Liberation Wellness

"Get Liberated"

Archive for the ‘visionary trainers’ Category

Bugs Are On The Menu

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 28, 2010

In the vast new world of nutrition misinformation, Americans are authorized by public officials like the USDA and medical professionals like the AMA to eat many small meals a day.

I believe this directive to be one of the biggest reasons for the obesity crisis in our modern culture, it has a devastating negative effect on health, and promotes only the enormous profits of the Fake-Food Industry and Big Pharma!

But that is another story,

I would like to talk about small meals and fast food, but what I mean is some the smallest and the fastest of the animal foods – BUGS!

Entomophagy (from [Greek ἔντομος éntomos, “insect(ed)”, and φᾰγεῖν phăgein, “to eat”, which together means “insect eating”) is the practice of eating insects as food.

“every creeping thing that is alive, to you it is for food”; Genesis 9:3 Young’s Translation

The Bible points out that all animal food is authorized by God to be eaten for food. In fact, God particularly mentions the bugs, lizards and snakes (called creeping things) as to let us know that they are allowed and would be appropriate for human consumption.

Dr. Weston Price, known as the Father of clinical nutrition, reported that the some of the healthiest people groups in the world, were eating bugs and the eggs of bugs at certain times of the year for the nutritional value. In fact millions of people for thousands of years have been and continue to eat insects as part of a very healthy diet.

Insects often contain the fat soluble activators A,D and K2 and some have B12 as well as other important nutrients.

Here is the nutritional profile of 100 grams of crickets:

121 calories,
12.9 grams of protein,
5.5 g. of fat,
5.1 g. of carbohydrates,
75.8 mg. calcium,
185.3 mg. of phosphorous,
9.5 mg. of iron,
0.36 mg. of thiamin,
1.09 mg. of riboflavin,
3.10 mg. of niacin

This little bugger is nutrient dense!

Tastes Like Crab! According to this Epicurean

Bizarre Foods

Recently there has been a very interesting TV show airing nationally hosted by food explorer Andrew Zimmern. The show is called Bizarre Foods.

Andrew travels the world and has a meal with local people who’s culinary practices are very different from modern America, but I have noticed they are not so different from each other.

I enjoy the show very much and secretly wish I could taste at least some of the these exotic recipes from around the world.

I do think that the chemical compounds and artificial fake foods that make up much of our modern American so-called food choices, it is we who are eating the Bizarre Foods, and it is they that are eating more like a human being!

Fast Food

Although I am not a proponent of snacking or fast food, it seems if there was every a healthy, convenient, inexpensive snack food, insects are it. An entire industry of McDonald’s, Burger King, etc as well as the convenience stores like 7-11 would be in a very different environment if Americans were eating bugs.

You know, seeing how clever and entrepreneurial they are, I could foresee French Fries being replaced with French Fried Bugs!

Now that I think about it, we could call them McBugs or McFrogs!


The Importance of Vitamins A, D, K2

The foundation of human health is FAT. and many cultures get the all-important nutrients found exclusively in saturated animal fat from livestock and fish.

If however a people group do not have access to fish or cannot afford livestock, God’s exquisite design is that bugs are very readily available almost anywhere and loaded with the nutrition people need the most!

So How Do They TASTE?

That is a good question. I have a saying concerning food taste, which is, follow the law of the jungle. The law of the jungle says “eat what’s best for you, not what tastes the best!.”

If you have a plate of liver and onions, and a plate of ice cream, and you have a taste test, the ice cream will win almost every time. BUT- the liver is much better for you. We should not always make taste the decider in our food choices, as this leads to sweeter and more flavor enhanced foods getting eaten more often.

I must admit however, I have never eaten bugs! According to many, they taste great, but I cannot speak from experience.

Here is a recipe for insects

Ant Brood Tacos

2 tablespoons butter or lard
1/2 pound ant larvae and pupae
3 Serrano chilies, raw, finely chopped
1 tomato, finely chopped
Pepper and Cumin, to taste
Oregano, to taste
1 handful cilantro, chopped
Taco shells, to serve(you can pass on the shells)

Heat the butter or lard in a frying pan and fry the larvae or pupae. Add the chopped onions, chilies, and tomato, and season with salt. Sprinkle with ground pepper, cumin, and oregano, to taste. Serve in tacos and garnish with cilantro. (Not living in an area exceptionally prolific with ants, I have never been able to try this recipe. But it sounds perfectly delicious! I found it in ‘Creepy Crawly Cuisine’, an excellent recipe book.)

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.


Posted in Journey with Liberation Diet, Weight Loss, kevin brown, liberation diet, liberation fitness, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, real food, visionary trainers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Annette Presley: A Registered Dietitian With A Functioning Brain

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 27, 2010

In Episode 384 of “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore,” we hear from registered dietitian Annette Presley who is the co-author of the book The Liberation Diet: Setting America Free from the Bondage of Health Misinformation! with Kevin Brown.

She taught nutrition from the perspective of conventional wisdom for 14 years before she came across the great revolutionary work of Dr. Mary Enig on the healthfulness of consuming saturated fat. Ever since, she has become an activist sharing the truth about nutrition and its impact on health.

Listen to Annette share about why it confused her to learn that nutrition is more about disease management rather than prevention, her exposure to the late, great Dr. Robert C. Atkins at a dietitian’s conference, her asthma diagnosis in 2002 which led her to find alternative nutritional therapies to taking steroids, how Dr. Enig’s book Know Your Fats radically changed her thinking on diet, the anger she felt that almost made her quit nutrition for good, why it’s so difficult for dietitians to break free from the conventional wisdom they’ve been taught, how she got hooked up with Kevin Brown and wrote The Liberation Diet with him, how her frequent letters to the editor about consuming saturated fat raised the ire of some local dietitians to the point they reported her to have her credentials revoked (she won by presenting the science), the quirky disclaimer she uses about the work she is doing now, why you have to eat processed foods to eat a low-fat diet, whether lawsuits about diet are forthcoming, how to get people to break free from their fear of fat, her high saturated fat remedy for heart disease, why fat is so delicious and nutritious in your diet, why she shared the history behind the failed low-fat diet in her book, what role exercise plays in her program, her personal negative experience eating a high-carb diet, how the Internet is leading the revolution for spreading the truth, and her quick thoughts on agave nectar, exercise for weight loss, butter vs. margarine, the so-called “healthy” foods that are anything but, and the profit motive that dominates much of the promotion of food in America.

Click here to access this fascinating conversation with a registered dietitian who truly understands the importance of saturated fat in a healthy diet.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.

Posted in Journey with Liberation Diet, Nutrition, liberation diet, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, visionary trainers, weston price | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tanning Beds, Sunshine, Heliotherapy

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 23, 2010

Here is an excellent article by Laurence Johnston Phd, I am in agreement with this great article/ Kevin


SUNLIGHT, VITAMIN D & HEALTH

Laurance Johnston, Ph.D.

Over the years, I have noticed many friends and colleagues with physical disabilities basking in the sun’s warmth, an activity they can partake in as readily as any able-bodied individual. With moderation, they should keep on basking; it’s healthy.

Although dermatologists advocate avoiding sunlight to prevent skin damage, a growing body of science suggests that the sun exerts many healing benefits. In fact, epidemiological studies indicate that you are much more likely to die from disorders aggravated by chronic underexposure to the sun than disorders aggravated by overexposure. In just one of many examples, epidemiologists estimate at least 55 men die prematurely from prostate cancer from too little sun for every man that dies from too much sun.

This article’s purpose is to describe some of the sun’s healing benefits, especially for spinal cord injury (SCI) and multiple sclerosis (MS) and how they are mediated through vitamin-D metabolism.

History

Throughout history, many healing modalities have cycled in and out of favor. Sunlight (heliotherapy) was often a part of mankind’s healing armamentaria, including that of Hippocrates, the Father of Western Medicine. In the early twentieth century, heliotherapy was used to treat many disorders, such as tuberculosis, rickets in children, and war wounds. Its importance was underscored when Dr. Niels Finsen was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize for developing an ultraviolet (UV) treatment for tuberculosis.

Boston’s Floating Hospital got its name because it originally was located on a floating boat, in which children with rickets could sunbathe. At that time, many hospitals were built to allow access to more sunlight. Sunlight remains an important hospital-design consideration as documented by a recent study showing that spinal-surgery patients assigned to bright, sunny rooms needed much less pain medication.

However, as our increasingly pharmaceutically oriented medical profession developed powerful, infection-fighting antibiotics and drugs, and as milk and other foods were supplemented with vitamin-D, heliotherapy faded to the background.

Its decline was greatly accelerated by the fear of acquiring skin cancer. In my lifetime, I’ve seen a great shift on this issue. For example, when I was a child, my mother told me to play outside and get some sun. In contrast, today’s mothers lather sunscreen on their children, which, in spite of good intentions, evidence suggests may promote a vitamin-D deficiency that may have life-long implications.

Heliotherapy is once again emerging from the dark; there is simply too much evidence supporting its use to ignore.

Ultraviolet Light

Sunlight is composed of electromagnetic radiation of varying wavelengths, ranging from the long-wavelength infrared light to the short-wavelength ultraviolet. The ultraviolet light is further subdivided into UVA and the even shorter-wavelength UVB radiation. Although UVB causes sunburns, it is also the component that initiates Vitamin-D production in the skin.

Unfortunately, earlier sunscreens only blocked UVB, allowing full exposure to skin-damaging UVA light. These UVB sunscreens allowed people to absorb much more UVA radiation before becoming burned than if no sunscreen was used at all. As such, scientists now believe that past sunscreen use actually promoted skin damage, while, at the same time, blocking beneficial vitamin-D production. (Sunscreen reduces the skin’s ability to produce vitamin D by at least 95%.)

Exposure to vitamin-D-producing UVB light can vary greatly depending upon many factors, including time of day and year; and the latitude, altitude, and prevailing weather conditions of where we live.

Latitude is especially important. For example, if you live north of about 37o (roughly, a line from Richmond to San Francisco), you will be exposed to little UVB from at least November through February because the sun’s zenith angle is so low that the atmosphere absorbs most UVB before it reaches you.

Because it is fat soluble, excess, sun-produced, vitamin D is stored in body fat, and, to some degree, can be later used in sun-deficient periods.

Vitamin-D Production and Metabolism

The process by which vitamin D is produced and exerts its biological effects is complicated, involving several vitamin-D-related molecules (see illustration).

Basically, UVB light triggers a modification of a cholesterol-related molecule located in the membrane of skin cells. The vitamin D that is created is then ejected from the membrane into our circulation system, where it travels to the liver. In this organ, it is transformed into 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the derivative that doctors use to assess overall vitamin-D status.

The kidney, as well as some other tissues, further converts this precursor into 1,25-hydroxyvitamin D, the most physiological active vitamin-D metabolite, which is also called calcitrol. Traditionally, calcitrol is understood as a hormone that, together with parathyroid hormone, regulates blood calcium levels and, in turn, bone density. In this role, calcitrol targets the intestine, where it promotes calcium absorption; and bone, where it catalyzes calcium release to help restore depleted blood calcium levels.

However, recent studies indicate that viewing calcitrol just in this role is quite limited. In fact, the hormone exerts a plethora of biological effects on diverse tissues, implying that this sunlight-generated hormone sustains health throughout the body.

Although much remains to be understood, basically, circulating calcitrol enters cells and complexes with the genes in the cell nucleus. This affects DNA expression and, in turn, overall cell functioning and growth. Because calcitrol maintains normal cell proliferation, it inhibits cancerous growth. In addition, calcitrol influences immune-cell activity, helping to explain vitamin D’s seemingly beneficial role in infectious disease and immune-related disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes.

Given these considerations, the implications of preventing vitamin-D deficiency, either through sunlight or diet, are now more profound than ever.

Vitamin-D Food Sources

Relatively few foods naturally contain vitamin D, the most abundant being oily fish like salmon, sardines, and mackerel, or old-fashioned, cod liver oil. Because of limited natural sources, numerous foods, such as milk, are vitamin-D fortified.

Many scientists now believe we need 1,000 IU per day of vitamin D (IU = international units, a measure of vitamin potency) to avoid deficiency.  For reference, a salmon serving contains about 360 IU, a glass of fortified milk about 100 IU, an egg 25 IU, and a tablespoon of cod liver oil 1300+ IU.

In comparison, full-body sunbathing for a period of time that will just make you turn pink will produce 10,000-20,000 IU of vitamin D, equivalent to 100 to 200 glasses of fortified milk. Given such copious production, relatively casual sun exposure (arms, etc) should meet vitamin-D needs.

Remember, however, that no vitamin D will be generated in short-daylight months above certain latitudes. In these periods to avoid vitamin-D deficiency – especially if you don’t like oily fish or are lactose intolerant – you will need to consume a supplement or use a UVB-emitting tanning bed. Studies have shown that individuals who use such a tanning bed in winter have serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (the marker for vitamin-D status) that is 90% higher than controls.

The importance of solar-produced vitamin D was underscored in a study that evaluated vitamin-D status in a submarine crew after two months of acute sun deprivation. Although the crew consumed a vitamin-D fortified diet, their levels of this nutrient plummeted.

Vitamin D can be toxic if too much is consumed from supplements or mistakenly over-fortified foods. However, prolonged sun exposure does not generate toxic vitamin-D levels due to the body’s feedback regulatory mechanisms.

At-Risk Groups

Although everyone is vulnerable to vitamin-D deficiency, especially in winter, certain groups are particularly predisposed. First, when exposed to the same amount of sunlight, elderly individuals produce only 20% of the vitamin-D young adults do. As a result, more than half of individuals older than 65 are vitamin-D deficient.

Second, due to their skin pigmentation, African Americans require much more sun to produce the same levels of vitamin D than do fair-skinned Caucasians. At least 50% of African Americans, who are also less likely to drink fortified milk due to lactose intolerance, are vitamin-D deficient sometime during the year. Apparently, as a consequence, they have a much greater incidence of disorders associated with reduced sun exposure of northern latitudes.

Finally, people with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis often have decreased vitamin-D levels.

SCI

As summarized in two key articles, research carried out by Dr. William Bauman and colleagues, Bronx VA Medical Center indicates that individuals with SCI are often vitamin-D deficient (see Metabolism 44(12), 1995; & J Spinal Cord Med 28, 2005).

Like astronauts who lose bone density from the lack of weight-bearing activities, paralysis causes osteoporosis. As much as 50% of lower-extremity bone mass is lost during the first several years after injury, people with complete injuries losing the most. Hence, a deficiency in bone-enhancing vitamin D further aggravates an already serious SCI problem, in turn increasing fracture risk.

Bauman believes SCI predisposes one to vitamin-D deficiency for several reasons. For example, he speculates that due to limited mobility, someone with SCI may not get as much vitamin-D-producing sunlight as the general population. Supporting this idea, other scientists have demonstrated that pressure-sore-afflicted patients with SCI, who have access to the least sunlight, have the greatest vitamin-D deficiency.

Bauman also suggests that a lack maybe be caused when health-care professionals recommend reduced consumption of vitamin-D-fortified dairy products under the mistaken belief that the calcium in such foods will aggravate kidney problems. And, he believes that many SCI-associated medicines reduce the body’s vitamin-D stores.

In his 1995 study, Bauman compared vitamin-D levels in control subjects and in 100 veterans with SCI who averaged 20 years post-injury. Subjects with SCI were twice as likely to have vitamin-D levels less than that considered normal (again, the marker for vitamin-D status in the body is 25-hydroxyvitamin D produced by the liver).

In his 2005 study, Bauman examined the effectiveness of several dosing regimens in elevating vitamin-D levels in people with chronic SCI. In one regimen, 40 subjects consumed 800 IU of vitamin-D per day for 12 months. Their mean age was 43; injury duration averaged 12 years; and 17 and 23 had quadriplegia and paraplegia, respectively. Before supplementation, 33 had below-normal vitamin-D levels; in contrast, after 12 months of supplementation, only 9 remained deficient.

Although average serum vitamin-D levels doubled in subjects, Bauman believes that even greater supplementation is needed to obtain nutrient serum levels needed for promoting optimal bone health in SCI.

Multiple Sclerosis

MS is influenced by multiple interacting genetic, environmental, nutritional, hormonal, immunological, and viral factors. It is strongly correlated with sunlight, which is a function of latitude, season, prevailing weather, etc. As summarized in UV Advantage by Dr. Michael Holick (2003), MS incidence is five times greater in North America and Europe than the tropics. In the southern US, MS prevalence is about half that of the northern part of the country.

In one example of interacting factors, Norwegians who live near the ocean and consume much vitamin-D-rich seafood have a lower MS risk than those who live inland, even though both groups lack sufficient sunlight to generate vitamin D through much of the year. In another example, Swiss who live at lower altitudes have a greater MS risk than those who live at high altitudes with greater exposure to vitamin-D-producing UVB radiation.

People with MS are often vitamin-D deficient. For example, Dr. Jeri Nieves et al. (New York) examined vitamin-D levels in 80 women with MS and determined that levels of the nutrient were often insufficient and associated with reduced bone density. The investigators found that dietary vitamin-D intake was less than the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) in 80% of these women, and 40% reported no sunlight exposure, perhaps to avoid heat-aggravation of MS symptoms. In a later study, these investigators demonstrated that over a two-year period, fractures occurred in 22% of patients with MS compared to only 2% in age- and gender-matched controls. Patients with MS lost bone mass at a 3-7 fold greater rate.

Until recently, prevailing thinking was that sunlight exerted a protective influence only early in life. Specifically, if you got a lot of sun before age 15, your MS risk would be much less later in life.

This thinking, however, has been challenged by Dr. J.G. McLeod and colleagues (Australia), who examined MS prevalence in migrants to sunny, low-latitude, low-risk Australia from cloudy, high-latitude, high-risk United Kingdom/Ireland. Although theoretically only those who moved before age 15 should acquire the lower Australian MS-risk status, the investigators discovered that MS prevalence in those who migrated before age 15 was not different than those who migrated later in life. In other words, no matter how old you are, you may be less prone to MS after moving to a sunnier environment.

In a suggestive pilot study, Dr. P. Goldberg et al (Massachusetts) followed ten people with MS who consumed ~5,000 IU daily for a year of vitamin D from cod liver oil and found that such supplementation greatly reduced MS exacerbations. Once again, these data suggest that protective nutritional influences are not limited to pre-adulthood before you have ever heard of MS but may actually help when you have it.

Recently, Harvard University investigators examined data collected from two long-term studies involving 187,000 women. The data indicated that those who consumed the most vitamin D had a substantially lower MS risk than women who consumed the least amount.

Many scientists believe that vitamin D mediates its healing influence by interacting with MS’s dysfunctional immune system. Although this is a complex subject beyond this article’s scope, through its hormonal metabolites, vitamin D profoundly influences the expression of 1) a variety of immune cells, which possess gene-modulating, vitamin-D receptors, and 2) key immune-mediating molecules called cytokines.

Vitamin D’s immune effects are supported by research using a rodent model of MS called EAE (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis). In this model, UV radiation or vitamin-D supplementation greatly inhibited the development, severity, and duration of EAE. In contrast, a vitamin-D deficient diet accelerated disease progression.

Other Disorders

Evidence indicates that vitamin D prevents cancer, diabetes, arthritis, high-blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and infections. In other words, it enhances overall wellness.

For example, people with SCI are predisposed to diabetes, a disorder characterized by vitamin-D deficiency that experimental evidence suggests reduces insulin secretion.  In another example, vitamin-D deficiency is associated with an increased infection risk, again especially germane to infection-prone individuals with SCI, especially in this era of antibiotic-resistant infections.

Conclusion

Whether generated through sunlight or consumed through food or supplements, vitamin D exerts many healing benefits relevant to individuals with spinal cord dysfunction. Given exorbitant health-care costs, it’s nice to know that you can accrue these benefits without paying a cent to pharmaceutical companies for costly, perhaps side-effect-laden, drug.

Resources: Two excellent overview books are 1) The Healing Sun by Richard Hobday (1999) and 2) The UV Advantage by Michael Holick (2003). Much of the information in this article was obtained from Dr. Holick’s book and his other writings.

Adapted from article appearing in June and August 2005 Paraplegia News (For subscriptions, call 602-224-0500) or go to http://www.healingtherapies.info/Sunlight&VitaminD.htm

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.

Posted in Cholesterol, Sun Exposure, Tanning Beds, UVA, UVB, Vitamin D, kevin brown, liberation wellness, visionary trainers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Message America Needs to HEAR!

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 22, 2010

The LIBERATION Diet Book

Hello Kevin,

It was WONDERFUL speaking with you; I still can’t believe it! I love your book so much, it is absolutely the best I have ever read on my favorite subjects…nutrition and exercise! The chapter on RAW milk is SO convincing and well written. I can’t even imagine someone reading that and walking away with any other conviction except to drink raw milk! I’ve been in an ongoing (sometimes heated) debate for the past three years with my brother who is convinced that I’m going to die of Listeria. J

When my husband said, “why are you getting that book; you’re not really going to learn anything new are you?” Well, much of what is in your book is simply solid reinforcement of what I have been able to glean from many bits and pieces, but much better written and very clear. And to my delight, I actually have learned a lot that I didn’t already know. That has been the icing on the cake, so to speak, cake made with coconut flour and REAL butter for sure! LOL!

It’s funny all of our low-fat friends and relatives come to our house for dinner and eat our high-fat/low carb/raw dairy foods as if they can’t get enough – like starving wolves!!!!

But then they go home and continue their very misguided low-fat lifestyle.

I do my best to be an ambassador but they are SO brain washed by the USDA and main stream media. I see them with their weight gain issues, allergies, their eye twitches, skin disorders, accelerated aging, sleeping disturbances and strained nerves and just sigh!

It is certainly a fragile battle to be fought, to help the ones we love without jeopardizing the relationship, isn’t it?

THANK YOU for being the diplomat of everything right and wholesome; for going out on a limb and risking ridicule and mockery in order to get the truth out there!

I appreciate what you have done and admire and respect you more than I have words to express! In light of the new USDA food guidelines, getting receptive ears is only going to get tougher.

My very kindest regards,

Lynda,

Arlington VA

You can order the Liberation Diet Book at www.LiberationDiet.com

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.

Posted in Journey with Liberation Diet, Nutrition, Nutrition Certification, kevin brown, liberation diet, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, visionary trainers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

John DeBruin – BestBeefEver.com – Liberation Wellness Hour

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 16, 2010

We would like to share with you why we are so excited about grass-fed beef and why this is such a central focus for our operation.

Summary of the benefits of grass-fed Beef as compared to classic American grain-fed beef:

500% more CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid – a good fat)

400% more Vitamin A

300% more Vitamin E

75% more Omega-3

78% more Beta-carotene

More on the benefits of CLA In animal studies, 11 out of 11 studies surveyed showed CLA decreases cancer. Four out of five found a decrease in body fat associated with CLA. Two out of two found a decrease in heart disease. Two out of two have found increased bone density. Three out of three have found a decrease in adult diabetes. Dr Tilak Dhiman of the Utah State University is one of the foremost researchers into CLA.

Details:Grass-fed beef is a very different product from the beef normally sold in American grocery stores. The meat sold in grocery stores come from cattle penned up in large feedlots where they are confined, fed grains, treated with hormones and given antibiotics, all to promote fast weight gain and prevent disease that is so prevalent in this unnatural environment.

Grass-fed beef, on the other hand is finished on natural pasture – a diet which provides them what nature intended. Cattle are ruminants; they have multiple stomachs and are very efficient converting the cellulose in grasses to protein (meat). There are significant health advantages to grass-fed beef. First, grass-fed beef is higher in beneficial fats.

Omega-3 fatty acids play a vital role in every cell and system in your body. Most prominently, people who have ample amounts of omega-3′s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat. In addition, they are 50% less likely to have a serious heart attack. Second, grass-fed beef is rich in a good fat called “conjugated linoleic acid” or CLA.

Over the past two decades numerous health benefits have been attributed to CLA through experimental evidence including actions to reduce carcinogenesis, atherosclerosis, onset of diabetes, and fat body mass. Finally, grass-fed beef has higher levels of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Grass-fed beef has a factor of 10 higher levels of beta-carotene than conventional beef.

Vitamin A is a critical fat-soluble vitamin that is important for normal vision, bone growth, reproduction, cell division, and cell differentiation.

Vitamin E levels in grass-fed beef are a factor of four higher than conventional beef. In humans, vitamin E is linked with lower risk of heart diseases and cancer. This potent anti-oxidant may also have significant anti-aging properties.

Check out John and Nadine DeBruin at

www.BestBeefEver.com

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.

Posted in Cholesterol, Journey with Liberation Diet, Nutrition, cancer, grass fed beef, health, kevin brown, liberation diet, liberation fitness, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, obesity, real food, visionary trainers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

David Takes on The Low-Fat GOLIATH

Posted by Kevin Brown on July 1, 2010

Low-Carb Experts Comment On 2010 Dietary Guidelines,

Headed To Washington Next Week To Testify

by Jimmy Moore

It’s been a couple of weeks now since that 13-member Advisory Committee for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released their best recommendations for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the response from members of the low-carb community has been quite staggering in their underwhelmed opinion about what has been handed down as dietary truth like the Ten Commandments to Moses from the mountaintop! But, as I previously shared, what they are promoting as healthy nutrition to the American people is still very carbohydrate-heavy and fat-phobic to say the least with their recommendations for people to be eating even MORE carbs (you know, all those “healthy whole grains”) and to slash dietary fat, especially the dastardly “artery-clogging” saturated fat, even further. These asinine and archaic recommendations are still based on decades old propaganda (can you say Ancel Keys?!) that do not accurately reflect the most up-to-date research and information that we have at our disposal today. Be sure to read the scathing yet pointed commentary from across the low-carb/health blogosphere on this public sham put out by the USDA, including Sally Fallon Morell, Dana Carpender, Tom Naughton, Ed Bruske, Kristen Michaelis, Dr. Jonny Bowden, Mark Sisson, and Bonnie Minsky, just to name a few.

The level of incredulity and concern regarding the seemingly blatant miseducation of the American people about something as critical to their lives as how they should eat for optimal health led me to seek out some of my favorite low-carb and health expert friends from around the world to chime in on the issue. We are in a serious philosophical battle for reaching the hearts and minds of people who struggle with obesity, diabetes, and chronic diseases that could easily be preventable if the truth about things like saturated fat and carbohydrates was more clearly defined for people so they can make informed decisions for the health of themselves and their families. Many people are seeking out this alternative information on the Internet which is why I am constantly writing and talking about it every chance I can get. While you and I might not be looking to the USDA for dietary answers, sadly a lot of people are trusting that this 13-member panel knows exactly what they’re talking about–and nothing could be further from the truth.

Here’s what some key voices in the real food, low-carb movement have to say:

JON & CATHY PAYNE, hosts of the Our Natural Health podcast

We are appalled but not surprised by the USDA’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Few people can actually follow recommendations like these, but those that do are likely to suffer severe health problems. The USDA focuses on nutrients as if they are divorced from real food. Where is the focus on unprocessed foods such as raw milk, butter, pastured eggs, green vegetables, moderate fruits and soaked beans and nuts? And up to 25% of calories from added sugar and less than 7% from saturated fat? Are they crazy? This is a prescription for more obesity, more diabetes, more insulin resistance, and more cardiovascular disease. My brother who was very lean, exercised daily, and followed the low-fat guidelines to prevent CVD died suddenly at the age of 54. I am grateful that Jon and I are eating and producing real food and are helping educate people to another point of view.

COLETTE HEIMOWITZ, nutritionist with Atkins Nutritionals

What evidence does FDA have to support its statement in its conclusion: “A moderate amount of evidence demonstrates that intake of dietary patterns with less than 45% calories from carbohydrate or more than 35% calories from protein are not more effective than other diets for weight loss or weight maintenance, are difficult to maintain over the long term, and may be less safe.” What evidence does FDA have to support the implication: “Diets that are less than 45 percent carbohydrate or more than 35 percent protein are difficult to adhere to, are not more effective than other calorie-controlled diets for weight loss and weight maintenance, and may pose health risk, and are therefore not recommended for weight loss or maintenance.” After reviewing their “scientific support,” I can’t help but conclude that there was imprecision and conflation in studies cited. Despite defining high protein diets as those constituting 35 percent or more of total calories as protein and low-carb diets as constituting less than 45 percent of total calories: The studies cited to support the conclusions that low-carbohydrate diets are ineffective for weight loss and may be unsafe vary widely in macronutrient profile. Many do not adhere to the definitions above. In the commentary, the terms low-carbohydrate and high-protein are often used imprecisely and interchangeably. The studies cited have been picked to serve a low-fat agenda. Of the 63 published studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that support the effectiveness and safety of the Atkins Diet, very few are cited in this report. The document defines a high-protein diet as one that comprises 35 percent or more of total calories as protein. In fact, protein remains less than 30 percent regardless of phase in all four phases of Atkins so any implication of health risk is unrelated to a true low carb diet. As defined by the 2010 DGAC definition for high protein, Atkins is not within scope of concern. Low-carbohydrate diets are defined as those in which carbs constitute less than 45 percent of total calories, which does apply to Atkins. Low Carbohydrate high protein is used somewhat interchangeably and therefore confusingly in this document. However, low-carbohydrate is not synonymous with high-protein. Atkins is a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, NOT a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet. Any deleterious statements about the safety and effectiveness of high-protein have nothing to do with Atkins or any current low-carbohydrate program. Atkins falls within the government guidelines of what is considered safe protein consumption. In conclusion, statements about the safety and effectiveness of so-called “low carbohydrate, high-protein” diets have no relevance to Atkins or any current low carbohydrate program.

HANNAH SUTTER, British author of Big Fat Lies and owner of GoLower

It is positively negligent to continue with these instructions when the World Health Organization has just announced the biggest study ever into fats and concludes that there is no link between saturated fats and heart disease. Combine this with the growing evidence that the real health hazard is starch and sugar and guess what you have–a bunch of incompetent government bureaucrats who are choosing to make us fatter…unbelievable but truth is always stranger than fiction!

DR. ANDREAS EENFELDT, Swedish physician and the world’s top low-carb blogger

Albert Einstein defined madness as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The new 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans meets and exceeds that definition. The rate of obesity in America has tripled in the last few decades, during the fatphobia. It is a major health disaster. The new Dietary Guidelines can be summarized like this: keep doing the same thing, and expect the opposite result. Several new overviews of all available research shows no connection between saturated fats and cardiovascular disease. The responsible comittee seems to have missed that completely, being too stuck in their outdated fatphobic mindsets. At least nine randomized controlled trials from the last decade shows significantly better weight on a higher fat diet compared to a low fat diet. None show the opposite. In other words: low fat diets are proven to make you fatter. The obvious explanation is that low fat diets contain more carbohydrates, raising insulin, the main fat storing hormone. The 2010 Guidelines for Americans was outdated years before it was first printed. It is nothing more than a sad relic from the “scientific” thinking behind the obesity epidemic. The time has come for a change, not more of the same madness.

FRED HAHN, author of Slow Burn Fitness Revolution and owner of Serious Strength

The new 2010 USDA dietary guidelines will continue to make Americans fatter, more diabetic and sicker. Ignoring a wealth of scientific information specifically on saturated fats and low carbohydrate diets, the United States Department of Agriculture fails to come to our rescue. USDA should instead stand for Unbelievably Stupid Dietary Advice.

GARY TAUBES, author of Good Calories Bad Calories

I really have nothing to say that doesn’t sound like sour grapes and more complaining.

PAM SCHOENFELD, low-carb nutritionist

Your readers should keep in mind the following, as excerpted from the USDA website: The (USDA) Dietary Guidelines contain the latest, science-based nutrition information and dietary guidance for the general public. They are the foundation for the Federal nutrition education and promotion programs, as well as the basis for the nutrition assistance programs. From that statement a couple of things about the Dietary Guidelines are apparent: one, that families dependent on Federal Nutrition Assistance programs are put more at risk for health problems related to high carbohydrate and low-fat diets provided and recommended therein; and two, the Guidelines are designed for the “general public”–whomever that is? Unfortunately, obesity has descended upon the general public, hitting minorities even more heavily by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s own admission: The prevalence of overweight and obesity in the US has increased dramatically in the past three decades. This is true of children, adolescents, and adults and it is more severe in minority groups. It is simultaneously true that minority groups participate to a greater extent in the Federal Food Assistance Programs. A coincidence? I doubt it. The Advisory Committee has revealed their appeasement of the food processing industry: A coordinated strategic plan that includes all sectors of society, including….small and large business (e.g. farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists, food manufacturers, and food retailers of all kinds) shoud be engaged in the development and ultimate implementation of a plan to help all Americans eat well… At the same time the Committee states that: The macronutrient distribution of a person’s diet is not the driving force behind the current obesity epidemic. Rather, it is the over-consumption of total calories coupled with very low physical activity and too much sedentary time. Maybe, maybe not. But what is causing this overconsumption of calories? Could it be hunger driven by the blood-sugar fluctations that result when low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets are eaten? Could it be pre-diabetes or diabetes that is accompanied by excess insulin production and fat storage fueled by the consumption of carbohydrates? Jimmy, your previous criticisms of their continued recommendations for the limiting of dietary cholesterol and even further lowering of saturated fat intake to less than 7% of calories are well taken. Of course, the public will be even more confused as they attempt to exclude their stearic acid intake as they count their saturated fat intake for the day. It is also interesting (too nice of a word) to see how they promote vegetarian diets because: Plant-based diets…offer other potential benefits, such as…nutrients important in a health-promoting diet. So, animal foods don’t offer any nutrients except for high-quality protein (and of course detriments due to the fat they contain)? How about zinc, iron, calcium, vitamins A, D, K2, B12, B6, choline, and “zoo-nutrients” like conjugated linoleic acid? And what about protein? Can we get all we need from plant sources when we consume them in the right combinations as they suggest? Perhaps if you believe that all adults need only about 0.8 grams per kilogram body weight, an amount shown to be inadequate for preventing sarcopenia, the loss of muscle mass, in groups such as the elderly. They write that Diets that are less than 45 percent carbohydrate or more than 35 percent protein are difficult to adhere to, are not more effective than other calorie-controlled diets for weight loss and weight maintenance, and may pose health risk, and are therefore not recommended for weight loss or maintenance. Apparently the Advisory Committee thinks that diets that provide less than 45% of calories from carbohydrates are difficult to adhere to. Perhaps they should ask your readers whether it is more difficult to deal with obesity, diabetes, and other major health issues or adhere to a lower-carbohydrate diet! (45% of calories equates to 169 grams of carbs from a 1600 calorie diet or 203 grams of carbs from an 1800 calorie diet. So both are well above the 130 grams of carbohydrates that are supposedly needed as a “minimum.”) And what studies are they relying upon when they state that lower carbohydrate diets “may be” less safe? We certainly know that elevated blood glucose levels are dangerous–there is no debate about that. We also have good evidence that lower-carbohydrate diets lead to improved lipid profiles when the most comprehensive laboratory testing methods are utilized. Finally, although we may scoff at these recommendations and feel indifferent about them because “they don’t affect us, we know better,” let me appeal to you to weigh in on this. If for no other reason than to help someone out there who is struggling with excess weight, has diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, or is pregnant, or a growing child, and who either continues to trust the governmental “experts” or is reliant upon them for a large portion of their food choices, speak up.

DR. RICHARD FEINMAN, biochemistry professor and founder of The Nutrition & Metabolism Society

Appendix E-4 describes the evolution of the Dietary Guidelines and its progressive appointment of new committees and new experts. While paying homage to new evidence, the main effect is: “to support the credibility,” “basic tenets of earlier Dietary Guidelines were reaffirmed,” “continue to support the concepts from earlier editions” and “to support the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.” In other words, it has a history of maintaing the status quo. Missing from this history is the worsening situation with respect to obesity and diabetes even as the Committee’s recommendations were followed. In the end, none of the organizations involved takes any responsibility for the deteriorating nutritional health and implicitly blame the public. The question for the 2010 guidelines is whether there is any test of their effectiveness. What outcome will constitute a failure and require overhaul of the recommendations and taking account of minority opinions? Are the 2010 guidelines, like previous ones, immune from responsibility for any outcome? This is quite discouraging. Statements like “The totality of evidence documenting a beneficial impact of plant-based, lower-sodium dietary patterns on CVD risk is remarkable.” What’s remarkable is the sense of self-delusion. The real question is whether they accept any responsibility for the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. If not, are we to blame the patient? Is there even a sense that there is a crisis in recommendations. On the other hand, the total government-based encouragement light at the end of the tunnel sense is that the committee is totally out of touch and may allow more people to listen to and evaluate a minority opinion.

KEVIN BROWN, health advocate and author of The Liberation Diet

If the latest recommendations are for even lower fat and higher carbs in the diet, and you track historically was has happened to our nation’s health as we have gone into the abyss of anti-fat, it would not be hard to see that there is an agenda to keep America sick, fat and confused!

JACKIE EBERSTEIN, registered nurse who worked with Dr. Robert C. Atkins for three decades

The recent release of the updated 2010 Dietary Guidelines should not be a surprise to anyone who has some understanding of the process. Even though the Guidelines are to be “research based,” they chose to ignore the many low carb papers published in the last 12 years. Nor were any experts in a low carbohydrate lifestyle invited to present data or be a part of the process. Given the losing battle the US is fighting with obesity, the public is still encouraged to follow more of the same advice. Even when that advice has failed miserably and was wrong when first adopted and is still wrong. One would think that more solutions to the obesity challenge would be welcome. Apparently not. Or that the Guidelines would recognize that we must have different solutions for different people. One size does not fit all. There is much that can be said about the new Guidelines. I will limit myself to the following: The Guidelines continue to encourage a diet high in carbohydrates. The very foods that spike high insulin production and increase fat storage but support the food industry and the growers of corn, soy and wheat. They recommend that when considering carbohydrate foods choose based on calories and fiber content not glycemic index or glycemic load. To many people the recommendation to eat more plants will simply mean more potatoes often in the form of French Fries. A healthy start to the day is still cereal with non fat milk. Will this provide enough protein to repair body tissue and control hunger or enough fat to provide satiety? For many the answer is no. The chances are pretty good that hunger and cravings will mean a higher food intake the rest of the day thus saboutaging efforts at weight control. The statement that the brain requires at least 130 grams of dietary carbs daily is patently wrong. No matter how many times this mantra is repeated the facts don’t change. There is no minimum intake of carbs that is needed by the body. The few body tissues that require glucose can easily meet their needs by a process called gluconeogenesis. Further, when following a very low carbohydrate diet, ketones are produced in the liver for fuel. The body is well adapted to utilize these ketones for energy. Humans would not have survived if we couldn’t adapt in this way. Importantly, the brain is also very well adapted to utilize ketones. In fact, the brain appears to favor ketones over glucose. The research supporting this just doesn’t get to the public. If carbs are to be the major source of food intake, fats and proteins are to be limited. An adequate intake of these two macronutrients has major health benefits, yet the optimum amounts needed have been misrepresented or wrongly blamed for health problems for decades. The new Guidelines will do nothing to be sure that we take advantage of the benefits of obtaining optimum intakes rather than minimal intakes of these vital nutrients. The USDA did get one thing right and has finally begun to address the dangers of sugar.

DR. LARRY MCCLEARY, pediatric neurosurgeon and author of Feed Your Brain, Lose Your Belly

One of the major concerns behind the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report was the explosion of the obesity epidemic and the impact it has personally, financially, on the health care system and the federal government. I would also like to add that whatever guidelines are finally accepted they will be used to determine what is included in school lunches, meals to many seniors and to those in the Armed Forces, all of which are subsidized by governmental programs. It must also be remembered that these guidelines are being formulated by the same entity that provides massive subsidies to farmers to grow corn, wheat and rice. In my opinion, they have a conflict of interest. One of the dietary recommendations is to allow 25% of daily calorie intake to come from sugars that are added to the diet. This is in addition to the 55 grams of sugar (220 calories they allow in 2 cups of 100% apple juice (considered as a fruit choice). Together, that provides 720 sugar calories a day (more than 1/3 of a 2,000 calorie daily diet!). This is in addition to the “discretionary” calories they allow (100 to 300 calories per day) that consist of solid fats, alcohol and sugar! Now the DRI committee that came up with these recommendations included in their report that evidence was insufficient for them to set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) (meaning consumption above that level would have adverse health implications) for carbohydrates but suggested that most active Americans shoot for making 2/3 of their calories carbohydrate calories. They were not aware of any data that suggest harmful effects of consuming more than 65% of dietary calories as carbohydrates although they freely admit that certain carbohydrates elevate serum triglyceride levels (a potent coronary heart disease risk factor). Elsewhere in the body of the report (page D3-11 in the cholesterol and fatty acid section) they conclude that since “cholesterol can be synthesized endogenously in sufficient amounts for metabolic and structural needs, there is no evidence for a dietary requirement for cholesterol; therefore, there is no AI, RDA, or AMDR (Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range) for cholesterol. Similar to SFA (Saturated Fatty Acids), there is no UL set for dietary cholesterol.” Hence there is no UL set for carbohydrate, SFA or cholesterol. In spite of this they arbitrarily recommend that 65% of the caloric intake be carbohydrate while severely restricting cholesterol and SFA. Nowhere in the report is there discussion of a nutritional deficiency syndrome associated with carbohydrate deficiency. They state that the carbohydrate RDA (130 grams for carbohydrate — 520 calories) was arrived at by the daily glucose requirement of the brain. However, it is never mentioned that glucose can also easily be endogenously produced at this level (analogous to the way they handled cholesterol above) and therefore, using similar reasoning, should not be required in the diet. Note also that the AMDR recommended by the Advisory Committee is two and one half times this number of carbohydrate calories (the RDA). Where did this number come from? From an obesity perspective, they refer to a study by Stanhope et al. (2009) that included 25 percent of daily energy intake from beverages sweetened with glucose or fructose. Weight gain was observed in this study of free-living participants. Sounds suspiciously similar to the USDA My Pyramid recommendations for slimming the nation. Another epiphany the Committee had was to further cut SFA to 7% of total calorie content. As an aside, they also demonize fat calories as a cause of the obesity epidemic because of their caloric density (9 cal/g) while also observing that during the past thirty years as waistlines have exploded the main increase in calorie consumption was carbohydrates. They also note that during the epidemic of obesity that SFA consumption has not changed in the past 15 years. Elsewhere in the Report the Committee suggests that these facts make it difficult to implicate fat or saturated fat as the driver of the obesity crisis we are experiencing. What are they thinking! Some of this information is summarized nicely in Figure D3-1: Saturated fatty acid substitution and coronary heart disease risk on page D3-17 (in the section on cholesterol and fatty acids). When carbohydrate replaced monounsaturated fat or polyunsaturated fat (at 5% of daily calories), coronary risk increased! There are many other reasons for concern throughout the Report. These are just a few of the fatal flaws both regarding weight loss and health implications.

VALERIE BERKOWITZ, low-carb nutritionist and co-author of The Stubborn Fat Fix

This Committee has provided Guidelines for a small sample of the American population. It fails to consider any other dietary method aside from the low-fat dogma that already exists. For the Americans who are healthy, they already eat right to keep themselves healthy. For most Americans who need Guidelines on how to tailor eating patterns, there is no direction given that specifically addresses the connection between excess carbohydrates and their physiological affect on the human body. Many of the major illnesses like diabetes and heart disease or risk factors for ill-health like triglycerides or blood sugar can be controlled by controlling carbohydrates and eating healthy fats (like olive oil or animal products that are free range/grass fed). The current research that has been made available by many researchers–Volek, Wortman, Westman, Dreon, Fineman–shows the need to broaden our use of various dietary interventions such as the low carb diet and these encouraging studies should be considered by the USDA committee to include current options to the archaic low fat push that has been going on for far too long. In my mind the Committee is not acting responsibly. Carbohydrates are not essential. Yes, increasing vegetables is an important message but the benefits that are provided by healthy fats are just as important. Another vital factor that is not being addressed is that they are not providing specific information only generalities, i.e. lower fat, increased carbs. People need to be armed with specific info like corn syrup, sugar and all its different forms should be avoided and trans fat should be avoided. Natural animal products like turkey and hamburger adds essential nutrients and should be consumed as part of a balanced diet. Healthy fats from nuts, avocados and olives should replace unhealthy fats found in commercially baked products. I believe that carbs can provide value if vegetables, small portions of fruits/legumes and other non-commercial carbs are prepared but the carbs that many people select such as cold cereal, fat free yogurt, pretzels, bread, etc. are absolutely NOT essential and should be consumed at a minimum if at all. Here’s where I agree with the Committee: if you push low fat, high carb diet, you better minimize the fat or you will be headed for the same health hazards the country faces today. However, in my opinion cutting out healthy fats will not provide a nutritionally complete diet. Until the USDA commissions a Committee that represents current nutritional options, the message they send is deficient and should not be considered Guidelines for everyone.

The severity of just how completely wrong these 2010 Dietary Guidelines are has spurred me to do something I hadn’t planned on doing–I’m heading to Washington, DC to testify before the 13-member Advisory Committee on Thursday, July 8, 2010 in the Jefferson Auditorium at the USDA South Building. Although we’re not currently in the best financial shape to be making such a trip, I feel it is too important for people like me to just sit idly by accepting the same old garbage without making our voices heard. Remaining silent is tantamount to putting your rubber stamp of approval on something and that speaks volumes. I want it to be known loud and clear that what they have come up with as nutritional advice for all Americans is as wrong as wrong can be.

That’s why I’ve already cleared my busy schedule next week (had to cancel five scheduled podcast interviews) to voice my concerns along with people like Sally Fallon Morell and Dr. Richard Feinman among others. We will not be permitted to take any audio, video or pictures inside the USDA building (man, I wish we could!), but I’ll be doing on-the-spot YouTube videos with people outside once the testimonies are finished. The meeting is set to last from 9:00AM-5:00PM with three-minute presentations each from a wide variety of people who want to address the Committee. That’s not a lot of time, but we’ll make the most of those precious few moments of undivided attention we’ll receive from the Committee.

I’m sure there will be vegetarians/vegans who think the 2010 Dietary Guidelines didn’t go far enough pushing a plant-based diet and they’ll present their case. But the continued vilification of fat and complete ignorance of the negative health implications of pushing lots of carbohydrate on people all in the name of health needs to be addressed. I’m working on my remarks as we speak and will possibly write another blog post with what I will be saying to the Committee. I’ll likely share my story, the tens of thousands of people I represent through my blog and podcast, why one set of dietary guidelines for everyone is as ludicrous as having one shoe size for everyone, and how much better the health of Americans would be if multiple options were made available for people to choose from. I’m still in the midst of crafting the message, but that’s the basic outline. I’d love to have your support for this trip if you want to help defray the costs. CLICK HERE to donate through PayPal and THANK YOU for anything you can contribute.

We will be hopping on a plane for Washington on Tuesday and coming back next weekend. While I’m there, I may try to go see my U.S. Senator and Congressman to express concern over the government intrusion into the diet of the American people. It never hurts to present your case to a powerful member of the government and let them be an advocate for your cause if you make your case strongly enough. I’ll simply share what I’ve learned and let them decide whether it’s worthy of their time or not.

I realize this is last-minute for most of you, but if you live in or around the greater Washington, DC area or if you want to fly into the nation’s capital to be a part of this event, then we’d love to meet you. We’ll be staying in a hotel in nearby Reston, Virginia and it would be a privilege to meet you face-to-face and maybe go have a meal together. E-mail me at livinlowcarbman@charter.net and we’ll work out the details. I always enjoy meeting the people who support “Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb” and it would be my pleasure to hang out with you in DC. Lemme know!

Posted in Cholesterol, Congress, Events, FDA, Food Safety, Food freedom, Inspiration, Journey with Liberation Diet, Nutrition, Vitamin D, farm fresh, government, grains, grass fed beef, health, heart disease, liberation diet, liberation fitness, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, lobbying, obesity, raw milk, real food, sugar, visionary trainers, water | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Harvest Show

Posted by Kevin Brown on June 28, 2010

Kevin Brown and Annette Presley discuss the Liberation Diet on the Harvest Show

Bookmark and Share

Kevin Brown is President of Liberation Wellness and co-author of the Liberation Diet. He serves as a Fellow on the National Board of Fitness Examiners, and is president of Visionary Trainers. Kevin and his wife Tracy are Chapter leaders for the Weston A. Price foundation, a non-profit organization that is helping restore real food to its rightful place in the American diet.

Posted in Butter, Journey with Liberation Diet, Sally Fallon Morell, Weight Loss, balance, cancer, heart disease, kevin brown, liberation diet, liberation fitness, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, raw milk, real foods, visionary trainers, wapf, wellness, weston price | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NO Sugar CRAVINGS!

Posted by Kevin Brown on June 28, 2010

Dear Kevin,

Just got the Liberation Diet Book and have read it twice!

I have it on my husband’s side of the table in hopes he takes an interest as well.

2 1/2 years ago I went on Dr. Bernstein’s diet and lost 85 lbs, my problem has been maintaining the weight loss, I’m up 10 lbs and can’t seem to kick my sugar cravings which I indulge in once a week.

Maybe my cravings are coming from not enough fat and too much sugar free yogurt, who knows.

I went to the Nutritionsmart down the street from my home and was able to buy grass fed unhomongenized milk, whole organic butter, whole organic cheese and whole yogurt.

I no longer have a gallbladder so I am easing my way into the Liberation Diet but on day 2, no sugar cravings…..such a blessing!

Thank you for your book and your email reply for my order.

Tresha

Palm Beach Gardens, FLA

Posted in Butter, Food Addiction, Nutrition, Weight Loss, god, heart disease, liberation diet, liberation fitness, liberation wellness, liberation wellness hour, obesity, raw milk, real food, visionary trainers, wapf | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER – MORE HEALTHCARE BUREAUCRACY, BUT NOT BACKDOOR CODEX

Posted by Kevin Brown on June 28, 2010

NHF Logo

PRESS RELEASE

THE OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER – MORE HEALTHCARE

BUREAUCRACY, BUT NOT BACKDOOR CODEX

By Scott C. Tips

June 26, 2010

On June 10th, Barack Obama issued an Executive Order creating the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.  As with all government programs and bureaucracy, this additional layer of bureaucracy is ostensibly intended to do good, in this particular case to develop and promote a national strategy for improving Americans’ health.   As the Executive Order puts it, this Public Health Council will write up and give to the President “a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States.”  Obviously, these Neanderthals have never heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The Law of Unintended Consequences is that actions of people – and especially of government – always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.  Most often, however, this Law “illuminates the perverse, unanticipated effects of legislation and regulation.”  (See http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html)

So, for a government to create yet another costly and top-heavy “council” to help prevent illnesses may sound wonderful to some people – especially if it is to include some complementary and alternative approaches; but it is absolutely doomed to failure and to create more illness and more sickness in the United States.

The Federal government has already proven itself utterly incapable of successfully advancing any major program.  Whether it was President Johnson’s failed War against Poverty in the 1960s, President Nixon’s failed War against Cancer launched in 1970, President Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” program that saw even frighteningly-higher inflation under President Carter, all of these Presidents’ War on Drugs, or President George W. Bush’s failed War on Terror, the list is endless.  You name it, whatever problem was addressed, that problem became significantly worse after millions and billions of dollars were wastefully pumped into these “Wars.”  And you do not even have to look far into the past, just think about the Federal government’s botched handling of the recent Hurricane Katrina and BP oil-spill disasters.

You do not achieve better health by centralizing health-care decisions in Washington, D.C.  You achieve better health by decentralizing health-care decisions and putting them back in the very hands of those most likely to suffer the benefits and detriments of good and bad decisions:  the individual man or woman.  More health freedom, not less, is the road to better health.

What the Executive Order Does

This Executive Order basically parallels what is already in the recently-passed Health Care Insurance Reform Act.  In that respect, it is nothing new.  (See text of Executive Order at http://www.thenhf.com/government_affairs/federal/ExOrder-HealthPromotionHealthCouncil.pdf.)

As mentioned, it creates a Public Health Council, which will have as its chairman the U.S. Surgeon General over a star-studded cast of Federal functionaries such as the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the Director of National Drug Control Policy, the Assistant to the President and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chairman may determine to be appropriate.  Notice, though, that the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not included. In fact, no one from FDA is included.

Of course, these high-brows will just meet and not condescend to do any real work, which work will be left to their assistants and swarm of lackeys.  And since – unlike in the free market – the feed-back mechanisms for their health decisions will be so attenuated, convoluted, and based in politics and not practical economics, these decision-makers will waste our money, their time, and promote ill health.

They are charged with coordinating and leading all Federal agency action on the “prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States.”  (Order, §3(a))  Further, they are to “develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order.”  (Order, §3(b))

They will then “provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition,” (Order, §3(c)) and “consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States.” (Order, §3(d))

An Advisory Group is also established by the Order.  The Group will have no more than 25 advisors from outside the Federal government, to be appointed by the President, and are to come from “a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who are representative of or have expertise in: (1) worksite health promotion; (2) community services, including community health centers; (3) preventive medicine; (4) health coaching; (5) public health education; (6) geriatrics; and (7) rehabilitation medicine.”  (Order, §4)  The Order further states that the “Advisory Group shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council on lifestyle-based chronic disease prevention and management, integrative health care practices, and health promotion.”  (Order, §4(c))

The Chairman is then to use the Advisory Group’s input, in consultation with the Council itself, to then “develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy).”  (Order, §5)  This strategy shall then be reported to the President and any relevant committees of Congress.  (Order, §6)

To some, this will sound great.  Integrative health?  Mentioned in an Executive Order?  But sitting in an Advisory Group in which integrative practitioners will almost certainly be outnumbered (outvoted)?  Then, advising the Surgeon General, who in turn might or might not use our integrative-health ideas to develop a national healthcare strategy?  Which strategy might or might not even be acted upon by a President put in power by special-interest groups antithetical to integrative healthcare?  Can you see how tenuous this “influential” connection becomes?  Smart people would call it “window-dressing,” because unfortunately that is all it will ever be.

One can always be hopeful.  But, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, “To say that the cure for bad health-care legislation is for more good medicine to be part of it, is like saying that the cure for prostitution is for more virgins to enter brothels.”  Better to dismantle the bureaucracy, or at least reduce its powers, than to try to feed fresh meat piecemeal into corrupt and inept institutions.

Backdoor Codex?

Some well-intentioned persons – hyper-sensitive to the threat of Codex to our health freedoms, a threat with which we agree – have claimed that this Executive Order is a backdoor attempt to adopt Codex Alimentarius “science-based” guidelines in the United States.  These people point to Order Section 6(g), where it says that the Council’s report shall “contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.”  But does the use of the words “science based” mean that these guidelines are synonymous with Codex guidelines?

Not really.  While the Executive Order is real, it is not imposing Codex rules on the United States.  As NHF lobbyist Lee Bechtel correctly points out, “There is no direct policy link between this Council and Codex, or with the way in which the FDA regulates food and food supplements.”

Consider also that Section 6(d) (to which Section 6(g) refers) states: “(d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States.”  These “science-based” rules are to be issued by the CDC, not Codex.   In addition, the above deals with exercise and smoking cessation, which are outside the subject area of Codex guidelines, which only govern food.

Having said that, this 6(d) language does mention the word “nutrition” as well (albeit within the context of the Healthy People 2020 program of the DHS); and nutrition is a subject of Codex.  As such, “science based” guidelines applied here could allow a smoother interface between domestic and international food guidelines at a small contact point that they might possibly have in the future.  It would be akin to saying that panty-hose manufacturing techniques are related to food because the nylon fabric might someday be used in straining soup.  So, in a broader and greatly-more-general context, there is a very-small kernel of strained logic to support the belief that this is another small step towards the Codex “door.”  But is it the Door itself, backdoor or otherwise?  Absolutely not.

********************

As the oldest and best-respected health-freedom group on Capitol Hill, the NHF continues to be the credible source of objective assessment of, and proactive actions on, Congressional legislation and FDA matters that have material impact upon our freedom-of-health choices and access to dietary supplements and nutritional foods.

********************

Click here for the permanent link to this press release, use this link to inform others.

National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals’ rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex meetings. www.thenhf.com

**************************************

P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA ~ 1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642

Website: www.thenhf.com E-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com

Posted in Big Agriculture, Family Wellness, Food Safety, Nutrition, Politics, big pharma, grains, health, liberation diet, liberation wellness, real food, visionary trainers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Human Rights Appeal from Sally Fallon Morell

Posted by Kevin Brown on June 25, 2010

An Appeal from Sally Fallon Morell
June 18, 2010

Dear Friend of Nutrient-Dense Food,

Here in America, we all have the right to purchase and consume the foods of our choice, foods we need for our own health and the health of our families, right? Not according to the FDA! The FDA’s response to our current legal challenge shows us exactly what we are up against — and why the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund needs your continued financial support.

On February 19 of this year, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (the Fund) filed a lawsuit against the FDA and the United States Department of Health and Human Services to challenge federal regulations banning the transport and sale of raw milk across state lines. On April 26, FDA filed its response to the lawsuit, providing a public record of what the agency’s views on food freedom of choice really are.

Here are some of FDA’s shocking claims:

  • “There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”
  • “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for
    themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
  • “There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”

Fortunately, we have the Fund to defend our farmers
and consumers, and with a large membership and diverse financial support, the Fund will have the resources to protect your right to healthy food.

Three years ago, on Independence Day, July 4, 2007, the Weston A. Price Foundation helped launch the Fund to defend the rights and broaden the freedoms of family farms and to protect consumer access to raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods.

Here are some of the ways the Fund has put your money to work:

1. Challenging the FDA to Increase Our Access to Raw Milk
The Fund has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn two federal regulations banning raw dairy products for human consumption in interstate commerce. The suit is asking the court to declare FDA’s prohibition as unconstitutional and beyond its statutory authority. FDA is at the center of the opposition to raw milk, pressuring the states to outlaw its sale and distribution. Overturning the ban is key to securing access to raw milk throughout the U.S. The FDA’s response to the lawsuit has made it clear that this case is about more than just raw milk; it’s about keeping government from interfering with our food
choices.

2. Fighting NAIS to Preserve Our Family Farms
In 2008, the Fund brought a federal lawsuit challenging USDA’s implementation of the National Animal Indentification System (NAIS), the plan to require the electronic tagging and detailed tracking of all livestock. Although the judge dismissed the case, the lawsuit served to educate the public and the media about the problems with NAIS, as well as warn USDA and the states that they faced an organization prepared to challenge them in court. Thanks to these efforts, along with the activism of many other groups, USDA announced that it was dropping NAIS in February; but the agency is still talking about an animal traceability system, so we are watching developments carefully.

3. Defending Our Farmers in Court
Gone are the days when farmers stood alone in the courthouse to defend their principles. Now, the Fund’s legal team and the entire organization are there to stand beside our farmers in court. The Fund is leveling the playing field, making it more difficult for government agencies to use administrative and judicial proceedings to grind down farmers and drain their resources. Board member Tim Wightman remembers a time when farmers fought these battles alone. Just nine years ago, after a severe government action in Wisconsin, he lost his farm, restaurant and financial wellbeing running back and forth to Madison to defend himself, leaving farm partners and family at home to cover for him. What a difference the Fund is making for farmers subjected to legal actions these days!

4. Defending Our Farmers in Parking Lots
The Bechard Family Farm was sued by the Missouri Attorney General for having the audacity to distribute raw milk in a parking lot. I think we all feel for the Bechard’s teen daughters caught in this “sting operation.” Undercover agents allegedly purchased raw milk from the daughters, leading to the charges filed against the Bechards. The State is claiming that deliveries can only be made directly to the customers’ homes, even though a central delivery point is more convenient for both the Bechards and their customers — another example of the type of government intrusion we are up against.

5. Protecting Our Buyers Clubs, Food Co-Ops, and Cow-Shares
Cow-share operators, buying clubs and food co-ops have found a friend in the Fund, to help them navigate the sometimes tricky legal waters involving direct distribution of raw milk and other nutrientdense foods. Around the country, the Fund is working to protect the closer ties forged by farmers and consumers. The Fund consults with farmers on local, state and federal regulations along with labeling and contract issues, and advises members about their rights.

6. The Fund Is In It for The Long Haul
Fund General Counsel, Gary Cox, Esq., has been fighting the Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC case on behalf of Steve and Barb Smith in New York for nearly three years to uphold the right of the LLC members to obtain raw milk and raw milk products from the dairy without government interference. The Fund is appealing a court ruling that anyone who makes raw milk available to consumers must get a permit, with the court finding that “consumers” are those who “consume something” — conceivably meaning that dairy farmers would even need permits to consume raw milk from their own cows. Gary recently won a victory for the Smiths when he persuaded a judge to throw out a two-and-one-half-year-old search warrant that a state agency wanted to execute against the Smiths.

7. Sounding the Alarm About Draconian Food Safety Legislation
The Fund’s timely action alerts and thorough, thought-provoking analyses have provided activists and media outlets with highly credible, accurate and footnoted articles about the dangers for farmers hidden in Congressional legislation HR-2749 and S-510. If passed in the current form, this legislation would severely hobble or even halt small farm sales and artisan production.

8. Handling Farm Legal Emergencies 24/7
The Fund receives a number of calls daily for advice ranging from labeling issues to emergency situations. The Fund takes emergency calls 24/7. These calls often begin, “An inspector is on my farm, what do I do?” The Fund attorney then walks them through a contentious inspection — over the phone — and talks directly to the inspectors if requested.

9. Respecting the Values and Beliefs of Farmers of All Faiths
When the Fund heard that members of Anabaptist faith couldn’t join the Fund, due to religious beliefs that prohibit them from joining organizations that engage in litigation, the Fund created a new tier of services, called “Non-Member Consulting Agreements,” to provide those farmers with valuable legal counsel.

10. Putting Your Money to Work
Thanks to your support, the Fund is able to stand by the Bechards and Smiths as well as many other farmers including Chuck and Diane Phippen, of Breese Hollow Dairy in New York, Wayne and Kay Craig of Grassway Organics and Mark and Petra Zinniker in Wisconsin, John and Jackie Stowers of Manna Storehouse in Ohio, Mark and Blaine McAfee of Organic Pasture’s Dairy and Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy of Claravale Farm in California. The Zinniker family says that without the Fund’s free legal representation for them, the financial burden would have been too much to bear, and the oldest biodynamic farm in the country would have folded.

I encourage you to join or renew your membership in the Farm-to- Consumer Legal Defense Fund — if all the members of the Weston A. Price Foundation also became members of the Fund, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund would be a force to be reckoned with! And, if you can, please make a donation. If you want your donation to be tax-deductible, you can make your check out to the Fund’s sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation, which provides charitable relief, education and support for public interest litigation.

I look forward to writing you again next year, with another progress report. Thank you in advance for your support.

Yours in good health and farm freedom!

Sally Fallon Morell, President
The Weston A. Price Foundation

P.S. Please join me at a special event for those who donate $250 or more to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. The Benefactor Appreciation Event will be held at Polyface Farm in Swoope Virginia on Saturday, September 11, 2010. It will feature a two-hour hay wagon tour of Polyface Farm by Joel Salatin and a festive farm lunch with the Polyface family and interns.

P.P.S. Joel’s newest book, The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer, will be released September 1. We are happy to offer a free book to anyone who donates to the Fund at the $100 level by September 1, 2010.

Donate Now

Posted in Big Agriculture, Butter, Congress, FDA, Food Safety, Food freedom, Local Foods, Nutrition, Politics, Sally Fallon Morell, big pharma, cancer, fresh and local, gmo, government, grains, health, heart disease, liberation diet, liberation wellness, lobbying, raw milk, real food, real foods, sally fallon, visionary trainers, wapf, wellness, weston price | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »