This past week I've been eating sushi (salmon nigiri) at lunch, and a combination of fruit (oranges, grapefruit, plums, avocado, etc.) the rest of the day. I feel like I could jump over small buildings right now. For next week, I bought some asparagus, hericots verts, more fruit and salmon.

Quote:

More bacon please

Eating a big plate now, with eggs. Smoked, marinated in cracked pepper and butter. Mmmmm!

Mark Sisson has an updated version of his book The Primal Blueprint out now, and it's a good read on this subject - with the wheres and what-have-yous spelled out for a primal lifestyle.

Highly recommended.

For me, dropping refined carbs and refined sugars was step 1.

Step 2 was gluten free. So much more energy.

Step 3 was generally avoiding meat on weekdays. More energy.

I cheat (a lot), which I believe to be symptomatic of living in NYC (if you live here and don't eat out a lot you're doing it wrong IMO), but day-to-day try to stay on this diet.

"Monsanto guy,
Why does Monsanto sue to prevent products from being labeled as non-GMO?

Why not just let people make up their own minds?

Not to pick on you, you're just the first person on this forum to admit being employed there. It will be good to hear all sides."

There are 2 issues generally associated with Monsanto and labeling - one is around milk and rBST and the other around labeling of GMO ingredients in food.

Monsanto doesn't sue people to stop them from voluntarily labeling their foods as GM-free.

I'll start with the milk labeling issue, although we no longer own the milk business - it was sold to Eli Lilly in 2008. Monsanto made a supplement for dairy cows called Posilac (rBST) that when given to cows helped boost their milk production. Farmers used it to either reduce the number of cows in their herds or to increase production from their herd. The milk from these cows is identical from milk from non-treated cows. There's no lab in the world that can tell the difference. Some consumers prefer to purchase milk from cows that had not been treated and some dairies chose to cater to these markets. We had no problem with that. Our objection came when they would label their products with false statements about what our product did or with false statements about what was in their own product. (There's no such thing as hormone free milk, all milk has a large number of different hormones including Vitamin D). The FDA provided guidance on how to accurately label milk that was from cows that did not receive rBST. It can be found here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplian....

Here's Monsanto's official position on milk labeling: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/....

As for voluntary labeling of GM free food, we have no objection to it. The debate is around whether or not the government should mandate food companies to label that their products contain GM ingredients. We support the USDA position that food labeling is based on health and safety. Since there is no difference in the health or safety of foods derived from GM ingredients, there is no reason to have the government mandate labeling. In fact, it is more likely to cause confusion or be used as an opportunity for some food processors to charge consumers more for their products by unnecessarily scaring them. Monsanto's official position on labeling can be found here: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/....

I should point out that there are now some GM foods on the market that are required to be labeled because they are substantially different from the original product in regards to health. Those are soybeans that have been modified to include Omega3 fatty acids. Those products (salad dressing, granola bars, etc.) are required by the federal government to label the GM ingredients because they change the health profile of the food. We support that as well.

The reality is that you can walk into any grocery store in America today and find food that is labeled GM-free or milk that is labeled rBST-free. Monsanto doesn't object to that. If that is something that is important to you, you can do it and pay the premium. The government's role is properly limited to only requiring health and safety concerns be labeled.

Hope that helps explain it - I don't mind answering questions, feel free to ask away (as long as we stay close enough to the topic to not offend Karl, of course).

Harley, have you heard of the experiments done in the EU with mice that were fed GM corn? The results showed that by the third generation of GM-fed mice, most were infertile. What are your thoughts about that study?

Harley, going to have to take exception on that post. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries. Doesn't it say something when most of the industrialized world bans a product???? Only in America are dumb enough to keep using it.

You are injecting a growth hormone into the cows which causes all sorts of problems for the cows (including more mastitis which requires antibiotics to treat) and that hormone is being passed thru the milk into humans. We don't need to be ingesting more growth hormones.

As for GMO foods... there's evidence starting to surface now that they are finding traces of it in humans. So whatever they are modifying appears to be getting passed on into humans. Also, if you want to sit there and tell us it's perfectly safe to spray crops with Roundup and not expect to see some of that Roundup end up in the corn or other crops that we eat or feed to our animals... then there is something wrong with you. If you work for Monsanto, you know how deadly Roundup is.. and what it does to plants. You may have heard of a product called 245T ... they thought that stuff was safe too. For those that don't know, it was a primary ingredient in Agent Orange. You spray a giant, healthy tree with a little of that stuff and it'll kill the tree in no time flat.

You can eat all the GMO foods and milk you want.. but don't come around expecting me to pay for your medical bills. Anything that's been GM'd should be labeled as such so that the buyers are aware.

Order 81

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m47991&hd....

I would like to hear a defense of this order from Harley.

Good discussion. I'm sure Karl won't mind.

I'm not sure I can agree that HFCS is identical. It's an engineered product which is cheap an meters well. Obese and sick America is a product of engineered goo, additives and ammonia soaked connective tissue labeled as "meat". But that's my opinion, and I can't list specific studies.

Back in college (mid 80's) I had a time study job with the animal science department. I had to spend an evening giving some Holstein cows injections and hooking them to the milk machine to document the differences.

The cows produced huge amounts of milk which supported the study. I couldn't help but think it was pushing the health of the cow to some limit which wouldn't be exactly great.

I just know I can drink organic milk and it tastes completely different than regular grocery store milk. And eating a steak from a grass fed cow with no antibiotics tastes far better than a "commercial grade" steak taken from a feed lot cow which was raised ankle deep in it's own crap.

Watch Monsanto, etc. at work.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

Mangoelvis: "Obviously beer is bad, "

Chemical fizzy **** processed water 'beer' is not Beer.

Real Beer/Ale, is food. Very good food. It is also safe to drink. Which is why it was never rationed in the UK during WW2. It was far too important a part of the diet (and there is a pronounced bell curve of health advantage to drinking 'good' alchohol - though avoid neat spirits, and water them down).

Why do you think so many people in the 'Health Profession' drink so much?

My neighbour's dad isn't untypical. He was a surgeon with the Chindits behind enemy lines in WW2, and got the taste for gin & tonic there. Ever since, he has drunk about a half bottle of gin a day, diluted about 2 parts tonic to 1 part gin.

When he retired as a consultant in his early 70's, he went back into the Army for 5 years.

Fit as a fiddle.

Doctors over here always ask how much I drink, and I always respond "Nowhere near enough for optimum health benefit" (and I don't - because I'm a motorcyclist, and I hope to have many more years left as a happy motorcyclist). They usually laugh and leave it at that - because they know I know the score.

One day I had to meet a specialist, and this one didn't laugh. He asked me how much I actually drink, and I told him, probably about a bottle of wine a month on average. He then asked me how much I would like to drink, and I said I'd be a lot happier if I could get it up to a glass of wine a day.

He said "Now you listen to me, you drink *TWO* glasses of wine a day, because *TWO* glasses of wine a day, is *TEN TIMES BETTER FOR YOU* than *ONE* glass of wine a day.

Yeah he knew the score too.

But I tell you this, two glasses of wine is pretty short of optimum too.

The bull**** propaganda against alchohol needs to stop (it's only an excuse to tax the hell out of it), and proper health education about how to use it wisely to best effect on health, needs to replace it.

eta: Oh and the bastards that do the taxing the hell out if it? They drink like ****ing fish!

Quote:

Real Beer/Ale, is food. Very good food.

Otherwise known as liquid bread. A person can survive for a very long time with no food and drinking only beer.

But moderation...I gained quite a few pounds in the 4 years I lived in Prague...but I consumed about 4 liters of beer a day there on average.

edit: not to mention, the heavy sauces used in Czech cuisine only add in the pure carb consumption. Walking a few miles a day is the only thing that kept me from inflating completely there.

"Food Inc" is available free if you have an amazon Prime account.

It's worth watching and I would like to hear Harely's reaction to it.

I think it is great that he is willing to answer questions.

We can only benefit from open discussion of the issues.

It has become so hard to know who to believe these days with all the competing agendas agendas* out there. (*The Assorted Food Police, Green Peace, Natural Foodies etc.)

Mpilar: "But moderation...I gained quite a few pounds in the 4 years I lived in Prague.."

Czech beer is delicious.

Nobody else makes "beer" IMHO Ribbit.

I know some Bavarians who would think that comment to be quite out of order.

I'm sure they would Jota

There's a reason Czechs consume more beer per capita than anybody in the world...every year.

Well I have had excellent beers all over Europe, and I must admit, there are wonderful Real Ales numbering the 1,000's now in Britain (thanks to the Campaign for Real Ale - CAMRA - that started up in the late 60's early 70's ish), and many of the earlier Real Ales (for example the Beer of the Millenium, Robinson's Old Tom) have survived as a result.

Which doesn't mean they all suit my palate though, even if superbly brewed - there are a vast variety of tastes catered to. Some frankly, I can't stand.

It was CAMRA that interceded directly with the Czech President, to prevent Budweiser America from buying and ruining the original Budweiser in the Czech Republic.

Hi. Long time reader, first time poster... Felt I needed to chime in on this one.

Regarding Aspertame usage. Stay far far away. In 2000, I was going to the doctor for some issues that I was having mainly having problems peripheral neuropathy and rheumatoid arthritis. The doctor tested for systemic lupus and this came back negative. Over the Christmas Holidays I noticed the symptoms went away and tried to figure out what was different in my diet. No diet cokes. I had been using them for the caffine hit at work.

I did some research and found some 90 symptoms had been reported to the FDA of which I had about 9 of them. Other symptoms that I found that I had where occasional slurred speech, hairloss, anxiety at night and heart palputations. All cleared up after ditching that stuff.

I will have occasional flair ups but have been able to trace it back to exposure to this poison in various products that they are sneaking it into.

It is a nuerotoxin. Do your homework.

"Harley, have you heard of the experiments done in the EU with mice that were fed GM corn? The results showed that by the third generation of GM-fed mice, most were infertile. What are your thoughts about that study?"

I'm on my last available post as a newb, so if I don't reply to other questions, that's why. I guess I should make a donation to the cause. :)

I'm assuming you are talking about the Irena Ermakova study regarding soybeans and rats. If not, send me a link to the study and I'll run it by a scientist. Here's what Monsanto has to say about that study:
"There are a number of other examples, such as the work by Irena Ermakova, who claims that GM soybeans caused reproductive abnormalities in rats. This work was poorly designed and has been criticized by other scientists that have examined her study. It is noteworthy that this study received a lot of attention by groups critical of GM crops even though the study was never subjected to independent peer review and published in a reputable journal. One shortcoming mentioned by experts is that the test feed materials could not be fully characterized. This is important since unheated soybeans contain anti-nutrients that can have effects on test animals; and it is not clear how the test material was processed, nor is it possible to tell how much was consumed by particular animals due to an open cage design. More importantly, other well-performed and published studies conducted before and after Ermakova’s experiment do not substantiate her findings. Finally, it is difficult to reconcile her findings, since the introduced protein that makes GM soybeans tolerant to glyphosate in soybeans is common to many organisms and free of any known toxic effects. In short, Ermakova’s work is of questionable quality and is contradicted by many other high-quality, peer-reviewed studies that have been published in reputable scientific journals."

I'm not a scientist, but the ones I know agree with these questions that we list on our website on how to judge the value of a study:
1) Is the study designed and executed well and according to accepted methods?
2) Is it in alignment to other data on the topic? (If not, why not? Is it flawed or is the other data flawed?)
3) Do the results make scientific sense?
4) Is the scope of the conclusions actually supported by the data?

Here's more info: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/....

After lurking for months reading, its nice to actually have something of value to add to a thread!

However, I'd hate to hijack the thread, since the main point is still the same: eating lean meats and vegetables is a whole lot better for you than eating a bunch of highly processed foods. If you do have questions, I'm happy to try to answer them, though.

<While I was replying to the other post, several others asked questions - so I am adding to this one to answer them.>
Twainfan on Posilac - This Elanco sponsored site has plenty of resources to answer your questions on Posilac: https://www.globaldairyinnovation.com/mi....

The truth is you can test milk from your organic dairy and from a dairy that uses rBST and you will find no difference in the amount of hormones that are present.

Roundup, like every other chemical sprayed on farms and lawns, is heavily regulated by the US and state governments. It is safe to use and it has no health impact on our food supply.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to pay my medical bills. Feel free to eat whatever you choose. You can do so today without changing any laws.

As for Food Inc. Their complaint about Monsanto was about suing farmers - if you have 10 minutes, read the court opinion in the first reply I had to Karl. It very clearly lays out that the myth of Monsanto suing innocent farmers is just that - a myth.

Flaps - buy what you want to buy. I can't tell a difference in organic vs. non-organic milk. If you can and you prefer organic, no one is stopping you from buying it. I prefer my steaks to have marbling that comes from grain feeding, but if you like grass-fed beef, eat it. I've actually toured feed lots and packing plants, after seeing it up close and personal, I feel perfectly comfortable feeding it to my own daughter.

As for the soybean study - if the study itself is criticized by scientists, it isn't peer reviewed or published and there are known flaws, her results don't really matter do they? Considering other studies both before and after hers that are peer reviewed and do conform to the basic scientific method, refute her results, why would you put any weight in her results?

<End Edit>

Quote:

Another thing that causes blood sugar levels to spike in some people is coffee. If you are one that has a cup of coffee on an empty stomach or one that has a cup while sitting around, this can cause blood sugar levels to jump up. For me, I go into a mild fight or flight response when I drink caffeine. The body releases sugars and fats into the bloodstream causing damage to the arteries over time.

What would be the possible mechanism by which a beverage with no sugar (assuming you drink it black as I do) would cause your blood sugar to spike? This sounds incredibly bogus -- can you cite it?

I'm not familiar w/ the caffeine pathway(s). But, for instance, nicotine signals cells in the body to release stored sugar ... thereby raising blood sugar and causing the energetic feeling that new smokers feel. It happens so fast you can feel the flush of the sugar entering your system within moments of inhaling.

Here's the caffeine pathway(s).



http://www.healthy-family-eating.com/how....

Harley, that's the one. Soybeans, not corn. Sorry, I'm going off memory after reading about it a couple of years ago and was shooting from the hip.

I agree, it would be useful to really get into the GM-soy-mice study and cross examine it. I completely agree with your criteria for a study. Unfortunately many of these studies are either skewed by corporate bias or not enough study was actually done. So as it is, I have to take that study at face value with the known unknowns. Even so, Monsanto's response to the study seems to be a bit lacking considering that the test mice were rendered sterile by the GM soy.

Harley: "contradicted by many other high-quality, peer-reviewed studies that have been published in reputable scientific journals."

Well frankly, 'Climategate' showed all too clearly that particular 'verification path' isn't exactly worth a hill of beans, sad to say.

I think for example Árpád Pusztai's work perhaps more than hinting that the process of modification itself could be causing problems, demonstrates the need for a LOT more caution, a LOT more improvement in safety testing standards, and a LOT more research, all of which needs to be carried out.

I certainly would not say that I was opposed to GM in principle, but there are almost bound to be medium to long range implications (which don't necessarily have to be 'bad' implications) that we are unaware of, and I am ever mindful of the wise caveat, 'fools rush in, where angels fear to tread'.

I would certainly hate for GM to rear up and bite us all in the derrier, especially when we can still prevent that avoidable bite.

https://whiteoakpastures.com/faqs.html Beef, Lamb, Poultry