Health

...now browsing by category

Fatty Grassfed Meat Is Best

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

Our culture has a phobia about animal fat. The horrid nutritional guidelines just issued by the U.S. government tell us to eat meat only occasionally, and eat only lean meat. This is truly a shame, because animal fat from pastured animals contains many vital nutrients that are easily absorbed and hard to get elsewhere. Animal fat from grassfed animals also gives great taste, tenderness, and satisfaction (unlike the lumpy, greasy fat so prevalent in factory meat).

All grassfed meat is leaner than factory meat. Many producers advertise how lean their grassfed meat is. Some grassfed meat is much leaner, and some contains more fat. So which is better? For our ancestors, the choice was simple. Fat meat was desirable and cherished—lean meat was eaten to avoid starvation or thrown to the dogs.

For me, the answer is also simple. Most of the nutrients in grassfed beef are in the fat. Fattier cuts of grassfed meat have more flavor and come out more tender. The fattier the better, when it comes to grassfed meat.

Grassfed Fat vs. Factory Fat

There is a great difference in the content and composition of the fat of grassfed animals and the fat of factory animals finished in the feedlot.

The fat of grassfed animals has a much higher ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids, has much more CLA, and is much richer in other nutrients. The fat of feedlot-finished factory animals has a much higher omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio, much less CLA, and contains substances from the feed that get stored in the fat.

The fat in grassfed meat appears both as a covering over the cut of meat, and in small white flecks that can be seen in the meat itself. These small flecks are called marbling. The fat of feedlot-finished factory meat also appears as a covering, but it can often be seen in the meat itself as thick, blocky veins of fat, or lumps of fat. No grass finished meat has this appearance.

I personally find the fat in grassfed meat to be delicious and satisfying. It smells so good when the meat cooks that it makes me very hungry. I find the fat in feedlot-finished factory meat to be greasy, unpleasant, and downright disgusting. Factory meat does not satisfy me, and leaves me hungry and bloated. Grassfed meat always leaves me feeling satisfied and good—which is one of the main reasons why I only eat grassfed and grass finished meat.

What about the Studies?

The media often publicizes studies that claim that eating meat, especially fat meat, is unhealthy.

While I never blindly believe any study, knowing how flawed and biased they can be (though some are completely valid, you just have to study the details), I have noticed two important points that make them inapplicable to grassfed meat and fat:

All of these studies include the eating of highly processed factory meat, meat that is full of preservatives and chemicals, such as luncheon meat. It is impossible to know if the negative results claimed by the studies come from the meat or the chemicals.
None of these studies are limited to the eating of pastured meat processed without the use of chemicals, but are based almost totally on feedlot-finished factory meat that has been raised with artificial hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, species-inappropriate feed, and other factors that were never used by our ancestors. It is impossible to know if the negative results claimed by the studies come from the meat or the hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, species-inappropriate feed, or other factors, or any combination of them.

The main studies we have on the nutritional effects of traditional meats, fats, and diets are the customs of our ancestors, and the vital research of Dr. Weston A. Price. These traditions and the research of Dr. Price support the health benefits of eating traditional unprocessed animal fats.

Why Fattier Grassfed Meat Is Better than Leaner Grassfed Meat

Once again, the traditions of our ancestors are the key to understanding. Every traditional meat eating culture preferred fat meat to lean meat. Traditional recipes for meat always make sure that it is cooked and eaten with plenty of fat, with roasts being inevitably covered by a glorious crown of their own magnificent fat. The most prized, luxurious cuts of meat were always the fattest.

Traditional Inuit were known to reserve the organ meats, fatty meats, and fat for themselves, while throwing the really lean meat to their dogs.

The most valued traditional foods included the fats of pastured animals, with lard, beef tallow, goose fat, duck fat, and chicken fat being heavily used for cooking in traditional Europe. The Native Americans used bear fat, bison fat, and the fat from other game. Lamb fat was prized in the Middle East, where breeds of lamb were raised that had huge tails composed almost completely of fat, which was used in all kinds of cooking. Lard was the most important fat in China, used for cooking almost everything.

I am convinced that cooking traditions reflect the collective experience of the people who have them, representing thousands of years of trial and error, passed down from parent to child, from teacher to student. The wisdom of these traditions was proved by Dr. Weston A. Price, who discovered that traditional peoples eating their traditional diets were completely free of the chronic diseases that afflicted modern peoples, remaining healthy and vigorous into extreme old age. Every one of the peoples studied by Dr. Price only ate meat with plenty of fat.

An example of this wisdom is pemmican, a staple preserved food of the Native Americans who lived on the Great Plains of the United States. Pemmican consisted of dried bison meat, dried cherries, and a great deal of bison fat. The Native Americans knew that the fat was absolutely necessary for the pemmican to sustain life.

Most of the nutrients in grassfed meat are in the fat, not the meat itself. Very lean grassfed beef, that has no visible marbling, will have fewer nutrients than grassfed meat that is nicely marbled. A roast that has all the fat cover trimmed off will have fewer nutrients than a roast cooked with a cover of its own natural fat.

I have found that the fattier the grassfed meat, the more tender and tasty and satisfying it is. You can make lean grassfed meat tender and delicious, with the proper technique and marinades. But the grassfed meat that has the little flecks of fat in the meat will be more tender, and more tasty, and more satisfying. The grassfed roast cooked with a cap of its own magnificent fat will always come out much better that the totally trimmed roast. Our ancestors knew this, and it is a delicious and healthy tradition to follow!

Source: Tender Grassfed Meat

Posted in Health, Meat Production | No Responses »

Junk Food Lower IQs

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

Toddlers who have a diet high in processed foods may have a slightly lower IQ in later life, according to a British study described as the biggest research of its kind.

The conclusion, published on Monday, comes from a long-term investigation into 14,000 people born in western England in 1991 and 1992 whose health and well-being were monitored at the ages of three, four, seven and eight and a half.

Parents of the children were asked to fill out questionnaires that, among other things, detailed the kind of food and drink their children consumed.

Three dietary patterns emerged: one was high in processed fats and sugar; then there was a “traditional” diet high in meat and vegetables; and finally a “health-conscious” diet with lots of salad, fruit and vegetables, pasta and rice.

When the children were eight and a half, their IQ was measured using a standard tool called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale.

Of the 4,000 children for which there were complete data, there was a significant difference in IQ among those who had had the “processed” as opposed to the “health-conscious” diets in early childhood.

The 20 percent of children who ate the most processed food had an average IQ of 101 points, compared with 106 for the 20 percent of children who ate the most “health-conscious” food.

“It’s a very small difference, it’s not a vast difference,” said one of the authors, Pauline Emmett of the School of Social and Community Medicine at the University of Bristol.

“But it does make them less able to cope with education, less able to cope with some of the things in life.”

The association between IQ and nutrition is a strongly debated issue because it can be skewed by many factors, including economic and social background.

A middle-class family, for instance, may arguably be more keen (or more financially able) to put a healthier meal on the table, or be pushier about stimulating their child, compared to a poorer household.

Emmett said the team took special care to filter out such confounders.

“We have controlled for maternal education, for maternal social class, age, whether they live in council housing, life events, anything going wrong, the home environment, with books and use of television and things like that,” she said.

The size of the study, too, was unprecedented.

“It’s a huge sample, it’s much much bigger than anything anyone else has done,” she said in an interview with AFP.

Emmett said further work was needed to see whether this apparent impact on IQ persisted as the children got older.

Asked why junk food had such an effect, she suggested a diet that was preponderantly processed could lack vital vitamins and elements for cerebral development at a key stage in early childhood.

“A junk food diet is not conducive to good brain development,” she said.

The paper appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published by the British Medical Association (BMA).

Source: France 24

Posted in Dietary Industrial Complex, Health | 1 Response »

New Dietary Guidelines Keep The Money Flowing To Big Ag

Monday, January 31st, 2011

This morning the USDA released their newest guidelines to keep US citizens on a diet that will keep The Dietary Industrial Complex rich while providing a bailout for the medical/chemical companies in the way of sicker citizenry.

The USDA Guidelines have a history of serving industry at the expense of human health. ConAgra, ADM, Cargil, Nestle and Bunge are applauding the new guidelines.

The net impact of these guidelines will be more sales of processed lowfat foods and whole grain trash instead of nutrient dense real foods.

The lowfat/high carbohydrate diet is the diet responsible for the poor health of the American public. This is a recipe for more of the same.

See the: Executive Summary of the new USDA DietaryGuidelines

See the: Entire New USDA Dietary Guidelines

Posted in Health | No Responses »

Sean Croxton: Is God Stupid?

Monday, January 24th, 2011

Sean wants to know why people just can’t understand that natural foods are better. Why do we listen to doctors who are dying from the modern western diet, when they tell us that saturated fats and egg yolks will kill us?

See more of Sean at: UndergroundWellness.com

Posted in Health | No Responses »

80% of Antibiotics Used In US Are Fed To Livestock

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

Antibiotics, one of the world’s greatest medical discoveries, are slowly losing their effectiveness in fighting bacterial infections and the massive use of the drugs in food animals may be the biggest culprit. The growing threat of antibiotic resistance is largely due to the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in both people and animals, which leads to an increase in “super-bacteria”. However, people use a much smaller portion of antibiotics sold in this country compared to the amount set aside for food animals. In fact, according to new data just released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), of the antibiotics sold in 2009 for both people and food animals almost 80% were reserved for livestock and poultry. A huge portion of those antibiotics were never intended to fight bacterial infections, rather producers most likely administered them in continuous low-dosages through feed or water to increase the speed at which their animals grew. And that has many public health experts and scientists troubled.

For years scientists concerned about the threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animal production have been trying to figure out just how much antibiotics producers are using each year. The best they could do was come up with rough estimates. That is because the data was never publicly available, until now.

In accordance with a 2008 amendment to the Animal Drug User Fee Act, for the first time the FDA released last week an annual amount of antimicrobial drugs sold and distributed for use in food animals. The grand total for 2009 is 13.1 million kilograms or 28.8 million pounds. I found the stories covering this revelation interesting, but they did not convey the whole picture. It is important to understand how this amount compares to the total available for people. So, I decided to find out for myself and contacted the FDA for an estimate of the volume of antibiotics sold for human use in 2009. This is what a spokesperson told me:

“Our Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology just finished an analysis based on IMS Health data. Sales data in kilograms sold for selected antibacterial drugs were obtained as a surrogate of human antibacterial drug use in the U.S. market. Approximately 3.3 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold in year 2009. OSE states that all data in this analysis have been cleared for public use by IMS Health, IMS National Sales Perspectives™.”

3.3 million kilograms is a little over 7 million pounds. As far as I can determine, this is the first time the FDA has made data on estimates of human usage public. Below is a breakdown of the FDA numbers prepared by my colleague, Dr. David Love, also from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, which compares the estimated amounts of human usage with food animal usage.

Take a look at the data for tetracycline. More than 10 million pounds of the antibiotic were sold for the use in food animals. That’s more than all of the antibiotics combined set aside for humans in 2009. Many studies suggest the high use of tetracycline in food animals, particularly in pigs, has lead to the increased rates of bacterial resistance to the antibiotic, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA.

Despite this new information, the hog industry denies the suggestion that it is overusing antibiotics. In response to the FDA’s report, the National Pork Producers Council also pointed out to Food Safety News’ Helena Bottemiller that, “ionophores … are not used in human medicine, they don’t have anything to do with the effectiveness of antibiotics in people.” That statement is inaccurate. All uses of antibiotics have the potential to decrease the effectiveness of antibiotics in people. Ionophores are no exception. While several industry funded studies determined that ionophore use in animals is “not likely” to transfer resistance from animals to people, researchers couldn’t come to a definitive conclusion because ionophores can lead to bacterial resistance to the antibiotic bacitracin, which is commonly used to treat skin and eye infections.

Every time an antibiotic is used there is a risk of adding to the growing pool of antibiotic resistance. LivableFutureBlog readers might recall an October blog post in which Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, warned that, “Bacteria respond to chemical structures, not brand names, and resistance to one member of a pharmaceutical class results in cross resistance to all other members of the same class.” Silbergeld says when bacteria develop resistance to one member of that class of antibiotics it can be resistant to all.

So, what is the government doing to ensure we don’t squander the effectiveness of antibiotics for human use on the production of food animals? Since President Barack Obama took office, the FDA says it has taken several steps. Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, took a stand last year by stating that the Administration, “supports ending the use of antibiotics for growth and feed efficiency” in food animals. However, instead of requiring industry take action, the FDA released a draft-guidance last June that essentially asks industry to voluntarily end the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in food animals and include veterinary oversight or consultation on all antibiotic use.

Lawmakers such as Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Senator Barbara Boxer have been introducing versions of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) for more than a decade that would mandate antibiotic use changes in food animals. Earlier this year it looked like the bill had a good chance of passing, but the bill failed to make it to the floor of the House or Senate. While not perfect, PAMTA would ban the use of medically important antibiotics as growth promoters. Passage of PAMTA would be an important step in saving the potency of antibiotics for human use. However, the current version of the bill could be stronger if it followed more closely the recommendations from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production final report, which calls for a ban on the non-therapeutic use of all antibiotics, not just those considered medically important, in food animals.

Now that we officially know that food animals use an overwhelming majority of our antibiotics, I hope it is more clear to everyone that legislation limiting the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in livestock and poultry must be passed. The next battle, which industry has already begun, is defining what non-therapeutic use will constitute. Producers are already claiming that the use of antibiotics for growth promotion has decreased, maintaining current low-dose usage is aimed at disease prevention. Regardless, all low-dose usage of antibiotics can lead to a significant increase in antibiotic resistance. As Dr. Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin warned, “It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them, and the same thing has occasionally happened in the body.”

Source: livablefutureblog.com

Posted in Factory Farming, Health | No Responses »

Study Finds Whole Fat Dairy Foods May Lower Diabetes Risk

Thursday, December 23rd, 2010

People with higher intakes of a fat found mainly in dairy products might have lower odds of developing diabetes, a new study suggests.

Looking at more than 3,700 U.S. adults, researchers found that those with higher blood levels of the fatty acid — known as trans-palmitoleic acid — were about 60 percent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes over the next 20 years than people with the lowest blood levels.

That would seem to run counter to longstanding recommendations to trade in whole milk and cheese for the skim varieties for the sake of health.

And experts caution that it’s indeed too soon to break out the full-fat dairy.

For one thing, whether the fatty acid itself deserves the credit for the lower diabetes risk is not clear. And then there’s the fact that full-fat dairy products are often high in calories, which could lead to weight gain — itself a risk factor for diabetes — and saturated fat, which could boost “bad” LDL cholesterol and contribute to heart disease.

“Dietary recommendations should not be changed based on any one study,” said lead researcher Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

But he said the findings are “exciting” and warrant further research — including, at some point, clinical trials in which people would be given supplements of trans-palmitoleic acid to see if the fat itself curbs diabetes risk.

The results, reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also point to a potential explanation for some previous research that showed dairy lovers to have a lower diabetes risk than people who consume little dairy.

Even if the benefit does not come from trans-palmitoleic acid specifically, Mozaffarian said, these findings bolster the case that dairy has some anti-diabetes property.

“I think this study confirms that there is something about dairy foods that’s responsible,” he said.

Mozaffarian said he feels confident, in part, because he and his colleagues were able to account for a range of diabetes risk factors among the study participants — including their age, weight, exercise habits and general diet. And those things did not explain the link between the dairy fat and lower diabetes risk.

Of more than 700 study participants with the highest blood levels of the fatty acid, 38 later developed diabetes. That compared with 94 cases among the 700-plus with the lowest levels of the dairy fat.

When the researchers adjusted for the other factors in their analysis, people with the top-20-percent blood levels of the fatty acid showed a 62 percent lower risk of diabetes than the group with bottom-20-percent fatty acid levels.

Trans-palmitoleic acid falls into the broad category of “trans-fat,” which has become notorious in recent years for its links to elevated LDL cholesterol and heart disease.

However, unlike the trans-fats in many processed foods, like cookies, crackers and chips, trans-palmitoleic acid is a natural fat. And so far, Mozaffarian said, research has not linked natural trans-fats in dairy and meat to an increased heart disease risk.

Source: Reuters

Posted in Health | No Responses »

Dannon Fined $21 Million For Deceptive Health Claims

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

The federal government appears poised to take a far more aggressive watchdog role under the Obama administration over deceptive ad practices.
Dannon — part of the world’s biggest yogurt maker Danone— agreed to pay a $21 million fine and stop making exaggerated health claims for two popular Dannon products under a settlement with the federal government and attorneys general from 39 states on Wednesday.

It follows Monday’s $2.1 million FTC settlement with kids-vitamin maker NBTY over unsupported health claims and because the products didn’t have the amount of omega-3 claimed.

FROM THE FTC: Read the press release

“It’s a shot across the bow that food marketers are going to have to stop using unsubstantiated health claims as marketing tools,” says New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle. “The claims aren’t about health, they’re about marketing.”

Yogurt is a $4.2 billion-plus business in the USA, with sales up 8% over the past year, says researcher SymphonyIRI Group. The two Dannon products cited by the FTC both contain beneficial bacteria know as probiotics. But, Nestle says, “Yogurt is just food. It’s not a miracle. No food is a superfood.”

The government says Dannon will stop claiming that one daily serving of Activia yogurt relieves irregularity and that DanActive helps people avoid catching colds.

“These types of misleading claims are enough to give consumers indigestion,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz says. “Companies like Dannon shouldn’t exaggerate the strength of scientific support.”

REPORT: Probiotics may have some benefits for kids

In Dannon’s case, some say, it’s too little too late.

“Dannon’s had so much television exposure of these claims that people will still believe them,” says Katharine Paine, a corporate image expert. “They’ve already got the perception in the minds of consumers that this stuff is good for them.”

The FTC charged that Dannon’s ads were deceptive because it did not have substantiation. The FTC also charged that Dannon’s claims that Activia and DanActive were clinically proven were false.

In one ad for Activia, actress Jamie Lee Curtis reassures viewers that eating Activia can help people who suffer from irregularities.

“I am proud of my association with Dannon, and I am reminded daily by consumers of the help that Activia has brought them,” the actress said Wednesday via her publicist, Heidi Schaeffer. Curtis is still doing the ads and eats Activia regularly. Despite the settlement, Dannon was disputing some FTC claims on Wednesday. “We never made a claim that eating DanActive helps prevent colds or flu,” spokesman Michael Neuwirth says. “We respectfully disagree.”

Posted in Dietary Industrial Complex, Health | No Responses »

Man Goes On Two Month ‘Potato Only’ Diet

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Chris Voight, executive director of the Washington Potato Commission, set himself the task of cutting out all other foodstuffs for 60 days to prove the nutritional value of the starchy vegetable.

His challenge was an attempt to prove to the US Government that the potato should remain a part of the school lunch programme, amid claims from the US Institute of Medicine that it should be replaced by other vegetables.

For 60 days, the 45-year-old denied himself all foods except potatoes, seasoning such as salt and pepper, and a little oil to cook them in.

As he ended his trial at midnight on Monday, Mr Voight, denied that the experiment had damaged his health, claiming it had helped him lose 21 pounds and lower his cholesterol.

He told the Today programme: “I absolutely feel great. I’ve always had lots of good energy on this diet, I’ve had no strange side effects, I sleep well at night. I just had my last medical exam today and it came back fabulous.”

Such a diet may be enough to put most people off potatoes for life, but in his interview, recorded hours before the end of his diet, Mr Voight said the experience hadn’t deterred him in the slightest.

He said: “Actually I plan on eating potatoes tomorrow, it’s just I’m planning on putting something on them and eating something with them, not just potatoes any more.

“I want some salsa on some nice beef tacos with some grilled potatoes and maybe some ice cream and some milk.”

The only negative health impact Mr Voight would admit to suffering during his potato marathon was a deficiency in some fat-soluble vitamins such as Vitamins A and E, but he added: “Luckily I was a little overweight so there was a natural store of a lot of those in me already.”

He accepted, however, that eating nothing but potatoes was not a “sustainable diet”.

He admitted: “While the potato is a good choice if you were to pick one food, it certainly doesn’t meet all your needs.

“But I hope that this was just a bold statement just reminding people that it’s OK to eat potatoes because they truly are healthy for you.”

Source :Telegraph UK

Posted in Health, Vegetable Production | No Responses »

A Vegan No More

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

Read one persons journey to vaganism and back. Tasha was eating a vegan diet for 3 1/2 years before her health problems forced her to take a long hard look at her diet. Was living up to her idea of a compassionate lifestyle more important than her health?

Many of you know that I have recently been struggling for the first time in my life with health problems. When I discovered that my problems were a direct result of my vegan diet I was devastated. 2 months ago, after learning the hard way that not everyone is capable of maintaining their health as a vegan, I made one of the most difficult decisions of my life and gave up veganism and returned to eating an omnivorous diet. My health immediately returned. This experience has been humbling, eye-opening, and profoundly transformative. To hear the whole story just keep reading…

From VoraciousEats.com

Posted in Health | No Responses »

Super High Fat Miracle Diet Helps Control Epilepsy

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

Once every three or four months my son, Sam, grabs a cookie or a piece of candy and, wide-eyed, holds it inches from his mouth, ready to devour it. He knows he’s not allowed to eat these things, but like any 9-year-old, he hopes that somehow, this once, my wife, Evelyn, or I will make an exception.

We never make exceptions when it comes to Sam and food, though, which means that when temptation takes hold of Sam and he is denied, things can get pretty hairy. Confronted with a gingerbread house at a friend’s party last December, he went scorched earth, grabbing parts of the structure and smashing it to bits. Reason rarely works. Usually one of us has to pry the food out of his hands. Sometimes he ends up in tears.

It’s not just cookies and candy that we forbid Sam to eat. Cake, ice cream, pizza, tortilla chips and soda aren’t allowed, either. Macaroni and cheese used to be his favorite food, but he told Evelyn the other day that he couldn’t remember what it tastes like anymore. At Halloween we let him collect candy, but he trades it in for a present. At birthday parties and play dates, he brings a lunchbox to eat from.

There is no crusade against unhealthful food in our house. Some might argue that unhealthful food is all we let Sam eat. His breakfast eggs are mixed with heavy cream and served with bacon. A typical lunch is full-fat Greek yogurt mixed with coconut oil. Dinner is hot dogs, bacon, macadamia nuts and cheese. We figure that in an average week, Sam consumes a quart and a third of heavy cream, nearly a stick and a half of butter, 13 teaspoons of coconut oil, 20 slices of bacon and 9 eggs. Sam’s diet is just shy of 90 percent fat. That is twice the fat content of a McDonald’s Happy Meal and about 25 percent more than the most fat-laden phase of the Atkins diet. It puts Sam at risk of developing kidney stones if he doesn’t drink enough. It is constipating, so he has to take daily stool softeners. And it lacks so many essential nutrients that if Sam didn’t take a multivitamin and a calcium-magnesium supplement every day, his growth would be stunted, his hair and teeth would fall out and his bones would become as brittle as an 80-year-old’s.

Evelyn, Sam’s twin sister Beatrice and I don’t eat this way. But Sam has epilepsy, and the food he eats is controlling most of his seizures (he used to have as many as 130 a day). The diet, which drastically reduces the amount of carbohydrates he takes in, tricks his body into a starvation state in which it burns fat, and not carbs, for fuel. Remarkably, and for reasons that are still unclear, this process — called ketosis — has an antiepileptic effect. He has been eating this way for almost two years.

uriosity bordering on alarm is the only way to describe how people receive this information. “In-teresting,” one acquaintance said. “Did you make this up yourself?” Another friend was more direct: “Is this a mainstream-science thing or more of a fringe treatment?” We are not surprised by these reactions. What we are doing to Sam just seems wrong. The bad eating habits of Americans, especially those of children, are a national health crisis. Yet we are intentionally feeding our son fatty food and little else.

Read the rest at The New York Times.

Posted in Health | No Responses »