer-reviewed scientific research that supported the safety of carrageenan but wasn’t performed by industry-funded scientists. They agreed to look but provided no examples after three weeks. The Tribune made a similar request to the FDA, which also provided no immediate examples.
In 2001, Tobacman published a scientific review in a National Institute of Health journal suggesting that consumption of carrageenan in lab animals was associated with “intestinal ulcerations” and tumors. She concluded that the “widespread use of carrageenan in the Western diet should be reconsidered.”
Beyond the acute reaction it triggers in some, Tobacman said in a recent email, carrageenan may also promote low levels of chronic internal inflammation, a factor linked to common chronic disorders such as diabetes, atherosclerosis and arthritis.
Still, many gastroenterologists are not convinced carrageenan is dangerous.
“There are some studies in rats and mice showing that carrageenan exposure can lead to GI inflammation that mimics things like Crohn’s” disease, said Dr. Sunanda Kane, a Mayo Clinic physician and medical adviser to the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America. “But it’s never been shown on human tissue in humans walking around.”
Over the last 50 years, incidence of inflammatory bowel disease has risen as people eat more processed food, Kane said. “But is it carrageenan or that we don’t exercise or have lots of other additives and preservatives or fructose in our food supply?”
In Hanauer and Tobacman’s study, people whose ulcerative colitis is in remission are being put on a carrageenan-free diet, then given either a controlled dose of carrageenan or a placebo.
So far, the research has been hampered by low volunteer rates — currently, fewer than 20 subjects. Hanauer notes that the prospect of re-inflaming one’s inactive ulcerative colitis isn’t particularly attractive.
But Baker, who was one of more than 120 people who responded when Cornucopia asked to hear from those with carrageenan-related digestive problems, said she was willing to go through it to help establish human science on the topic.
“I believe there are people who are as sick as I was, or even worse, who need this information,” she said.
How do you control allergies? Posted on May 12, 2012, 0 Comments
Depends on what the allergies are.
With food allergies (often food intolerances rather than food allergies), I suggest avoidance of the offending foods until the gut wall has healed. This typically takes at least 2 months. Prime suspects are gluten, dairy, and soy. But stress of all sorts along with prescription and otc meds and alcohol (particularly red wine) can cause damage, as well.
What happens is the gut wall becomes permeable allowing food particles go into the bloodstream undigested. The body then creates antibodies to the specific food so that you now have immune reactions to that food. That is how a person becomes intolerant of more and more food as items which were once o.k. to eat are consumed and the damaged digestive system cannot assimilate them appropriately.
Once the gut wall has had time to heal, I suggest rotating foods on a 4 day rotation. Avg retention time in the human body is 56-58hrs. Thus, if you eat a food on Monday, it has time to completely pass through the body by the time you eat it again on Friday. In fact, if you like it, rotate it. Otherwise, you risk eventually developing an intolerance to that food. Pay special attention to protein based foods. In nature, the things which kill us are often protein based--fungi, parasites, bacteria, viruses--and that is what the body is trained to recognize as an invader.
In regards to seasonal allergies, I suggest checking hydration status. You should drink half your body wt in lbs in oz of water each day (i.e. 140lb person should drink 70 oz). Dehydration causes histamine levels to rise, often resulting in the creation of or the worsening of existing allergy like symptoms. Thus, consumption of sugary, caffeinated, or diuretic substances may contribute to problems with allergies. Additionally, I'd add a pinch of sea salt to the water as it's a natural anti-histamine (down regulates adrenaline, etc.).
Lastly, stress is cumulative in the body and everyone has a specific threshold over which the body can no longer tolerate. Therefore, addressing all possible lifestyle factors (i.e. thinking, breathing, drinking, eating, moving, sleeping) to make sure they are not detracting from vitality and adding stress to the system will result in a person who is more resilient and had more left in reserve when the allergic stimulus cannot be avoided. The most common stressor is a blood sugar handling issue. If hypoglycemic, symptoms will be more severe. Thus, balancing macronutrients and frequent feedings (along with a host of other factors which impact blood sugar levels) will be an important aspect of controlling the body's response to a particular allergen.
Hope that helps.
365 Ways #312–Burning the candle Posted on December 03, 2010, 0 Comments
#312--Most candles are made with paraffin wax, a byproduct of the petroleum industry and often treated by a number of toxic chemicals. Burning them allows these volatile compounds to escape into the air. Asthma and allergy sufferers will often find breathing these fumes will trigger an attack. And anyone with chemical sensitivity will likely suffer ill effects, as well. A healthier alternative is to choose beeswax candles. All natural and generally hypo-allergenic, they are actually safe enough to eat. They also emit negative ions. Typically found near sources of moving water like waterfalls or breaking waves, negative ions have been shown to alleviate depression and increase the delivery of oxygen to the brain. And while they are often more expensive, beeswax candles actually burn longer (in addition to cleaner) than ordinary candles. That is, unless you get a hankering for honey which you just can't resist....
365 Ways #300–Flu shot ingredients Posted on November 26, 2010, 0 Comments
#300--If you're doctor is encouraging you to get a flu shot this year, just make sure that you tell him of any allergies you may have as it may preclude you from getting vaccinated. For example, anybody with an egg allergy should think twice about getting the flu shot as fertilized chicken eggs are the medium used to grow the virus. So maybe vegans should steer clear of the shot, too. However, antibiotics are used by most of the vaccine manufacturers to ensure bacteria doesn't make those little eggs sick, so maybe that makes it o.k. for vegans now. Chemical detergents are also used in the production of the vaccine. Thus, anyone who is or thinks they may be intolerant of things like octoxynol-10 or polyethylene glycol p-isooctylphenyl ether should make their doctor aware of their condition. Derivatives of formaldehyde are used as to inactivate the virus so it can no longer cause infection. And 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of thimerisol is used as a preservative in the vaccines. So if you have a known allergy to either of these last two substances, ask your doctor what he thinks about "alternative" methods of staying healthy like eating clean, staying hydrated, sleeping enough, and proper exercise. Though he may not be qualified to write that prescription....
365 Ways #292–The twist pattern in your diet Posted on November 22, 2010, 0 Comments
#292--The most common food allergies in Japan are soy and rice. Why? Because these two foods are eaten frequently. And the more often you expose yourself to a certain food, the more likely you are to develop an intolerance to that food. In the healthy body, retention time is approximately 56-58 hours. So I instruct clients not to eat the same food more often than once every four days. This ensures that the subsequent exposure to a particular food will be only after it has been completely eliminated from the system. This applies primarily to the proteins in a diet (i.e. animal products, nuts, seeds, etc) as it's protein based organisms (viruses, parasites, bacteria, etc) that the immune system is trained to recognize. So if you like it (and want to keep it), then you better rotate it!
365 Ways #282–Water as a decongestant Posted on November 18, 2010, 0 Comments
#282--Did you know that any histamine related issue is likely a sign you're dehydrated? Most of the water loss one incurs during the day happens through breathing. Thus, if you're congested or can't breathe efficiently, you lose less water with each breath. Allergies and asthma are often the body's attempt to hold onto as much water as possible and can be most effectively treated by hydrating appropriately. So skip the Sudafed and bring out a bottle of water--a stainless steel one, of course.
365 Ways #236–The Gluten Free Gut Posted on October 31, 2010, 0 Comments
#236--I’m on a one man mission to put a dent in the wheat industry by convincing my clients to go gluten free. In every case, the person who takes on this challenge is rewarded by an increase in health. Of course, I have plenty who are too addicted to their grains to really give it a shot. The excuses are usually attempts to justify excessive consumption of breads/pastas (which displaces nutrition), and I will typically hear something like “but I love my ____!” What they really mean is they love being sick. And even though any adverse immune reaction will often become less because they eat it frequently–maybe to the point where it’s easily ignored–I have a question for you: which fire does the most damage? The one which burns hard and fast and gets your attention immediately; or the one which smolders for years and slowly destroys your vitality as you fuel it with anti-nutrients that most of us aren’t designed to eat?
365 Ways #202–Feasting Fatigue Posted on October 18, 2010, 0 Comments
#202--getting tired after a meal is telling you something:
–you had too much fat/protein in the meal for your metabolic type or
–you’re eating dead/processed food that is void of any enzymes (and your body is already enzyme deficient) or
–you’re intolerant of something in the meal or
–it’s past 10 p.m. and you should be in the bed and not in the kitchen.
365 Ways #173–The endorphin “flush” Posted on October 06, 2010, 0 Comments
#173–Both the protein in cow’s milk (casein) and the protein found in the majority of grain products (gluten) stimulate the production of chemicals very similar to endorphins–this helps explain why these two foods are so addicting. But if you’re intolerant of either (dark-skinned people will often have trouble with casein while light-skinned people typically will have issues with gluten), your gut wall would prefer you get your “runner’s high” through running instead of The Runs.
365 Ways #159–Exercise and your thyroid Posted on September 29, 2010, 0 Comments
#159--Are you allergic to your thyroid medication? Synthroid contains MILK! Armour Thyroid contains CORN! And they all contain binders, colorings, and other additives. And whatever the medication, the truth is you are likely treating a symptom and not the true etiology of the problem.
The thyroid will often down regulate in people who are overly stressed in an effort to keep the body from literally burning the candle at both ends. And that stress can (and often does) come from exercise. Your body's need for survival trumps your ego's need for washboard abs. So if the level of stress you're experiencing increases above a given threshold--and that threshold is different from person to person and even from day to day--then your exercise program can be seen as a threat to the system. To survive, the body will slow down essential factors affecting metabolism. In essence, your workouts will make you fat.
365 Ways #89–Gluten by any other name… Posted on September 03, 2010, 0 Comments
#89–Some hidden sources of Gluten include:
–hydrolyzed or textured protein
–beef or dairy from cows fed grains along with chickens on a grain fed diet
–most soy sauces
–vinegar (unless it specifically states wine vinegar or balsamic vinegar, etc)
–battered or fried anything
365 Ways #87–Burned out taste buds Posted on September 03, 2010, 0 Comments
#87–the avg American eats only 10-12 foods in his/her lifetime! Not only does this bore your palate to death; it also contributes to a host of health problems. First of all, it takes a variety of nutrients to run your metabolic machinery. A limited dietary intake cannot provide all of them. And, no–synthetic vitamins are no substitute for real, whole food inclusive of all the macronutrients and micronutrition. Secondly, while you have many kinds of enzymes in your digestive tract, they are each only capable of digesting one particular kind of cabohydrate, fat, or protein. Thus, when you eat the same food over and over again, you can literally exhaust your body’s ability to produce that specific enzyme. Finally, repeatedly exposing yourself to the same food increases the chances that your body will develop an immune response to that food. In other words, you become intolerant of that food and can no longer enjoy it without suffering obvious or subtle health repercussions. So if you enjoy a certain food, my advice is to rotate it. Eat it no more often than once every 4 days to give your digestive system a chance to pass it from mouth to anus before being charged with the task of assimilating it again. By doing this you’ll be forced to eat a variety of foods and can get out of that dietary rut. After all, the only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
365 Ways #82–Why you may want to shave that milk mustache Posted on September 01, 2010, 0 Comments
#82–When milk is pasteurized, as opposed to RAW milk like we’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, it is heated to a minimum of 145-150F for 30mins in an effort to kill off any pathogenic bacteria. This also retards spoilage and extends the shelf life of the milk so you are more likely to buy it. Unfortunately, the bacteria responsible for souring milk is actually the good stuff which protects us from the bad guys–the only ones who typically survive the heating process and who then multiply as the milk decomposes. Additionally, lactase–the enzyme necessary for the assimilation of lactose–is completely destroyed by pasteurization. So is phosphatase, the enzyme which helps the body absorb calcium. A further injustice is the transformation of lactose into beta-lactose. This sugar gets into the digestive system more quickly than lactose so, coupled with the low fat or fat free levels found in 2% or skim milk that most Americans drink, blood sugar levels rise. So now you have a product where pathogenic bacteria can proliferate, which causes allergies, delivers no calcium to the body, wreaks havoc on your blood sugar levels, and gives your poor little pancreas a brutal workout every time you drink it.
It does a body good???