Tuesday, August 31, 2010

3-weird ways to GET RIPPED (eye-opening article)

First off, yesterday Vince Del Monte re-opened the doors to his Maximize Your Muscle program (which has been closed for the last 4 months), and until Thursday at midnight, with your permission, he's allowing you try out Phase 1 of his system for… get ready for this...

ONE BUCK.

That's correct, you can reread that, it's no typo. ONE silly dollar.

http://bit.ly/cJsPEi <------ Click here

Okay, here's today's article:

===========

3 Weird Ways To Ignite NEW Muscle, Skyrocket Your Metabolism & Incinerate Fat

By Vince Del Monte - http://bit.ly/cJsPEi

===========

Weird Way #1:

Unstable Surface Training to Activate the Nervous System

The reason it works: unstable training can increase muscle activation due to increased demand on the neuromuscular system in order to stabilize the articulation of joints caused by an unstable surface used as the base of support.

How to make it work:

Unstable training (such as performing a pushup with your hands on a stability ball or 2 medicine balls) does result in a decrease in force production, which prevents maximum motor unit recruitment. However, unstable surfaces do "wake up" the nervous system and its best application is to perform these exercises prior to the real strength training exercises.

Methods you can experiment with:

You don't have to use an unstable exercise for every body part or exercise, but it can be excellent for a stubborn muscle group. A stubborn muscle group is often a result of the lack of activation of the CNS, thus using an unstable exercise could fix the problem. Let's use for example push-ups on a medicine ball or stability ball superset with a DB chest press. The superset method is best practice and should be used earlier in the workout as unstable surface exercises are fatiguing. Another example, squats on a BOSU ball followed by barbell squats.

Other details: you don't always have to be on an unstable surface to "wake up" the nervous system. You can perform exercises on 1 foot, with your eyes closed; or create a situation where your base of support is limited.

Weird Way #2:

Heavy Lifting Cycles

The reason it works: muscle damage, activation of the high threshold muscle fibers (growth fibers), potentiation of the nervous system; which means when you get back to Heavy Lifting Cycles

The reason it works: muscle damage, activation of the high threshold muscle fibers (growth fibers), potentiation of the nervous system; which means when you get back to your normal bodybuilding routine you will be able to recruit more muscle fibers for the same exercise.

How to make it work: use every means in your power to increase your maximal strength, power and explosiveness. Dedicate a period of time each year to this style of training – it’s in my experience that after a period of focused heavy lifting, your gains from the subsequent program are always far superior.

Methods you can experiment with: regular sets in the 2-4 and 4-6 rep ranges, rest-pause sets (multiple mini-sets of heavy weight using 90% of your max weight taking only 10-seconds rest between reps), wave loading (1 x 5, 1 x 4, 1 x 3, 1 x 5, 1 x 4, 1 x 3), contrast loading (1 x 1, 1 x 5, 1 x 1, 1 x 5, 1 x 1, 1 x 5).

Other details: longer rest intervals of 2-3 minutes in between sets are required during heavy lifting phases.

Untapped Target 3:

Volume Lifting

The reason it works: cumulative fatigue, hormonal production, and achieves a good pump. If you understand the importance of pre and post workout nutrition, jamming your muscles with workout drinks that include dextrose and amino acids, then guess what? Increase blood flow to a specific muscle will increase the amount of aminos being pumped into that muscle and it will significantly increase amino uptake. This means a much more anabolic (muscle building) response to your workout.

How to make it work: maximize the pump as well as muscle fatigue.

Methods you can experiment with: regular sets in the 8-10, 10-12 and 12-15 rep ranges, drop sets, pre-fatigue (super set isolation plus multi-joint), post fatigue (superset multi-joint plus isolation), giant sets (3 sets in a row for the same muscle group), slow reps ( 6 seconds up, 6 seconds down), "burns" (partial reps added at the end of a regular set).

Other details: 30-60 seconds between sets (or less). Do not chase after a pump in each set. Strategically place it at the end of each workout for your very last set and this will greatly increase the rate of muscle gain.

-----------

Thanks Vinny D!

I failed to mention yesterday that the $1.00 trial to Maximize Your Muscle is for super-serious people who already have at least 1-year of training and ready to go to the next level. If you checked out Vince's pics and the pics of his current members then I'm sure you figured that out for yourself!

If you don't take your muscle training and physique very seriously and content with looking and feeling like the "norm" - please - don't even check this website out.

However, if you're truly committed to blowing beyond your genetic potential, making plateaus a thing of the past and building a body that tells the world, "I'm in control and get whatever I want in life…" then his muscle series has your name all over it and it's all yours for only a $1.00 trial:

http://bit.ly/cJsPEi <-------- Click here if you're ready for the next level

Talk soon,

Arthur M.

Animals give GM the thumbs down

Animals give GM the thumbs down
from GreenHealthWatch.com
The UK Government decision to grant Aventis’s application to grow GM maize commercially in the UK was not based on the studies reported, but on two different animal-feeding trials both funded and submitted by Aventis.
The first trial fed Chardon LL maize grain to 280 young broiler chickens over 42 days, supposedly to compare the nutrient quality of GM and natural maize samples. All the chickens were allowed to eat at will. The official report claimed that no differences were found in body weight, feed intake or mortality, as compared to similar chickens fed on natural maize. Closer examination of the data gives cause for concern:
  • During days 0-18, the GM maize grain-fed chickens consumed nine grams more than the natural maize-fed group, but during days 18-32 their consumption fell to seven grams less. During days 32-42 their consumption fell even further, to 63 grams less than that of the natural maize-fed group
  • Whereas the final average body weights and total feed intakes of the GM- and natural maize-fed chickens were not very different, there was a much wider range in individual weights and intakes amongst the GM-fed birds, suggesting that at least some of them were not thriving on the GM maize
  • Death rates during the trial in the two groups were reported to be “similar”. In fact, the average death rate in the GM-fed chickens (7.14%) was double that in the natural maize-fed chickens (3.57%)
The validity of this study was dismissed by animal nutrition expert Dr Bob Orskov [1] on the grounds that feeding maize grain to chickens could never tell you anything about feeding whole maize plants as forage to cattle.
The second study fed diets with various mixes of protein to groups of male and female rats. The total amount of protein in each diet was the same:
Diet 1. A mix comprising 10% GM oilseed rape protein (PAT), 90% natural soya protein (SOY)
Diet 2. 100% PAT
Diet 3. 100% SOY
Diet 4. The standard diet for laboratory rats
The primary purpose of the study was to test for toxicity. The data suggests that at least some of the rats may not have been thriving on a diet including PAT:
  • Whereas the male rats eating low amounts of PAT (diets 1,3 and 4) maintained similar weights, the average weight of the male rats on diet 2 fell from being the highest to the lowest of all the male groups
  • The average weights of the female rats fed either low or high amounts of PAT (diets 1 and 2), heaviest at the outset, fell below those of the females not eating PAT (diets 3 and 4)
  • Both male and female rats consuming high amounts of PAT (diet 2) achieved lower weight gains per day, averaged over the 14 days, than those of their counterparts eating diets containing low or no PAT (diets 3 and 4)
The validity of this study was also dismissed, this time by independent toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard, [2] on two grounds:
  • “By feeding purified PAT protein, rather than the whole maize plant (as it would be fed to cattle), this experiment is specifically designed to not detect any unpredicted effects
  • “I do not consider that this study using rats can be used as a basis for making judgements about the safety of Chardon LL maize with respect to cattle”
Existing scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that farm animals prefer organically-produced to conventionally-produced feed. Now there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that both domestic and wild animals will avoid GM feed, given the choice and, if forced to eat GM feed, do not thrive.
Ed.- (i) However bizarre, the fact that AgrEvo (later renamed Aventis and since renamed Bayer Crop Science) used chickens and maize grain, then rats and protein derived from GM oilseed rape, to prove the safety of whole GM maize plants for cattle no longer comes as any surprise. Nor does the UK Government’s readiness to accept such obviously fake science. The battle over GM is not, after all, about science or “feeding the world’s poor”, as biotech companies and their supporters pretend, but profit. What is surprising is that the UK Government still imagines that the public will accept their reassurances that GM is safe
(ii) The second study was just 14 days long, so there was no attempt to identify long-term effects.
(iii) Eva Novotny’s report for the Institute of Science in Society also mentioned:
(a) cattle’s refusal to eat GM Sheridan forage maize when they strayed into a GM crop trial field in Somerset in November 2000. [3] Sheridan contains the same genetic construct (conferring herbicide tolerance) as Chardon LL, the variety approved by the UK Government, and
(b) the article When the Corn Hits the Fan by American journalist Steven Sprinkel (19.9.99). It reported pigs which wouldn’t eat their ration when GM crops were included, cattle which went off their food or lost weight when switched to GM silage, cattle which broke through an old fence and ate all the normal corn but wouldn’t touch GM Round-up Ready corn, and deer and racoons which decimated organic crops but avoided GM crops nearby.
[1] Dr Bob Orskov, Honorary Professor in Animal Nutrition at Aberdeen University and Director of the International Feed Resource Unit (18.10.2000)
[ 2] Dr Vyvyan Howard, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Foetal and Infant Toxicopathology Group at the University of Liverpool, and Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists (18.10.2000)
[ 3] reported by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 10.11.00
(10716) Eva Novotny. Institute of Science in Society


Monday, August 30, 2010

FREE muscle-gain & fat-shredding workout from Vince Del Monte

If you're super-serious about extreme muscle-gaining and fat-shredding results, you need to listen up and get on the edge of your seat.

Why?

Because something that has NOT been available for four months, Vince Del Monte's Maximize Your Muscle system, will be re-opening to welcome new members for 3 days ONLY. 

Then it's, "Sorry, join the waiting list" for another 4 months. 

Maximize Your Muscle & Blow Beyond Your Genetic Potential for $1.00 <------ check it out!

Truthfully, this is NOT for everyone… but if you do meet the requirements you'll be glad to know that Vince is allowing you to check out Phase 1 of his advanced muscle-building (and this is equally effective for fat loss) system for only ONE BUCK!  (no joke)

Vince is making an enormous promise to you.  He does not claim you with HIT your genetic potential but he claims you will blow BEYOND it. 

Vince even claims that he's in the business of "doing the impossible" he's that confident. 

Want proof? 

Check out mind-blowing results from his previous members who defeated the "impossible" and proved that Vince is in the business of doing the impossible (many of these pics belong in magazines): 

$1.00 Trial Offer To Maximize Your Muscle <---- click here 

I've grown to know Vince over the past few years and I can vouch that had to overcome of the worst genetics EVER. 

I've grown to admire and respect his achievements, inside and outside of the gym, and I know you will too.

However, let me say that Maximize Your Muscle is for SUPER SERIOUS people.

This is not for people who show up to the gym late, slide out early, bounce from program to program, cheat on your workouts, cry to their doctor if they are sore and prefer to look like the norm... 

Vince attracts people who want something beyond the norm in terms of their body and their life.  If that sounds like you, then this might be the luckiest day of your life:

Yes, I Want A Body Beyond The Norm <------ click here for $1.00 trial

If you're ready to dominate your plateaus, crank up your results, increase your muscle, get ripped and switch your metabolism to turbo, just like Vince did, then take advantage of this amazing opportunity that will disappear Thursday night at midnight.

Lastly, via Vince's monthly workout DVD, newsletter and coaching call, you'll be challenged more than just physically - he'll push you emotionally, intellectually, relationally and spiritually.  Vince has achieved more, by the age of 30, than most do in their entire lives… he's truly someone you want as a mentor and friend. 

Please visit the website to read more about this INSANE and life-changing (in the literal sense) opportunity to blow beyond your genetic limits - inside and outside of the gym:

http://bit.ly/cJsPEi <----- hurry, before he closes registration

As Vince would say, LIVE LARGE,

Arthur M.

P.S. Skeptical?  Just check out the before and after pictures of previous members and let them doing the talking if this sounds to good to be true:

http://bit.ly/cJsPEi <----- $1.00 trial to blow beyond your potential

3 Fat Loss Secrets From Bally the Dog

Woof Woof!

Bally the Dog here, and since my Human is away on holiday, I thought I'd email you with 3 fitness tips to help you lose fat.

After all, I finally figured out how to use the "Human's" computer, but if you see any spelling mistakes, please furgive me, but my big paws aren't meant for these small computerz.

Oh, and if you're a cat, please stop reading. Because I don't like you and I will chase you down if I find out you are reading this.

Okay, woof woof?

Good.

Here we go...

Tip #1 - Get your exercise in the morning

After my morning walk, I usually get a rawhide treat, and then I just lie on the ground waiting for my next walk. And while I do that, I get to listen to my Human do fitness interviews for magazines and radio stations...

...and he keeps on saying:

"It doesn't matter when you exercise for fat loss, all that matters is that you are consistent. And when you exercise first thing in the morning, that means you will be more consistent. And being consistent is one of the most important things in your fat loss program."

Woof, woof, maybe that's why I get a long walk and some sprints first thing in the morning? Bark bark!

That is probably why the vet once said to my human, "Wow, your dog has six pack abs!"

Woof woof!

So if you are struggling to be consistent, get up a little earlier and do your workout before life/work/family gets in the way and stops you from getting your workout.

Woof.

Tip #2 - Eat 3 medium sized meals and some very healthy snacks

Since I'm a dog, I'll eat just about anything. And that is good news, because that means I love to snack on apples, blueberries, broccoli, red peppers, and bananas.

Woof, I probably eat more fruits and vegetables than most humans, not including my Human. He eats a lot of fruits and vegetables every day, even while traveling.

And he has six pack abs too. Woof, woof, woof.

Tip #3 - Stay active on your off days with fun & playful activity

Even though I'm almost 5 human years old, I still get anxious when my Human leaves me alone at home and goes to the gym.

Woof, woof, woof! Bark, bark, bark! Whine. Bark Bark! WOOF!

I am sure am glad that he only goes 3-4 times per week, instead of 6-7 times per week like some folks.

On his days off, we go to the beach and parks and have fun. No long, slow, boring cardio for him. I won't allow it.

Grrrrrrrrr. That's what I say to cardio machines. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I'd rather chase squirrels any day than get on a treadmill or one of those silly elliptical machines.

So bottom line:

1) Do short, burst workouts CONSISTENTLY.

2) Eat 3 mid-size meals and lots of whole, natural food snacks in between meals.

3) Train 3-4 times per week and stay active on your off-days.

Woof.

It's that simple.

Let me know what you think.

Bark Bark!

Your favorite doggy,

Bally the Dog
Guard Dog, Turbulence Training

PS - If you thought this was stupid...

...let me make it up to you by recommending this free fat loss presentation here:

=> http://bit.ly/9R8QOE

Sunday, August 29, 2010

FDA Looking into Triclosan?

UPDATE: 8/29/10  Triclosan and antibacterial warnings -
Updates at Natural Healing through Natural Health -

New article here from Jill Richardson, compiling much of what we have been teaching about the risk of triclosan since the late 80s.

from Natural Health News...
Apr 09, 2010
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn't regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and ...
Apr 16, 2005
The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occurring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence. ...
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects.


UPDATE: 8/21/10 - Two Dangerous Ingredients in Everyday Products That Are Threatening Our Health
Triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels and even toothpastes. Read more...
UPDATE: 7/30/10 -

Health Group Sues FDA Over 'Dangerous' Antibacterial Soap

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a nonprofit environmental group for what the members claim is dangerous “antimicrobial” soap, Reuters reports.
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn’t regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, is named as a defendant in the suit, but no specific manufacturers or retailers were mentioned, according to Reuters.
The nonprofit claims it first approached the FDA about regulating this soap and other personal care products for over-the-counter use more than 30 years ago, but no action has been taken.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA proposed a ban from interstate trading of both chemicals in 1978 but nothing changed until 1994 when some ingredients were reclassified, Reuters reports.
The FDA said in April that the ingredient triclosan has not been shown to be harmful
to humans and that further study is needed.
The plaintiffs are requesting the FDA be given a deadline to complete its study on the conditions for using these products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted April 2010: It never ceases to amaze me just how slow out US government agencies are slow to act to protect the citizenry. And they won't comment until sometime in 2011. Maybe an addendum to the health bill should require that the FDA clean up its political quagmires.

I've been warning about triclosan for at least 15 years, based on the science and at least the MSDS data.

What is so bad about triclosan is that is destroys what is referred to as the protective "acid mantle" of the skin, and creates a breeding ground for infection because it destroys the healthy bacteria on your skin:the healthy bacteria that is there to protect you from infection.

This is one time it pays to read labels and another to look to the use of natural castile soaps without fragrance and using truly health promoting skin lubrication like you can get from my colleague at Kettle Care.

FDA Warns of Risk in Antibacterial Additive
By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 08, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The FDA has notified consumers that the antibacterial agent triclosan's safety data is being reviewed due to concerns raised in lab tests on animals.
Research from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development found triclosan had thyroid and estrogen effects in animals.
The agent is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes, and cosmetics, all of which are regulated by the FDA.
The ingredient's profile was raised in January when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote the FDA to ask about a review of triclosan's use in consumer products.
Additional investigation was deemed necessary after animal studies showed potential negative effects of the ingredient, the FDA said in a prepared statement. Though studies are ongoing, the FDA does not currently have enough evidence to suggest a change to any consumer products with triclosan.
The FDA noted that although triclosan provided a clear benefit in some consumer products, the extra health benefit it offered in others was not as apparent.
The agency advised consumers that the ingredient poses no apparent danger to humans, but that soaps and body washes with triclosan may not provide additional health benefits over soaps without the additive; consumers concerned about its potential health hazards should switch to regular soaps without triclosan.
The FDA announced it will work with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to study the effects of triclosan on humans, animals, and the environment.
The agency said it planned to publish its findings in spring 2011.
Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap, a 2005 post from Natural Health News


Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some ...
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects. ...

Concerned about B12 Deficiency?

Vitamin B12 is a topic on a lot of people's mind when it comes to nutrition. When people become vegetarians and vegans, they begin to worry about vitamin B-12 deficiencies. The problem is... even meat eaters can experience a B-12 deficiency!

Lucas at YOGABODY Naturals formulated a 100% vegan safe B12 supplement. If you're worried about not getting enough B12, you should check it out right now!

Just go to: http://bit.ly/d4rG4S

Saturday, August 28, 2010

AG Money: Gates and Monsanto

Gates Foundation underwrites vaccine insanity and now GMO Food, Weed overgrowth -
Well, well, well. It's about time. Kind of like when Fox News gave $1 million in campaign contributions to Republicans. It wasn't exactly a secret before, but now it's official. The Gates Foundation just bought a whopping 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock.Now, there's nothing wrong with buying stock. My parents hold lots of BP stock, and they are hardly guilty of dumping the 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. But this is one more step in a long line of actions by the Gates Foundation in which it is advocating policies and agricultural technologies that will directly benefit and profit Monsanto while screwing over the most vulnerable people on earth: hungry subsistence farmers in developing countries.
I wrote a piece recently about what happens when American industrial agriculture collides with poor, uneducated subsistence farmers in the developing world and it ain't pretty. In fact, it's tragic. It's criminal. For a corporation to prey upon such a vulnerable population for its own gain, when the result is the starvation, continued impoverishment, or loss of land and lifestyle of the poor.
Perhaps Gates thinks he is doing something good for the world with his advocacy of biotechnology and industrial agriculture. No doubt all of the executives from Monsanto and other biotech and chemical companies tell him that every day. He should instead listen to the 400 scientists who spent 3 years performing the most comprehensive study of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology in the history of the world, the IAASTD report. The report recommends agroecology - what many in the U.S. would refer to as "organics" (even though the term is more nuanced than that).

http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/3953/gates-foundation-puts-its-money-where-its-mouth-is

GATES FOUNDATION INVESTS IN MONSANTO
 
Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers
Seattle, WA - Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of theAfrica Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for "patent infringement."
News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA-the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)-considered by the Foundation to be its "African face"-work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes-including transgenic crops-will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet."
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy."
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, "It would be naïve...to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers' self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.

8 Ways To Lose Weight Fast

Here are some ways to lose weight fast.

1 - Take everything one step at a time. Begin simply by paying more attention to what you are eating, slowly cutting back on the bad foods and implementing more healthy foods into your diet. Once you have this under control, the next step is to add exercise to your plan. If you do not like exercising, take this one step at a time as well by implementing only 15 to 30 minutes at a time, at first.

2 - Choose foods and activities that you enjoy. If you do activities that you get enjoyment out of, you will find them to be much more successful than trying to exercise in ways that you do not enjoy. The same goes for foods that you implement in your diet: Choosing foods that you enjoy will help you enjoy your diet rather than craving bad foods.

3 - Build muscle. You lose calories based on your weight. Muscles, surprisingly enough, burn calories more quickly than fat does, pound for pound. Work out with weights to build muscle and lose weight, and then allow your extra lean muscle mass to burn more calories for you on a long term basis.

4 - Reduce your carbohydrates. Do not cut your carbohydrates out completely, because your body needs carbohydrates for energy. Cut out some of the white breads and pastas from your diet, though, to cut down on the carbohydrates that you consume. What carbs you do need to eat, you can replace with whole wheat and brown carbs for better health.

5 - Set realistic, measurable and attainable goals. Put deadlines on your goals, making them measurable. Make them realistic by choosing goals that you know you can attain. Set long term and short term goals and you will more readily achieve your expectations regarding quick and healthy weight loss.

6 - Give up the bad stuff. It may surprise you how unhealthy it is to eat candy, cookies, cakes and other sweets, and to drink soda and sugar laden drinks. Cut these bad goodies out either completely, or at least 80% of the time and the pounds will shrink away without you having to do much else to make the weight loss happen.

7 - Have a suitable breakfast. Most of your calories should be consumed early on in the day, and breakfast is no exception. Eat a nice breakfast to give your metabolism a good foundation to run from for the remainder of the day.

8 - Control portions by leaving something behind. Make sure your portions are correct based on the actual serving size of your food, and then make sure not to clear your plate completely. Exercising portion control will give you better control over what you put into your body for easy and achievable weight loss.

Implement these tips one by one and in no time at all you will begin to see a significant difference in your weight.

Friday, August 27, 2010

CDC Fudges FLU Data

Hoping that more people now see the misreported death rates are a scare tactic.  And interestingly, the CDC has so far lumped ALL respiratory illnesses in a single category so FLU data is not specifically reported based ONLY on FLU deaths.
Figures on flu deaths are misleading, usually too high, CDC says 
In a typical season, about 36,000 deaths are reported, but that number is too high and grossly misleading, analysts say. Depending on the influenza strain, actual rates vary widely from year to year.
By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times
August 27, 2010
Most reports about seasonal influenza cite an average of about 36,000 deaths in a typical season, but that number is too high and grossly misleading, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.
The actual average is a little more than 23,000, the agency reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. But even that figure is misleading, the report added, because the numbers have ranged from as low as 3,300 deaths to nearly 50,000 over the last 30 years. The period in the analysis covers up to 2007 and does not include last year's H1N1 influenza pandemic.
"There is no average flu season," lead author Dr. David Shay of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases said in a news conference. The number of deaths "can vary dramatically" from year to year, he said.
The number of deaths in a given year depends on a variety of factors, including how long the flu season lasts, how many people get sick and who gets sick. But by far, the most important factor is the strain of flu that predominates in a given season.
When an H3N2 strain predominates, the number of deaths typically is about 2.7 times higher than in years when an H1N1 strain predominates. Researchers are not sure why that is, but it occurs at least in part because the H3N2 virus mutates more rapidly.
"Even if you have been sick with it in the past, you are more likely to get a subsequent infection," Shay said. It also tends to make more older people ill.
Shay noted that the 36,000 figure that is frequently quoted was an average for the decade of the 1990s, when H3N2 predominated in most years.
During the 30 years covered by the study, nearly 90% of flu-related deaths occurred in people over the age of 65, about 10% in those ages 19 to 64 and about 1% in those younger than 19. One thing that was dismaying about the recent swine flu outbreak: The majority of deaths linked to it occurred in the two younger age groups.
Shay noted that there is no way to tell before a flu season begins — or even a few weeks into the start of the season — which strain will predominate. "Flu really is unpredictable," he said. The best way to protect yourself, he added, is to follow the CDC's recommendation and get vaccinated every year.
thomas.maugh@latimes.com                                                    latimes.com/health/la-sci-flu-deaths-20100827,0,7767551.story
Here's some new websites I've been working on:

Bodybuilding Store

Feminine Muscle Female Bodybuilding Blog

Fitness Software Reviews Trainer Software
Here's some new websites I've been working on:

Bodybuilding Store

Feminine Muscle Female Bodybuilding Blog

Fitness Software Reviews Trainer Software

Removing Your Right of Access to Health Care of Choice

herbalYODA Says! - It is important to note that there are thousands of scientific articles rgarding the safe and effective use of herbs.  And not to forget that the National Formualry was built on the original herbal medicines and homeopathic remedies taught for years in medical schools, until the advent of Big PhRMA. 


EFSA set to mass reject 100s of herbal health claims
By Shane Starling, 27-Aug-2010

Hundreds of proposed botanical-health relationships ranging from antioxidant activity to skin health to immunity to gut health will almost certainly be rejected if the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) holds to its current methodologies, according to an EU herbal group.

Patrick Coppens, the secretary general of the European Botanical Forum, said it was unlikely any herbs in line for assessment in the third batch of article 13.1 claims, would win positive opinions.
“If EFSA continues to ignore the existing consensus on the traditional effects of these botanicals, we expect not a single one of these plants to survive the claims process,” Coppens said.
A sneak preview obtained by NutraIngredients of 100s of herbs that have been processed by EFSA’s health claims panel but not yet published, indicates an exhaustive list has been assessed including cranberry, lutein/zeaxanthin, green and black tea, Echinacea, sea buckthorn, rosehip, ginkgo, rosehip, hibiscus, arnica and eucalyptus.
The prebiotic industry will also be holding its breath as chicory, oligosaccharides, isomalto-oligosaccharides and polysaccharides have all had their dossiers assessed by EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA).
“The approach EFSA has adopted is not appropriate for botanicals,” Coppens added.
“The kind of studies requested are not even available for traditional medicinal products. We trust the Commission and the Member States acknowledge this and continue to seek solutions for this valuable category of health products.”
An EFSA spokesperson said the third batch of opinions would be published at the end of September or beginning of September.
Other herbal health claims the NDA has dealt with include green coffee, guarana, blueberry extracts, mangosteen, schisandra, marjolaine feuille, grape seed extracts and broccoli extracts. Typically, the claims are antioxidant related.
Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2000/2010 - Decision News Media SAS - 
Arnica photo: Verissima 

Big Food, Big AG, Fake Food Pyramids and Your Health

Marion Nestle - We need new food policy

FOOD, Inc. see it here
Insight into were our food comes from and how it is produced ....and the big companies that control everything.


http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/08/food-inc-corporate-controlled-food.html


Food is Medicine, GM Food is Poison
Among all developed countries, Americans are the fattest people in the world. The World Health Organization found over 60% of the American population is obese or overweight. Even more disturbing, the U.S. is the only country in the developed world to label obesity a national security health risk. Top Pentagon officials have warned Americans are becoming so fat, most of those volunteering for the Army are disqualified because of their size. Child obesity is also on the rise in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control estimates 1 in every 3 American kids are either obese or overweight. Jeffrey Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, points to the mass production and consumption of genetically modified foods in the U.S. as a possible source of the problem.


http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/08/food-is-medicine-gm-food-is-poison.html

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Problems with New Sweetener

UPDATE: August 2010
Here's a toxic sweetener you most likely had never heard of, but I would caution you to make sure you do not ingest it:
HealthEdge's NaturallySweet 
This is manufactured by these folks.

Truvia, Purevia, Zevia, Zerose, Zsweet are marketing names for this artificially blended  erythritol and rebiana mix.  Rebiana is a chemically modified form of  stevia, it is NOT pure stevia.

UPDATE 4, Consumer complaints regarding Truvia

UPDATE 3, 23 December 08: A reader comments on Erythritol as not causing her any problems as noted in our researcher's report. Just like all substances, the ingestion of a substance needs to be in the right form, the right amount, et al, and the effect and outcomes are individual. Please realize that our researcher is a former FDA investigator who has an indepth background in the sciences necessary to make such statements. Please note that the artificial sweeteners referred to, Truvia (Cargill) and PureVia(Whole Earth Sweeteners) are manufactured by these agribusness corporations with an extract of stevia (rebiana)and erythritol and are NOT whole leaf stevia or pure(whole leaf)stevia extract.

UPDATE 2, 22 December 08: Please note that contrary to other reports you may be reading, the FDA DID NOT APPROVE STEVIA. The FDA, in cahoots with Cargill and Coke, approved a synthesized product - as reported originally in this article - manufactured with rebiana (an extract from Stevia) and erythritol (a sugar alcohol).

As Dr. Evangelista states (quoted below): "DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA"

UPDATE 1, 20 December 08: Zerose is the Cargill synthesized artificial sweetener made from stevia and erythritol. Zsweet is a similar product in UK and EU. There are numerous scientific studies presenting that this, and related products such as Truvia, may lead to calcium, potassium and phosphate loss with calcification (and lesions) in the kidneys (just like Splenda) and bowel alterations. Please read more.

As to Zevia soda, it seems to me to be quite irresponsible on the part of the company CEO (an attorney)to make the following quote, "Why not supplement a steady breast milk diet with some refreshing ZEVIA?" This quote is associated with a photo of an infant being fed soda by the mother on the company blog. I would suggest the mother is irresponsible as well. While the company web site does not state that Zerose is the sweetener used in their products it does mention that eryrithritol is an ingredient.

I am sure this fellow was not in my 'Social Responsibility of Business' class in grad school.

We suggest Just Like Sugar, unaltered Stevia (order the extract via the Starwest link on this page) and Agave.

We do not endorse the use aspartame or sucralose or any forms of these chemicals, first developed as inseticides, or any products containing them, as they are known toxins to human health, nor do we endorse the use of acesulfame K.
----------------------------------------
12-19-08
The news this morning on NPR seems to be focused on helping you be in the spin on 'rebiana'(Truvia) and how it is "just stevia".

Coke (using Truvia) and Pepsi (using PureVia) are marketing this new artificial sweetener in their beverages but apparently aren't open to presenting both sides of the story.

Even the one TV ad I saw recently for "Truvia" would lead you to believe that this is a safe and natural additive.

Zevia(a soda), because it contains erythritol, may also have similar problems.

The problem is that is may come from natural sources but it is an extracted and modified chemical when it comes out the other end.

DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA
Do not confuse this with pure stevia, it is a combination of chemicals with a dab of the stevia plant. Stevia itself is a sweetener and yet they are using Erythritol which is a sugar alcohol known to cause such things as bloating, diarrhea and cramps. That tells you they are not using much stevia. Nor are they removing the poisonous aspartame from Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. They are simply trying to satisfy a part of the population that knows how deadly aspartame is and wants to use something else.

Notice this sentence: "Stevia was not approved as a food additive by U.S. regulators, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued letters to the companies on Wednesday saying it had no objections to their sweeteners, which are derived from the plant." The FDA has made themselves clear. Industry can do anything they please but they have no intention of approving something safe for the general public. They don't want to displease the aspartame industry who is powerful and takes care of those who defend their poison. Make sure you understand this is a combination of sweeteners and chemicals and not real stevia. The pop companies feel "a dab will do you, so just buy our product regardless of how its made". The public again will be the guinea pigs and lab rats. Also, see the admission that Pepsi's Purevia is being developed with Merisant, an aspartame manufacturer. Nobody should use these products until they are analyzed. Industry is constantly adding small amounts of aspartame because its addictive. If they do this to these products aspartame victims will react because aspartame is so poisonous it causes chemical hypersensitization.
Lab Tests Point to Problems with New Sweetener
Consumer group says product can increase cancer risk
September 2, 2008

A consumer group says a new commercial sweetner, said to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, may cause health problems and needs more study. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with the sweetner, rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves.

In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.

The letter cites a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer.

"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."

One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice.

The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.

The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes.

Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.

Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores.

After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.

Two companies -- Cargill and Merisant -- have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.

Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.

"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.

Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi's version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant's Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.

CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.

"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It's crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."

Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
From Consumer Affairs