These articles address nutrition issues. There are many myths in this arena and from time to time we deal with whatever one may be in the news. Our approach to nutrition is based on The Real Diet of Man. Our approach to food is the basic chemistry of each food item as found in the Food Analysis tables in that eBook. One of the huge failings in all the recommendations for nutritional foods in what most people read and hear is the reckless use of words that have no meaning. Words such as "organic," "natural," and other such terms do not mean better nutrition or improved food safety. In fact, they take the consumer's eye off the ball which is food chemistry. The fundamental chemistry of the foods people eat has the greatest impact on their health and well-being. Nutritional scientists focus on food chemistry when they are doing nutritional studies. They do not refer to labels such as organic, GMO and nonGmo, or natural or local, small farm, etc. That's because the chemistry of food has a huge impact on a body while the labels do not.
Not only do we test the essential fatty acid profiles of our meats, we also test ourselves. Tell us how many food sources you’ve found that will do the same and report the results. If they don’t, what kind of games are they playing?
As the Neuropathy article explains, low ratios of less than 4:1 Omega-6 to Omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFAs) are crucial for good health. Just how low is the key. Our meats average less than 2:1. To get your ratio down to that level and keep it there requires deliberate action. It just doesn’t happen by wishing it were so.
For instance, say you eat two eggs with 125 mg of Omega-3 and 660mg of Omega-6. Those two eggs a day creates a 1,070 mg Omega-3 deficit. Two olives in a salad is a 60 mg deficit. Two ounces of almonds is a 6,753 mg deficit. A half an avocado adds a 1,075 mg deficit. These deficits total 8,958 mg. That's a huge deficit compared to the delicate balances of low levels of EFAs in greens and meats. When the good foods are eventually balanced, they cannot correct a deficit.
This is a super article from BEEF Magazine.
Members of the Nutrition Coalition said Americans followed the government dietary guidelines at the same time obesity burgeoned.
This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, in which doctors and nutritionists tell people they are obese entirely because they eat the wrong foods and don't exercise.
There’s an unbreachable divide between advocates of modern conventional agriculture and, essentially, everyone else, from the mainstream (organic, local, anti-GMO) to the less-so (biodynamics, permaculture, agroforestry). The parties are entrenched, the tone is partisan. But I think we ought to be able to get along, because all hard-core advocates of this or that food philosophy have two things in common: They’re paying attention, and they’re wrong.
To see where you fit in you'll need to read her full article which is HERE.
This Forbes Magazine opinion piece includes several links to peer-reviewed research reports. The reason for this post is that people need to know the truth about the organic label. The unfortunate truth is that for too many people the term "organic" takes their eyes off the ball. In other words, they believe organic is the answer for superior food safety and nutrition. Yet science can't support that belief. Sure, the concept of organic is nice, but conventionally raised inexpensive GMO corn is exactly the same as organically grown, more expensive old heirloom corn in terms of nutrition and food safety. Their chemical compositions are identical. Both corns are high glycemic. Both have 30:1 Omega-6 to Omega-3 fatty acid ratios than contribute to chronic disease. Both are nutritionally deficient foods that are incapable of supporting animal life. Both are susceptible to fungal infestations and high mycotoxin levels. In other words, all foods are "chemicals" and that fact trumps everything when it comes to nourishing your body.
The authors of this commentary are Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Richard Cornett is the communications director for the Western Plant Health Association, a nonprofit agricultural trade group based in Sacramento, Calif. The article is HERE.
This is an assessment written by Henry I. Miller for Forbes Magazine. Dr. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Another poorly recognized aspect of this issue is that the vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume are in our diets “naturally” and are present in organic foods as well as non-organic ones. In a classic study, UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.”
Speaking of trust and faith—or lack thereof–in organic foods, there was the example of holier-than-thou Whole Foods . . .
So often people think that organic foods are the most nutritious foods simply because they are organic. But independent scientific analysis and comparative studies have always indicated that the differences between conventionally raised and organic are razor thin. They are equally safe. They are equally nutritious. And even NPR posts an article that leads in with: It may seem counterintuitive, but foods that are grown to organic standards can contain commercially manufactured pesticides.
For years we have asked people to think beyond organic. It's shocking to hear a lady recently say that organic sugar was okay in moderation. The implication that organic is the answer takes consumers' eyes off the ball. Instead of examining the foods they eat in light of each food item's inherent chemistry, they cling to simple labels such as organic, nonGMO, natural, vegetable fed, local, free range, gluten free, etc., thinking that if they just eat those foods they are eating properly. But eating properly is far more than that.
When it comes to toxins, the EPA tests for parts per billion. When one eats oatmeal for breakfast, two percent of the oatmeal is inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids. Two percent is huge compared to a part per billion. In nearly every case you can name, the chemistry of food trumps all else when it comes to impacting the human body. Understanding the chemistry of foods is the reason for The Real Diet of Man.
The Paleo Diet, as its cofounder Loren Cordain defined it, is being debased by marketers. It really disturbs me when I see so many people struggle to adapt to The Real Diet of Man only to be led astray by the many marketers of Paleo recipes. These recipes usually replicate traditional common dishes with different ingredients. Yet when one analyzes the ingredients, the "new" dishes are still nutritional disasters.
My first pet peeve is with the meat selections in all too many of these diets. Many of the authors of these diets do not emphasize only 100% grass-fed meats. That alone is ridiculous. Many suggest "lean meats" in general. That is wrong no matter what. Lean grain-fed meats are nutritionally deficient and they still have high Omega-6 loads versus small quantifies of Omega-3. They are the problem, not the solution. On the other hand, when it comes to 100% grass-fed meats, we WANT fatty meats. The fats have the most favorable Essential Fatty Acid (EFAs) ratios!
This is why we sell so many knuckle and straight marrow bones. People are focused on the fat inside these bones. We also sell fat (external fat) and suet (internal body fat). Many of our customers want these fats for soups and broths plus to render down for cooking fats. If we want optimal nutrition, lean is not preferred. The problem we have is that too often our 100% grass-fed meats are too lean.
Proper food for pets is going mainstream and it's being driven by modern nutritional science for humans and all animals.
The big bullet points are No Grain • No Wheat • No Corn • No Soy Beef is the #1 Ingredient. A Blend of Omega-6 & Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Skin and Coat Enriched with Vitamins and Minerals. Contains Glucosamine and Chondroitin. Antioxidant Formulation.
Yes, it sure is a step in the right direction. But per normal with mainstream, it's only a step. Therefore even with this improved food we must read the fine print.
Yesterday, September 12, 2012, The Journal of the American Medical Association, with great fanfare, published a highly flawed report that got immediate national press coverage!
The media’s interpretation of this report was similar to an ABC news report by Dianne Sawyer where she said “omega 3 fatty acids could not prevent heart disease as once thought.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’ll quote the author, Amanda Radke, a South Dakota rancher and Editor of BEEF Daily. “When I cut grains from my diet, I discovered the concept of eating like a caveman and was amazed how quickly the weight came off and how easily I was able to manage my health.”
Here’s the link to the article in BEEF Magazine.
Of major note is that the article pointed out grain is not a normal food for man, but totally ignored the fact grain is not a normal food for dogs, cats, fish, or CATTLE. In actual fact the list of critters whose chemistry evolved on this planet to eat seeds is next to zero. The reason is the foundation food for all animal life is the green leaf. It All Began in the Sea . . .