Journalist Gary Taubes has written several books on diet, including “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” “The Diet Delusion,” “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It,” and most recently, “The Case for Keto: Rethinking Weight Control and the Science and Practice of Low-Carb/High-Fat Eating,” which is the topic of this interview. For his most recent book, Taubes interviewed more than 120 physicians, plus a few dieticians and chiropractors and a dentist — about 140 medical practitioners in all — to understand the challenges that clinicians and patients face when trying to implement a ketogenic diet and lose weight. The first half of the book explains how carbs and fats affect your body, and why replacing carbs with healthy fats is so important if you’re trying to control your weight and/or blood sugar. The second half of the book is a review of the lessons he’s learned along the way. The Real Cause of ObesityAs noted by Taubes, on a global scale, the obesity epidemic can be linked back to a Western diet rich in refined sugars and grains. Whenever sugar and white flour are added to a population’s diet, regardless of what their baseline disease rate is, you eventually end up with an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The idea that you get fat because your caloric intake exceeds your expenditure naïve, Taubes says. “That's not the cause of obesity. That's like saying we get rich because we make more money than we spend.” He also takes issue with the idea that obesity is a hormonal regulatory disorder.
Uphill Battle Remains Despite Strong Scientific EvidenceUnfortunately, Taubes estimates some 98% of conventional nutrition and obesity research community still approach obesity as an energy balance disorder. “They've been trained over their entire professional careers to think of obesity as caused by this imbalance in intake and expenditure,” he says.
On the upside, many physicians are now starting to understand the role of diet, processed grains and sugar in particular. Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s 2020 report claims there’s an insufficient amount of low-carb and ketogenic diet trials to suggest that this kind of diet would be beneficial for the American public at large. This despite the fact that hundreds of studies over the past two decades have consistently shown a ketogenic diet to be beneficial. “Name a disease state at the moment from Alzheimer's to traumatic brain injury, and you'll find somebody studying whether or not ketogenic or a low-carb/high-fat diet could be beneficial,” Taubes says. In 2018, the American Diabetes Association Nutrition Committee published a consensus report1 saying there was more consistent evidence for a low-carb or very low-carb diet being beneficial for Type 2 diabetes than any other diet tested, particularly ones that have been advocated by mainstream medical authorities, such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet.
Not All Fats Are Equal MetabolicallyAn important side note here is that while processed sugars and grains are certainly a significant contributor to obesity and ill health, the types of fats you eat play an important role. Many are eating far too much omega-6 linoleic acid (LA), which appears to be even worse than excess sugar. In fact, I now believe an excess of LA in general is responsible for a vast majority of the damage and ill health we see in response to diet. I’ve reviewed this in several recent articles, including “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.” Now, while most people will experience a significant improvement in their health when they cut down on processed carbs, replacing them with fats, the improvement is not universal. This paradox, I believe, is because they’re eating too much LA. Similarly, I think those who successfully use high-carb, low-fat diets to treat obesity, diabetes and coronary artery disease may be achieving these beneficial effects largely because they’re avoiding excess LA. Taubes is not entirely convinced, however, and goes into some of the details of his objections in the interview.
The Importance of Self-ExperimentationAs noted in Taubes’ book, at some point, you’ll need to be willing to self-experiment to determine your own dietary triggers and what works best for you. At the end of the day, it’s about how you feel, not how well you follow any given diet. Taubes recommends starting off rigidly abstaining from carbohydrate-rich foods, and then assessing what other problems you might have and make additional changes from there.
Why Restrict Carbs?So, just why is carb restriction such a key component? I was surprised to find that Taubes has not yet embraced cyclical keto (eating low-carb on some days and relatively higher amounts of carbs, maybe 200% to 300% more on others). Instead, he advises a more regimented and consistent carb restriction, i.e., a ketogenic diet that remains low in carbs continuously. The primary justification for this is because most obese and chronically ill people have an addiction to carbs. They are addicted to a certain way of eating, and the concern is that if you allow carbohydrates back into their diet they can trigger eating carbs without discipline.
That said, I, and nearly all of my clinical associates who see patients, especially those who are athletes, now personally use and recommend cyclical ketosis. Personally, I will eat 30 to 50 grams of carbs one day and then 100 to 150 grams the next day. I’ll alternate back and forth. To make sure you’re moving in the right direction, you can measure and monitor your ketones and blood sugar. The problem I've seen consistently is that if you restrict carbs continuously, your blood sugar tends to rise. The reason for this is because your body requires a certain amount of carbohydrates (glucose) to function. If you're not getting it from your diet, your body makes more of it in your liver to supply your needs. I hopefully catalyzed Taubes to seriously reevaluate his position as to one that is more consistent with our ancestral consumption of carbs. He responded:
How Excess LA Breaks Your MetabolismIf you’re like Taubes and are concerned about starting cyclical integration of carbs into your diet, I would recommend using a continuous glucose monitor like the Nutrisense device that allows you to measure your measure and record your blood glucose every five to 10 minutes. This will allow you to determine whether chronic low carb dieting is working optimally, or whether cycling higher and lower carb intakes might be better. Continuous blood glucose monitoring can immediately tell you how various foods affect your system. Cycling back to the issue of LA again, it’s important to recognize that excessive LA in your diet can cause extreme reverse electron transport flow through complex I in your mitochondria with the production of high quantities of superoxide and H2O2, which actually causes you to become insulin resistant. So, insulin resistance is not restricted to excessive carb intake. Limiting LA will also help reduce oxidative LA metabolites, which are the most pernicious sources of oxidative stress in your body. These oxidized LA metabolites (OXLAMs) prematurely destroy mitochondria and limit your ability to efficiently create ATP. When you eat an excessive amount of LA, the disruption it causes in your mitochondrial electron transport chain causes your fat cells to become insulin sensitive. This is the last thing you want. While you want your somatic cells to be insulin sensitive, your fat cells need to be insulin resistant.2 As explained by Dr. Paul Saladino in “The Case Against Processed Vegetable Oils”:
The take-home message here is that a proper ketogenic diet must be based on healthy saturated fats, not destructive vegetable seed oils or other common foods that are loaded with LA. Eating a high-fat diet, when the fats are primarily LA, is far worse than eating a chronic high-carb diet. The type of fat is of crucial importance, as it impacts your mitochondrial, cellular and metabolic functioning. I realize that this information likely leads many of you to many questions. The good news is I’m co-writing a new book on all of this with Chris Knobbe, who is a leading expert. We hope to have the book out by the summer of 2021. More InformationTo learn more about how carb restriction can improve your weight and health, be sure to pick up a copy of Taubes’ book, “The Case for Keto: Rethinking Weight Control and the Science and Practice of Low-Carb/High-Fat Eating.” While I believe most people would benefit from additional dietary changes, such as implementing a cyclical ketogenic diet and limiting LA, the basic premise of carbohydrate restriction is certainly sound, and is likely to improve the health of virtually everyone. Then, as mentioned earlier, you may need to continue to fine-tuning and tweaking your nutritional choices to find just the right fit. You may also find that your body’s needs change with age. This is completely normal, and to be expected, so there’s no need to be dismayed if what you’ve done for a number of years no longer is working. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/27/the-case-for-keto.aspx
0 Comments
Open, scientific discussion is pivotal to progress in the medical field, but it’s something that remains elusive when it comes to vaccinations. Rather than address questions, concerns and inconsistencies head on via public debate and research, vaccine advocates often resort to name-calling, intimidation and threats against those who question the federal once-size-fits-all vaccine policy. Pediatricians may also belittle parents who ask questions about vaccine side effects, with many refusing to see patients who choose not to vaccinate or choose an alternate vaccine schedule. This is why the above video from “When Opinions Collide” is so refreshing — and so necessary in today’s climate when children receive an unprecedented 69 doses of 16 vaccines by the time they're 18 years old, with 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before the age of 6.1 In the video, Dr. Bethany Rife, a pediatrician in Alabama, and Robyn Sharon, a biologist and attorney who has worked with the Human Genome Project at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, discuss their point of view about vaccinations, which at times are conflicting. Yet, they manage to educate each other and listeners in a positive way, one that’s ultimately neither “pro” nor “anti” vaccine, but rather focused on doing what’s best to protect public health. Childhood Vaccine Injury Triggers Lifelong Search for AnswersSharon starts out by detailing her son’s experience with childhood vaccinations. Many parents of vaccine-injured children describe a similar series of events following vaccination, including excessive sleepiness and inconsolable, high-pitched crying, unlike any cry the parents have heard before. This was the case for Sharon’s son, who fell into an unusual deep sleep following a round of several childhood vaccinations when he was 2 months old. When he woke up, she said, he was crying a high-pitched, shrill scream. “It was an absolute nightmare,” she said. She called the doctor’s office, which said the reaction was normal, and her son eventually calmed down. However, high-pitched screaming with arching of the back or inconsolable crying are signs of brain inflammation, one of the most serious vaccine complications.2 In 1993, The New York Times even published a letter to the editor titled “Look for Danger Signs When Baby Gets Shots,” which reads, in part:3
In the weeks and months that followed, Sharon’s son developed eczema and food allergies, including a life-threatening peanut allergy, which she believes is related to his childhood vaccines. Sharon’s story isn’t unique. “So many moms have gone through what I’ve gone through,” she said, noting that the experience turned her into who she is today and sent her on a quest to learn about vaccinations and anaphylactic food allergies. Health Officials, Fauci Deny Vaccine InjuriesMeanwhile, public health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), continue to downplay or flat-out deny that vaccines can and do cause injuries and death, as he did in an interview with CBS News in January 2019.4 The news outlet had featured parents who are concerned about vaccination risks, including one woman whose middle child suffered from severe reactions to vaccinations. Understandably, Eckhart then refused to vaccinate her youngest son and stated, “If I could go back, I wouldn't have vaccinated any of my kids.” When asked what to say to such parents, who have experienced adverse vaccine reactions among their own children and are hesitant to have the same procedure performed on another child, Fauci graciously said they shouldn’t be denigrated but that they must be told vaccines are “very safe.” “[T]he lack of safety and the adverse events, things like autism … that issue is based purely on fabrication and that’s been proven … there is no association whatsoever between the measles vaccine and autism,” he said. When the reporter said that Eckhart believes that perhaps the right studies weren’t being done to show the harm vaccines can cause, Fauci vehemently denied there was any truth in the claim. “That’s not true … that’s just not true, period,” Fauci said, refusing to even entertain the notion that vaccines may cause adverse reactions in some people, and that parents of vaccine-injured children may be justified in their hesitation to vaccinate their other children. Vaccinating Against Measles Because It’s so Contagious?When asked about the once common childhood illnesses that are now the subject of vaccinations, Rife acknowledged that in most cases, those who get measles and especially chicken pox “do just fine.” The reason why measles is considered to be such a danger, she said, is because it’s so contagious, adding that, “If you are not vaccinated for measles and you’re in a room near, or even after, a person with measles left, maybe two hours ago … your chances of catching measles with exposure is 90%.” The fact comes from a 1964 study5 titled “Survival of Measles Virus in Air,” which is often cited by the CDC. “In a closed setting,” the CDC noted, “the measles virus has been reported to have been transmitted by airborne or droplet exposure up to two hours after the measles case occupied the area.”6 Sharon goes on to explain what actually took place during the study, which involved a tiny closet in a laboratory. Researchers sprayed measles virus in the air then collected petri dishes to find out if they contained the virus. There’s no mention of what an infectious dose of the virus may be, but what is noted, she said, is that the humidity in the closet was only 15%. Increasing research is highlighting the importance of humidity levels in the spread of infectious diseases like influenza and COVID-19. Not only does dry air impair the built-in defenses in your respiratory tract,7 but studies on the survival of influenza virus also show a humidity connection, with one suggesting that aerosolized influenza survived the longest when the relative humidity was below 36%.8 Humidity levels in the 40% to 60% range appear to be ideal in lowering your risk of infection, a level you may achieve by placing a humidifier in your bedroom. Some experts suggest public spaces should also maintain minimum humidity levels to protect public health. The point is, the study that the CDC uses to support measles’ contagiousness does not translate to real-world conditions, which are rarely that dry. According to Sharon, when humidity levels were increased, “measles fell to the floor and died.” Even 100% Vaccination Rate Not Enough for Herd ImmunityThe media, as well as public health organizations, typically blame pockets of unvaccinated individuals for measles outbreaks in the U.S., but the percentage of people vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is actually very high. In the 2013-2014 school year, almost 95% of U.S. children entering kindergarten had received two doses of MMR vaccine,9 as had 91.8% of school children ages 13 to 17 years.10 That high rate of vaccination for MMR among U.S. school children continues today.11 This high MMR vaccination rate should theoretically ensure "herd immunity," but cases of both measles and mumps keep occurring, which hints at vaccine failure. Sharon mentioned an article published by New York Daily News in May 2019, written by Dr. Daniel Berman,12 which again blamed measles outbreaks in parts of New York on unvaccinated communities. Fauci was quoted, stating:13
The statement is misleading, according to Berman, who noted that the measles vaccination rate among Jewish school-age children in Brooklyn, New York, is 96%, which is above the 95% threshold said to be required to achieve herd immunity. Population density, social mixing patterns and other factors all affect viral transmission, and there’s also the glaring fact that immunity from the MMR vaccine likely declines in the years following the last booster.14 Unfortunately, with the waning effectiveness of MMR vaccine, protection is not lifelong the way it is following natural infection, leaving older adults potentially vulnerable. As pregnant women no longer have natural immunity to pass on to their newborns, very young infants are also more susceptible to the disease. Authors of one study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases reported that when measles infection is delayed, negative outcomes are 4.5 times worse "than would be expected in a prevaccine era in which the average age at infection would have been lower."15 Meanwhile, in the majority of cases, measles infection resolves on its own without complications Is Forced Vaccination Coming?In a question from viewers of the “When Opinions Collide” video, someone asked whether forced vaccination is on the horizon. Rife said she doesn’t think the public will stand for forced vaccination, but others, like Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar, believe otherwise. According to Alan Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law:
As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which involved the smallpox vaccine. Jacobson had been injured by a previous vaccine and took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the smallpox vaccine. He lost and paid a $5 fine for refusing the vaccine. Dershowitz agreed that the 1905 ruling “is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine,” but that “the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases.” It remains to be seen what the future holds with mandatory vaccination, particularly in light of COVID-19, but one thing is clear: Public health depends not on the compulsory use of vaccines but on the ability for leading minds to openly debate, research and brainstorm solutions to the chronic and acute diseases plaguing the world — solutions that may include vaccinations but must not ignore their potential for harm. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/26/pro-and-anti-vax.aspx Throughout the holiday season, from Thanksgiving through Christmas, cranberries are a popular dietary item. However, based on their health benefits that range from antibacterial to prebiotic, they may be a fruit you’ll want to include in your menu planning year-round. Cranberries are a superfruit based on their high antioxidant and nutrient content. The plants are native to North America so, under the right conditions, it is possible to grow your own. They are perennial vines that flourish when grown in water or on dry land and send out runners measuring up to 6 feet long.1 Short vertical branches develop from the runners and from these the berries form. Commercial plants are grown in bogs, but home gardeners can plant cranberries in well-draining soil with a pH of less than 5. The next consideration is irrigation since alkaline water will affect the pH of the soil. The plants need cold weather for about three months of the year to trigger a dormant phase. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes the North American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) as the standard in the U.S.2 The European variety is grown in parts of central Europe and produces smaller fruit with a different acid profile. The major producing states in the U.S. are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington. Each day you make small choices that affect your overall health. Before reaching for a protein bar or carrot sticks to snack on, think about a tart bowl of cranberries. They are loaded with vitamin C, fiber and phytonutrients that offer protection from several health conditions. Cranberries Help Protect Your Urinary TractThe fruit is probably best known for the role it plays in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs). However, it takes a large concentration of proanthocyanins to affect the biofilm of certain bacteria in the urinary tract walls.3 This means cranberry juice is not the form you want to use since it’s nearly impossible to get the concentration you need without overdosing on sugar. Researchers are continuing to identify the compounds responsible for the benefits you get from eating cranberries. Pectic oligosaccharides and xyloglucan are two classes of biologically active compounds that have been newly recognized in cranberries.4 The oligosaccharides have demonstrated activity similar to other dietary oligosaccharides. This includes the effect it has on microbial growth and bacterial biofilm formation. Researchers theorize this may be one of the beneficial contributing factors to your urinary tract. Soluble oligosaccharides are found in high concentrations in cranberries but the difficulty in detecting these compounds may have led to the contributions they make remaining largely unrecognized. A paper published in 2019 also analyzed the beneficial effects cranberries may have in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD).5 Many of the complications that arise from CKD are also linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, including gut dysbiosis, inflammation and oxidative stress. Data suggest that cranberries may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. This has caused researchers to call for a better understanding of this mechanism to ascertain if supplementation could target these complications found in people with CKD. Although the mechanism of action to date has been poorly understood, one review showed health care professionals commonly recommend cranberries for women who are prone to recurrent UTIs.6 A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in a long-term care facility, where urinary tract infections can have dangerous consequences, demonstrated that cranberry capsules reduce the incidence of UTIs.7 When capsule supplementation was compared against juice, it was apparent the extract reduced the rate of UTI by 50% but the juice did not offer the same benefit.8 High Polyphenol Content Helps Protect Your HeartPolyphenols are a category of naturally occurring plant chemicals that are thought to play a role in the regulation of metabolism, chronic disease, cell proliferation and weight maintenance. Over 8,000 have been identified and a variety of studies demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties may have a therapeutic effect against several prevalent health conditions.9 However, while highly effective when consumed in food, it is necessary to use caution when consuming isolated compounds as overconsumption can lead to harmful effects. Although a deficiency in polyphenols does not cause classical symptoms of deficiency, they have been called “lifespan essentials,” since your body requires them to protect against a range of chronic diseases.10 For example, a systematic review of studies published through June 2018 identified randomized control trials that analyzed the effect of cranberry supplementation on cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors. The researchers found the results demonstrated a reduction in body mass index and systolic blood pressure.11 After further analysis, the data showed that a reduction in systolic blood pressure was more statistically significant when participants’ mean age was 50 or older. Another subgroup analysis suggested an increase in HDL cholesterol in studies where the mean age of participants was less than 50. The researchers concluded that supplementation “may be effective in managing systolic blood pressure, body mass index and high-density lipoprotein in younger adults.”12 A small Interventional study of 78 participants who were overweight or obese with abdominal adiposity demonstrated that using a high polyphenol cranberry extract beverage for eight weeks had significant health effects on the individuals.13 Compared to a placebo, a single dose at the beginning of the study elevated the participants’ nitric oxide and reduced-to-oxidized glutathione ratio. After eight weeks of intervention, the researchers measured lower fasting C-reactive protein levels, serum insulin and an increase in HDL. They concluded:14
Chemoprotective Properties of CranberriesAs discussed, cranberries are rich in bioactive compounds. Researchers have found in lab studies that these compounds may target the inhibition of cancer cell proliferation against 17 different cancers.15 In one study published in early 2020, researchers built on their previous study that had demonstrated whole cranberry supplementation had a chemoprotective effect against colon cancer in an animal model.16 They then sought to determine what effects secondary metabolites of cranberry could have on inhibiting colon cancer. They used cranberry ethyl acetate extract and polyphenol extract to determine the free radical activities. After administration in an animal model, they found these substances significantly suppressed colon cancer cell proliferation without any noticeable adverse effects.17 Laboratory studies demonstrated the mechanism of cancer inhibition included:18
The researchers found the data in their literature review strongly supported:19
Cranberries Enhance Oral HealthIn similar action that cranberries take against biofilm in the urinary tract wall, researchers have found compounds in cranberries have antibacterial and antiviral biofilm activity in the oral cavity. Using a selected cranberry extract rich in polyphenols, researchers evaluated the minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration against six bacterial pathogenic biofilms commonly found in the oral cavity.20 The activity of the extract was measured in the lab, and data showed there was significant inhibition against Streptococcus oralis, Actinomyces naeslundii and Veillonella parvula. Additionally, compounds in the cranberry extract interfered with periodontal pathogenic biofilms in the first six hours of development. The human mouth has a complex oral microbial community with more than 700 different species. Disturbing the equilibrium in a complex ecosystem can shift the balance to over-representation of pathogenic species. Streptococcus mutans is a dominant species found in supragingival plaque, which subjects the teeth to high concentrations of metabolites and ultimately results in dental disease.21 Bacteria in the biofilm are metabolically active, which triggers changes in pH and increases the loss of minerals from teeth. Another study evaluated the biological properties of cranberry juice against S. mutans biofilms in the mouth.22 They found topical application with one-minute exposure two times a day could reduce the biomass and glucan content of the biofilm. The researchers concluded the data “holds promise as a natural product to prevent biofilm-related oral diseases.” Protect Your Gut Health With This Tasty PrebioticYour gut health plays a powerful role in your immune system, cardiovascular health and mood. People with a healthy gut microbiome are better able to fight off infectious agents like bacteria, fungus and viruses. Your gut and brain also communicate through nerves and hormones, helping to maintain general health and mood.23 Bacteria in your gut produce neurochemicals used to regulate physiological processes and about 95% of your serotonin, which has an influence over your gastrointestinal activity and your mood.24 Additionally, your gut bacteria have an effect on common risk factors for heart disease, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes and blood pressure. Each of these factors raise your risk of heart disease.25 Suffice it to say, when you take care of your gut microbiome, they are primed and ready to take care of you. One way you can influence the balance of bacteria is through the food you eat. Some foods you eat have complex carbohydrates that microorganisms in your gut require for nutrition. These are called prebiotics as they are the food source that feed the healthy bacteria. Prebiotic complex carbohydrates include pectin, inulin and resistant starches.26 These are molecules that humans cannot digest but are necessary for healthy microbial growth. One study published by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst discovered that some beneficial bacteria in the gut thrive on the carbohydrates found in cranberries.27 Researchers were excited by the potential impact to health this may have. Nutritional microbiologist David Sela from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst participated in the study and explained:28
If you’d like to include cranberries in your diet, consider adding them to your salad, pop some in your smoothie and add them to chutneys, relishes or salsas. The tart flavor goes well with grain-free pancakes or try tossing with spinach and chicken salad. If you slice them before adding to your food, they’re easier to chew.29 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/26/cranberries-health-benefits.aspx In the days before Thanksgiving, public health spokespeople like Dr. Anthony Fauci urged Americans to gather virtually instead of in person to avoid potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2.1 The same calls for abstinence from friends and family were heard in Canada just before its October 12 Thanksgiving holiday.2 December 7, 2020, Fauci warned that the COVID-19 surge caused by families gathering for Thanksgiving was still ahead of us. “The blip from Thanksgiving isn't even here yet. So, we're getting those staggering numbers of new cases and hospitalizations before we even feel the full brunt of the Thanksgiving holiday," he said.3 Fauci suspects an upsurge of positive tests in the days leading up to Christmas and Hanukkah, stating that January 2021 "could be a really dark time.” Back in mid-November, Fauci stated that a successful mass vaccination campaign may be needed in order for Americans to be able to gather freely for the holidays — next year!4 Unelected COVID-19 czar Bill Gates, meanwhile, has gone on record saying self-isolation, business shutdowns and other restrictions will likely need to continue into 2022, even with a successful vaccine.5 UK Christmas RulesIn the U.K., a special set of restrictions have been issued for the five-day window of December 23 through December 27, 2020. Residents of Northern Ireland get one additional day on either side of these dates for travel. The three-tier system of COVID restrictions6 rolled out at the end of November 2020 will be temporarily loosened to allow greater numbers of people to gather indoors in high-restriction areas. Up to three households, including your own, will be allowed to gather indoors. “You shouldn’t mix with lots of different people every day. You need to pick your favorites and only see them during this period,” BBC health correspondent Laura Foster says in her Christmas rules video (above), adding that:
Scotland specifies only eight people, at most, will be allowed at any given gathering, not counting children under the age of 12. Depending on the tier your area is in, you may or may not be allowed to gather with additional people outdoors. The video below sums up the ridiculousness of these kinds of micromanaging nanny-state rules quite nicely. Is It Worth the Risk?Even with restrictions on group sizes and various rules on mask wearing and sanitation requirements, we’re being urged to consider whether getting together with your loved ones is really worth the risk this year. By insisting on human contact, you may inadvertently kill someone you love, the warning goes. This is particularly true for elderly grandparents, who are at higher risk for complications from the infection. What’s missing from this conversation is a key piece of logic, which is that every day of your life involves the risk of death. There are no guarantees that any one of us will see the sun rise tomorrow. In the past, most of us have braved the wild unknown to see our loved ones, knowing in the back of our minds, if only subconsciously, that we might die in a car accident on the way, or that the plane might crash. We also accepted that we might come down with the flu at some point during the winter. Yet rarely if ever did such concerns stop us. Barring certain mental health conditions, we all accepted not knowing what was to come, and went about our daily business with what now is viewed as reckless abandon. We are now told that COVID-19 poses such an incredibly high risk that nothing is worth it. The problem with that is that the actual risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 — for the vast majority of people — is no greater than any other risk they’ve taken on any given day in their life thus far. What Does the Data Say About Your Risk?Research7 shows that the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID-19 is 0.26%. Those under the age of 40 have an infection fatality ratio of 0.01%, while people over 60 have an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%. The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza cited in this paper is 0.8%. In other words, most people have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. How many times in your life have you canceled plans for fear you might contract influenza? Even more importantly, how many times have you feared you might spread influenza to an elderly relative when you have no symptoms of a cold or influenza? The issue of asymptomatic spread has lingered for months, but recent data8 from 9,899,828 residents of Wuhan city who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection found that not a single one of the 1,174 people who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual tested positive. Further testing of asymptomatic patients showed that 63.3% of them had antibodies. This means that even though they never developed symptoms, they did at some point have a productive infection that resulted in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected. In other words, even in cases where asymptomatics were (or had been) carriers of apparently live virus, they still did not transmit it to others. Reasons for this appears to be because asymptomatics have very low viral loads and shed the virus for a very short period of time. These findings seem to support studies9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 suggesting that immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined. Other data17,18 show the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady during 2020 and doesn’t veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway. Where Did Seasonal Flu Go?Seasonal influenza, by the way, is also nonexistent this year. According to the World Health Organization, there has not been a single reported case of influenza since week 17 of 2020 anywhere in the world.19 That alone should tell us something about the real COVID-19 numbers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reports20 that reported flu hospitalizations are too low to generate an estimate of the influenza burden for the 2020 season. That said, it still estimates that up to 740,000 Americans were hospitalized for influenza and as many as 62,000 died from influenza between October 1, 2019, through April 4, 2020. Statistics21 released by the CDC August 26, 2020, also show that only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. As of December 15, 2020, the CDC reported 300,032 Americans had died with COVID-19.22 Using the 6% sole-cause calculation, we can extrapolate that 18,002 Americans have died from COVID-19 alone, and not some other underlying condition or accidental cause. When looking at these numbers, doesn’t it strike you as odd that one type of death is considered so much worse than another? Why is it worth shutting down businesses and shunning social interactions for COVID-19 but not for influenza, which clearly is just as lethal? Why is it more unacceptable to die from COVID-19 than the flu, or heart disease, or cancer? Why are some deaths acceptable while COVID-19 deaths are to be avoided at all cost? Why are healthy people told they must cease all semblance of life to protect the vulnerable while no one has ever had to quit living to prevent any other kind of death, including accidents that could be avoided by banning certain everyday activities. Are You Sacrificing That Which Matters Most?Of course, I’m not telling anyone what to do. I would encourage you, though, to ponder what matters. Most people will agree that the most valuable moments in life are those spent with family and friends, especially elderly relatives whose days are already numbered. Those very moments that make life worth living are now being stolen — if we let them. The question is, what value do we place on family, versus the risk of illness? As mentioned, Gates predicts social restrictions will need to stay in place for the next two years. Are you willing to give up three years of life for an illness that poses no greater threat to life than a bad flu season? How about five years? Ten? In all likelihood, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is here to stay, just like the pandemic swine flu, which is now one of the many viruses we encounter in any given flu season. In 2009, the swine flu pandemic was touted as a grave threat, yet no panic has ensued in the years since, even though it’s still in circulation. Why is that? Why should SARS-CoV-2 be any different? As noted by A.J. Kay in a recent Medium article,23 “If safety requires us to indefinitely forfeit the most valuable parts of our lives, what exactly are we trying to save?” According to a report24,25 by the AARP and United Health Foundation, social distancing measures have led to an epidemic of loneliness, and this too has significant risks that should be included in the risk-benefit calculation as it increases mortality from every cause.26 Public health researcher Kassandra Alcaraz recently told the American Psychological Association:27
Pandemic Measures Sabotage HealthI believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of people, especially our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions. Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent. But it’s clearly taking a cruel toll on the elderly as well. If you knew your days were numbered, how would you want to spend them? Would your main concern be to prevent an infection that might speed up the inevitable, or would you want to spend whatever time you have left surrounded by those you love? These are significant questions that will guide your choices and thus the course of your life, and they’re more pressing now than ever. So, choose wisely this holiday season, because whatever you choose, you’ll have to live with your choices. Stop Believing in Unscientific LockdownsIt’s high time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. A powerful essay28 in the American Institute for Economic Research does just that. It specifically questions whether lockdowns really are the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic. Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up. However, the vast majority of those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic and pose no real risk. A rising “case” load also does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. As you can see in the graph below, positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue do not correlate with COVID-19 deaths in red.29 Santa Reveals How COVID-19 Hurt His BusinessTo close on a slightly lighter note, in a December 16, 2020, interview with Patrick Bet-David, Tim Connaghan, a national Santa, the official Santa for Los Angeles Christmas Parade, and founder of the International University of Santa Claus, reveals how COVID-19 has impacted the Santa business. Like everyone else, Santa’s around the world have had to adjust to a number of restrictions. While many are still working the malls, social distancing procedures are being observed, which means no children on Santa’s lap, for example. They also wear masks or clear face shields. Other Santa’s have joined the virtual landscape. If you’re curious about how to become a professional Santa Claus, listen to Connaghan, who has an interesting story about how he ended up teaching this unusual job. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/25/covid-christmas-rules.aspx The constant barrage of media headlines about COVID-19 deaths serve as triggers for fear and justification for perpetuating lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and, ultimately, increased tracking and tracing; never mind that the total mortality rate in 2020 is normal and on par with other non-pandemic years.1,2 What’s not normal, though, is the way people are dying in 2020. No matter the cause, people who enter hospitals are forced to go alone, leaving their family members behind, sometimes for the last time. Unable to comfort and be near loved ones in their final moments, the pain for survivors continues long after their loved ones’ deaths, as the rituals of mourning are also interrupted and experienced, again, largely in isolation. Traditionally, Americans mark losses by gathering together to share their grief with others, holding vigils, giving hugs and reminiscing about better times. “By contrast, in bedside farewells via FaceTime, drive-by burials as under-attended as Jay Gatsby’s, and digital funerals on Zoom,” a STAT news article noted, “we’ve been forced to mourn the victims of the novel coronavirus in a numbing new way: more or less alone.”3 Worldwide Rise in Prolonged Grief Disorder ExpectedProlonged grief disorder (PGD) was added to the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases in 2018.4 It describes a persistent and pervasive longing for the deceased person, or a preoccupation with them, that persists for more than six months. The longing is accompanied by intense emotional pain, such as sadness, guilt or anger, as well as:
Such feelings are normal during bereavement, and the push to “medicalize” grief is controversial. In this case, the distinction that moves “normal bereavement” into the category of a mental health problem is that the intense grief continues for a long period of time and also causes disturbances in your ability to function socially and professionally.5 Disruptions to traditional grief rituals, including the ability to say goodbye and viewing and burial of the body, are known to increase symptoms of prolonged grief disorder. Cases also rise when physical social support is absent — something that is being made out as the new normal during the pandemic. Writing in the journal Psychiatry Research, researchers from the Netherlands suggested, “[I]n the development and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate that, worldwide, PGD will become a major public health concern.”6 Further, “due to government policy targeting the pandemic, the same potential risk factors could also increase grief severity of people whose family members died through other causes than COVID-19.”7 Psychiatric Pandemic LoomingThe loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult events in a person’s life. Being forced to go through the loss and grieving process in social isolation and without the comfort of long-held bereavement rituals is a “recipe for a psychiatric pandemic,” according to experts from the Iran University of Medical Sciences.8 They’re among many sounding an alarm that COVID-19 social distancing and quarantine polices are increasing the likelihood of PGD, making an already difficult life event even harder to process. They stated:9
Humans are social creatures, but government policies are demanding that people “show their love” by staying away from others, which is contrary to human nature and human need, especially during times of crisis. There’s nothing “normal” about holding up a sign outside a hospital window while a loved one lies dying inside, but this is a scenario that happens daily during the pandemic. One man recounted the details to STAT News of losing his 83-year-old father during the pandemic; his father spent three weeks in the hospital, alone:10
Pandemic Restrictions Affect All Stages of GriefIt’s often said that there are five stages of grief — denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. You may or may not experience every one of them, and people vary widely in their experiences of each. Some people skip several stages, may experience them in a different order or may revert back to stages that have already been “completed.” What’s apparent, however, is that lockdowns, social distancing and other pandemic requirements are interfering with every one of these stages, making it nearly impossible for people to work through their intense feelings:11
Experts are predicting that these profound disruptions are going to lead to a wave of unresolved bereavement, depression and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as humans are robbed of their ability to participate in age-old bereavement rituals.13 Grief Reactions More Severe During the PandemicIn the first empirical comparison of grief before the COVID-19 pandemic and during it, researchers questioned 1,600 bereaved adults, including those who had experienced a loss before the pandemic and those who suffered a loss during the pandemic, within the last five months. Those who lost a loved one during the pandemic experienced more severe grief compared to those who experienced a loss before it, which suggests the loss was more difficult during the pandemic. The results suggested the pandemic “has a small but robust negative effect on psychological adjustment after non-COVID-19-related deaths during the pandemic."14 Different types of grief are also likely, including anticipatory grief, as loved ones are forced to watch an intensifying medical situation for their loved one from afar. Disenfranchised grief, which is grief unacknowledged by society or social norms, is also likely, especially in the absence of rituals like funerals.15 Again, researchers urged palliative care professionals, grief counselors and policy makers to prepare for heightened levels of grief in people bereaved during the pandemic.16 Losses in Many Areas of Life Lead to ‘Bereavement Overload’During the pandemic, individuals may be faced with mounting losses in addition to losing a loved one. Loss of freedom is among them, as lockdowns become a new way of life for many. This triggers secondary losses of relationships, recreation and social support. What’s more, Yusen Zhai and Xue Du from Pennsylvania State University argued that such multiple losses will prove to be detrimental to mental and physical health, putting civilians and first responders “in peril of bereavement overload:”17
Already, Americans’ mental health is suffering, and those with existing mental health conditions may not come out unscathed. In a survey of U.S. young adults, those with a mental health diagnosis were far more likely to be struggling mentally during the pandemic than those without a diagnosis — by more than sixfold for depression and four- to sixfold for anxiety and PTSD.18 Higher levels of COVID-19-related worry and grief, poorer sleep, and poorer reported health-related quality of life were also noted among people with a suspected or reported mental health condition. It’s also likely that the pandemic is pushing people on the brink of mental illness over the edge. The Psychiatry Research study reported:19
EFT for Grieving and Holiday StressIf you’re struggling with grief, it’s important to seek out activities and people that will help lift your spirits. Now is not the time to isolate yourself but to embrace human contact and emotional support. It’s unfortunate that “pandemic shaming” has become a U.S. pastime, and people may be vilified for seeking to spend time with their loved ones, even when their mental health is at stake.20 There is reason to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public,” according to Dr. Roger Hodkinson, one of Canada’s top pathologists and an expert in virology, yet people are being told to stay away from their families, during what could turn out to be the last days or weeks of their time together. It’s not humans who are to blame for desiring essential connections with others, but the impossible mandates being placed upon them that are making such connections seem criminal. That being said, if you’re alone with your grief, you can most certainly record your thoughts in a journal, as both talking and journaling can help you work through intense feelings. In the video above, Julie Schiffman demonstrates how to use the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) for grief. EFT is an energy psychology method designed to help you process emotions and reprogram your body's reactions related to them. Even if you have never used EFT before, take a few minutes to learn the technique and then use it whenever grief surfaces. Because feelings of grief and loss tend to be intensified during the holidays, I’ve also included the video below on tapping for holiday stress. During this particularly challenging time for grieving, be gentle with yourself and your feelings, and be open to experiencing them fully — a necessary prerequisite to healing. My Personal Deep Grieving ResolutionI lost both of my parents unexpectedly a few years ago within a year of each other. My mom was six years younger than my dad, but she passed away first quite unexpectedly of natural causes. It was the most profound grief experience I have ever gone through and allows me to better understand the pain that many of you have or still continue to struggle with. These unnecessary COVID restrictions only contribute to the grief as you are unable to socialize with other family members and friends, which certainly helps when you need someone to lean on. I am very grateful they both passed before this dystopian nightmare we are currently cruising through, as I would have had loads more of forgiveness to go through. Anyway, what I found to be an incredibly valuable resource was the book “Letting Go: The Pathway of Surrender” by Dr. David Hawkins. Hawkins was one of the most brilliant medical minds of our time and I regret never having had the opportunity to interview him. The book was published in 2014 and it was the last one he wrote before he passed. He provides simple explanations and approaches to be with the pain, which ultimately catalyzes its release. I was miserable, grief stricken and depressed for two weeks prior to reading it but the pain quickly resolved after applying his techniques. If any of you are struggling with grief I highly recommend this book. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/24/prolonged-grief-disorder.aspx “Oh, the weather outside is frightful …” or at least that’s how it’s depicted in song in the weeks before Christmas when many envision sitting before a roaring fire with a cup of eggnog. In the U.S., the traditional drink is passed around from October through December, when sales of the store-bought variety fall precipitously after Christmas.1 In the last 50 years, sales in grocery stores have quadrupled. Although it’s impossible to measure the popularity of the homemade version, it’s estimated people in the U.S. drink more than 135 million pounds of it annually.2 While most eggnog is consumed over a short two months of the year around Thanksgiving and Christmas, retailers have noticed that the colder it is outside, the more eggnog they sell. Sales in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. outstrip the Southern states, but even in areas that are normally cold, when the temperature goes up, sales go down. Despite fluctuations in sales around cold weather, culinary historian Andrew Smith reports that eggnog was traditionally a Southern drink when, in the early days of the U.S., alcohol consumption at Christmas was frowned upon.3 The Original Nog Was Made With Wine or BeerThe original eggnog made its first appearance around the 13th century in England.4 Only the wealthy could afford eggnog as it was made with liquors, eggs and milk that were rare foods for commoners. Large estates had farms and there was no refrigeration that would allow the ingredients to stay fresh.5 Most believe the first iteration of eggnog was the British “posset.” This was a hot milk drink that included ale. Posset may have been used to treat colds and flu when the drink was mixed with ale and spices.6 The upper-class mixed it with sherry or brandy instead of beer. Since milk, eggs and sherry were foods only the wealthy could afford, eggnog became associated with toasting for prosperity.7 It wasn't until the 1700s when the drink was brought to the Americas that it became tied to the holidays. Since many of the colonies had farms that were full of chickens and cows, eggnog made the jump from the aristocracy to the rest of society. However, sherry was still expensive in the Americas because of heavy taxing, so cheaper rum from the Caribbean was added instead.8 Eggnog first made an appearance in written prose in a comic poem by Jonathan Boucher in 1775. But the earliest connection with Christmas came in the Virginia Chronicle in 1793 when it was reported:9
The drink has become a tradition across the world, with a few alterations depending on the country. In Mexico, it's known as rompope, which was a drink created in a convent in Puebla.10 The basic recipe adds cinnamon and rum or grain alcohol. In Peru, it's called biblia con pisco and made with Peruvian pomace brandy. The Germans call their drink Biersuppe and it’s made with beer. And, in Iceland, they have a soup resembling eggnog that’s served as a hot dessert without alcohol. People who love the drink say the store-bought variety doesn’t come close to the taste and texture of what you can make at home. What’s in a Name?The drink is still sometimes called “egg flip” in Britain, referring to how it was made. Some in Australia also call it an “eggflip,” made with vanilla, milk, raw egg, sugar and grated nutmeg. Kidspot.au writes it “is a healthy, nutritious meal in a glass. Just don't tell the kids that there is an egg in it and they will never know.”11 It is a mystery how the word “nog” came to be associated with eggnog. There are several theories, none of which have been proven. One says the word nog was the name of a strong beer made in East Anglia, England, that had a higher alcoholic content than other types of beer or ale.12 When eggs were added, the drink became eggnog.13 Another says the word comes from the word “noggin,” which today means a person’s head, but in Middle English meant a carved wooden mug in which people drank alcohol. Another theory says it came from the word “nug,” which is a type of ale drunk in Scotland that is warmed by a fire poker. And finally, a theory that isn't as plausible says the drink was named only after arriving in the colonies, coming from the term "grog" that refers to the rum early Americans used in their eggnog.14 The term grog morphed into nog and became eggnog. Wherever the term originated, it started showing up in the early 19th century in England and America. Is There a Raw Egg in Your Nog?Traditionally, homemade eggnog is made with a raw egg or two, depending on how much you’re making. However, if you’re getting the store-bought variety, you’ll find the FDA limits the amount of raw egg to 1% egg yolk, which is barely enough to say that there is an egg in the drink.15 Along with the minuscule portion of an egg are several other ingredients you may not be able to pronounce, as well as pasteurized milk products, sweeteners and artificial flavors.16 If you choose to make your own healthy recipe at home, I highly advise only using eggs from certified organic and true pasture-raised chickens from a trustworthy local farmer. Eggs from conventionally farmed hens can increase your risk of infections and diseases like salmonella, as bacteria proliferate in livestock raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where conditions are cramped and unsanitary. Local farmers that grow their hens in certified organic and true pasture-raised environments use stainable methods, including clean and spacious coops with adequate access to sunlight and room for the hens to forage for their natural food. This is why salmonella contamination is rare in these animals. You can see the difference in the yolk of eggs harvested from CAFOs or pasture-raised chickens. Egg yolks from CAFOs are a light-yellow anemic color, while egg yolks from pasture-raised chickens are a rich orange color. The same is true for raw milk. Many believe that pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk from grass fed cows, but this simply isn't true, provided the raw milk is from a high-quality source. Pasteurization is necessary for commercial milk since the cows are exposed to contamination and disease and loaded with antibiotics that proliferate antibiotic-resistant infections. The pasteurization kills the bacteria but leaves the protein shell in the milk. Raw milk from grass fed, pastured cows that are raised in clean and healthy conditions do not present these dangers. Instead the milk is teaming with nutrients, beneficial bacteria and probiotics, which are benefits you simply cannot get from CAFO milk. Fun Facts About the Traditional Holiday DrinkWhether you are a fan of the rich egg/milk mixture or think it’s a drink best relegated to long-past traditions,17 eggnog has an interesting history. According to the Old Farmer's Almanac, the first U.S. president enjoyed eggnog during the Christmas season. His recipe had an unhealthy amount of alcohol and sugar and didn’t specify the number of eggs needed. Printed in his words, Washington wrote:18
Dwight Eisenhower loved to destress by cooking and concocted his own eggnog recipe that called for “one dozen egg yolks, 1 pound of granulated sugar, 1 quart of bourbon, 1 quart of coffee cream (half & half), and 1 quart of whipping cream.” The tradition of drinking eggnog laced with alcohol during the Christmas season was brought to a halt at West Point Academy in 1826. Earlier in the year, Col. Sylvanus Thayer, who was known as the “father of West Point,” forbade alcohol on campus. What followed became known as the Eggnog Riot.19 It began when some cadets smuggled liquor on campus for a holiday party and proceeded to get inebriated. By the end of the night, there were smashed windows, broken furniture and gunshots. No one was hurt, but one month later 19 students had been court-martialed and 11 were ultimately expelled from the school.20 In 1920 a British journalist, Pierce Egan, invented an eggnog drink made with rum and brandy. He called it the “Tom and Jerry.” Some believe the Tom and Jerry cartoon was named after the drink.21 Delicious and Healthy Holiday TreatWhether you enjoy it each year or are considering trying it this year for the first time, using a homemade eggnog recipe is your best choice for appreciating the real flavor of the drink and avoiding unnecessary ingredients from the store-bought variety. It's important to remember that when alcohol is consumed in excessive amounts it can wreak havoc on your liver and overall health. The good news is that you can enjoy a healthy and delicious eggnog drink without alcohol. Judy Peacock, a Mercola.com reader, shared her personal healthy eggnog recipe that is delicious, alcohol-free and perfect for all ages. Consider trying it this season. Healthy Holiday Eggnog Recipe
Serving Size: 1
Ingredients • 2 or 3 raw pastured eggs • Your milk of choice, such as grass fed cow's milk or coconut milk, enough to fill your glass or mug • A dash of nutmeg or vanilla • Raw honey to taste • One scoop of whey protein powder (optional) Procedure
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/23/where-did-eggnog-come-from.aspx According to the World Economic Forum — the private, technocratic group leading the global economic “reset” agenda — lab-grown, cultured meat is a more sustainable alternative to conventional livestock. As noted on its website:1
Fake Meat Is a Catastrophe for Your Metabolic HealthExcess omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA) is one of the most significant contributors to metabolic dysfunction. It is literally a metabolic poison that, in my opinion, is the primary contributor to the epidemic in chronic disease we have seen in the past 150 years. I am so passionate about this topic, I’m currently writing a new book with Chris Knobbe about this that will be out next year. Our LA consumption 150 years ago was between 2 and 3 grams per day. Today it is 10 to 20 times higher. This leads to severe mitochondrial dysfunction, insulin resistance, decreased NAD+ levels, obesity and a radical decrease in your ability to generate cellular energy. It is obvious that fake meat requires basic substrates or building blocks to create the actual food. The genetic engineering is primarily done to reproduce the flavor and texture composition of real meat. What this process fails to do on steroids is reproduce the healthy fatty acid composition of real meat. Why? Because they are using canola and safflower as the primary source of fats for their products. The safflower oil used in Beyond Meats is nearly 80% LA. The canola oil used in the Impossible Burger is only 21% LA, so it should be better but both are extraordinarily loaded with unhealthy levels of LA.2 You would be exponentially better served by selecting real meat that is organic and humanely raised. This is because the LA content of beef and bison is extraordinarily low and, in my view, one of the primary reasons they are so healthy for you. This is largely because excess LA is extraordinarily susceptible to oxidation and causes very dangerous oxidation by products called OXLAMs (oxidative linoleic acid metabolites) that devastate your DNA, proteins, mitochondria and cellular membranes. A half-pound serving of organic grass fed beef will provide less than HALF a gram of LA (500 mg). Compare this to a serving of an Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat burger, which have 10 to 20 times the amount of LA.3 So not only is fake meat failing all the measures discussed in the rest of this article but it is also adding to the catastrophic metabolic deterioration of your health caused by other processed and ultraprocessed foods. I recently interviewed Tucker Goodrich about the dangers of LA, so for more information, refer back to that interview. Fake Meat Industry Offers No Real SolutionsOver the past several years, a growing number of start-up companies have joined the brave new world movement to replace real meat with ultraprocessed imitation meats “grown” through a variety of means. Among them are the Israeli company Aleph Farms, which in mid-2019 introduced the first lab-grown steak,4 the Singaporean company Shiok Meats, which specializes in lab-grown shrimp,5 and Beyond Meat, which produces imitation beef, pork and chicken in its Chinese facilities. Then there’s the Impossible Burger, made with genetically engineered (GE) soy, which is now available in burger chains,6 restaurants,7 grocers8 and Target stores9 across the U.S. Despite claims of sustainability, a careful review of its 2019 Impact Report10 and other data11,12,13 reveals this soy-based “meat” actually causes greater environmental harm than organic grass fed beef production, which has net negative emissions after all relevant factors are taken into account.14 A Carbon Footprint Evaluation report15 for White Oak Pastures — an organic, grass fed livestock operation — shows that when you include enteric emissions, manure emissions, soil carbon capture, vegetation carbon, miscellaneous farm activities, slaughter and transport, the total net carbon emissions from this type of beef production has a negative 3.5 kilos of carbon emissions per kilo of fresh meat. This makes this integrated, holistic system six times more carbon efficient than the average CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) production model.16 The same cannot be said for GE soy. Data also show GE soybean and corn farms are a primary source of water17 and air pollution,18 and are primary destroyers of grasslands and forests.19,20 Regenerative grazing is actually a key activity required for the optimal sequestering of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into our rangelands and pasturelands, while GE soy production is associated with resistant super weeds21 and super pests and uncontrollable cross contamination. Taken together, these data prove that if sustainability and environmental protection are in fact priorities, then regenerative farming practices that incorporate grazing herds are the way to go, not fake meat and junk food manufacturing. Fake Meat Is Another Effort to Control Food SupplyConsidering everything we know, why won’t our leaders support organic, regenerative, biodynamic farming proven to have a beneficial impact on the environment, climate and human health? It seems like doing so would be a no-brainer. The answer, unfortunately, is that it’s not really about doing what’s best for the planet or its inhabitants. It’s about wealth and power building. In short, the rise of fake meat is yet another attempt at controlling the global food supply through patents, just like staple grains have been genetically altered and patented. Once living animals are eliminated and replaced with patented plant-derived alternatives — just like tradable heirloom and conventional seeds were replaced with patented seeds you have to pay for each season — private companies will effectively control the food supply in its entirety, and they will be the ones profiting from it rather than farmers. By controlling the food supply, private corporations will ultimately have the ability to control countries and entire populations. If we allow this trend to continue, biotech companies will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation. Looking down the road, it’s easy to see that patented foods actually threaten food security. They don’t strengthen it at all. Environmentalist and anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., is an outspoken critic22 of the industrial food movement and the GE food takeover specifically, highlighting the many social and environmental problems a patented food system creates. As noted by Shiva in a June 18, 2019, article,23 “Biodiversity-intensive and poison-free agriculture … produces more nutrition per acre while rejuvenating the planet. It shows the path to ‘Zero Hunger’ …” She also points out that while industrial agriculture uses 75% of available farmland, it produces just 30% of the food we actually eat.
Fake Meat Is Ultraprocessed FoodIndeed, when it comes to nutrition and health, there’s absolutely no reason to believe any of these imitation meats will be better — or even equal — to real meat. Any food that isn’t directly from the vine, ground, bush, tree, body of water or an animal is considered processed. Depending on the amount of change the food undergoes, processing may be minimal or significant. A hallmark of ultraprocessed foods is their long ingredient lists. Products at the far end of the “significantly altered” spectrum have been robustly linked to obesity,25 ill health and early death in a number of studies.26,27,28,29,30 For example, in one study,31,32,33,34 which included 104,980 participants followed for an average of five years, each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food intake raised the cancer rate by 12%, which worked out to nine additional cancer cases per 10,000 people per year. The risk of breast cancer specifically went up by 11% for every 10% increase in ultraprocessed food. While sugar and unhealthy fats (vegetable oils) are key staple ingredients suspected of causing these effects, there’s every reason to believe fake meat has a similar impact as I referenced in the section above. If you click on the link to the reference I quoted, you can see all the unhealthy ingredients that are loaded into it. All of these factors place fake meat squarely in the higher-risk ultraprocessed category. Enter Human Cell-Based MeatNow, in a move reminiscent of something straight out of the dystopian film “Soylent Green,” scientists are even working on meat grown from human cells harvested from the inside of your cheek.35,36 The inventors of this grisly product — presented as “art,” for the time being — are Andrew Pelling, a scientist and founder of the biotech company Spiderwort, Grace Knight, an industrial designer, and Orkan Telhan, an artist. As reported by Tech Times, November 22, 2020:37
The human-cell steak kits are not yet commercially available, but one wonders what possessed someone to even think this might be a viable idea. Would you eat a lump of meat made from your own body? Critics have raised questions about whether this would be considered cannibalism. Defenders of the concept claim it’s not, since it’s grown from your own cells.39 However, if this concept ever does become commercially available, what’s to prevent you from growing meat using other people’s cells? Is it only cannibalism if you eat the cloned meat of someone other than yourself? These tricky debates aside, the ick factor alone will likely prevent this concept from taking off. Tech Times points out that this particular concept also isn’t nearly as animal-friendly as people might think, as the human cells are grown in fetal bovine serum — blood extracted from unborn calf fetuses.40 An alternative might be to use expired human blood from blood banks.41 Real Food = LifeIn her 2019 article,42 Shiva discussed the progressive attempts at industrializing the global food system with more fake foods and fake meats, and the destruction that inevitably follows:
When you look at the whole ecological cycle — of which grazing herds are a crucial part — you can clearly see how industrial agriculture and fake meat manufacturing are key drivers of progressive destruction, yet this destructive cycle is defended in the name of affordable food and the need to feed a growing population. While we certainly need to maximize food production in affordable ways, what’s being proposed is incredibly short-sighted as it shifts all food production into laboratories and factories that produce patented foods, the profits of which never reach the population at large. One also has to wonder whether humans will be able to live long productive lives eating an all-fake diet. Think about it. Grain production is already dominated by patented GE grains. Add to that imitation “milk” and “egg” products and imitation beef, poultry and seafood and what real food do you have left? Fruits and vegetables, basically, but even these foods will eventually become fair game for reengineering and patenting. It’s a dangerous trend that poses tremendous risks to food security and global health. Choose Organic, Biodynamic and/or Grass FedFor years, I have advocated for an organic (or better yet biodynamic) diet to optimize your health, avoid common health problems, help regenerate the environment and normalize climate. Choosing organic foods reduces your exposure to pesticides, herbicides, GE ingredients, synthetic food additives and nano ingredients, many of which do not appear on the food label. In addition to protecting the environment and rebuilding soil, buying organic also supports animal welfare and promotes biodiversity of plants and wildlife. Although many see lab-created meat substitutes as the lesser of two evils when compared to the concentrated animal feeding operations currently dominating the market, altering the natural order of the lifecycle is not the answer. Analyses on regenerative agriculture have demonstrated holistic herd management as having a positive impact on the environment and producing healthy meat and dairy products. Ultimately, fake food contributes to the rising number of people who suffer from diet-related health conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity. For health reasons, ecological reasons and your future, I recommend skipping meat alternatives and opting for real beef raised using regenerative farming practices. When you do shop for meat, look for a local organic farmer or Demeter (biodynamic) and American Grassfed Association (AGA) certified meats. These accreditations designate foods produced under high-quality, sustainable and environmentally sound practices. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/23/cultured-meat-from-human-steam-cells.aspx With COVID-19 still dominating headlines, influenza (flu) has been conspicuous in its absence, especially during what is typically peak flu season. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza (flu) and pneumonia deaths weekly through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Reporting System. It also creates a preliminary estimate of the burden of seasonal flu, based on crude rates of lab-confirmed flu hospitalizations. Such estimates are intended to give an idea of how many people have been sick from or died from the flu in any given season — that is, except for 2020. “April 4, 2020, was the last week in-season preliminary burden estimates were provided,” the CDC wrote on its 2019-2020 U.S. flu season webpage.1 The reason the estimates stopped in April is because flu cases plummeted so low that they’re hardly worth tracking. In an update posted December 3, 2020, the CDC stated:2
They also added, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”3 Flu Deaths Plummet While COVID Cases RiseIn late summer 2020, warnings surfaced that there might soon be a “twin-demic” of flu and COVID-19 that would decimate the globe.4 So far, this hasn’t panned out. In the U.S., the CDC reported that the percentage of respiratory specimens submitted for influenza testing that test positive decreased from greater than 20% to 2.3% since the start of the pandemic. As of September 18, 2020, they noted that positive influenza tests have “remained at historically low interseasonal levels (0.2% versus 1 to 2%).”5 Further, from September 29, 2019-February 29, 2020 to March 1-May 16, 2020, the CDC noted a 98% decrease in influenza activity.6 Similar drops have been observed worldwide, including in the Southern Hemisphere countries of Australia, Chile and Southern Africa, which often serve as sentinels for influenza activity in the U.S. All three areas had very low influenza activity during June to August 2020, which is their peak flu season. From April to July 2020, only 33 influenza positive test results were detected in Australia; 12 in Chile; and six in South Africa, for a total of 51 positive tests. For comparison, during April to July in 2017 to 2019, 24,512 specimens tested positive for influenza.7 It was initially thought that the steep drops in influenza activity were due to decreased testing, since people with respiratory symptoms likely received COVID-19 tests instead. However, according to the CDC, public health officials have made a concerted effort to test for flu, and even though “adequate numbers” have been tested, little to no flu virus has been detected. In Australia, meanwhile, they tested “markedly more specimens for influenza” this season than usual, yet still detected very few cases of flu.8 So what happened to the flu? CDC Tracking Combines COVID, Flu and Pneumonia DeathsThe “COVID” deaths the CDC has been reporting are actually a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID-deaths, under a new category listed as "PIC" (pneumonia, Influenza, COVID). Their COVIDView webpage, which provides a weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, states that levels of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and “associated illnesses” have been increasing since September 2020, while the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia, flu and COVID-19 has been on the rise since October.9 As noted by professor William M. Briggs, a statistical consultant and policy adviser at the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, in the video above, “CDC, up until about July 2020, counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, been doing this forever, then just mysteriously stopped … It’s become very difficult to tell the difference between these,” referring to the combined tracking of deaths from “PIC.” They’re even using PIC to state that cases are above the epidemic threshold:10
Did Masks and Lockdowns Stop the Spread of Flu?It could appear that flu hasn’t just vanished into thin air but rather cases could be being mistaken for COVID-19 — or even intentionally mislabeled as such. Another theory centers on viral interference, which is the phenomenon in which a cell infected by a virus becomes resistant to other viruses;11 basically, cells are rarely infected with more than one virus, so COVID-19 could be winning out over influenza. However, with COVID-19 being such a novel virus, with reportedly only a minority of the population having been exposed, there should still be plenty of room for influenza to spread.12 According to the CDC, however, flu cases began to decline in response to “widespread adoption of community mitigation measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” In other words, they believe that flu cases have plummeted because of the widespread adoption of mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns. In their MMWR weekly report released September 18, 2020, they state, “In the United States, influenza virus circulation declined sharply within 2 weeks of the COVID-19 emergency declaration and widespread implementation of community mitigation measures, including school closures, social distancing and mask wearing, although the exact timing varied by location.”13 But here again this leaves many unanswered questions, the primary one being why, if the COVID-19 mitigation efforts are so effective against the spread of flu, are COVID cases still rising? The two viruses are spread basically the same way. As Irish science journalist Peter Andrews put it in RT:14
Problems With LockdownsWhen asked whether he believes lockdowns were responsible for getting rid of the flu, Briggs said in the video, “No, absolutely not. Lockdowns only help spread the flu … Locking down the healthy, quarantining the healthy, is asinine.” Briggs believes that lockdowns would only increase flu infection because the virus spreads more easily when people spend more time indoors, in close quarters with others, in dry, indoor air. He also pointed to lockdown failures, like the one that occurred in New York City. The mortality rate from COVID-19 reached beyond 50 deaths per million per day in April 2020, despite a full lockdown being implemented in March. The state ordered nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients from hospitals until May 10, when the order was reversed, but by then the virus was already ravaging nursing homes’ elderly residents — the most vulnerable. “By facilitating the transmission of the virus from hospitals to nursing homes, the rate of spread within the elderly population was maximized, and any possible benefit from lockdown of the young and healthy population was rendered moot,” Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, explained.15 Social Distancing and Masks to Stay to Fight Flu?The CDC is already using the mysteriously low number of flu cases this season as an impetus to suggest that masks, school closures and social distancing could become the new normal every fall to combat the upcoming flu season:
Meanwhile, even while stating that flu cases are next to nonexistent this season, and that the COVID-19 mitigation measures already in place are likely effective at curbing its spread — they still want you to get your flu shot, “especially this season”:17
If you want to be proactive, it’s worth remembering that flu shots are controversial, and your chances of getting influenza after vaccination are still greater than 50/50 in any given year. According to CDC data, for example, the 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine's effectiveness against "influenza A and influenza B virus infection associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness" was just 36%.18 Meanwhile, we already know that vitamin D optimization is a good idea, not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/22/why-has-the-flu-disappeared.aspx According to a November 16, 2020, report by Food Safety News,1 a Chinese investigation has revealed SARS-CoV-2 is present on many imported food products and packaging, and it’s far from a solitary incidence.
Norwegian salmon, Brazilian chicken and Ecuadorian shrimp — either the food or its packaging — have also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. At least nine Chinese provinces have reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in frozen imported food since July 2020. While the contamination has raised concerns, the International Commission for Microbiological Specifications of Foods (ICMSF) has stated the virus is unlikely to pose a food safety risk, noting that “the mere presence of an infectious agent in a food does not necessarily translate into human infection.”3 SARS-CoV-2 May Hitch Ride on Air PollutionSARS-CoV-2 has also been found on particles of air pollution. According to The Guardian,4 scientists are investigating to determine whether the virus might be able to spread over long distances this way. It’s still unknown whether the virus can remain viable if hitching a ride on particles of pollution, or whether this route would distribute sufficient quantities to actually make someone sick if they inhaled it. According to The Guardian:5
SARS-CoV-2 Can Spread Far OutdoorsIndeed, bacteria, which are much larger than viruses, have no problem traveling through the air, so there’s little reason to doubt that viruses would do so as well. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s October 5, 2020, scientific brief9,10 on SARS-CoV-2 points out the virus can spread either through large respiratory droplets (which is the only potential benefit of wearing a mask) or through small airborne particles that “can remain suspended for many minutes to hours and travel far from the source on air currents.” In 2019, researchers discovered bacteria can be carried thousands of miles through the air,11 which complicates the containment of bacterial outbreaks. Other studies have demonstrated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can scatter long distances by piggybacking on feedlot dust.12 An article13 by BGR, published in April 2020, found walkers, runners and cyclists may need to maintain a distance of up to 66 feet in order to avoid exposure when exercising outdoors. BGR writes:14
Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to HideThe irony here is that the authors make it sound as though you can somehow avoid the virus provided you follow certain rules, like staying a certain distance away and avoiding having another person directly in front of you. Logic would tell you that once the virus is in the air, it’s going to move with the air in whatever direction the air is moving. Can you hide from wind? Can you hide from air? If these studies tell us anything, it’s that we cannot hide from this virus. We cannot separate ourselves from others far enough to where transmission risk is eliminated. And, as detailed by Denis Rancourt in our July 2020 interview, the research clearly shows that masks cannot prevent the spread of airborne viruses, so you hiding behind a mask won’t do you much good either. If air can flow through the mask, the virus can flow through as well. All a mask can do is limit the spread of large contaminated respiratory droplets. The failure of masks is also evident in recent CDC data16,17,18 showing that 71% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14% reported having worn a mask “often.” In all, 85% of COVID-19 patients had been diligent about mask use, yet this did not protect them from the virus. Health Experts Call for Herd Immunity ApproachConsidering we cannot hide from the virus, the least destructive path forward would be to implement the advice given by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection”:19
As of November 19, 2020, it had been signed by 35,236 medical practitioners (including yours truly), 12,115 medical and public health scientists, and 638,921 concerned citizens.20 If you would like life to return to some semblance of normal any time soon, you may consider signing the declaration. The greater the number of people pushing back against continued lockdowns, the more likely we are to influence our decision makers. Consider Peaceful Civil DisobedienceClearly, most people are being bombarded with mainstream media propaganda that seeks to convince you that masks are necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19. So, it is entirely understandable that you would want everyone to wear masks because you believe they will save lives. However, if you carefully evaluate the evidence, independent of the mainstream narrative, it is likely you will conclude that this recommendation has nothing to do with decreasing the spread of the virus but more to indoctrinate you into submission. In my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, he provides compelling evidence that this has been a carefully crafted technocratic strategy that has been in place for the last 50 years or so. By submitting to unconstitutional orders such as mask wearing, self-isolation and lockdowns, we are likely setting the stage for mandatory vaccinations, tracking and tracing. It’s all part of the Great Reset plan. With COVID-19 fatality rates21,22,23 as low as they are, mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns and business shut-downs are not only ineffective and unnecessary, but these measures are also causing a global economic collapse. It appears the only justification for this strategy is to increase fear, tyranny and transfer of wealth to the technocratic elite. Remember back in March 2020 when they said we just need to “flatten the curve” and slow down the rate of infection to avoid overcrowding hospitals? How did we go from that to now having to wear masks everywhere until every trace of the virus has been eliminated, even though a vast majority remain asymptomatic and don’t even know they have the virus unless they get tested? Now, so-called “health passports” are being rolled out, and it’s only a matter of time before COVID-19 vaccination will be required for travel. For months, many have been saying “It’s just a mask. What’s the big deal? Wear it so we can end this pandemic.” Soon, that will be replaced with “It’s just a vaccine. What’s the big deal? Take it so we can all go back to normal.” Alas, there will be no going back to normal unless we make a fuss. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Great Reset is anything but the promise of utopia. What they’re trying to get us to accept is a dystopian nightmare of an existence where there is neither privacy nor freedom to speak of. Getting us to don our masks is nothing more than a soft indoctrination. It’s teaching us to obey without question — a perfect example of which is when Dr. Anthony Fauci recently stated that it’s time for Americans to abandon their independent spirit and “do what you’re told.”24 Overall, it seems the best way to avoid a much more harrowing fight down the road is to engage in civil disobedience now, because once the Great Reset has been fully implemented, dissent will no longer be possible. For practical strategies on how you can respond in light of all the tyrannical interventions that have been imposed on us, check out James Corbett’s interview with Howard Lichtman below. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/22/is-coronavirus-everywhere.aspx Although they sound the same, and some people use the terms interchangeably, flavonoids and flavanols are different. Flavonoids are a family of plant compounds, of which flavanols are one subclass. You can find flavonoids in fruits, vegetables, tea, chocolate and wine. Evidence shows it’s flavanol-rich dark chocolate that improves cognitive performance and mood. The chemical properties of flavanols impact the bioavailability of the compounds and help determine their biological activity. As a family, flavonoids have antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, anticancer and neuroprotective properties. Oregon State University reports there is evidence that some flavonoids can improve cognitive function, but it is not known if they can help lower risk for those who are at risk for cognitive decline and dementia.1 For at least 4,000 years, chocolate has been a symbol of luxury, wealth and power.2 Of all the treats available, chocolate remains one of the most popular in the world. However, while dark chocolate has known health benefits, the same cannot be said for milk chocolate. Flavanols Raise Brain Oxygenation and Cognitive PerformanceIn 2017, a meta-analysis was published in Frontiers in Nutrition evaluating the association between cocoa flavonoids and cognitive performance.3 Cocoa and cocoa products are a substantial source of flavanols. Scientists suggest cocoa can help counteract cognitive decline, especially in people at risk. They speculated that the administration of cocoa flavanols may improve cognitive function and protect performance that occurs during sleep loss in healthy people. A study published in Scientific Reports delved further into this hypothesis.4 Using a randomized double-blind study design with young healthy adults, the researchers showed that cocoa flavanols increased the speed and capacity of brain oxygenation in response to the administration of carbon dioxide. The participants also exhibited 11% faster performance than baseline when the demand was high.5 ZME Science spoke with Catarina Rendeiro from the University of Birmingham, who led the study. She described what the researchers were looking for, saying:6
The researchers engaged 18 healthy people whom they tested in two trials. During the first, the participants consumed cocoa rich in flavanols and in the second processed cocoa with low levels of flavanols. Neither the participants nor the researchers were aware of which type had been consumed during the trials. Two hours later the participants breathed 5% carbon dioxide (CO2) to increase blood flow to the brain. Normally, the air you breathe is composed of 0.04% CO2.7 CO2 causes vasodilation and vascular changes in the brain, including raising blood flow.8 The air delivered to the participants was just over 100 times greater than the normal concentration of CO2 in the air. The researchers then measured the increased blood flow and oxygenation to the brain using customized helmets. They found the participants who ate high flavanol cocoa showed three times more oxygenated hemoglobin than those who ate the low flavanol cocoa. Interestingly, the researchers also found a few participants did not show any benefits from flavanols and had the healthiest oxygenation responses. While speaking to ZME Science, Rendeiro said:9
Chocolate Improves Taste of Natural TriterpenesIn a second study of cocoa, researchers used 70% cocoa chocolate as a delivery mechanism for ursolic acid and oleanolic acid.10 These are triterpenoid compounds with known pharmacological effects, including liver protection after chemically-induced injury in laboratory animals11 and antimicrobial activity in the fight against human pathogens.12 Oleanolic acid is sold in China for liver disorders and both are recognized as having anti-inflammatory and antihyperlipidemic properties when tested in lab animals.13 Researchers have found the health benefits of ursolic acid may include "anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiapoptotic, and anticarcinogenic effects."14 An animal study found ursolic acid increased calorie burn, skeletal muscle and brown fat development associated with weight loss, and increased strength. It also improved glucose tolerance.15 The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of consuming 70% chocolate infused with ursolic and oleanolic acids that had been isolated from the Mansoa hirsuta DC plant.16 Initially, the researchers sought a combination with microbiological and sensory properties that were well accepted. There were 100 volunteers who participated in the “acceptance analysis.” To evaluate the health effect, the researchers engaged 45 volunteers who were divided into a test group, a control group and a placebo group. The test group received a chocolate formulation containing the triterpenes; the placebo group received chocolate without the triterpenes; and the control group was instructed not to eat any chocolate of any kind during the course of the study. The test group received 25 grams (g) of 70% cocoa chocolate with the added triterpenes over a four-week period. All were asked to maintain their regular activities and diet. Before and after the intervention the participants had their weight, height and waist circumference measured. Lipid profile and fasting blood sugar tests were also done. In the control group in which no one consumed chocolate, there were no significant changes in the anthropometric measurements or lab tests. In the test group, after eating the chocolate with the ursolic and oleanolic acids, 50% lost approximately 2 kilograms (kg) (4.4 pounds) and 73.3% had reduced waist circumference. In the placebo group, which ate the regular chocolate, 86.6% gained weight. In Moderation, Dark Chocolate Has Health BenefitsAs demonstrated by the research discussed above, dark chocolate in moderation may have health benefits, but too much can raise your risk of weight gain and subsequent insulin resistance. Cocoa beans are rich in fat (54%), fiber (16%), protein (11%) and carbohydrates (31%).17 The largest source of bioactive compounds comes from flavonoids, which can improve central and peripheral vascular function. When consumed in moderation, flavanol-rich dark chocolate may improve insulin sensitivity by reducing your body's oxidative stress and improving endothelial function. This indicates that dark chocolate rich in flavanols may be a beneficial addition to your diet. However, while dark chocolate has health benefits, milk chocolate does not. Unfortunately, the vast majority of chocolate sold and eaten is in the form of milk chocolate candy, which is loaded with sugar and has minute amounts of healthy cocoa. Additionally, one study found that the added milk proteins can reduce the bioavailability of epicatechin, a flavonoid important to antioxidant activity, in chocolate candies.18 In addition to the flavonoids, researchers have also found theobromine and other methylxanthines in dark chocolate that may affect health.19 For instance, theobromine improved memory in an animal study. But, as with most foods found in nature, the likelihood is the health effects come from the combination of polyphenols found in the food and not from a single ingredient. There is some evidence that hearing loss may be inversely associated with chocolate consumption, yet it has no effect on tinnitus.20 Another review of the literature analyzed 13 clinical trials and found athletes experienced a reduction in oxidative stress linked to cocoa ingestion, but no clear conclusion could be drawn on the impact it had on exercise performance or recovery.21 A 2013 paper in The Netherlands Journal of Medicine also reviewed the health benefits of cacao, noting that some consider it a "complete food," as it contains:22
Bitter Chocolate May Help Improve Your MoodHuman trial data from Loma Linda University, presented at the Experimental Biology 2018 annual meeting in San Diego, revealed chocolate helps improve stress levels, inflammation, mood, memory and immune function. The caveat? It must contain at least 70% cacao and be sweetened with organic cane sugar. According to the scientists:23
A number of other studies have confirmed cacao can benefit your heart, blood vessels, brain and nervous system, and helps combat diabetes and other conditions rooted in inflammation. As noted in a paper published in the journal Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity,24 "Cocoa contains about 380 known chemicals, 10 of which are psychoactive compounds” and it “has more phenolics and higher antioxidant capacity than green tea, black tea, or red wine …”
Another compound found in cacao is phenylethylamine, which has been shown to boost mood in a way similar to that of tryptophan, which your body converts to serotonin. Cocoa also contains chemical compounds shown to boost mood. One study found the polyphenols in a dark chocolate drink mix helped reduce anxiety and induce a sense of calm when consumed daily for one month.25 There were 72 participants who completed the trial, in which they drank a chocolate drink standardized to 500 milligrams (mg), 250 mg or zero mg of polyphenols. The researchers found those taking the high-dose polyphenol chocolate drink increased their self-assessed calmness and contentedness in relation to those drinking the placebo chocolate drink. When colorectal cell lines were incubated with cocoa extract for 24 hours in the lab, the researchers found the chocolate had an impact on genetic up and down regulation.26 They believe the results suggest "valuable clues for future clinical studies of cocoa health benefits are highlighted as [an] anticancer agent in this study once validation studies are carried out." Cacao to Chocolate — Raw Dark Chocolate Is What You WantThe results of these studies demonstrate the importance of consuming dark chocolate rich in flavanols to experience the health benefits. As I show in this short video above, you can create your own delectable and healthy chocolate treat at home that satisfies your sweet tooth. Although some people use the terms interchangeably, there is a difference between cocoa and cacao. Many of the studies discussed used a cocoa-based product, but it’s helpful to understand the differences. Cacao is the term used for the evergreen plant and the dried seeds, which ultimately become chocolate. Raw cacao nibs have the highest levels of polyphenols. Ideally, you’ll want to buy them whole and grind them at home. You can use a coffee grinder for this. You can also nibble on them like you would chocolate chips. A healthy amount would be around one-half to 1 ounce per day. I personally grind 1 tablespoon of raw cacao nibs twice a day and put them into my smoothies. Cacao becomes cocoa when the beans are roasted and ground into a powder from which most of the fat is removed. Cocoa butter, which you can purchase from health food stores and some grocers, is the yellow fat that’s extracted from the beans. The cacao beans go through 14 steps in processing before resulting in the chocolate that is ready for distribution to your local store. If the chocolate is processed from cacao seeds that are not roasted, then you’re buying “raw chocolate.” When you are selecting your chocolate, the evidence shows health benefits are greatest in products with a higher percentage of cacao and lower percentage of sugar. Since cacao has a bitter taste, you’ll also find the higher percentage chocolates are more bitter. It’s the polyphenols that make the chocolate bitter, so some manufacturers remove them, but it’s also the polyphenols that are responsible for many of the health benefits. That’s why, for health benefits, it’s best to choose 70% or higher cacao chocolate. On the other hand, “white chocolate” contains only the butter extracted from the beans and none of the cocoa, which is the ingredient chocolate gets its name from. Instead, white chocolate is a health-zapping mix of pasteurized milk, vanilla flavoring and processed sugar. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/21/benefits-of-cocoa-flavanols.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |