May 2012
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Author Archive

What Happens When Science is Wrong?

Posted by Paul Ericson on March 29, 2011

Scientists are only human. They have egos, hate being wrong, and need grant money to fund their work. They are not dispassionate, objective truth seekers. They never have been. All one has to do is look at the career of Louis Pasture. The result is that much of research that has been done in the past 50 years, representing hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of labor hours, is wrong. What’s even more shocking is that this is not some crack pot conspiracy theory. This notion has been well published and even more surprising, well received by the medical community. To see a specific example of this phenomena in action, we just have to look at the annual flu shot.

Money & Science

How is this possible? The bottom line is that there are no truth police. Scientists are entirely self-regulated. They are in the truth manufacturing business. Worse yet is the fact that we live in an authoritarian society so often the experts point of view gets put into public policy (low fat diets) or law (vaccination)–even when they are wrong. For example, there have been calls to add statins to public water supplies–even though they cause birth defects.

The other major factor is money. If you are a researchers, there is lots of money to study margarine and seed oils and very little to study butter and virtually none to study raw butter. The same is true for pharmaceutical drugs and well understood cure alls like gelatin and cod liver oil. Iowa farmers have a joke, “If you have $10,000 you can get Ames to ‘prove’ anything you want” (Ames is the main agricultural research university). Despite the bluster and sanctimony to the contrary, I believe that scientists are much more likely to get the results they want, than figuring out what’s actually true.

Another major problem is that the vast majority of people do not have the time, money, energy or intellectual capability to go off on their own. Reading technical journals and conducting experiments on yourself or your family is risky and difficult The only other choice is to trust the “experts”. There is also the herd mentality. If the experts are telling you to do or not do something and most people are listening, it seems like madness to go against the flow. Everyone is just assuming the experts are usually right–when they are in fact usually wrong.

The internet has created an entirely new dynamic though. People with every conceivable malady are now able to compare notes and share experiences and results of personal experimentation. I’ve personally read countless posts from people who are openly ignoring the best advice of their doctors and none the less curing themselves of whatever allies them. Mainstream medicine is losing market share every year to alternative treatments. If they were to objectively look at the cause they would find that it is their rigid, dogmatic wrongheadedness that is the primary cause. But they are making way too much money with the current system to want to change.

Based on my research I don’t believe the medical system will ever figure this out and remake themselves in a cathartic revolution. Instead, one group will slowly lose relevance over the next couple of generations and eventually be replaced by a different group entirely. Every generation of doctors and scientists eventually becomes the old guard, out of touch and stuck on out dated ideas. The young turks come along with “crazy” new ideas and eventually replace the old guard. Only to eventually become the next old guard. Its a perpetual cycle with a long sad trail of sick and dead bodies and wasted time and money.

So what should you do? The short answer is to talk to your doctor, if they won’t listen, get another doctor. Money is the only thing that will get their attention. Also realize that many people have stopped seeing their doctors and stopped taking their meds because they’ve figured out that a nutrient poor diet was all that was wrong with them.

If you have a health problem start following the Liberation Diet and see if it goes away. We’ve had many success stories. I personally believe that the vast majority of health problems are caused by poor diets. Cod liver oil, butter oil, raw dairy, sprouted & fermented grains, pastured meat and eggs, organic veggies, gelatin & mineral rich bone broths will cure virtually any health problem. Vitamin C and iodine also can work wonders for a variety of specific health problems.

Everyone has a doctor in him or her; we just have to help it in its work. The natural healing force within each one of us is the greatest force in getting well. Our food should be our medicine. Our medicine should be our food. But to eat when you are sick, is to feed your sickness.
-Hippocrates

Another thing to do is to stop paying attention to the “latest study” or the “newest research” or anyone who talks about these things. Our great grand mothers already knew everything we need to know to be healthy (eat real, home made food). We all just stopped listening and started listening to the jokers in the lab coats and buying refined, pasteurized food in boxes and cans.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator

Posted in Money, Nutrition, Politics, processed food, vitamin C | Leave a Comment »

The “cause” of diabetes

Posted by Paul Ericson on February 8, 2011

As a philosopher I love to split hairs. One of my favorite “hairs” is the word “cause”. This word is frequently misused by scientists, the press and thus by the general public. A recent example of the mis-use of this word came when I read an article about the relationship between mouth breathing and upper palate development. The dental industry currently believes that mouth breathing causes the upper palate to narrow. This is based on the idiotic notion that the tongue acts as a form to ensure proper development of the upper palate. There is no data to support this notion. It’s just that, a notion, not a well established fact. In this case the causal arrow is simply pointed in the wrong direction. That is, a narrow palate causes mouth breathing. How do we know this? Dr. Weston Price’s work is far more compelling evidence than what is currently used to “prove” the arrow points in the other direction.

A more complex example of problems with the use of the word “cause” is dental cavities. I recently had a conversation with a practicing dentist. I asked him what causes cavities. He told me it was acid erosion from acid producing bacteria. I then asked him if the cause was not actually an imbalance in the erosion-mineralization rates where the erosion rate simple exceeded the mineralization rate. He looked puzzled for a bit and then admitted that my definition was more accurate. So that means the “cause” is a relationship between two factors, not one of those factors.

I suspect that the cause of type 2 diabetes is equally as complex. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about the cause of diabetes. The first I want to talk about is that carbohydrates cause type 2 diabetes. The primary reason people think this is true is because when type 2 diabetics go on a low carb diet, they often lose their symptoms and can go off their medication. Notice I didn’t say that a low carb diet “cures” their disease. The reason is that carbs don’t cause type 2 diabetes so removing them doesn’t cure it.

There are two factors that cause type 2 diabetes, both are necessary and neither are sufficient. The first factor is insulin resistance. The second factor is high glucose intake. Insulin resistance is not type 2 diabetes. It only becomes type 2 diabetes when a lot of glucose is consumed. This is why cultures that eat low carb diets (Eskimos, Inuit, Masai) don’t have diabetes on their traditional diets, but do get it when they start eating white flour and sugar (both high in glucose). It also explains why cultures that eat high starch (casava, sweet potato), low fat diets don’t get diabetes until they start eating sugar and vegetable oil.

So what’s a common cause of insulin resistance? A high fat diet. This is not a controversial notion. Both animal and human studies have shown this pretty conclusively. (Look it up here, there are 5089 results from this query). But there is also data showing that sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) also cause type 2 diabetes. (Look it up here, there are 87,706 results from this query) This is the first major source of confusion–even amongst the experts. The solution to the riddle is that sugar and HFCS are not pure carbohydrates. To better understand this statement you need some background.

Sugar is sucrose which is one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule bond together. HFCS is a mixture of corn syrup (glucose) and enzymatically processed corn syrup (fructose). The most common mixture ratio is 55% fructose/45% glucose (this is so its slightly sweeter than sugar as fructose is far sweeter than glucose). Both glucose and fructose have the chemical formula C₆H₁₂O₆. In fact virtually all sugars have the same chemical formula. The difference is the bonding structure of the atoms.

Sucrose

I’ll repeat the unconventional notion above: sugar and HFCS are not pure carbohydrates. Sure they are both made of glucose and fructose and even have the same chemical formula. The problem is that terms like “fat”, “protein” and “carbohydrates” are used to describe food components that behave more or less the same both outside of and inside of the body. So for example, when we eat protein, it usually remains as protein in the body and is used to make other proteins in the body. Same with fat. Carbohydrates are typically broken down to glucose and used by our cells for energy. The problem is fructose. Fructose is, I believe, mis-classified. Fructose is sent directly to the liver where it is converted to triglycerides which are a fat. Then the triglycerides are metabolized as fat by our cells. Sugar and HFCS are chimeras inside the body: they are metabolically half carb, half fat. One could eat a very low fat diet, which is high in sugar and still be on a high fat diet metabolically! And since high fat intake leads to insulin resistance, sugar/HFCS is really a recipe for disaster in terms of type 2 diabetes. Because it provides both necessary components of type 2 diabetes: fat (as triglycerides) to induce insulin resistance and large amounts of glucose which require large amounts of insulin. It’s like a feed back loop in the body.

According to the USDA, between 1950 and 2000, total fat consumption in the US has gone from 44.6 lbs per person per year to 74.5 lbs. per person per year. Total caloric sweetener has gone from 109.6 lbs. per person per year to 152.4. That’s a 40% and 28% increase respectively. That’s a huge increase in fats, both as direct fat intake and fats, as triglycerides, from fructose.

The average American consumes 156lbs. of caloric sweeteners annually. That’s 12 lbs. per week for a family of four. Can you imagine going to the store and buying a week’s worth of sugar for your family and loading twelve 1 lb. bags into your cart! But that’s exactly what Americans are doing. The only difference is that instead of 12 little 1 lb. bags, the sugar/HFCS is hidden in soft drinks and processed foods.

So we’re back to definitions. Sugar/HFCS are not pure carbohydrates. They are chimeras, half carb, half fat. In terms of insulin resistance, it doesn’t appear to matter what form of fat is involved whether its triglycerides from sugar/HFCS, animal fat or seed oils. As in all cases insulin resistance appears to be about basic energy utilization pathways in the cells. Fat vs. glucose. The more fat that’s available for energy, the more insulin resistant the cells become. Which is not really a problem in and of itself. As I said, insulin resistance is not type 2 diabetes. But high glucose intake combined with insulin resistance is a serious problem. It is the type 2 diabetes epidemic we’re all facing.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in diabetes, insulin, sugar | 3 Comments »

The Dangers of Oversimplification

Posted by Paul Ericson on December 5, 2010

There is no such things as a “carb” or “fat” or “meat”. These terms are meaningless without more context. Yet we’re all guilty of using these words like each one describes the same kind of thing. Sugar and sweet potatoes are both “carbs”. Yet one is healthy and one is downright dangerous. Same goes for margarine and butter, both are “fats”. Or pastured beef vs CAFO beef or hot dogs–they’re all “meat”.

sugar

sweet potato

margarine

butter

CAFO

pastured

Because of this fallacy of equivocation, I believe that the vast majority of nutrition/health studies done in the past 50 years are meaningless and should be ignored. This of course leaves huge, gaping holes, in our knowledge. But using these studies as we have (mostly to generate headlines and sell processed food) has left people confused at best and sick or dead at worst.

Recent “meat” studies are a good place to look to understand what I’m talking about. I’ve read most of these studies in the past two years and they make no effort to control for organic vs. conventional, grain-fed vs. pastured, fresh vs. processed (although a recent study did find processed meat to be bad, but fresh meat harmless!). Nor do they control for the use of growth hormone.

We know for a fact that the nutritional profile of a meat is feed, not species, specific. For example, salmon is generally considered healthier than beef. Yet when you look at the four kinds of beef and salmon out there you find something quite striking. Pastured beef has a better nutritional profile than farmed salmon. Wild salmon has a better nutritional profile than CAFO beef. So there you go, two more words that are meaningless without context: “beef” and “salmon”.

But of course people don’t want to live in a complicated world. They want to live in a world where “salmon” is better for you than “beef”. When how the beef or salmon is produced starts to matter, you’ve instantly made life more complicated. Plus now you need 3rd party verification to make sure the producer is being honest about what the animal was fed or if it’s wild caught.

This contextless speech also applies to dietary macro-nutrients. “Low-carb” and “low-fat” are two common terms that are also meaningless. You could live on diet soda and hot dogs or you could eat pastured beef and broccoli and both are “low carb”. Same goes for “low fat”. People eat white flour and sugar and feel good because they are “low fat”. I really enjoyed Jimmy’s recent post where he talks about this exact point. That only now are main stream researchers starting to pay attention to the details. That just because it’s low in fat, doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

Posted in Butter, grass fed beef, Nutrition, real food, sugar, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Why I Drink Raw Milk

Posted by Paul Ericson on October 24, 2010

I drink raw milk. I get it from a guy I know who is passionate about the raw milk movement. He has a small, but growing herd of Jersey cows. He’s not certified organic, but he doesn’t use pesticides or synthetic fertilizers on his pastures. For many ordinary people, the thought of drinking raw milk is out of the question–they think it’s dangerous. The reason is because scientists, doctors and public health officials tell them so and they don’t question these authority figures.

milk

Drinking raw milk is still a fringe activity, although time will tell if it becomes more popular. It’s growing popularity is a troubling trend to some regulators, especially at the FDA. The question of why people drink raw milk is one that appears to need answering by the “experts”. So they’ve commissioned a study to find out why people drink raw milk. When I first heard about this study a few months ago I sent an e-mail to the lead researcher offering my technical assistance. I never got a reply. My guess is that like so many research projects it’s really an exercise is reinforcing already strongly held beliefs by the researchers. In this case: raw milk is dangerous and people that drink it are Luddites. It’s an open secret that much of the research out there is worse than worthless because it’s being used to form common opinion and public policy.

I’m curious how many research subject they will encounter that are well educated with sound decision making processes that will get excluded from the final data set. Probably more than one. These types of studies generally get manipulated to produce the desired results. But I will give the investigators the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what they conclude. But I can explain why I drink raw milk and feed it to my children.

I would rather risk the sever illness or death of myself or my children from drinking raw milk than risk the consequences of drinking pasteurized milk. This statement probably seems shocking to most people that read it. But to understand why I feel this way you have to understand how science works in general and what the science on this subject does and does not tell us.

Science as it is currently practiced in our society is an authoritarian practice, not a truth seeking practice. While it does attempt to find the “truth” on any given matter, truth ultimately doesn’t matter. What matters is who can claim the mantle of “expert”. Who can get research funding and who can win a debate for their point of view when forming public policy. In these endeavors, truth frequently gets left behind.

To better understand this deep and complicated subject, I suggest reading or watching Manufacture of Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Good examples of this are the FDA and CDC web sites. The FDA tells you not to drink raw milk, but it doesn’t cite a single study to justify this claim. The CDC makes many unsubstantiated claims about food and vaccination, again without citing a single study. In both cases what they are saying is “trust us, we’re the experts”.

I think there are two reasons why they don’t cite studies. First is simple arrogance–they feel, as the experts, that they don’t have to justify their proclamations. But the other reason is that when you look at all the available science on raw milk, it’s not at all clear that drinking raw milk is dangerous and drinking pasteurized milk is not. So for example, there are no long term, large scale, double blind placebo controlled studies comparing raw and pasteurized milk for health and safety. This type of study is referred to as the “gold standard” and it is one of the best ways to settle a scientific question.

But even if they tried such a study, they’d probably stack the deck and use randomly obtained industrial milk, which is dangerous since it’s produced to be pasteurized. And this gets to the core of some of the confusion on the subject of raw milk. No thoughtful advocate of raw milk thinks that people should drink just any raw milk. Instead, raw drinking milk has to be produced in a way that reduces, but does not eliminate, the dangers. Cows fed fresh grass or hay, little to no grain, no hormones or antibiotics, diligent hygiene practices, short shelf life, etc. So when the FDA says raw milk is dangerous, they are mostly right since most raw milk is produced to be pasteurized and is more dangerous than milk produced to be consumed raw.

The flip side of my justification is the dangers of pasteurized milk. This is a subject that has virtually no science to answer the question of it’s long term safety. No one wants to accept that pasteurized milk might be dangerous to long term health. And no one with money wants to fund this kind of research. There have been some studies done on this when pasteurization was first proposed by doctors that were using raw milk as medicine and wondered if pasteurized milk would be as effective. I’m not aware of any study that found pasteurized milk to be as effective as raw milk.

But the real problem is that the current experts only want to look at this decision, to drink raw milk, in an overly limited context. Pathogens in raw milk cause illness almost immediately or at least within 2 weeks. The ill health effects from pasteurized milk would take years to manifest and would be chronic, not acute. So to the experts they don’t even exist–even though they have no science to confirm with claim. I’ll readily admit I have no science proving that pasteurized milk is dangerous to long term health. And of the few studies that have been done, raw milk is the clear winner. Raw milk is a natural, whole food product. While pasteurized milk is highly processed. A big factor in claiming pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk is that there are no down sides to pasteurized milk.

The other concept the experts ignore on this topic is that they can’t quantify the risk of drinking raw milk. The risk of drinking well produced raw milk is probably not any higher than eating fresh fruits and vegetables or deli meats. The top two causes of food borne illness. And what about sushi, raw oysters or steak tartar–all raw foods that the FDA has so far left alone?

So the bottom line is that I drink raw milk because it is most likely healthier than pasteurized milk long term and not likely any riskier than any other food short term. I just wish the experts would be more open minded and dedicate the resources to answering these questions instead of vigorously defending indefensible positions. Ultimately I think raw milk will win out on liberty, not scientific grounds.

Posted in raw milk | Tagged: raw milk, risk | 4 Comments »

Understanding Food Borne Illness

Posted by Paul Ericson on September 8, 2010

The first thing everyone needs to admit is that food borne illnesses are unavoidable. By this I mean there is no way to eliminate this problem. So it is always going to be about risk management and reducing the problem as much as is practical (not possible).

Sources

The first thing to ask is where do pathogens come from? There are three major sources of pathogens.

First, they are bred intensively in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). We know for example, that taking cattle off their usual high corn-soy ration and putting them on hay/grass for 5 days allows them to shed 80% of their E.Coil 157. But this is not the solution. Banning CAFOs is the solution. Not only are pathogens being intensively bred in CAFOs, but novel strains that are antibiotic resistant are being created. It’s been estimated that up to 75% of all antibiotics produced in the world are fed to animals, not used for medical treatments.

Second, they come from irrigation water. I saw one study at a recent conference where 100% of the samples tested positive for E.Coli. Should we ban irrigation? Perhaps. Water access is turning out to be a huge problem. Banning irrigation certainly takes some of the fuel off the fire. Plus it would give “local” a huge boost as so much of our produce is grown on irrigated land in California and other warmer areas. The last big spinach scare has been blamed on “feral pigs”. I find this hard to believe. I also haven’t seen any physical evidence. Blaming irrigation water is too risky politically. Feral pigs can’t answer back so they get the blame–just like butter.

The third source is processing facilities. And this really gets to the crux of the problem. It seems that we just can’t keep processing facilities clean, despite millions in equipment and heavy use of toxic chemicals. Even pasteurization isn’t fool proof as the many deaths from pasteurized milk can attest. Even the financial incentives are correct, yet they can’t stay clean. The spinach industry lost $100M in sales after just one well publicized outbreak.

There are competing stereotypes. One is that the low-tech little guy can’t keep it clean but the big, modern guy can. The other is that the little guy, “who has to look the customer in the eye” is cleaner. The sad reality is that no one can stop pathogens and size doesn’t matter on this narrow point–everyone is dirty. But in the end size matters and little is better. The reason is that when a single plant is supplying all the lettuce to thousands of Wal Mart stores, if it has a contamination issue, millions of people are at risk. But the local guy at the farmer’s market can only sicken a handful of people.

Solutions

The solution is to get rid of big processors. They are just too risky. They are food WMDs. The problems with this solution are manifold. For one, the big guys have a lot of political clout, so getting rid of them is easier said than done. It’s worse than taking on big tobacco–big food is bigger and more powerful. The other problem is that regulators think they can inspect this problem away and the mere thought of mushrooming the number of sites to inspect is just too overwhelming.

Banning CAFOs is part of getting rid of big processors. Banning irrigation is part of getting rid of big produce. It is encouraging to see that the USDA is working to develop regional food hubs. This is a step in the right direction. Also, the Justice Department is investigating anti-trust violations in the food industry–don’t hold your breath. But they are going after Dean Foods.

Other solutions are to develop food handling guidelines and training programs for growers. If we are going to be successful in transitioning to a locally based food system, this is an essential element.

But the best solution is actually getting the message into the home. There are numerous studies showing that home-based food preparation is a major cause of food borne illnesses. Cross contamination of raw food and improper cooking are just two examples. Another is the loss of traditional food preparation knowledge. Lacto-fermentation is an excellent way to keep foods safe as the lactic acid produced by bacteria suppresses pathogens. Also, the bacteria are probiotic and help strengthen our guts. We’re turning into a nation of microwavers and this has to change.

Hidden Truths

As with so many other topics of nutrition, health and medicine, when you actually look at all the available data you have to wonder how certain conclusions are being drawn.

For example, food is regularly contaminated, yet outbreaks are not as common. The conclusion: Just because the food is contaminated, doesn’t mean people will get sick.

Also, why is it that when an outbreak is investigated they find that most of the people who ate the contaminated food didn’t get sick? The conclusion: it’s not the germs, it’s the eater’s terrain. A truly detailed investigation should show that the people who got ill had underlying medical conditions, genetic mutations or nutritional deficiencies. But when someone gets sick, it never occurs to anyone to check the victim’s vitamin A and D status, etc.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in Big Agriculture, farm fresh, Fear, Food Safety, government, health, Local Foods, Money, Politics, real food | Tagged: CAFOs, food borne illness, irrigation, pathogens | Leave a Comment »

How Much Water Should You Drink?

Posted by Paul Ericson on June 15, 2010

There is a common misconception that drinking water helps you lose weight.

Water

Water is actually a very complex topic that can’t really be captured accurately with statements like “drink lots of water to lose weight.” First let’s understand water at it’s extremes. The survival rule of threes is 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food. Three days without water can begin to threaten your survival. On the other end, excessive water consumption can lead to water intoxication and death. So too much or too little are fatal, the right amount is in between.

The only studies I’ve seen on the subject correlate increased water intake with weight lose, but this could be explained by many factors that have nothing to do with a causal effect of water itself.

For example, people who exercise more, may drink more water. But it’s the exercise, not the water, that is causing the weight lose. Or it could be the “healthy patient” effect where people who drink more water may do many other things that help them keep their weight down. Or they may just have higher metabolisms which make their bodies use more water.

Each cell in your body is mostly water and the flow of water in and out of a cell is tightly controlled. Sodium tends to drive water into your cells, and potassium tends to drive water out of your cells. Bodybuilders actually use this principle to manipulate how much water is in their cells so their muscles look bigger during a contest.

The type of water also matters greatly.

For example, reverse osmosis water is the white bread of water as most of the minerals have been removed. Besides not adding important minerals to your diet, RO water is also more rapidly absorbed than water with minerals in solution. A common experiment is to add RO water to a slide containing cells. Under the right conditions, the cells will burst. The reason is that the RO water enters the cells faster than the mineral rich water in the cells can leave. The cells pop like an overfilled balloon. RO treatment of water may remove contaminants, but it can flush minerals out of your body.

So can drinking too much water. The commonly heard advice to drink 8 glasses of water is dangerous practice since it can lead to electrolyte imbalance and mineral depletion. It also over works the kidneys. There are no traditional cultures that have rigid, high-volume water drinking practices.

The Japanese have 1/10th the obesity that we do, and they mostly drink unsweetened green tea. They don’t like to drink water because they think it will make you fat. So it’s interesting to see an advanced culture that has come to the exact opposite conclusion about water as ours. And their low obesity rate speaks for itself.

It’s important to remember that each gram of carbohydrate and protein requires three to four grams of water to digest. Milk or lacto-fermented beverages are a better choice than water since they contain pro-biotics, minerals and vitamins. Drinking too much water can deplete your body of salt, triggering hunger. Most people drink when they are thirsty and that’s the best basic advice to follow.

Try to avoid water if something better is available and avoid RO water if possible.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in health, water, Weight Loss | 1 Comment »

Kim Chi Recipe

Posted by Paul Ericson on June 1, 2010

Traditional Kim Chi Recipe

: Kim Chi

This recipe makes 1qt/L of Kim Chi. It will keep in the refrigerator for months, but this recipe is so delicious, I doubt you’ll be able to make it last that long. Also, be warned that eating too much Kim Chi will make you smell like Kim Chi–it literally starts to come out your pores. (You’ve been warned)

Culture (Biological, not sociological)

Before you begin, it’s very important to understand what it is exactly that you are trying to accomplish when you make Kim Chi (or any other lacto-fermented pickles). The idea is to get a culture, like sourdough bread or yogurt to dominate the Kim Chi. Thus, you want to avoid things like chlorinated or disinfected water, pesticides and high heat. All these things can kill the bacteria and others you are trying to cultivate.

Thus, all water should be free of disinfectants like chlorine or others. Contact your water provider to find out exactly which type of chlorine or other disinfectants are added to the tap water and how to remove them. In some cases, there is no way to remove the disinfectant(s). That being said, most “town” water is chlorinated with a form of chlorine that will evaporate out of the water if you let it sit for 24 hours.

Lastly, avoid distilled or reverse osmosis water as it is the white bread of water. i.e. it has had all minerals removed. Because it is pure water, it can cause cell membranes to rupture because the water enters the cells faster than it can leave. Plus it starves the culture of minerals.

If you are at all concerned about contamination from things like E.Coli or salmonella don’t be. First of all these pathogens are frequently found in our food and most of the time are no danger as cooking or fermenting our food destroys them. Further, the fermentation process by beneficial organisms when making Kim Chi creates an environment hostile to pathogenic bacteria. This effect is as effective as cooking. Also your stomach acids and beneficial organisms in our intestines usually keep pathogens in check.

Salt

Most commercial salt is total garbage and should be avoided. In some countries they even fluoridate the salt instead of the water! Which is actually better since you can avoid salt easier than water.

The two best salts to use are Real Salt or Celtic Sea Salt (sal de mer). These are raw salts that have not been processed. They contain many valuable trace minerals.

Water

High mineral well water or bottled spring water are ideal, but de-chlorinated (un-disinfected) tap water is acceptable.

Mix 1/2c unrefined salt with 5c high mineral water, dissolve all salt. (very important)

You can warm the water on the stove, but do not boil. Before using, make sure it’s below 120F. If the water appears cloudy or has a slight scum, rest assured you have true unrefined salt.

Prepare Cabbage

1 med. Napa Cabbage (Su Choy)
Quarter lengthwise and remove core
Split quarters length wise
Cut into 1-2in bit size pieces
Pour salt water onto cut cabbage pieces
Let soak for several hours (4-6)
I use a large glass mixing bowl
It may be helpful to place casserole lid on top to press cabbage under water as it will float initially.
When the volume is reduced and floating has mostly subsided, it is “done”

Prepare Sauce

1 med. White onion
1 med. Apple
3-6 cloves Garlic
1-2 TBS Ginger
1-2 TBS Fish Sauce
Puree until smooth in food processor or blender

Prepare Other Vegetables

1 med. Diakon radish, cut into quarter circles 1/4in thick (any shape/size is fine–be creative)
1 bunch green onions, cut green parts 1-2in long, white part into 1/8in W circles

Measure Red Pepper Flakes

2-3 TBS med. hot Red Pepper Flakes
These can purchased at a Koren market or just use any unseasoned, dried red pepper flake

(I use organic New Mexico Red Chiles, 2 stars out of 4)

To make Kim Chi

Rinse cabbage 3x in water, drain well each time (Don’t use tap water! Be sure to keep using high mineral or de-disinfected water)
- After adding water, stir gently for rinse the cabbage well
- If you have the time, let the cabbage sit in the rinse water for a few minutes before draining

Add sauce to rinsed cabbage
Add radish and green onion
Add red pepper flake
Gently toss until well blended
Leave on counter 2-3 days, loosely covered. I leave it in the glass bowl with the casserole lid pressing down.
It will make your whole house smell like Kim Chi.
Transfer to a 1 qt/L wide mouth canning jar with tight fitting lid. I use plastic canning jar “storage” lids.
- When you start it will look like there is no way all the Kim Chi will fit–it will.
- After filling the jar 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4, press down on the Kim Chi to compact it.
- You may have to drain off some juice, but make sure there are no air pockets.
- Be sure that liquid covers everything. If there is not enough add a little water
- Be careful not to overfill the jar as it may continue to ferment and can “boil over”

Store in refrigerator, should last for months.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in real food | Tagged: fermentation, Kim Chi | Leave a Comment »

More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

Posted by Paul Ericson on May 23, 2010

donut

It’s 2010 which means it’s time for another update of the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans. They are updated once every five years and the momentum is definitely shifting away from refined carbohydrates, but old prejudices die hard. While several recent studies show that refined carbohydrates are far worse than saturated fat, the spin is that they are worse, not that saturated fats are good for you. I predict that the take home message for many will be “everything is bad for you.”

There has been a torturous progression of fat in recent years. For decades beef tallow, lard, palm and coconut oils were widely used. Then mostly because of pressure from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), food producers switched to partially hydrogenated soy/corn/cottonseed oil. But these contained trans fats and in less than 20 years, trans fats were found to be “more dangerous” than saturated fats. But saturated fat was never exonerated. The oil seed industry, in fear of losing sales, responded by developing fully hydrogenated oils–synthetic saturated fats in other words.

Somehow these fake fats are suppose to be better than natural fats. Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If CSPI had left well enough alone, we’d still be using tallow, lard, palm and coconut oils. I suspect that no matter how much damning evidence is produced against refined carbohydrate, it will be decades before the benefits of saturated fats are generally accepted and the madness ends.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in Big Agriculture, diabetes, heart disease, sugar | Tagged: fake food, fully hydrogenated, Real Food | Leave a Comment »

Real Food Wins Again!

Posted by Paul Ericson on May 21, 2010

Processed Meat

Here is a large study that shows yet again that processed food is less healthy than unprocessed foods.

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in diabetes, health, heart disease, real food | Tagged: diabetes, heart disease, processed meat, unprocessed meat | Leave a Comment »

Full-fat dairy protects against heart disease and stroke

Posted by Paul Ericson on May 11, 2010

A recent study in the Australian Journal of Clinical Nutrition titled “Dairy consumption and patterns of mortality of Australian adults” found that eating full-fat dairy is far healthier than eating low fat dairy.

Jersey Cow

This was a prospective study with a 15-year long follow-up period. This is from the abstract:

There was no consistent and significant association between total dairy intake and total or cause-specific mortality. However, compared with those with the lowest intake of full-fat dairy, participants with the highest intake (median intake 339 g/day) had reduced death due to CVD (HR: 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–0.79; P for trend = 0.04) after adjustment for calcium intake and other confounders. Intakes of low-fat dairy, specific dairy foods, calcium and vitamin D showed no consistent associations.

This means that people who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least. Thus, people who mostly avoided dairy or consumed low-fat dairy had more than three times the risk of dying of coronary heart disease or stroke than people who ate the most full-fat diary.

Contrary to common beliefs, full-fat dairy, from milk, butter and cheese, has not been convincingly linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD). To the contrary, it has consistently been linked to a lower CVD risk, particularly for stroke. What has been linked to cardiovascular disease is milk fat’s replacement, margarine. In the Rotterdam study, high vitamin K2 intake was linked to a lower risk of fatal heart attack, aortic calcification and all-cause mortality. Most of the K2 came from full-fat cheese. In my opinion, artisan cheese and butter made with the rich milk from pasture-fed cow are the ultimate dairy foods.

From a 2005 literature review on milk and cardiovascular disease in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

In total, 10 studies were identified. Their results show a high degree of consistency in the reported risk for heart disease and stroke, all but one study suggesting a relative risk of less than one in subjects with the highest intakes of milk.

…the studies, taken together, suggest that milk drinking may be associated with a small but worthwhile reduction in heart disease and stroke risk.

…All the cohort studies in the present review had, however, been set up at times when reduced-fat milks were unavailable, or scarce.

Butter fat contains vitamins A, K2, E and D, medium-chain triglycerides, butyric acid, omega-3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acid.

Jersey Milk vs Fake Milk

Please let me know what you think about this.

Paul Ericson is a certified Liberation Wellness Educator and the Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader for Barrie, ON Canada

Posted in Butter, farm fresh, heart disease, Local Foods, raw milk | Tagged: Butter, cholesterol, dairy, disease, fat, heart disease, raw milk, sally fallon, stroke, weston price | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries

"For LIFE"

Wellness Liberators

Liberation Store

Liberation Photos

FREE Liberator Newsletter

Recent Posts

Category

Email Subscription

Calendar

Nutrition Certification

Subscribe

Join the Liberation!

Share this Blogsite

Follow us on facebook

Follow us on TWITTER

Liberation STORE

Visionary Trainers

Liberation Diet Book

Liberation Wellness Forum

Healthy Weight Loss

Traditional Cooking DVD

Nourished Kitchen

Liberation Fitness

Liberation In-Home Cooking

Nutrition Wellness Educators

Accurate Health Media

Radiant Life

GHEE

Liberation Tags

Email Subscription

Login

Author Archive

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

There is a common misconception that drinking water helps you lose weight.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

A recent study in the Australian Journal of Clinical Nutrition titled “Dairy consumption and patterns of mortality of Australian adults” found that eating full-fat dairy is far healthier than eating low fat dairy.

Share this:

Like this:

Follow “Liberation Wellness”