Breakfast.

People who eat a normal breakfast each morning-usually consisting of fiber and a protein source like eggs, meat, or soy­have been shown in repeated studies to be healthier than those who do not. The most immmediate benefits from breakfast are in­creased energy levels and a better ability to concentrate during the day (especially true with school-aged children, studies show). But it is also clear that eating breakfast can help ward off disease. Because on a secondary level, people who skimp on breakfast for lack of time or in the hopes of losing weight-tend to compensate by gorging later in the day, often on junk food. No surprise, then, that people who regularly skip breakfast, and end up with less than ideal diets, are also twice as likely to develop insulin resistance syndrome, a metabolic dis­order that can lead to diabetes and coronary heart disease.

 

Fish.

Fish oil contains high amounts of two omega-3 fatty acids-EPA and DHA-that ben­efit the heart and blood vessels and are essential to normal brain development. These fatty acids have been shown to lower blood pressure, block substances that cause inflammation, reduce the formation of blood clots, and prevent cardiovascular damage caused by triglycerides. That’s a fat anyone could love. Some other benefits of eating fish may also stem from the fact that it takes the place of red meat in the diet. Either way; there is overwhelming evidence that a diet rich in fish can keep the mind sharp, protecting it against Alzheimer’s disease and other ills of aging. One study in the Archives of Neurology found that elderly people who ate fish at least once a week did better on tests of memory and mental acuity than their peers who did not. They also had a 10 percent slower decline in mental skills each year, and those who ate twice as much fish showed a 13 percent slower annual decline during the course of the six-year study.

Except for pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers who are most vulnerable to the effects of contaminants found in fish, it’s best that women in these groups stick to canned light tuna or salmon and steer clear of fish with high mercury levels. This goes for other adults as well. The fish most likely to be contaminated are large deep-sea species that are closer to the top of the food chain, such as shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tilefish.
Red Beets Detox Liver?

Studies on animals have indeed found that a pigment in red beets called betalain can slightly elevate levels of an enzyme that helps fight cancer in liver cells, and that the pigment might also help protect against other diseases, like colon cancer. The enzymes are specifically thought to detoxify carcinogens and purge them from the body.

There’s just one small problem. Ever notice how beets can give your urine a reddish tinge? That’s because many people don’t have the ability to digest red beet pigment; it just passes right through their digestive systems-with presumably little or no effect on the liver. Beets, it should be mentioned, are also packed with beta-carotene, carotenoids, and flavonoids. But then again, so are most fruits and vegetables.

 

Grilled Meat and Cancer.

A study in 2002 looked at more than eight hundred Americans and found that those who ate the most grilled or barbecued meat seemed to double their risk of developing pancreatic cancer, even after the researchers adjusted for smoking, age, and other risk factors. Studies conducted in Europe, Asia, and South America have found the same thing. Thus here some tips that can lower your risk.:

• Because polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are created in part by hot coals, you can avoid them simply by using a gas grill.

• Since both of these carcinogens are found in meat cooked at high temperatures or exposed to flare-ups, you should preheat your food in a microwave, which reduces the time it needs to spend on the grill.

• Marinating has been shown to have a strong protective effect, probably because the liquid prevents burning. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research, even marinating for a few minutes can reduce the amount of heterocyclic amines formed by as much as 99 percent. It's best to use marinades that are spicy or contain an acidic base, like citrus juice or vinegar, and to limit the amount of oil you use to prevent flare-ups. You should use about a half cup of marinade for every pound of meat. You don't have to completely immerse or drown the food, but it should be turned occasionally (using a plastic ziplock bag to marinate your food works great). Fish needs about twenty minutes in marinade, and poultry and red meat require about forty-five minutes.

• Go for meats that are lean and well trimmed, since they have less fat that can drip into the flames. Chicken cudets, shrimp, fish, and lean pieces of meat are probably your best bets, while ribs and sausages--both extremely high in fat-are not. You should also keep your cuts of meat small, so they have less surface area and don't need as much time on the grill.

• Try to keep a spray botde with water nearby so you can control any flare-ups. And instead of placing your food directly on the grill, cover the grate with punctured aluminum foil. This not only protects your food against smoke and flare-ups, but also keeps fatty juices from dripping into the flames or coals.

• Stay away from charred or blackened foods! These are the parts that are particularly hazardous.

• It's the chemicals in grilled meat you need to avoid. Grilled veggies you can eat without concern.
Chlorinated water.

If you're wondering why bladder cancer, of all the cancers out there, is the one that shows the strongest link, consider where the liquids you drink spend most of their time in your body.

However in most countries standards for the amounts of chlorinated by-products allowed in water were tightened. Several health agen­cies, including the World Health Organization, have also cast doubt on any potential link, saying the evidence is weak and point­ing out that any risk from trihalomethanes and other chlorine by­products is tiny in comparison to the risks associated with drinking nonchlorinated water.

That last point should not be taken lightly. The medical liter­ature is rife with recent examples of countries that relaxed their chlorination standards and were then immediately racked by outbreaks of severe diseases. When chlorination was stopped in Peru, for instance, there was a cholera epidemic of 300,000 cases.

To health officials, trying to protect public water supplies is a delicate balance between ridding them of germs that cause dis­eases such as cholera and giardia and minimizing the hazards of disinfection by-products (referred to commonly as DBPs).

The Environmental Protection Agency has set the maximum level for trihalomethanes in tap water at 80 micrograms per liter, and the maximum level for haloacetic acids at 60 micrograms per liter. Fortunately, in many cities today the levels fall  below that.

Plastic Containers and Dioxins.

Plastic wraps and containers can indeed expose you to certain chemicals. But dioxins aren't one of them. In fact, dioxins arc: almost never found in commercial plastics. If they were, they could be liberated by the heat in a microwave and eventually end up in your food, though that wouldn't happen in a plastic water bottle kept at room temperature or in a container that's being frozen because it takes heat for this chemical reaction to get going. In any case, manufacturers don't use them because of the danger. But the link between plasticizers and cancer, if any, has not been Scientifically proven and is widely debated.

 

Here are some tips:

• Use only plastic wrap that says on the packaging intended for microwave use, and never let it directly touch your food when heating it.

• Make sure any plastic wrap you use is placed loosely  your food (and be sure to leave one corner open) so that steam can get out. You don’t want any droplets that collect on the underside of the wrap to get into your food, since those may contain chemicals from the wrap.

• Never heat any plastic container that does not say on its label or packaging that it’s intended for microwave use (t cates that it’s made to withstand high temperatures). Containers  that aren’t designed specifically for use in a microwave car warp, increasing your likelihood of exposure to plasticizers putting you at risk for spills and burns.

• Things like margarine tubs and carryout containers from restaurants are not designed to withstand very high t tures, so never use them in your microwave.

• Don’t use any containers that hold prepared micro meals more than once.

• It’s best to cook in your microwave with pots or containers made from inert materials, like ceramics or heat-resistant

It’s also okay to use cooking bags, parchment paper, and white microwave-safe paper towels.
Echinacea.

A 2005 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine involved 437 people who volunteered to have cold viruses dripped into their noses. Some took echinacea in 300 milligram doses for a week beforehand (the dose most often used by consumers), some were given a placebo, and others were given either echi­nacea or the placebo at the time they were infected.

For five days, the subjects were secluded in a hotel and exam­ined closely. The echinacea groups were just as likely to catch a cold as the others. They showed no difference in symptoms, no difference in viral secretions, and no increases in their levels of interleukin-8, an immune system protein that many people be­lieved was the mechanism behind echinacea’s curative powers.

But that study and others clearly haven’t done much to knock echinacea off its pedestal. Companies are still marketing it as a cure for the cold, and few people have been clearing their medicine cabinets of echinacea bottles. There’s some evidence from the decades of re­search on echinacea that people who take it for long periods of time in small doses-not just when they get a cold, or ;Ii week be­fore they get a cold, but for months or years-get sick less often.

 

Green Tea.

In 2004, a study of breast cancer in more than thirty-five thousand Japanese women showed green tea didn’t play a rol in preventing it. But to be fair, there have been some that favored it. One study in Los Angeles in 2003 found drastically lower rates of breast cancer among women who drank the bitter brew on a regular basis. And two other studies in China, where green tea is a dietary staple, found that green tea drinkers had lower rates of stomach cancer, esophageal cancer, and precancerous oral plaques. One of those studies found that it took little more than two cups of green tea a day to see an effect. But the truth is that more studies found no effect.

 

Selenium.

Various studies have chipped away at the assertion that selenium has any ability to fight heart disease. A large study published in the Amer­ican Journal of Epidemiology in 2006 followed more than a thousand American adults for seven and a half years, some of whom took 200 micrograms of selenium daily and others who were assigned placebos. After taking blood samples twice a year, and controlling had no effect on the risk of developing heart disease from it. Other studies have found that combining selenium with vitamin E, has also little or no effect on heart disease.

But the news hasn’t all been negative. Studies have found that people who take selenium have lower rates of colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer than their peers who don’t. The find­ings are widely debated, but they certainly hold promise.

 

Sitting up Straight?

Studies in 2006 through direct visual evidence have shown that that position increases stress on the lumbar disks in your lower back. The study that used new magnetic resonance imaging machines that allow people to sit instead of lie down, a team of researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland looked at twenty-two volunteers who sat in three positions. The first two positions, sitting upright and sitting with the body hunched for­ward, produced the greatest spinal disk movement, causing the internal disk material to misalign. The third position, in which the subjects reclined at a 135-degree angle with their feet planted on the floor, created the least strain.

 

Reading in the Dark, and Glasses?

Most ophthalmologists and eye experts, are adamant that the strain reading puts on your eyes-in poor light or not ­is safe. It may create fatigue,” he explained, “but it can’t hurt your eyes.

How well a person can see is largely determined by the size of the eyeball, something a pair of glasses or reading in the dark cannot change. The average eye is about an inch from the cornea, in the front, to the retina, in the back. When the eyes are either too large (nearsightedness) or too small (farsightedness), the cornea cannot properly focus images: on the retina, and glasses can help compensate. The contrast between poor and normal vision becomes more obvious when people wear glasses for a while and then take them off. But glasses have no lasting effect on eyesight.

 

Pregnant Women on Airplanes?

A study on flight attendants from 1973 to 1994, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, examined the medical records and work activity of 1,751 pregnant flight attendants, did not find high rates of complications, it did find that the flight attendants who worked during the early stages of preg­nancy had a slightly higher risk of miscarriage than their peers who took time off.

But it was unclear whether undue stress or various other factors were to blame. Another study published a year earlier, for example, showed that while pregnant flight attendants who logged a lot of hours had a higher risk of miscarriage than their colleagues who took time off, they had the same risk of miscar­riage as other working women (about 10-20 percent). After reviewing years of research, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report in 2001 saying that radiation exposure for the typical pregnant air traveler was minimal, and that the low pressures in the cabin were unlikely to affect oxygen supply to a fetus. The group recommended that women fly only up until their thirty-sixth week of pregnancy­ not because there is any risk to the baby after that, but because you risk going into labor during a flight.

 

Mosquito’s

Female mosquitoes-the only ones that bite-are attracted to the carbon dioxide that we exhale, our body heat, and chemi­cals in sweat like lactic acid. Obviously every human has these things in common, as do our warm-blooded animal buddies. But scientists have found that bite-resistant people produce about a dozen compounds that either prevent mosquitoes from detecting them or drive them away. People like me, who get bitten fre­quently, lack these compounds that can mask their smell. Why some people and animals have this built-in shield is not yet known. It may have had some crucial evolutionary purpose, like protecting us from malaria and other mosquito-transmitted diseases.

But if you don’t have the shield, don’t despair. You can make yourself less attractive by using unscented deodorants, lotions, and soaps. Repellents made with diethyltoluamide  can also make a difference. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 found that sprays with even small amounts of deet pro­tected wearers for up to five hours, while special wristbands and sprays with citronella protected them for only minutes. You might have also heard the old wives’ tale about warding off mosquitoes by eating garlic, bananas, and other foods. There is no evidence to back any of this up.

 

Playing Dead With Bears?

Animals, like humans, play dead under the assumption that a predator will either lose interest or shift out of attack mode and make a crucial mistake that allows a chance for a clean escape. One study in the 1970s looked at what happened when captive foxes were given a chance to go after live ducks. In every case, the ducks would go limp when the foxes caught them. Sometimes, this worked to their advantage. The foxes would carry them to a storage site and turn their backs, giving the sly ducks an oppor­tunity to get away.

But it didn't work often. Most of the time, it simply made things easier for the predator. Similarly, it's not always such a good idea to play dead with bears, especially since different types of bears attack for different reasons and react in different ways. Bear attacks can generally be divided into two groups: preda­tory and defensive. Each calls for a different strategy. Black and grizzly bears, the two you're most likely to confront in the wild, are capable of both types of attack.

Those involving grizzlies tend to be defensive, when the ani­mal feels threatened. Playing dead while lying on your stomach and covering your head and neck lets the bear know you're not a threat and can cause it to back off. Black bears, on the other hand, are smaller and shyer then grizzlies and usually flee from humans. But when they do attack their motive tends to be predatory, meaning playing dead isn't going to work. Neither will running away. If it looks like the bear is after your food, it's best to drop it and back away. But if it keeps pressing, be aggressive. Yell, shout, use. pepper spray, raise your arms and make yourself as strong and big as possible may be best to scare it of.

What the leading media proclaims at times may be nonsense, but it can also be deadly. For example, thanks to the media, Malaria now kill’s thousand’s of children a day more, and could be prevented without difficulty. The known media attitude here is that if it's a chemical, it must be bad, and if it's DDT, it must be awful. And that's fine if you're a rich white environmentalist. It's not so fine if you're a poor black kid who is about to lose his life from malaria. In the 1950s we sprayed DDT indiscriminately, but it only takes a tiny amount to prevent the spread of malaria. If sprayed on walls of an African hut, a small amount will keep mosquitoes at bay for half a year. That makes it a wonderful malaria fighter. But today DDT is rarely used to fight malaria because environmentalists' demonization of it causes others to shun it.

Media attention in such cases invites politicians to do the wrong thing. In this case, the result of the media getting it so wrong is millions of deaths. The media in such cases  also kills reputations, particularly when sensationalism and the herd mentality are in play. Serious subjects, worthy of careful examination, are often treated with a kind of journalistic shorthand that cheats readers and viewers, while ruining lives. In this next example, innocent children became unknowing pawns. (1)

A classic example of journalists falling for a stunningly stupid scientific scare-falling en masse and really hard-was the outcry over treating food with radiation. The irradiation process would give consumers wonderful new options: strawberries that stay fresh three weeks, and chicken without the harmful levels of salmonella that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says kill six hundred Americans every year, and cause countless cases of food poisoning. (The last time you thought you had the flu, you may have really been sick from bacteria on chicken-this is no myth! Wash the counter, your hands, and everything that touches raw meat, because they are all crawling with potentially dangerous germs.)

But reporters and environmental activists don't worry much about the horrible toll from bacteria. For some reason, even when bacteria pose a far greater risk, the media obsess about chemicals and radiation.They don't worry much about bacteria because bacteria is natural. But radiation is natural too. We are exposed to natural radiation every minute of our lives: cosmic radiation from space, radiation from the ground, and radiation from radon in the air we breathe. Every year, the average U.S. citizen is exposed to natural radiation equal to about 360 dental X-rays. The reporters and protesters probably didn't know that, but even if they did, they'd still be upset because irradiation plants propose passing radiation through food.

People think food irradiation makes food radioactive, but it doesn't; the radiation just kills the bacteria, and passes right out of the food. That's why the FDA and USDA approved the process a long time ago. Spices have been irradiated for more than twenty years. Irradiation is good for us. If it were more common, all of us would suffer fewer instances of food poisoning and we could have fruits and vegetables that stay fresh weeks longer. But scare mongering has kept it from catching on. (2)

Pasteurization also met public skepticism when it was introduced. Louis Pasteur discovered that heating milk would kill bacteria, but critics charged that pasteurization was "meddling with nature," and that it might change the properties of the food-or contaminate it. Irradiation might save as many lives, if the scaremongers would just get out of the way. Many reporters believe the activists because "something must be causing the cancer epidemic." Mysterious and unnatural additions to our environment are an easy suspect. "No wonder there's so much more cancer!" say reporters.

Plus the world is too crowded! We've heard this one for decades. News articles warn of "the population bomb," a "tidal wave of humanity," and plead "No more babies." Clueless alarmists like Ted Turner warn, "There's lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people." It's true that the world population today is more than six billion people, but who says that's too many?

But people are our greatest wealth. More people is a good thing. They're more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things. Yet the media runs pictures of starving masses in Africa and blames that on overpopulation. One writer, worrying about Niger, said that we must "reduce birth rates drastically, otherwise permanent famine ... will be the norm." But Niger's population density is nine persons per square kilometer, minuscule compared to population densities in wealthy countries like the USA (28), Japan (340), the Netherlands (484), and Hong Kong (6.621). The number of people isn't the problem. Famine is caused by things like civil wars and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food. Sudan had famine when government militia forces stripped the land of cattle and grain. In Niger, 2.5 million people are starving because food production is managed by the state. The absence of property rights, price controls, and other cruel socialist experiments under way in Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, and Lesotho are starving millions more. In Zimbabwe, it's Robert Mugabe's kleptocracy that's doing the damage.The number of people isn't the problem. Improved technology now allows people to grow more food on less land. The UN says the world overproduces food today. The clueless media, in pursuit of the scare du jour, do us a nasty disservice by focusing on the wrong things. Because of the constant parade of frightening stories, huge amounts of money and energy are spent on minuscule risks. In the meantime, millions die of malaria, thousands die from bacteria, and most everyone is frightened needlessly. There are real problems in the world. The media ought to focus on them. Let’s look at some other more popular issues:

 

Mouthwash

Bad breath comes from bacteria in the mouth. Mouthwash does kill germs, but here’s a dirty little secret: The alcohol in most mouthwashes(for example Listerine has up to 27 percent alcohol) reduces the bacterial count, but the alcohol dries out your mouth and leaves behind a beautiful home where bacteria grow even faster. So the mouthwash that briefly reduced the bad breath makes it worse later. Everyone agreed, however, that the best remedy for bad breath is good oral hygiene: flossing, brushing your teeth for at least two minutes, and brushing your tongue. It also helps to keep your mouth moist by drinking lots of water. That also flushes some of the bacteria down.

 

Fund Managers and Stock Analysts

In fact two-thirds of fund managers underperformed the market every year. They are well-educated people who call and visit individual companies, and study the balance sheets, new products, and marketing techniques. You'd think this would give them an advantage. But it doesn't, says Princeton's Professor Malkiel, because what they learn is information all the analysts have. Malkiel wrote a book about the process called A Random Walk Down Wall Street. He studied stock movements of the past, and concluded that the advice produced by the in-house experts has little value. "Most of it is just absolute nonsense," Malkiel writes, "and most of it is really designed to get people to trade more than they should."

Banks and  brokerage firms want you to trade more, because they charge a commission on every trade. But despite floors of skyscrapers filled with people analyzing stocks, year after year the trading advice that comes out of most of the big Banks and brokerage firms is no better at selecting winners than throwing darts at the stock table, or having a monkey throw darts. In fact, the advice is usually worse! I know this is hard to believe, but people who chart the brokerage firms' recommendations say it's true.

For example over the fifteen years ending October 31, 2005, only 5.72 percent of actively managed mutual funds had beaten the 500 stocks that make up the Standard & Poor's Index. In other words, 94 percent did worse. Over that fifteen-year period, you had a 94 percent better chance of making money if you ignored the advice from those well-paid professional stock-pickers. I'm not saying that this is a scam. Banks and brokers might genuinely believe they can do it. The evidence is, however, that they can't, yet it doesn’t stop the media including most TV stations, from proclaiming their advice.

1) See also, no surge in cancer due to DDT: Edmund Sweeney, EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972. J. Higginson, "DDT: Epidemiological Evidence," lARC Scientific Publications, 1985.

2) Robert V. Tauxe, "Food Safety and Irradiation: Protecting the Public from Foodborne Infections," Conference Presenta­tion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 2001. Since Tauxe is assuming that 50 percent of processed meat would be irradiated, he also assumes that this meat would be the source of 50 percent of foodborne E. coli 0157, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, and Taxoplasma infections.


 

For updates click homepage here

 

 

 

 

shopify analytics