Thursday, January 31, 2013

Would you like some tea?

 I am a big tea drinker.  I like it hot, cold, warm and even room temperature.  My favorite way to drink tea is sweetened.  There is nothing better to me than ice cold sweet tea.  I am from the South.  Hot or warm tea before bed is a great way to relax.  Below is some information about different types of tea and the benefits that your body can receive from drinking it.

Green Tea - It is the closest taste of the leaf.  Mild flavored and most popular in Japanese and Chinese restaurants.  Now days,  green tea can be found everywhere drinks are sold.

Contains high levels of catechins.

White Tea - This tea is made from the combination of the leaves and buds of the plant.  It has a lightly sweet flavor.  One of the least common and harder to find in store, but if you look hard enough it can be found.  It is not only for your hair and skin.  It is good for your body too.
Contains high levels of catechins.

Black Tea - These leaves are fermented to unlock the most intense flavor from the leaves.  Black is the most popular on the market. 

  Black Tea has lower levels of catechins, but it has higher levels other polyphenol antioxidants.

Oolong Tea - This is a semi fermented tea that has a medium intense flavor with a smoky and floral taste.

Contains a variety of polyphenols, including catechins.

Catechins  is a flav-onoid phytochemical compounds found principally in green tea. Smaller amounts are contained in grapes, black tea, chocolate, and wine. Considered potent antioxidants, catechins are being studied for their potential to prevent heart disease and cancer.

Polyphenols are any of various alcohols containing two or more benzene rings that each have at least one hydroxyl group (OH) attached. Many polyphenols occur naturally in plants and some kinds, such as the flavonoids and tannins, are believed to be beneficial to health.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Olive oil - Good for your heart

Everyone has heard the news that olive oil is good for your heart health, so here is some information on way that is.  Olive oil contains monounsaturated fat and omega-3 fatty acids.  How is that for a good combo.  That is why you see and hear of people adding olive oil to salad dressings and dipping their bread into it.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends a daily serving of just 2 tablespoons of olive oil to gain the heart healthy benefits.  You do not want to overdo it thought because a half a cup of olive oil contains 1,000 calories.  That is a lot of calories, so watch it.  To cut some calories and fat from your diet you can use olive oil instead of sour cream on your baked potato.  It is really tasty.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Go get some olive oil!

Extra virgin olive oil is distinguished from all other oils (even other grades of olive oil) in that it is richly endowed with a unique combination of monounsaturated fats, polyphenols and phytosterols. A consistent body of scientific evidence exists that diets rich in these three natural components are associated with:
• lower levels of “bad cholesterol” (LDL) and higher levels of “good cholesterol” (HDL).

•lower levels of heart-unfriendly oxidized LDL’s.
•reduced DNA oxidative damage which in turn is related to a reduced risk of some cancers.
•reduced incidence of hypertension.
•improved glycemic control, which is particularly advantageous to diabetic patients.
Fresh extra virgins contain higher levels of these beneficial components. Suggested consumption is two daily tablespoons of high quality extra virgin olive oil, preferably in place of other fats.
Be aware that heat, light and air can affect the taste of olive oil and its health-promoting nutrients. Always store olive oil in a dark, room-temperature cupboard. Also, the flavor and nutrients of extra virgin olive oil slowly degrade over time, so it is best used within two years of harvest and within a few months of opening.

Monday, January 14, 2013

How are the resolutions?

Who has already messed up on their resolutions?  I have some, but that's ok.  We are human.  Don't get down on yourself!  Life is just too short.  You have all year long to work on the changes you want to make.  It just has been too cold to go walking outside, that's all there is here.  I was use to walking where the wind was blocked by trees.  It would be snowing outside, and I would be out walking.  The land is so flat here that no matter where you go, the wind is killing you.  I just look to create workouts indoors.  I have several different programs that I have been trying.

What are some exercises that you do at home to keep in shape?  Let me know in the comments below.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

A Movie Trailer to watch.

If you have not seen this documentary yet, then you need to. It will change the way you think about food.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Cancer Cure from a fruit?

I am behind on the imformation on the "Cancer Cure".  I just found out about it a few days ago, so I starting reading up on it.  I added some imformation on the soursop fruit.  It sounds amazing, almost too good to be true.  In the US, it seems we are afraid to look at nature for curing diseases.  Why?  That does not make any sense at all.  We would rather a doctor pump our bodies full of man made chemicals that may kill us any way than eat a better more healthy diet.  I don't get it. I guess I never will.  Let me heard your comments on this.

The Soursop is a flowering, evergreen tree native to tropical regions of the world. It also contains a long, prickly green fruit which happens to kill cancer up to 10,000 times more effectively than strong chemotherapy drugs, all without the nasty side effects and without harming healthy cells.
 According to Cancer Research UK, Annona muricata is an active principle in an herbal remedy marketed under the brand name Triamazon. The licensing for this product in the UK is not accepted due to its enormous healing effects on the body and potential loss of profits for competing pharmaceutical cancer drugs.
 This tree is low and is called graviola in Brazil, guanabana in Spanish and has the uninspiring name "soursop" in English. The fruit is very large and the subacid sweet white pulp is eaten out of hand or, more commonly, used to make fruit drinks and sherbets.
 Besides being a cancer remedy, graviola is a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent for both bacterial and fungal infections, is effective against internal parasites and worms, lowers high blood pressure and is used for depression, stress and nervous disorders.
 Deep within the Amazon Rainforest, this tree grows wild and could literally revolutionize what you, your doctor, and the rest of the world thinks about cancer treatment and chances of survival.
 Research shows that with extracts from this miraculous tree it now may be possible to:

•Attack cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss
•Protect your immune system and avoid deadly infections
•Feel stronger and healthier throughout the course of the treatment
•Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life
The source of this information is just as stunning: It comes from one of America's largest drug manufacturers, the fruit of over 20 laboratory tests conducted since the 1970's. What those tests revealed was nothing short of mind numbing...Extracts from the tree were shown to: •Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer.
•The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!
•What's more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells. It does not harm healthy cells!
The amazing anti-cancer properties of the Graviola tree have been extensively researched - so why haven't you heard anything about it?
 The drug industry began a search for a cancer cure and their research centered on Graviola, a legendary healing tree from the Amazon Rainforest.
 It turns out the drug company invested nearly seven years trying to synthesize two of the Graviola tree's most powerful anti-cancer ingredients. If they could isolate and produce man-made clones of what makes the Graviola so potent, they'd be able to patent it and make their money back. Alas, they hit a brick wall. The original simply could not be replicated. There was no way the company could protect its profits or even make back the millions it poured into research.
 As the dream of huge profits evaporated, their testing on Graviola came to a screeching halt. Even worse, the company shelved the entire project and chose not to publish the findings of its research!
Where Can You Find It?
 As far as the fruit goes, you may be able to find it at some grocery and health food stores in your area. There are several different soursop juice manufacturers, distributors and suppliers worldwide. Caution would be warranted in purchasing from any company unless you have researched their reputability and extraction methods.
Here is a link to an article on the topic from Psychology Today
Let me know your opinioon about it in the comments below on the article.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Organic TV?

I just wanted to share this article I found with you.  Let me know how you feel about it the article in the comments below.
Dr. Oz Flip-Flops as High-Profile Attacks on Organic Food Intensify
America's most popular TV doctor seems to have forgotten his own words that organic food is "worth the investment" and is instead trashing organics. Why the flip flop?
"So you're being told organic food is no more nutritious than conventional and it's not worth your extra money. Well I'm here to say that it is worth the investment. Why do I say that? Pesticides." - - Dr. Oz, Oct. 19, 2012

Less than two months after telling millions of TV viewers that organic food is "worth the investment," America's most popular TV doctor is singing a different tune. In the December issue of Time magazine, Dr. Oz described organic foodies as "elitist" -- part of the 1% - and claimed that conventional foods are nutritionally equivalent to organic foods. According to Dr. Oz:

The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all things small-batch, local-farm and organic - all with premium price tags. But let's be clear: you don't need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily.
Suddenly, the pesticides Dr. Oz was so concerned about a couple of months ago, the ones he warned viewers were "one of the greatest threats to your kids' health," no longer matter. What's more, if you're spending extra money to avoid them, you're a food snob -- instead of a responsible, health-conscious parent.
Dr. Oz's flip-flop is just the latest in a series of highly-publicized mass media attacks on organic food and farming. It follows on the heels of a much-ballyhooed, controversial Stanford University study, released in September. The Stanford study concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional -- and far less expensive -- counterparts.

Ironically, it was this same study that Dr. Oz bashed on his October 19 television show for ignoring the obvious: Conventional food is loaded with toxic pesticides, which makes it not only less healthful, but downright dangerous. Especially for children.
At a time when the health of Americans is rapidly deteriorating -- skyrocketing obesity, childhood diabetes, ever-increasing cases of asthma, allergies, autism, and cancer -- there appears to be a concerted and insidious effort to smear organics, to convince consumers that there's no connection between their poor health and the low-grade chemical food on their plates. Food routinely grown in nutrient-deficient soil, sprayed with toxic pesticides, pumped full of antibiotics and hormones, and genetically modified in Monsanto's laboratories.
Instead, anti-organic forces are pushing the message that cheaper food is better for your wallet. And just fine for your health. Both the Stanford Study and Dr. Oz's Time article focus on cost to consumers at the checkout counter. Neither addresses the long-term cost of poor health caused by toxic chemicals, or the long-term cost to the planet of chemical-intensive, climate-disruptive, unsustainable agricultural practices.
That Stanford study, which was highlighted by major media outlets including the New York Times , Associated Press, and CBS News, didn't address pesticides and their proven link to health problems, especially in children. It didn't address waterways polluted by tons of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The study was limited to fruits and vegetables, so it didn't have to address the growing public health crisis of antibiotics and hormone residues in meat and dairy, nor the millions of annual food poisoning cases attributed to filthy meat and animal products coming out of the nation's factory farm feedlots and slaughterhouses.
The Stanford study also completely ignored the horrendous damage to the environment by non-organic industrial farms and feedlots, including the devastating consequences to the planet of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from chemical fertilizers and huge factory farm operations. Recent statistics indicate that the direct (greenhouse gas pollution) and indirect (tropical deforestation) impacts of industrial food and farms are the largest contributor to global warming.
What the Stanford study did, thanks to a huge public relations push, was spread the message that organic fruits and vegetables are expensive, and conventional fruits and vegetables are just as good but cheaper. No doubt, the authors hope that consumers will carry over that message from fruits and vegetables, to all things organic.
It's no surprise that the Stanford study would focus on cost. As it turns out, the study was produced by Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute, which gets millions in funding from agribusiness giant Cargill, the world's largest agricultural business enterprise, and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have deep ties to agricultural chemical and biotechnology corporations like Monsanto. These giant corporations are all part of the same cabal that contributed at least half of the $46 million spent between October 1 and November 6 to defeat Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. Just a coincidence that the Stanford study and the mass media propaganda barrage that accompanied it was released during the election season, when voters were still weighing their options on the high-profile California GMO labeling law that was making national headlines?
The motives behind the Stanford study and the Freeman Spogli Institute are obvious. What caused Dr. Oz to flip-flop is anyone's guess -- and just might make for a good story someday. Informed sources behind the scenes have told us that Dr. Oz is under tremendous pressure from the biotech industry after airing a segment earlier this fall that supported GMO labeling. He's also getting pressure from Big Pharma and federal regulatory agencies for his previous exposures of industry malpractices.
Consumer demand for organics is rising steadily. Last year, organic foods accounted for $31.4 billion in sales, according to a recent Obama administration report. Compare that with just $3.6 billion in 1997, and it makes sense that multinational junk food companies, like Pepsi, General Mills, Coca-Cola and others, are buying up organic brands. But these companies also know that there's more money in the $50-billion "natural" foods market, an unregulated market with higher profit margins and lower barriers to entry, than there is in certified organics. That explains why these same multinational companies pitched in the other half of the $46 million to defeat Prop 37. After all, if passed, the initiative would have banned the use of the word "natural" on any product containing genetically modified foods. That would have forced companies to use more expensive, certified organic ingredients in their highly profitable "natural" products.
Estimates are that if Prop 37 had passed, it would have triggered a multi-billion dollar increase in the sales of organic and non-GMO foods, and a corresponding decrease in the sales of so-called "natural" foods. Could it be that Big Ag and Big Pharma, who supply the drugs for non-organic factory farms, are feeling threatened by the fact that the market for organics is growing ten times faster than the market for conventional foods? The bottom line is that the real 1%, America's giant food processors and supermarket chains, are alarmed by the fact that consumers are wising up -- and rising up -- in greater numbers than ever before to demand transparency in labeling, and greater access to organic, locally-sourced, humanely-produced, nutritious food.
In a struggling economy, the quickest way to grab the attention of consumers is to promise them short-term savings. Messages like the ones transmitted by the Stanford study and Dr. Oz's recent article grossly oversimplify the issue of organics versus conventional foods, while propping up an unsustainable but highly profitable factory farm and processed food industry. They miss the point, intentionally, that pesticides, drug residues, and filthy factory farms damage public health and raise U.S. medical costs, which are already the highest in the world.
But no matter how hard Big Ag and the mass media try to misinform consumers, they are fighting a losing battle. There is mounting scientific evidence that genetically engineered foods are hazardous to human and animal health, and are severely damaging the environment and the climate. This is the reason why millions of Americans are turning to certified organic food, which bans GMOs, synthetic pesticides, and animal drugs. The big lie is that cheap chemical and GMO food isn't really cheap, if you take the long view.
Shame on you Dr. Oz, and the rest of the mass media for perpetuating this big lie.
No matter how many universities pump out however many studies, no matter how many famous TV personalities -- including those wearing scrubs -- try to tell us otherwise, our current systems of food and agriculture are unsustainable. That's why the organic food and farming movement is growing by leaps and bounds. That's why organic foods and agriculture will soon become the norm, just as they once were for thousands of years, not just the alternative.
About the authors:
Katherine Paul is director of development and communications at the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Where is Winter?

Here in the upper part of the South we have not had much of a winter at all.  You know cause that whole global warming thing just does not exist, ya right.  This winter has been very warm.  I'm in Tennessee, so we are use to seeing some snow and ice a few times around the holidays, but ho no, not this year.  It has been in the low 70's on several different days.  I am not use to this.  I wanted winter. You know, snow.  We have seen some snow flurries, but it melts as soon as it hits the ground.
It is scary that how noticeable the effects of our gas consumption over the decades has permently changed our weather.  I remember as a kid getting snow drifts that were as tall as I was, and I was the tallest kid in class.  We once missed almost two weeks of school because of the snow and ice.  Now the snow barely covers the ground.  I know don't know. It just worry me a bit. 

Do people just not want to talk about it, or are they just too scared?  We need to make a change in our lifestyle and environment.  What if it is too late for change?  What if one summer the temperature stays in the high 90's of low 100's without any change?  There are some areas of this country that is the normal temperature, but it's few areas.
What changes have you noticed in the environment where you live?  Let me know in the comments below.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Christmas Tree removal

After the holidays, don’t throw your Real Christmas Tree in the trash or set it on the curb. Real Christmas Trees are biodegradable, which means they can be easily reused or recycled for mulch and other purposes. Here are some recycling options and tips on what to do with your tree after the holidays. Every community is different, but in general, you have these options:

 Removing Your Tree

The best way to avoid a mess removing your tree is to place a plastic tree bag (available at hardware stores) underneath the stand when you set the tree up. You can hide it with a tree skirt. Then, when the holidays are done, pull the bag up around the tree, stand and all, and carry it outside. Obviously, you will want to remove the stand before recycling the tree. If some needles do scatter inside, it is better to sweep them up; as needles can clog vacuum cleaners.

Curbside pick-up for recycling: Most areas will collect trees during their regular pickup schedules on the two weeks following Christmas.  There are often requirements for size, removing ornaments, flocking, etc.

Take your tree to a drop off recycling center: Most counties have free drop-off locations throughout the county. Usually, you may take up to two trees to a drop-off location at no charge.

Yard waste: Cut the tree to fit loosely into your yard waste container.

Tree recycling/mulching programs: Tree recycling and mulching programs are a fast-growing trend in communities throughout the nation. Check with your local department of public works for information. They chip and shred the trees, then make the mulch available for use in your garden.  Your hauler will notify you of pick-up dates in your area. Be sure to check with your local hauler.

Nonprofit pickup: Call for an appointment to have a nonprofit organization in your area pickup your tree. Some Boy Scout troops offer a pickup service for a small donation (often $5).

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Happy New Year Everybody!

Happy New Year!

It's 2013.  I don't know about you, but I am looking forward to the new year. There were lots of changes in my life last year, some good some bad.  I moved which was good and bad.  I was tired of living in the area I was in, but hated leaving my friends there.  I miss them terrible.  The area I am currently living in small and boring.  I only have a few friends here, but I am making the best out of a bad situation.  The food shopping is horrible. 

I did make some New Year's Resolutions this year.

            I will clean up my diet even more.

            I will exercise at least 5 days a week, in some form.

Those are the two main resolutions that I will post.  There are a few others that I will be working on this year.  Do you make any New Year's Resolutions yesterday or today?  Let me know about them. Post them in the comments below. 

Best wishes on the New Year!