Jun
15
If Your Doctor Is Healthy, You Probably Are Too
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
If your physician is overweight or obese, does it make him or her less able to give you sound medical advice?
Logically, you would say no, yet a new study published in the International Journal of Obesity1 found that excess body weight impacts patients’ views of their physician.
When a physician was perceived to be overweight or obese, patients viewed him or her as less credible and trustworthy, and they were less inclined to follow the given medical advice.
This bias may not be fair; as mentioned, body weight obviously has little bearing on a physician’s ability to practice medicine. However, are such reservations justifiable?
It is most unfortunate that the vast majority of physicians who finish medical school are not highly motivated to follow truly healthy lifestyles, but more or less succumb to the powerful brainwashing influence of Big Pharma in their curriculum.
Research Shows Healthier Doctors Have Healthier Patients
You probably wouldn’t knowingly take driving lessons from an instructor who had carelessly totaled his car. Likewise, you may be less inclined to accept health advice from someone you perceive to be unhealthy.
An overweight physician may still be healthy but is likely to be perceived as less so than a physician who is fit. According to the recent study, overweight physicians were less trusted by both normal weight and overweight patients alike. The study’s lead author told the New York Times:2
“The bias against overweight people is so socially accepted that despite all the doctor’s training and expertise, it can jeopardize the doctor’s ability to have a conversation about health care with the patient.”
It’s a harsh finding, but there may be some reason to seek out the healthiest physicians. Separate research has shown, in fact, that healthier physicians tend to have healthier patients.3
Unfortunately, that particular study used practices like mammography and annual vaccinations, which are poor measures of true health as the markers, finding that patients whose physicians were compliant with these practices were more likely to have undergone these procedures themselves.
This suggests that other preventive measures practiced by physicians, such as healthful eating and exercise, may also transfer over to patients as well.
So the secret to finding the best health care provider for you may lie in seeking someone who is like-minded, more inclined to use natural therapies and lifestyle strategies before medicine, if that is important to you, as well as someone who practices what they preach. The study’s author noted:4
“It’s human nature. People usually preach what they practice. Personal adoption of a practice suggests that the doctors are sufficiently convinced of the importance of the intervention that they are motivated enough to even do it themselves, and perhaps they’ve figured out how to overcome access barriers that can enable patients, as well.”
Healthy Personal Behaviors Improve Physicians’ Credibility
Research has shown not only that physicians with healthy lifestyles are more likely to discuss such practices with their patients, but also that talking about these healthful personal habits improves their credibility and ability to motivate their patients to do the same.5 The correlation was so strong that researchers concluded:
“Educational institutions should consider encouraging health professionals-in-training to practice and demonstrate healthy personal lifestyles.”
Another study similarly found that healthy physicians can help motivate positive change for entire communities, noting:6
“Physician-directed interventions that advance these [health] principles are most effective when directed by clinicians who regularly participate in such healthy behaviors themselves.”
What does this mean for you? Choosing a physician shouldn’t only be about credentials and educational background but also about their personal lifestyle choices. Does your physician exercise? Does he or she embrace healthy eating habits and stress-reduction techniques? If so there’s a good chance these positive habits will get passed on to you.
You Don’t Need a Doctor to Learn How to Take Control of Your Health
It may be especially motivating to have your physician tell you to eat more vegetables or get more exercise, but you don’t need a physician to learn some of the most important variables to reaching optimal health.
The vast majority of deaths in wealthier countries like our own are due to chronic, not acute, disease. And most chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, are largely preventable with simple lifestyle changes. Even infectious diseases like the flu can often be warded off by a healthy way of life.
The added bonus to this is that the healthier you are, the less you will need to rely on conventional medical care, which is a leading cause of death. So while it’s a good idea to choose a doctor who leads a healthy lifestyle, it’s even better to lead one yourself! So what does a "healthy lifestyle" entail?
- Proper Food Choices
For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. It's available for free, and is perhaps one of the most comprehensive and all-inclusive guides on a healthy lifestyle out there. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, ideally organic, unprocessed foods that come from healthy, sustainable, ideally local sources.
For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat the majority of your food raw. Nearly as important as knowing which foods to eat more of is knowing which foods to avoid, and topping the list is fructose. Sugar, and fructose in particular, can have a multitude of toxic effects when consumed in excess, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of accelerated aging and a crucial factor in driving virtually all chronic disease.
For most people (although there are clearly individual differences), a diet high in healthful fats (as high as 50-70 percent of the calories you eat), moderate amounts of high-quality protein, which is far less than the average amount most people eat, with the bulk of carbohydrates coming from high-nutrient, low-carbohydrate vegetables and very little carbohydrates from grains and sugars, will set you on the right track toward health.- Comprehensive Exercise Program, including High-Intensity Exercise
Even if you're eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including not only core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching but also high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training like Peak Fitness boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor.
- Stress Reduction and Positive Thinking
You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease -- from heart disease and depression to arthritis and cancer. Effective coping mechanisms are a major longevity-promoting factor in part because stress has a direct impact on inflammation, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. Meditation, prayer, energy psychology tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium.
- Optimize Vitamin D with Proper Sun Exposure
We have long known that it is best to get your vitamin D from appropriate sun exposure during times when UVB rays are present. Vitamin D plays an important role in preventing numerous illnesses ranging from cancer to the flu.
The important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level, which should ideally be between 50-70 ng/ml year-round.
Sun exposure, or failing that, a safe tanning bed is the preferred method for optimizing vitamin D levels, but a vitamin D3 supplement can be used when necessary. Most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day to achieve serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is still just below the minimum recommended serum level of 50 ng/ml.
Be aware that if you take supplemental vitamin D, you also need to make sure you're getting enough vitamin K2, as these two nutrients work in tandem to ensure calcium is distributed into the proper areas in your body.- High-Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats
Animal-based omega-3 fat like krill oil is a strong factor in helping people live longer, and some experts believe that it may be one reason why the Japanese are the longest lived race on the planet.
- Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible
This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.
Related Articles:
It’s Time to Change American Disease-Management into a Health-Fostering System What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Healthcare Find a Compassionate Doctor to Help You Prevent Vaccine InjuriesJun
11
By Dr. Mercola
This is an area that has absolutely captured my passion and attention. The last six months I have been devouring as much information as I can about high-performance agriculture using natural methods.
As you know, I have been one of the leaders in warning of the dangers of GMOs but I am now convinced that we need to offer the world a safe and superior alternative to GMOs. I am convinced that this is not only possible, but also less expensive both in the short and long term.
Part of the reason for this is that the nutritional content of the conventional food supply has been rapidly declining for the last 50 years as a natural consequence of increasingly poor soil conditions on modern farms, and it is getting worse.
But food has actually been getting gradually less nutritious for far longer than that, as a direct result of humans’ preferences for sweeter, starchier and less colorful fruits and vegetables.
As written in the New York Times:1
“Unwittingly, we have been stripping phytonutrients from our diet since we stopped foraging for wild plants some 10,000 years ago and became farmers.”
I believe that natural high-performance agriculture techniques such as optimizing soil microbiology through composting, and mineral balancing and the use of sea solids in the soil are exciting alternatives, and I plan on updating you soon on this project.
Sweeter Plants Were More Appealing to Ancient Farmers…
Ancient wild plants provided an astounding level of phytonutrients that are largely absent from our modern cultivated fruits and veggies. For instance, wild dandelions contain seven times more phytonutrients than spinach, and purple potatoes native to Peru contain 28 times more anthocyanins than commonly consumed russet potatoes.2
In general, you can identify the healthiest superfoods simply by looks and taste: the more bitter and the more colorful a natural food is, the more potent antioxidants and other phytochemicals it’s likely to contain.
But disease-fighting bitter or astringent foods, such as arugula, mustard greens and Brussels sprouts, are often avoided by consumers today,3 and they were similarly avoided by our ancient ancestors as access to sweeter foods increased. So, too, was the case with colorful foods, which have slowly fallen out of favor in many cases.
The evolution of corn provides one of the most telling examples. The richly colored “Indian corn” now mostly used for holiday decorating was once widely consumed, and contained far more disease-fighting antioxidants and less sugar than today’s popular pale yellow sweet corn.
The New York Times explains it well:
“Throughout the ages, our farming ancestors have chosen the least bitter plants to grow in their gardens. It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a bitter, sour or astringent taste. Second, early farmers favored plants that were relatively low in fiber and high in sugar, starch and oil.
These energy-dense plants were pleasurable to eat and provided the calories needed to fuel a strenuous lifestyle. The more palatable our fruits and vegetables became, however, the less advantageous they were for our health.”
Even Fruits Are Sweeter and Less Nutritious Than They Used to Be
The wild fruits consumed by our ancestors were smaller and resembled most closely what a blueberry is today. Modern cultivated fruits are much larger, which means they have a lot more sweet pulp inside and less skin. The sweet "pulp" or "flesh" of the fruit is where most of the fructose is, whereas the skin holds the antioxidants.
Since wild fruits were much smaller than today's fruits and thus had a much larger proportion of their volume as skin and seeds, they provided a healthy source of powerful antioxidants with limited amounts of fructose. According to Dr. Boyd Eaton, our antioxidant intake would be nearly seven times higher simply if we ate wild fruits…
Stunning Corn Comparison: Genetically Modified (GM) Vs. Non-GM
Genetic modification is also making our modern food less nutritious than it used to be, according to a report given to MomsAcrossAmerica4 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada's only non-GMO corn seed company). It offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically modified (GM) and non-GM corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically modified crops were approved in the first place. Here’s a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:
- Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
- Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
- Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)
GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup Ready herbicide) compared to zero in non-GMO corn, along with extremely high levels of formaldehyde, which is a well-known carcinogenic byproduct of glyphosate metabolism. Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically modified food. Yet, in the US upwards of 85 percent of all corn grown is now genetically modified.
There is no question that one wants to start with the highest quality seed and GMO seeds are vastly inferior to most ancient seeds. However, I believe epigenetic expression is every bit as valid in plants as it is in humans and if we optimize the plant’s nutrients through soil microbiology, we can improve the nutrient density of even GMO seeds to near optimal levels. And if these techniques are used for seeds with good genes you can far exceed those levels.
USDA Is Developing New Plants Without Regard to Nutritional Content
Unfortunately, the USDA is oblivious to this reality. Author Jo Robinson writes in the New York Times:5
“I’ve interviewed U.S.D.A. plant breeders who have spent a decade or more developing a new variety of pear or carrot without once measuring its nutritional content. We can’t increase the health benefits of our produce if we don’t know which nutrients it contains. Ultimately, we need more than an admonition to eat a greater quantity of fruits and vegetables: we need more fruits and vegetables that have the nutrients we require for optimum health.”
Antioxidants are nature's way of defending your cells against attack by these free radicals, thereby helping you resist aging and disease. If you don't have adequate antioxidants to step in and neutralize free radicals, then oxidative stress tends to lead to accelerated tissue and organ damage. This is what makes antioxidants so crucial to your health.
Your diet is one of the key ways to make sure you’re getting the antioxidants, as well as the other critical vitamins and minerals, your body needs to function optimally. Yet, in developing new plant varieties, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is far more focused on creating disease-resistant plants than they are on enhancing, or even protecting, their nutritional content.
Is There a Secret to Finding More Nutritious Food?
As I said initially, I firmly believe the solution for more nutritious food is to optimize the microbiology of the soil so the microbes can provide the optimal nutrients for the plant and maximize their genetic expression. Composting, vortexed compost tea and mineral replacements are far superior to commercial fertilizers and also improve rather than degrade the quality of the soil. Ideally, you can grow these yourself or find someone locally that can do it for you. I will be going into far greater detail in future articles.
In the meantime, consuming plenty of raw, locally harvested, organic vegetables is one of the best ways to get the key nutrients your body needs, in levels that most closely replicate those found in the wild foods of our ancestors. For starters, this will ensure that you’re avoiding all GM produce, which now appears to not only be far less nutritious than non-GM food but also less contaminated with agrichemicals and their toxic byproducts. Beyond this, there are several additional measures you can take to make sure you’re getting the most nutritious food available:
- Choose brightly colored foods: Produce in shades of blue, red, purple and dark green are among the most antioxidant-rich foods available.
- Eat more bitter foods: Many of the most potent, disease-fighting compounds in food (phenols and polyphenols, flavonoids, isoflavones, terpenes, and glucosinolates) are bitter, acrid or astringent in flavor. Expanding your diet to include these bitter-tasting foods is one of the healthiest moves you can make. Examples include grapefruit, arugula, collard greens, parsley, dandelion leaves, radicchio, cranberries, endive and pomegranates.
- Indulge in herbs and spices: Many herbs and spices remain largely unchanged from ancient times. Along with containing some of the highest antioxidant levels of all foods, herbs and spices are also very dense in other nutrients such as vitamins and minerals, and they also have medicinal properties. As a general rule, you really can't go wrong when using herbs and spices and I recommend allowing your taste buds to dictate your choices when cooking. However, you can also choose spices based on their medicinal benefits.
- Grow your own foods from heirloom seeds, including sprouts: This is one of the best ways to access nutrient-dense food, especially if you use heirloom seeds that have been carefully cultivated to produce the best plants possible. You can plant an organic veggie garden even in small spaces, and sprouts, which are also among the most nutrient-dense foods available, can also be grown easily at home.
- Forage for wild, edible plants: Some of the “weeds” in your backyard or local environment are incredibly nutritious and very close to the wild plants consumed by our ancestors. Dandelion, stinging nettle, prickly lettuce, chickweed, sow thistle, red clover, burdock, cattails, Japanese knotweed, and sheep sorrel are examples of wild nutrient-rich foods. While you should only consume plants you are entirely sure are not poisonous, learning to gather safe, wild edible plants is quite simple.
Related Articles:
Why Did Our Ancestors Have Over 500% More Antioxidants than We Do? Analysis Identifies Shocking Problems with Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Corn The Hidden Food in Your Yard - You May Walk by It Every Day...May
27
Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer and Radical Mastectomy—Are Women Being Misled into a False Sense of Security?
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Some days I wonder if this is all a bad dream. How on earth have we come to this craziness? The latest and greatest “preventative” strategy for women genetically predisposed to breast cancer is amputation, which puts the wheels in motion for this type of “preventive surgery” to be covered by health insurance.
I’m referring, of course, to Angelina Jolie’s recent and very public decision to undergo a double mastectomy as a prophylactic measure. While she admits this is a very personal decision, the impacts to the public could be quite significant based on her celebrity influence.
Her mother died from ovarian cancer at the age of 56, and Jolie carries a hereditary gene mutation associated with both breast and ovarian cancer. According to Jolie, who revealed her decision in an op-ed in the New York Times:1
“My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.
Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.
Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. ... I wanted to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made.
My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent. I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”
It is nearly incomprehensible to me how any researcher can give such precise predictions of future cancer risk based on genetics. The only explanation is near complete ignorance of the science of epigenetics and the power we all have to change the expression of our genes.
Why Does US Recommendations Place Women with Gene Defects at Even Greater Risk?
The genetic test to check for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (the BRCA stands for ‘breast cancer susceptibility genes’) costs about $4,000 in the US, when not covered by insurance.2
Ironically, if you discover that you carry the mutated BRCA gene, the standard recommendation in the US is to get a mammogram and an MRI scan at least once a year thereafter, even if you’re under the age of 40. This is unconscionable, in my opinion. If anything, should you have genetic susceptibility for breast cancer, it would be wise to avoid ionizing radiation as much as possible, not the other way around!
Several European countries including Britain, the Netherlands and Spain, have already altered their screening recommendations for women with BRCA mutations, advising them to get MRIs (which do not emit ionizing radiation) instead of mammograms before the age of 30.
Research has demonstrated that women with these genetic mutations are more sensitive to radiation, and because the genes in question are involved in repairing DNA, radiation damage to these genes will subsequently raise your cancer risk. For example, a study3 published just last year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that women with faulty BRCA genes are more likely to develop breast cancer if they’re exposed to chest X-rays before the age of 30. According to Cancer Research UK:4
“[W]omen with a history of chest radiation in their 20s had a 43 percent increased relative risk of breast cancer compared to women who had no chest radiation at that age. Any exposure before age 20 seemed to raise the risk by 62 percent.”
In response to these findings, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society was quoted as saying:5
"This will raise questions and caution flags about how we treat women with (gene) mutations."
And Anouk Pijpe of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, one of the authors in the above-mentioned study, told CBS News:6
"We believe countries who use mammograms in women under 30 should reconsider their guidelines. It may be possible to reduce the risk of breast cancer in (high-risk) women by using MRIs, so we believe physicians and patients should consider that."
Genetic Defects Are Not a Major Contributor to Breast Cancer
A key point for women to remember is that while women with BRCA defects have a 45-65 percent increased risk of breast cancer, only about TWO PERCENT of diagnosed breast cancers are caused by BRCA faults. So this genetic defect is nowhere close to being a primary cause of breast cancer. Clearly, other non-genetic factors play a far more significant role.
As pointed out by H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and a co-author of Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, Angelina Jolie's personal story is completely irrelevant to 99 percent of all women because they simply do not have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. In a recent CNN article, he writes:7
“Let's be clear, the BRCA1 mutation is a bad thing... It is a powerful risk factor for these cancers... When people are at very high risk for something bad to happen, preventive interventions are more likely to be a good deal... When people are at average risk, the deal changes... It is a fundamental precept of medicine... Patients with severe abnormalities stand to gain more from intervention than patients with mild ones. Patients with mild abnormalities are more likely to experience net harm from intervention, simply because they have less opportunity to benefit.
The vast majority of women don't have the BRCA1 mutation. They are at average risk for breast cancer... They should not have a preventive mastectomy.
...But there is a second question for women raised by Ms. Jolie's piece: Should I be tested for BRCA1?
She seems to believe the answer is yes, pointing to the half-million women who die from breast cancer worldwide each year. But she neglects to point out that 90 percent of these deaths have nothing to do with the BRCA1 mutation. That's because most women don't have the mutation and because most breast cancer is sporadic.”
Furthermore, it’s also important to understand that even if you do carry a defective gene, that in and of itself does not mean that the gene in question is destined to be expressed. In other words, having the BRCA defect is by no means an automatic death sentence. As you will see below, there are many things you can do to dramatically decrease your cancer risk through the lifestyle choices you make, which have a profound impact on your genetic expression.
What Do Gene Patents Have to Do with It?
Since the mid-1940’s, genomics and the patenting of genes has grown exponentially. At present, nearly 20 percent of the entire human genome, or some 4,000 genes, are covered by at least one US patent. These include genes linked with Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer and asthma. Myriad Genetics8 owns the exclusive patent for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. As explained by The New Yorker:9
"Anyone conducting an experiment on them without a license can be sued for infringement of patent rights. This means that Myriad can decide what research is carried out on those genes, who can do that research, and how much any resulting therapy or diagnostic test will cost."
Needless to say, this has profound implications for medicine. As stated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):10
“Through its patents, Myriad has the right to stop anyone from using these genes for clinical or research purposes. It has therefore locked up a building block of human life.”
In her op-ed, Jolie states that this “has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment,” pointing out that the cost of genetic testing is an obstacle for many. The root of that problem lies with our current patent laws, which allow for the patenting of human genes and other life forms. According to the ACLU, which is the plaintiff in another gene patent lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court in April,11 Myriad recently raised the price of their genetic test from $3,000 to over $4,000, even though gene testing technologies have advanced to the point where you can sequence ALL of your genes, about 23,000 or so, for as little as $1,000.
The Supreme Court will decide in a matter of weeks whether human gene patents will continue to be allowed or not, and if they are, you can expect prices for gene-related medicine to continue to skyrocket and become increasingly monopolized.
This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.
It’s Starting to Look Like a Coordinated Yet Cleverly Designed PR Campaign...
When looking at a number of different yet related events, this whole thing is starting to look like a well-coordinated PR push where a number of companies and industries stand to gain. The only real loser in this game appears to be women in general... First, as we predicted would happen months ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in the Monsanto vs. Bowman case12 on May 13, thereby affirming that a patent holder can control the use of its patent through multiple generations of seed. Alas, the implications of this ruling go far beyond agriculture. It will also have implications for other businesses such as vaccines, cell lines, and human genes.
What this ruling does is grant ownership of genetic material in perpetuity. A silly but simple analogy would be that if you own the patent to a dog trait, and your dog with that trait impregnates all the neighbors’ dogs, all the pups would be yours, as would the pups of those pups, and so on. As we predicted, the Supreme Court only took this case to protect the biotech industry by setting precedent. There is very little morality left in our fascist federal government, and that includes most of its agencies, including the IRS, FDA, and FTC. They’re all operating for political and industrial gains.
In Monsanto vs. Bowman, Justice Kagan justified the unanimous decision to allow living, self-replicating organisms and their offspring to be licensed property of the patent owner due to financial interests. “A patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the item containing the invention,” she said. And just seconds into Bowman’s attorney’s opening arguments, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted him by asking “why anyone would ever patent anything if Bowman were to prevail?”
That and more indicated that it was a closed case right from the start... Justice Breyer went so far as referencing the infamous law13 Buck vs Bell14 (that still stands in the US to this day, which legitimizes government-forced sterilization and vaccination) when he said: “There are three generations of seeds. Maybe three generations of seeds is enough.” This was a spin on Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's statement:
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
It’s a chilling thought when you consider the potential implications this case can have on the trend of patenting of human genes and other life forms. Over 20% of the human genome is already patented, and the old eugenics movement has a lot in common with the burgeoning anti-choice movement when it comes to vaccinations and other medical treatments, including cancer treatment for minors. Children have been taken from their parents for refusing to follow the conventional cut-poison-burn cancer treatment plan for their ailing children, even though statistics and research clearly shows that chemotherapy is typically what ends up killing the patient, even when the cancer itself is conquered!
GMO Opponents Are 'Elitist' and Insensitive to World’s Needs, Monsanto CEO Says
If the idea of a new eugenics movement is not enough, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant was recently quoted15 stating that opponents who want to block genetically modified foods are guilty of “elitism” and fail to consider the needs of the rest of the world. Thank goodness the CEO of a $58 billion multinational corporation, which last year paid him over $14 million, is ready to stand up to the selfish elitists opposing his plan to save the world...
But I digress... On May 14, one day after Big Biotech was granted patent rights to genetic material in perpetuity, Angelina Jolie’s op-ed comes out, and the very next day, biotech stocks took a jump.16 Then on the 16th, Arthur Caplan, director of the Division of Bioethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center, pens a CNN op-ed17 applauding Jolie’s “brave message.” Chillingly, he ends his article with:
“As the U.S. pushes forward into health reform, Jolie's story reminds us that we need to adjust our health care system from one that pays for treatment to one that also covers prevention.”
“Prevention” here meaning a $4000 test that if positive results in amputation of a non-diseased organ... According to reports,18 Jolie is also planning to remove her ovaries to limit her risk of ovarian cancer—a decision that leads to ‘surgical menopause,’ which requires careful hormone replacement and monitoring.
Truly, we need to drive home the message that testing is NOT prevention. Testing is a diagnostic tool that has nothing to do with actually preventing disease. True prevention requires taking a close hard look at lifestyle choices, as well as making some radical changes to a wide range of industries that don’t want to change the way they do business. Toxic chemicals are oftentimes far cheaper to use than all-natural ones. And toxins drive cancer processes in your body...
The Angelina Effect—Don’t Be Swayed...
Deception by the agricultural, food, biotech, chemical, and personal care product industries are primary drivers of most of the chronic and deadly diseases plaguing our modern society. They’re poisoning you from all angles, and then pretend to have the solutions... Parallel with this mockery of a “science-based” health care system, federal agencies have been cleverly manipulated by highly leveraged lobbying to force you to pay for most of this by tax subsides, and federal regulatory agencies limiting your choices.
Within days of her “coming out,” Jolie again graced the cover of TIME magazine with the words: “The Angelina Effect—Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy puts genetic testing in the spotlight. What her choice reveals about calculating risk, cost, and peace of mind.”
I have no special insights about what this woman has been thinking, but I certainly don’t blame her. To me she is merely a victim of sophisticated and clever techniques that have successfully twisted common sense on its head. She has learned to trust and believe in the system that has created this insanity. The PR campaign that catalyzed her decision is clearly aimed at deceiving naïve and preoccupied people into an utterly flawed system motivated primarily by corporate greed not by any compassion or desire to decrease human suffering.
I don’t fault Jolie for any of it. She, like everyone else, made the best decision she could based on the information she was given or sought out. Few people have enough time to study and understand the complexity of system that has evolved for over a century.
In this case, the goal is not to empower you to make proactive decisions about your health. It’s about herding you into the fold of the most profitable industries in the world. Myriad Genetics alone rakes in approximately half a billion dollars in revenue each year.19 Genetic testing for breast cancer accounts for 85 percent of their total revenue, and again, they have complete and total control of this niche since they own the patent for the BRCA genes. Salon magazine recently wrote an article titled "How One Company Controls Your Breast Cancer Choices:"20
“Myriad’s monopoly over BRCA1 and BRCA2 not only means showing that it can charge whatever it wants for the test; it also means that further research on the genes is restricted, and that women who take the test and get an ambiguous result can’t get a second opinion, only take the test again. An ambiguous result can mean the difference between removing breasts or ovaries or leaving them intact.
The economic and racial implications of all this are major, both for how the research has been done and who gets access to it. In a video on the case, the ACLU points out, 'Initial gene studies focused on white women. And now the patents make it more difficult to learn what some mutations mean in women of color, because Myriad has total control over researchers’ access to those mutations. ... Myriad’s patent on the genes expires in two years, but the Supreme Court’s ruling21 will set the broader principle going forward. For now, Jolie’s Op-Ed has apparently made Myriad’s stock price rise 4 percent, its best level in years.'”
Nearly Every Part of the Human Genome Is Now Owned by Corporations
Ironically, just as we’re entering the age of individualized medicine, doctors’ ability to actually employ such advancements for the benefit of their patients is being profoundly undermined and restricted. As recently stated by Christopher E. Mason22 of Weill Cornell Medical College: “You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?”
Mason recently published a study in the journal Genome Medicine, in which he and his co-author, Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, show that when you include both genes and DNA sequences inside the genes, nearly the ENTIRE human genome is covered by patents! What this does is render medicine prohibitively expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, BRCA genetic testing is classified as preventative care, which means no out-of-pocket cost for those deemed eligible. But as stated by PolicyMic:
“Affordable Care Act money should be used to provide medical care that is expensive for a reason, not to prop up an unfair and anti-competitive monopoly.”
Tissue Trauma and Surgery Can Actually Increase Your Risk of Cancer
There’s much yet to be learned about cancer development and progression. For example, research23, 24, 25 has shown that trauma to the breast itself can cause cancer. According to the authors:
“Models of epithelial cell generation indicate that a causal link between physical trauma and cancer is plausible. A latent interval between cancer onset and presentation of under 5 years is also plausible. The most likely explanation of the findings is that physical trauma can cause breast cancer.”
And, as reported by Science News in 2011: 26
“The slightest scratch can cause cancerous cells to crawl to the wound and form tumors in mice, a new study finds. The work may explain why certain kinds of cancers seem to cluster around burns, surgical scars and other injuries. 'This work says that if you have a predisposition to getting cancer, wounding might enhance the chance that it will develop,' says cell biologist Anthony Oro of Stanford University School of Medicine.”
This raises questions about the possibility of developing cancer in the remaining or surrounding chest tissue following a radical surgery as double mastectomy. Needle biopsies have also been fingered as sources of cancer that otherwise might not have occurred.27
Epigenetics—The Answer for Those Seeking Cancer Prevention
The paradigm-shattering research now referred to as epigenetics proves your genetic code is not nearly as predeterministic as previously thought. You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how your genetic traits are expressed. As it turns out, your genes will express or suppress genetic data depending on the environment in which it finds itself, meaning the presence or absence of appropriate nutrients, toxins, and even your thoughts and feelings, which unleash hormones and other chemicals in your body.
Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, commented on such research back in 2009, saying:28
“It’s exciting. What it means, if all this environmental stuff is right, is that we should be able to reverse cancer without having to kill cells. This could open up a whole new way of thinking about cancer that would be much less assaultive.”
Physician Discovers What It’s Like to Be 'Sold' Preventive Mastectomy
An article by Dr. Daniela Drake titled "Why I’m Not Having a Preventive Mastectomy29" presents the other side of the preventive mastectomy argument, and highlights the problems of our current paradigm:
“Lobular Carcinoma In Situ (LCIS)... increases my odds of developing cancer from 12 percent to 30 percent. But still, my options, my doctor explained, include immediate bilateral mastectomy... She tells me that my chances of developing cancer are 80 percent and that if she were in my shoes she would 'just have them both removed.' ...Her offhand manner suggests something deeply unserious—like a manicure...
Although I used to be a vociferous advocate for aggressive medical interventions, my perspective changed radically when I began working as a house-call physician. My patients are too debilitated to go to the doctor’s office—and many were disabled by botched surgeries... I’m concerned about my surgeon’s flippancy and I suggest alternatives: 'There’s growing data that this is a lifestyle disease. You know the Women’s Health Initiative shows exercise can greatly decrease risk.'
'I don’t know. That may be true,' she shrugs. 'If we don’t do surgery, then we’ll just do mammograms every six months.' When I object, saying that LCIS doesn’t show up on mammogram, she responds, 'I know. It doesn’t make sense to me either.' It becomes evident that we don’t know how to deal with my condition. The medical system does not tolerate ambiguity well, so breast amputation has become the answer...
Now I know why patients are so mad at us. This is supposed to be patient-centered care. But it feels more like system-centered care: the medical equivalent of a car wash. I’m told incomplete and inaccurate information to shuttle me toward surgery; and I’m not being listened to. I came to discuss nutrition, exercise and close follow-up. I’m told to get my breasts removed—the sooner the better.
Mastectomy may be appropriate in some cases, like in those where your risk of cancer is virtually 100 percent. But the risk of surgery—operative complications, infections, device and graft complications—remains significant. It’s callous and irresponsible to elide the risks to the public.”
The Case Against BRCA Testing
In the research paper titled "The Case Against BRCA1 and 2 Testing", published in the journal Surgery30 in June 2011, the four authors from the Department of Surgery, University of California explain what many oncologists don’t want to hear:
“It turns out that, like a book, a gene can be 'read' both backward and forward. Small sections (or chapters) within a big gene can be 'read' alone. The three-dimensional structure of DNA controlled by site-to-site methylation prevents many chapters from being “read” at all. In addition, short segments of RNA (22 base pair micro-RNA) can cycle back to control DNA transcription.
So, DNA is just the starting point, and like flour, you do not know whether the chef is going to cook a croissant or a tortilla with it... Are BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 unique? Or just like other genes, is their expression controlled by the inner cellular attitudes (both epigenetic and environmental) of the individual patient?
BRCA 1 and 2 code nuclear proteins, also known as tumor suppressor genes, capable of repairing damaged DNA... Both mutations increase the lifetime risk of breast cancer in a woman. Less than 5% of women diagnosed with either ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive ductal cancer are a result of inherited BRCA genes...
But BRCA 1 and 2 may speak with many voices. Polymorphisms are naturally occurring single nucleotide variations of a gene present in more than 1% of the population. Polymorphisms and other single-nucleotide variants have been identified within the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. Indeed, more than 500 mutations in BRCA 1 alone have been documented and most render their proteins inactive—so, some BRCA genes seem to be shooting blanks. And a single nucleotide polymorphism, albeit only a single nucleotide change, can have a formidable influence on protein expression.
Sequence variant S1613G, for instance, results in increased mutational risk of BRCA 1 neoplastic expression, whereas a variation in K1183R is related inversely to cancer risk. It seems that some polymorphisms may actually have a protective effect.”
In summary, the authors state that for screening and therapeutic purposes, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genetic testing is really little more than an expensive way of “determining what can be accomplished more expeditiously by speaking with your patient,” since:
- The DNA base pair sequence in all humans is 99.6% identical
- Epigenetic factors influence substantively the RNA processing and translational requisition of the initial DNA message
- There are thousands of sequence variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes
- Family history trumps BRCA 1 and 2 status
Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies
So in summary, it’s important to realize that even though many well-intentioned physicians and media will seek to convince you of the value of cancer screening, it does NOT in any way equate to cancer prevention. Although early detection is important, recently a number of very popular screening methods have been shown to cause more harm than good.
In terms of genetic testing, ask yourself what you would do with the information, should it turn out you’re a carrier of the breast cancer gene. Ideally, such a test result would spur you to take real prevention seriously. But even if you don’t have the mutation, lifestyle factors are still a much larger risk factor overall. Remember, the percentage of diagnosed breast cancer cases that have the mutated gene is in the low single digits. Something else, primarily your lifestyle, accounts for the remainder.
In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices.31, 32 I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.
- Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
- Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.
Remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium for more information.
Please consider joining one of GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action’s vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance. For more information, see my previous article How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help You Optimize Your Health.
- Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer.33 It's best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks,34 raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.
- Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed therapist, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It also promotes self-nurturance.
- Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
- Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
- Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
- Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
- Drink a half to whole quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
- Get plenty of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
- Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.35 It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here.
- Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
- Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.
- Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.
- Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
- Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)
If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
- Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
- Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,36 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.
For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.
Related Articles:
Doctors Prove This Test Can Give Healthy People Cancer Your Greatest Weapon Against Breast Cancer (Not Mammograms) In Mammogram Debate, Politics Trounces ScienceMay
18
Americans Cook Less Than Ever But Love Watching It on TV
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Michael Pollan, the New York Times author who wrote the book “Omnivore's Dilemma,” has made a leap from agriculture to cooking in his newest book, "Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation."
It’s a necessary leap, after all, as his work promoting the virtues of local, sustainably grown food will be in vain if people aren’t willing to cook it. Even the freshest produce and the best cuts of grass-fed beef that farm stands have to offer will spoil among a community of non-cooks …
His book reminds me of one of my favorite sayings with respect to your meals, and that is if you fail to plan then you are planning to fail.
Americans Spend More Time Watching Cooking Shows Than Actually Cooking
In the US, we’re largely a nation of “heater-uppers” -- not cooks. As Pollan wrote in a 2009 newspaper column,1 Americans now cook less than ever, yet, ironically, love watching people cook on television:
“How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse…
Whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.
That decline has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so. Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing.
But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the culture’s continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it — and watching it.
Today the average American spends a mere 27 minutes a day on food preparation (another four minutes cleaning up); that’s less than half the time that we spent cooking and cleaning up when Julia arrived on our television screens.
It’s also less than half the time it takes to watch a single episode of “Top Chef” or “Chopped” or “The Next Food Network Star.” What this suggests is that a great many Americans are spending considerably more time watching images of cooking on television than they are cooking themselves — an increasingly archaic activity they will tell you they no longer have the time for. What is wrong with this picture?”
This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.
Getting Back to the Basics: Four Traditional Cooking Processes
For all of the time Americans don’t spend in the kitchen, it’s clear that many of us still have some form of inherent desire to cook, which draws us to watch the act on TV, even if it’s been months since we’ve chopped up a green pepper or sautéed an onion ourselves. And why wouldn’t we?
Food gathering, preparation, cooking and eating have been central to humankind since the beginning of time. Researchers believe that it was the shift to a cooked-food diet that gave ancient humans the extra calories they needed to allow their brains to get bigger. And today, food still has a way of bringing people together – and so too can embracing some of the more traditional methods of food preparation described in Pollan’s new book.
The four processes reviewed -- barbeque, pot cooking, bread baking and fermentation – correspond, respectively, with the four elements fire, water, air and earth. Among the interesting tidbits offered include a discussion of why whole wheat often lacks flavor (the germ is taken out), and how using a sourdough starter can make your whole wheat bread turn out better. There’s also a lengthy discussion of one of my own favorite “cooking” methods, fermentation. Pollan insightfully compares the art of fermenting foods with gardening:2
“The fact that -- it's a lot like gardening in that you're in this -- you have this engagement with these other species and you can't totally control them. And if you try to totally control everything that goes on in your garden, you're going to make a mess of it. You need to surf a little bit. You guide these other species. And in fermentation, that’s what you do too, but these other species are invisible. But you sense them, you smell them, they bubble.
… Most of these ferments offer our bodies a lot that we don't get any other way. All that probiotic bacteria dwarfs the amount of bacteria in a supplement, and all that fiber, and all the lactic acid, which is also good for you. I found that process endlessly satisfying.
… Fermentation appears to be a cultural universal. And many cultures have a strongly flavored fermented food that is defining-- an acquired taste beloved by a people and regarded as disgusted by other people … People don't make the connection. They really don't. We don't realize that a third of our food is fermented.”
A Prescription for a Home-Cooked Meal
The idea for Pollan’s book came from a transplant cardiologist who, in the follow-up visit for his heart transplant patients, would hand over a prescription not for medication but for a home-cooked roast chicken. Pollan described the cardiologist as saying:3
“ … they really expect me to give them a prescription for a drug, for Lipitor or whatever. And, he said, “But I don’t give them that. On my prescription pad, I give them a recipe for roast chicken. On the other side, I tell them what to do on day two, what to do with the leftovers, and how to make a soup on day three. And I give that to them.”
Therein lies the “secret” that many are missing, which is that the food you eat, more than virtually anything else, can heal your health and give you a long life. Personally, whenever I’m not traveling I purchase at least one four-pound hen a week, which I boil for several hours and make an awesome chicken soup. But it’s obviously not about chicken, per se, it’s about embracing the notion that food really can be your “medicine,” or prevent you from ever needing it, provided you’re willing to invest some time in the kitchen.
Getting Reacquainted With Your Kitchen …
I have long stated that one of the keys to optimal health is having someone in your family (or someone you hire) invest some time in your kitchen, preparing meals from scratch. This doesn’t necessarily mean cooking -- personally I try to eat about 85 percent of my food raw -- but some form of food preparation that might include fermenting vegetables or milk, juicing veggies, sprouting seeds, soaking nuts, preparing raw meals as well as some traditional cooking.
As for the latter, you may have certain recipes and other culinary traditions that you learned from your mother and grandmother, which you plan to pass on to your children, too. This is important, as often these passed-down recipes rely on traditional cooking methods and real, whole foods – not the processed convenience foods that are so common today.
If you are seeking to use food to optimize your health it is helpful to pay attention not only to the food quality but also to how you prepare it, being careful to use methods that do not seriously impair its quality. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking, such as:
- Bone broth: Simmering leftover bones over low heat for an entire day will create one of the most nutritious and healing foods there is. You can use this broth for soups, stews, or drink it straight.
- Extending a slow-cooked Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners
- Learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat
- Cooking with real ingredients like coconut oil and butter in lieu of polyunsaturated vegetable oils or margarine
- Planning your meals around the seasonal produce available in your area
Quite simply, we've strayed too far from the foods we are designed to eat, exchanging the convenience of processed foods and fast foods for our very health. Going back to basics and refocusing your diet on fresh, whole, unprocessed, "real" food prepared in your own kitchen can improve just about anyone's health, and at the same time help you fulfill your own family’s need for coming together over a good meal, rather than just watching one being prepared on TV.
Pollan summed it up well:4
“ …it’s hard to imagine ever reforming the American way of eating or, for that matter, the American food system unless millions of Americans — women and men — are willing to make cooking a part of daily life. The path to a diet of fresher, unprocessed food, not to mention to a revitalized local-food economy, passes straight through the home kitchen.”
Related Articles:
‘Consider the Fork’ Chronicles Evolution of Eating How to Easily and Inexpensively Ferment Your Own Vegetables When Fire Met Food, the Brains of Early Humans Grew BiggerMay
18
Americans Cook Less Than Ever But Love Watching It on TV
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Michael Pollan, the New York Times author who wrote the book “Omnivore's Dilemma,” has made a leap from agriculture to cooking in his newest book, "Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation."
It’s a necessary leap, after all, as his work promoting the virtues of local, sustainably grown food will be in vain if people aren’t willing to cook it. Even the freshest produce and the best cuts of grass-fed beef that farm stands have to offer will spoil among a community of non-cooks …
His book reminds me of one of my favorite sayings with respect to your meals, and that is if you fail to plan then you are planning to fail.
Americans Spend More Time Watching Cooking Shows Than Actually Cooking
In the US, we’re largely a nation of “heater-uppers” -- not cooks. As Pollan wrote in a 2009 newspaper column,1 Americans now cook less than ever, yet, ironically, love watching people cook on television:
“How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse…
Whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.
That decline has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so. Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing.
But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the culture’s continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it — and watching it.
Today the average American spends a mere 27 minutes a day on food preparation (another four minutes cleaning up); that’s less than half the time that we spent cooking and cleaning up when Julia arrived on our television screens.
It’s also less than half the time it takes to watch a single episode of “Top Chef” or “Chopped” or “The Next Food Network Star.” What this suggests is that a great many Americans are spending considerably more time watching images of cooking on television than they are cooking themselves — an increasingly archaic activity they will tell you they no longer have the time for. What is wrong with this picture?”
This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.
Getting Back to the Basics: Four Traditional Cooking Processes
For all of the time Americans don’t spend in the kitchen, it’s clear that many of us still have some form of inherent desire to cook, which draws us to watch the act on TV, even if it’s been months since we’ve chopped up a green pepper or sautéed an onion ourselves. And why wouldn’t we?
Food gathering, preparation, cooking and eating have been central to humankind since the beginning of time. Researchers believe that it was the shift to a cooked-food diet that gave ancient humans the extra calories they needed to allow their brains to get bigger. And today, food still has a way of bringing people together – and so too can embracing some of the more traditional methods of food preparation described in Pollan’s new book.
The four processes reviewed -- barbeque, pot cooking, bread baking and fermentation – correspond, respectively, with the four elements fire, water, air and earth. Among the interesting tidbits offered include a discussion of why whole wheat often lacks flavor (the germ is taken out), and how using a sourdough starter can make your whole wheat bread turn out better. There’s also a lengthy discussion of one of my own favorite “cooking” methods, fermentation. Pollan insightfully compares the art of fermenting foods with gardening:2
“The fact that -- it's a lot like gardening in that you're in this -- you have this engagement with these other species and you can't totally control them. And if you try to totally control everything that goes on in your garden, you're going to make a mess of it. You need to surf a little bit. You guide these other species. And in fermentation, that’s what you do too, but these other species are invisible. But you sense them, you smell them, they bubble.
… Most of these ferments offer our bodies a lot that we don't get any other way. All that probiotic bacteria dwarfs the amount of bacteria in a supplement, and all that fiber, and all the lactic acid, which is also good for you. I found that process endlessly satisfying.
… Fermentation appears to be a cultural universal. And many cultures have a strongly flavored fermented food that is defining-- an acquired taste beloved by a people and regarded as disgusted by other people … People don't make the connection. They really don't. We don't realize that a third of our food is fermented.”
A Prescription for a Home-Cooked Meal
The idea for Pollan’s book came from a transplant cardiologist who, in the follow-up visit for his heart transplant patients, would hand over a prescription not for medication but for a home-cooked roast chicken. Pollan described the cardiologist as saying:3
“ … they really expect me to give them a prescription for a drug, for Lipitor or whatever. And, he said, “But I don’t give them that. On my prescription pad, I give them a recipe for roast chicken. On the other side, I tell them what to do on day two, what to do with the leftovers, and how to make a soup on day three. And I give that to them.”
Therein lies the “secret” that many are missing, which is that the food you eat, more than virtually anything else, can heal your health and give you a long life. Personally, whenever I’m not traveling I purchase at least one four-pound hen a week, which I boil for several hours and make an awesome chicken soup. But it’s obviously not about chicken, per se, it’s about embracing the notion that food really can be your “medicine,” or prevent you from ever needing it, provided you’re willing to invest some time in the kitchen.
Getting Reacquainted With Your Kitchen …
I have long stated that one of the keys to optimal health is having someone in your family (or someone you hire) invest some time in your kitchen, preparing meals from scratch. This doesn’t necessarily mean cooking -- personally I try to eat about 85 percent of my food raw -- but some form of food preparation that might include fermenting vegetables or milk, juicing veggies, sprouting seeds, soaking nuts, preparing raw meals as well as some traditional cooking.
As for the latter, you may have certain recipes and other culinary traditions that you learned from your mother and grandmother, which you plan to pass on to your children, too. This is important, as often these passed-down recipes rely on traditional cooking methods and real, whole foods – not the processed convenience foods that are so common today.
If you are seeking to use food to optimize your health it is helpful to pay attention not only to the food quality but also to how you prepare it, being careful to use methods that do not seriously impair its quality. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking, such as:
- Bone broth: Simmering leftover bones over low heat for an entire day will create one of the most nutritious and healing foods there is. You can use this broth for soups, stews, or drink it straight.
- Extending a slow-cooked Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners
- Learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat
- Cooking with real ingredients like coconut oil and butter in lieu of polyunsaturated vegetable oils or margarine
- Planning your meals around the seasonal produce available in your area
Quite simply, we've strayed too far from the foods we are designed to eat, exchanging the convenience of processed foods and fast foods for our very health. Going back to basics and refocusing your diet on fresh, whole, unprocessed, "real" food prepared in your own kitchen can improve just about anyone's health, and at the same time help you fulfill your own family’s need for coming together over a good meal, rather than just watching one being prepared on TV.
Pollan summed it up well:4
“ …it’s hard to imagine ever reforming the American way of eating or, for that matter, the American food system unless millions of Americans — women and men — are willing to make cooking a part of daily life. The path to a diet of fresher, unprocessed food, not to mention to a revitalized local-food economy, passes straight through the home kitchen.”
Related Articles:
‘Consider the Fork’ Chronicles Evolution of Eating How to Easily and Inexpensively Ferment Your Own Vegetables When Fire Met Food, the Brains of Early Humans Grew Bigger