What Would Happen if You Only Ate Meat?


It’s not as much fun as you’d think.

Plenty of diets encourage lowering, or increasing your meat consumption – the Mediterranean diet wants you to eat less meat, and if you’re on the paleo diet you’ll probably eat more – but what would happen if you exclusively ate meat?

 

Well, it turns out, we’re just not built for it.

According to the video below by AsapSCIENCE, without the good old fibre in legumes and vegetables you’d be very constipated – this actually happens with body builders who eat too much protein.

Besides that, the easiest way for your body to create energy is to convert carbs into glucose, when you take that away your body starts burning fat and important proteins.

Interestingly enough, lean meats like rabbits are so low in fat and high in protein that you can get something called protein poising if you don’t find fats from other sources.

The US Military Arctic Light Infantry Training (ALIT), it’s taught that rabbit takes more vitamins to digest than eating it does, and in survival situations they recommend not eating at all if rabbit is the only thing to eat.

As the video below explains, another potential killer to consuming just meat could be the lack of vitamin C.

Humans are unfortunately one of the few animals which doesn’t produce our own, meaning we have to get it from fruits and veggies. Without it, our body doesn’t produce collagen, and we can get every pirate’s favourite, scurvy.

There’s actually a solution to this, but it’s a bit stomach churning – eating raw meat. As the AsapSCIENCE guys explain, the skin and blubber of raw meat actually contains high amounts of vitamin C, but the cooking process destroys it.

If you were to eat it raw, you’d be all good for your vitamin C intake, but you might also up your count of bacterial diseases depending on how fresh the meat is.

But here’s the thing – Inuit populations in Canada pretty much exclusively ate fish and other sea creatures, with minimal fruit, veggies, animal products, or carbs.

They still need the same nutrients as the rest of us – so what gives?

We’ll let the video above explain that one, but for everyone else, we would definitely recommend eating your fruit and veggies – it’s literally a life saver.

The Secret Reason We Eat Meat, According To Psychologist Dr. Melanie Joy. 


 

Why do humans eat meat? If you ask the average Joe, they’ll tell you it’s because meat tastes good. If you ask Dr. Melanie Joy, however, who has been studying the psychological drive behind eating meat for decades, she’ll give you a much darker — albeit interesting — answer.  As EducateInspireChange reports, Dr. Joy believes humans eat meat due to the long-engrained ideology of carnism, versus veganism.

“Carnism is a dominant ideology, which means it’s embedded deeply in society to the point that it’s considered ‘just the way things are,’” Joy explained. “But just because something isn’t recognized or is viewed as ‘how things are’ doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Racism wasn’t recognized as a problem or ideology at a point in history but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. It [carnism] has just been around for so long that it’s taken for granted.”

Referring to kids eating chicken wings in her example, she added: “When we’re born into a world with a dominant ideology, we can’t help but see the world through that lens. There are people in this world who absolutely need to eat meat because geographically or socially, that’s where they are. Most people, though, have a choice when it comes to eating animals, they’re just not aware of it because they’re blinded by the ideology.”

Watch the animated video below:

The psychologist explains that one of the methods which perpetuates carnism is keeping the process of slaughter and processing out of sight. When cows, chickens, pigs and other livestock are milked, butchered, or kept in tiny crates away from the public’s eye, it remains easy to keep the populace ignorant about what takes place in modern-day agricultural factories.

 During her lesson, Joy presented a few examples that stamp out the notion that carnism is “right” or “intelligent.” For instance, she shared that an average pig has the intelligence of a 3-year-old human being. She also relayed that chickens are able to distinguish between 100 different faces of members of their species — they also have about 30 different calls to signal types of threats. Additionally, she explained that scientists have determined that certain fish have intelligence and pain receptors; this is why in some places in the world, it is illegal to keep fish in small bowls or to boil lobsters alive.

Joy added that agro-businesses go to great lengths to keep the public ignorant about how violent and cruel the process of making meat actually is. Like Paul McCartney said, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.” Joy’s ultimate goal is to prompt people to acknowledge that there is, in fact, an ideology. She elaborates on this in her TEDX Talk, “Beyond Carnism and Toward Rational, Authentic Food Choices,” which has become one of the top one percent most viewed talks of all time.

Watch her TEDX Talk below:

 

The Big Fat Lie You’ve Been Told About What’s Hurting Your Heart


Despite multiple studies showing that carbohydrates hurt your heart, and not saturated fats, misguided advisories and Big Pharma profiteering both persist.

There is no need to stay away from meat, butter, cheese and eggs to keep your heart healthy. Credit: RitaE/pixabay

There is no need to stay away from meat, butter, cheese and eggs to keep your heart healthy.

I’ve been taught since my undergraduate days in medical college that eating saturated fats was to ask for trouble. Meat (red or white), cheese, butter and egg yolk were prohibited. Repeated guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology and even the World Health Organisation were clear that fats in general, and saturated fats in particular, were to be strictly avoided to prevent a heart attack. The message was to reduce fats to less than 30% of the total calories consumed in a day, and with saturated fats to be kept well below 10%. Why, most people on the planet followed these dietary commandments from the two most powerful and respected cardiology associations.

The AHA declared in 1961 that saturated fats were bad because they increased blood cholesterol, which blocked coronary arteries and caused heart attacks. Surprisingly, the AHA was driven this conclusion by the hypothesis of one physiologist who didn’t bother to submit a shred of evidence. Ancel Benjamin Keys, a physiologist with a PhD from Cambridge University, stamped his ‘diet heart’ hypothesis into the consciousness of Paul Dudley White, a founder-member of the AHA. White was attending to Dwight Eisenhower, then the US president, who suffered his first heart attack in September 1955. Many middle aged Americans were succumbing to heart attacks in the 1950s and the situation demanded convincing answers from the health community. Eisenhower had helmed NATO and, before that, had been the supreme commander of the Allied forces that wrenched Europe back Europe from the Nazis.

Eisenhower managed the brilliant generals George Patton and Bernard Montgomery, and famously warned the American public in his farewell address of the “military-industrial complex”. But as president, he had no clue of the new and rapidly developing “health-pharmaceutical-industrial complex.”

Keys was able to launch his ‘diet heart’ hypothesis because there was little science available in the 1950s that could explain the near-epidemic heart attack among middle-aged Americans. He presented his “seven countries study” that displayed a clear association between eating greater amounts of saturated fats and deaths due to heart disease. The seven countries were the US, Japan, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Italy, Greece and Finland. The method behind the study was seriously flawed, however.

The biggest was that Keys had cherry-picked these countries because they supported his hypothesis. He left out 15 countries that did not reveal any association between saturated-fat consumption and heart mortality. He conveniently ignored Denmark, Sweden and Norway, each of which had relatively few deaths from heart attacks in spite of sporting diets with lots of saturated fats. And Chile, on the other hand, had a high cardiac mortality despite eating little saturated fats. An unbiased investigator would have realised these problems in Keys’ hypothesis – as they do now – but didn’t: they hadn’t been presented with the complete data.

Keys also checked food samples for fats in less than 4% of the 12,000 participants he studied, and when the food was studied it was checked for a single day among the American and for less than a week among the European participants. Keys had been impressed by the large number of long-lived people on the Greek island of Crete, but had tested them when they’d been fasting for more than a month during a religious festival. In this period, more than 60% of the population abstained from meat, butter and cheese. This led Keys to the wrong conclusion that a low-fat diet was the key to longevity.

The AHA was so impressed by the ‘diet heart’ hypothesis that it made an official policy of it, and voila! By 1977, more than 220 million Americans were being urged by the US government to adhere to a low-fat diet. The British, true to form, officially imposed the same diet guidelines by 1984 on their subjects.

Remarkably, the AHA ignored no fewer than six randomised studies – including almost 2,500 heart patients – that showed no difference in mortality between the intervention group (low saturated-fat diet) and the control group (which continued with its regular eating habits). Both the intervention and control cohorts had 370 deaths each. Moreover, no women were being studied, and in the absence of a single primary prevention trial, the AHA and the US government had formulated their advisories.

The food industry also got in on the action. Vegetable oils started being manufactured in the millions of tons. Leading them all was Procter and Gamble, which began to aggressively market cottonseed oil – as well as make a sizeable donation to the AHA, an amount worth $20 million today. The corresponding “diet-food-health-industrial complex” has not looked back in the 60 years since.

The largest randomised trial assessing the effects of a low-fat diet on heart and cardiovascular diseases was the Women’s Health Initiative. It followed up 49,000 postmenopausal women who had been on a low-fat diet (alongside an increased intake of fruits, vegetables and grains) for eight years but had failed to lower their risks of death, heart attack, stroke or diabetes.

Two large reviews and meta-analyses (this and this) involving more than 600,000 participants have also failed to show any reduction in cardiovascular events, or death, by replacing saturated fats with vegetable oils. There was an increase in cardiovascular events due to trans-fats.

The Minnesota, DIRECT, Framingham and PURE studies

In 1967-1973, doctors intervened in the diets of a group of people randomly picked from a cohort of 9,000 for the famous Minnesota Coronary Experiment. The intervened group had saturated fats replaced by a polyunsaturated vegetable oil. The control group continued with their regular American diet. These people were from enrolled from mental institutions and from homes for the elderly. More than 2,500 participants continued on their respective diets for at least a year, and autopsy reports were available for about 140 deaths. This trial’s results were never published until a group of investigators got its hands on all the raw data.

They were dumbstruck to learn that the autopsies revealed 42% of the people in the intervention group had suffered a heart attack against only 22% in the control group. Both groups had similar amounts of atherosclerosis in their coronary arteries.

The other major finding was that, in spite of a 13% reduction in blood cholesterol with a vegetable-oil diet, there was a paradoxical 30% higher mortality in people older than 65 years. To explain this, the investigators hypothesised that the lowered cholesterol had the denser LDL particles that are oxidised more easily and so invade the coronary faster. As it happened, the principal investigator of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment was none other than Ancel Keys.

The other distinct possibility (to explain the mortality paradox) is that polyunsaturated vegetable oils produce hundreds of oxidised molecules that are toxic to the human body. For example, the aldehydes are carcinogenic apart from being able to compromise cognition. Another randomised trial assessing the replacement of saturated fats by corn oil also showed an increased mortality against the control group.

More recently, the DIRECT trial finished up in Israel in 2008. It divided participants into three groups. The first was kept on a low-fat diet; the second, a Mediterranean diet; and the third, a low-carbohydrate high-fat diet. At the end of follow-up period, the low carbohydrate high fat group was found to have lost the most weight, have the highest levels of HDL (a.k.a., ‘good cholesterol’) and have triglyceride levels lower than the high-fat group. In fact, the low-carbohydrate high-fat group also had better metabolic markers across the board.

The Framingham study, which began in 1948 and still continues, has been following the consumption of dietary fats and the development of heart disease among its 5000+ inhabitants, chosen from Framingham, Massachusetts. At the end of the first follow-up, the investigators were unable to find any correlation between fat-intake, cholesterol and heart disease.

But like with the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, the data was never deliberately published. In William Kannel, who served as the study’s the chief investigator in 1969-1979, at one point even stated: “That blood cholesterol is somehow intimately related to coronary atherosclerosis is no longer subject to reasonable doubt.” After a 30-year follow-up, the study reported that 1 mg% per year reduction in cholesterol was associated with 14% increased cardiovascular mortality and 11% total mortality.

Finally: the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) survey examined cardiovascular risk factors around the world in 2003-2009, with more than 150,000 participants. Though the results are yet to be published, a recently leaked (and now unavailable) video stated that there seemed to be no correlation between saturated fats (red meat, white meat, dairy products) and heart disease but a positive correlation between carbohydrates and heart disease. Moreover, a very sensitive cardiac-risk-factor marker was found to have increased with carbohydrates and reduced by saturated fats. Vegetables and fruits had no effect on the marker.

Though the PURE trial was very large, it was an observational that, strictly speaking, can’t explain causality.

So, based on the evidence obtained from well-conducted clinical trials, Keys’s ‘diet heart’ hypothesis is wrong. However, it remains to be seen when the big cardiac bureaucracies will begin to edit their guidelines. The ‘big cholesterol is bad’ maxim remains firmly in place because its persistence allows drugmakers to persist with large profit margins on drugs that may not even be necessary. Precisely this was confirmed by the FOURIER trial presented in the American College of Cardiology Meeting held in March 2017.

FOURIER was a ‘mega-trial’ that randomised 28,000 cardiac patients to a statin-plus-evelocumab versus a only-statins for two years. The annual cost of an evelocumab regime is $14,000 (Rs 9 lakh). In the end, LDL cholesterol levels had plunged to about 30 mg% in the evelocumab group versus about 90 mg in the only-statins group. There was also a 1.5% absolute reduction in stroke and myocardial infarction risks but – get this – no reduction in mortality. Implication: 75 patients will need to be treated for two years to prevent a single heart attack or stroke, at a total cost of Rs 13.5 crore. You’re likely to get a better deal without spending a penny by following the Copenhagen study: 10 minutes of slow-jogging per day reduced mortality by 70% compared to being sedentary the whole day.

It’s difficult to not feel dizzy when confronted by organisations like the AHA and the WHO, which have converted hypotheses into dogma etched on stone without any evidence in the past. But what then would be good and sane dietary advice to a layperson? There has to be an application of common-sense, a request to continue to eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts. At the same time, there is no need to stay away from meat, butter, cheese and eggs. There is no evidence that eating saturated fats along with reasonable amounts of proteins, with about 45% of calories as carbohydrates will, trigger a heart attack. Au contraire: evidence has emerged that increasing carbohydrates to 55% or more can actually be harmful to the heart. Even the current obesity epidemic and type-2 diabetes are most likely the handiwork of an increased carbohydrate intake that has replaced fats in people’s diets.

Source:thewire.in

Five things would happen if everyone stopped eating meat


We’ve come to the end of World Week for the Abolition of Meat, but people in the west still won’t make a simple change that could change the fortunes of the whole world.

pg-24-fracking-getty.jpg

Today marks the end of World Week for the Abolition of Meat – an appropriate time to ask ourselves what would happen if those of us who live in the developed world, with its ample choices, opted for a beet burger instead of a beef burger every time we sat down to eat. (Hint: cows would not take over the world.)

The world’s hungry would no longer be hungry

Yes, your beef or pork may be locally grown, but what about the animals’ feed? Vegetarians and vegans aren’t gobbling up all the grains and soybeans – cattle are. A staggering 97 per cent of the world’s soya crop is fed to livestock.

It would take 40 million tons of food to eliminate the most extreme cases of world hunger, yet nearly 20 times that amount of grain is fed to farmed animals every year in order to produce meat. In a world where an estimated 850 million people do not have enough to eat, it is criminally wasteful to feed perfectly edible food to animals on farms in order to produce a burger rather than feeding it directly to people, especially when you consider that it takes roughly six pounds of grain to produce one pound of pork. As long as a single child goes hungry, this kind of waste is unconscionable.

There would more land available for our growing population

Countries around the globe are bulldozing huge swathes of land in order to make room for more factory farms to house all the additional chickens, cows and other animals as well as for the huge quantities of crops needed to feed them. But when you eat plant foods directly, instead of indirectly eating bushels and bushels of grain and soya that have been funnelled through animals first, you need a lot less land.

Vegfam, a charity which funds sustainable plant-food projects, estimates that a 10-acre farm can support 60 people by growing soybeans, 24 people by growing wheat or 10 people by growing maize, but only two by raising cattle. What’s more, Dutch scientists predict that 2.7 billion hectares of land currently used for cattle grazing would be freed up by global vegetarianism, along with 100 million hectares of land currently used to grow crops for livestock.

With the population of the UK expected to exceed 70 million by 2030, we’ll need all the land we can get to accommodate the extra demand for living space and food.

Billions of animals would avoid a lifetime of suffering

On many industrial farms, animals are kept in cramped conditions and will never raise families, forage for food or do anything else that is natural and important to them. Most won’t even get to feel the warmth of the sun on their backs or breathe fresh air until the day they are loaded onto lorries headed for the abattoir. There is no better way to help animals and prevent their suffering than by choosing not to eat them.

The risk of dangerous antibiotic resistance would reduce

Factory-farmed animals are disease-ridden as a result of being crammed by the thousands into filthy sheds, which are a breeding ground for new strains of dangerous bacteria and viruses. Pigs, chickens and other animals on factory farms are fed a steady diet of drugs to keep them alive in these unsanitary, stressful conditions, increasing the chance that drug-resistant superbugs will develop.

A senior officer with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation called the intensive industrial farming of livestock an “opportunity for emerging disease”, while the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared that “much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe”.

Sure, the overprescribing of antibiotics for humans plays a part in antibiotic resistance. But eliminating the factory farms from which many antibiotic-resistant bacteria emerge would make it more likely that we could continue to count on antibiotics to cure serious illnesses.

The NHS would be under less strain

Obesity is literally killing British people. The NHS has warned that, if left unchecked, the country’s obesity rates will bankrupt the health service. Meat, dairy foods and eggs – all of which contain cholesterol and saturated fat – are the main culprits in obesity, which contributes to the UK’s top killers: heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and various types of cancer.

Yes, there are overweight vegetarians and vegans, just as there are skinny meat-eaters. But, on average, vegans are about one-tenth as likely to be obese as their meat eating counterparts. Once you replace high-fat animal-derived foods with healthy fruits, veggies and grains, it becomes a lot harder to pile on the pounds. What’s more, many health problems can be alleviated and even reversed by switching to a plant-based diet.

Going vegan might not make the world a perfect place, but it would help make it a kinder, greener, healthier one.

Meat contributes to obesity as much as sugar, research suggests


The consumption of meat contributes just as much as sugar to the growing prevalence of global obesity, new research suggests.

According to scientists at the University of Adelaide, fats and carbohydrates can provide us with enough energy to meet our demands, and are digested faster than protein, meaning the energy stored in meat is used later, or if surplus to requirements, is converted and stored as fat in the body.

This means that increased availability of meat may be making a significant contribution to global waist sizes.

University of Adelaide PhD student Wenpeng You examined the global availability of sugar and meat and the impact it had on obesity rates in 170 countries, and found a strong correlation between the two.

After accounting for differences between countries, including levels of urbanisation, physical activity and calorific intake, the research found the availability of meat could account for 13% of the obesity rate – the same level as sugar.

Speaking about his research to the University of Adelaide website, Mr You said: “There is a dogma that fats and carbohydrates, especially fats, are the major factors contributing to obesity.

“Whether we like it or not, fats and carbohydrates in modern diets are supplying enough energy to meet our daily needs. Because meat protein is digested later than fats and carbohydrates, this makes the energy we receive from protein a surplus, which is then converted and stored as fat in the human body.”

The study differs from previous research into links between meat and obesity, which have linked meat’s fat content to weight problems.

But Mr You says it is the protein in meat which is directly responsible.

Professor Maciej Henneberg, head of the university’s Biological Anthropology and Comparative Anatomy Research Unit said: “Our findings are likely to be controversial because they suggest that meat contributes to obesity prevalence worldwide at the same extent as sugar.

“While we believe it’s important that the public should be alert to the over-consumption of sugar and some fats in their diets, based on our findings we believe meat protein in the human diet is also making a significant contribution to obesity.”

Mr You presented the findings of his work at the 18th International Conference on Nutrition and Food Sciences in Zurich, Switzerland.

Here Is How To Recognize Which Meat Is Carcinogenic?


After the World Health Organization has reported that these foods can cause cancer, anxiety has increase among many people.

here-is-how-to-recognize-which-meat-is-carcinogenic

Selecting ingredients requires great caution, which is why we present you a brief guide on how to avoid the dangers that hide in your favorite foods.

These are cases when you should not add bacon, sausages, hot dogs and meat spreads in your shopping cart.

First of all, get a magnifying glass in order to be able to read about what you are buying. Not always, but usually the declarations are written in tiny letters, so even if you do not have vision problems – it will be difficult to read this declaration.

After that, you need to remember these useful advices:

It is mandatory to read the declaration

– If there is a mark “MSM” it means the meat is mechanically separated, ground together with the bones, in which antibiotics, hormones, heavy metals and other toxins that have been in the animal have been deposited.

– The same applies when you find on the declaration emulgator nitrites, which are labeled as E249, E250, E251 and E252.

These emulgators together with the amino acids from meat produce carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds.

– The emulgators Е451, Е252 and Е453 are genotoxic or rather “plastic” and damage the genes.

– You should be extremely careful for the product you purchase not to contain E407, carrageenan mark. This substance sticks to the walls of the intestine, and create wounds which later can turn into colon cancer.

– If the product contains a flavor enhancer, glutamate, it may mean that it has no meat in the product at all.

All the above mentioned information applies to durable and semi-durable meat products.

When it comes to meat, for example, if you are buying pork cutlets, pay attention whether the meat is interspersed with fatty veins. This is proof that the animal has not been fed as bad.

If there is not even one gram of white fat and water is dripping from it, it is proof that besides food the pig received growth hormones and antibiotics.

– See more at: http://www.timefornaturalhealthcare.com/here-is-how-to-recognize-which-meat-is-carcinogenic/#sthash.9azYQWt3.dpuf

Probiotics may save patients from deadly chemotherapy.


If you or someone you love is facing the possibility of cancer or chemotherapy, make sure they read this story. Breakthrough new science conducted at the University of Michigan and about to be published in the journal Nature reveals that intestinal health is the key to surviving chemotherapy.

 

The study itself is very difficult for laypeople to parse, however, so I’m going to translate into everyday language while also offering additional interpretations of the research that the original study author is likely unable to state due to the nutritional censorship of medical journals and universities, both of which have an anti-nutrition bias.

The upshot is this: A clinical study gave mice lethal injections of chemotherapy that would, pound for pound, kill most adult human beings, too. The study authors openly admit: “All tumors from different tissues and organs can be killed by high doses of chemotherapy and radiation, but the current challenge for treating the later-staged metastasized cancer is that you actually kill the [patient] before you kill the tumor.” (See sources below.)

Chemotherapy is deadly. It is the No. 1 cause of death for cancer patients in America, and the No. 1 side effect of chemo is more cancer. But certain mice in the study managed to survive the lethal doses of chemo. How did they do that? They were injected with a molecule that your own body produces naturally. It’s production is engineered right into your genes, and given the right gene expression in an environment of good nutrition (meaning the cellular environment), you can generate this substance all by yourself, 24 hours a day.

The substance is called “Rspo1″ or “R-spondon1.” It activates stem cell production within your own intestinal walls, and these stem cells are like super tissue regeneration machines that rebuild damaged tissues faster than the chemotherapy can destroy them, thereby allowing the patient to survive an otherwise deadly does of chemo poison.

As the study showed, 50 – 75 percent of the mice who were given R-spondon1 survived the fatal chemotherapy dose!

The cancer industry needs to find a way to stop killing all their customers

The problem with the cancer industry today is that all the conventional cancer treatments keep killing the patients. This is bad for business. So the purpose of research like the R-spondon1 research mentioned here — which was funded by a government grant — is to find ways to keep giving patients deadly doses of high-profit chemotherapy without actually killing them. You slap a patient with a dose of R-spondon1 (sold at $50,000 a dose as a patented “drug,” of course), dose ‘em up with a fatal injection of chemotherapy, and then thanks to the R-spondon1 you get a repeat cancer customers instead of a corpse.

That’s called “good business practices” in the cancer industry, which is so far best known for turning patients into body bags rather than actually curing cancer.

(Yes, there is a reason why most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy themselves. They know it doesn’t work on 98% of all cancers.)

Probiotics are likely the key to generating your own R-spondon1

Before I discuss why these findings are so important for followers of natural health and nutrition, let me first offer a disclaimer. The research mentioned here was conducted on mice, not humans, so it isn’t full proof that the same mechanism works in humans. Nevertheless, the reason mice are used for such research is because they are nearly identical to humans in terms of biology, gene expression, endocrine system function and more.

Furthermore, even though this study used an injection of R-spondon1 as the “activator” of gene expression in endothelial cells of the intestinal lining, in truth your cells already possess the blueprint to produce R-spondon1 on their own. In fact, human intestines are coated with a layer of epithelial cells that are regenerated every 4-5 days in a healthy person. This is only possible through the activation and continued operation of intestinal stem cells, a normal function for a healthy human.

And what determines the health of those stem cells more than anything else? Their local environment which is predominantly determined by gut bacteria. If your gut bacteria are in balance, the gene expression of your epithelial cells is normal and healthy. If your gut bacteria are out of whack, so to speak, the gene expression of your epithelial cells will be suppressed, thereby slowing or halting the regenerative potential of your intestinal cells. This is why people who have imbalanced intestinal flora also suffer from inflammatory intestinal conditions such as Crohn’s, IBS and so on.

Thus, probiotics are a key determining factor in the ability of your intestines to maintain the appropriate gene expression for the very kind of rapid cellular regeneration that can help your body survive a fatal dose of chemotherapy.

Meat and dairy cause devastating gut flora imbalances that may increase susceptibility to chemotherapy drugs

This may also explain why people who eat large quantities of processed meat, cheese and dead, pasteurized dairy products — especially when combined with starchy carbohydrates and processed sugars — are far more likely to die from chemotherapy than people who eat more plant-based diets. (There isn’t yet a source to substantiate this claim, but it’s something I’ve noted from considerable personal observation. You may have noticed it too among your own family members who have undergone chemotherapy treatments. Those with the worst diets seem to have far higher fatality rates.)

Those who consume processed meat and dead dairy have their intestines filled with fiber-less, difficult-to-digest proteins that are putrefied and sit in the intestines for 2 – 5 days, typically. Dietary sugars and carbohydrates then feed the bacteria fermentation process, resulting in the rapid growth and replication of sugar-feeding bacteria that displace the kind of healthy flora which best protect intestinal wall cells.

This imbalance, I suggest, increases susceptibility to chemotherapy toxicity while simultaneously impairing the ability of the patient to absorb key nutrients that protect healthy cells from the toxicity of chemo drugs. This may explain why patients who heavily consume meat, cheese and dairy diets tend to die so easily when exposed to chemotherapy.

But there’s something even more alarming about all this that everyone needs to know…

Antibiotics may also set you up to be killed by chemo

Although the research did not directly address this question, its findings seem to indicate that the kind of gut bacteria “wipeout” caused by antibiotics could prove fatal to a chemotherapy patient.

This is especially worrisome because many cancer patients are simultaneously prescribed antibiotics as they undergo chemotherapy. This could be a death sentence in disguise. While neither the antibiotics nor the chemo directly kill the patient, the combination of sterilized gut bacteria and highly-toxic chemotherapy drugs could multiply the toxicity and prove fatal. The death certificate, however, will say the patient died from “cancer,” not from the chemotherapy which is usually the actual cause of death.

And yet, every single day in America, patients who are taking antibiotics are subjected to multiple courses of chemotherapy. This may quite literally be a death sentence for those patients.

There’s also a self-fulfilling death spiral at work in all this: following the first round of chemotherapy, many patients suffer from weakened immune system that result in symptomatic infections. Physicians respond to this by prescribing antibiotics, resulting in the patient undergoing subsequent rounds of chemotherapy with “wiped out” gut flora. So the chemo causes the problem in the first place, and then the response to the problem by western doctors makes the next round of chemo fatal. This is a self-fulfilling death spiral of failed medicine.

Oncologists seem to have no awareness whatsoever of the importance of gut bacteria in allowing patients to protect their own healthy cells from the devastating effects of chemotherapy drugs. Many oncologists, in fact, actively discourage their patients from taking any sort of supplements during chemotherapy out of an irrational, anti-scientific fear that such supplements may “interfere” with the chemo and make the treatment fail.

This is one of the many ways in which oncologists get cancer patients killed.

Takeaway points from this article:

• New research shows that a substance generated by intestinal stem cells allows subjects to survive an otherwise fatal dose of toxic chemotherapy.

• Healthy gene expression of intestinal cells allows them to naturally produce protective molecules that support and boost cell regeneration.

• Probiotics may protect and support the intestinal stem cells that help cancer patients survive toxic chemotherapy. (More studies needed to explore this and document the impact.)

• Antibiotics may be a death sentence when followed by chemotherapy.

• Oncologists need to consider the risks and benefits of postponing chemotherapy in patients who are simultaneously taking antibiotics. The combination may be deadly. Conversely, they need to consider the benefits of encouraging chemotherapy patients to take probiotic supplements before beginning chemotherapy treatment.

Source: naturalnews.com

CDC Reveals Disturbing Truth about Factory Farms and Superbugs..


Story at-a-glance

  • Agricultural usage accounts for about 80 percent of all antibiotic use in the US, so it’s a MAJOR source of human antibiotic consumption
  • According to a new CDC report, antibiotics used in livestock plays a role in antibiotic resistance and “should be phased out”; 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is in fact linked to food
  • MRSA infection has been rapidly increasing among people outside hospital settings as well. Increasing evidence points to factory-scale hog facilities as a source
  • Previous research suggests you have a 50/50 chance of buying meat tainted with drug-resistant bacteria when you buy meat from your local grocery store
  • Excessive exposure to antibiotics—which includes regularly eating antibiotic-laced CAFO meats—also takes a heavy toll on your gastrointestinal health. This in turn can predispose you to virtually any disease.
  • Antibiotics

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health worldwide, and the primary cause for this man-made epidemic is the widespread misuse of antibiotics.1

Antibiotic overuse occurs not just in medicine, but also in food production. In fact, agricultural usage accounts for about 80 percent of all antibiotic use in the US,2 so it’s a MAJOR source of human antibiotic consumption.

According to a 2009 report3 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on this subject, factory farms used a whopping 29 million pounds of antibiotics that year alone.

Animals are often fed antibiotics at low doses for disease prevention and growth promotion, and those antibiotics are transferred to you via meat, and even through the animal manure that is used as crop fertilizer.

Antibiotics are also used to compensate for the crowded, unsanitary living conditions associated with large-scale confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

CDC Confirms Link Between CAFOs and Superbugs

Now, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention4 (CDC) has finally come out saying that yes, antibiotics used in livestock plays a role in antibiotic resistance and “should be phased out.” According to the CDC’s report,5 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is in fact linked to food. As reported by the featured article:6

“The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) said that the report shows that drug-resistant hazards in the food supply pose a serious threat to public health. One-third of the 12 resistant pathogens that CDC categorized as a ‘serious’ threat to public health are found in food.”

The four drug-resistant pathogens in question are Campylobacter, which causes an estimated 310,000 infections and 28 deaths per year; Salmonella, responsible for another 100,000 infections and 38 deaths annually; along with E.coli and Shigella. To address this growing problem, the CDC’s report issues the following recommendations:

  • Avoid inappropriate antibiotic use in food animals
  • Track antibiotic use in food animals
  • Stop spread of Campylobacter among animals on farms
  • Improve food production and processing to reduce contamination
  • Educate consumers and food workers about safe food handling practices

Source: CDC.gov, Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

MRSA Spreading Via Hog Farms?

Two drug-resistant pathogens more commonly associated with antibiotic overuse in human medicine include Clostridium difficile and Staphylococcus aureus. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infects more than 80,460 people and kills 11,285 people annually. Disturbingly, as discussed in a recent Mother Jones7 article, MRSA infection has been rapidly increasing among people outside hospital settings as well.

As stated in the article:

“Increasing evidence points to factory-scale hog facilities as a source. In a recent study,8 a team of researchers led by University of Iowa’s Tara Smith found MRSA in 8.5 percent of pigs on conventional farms and no pigs on antibiotic-free farms. Meanwhile, a study9, 10 just released by the journal JAMA Internal Medicine found that people who live near hog farms or places where hog manure is applied as fertilizer have a much greater risk of contracting MRSA.”

In the latter study, people with the highest exposure to manure were 38 percent more likely to contract community-associated MRSA, and 30 percent more likely to get healthcare-associated MRSA. Level of exposure was calculated based on proximity to hog farms, the size of the farms, and how much manure the farm in question used. 

Back in 2009 a University of Iowa study11 found that a full 70 percent of hogs and 64 percent of workers in industrial animal confinements tested positive for antibiotic-resistant MRSA. The study pointed out that, once MRSA is introduced, it could spread broadly to other swine and their caretakers, as well as to their families and friends.

In other parts of the world, such as the European Union, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed has been banned for years. Yet in the US this is still a topic of debate, with industry supporters trying to downplay the inevitable fact that this irresponsible use of antibiotics is most likely posing a serious risk to human health and the environment.

As reported in 2011, you have a 50/50 chance of buying meat tainted with drug-resistant bacteria when you buy meat from your local grocery store. This shocking finding came from a study by the Translational Genomics Research Institute,12 which revealed that 47 percent of the meat and poultry samples tested contained antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. These were samples from 80 different brands of beef, chicken, pork, and turkey from more than two dozen grocery stores scattered across the United States, in large cities from Los Angeles to Washington D.C.

The fact that antibiotic-resistant superbugs are found so widely in US meat supplies is a major red flag, a sign that we are nearing the point of no return where superbugs will continue to flourish with very little we can do to stop them. While I am not one to recommend many medications, antibiotics can be VERY useful when you need to treat a serious bacterial infection. When used properly, in the correct contexts and with responsibility, antibiotics can and do save lives that are threatened by bacterial infections. But they will only remain effective if urgent changes are made to curb the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and disease… and this will only happen with a serious reduction in their use now.

Choose Your Foods Wisely

Conventional medicine certainly needs to curtail its prescriptions for antibiotics, but even if you use antibiotics judiciously you’re still exposed to great amounts of antibiotics from the foods you eat, and this is entirely unnecessary. This is one of the primary reasons why I ONLY recommend organic, grass-fed, free-range meats or organic pastured chickens, as non-medical use of antibiotics is not permitted in organic farming. They’re also far superior to CAFO-raised meats in terms ofnutritional content.

To source pure, healthful meats, your best option is to get to know a local farmer — one who uses non-toxic farming methods. If you live in an urban area, there are increasing numbers of community-supported agriculture programsavailable that offer access to healthy, locally grown foods even if you live in the heart of the city. Being able to find high-quality meat is such an important issue for me personally that I’ve made connections with sources I know provide high-quality organic grass-fed beef and free-range chicken, both of which you can find in my online store. You can eliminate the shipping charges, however, if you find a trusted farmer locally. If you live in the US, the Weston Price Foundation13 also has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase these types of foods, including grass-fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

How CAFO Meats May Decimate Your Gut Health

Antibiotic-resistant disease is not the only danger associated with the misuse of these drugs. Excessive exposure to antibiotics—which includes regularly eating antibiotic-laced CAFO meats—also takes a heavy toll on your gastrointestinal health. This in turn can predispose you to virtually any disease. Protecting your gut health and reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are significant reasons for making sure you’re only eating grass-fed, organically-raised meats.

In related news, researchers at Oregon State University point out the close links between your gut health and a wide range of health issues.14 As noted in the university press release:

“Problems ranging from autoimmune disease to clinical depression and simple obesity may in fact be linked to immune dysfunction that begins with a ‘failure to communicate’ in the human gut, the scientists say. Health care of the future may include personalized diagnosis of an individual’s ‘microbiome’ to determine what prebiotics or probiotics are needed to provide balance.

Appropriate sanitation such as clean water and sewers are good. But some erroneous lessons in health care may need to be unlearned—leaving behind the fear of dirt, the love of antimicrobial cleansers, and the outdated notion that an antibiotic is always a good idea. We live in a world of ‘germs’ and many of them are good for us.

An emerging theory of disease, [Dr. Natalia] Shulzhenko said, is a disruption in the ‘crosstalk’ between the microbes in the human gut and other cells involved in the immune system and metabolic processes. ‘In a healthy person, these microbes in the gut stimulate the immune system as needed, and it in turn talks back,’ Shulzhenko said. ‘There’s an increasing disruption of these microbes from modern lifestyle, diet, overuse of antibiotics and other issues. With that disruption, the conversation is breaking down.’”

The widespread deterioration of people’s gut health can be traced back to the change in our modern diet. This includes the introduction of meats from unnaturally-raised livestock, fed genetically engineered corn and soy along with a mixture of antibiotics and other drugs. But another important dietary factor is the shunning of traditionally fermented foods, which are naturally high in the beneficial bacteria necessary for optimal gut health. Mounting research shows that beneficial bacteria in your gut is likely to have significant benefits to your health and may be essential for:

  • Protection against over-growth of other microorganisms that could cause disease
  • Digestion of food and absorption of nutrients and certain carbohydrates
  • Producing vitamins, absorbing minerals, and eliminating toxins
  • Preventing allergies
  • Maintaining natural defenses

Numerous studies have also shown that your gut flora plays a role in:

  • Mood, psychological health, and behavior
  • Celiac disease
  • Diabetes
  • Weight gain and obesity
  • Metabolic syndrome

Nurturing Your Gut Flora Is One of the Foundations of Optimal Health

Besides antibiotics, your gut bacteria are also vulnerable to factors such as chlorinated water, antibacterial soaps, pollution, and agricultural chemicals—especially glyphosate, which, incidentally, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. To protect your gut health, it’s important to avoid processed, refined foods in your diet and to regularly reseed your gut with good bacteria by eating non-pasteurized, traditionally fermented foods, such as fermented vegetables, or taking a high-quality probiotic supplement.

One of the reasons why fermented foods are so beneficial is because they contain a wide variety of different beneficial bacteria. Also, if fermented with a probiotics starter culture, the amount of healthy bacteria in a serving of fermented vegetables can far exceed the amount you’ll find in commercial probiotics supplements, making it a very cost-effective alternative. Ideally, you want to eat a variety of fermented foods to maximize the variety of bacteria you’re consuming. Healthy options include:

Lassi (an Indian yogurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner) Various pickled fermentations of cabbage (sauerkraut), turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, onions, squash, and carrots Tempeh
Traditionally fermented raw milk such as kefir or yogurt, but NOT commercial versions, which typically do not have live cultures and are loaded with sugars that feed pathogenic bacteria Natto (fermented soy) Kim chee

 

When choosing fermented foods, steer clear of pasteurized versions, as pasteurization will destroy many of the naturally occurring probiotics. This includes most of the “probiotic” yogurts you find in every grocery store these days; since they’re pasteurized, they will be associated with all of the problems of pasteurized milk products. They also typically contain added sugars, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial coloring, and artificial sweeteners, all of which will only worsen your health.

When you first start out, you’ll want to start small, adding as little as half a tablespoon of fermented vegetables to each meal, and gradually working your way up to about a quarter to half a cup (2 to 4 oz) of fermented vegetables or other cultured food with one to three meals per day. Since cultured foods are efficient detoxifiers, you may experience detox symptoms, or a “healing crisis,” if you introduce too many at once. That said, three very positive changes occur when your good-to-bad intestinal bacteria ratio is brought back into balance:

  • Digestive problems diminish or disappear
  • Your immune system de-stresses and is better equipped to fight off disease of all kinds, contributing to a longer and healthier life
  • Your body begins to use all the good food and nutritional supplements you feed it

Non-food crops lock up enough calories to feed 4 billion.


Global calorie availability could be increased by as much as 70 per cent — feeding an additional 4 billion people — by shifting cropland use to produce food for humans rather than livestock feed and biofuels, according to new research.

Such a shift could free up calories roughly equivalent to the yield increases achieved for maize, wheat and rice between 1965 and 2009, researchers say in the study, published in Environmental Research Letters this month (1 August).

“When talking about the future of food security, people often suggest that we grow our way out of the problem: that if we just keep producing more corn and soybeans we will be able to feed the world.

Our study provides an alternative point of view,” Emily Cassidy, lead author of the study and environmental scientist at the University of Minnesota, United States, tells SciDev.Net.

Researchers looked at the 41 crops that provide more than 90 per cent of world’s calories. They analysed where the crops are grown, the overall production and also how the crops are used: for direct human consumption, animal feed or biofuels.

“Globally, 36 per cent of all calories are fed to animals. We found that decreasing grain-fed meat consumption by 50 per cent would be enough additional calories for two more billion people,” says Cassidy.

Reducing meat consumption, or shifting it away from beef to poultry and pork, has the potential to feed more people per hectare of cropland because beef is not energy efficient, Cassidy adds.

“When we feed 100 calories of average corn and soy to beef cattle we get only three per cent of these calories back, while the efficiency is better for pork and chickens,” she says.

“We found that decreasing grain-fed meat consumption by 50 per cent would be enough additional calories for two more billion people.”

Emily Cassidy

Researchers also looked at crop allocation in terms of proteins.

“Half of the protein that we produce with crops actually goes to animals for feed. We could have the right amount of protein and amino acids if we were to directly consume crops,” says Cassidy. “We are actually losing a lot of protein in the plant-animal conversion process.”

Yet, the authors recognise that the recent global trends are towards more meat consumption and biofuel production.

“Meat is part of the human culture and it’s important for food security in many parts of the world, but when we increase crop yields in affluent nations we are just feeding animals and this is not turning into much food for human consumption,” says Cassidy.

According to Cassidy, a shift from yield intensification for meat production in rich countries could redirect investments and attention to countries in Africa and South Asia that need to increase crop productivity to feed people.

But Barbara Adolph, a researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development, in United Kingdom, believes that the problem is not just related to present agricultural resources and investments.

“One of the challenges is that most of the meat consumption will soon be happening in China and to a lesser extent India, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, where the growing middle class is consuming more and more meat and dairy products,” she tells SciDev.Net. “So re-allocation of crop land in the rich countries will only go so far — we also need to think about changing consumption patterns among the rich in the South.”

Barbara Burlingame, a deputy director at the nutrition and consumer protection division of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, says: “We cannot be dogmatic about meat and dairy consumption, because a little goes a long way in terms of quality nutrients for the diet”.

She adds that “bringing food losses and waste under control, fromagriculture through household and retail, will serve to relieve pressures on natural resources”.

However, she tells SciDev.Net: “If agriculture were nutrition-driven, we would see global demand for meat and dairy decrease, and we would see less land use for biofuels“.

Source:Scivx

 

We Are What We Eat, Or Are We?


Not a clinic day goes by without multiple patients asking me what they should eat, both while on treatment for their cancer and during the survivorship period. If you Google diet and cancer, you are informed that there are 207 million results.1 Such an association seems logical; we all grew up hearing the phase “you are what you eat,” a phrase attributed to French politician and gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, who wrote in 1826, “Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es [Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are].”2 Despite the persistent belief for the past nearly two centuries, there remain limited, consistent data on most dietary factors and many disease, including cancers.

Studies of red meat and processed meat have been a rare example of fairly consistent results showing an association between increased intake and risk of developing colorectal cancer.3,4 In 2007, The World Cancer Fund and American Institute of Cancer Research‘s expert panel reported that there was convincing evidence that red meat and processed meat increased the risk of developing colorectal cancer.5 Their meta-analyses found that consumption of red meat led to a 1.43 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.94) increased risk of colorectal cancer per times per week consumed and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.60) per 100 g/d. Similarly, consumption of processed meat was associated with a 1.21 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.42) increased risk per 50 g/d.4 Given these consistent findings, it seems reasonable to test whether consumption of red or processed meat affected patients who already have a diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

In this issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology, McCullough et al6 report on a cohort of 2,315 subjects who developed colorectal cancer while participating in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort. They report that the quantity of red and processed red meat consumed before the diagnosis of colorectal cancer was associated with all-cause but not colorectal cancer–associated mortality. Though not statistically significant, the data suggest that this increase was due to cardiovascular-associated mortality. However, the consumption of red and processed meat after diagnosis was not associated with either end point. Curiously, those with the highest consumption of red and processed meat consistently before and after diagnosis did have an increased risk of colorectal cancer–associated mortality. This seemingly highest risk group (high intake before and after diagnosis) did not have a statistically higher risk of overall or cardiovascular-associated mortality.

Several issues are worthy of consideration in interpreting the McCullough study.6 First, why did an exposure that convincingly increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer not affect the natural history of the disease once it developed?7,8 Although the exact mechanism of action for red and processed meat increasing colorectal cancer development is not known, several plausible biologic mechanisms have been proposed. Red and processed meats cooked at high temperatures contain heterocyclic amines, which are carcinogenic. A second mechanism involves endogenous formation in the gastrointestinal tract of N-nitroso compounds from the heme in red meat, many of which are carcinogenic. In addition, nitrites or nitrates added to meat for preservation could increase exogenous exposure to nitrosamines, N-nitroso compounds, and their precursors. All these proposed mechanisms lead to carcinogenic effects on the mucosa of the bowel, leading to mutational effects on those cells and potential for abnormal growth and cancer formation. The risk of recurrence for patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer is related to the growth of micrometastatic disease, already spread before detection and treatment of the primary lesion. Thus, local carcinogenic effects will be less significant to colorectal cancer survivors’ outside risk of forming new primary tumors. In contrast, recent studies on diet and colorectal cancer survivorship have demonstrated association with cancer recurrence, specifically as a result of high intakes of Western-pattern diet and glycemic load.9,10 Both exposures are proposed to be associated with disease recurrence by increasing insulin and insulin-like growth factors, which affect cell growth, proliferation, and metastatic potential, thereby influencing the growth of micrometastatic disease in colorectal cancer survivors.11

Another consideration in survivorship studies is what recommendations can be made to the patient at hand. When a patient is diagnosed with cancer, they want recommendations on what they can do now to help their chances of cure and/or survival. If an exposure before diagnosis is associated with an outcome, but not the exposure after diagnosis, there is not necessarily a recommendation that can be made to a patient. However, such data may suggest a factor that influenced the biology of the tumor that developed. Another question is whether more favorable or less favorable biology influenced by the exposure can be affected by what the patient does after diagnosis. One consideration could be whether a worse prognosis tumor as a result of dietary exposure should influence treatment given to the patient (ie, the factor having prognostic and predictive value). Certainly, studies of diet and lifestyle to date are far from being able to lead to such conclusions. However, it is possible such a mechanism might explain the curious finding that colorectal cancer–associated mortality was influenced by high consumption of red and processed meat both before and after diagnosis, but not in either time frame only. Specifically, patients with high consumption of red and processed meat before diagnosis should try to decrease intake after diagnosis because those who maintained high levels had a higher risk of recurrence. Such a conclusion is purely speculative on the basis of the data in this article and would need other cohorts to further clarify.

Finally, the study by McCullough et al suggests that some risk factors for colorectal cancer also increase risk for other diseases, and thus colorectal cancer patients will often have comorbidities that influence survival. Thus, the current study does remind clinicians that, although one cannot influence exposures before diagnosis, management of comorbidities is important in the care of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival.

In conclusion, studies of host factors and cancer survival require us to consider whether the results can be of utility to our patients. First, if the exposure after diagnosis influences outcomes, one should consider whether the strength of the evidence justifies making recommendations to alter diet or lifestyle, for instance. Although a randomized controlled trial would be ideal to address this question, changing diet and lifestyle behaviors in the number of patients needed to have statistical powers remains a challenge. Because studies of diet and lifestyle in colorectal cancer survivors are all observational to date, one needs to consider potential biases and confounding. Second, it is important to understand whether an exposure affects cancer recurrence, survival, or both. Although both end points are important in survivorship care, they may have different management implications. Finally, although a message that prediagnosis diet influences outcomes may seem to have limited utility for a patient when they develop cancer, it furthers the strength of the recommendation for people to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle throughout their life to maximize the health benefits.

Source: JCO