.

My Lost Fitcast Interview

.

Back during the Thanksgiving Holiday, I did my second interview with the Fitcast. It was a great interview that covered:

- Functional Movement Screening

- Fat Loss Training

- Training with a Herniated Disc(s)

And plenty more!

.

For some strange reason, I never sent out an email or Blog post notifying anyone of this free interview. So, better late than never!

.

Go here to listen my FREE Fitcast Interview!

.

Cool Workout Tunes!

.

Occasionally, I like to talk about some of the music on the Performance U playlist. These are songs and bands we like to jam to when getting after it in the gym. I try to only talk about lesser known bands that rock!

.

The Band – RA

Favorite Album by RA – Duality

.

.

Favorite Songs by RA – Rectifier, I Lost Everything Today, Everything Little She Does is Magic (cover)

.

.

.

.
.

5 Superpowers You Didn’t Know Your Body Was Hiding From You

.

This is a very interesting, insightful and humorous article  found on Cracked.com.

.

Those motivational speakers are right: You are capable of amazing things. You wouldn’t know it, because 99 percent of the time your body or brain hides these superpowers from you.

Sure, they say there’s a good reason, but we’re not sure we’re buying it. Dammit, we want our…

.

Go here to Continue Reading…

.

.

.

It’s only makes sense that any living creature that is able to eat what its supposed to eat and able to get regular exercise, will be healthier. Therefore, it will become a healthier food option when its consumed by something higher on the food chain, like us humans.

.

However, as is with everything in life, there is always a give and take. In the case of eating organic free range chicken for gaining the supposed additional health benefit, there is also a greater risk.

.

Research on Organic Free Range Chicken

.

A study done in Denmark in 2001 found that organic, free range chickens are three times more likely to be contaminated by Campylobacter than coventional chickens.

.

Campylobacter is similar to Salmonella and it’s the leading cause of foodborne bacteria illnesses. The Center for Disease  Control (CDC) estimates  Campylobacter is responsible for nearly 2 million cases per year.

.

It seems that these bacteria are found more often and at higher levels in organic and free range birds.

.

The Denmark study found that all 22 organic, free range chicken flocks were infected with the bacteria – (100%). Whereas only 29 of the 79 conventional  chicken flocks were infected – (36.7%).

.

Additionally, in 2002, Britain’s Food Standards Agency found similar patterns of higher organic, free range chicken flock contamination.

.

The BFS Agnecy found that more than 99% of organic chicken flocks were infected with Campylobacter. Compared that to only 56% of conventional chicken flocks.

.

No one seems to know for sure why organic, free range chicken flocks have a much higher Salmonella and Campylobacter infection rate. But, experts feel it’s due to the fact that free range chickens spend more time outside where they are exposed to wild bird feces and other sources or bacteria.

.

Also, free range birds take twice as long to reach a marketable weight / size , therefore providing them with greater opportunity for become infected.

.

IMPORTANT COOKING INFORMATION !!!

.

It’s important to know that proper cooking of chicken will kill these illness-causing bacteria. But, they can also contaminate any cutting boards and / or kitchen  utensils used to prepare the raw meat.

.

So, to minimze risk of infection to yourself and your family. Thoroughly wash everything that has contacted the raw meat.

.

In conclusion, I feel it’s important that you understand that regardless of what the slick marketing tells you -

Just because it’s “organic” or “free range” does NOT make it safer!!!

-

-

Don’t forget, today is the last day to get the bonuses when you order the CNS Activation DVD!

.

Go here to order…

-

-

-

Well, after doing my research, I’ve had some real changes in thinking. It’s time we all started educating ourselves before just shelling out hard on money on may high priced organic foods.

-

My goal with these posts is to provide you with that type education.

-

If you haven’t read my 2 part post entitled Is Organic Food Healthier?, I suggest you do so ASAP.

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

-

Along with discovering the TRUTH about how healthy organic food is compared to non-organic provided by that article. Read this amazing article by Ronald Bailey entitled Organic Alchemy and discover how healthy organic farming really is for the environment.

-

Organic Alchemy

-

Organic food production is growing by leaps and bounds in the United States. Many consumers are willing to pay premium prices for organic fruits, vegetables, and meats, convinced that they are helping the earth and eating healthier.

Swiss scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture have just published a 21-year study in Sciencecomparing two types of organic farming with two types of conventional agriculture. The results initially seem to back up those consumer beliefs, and the press has described the research as showing that organic farms are “viable” (to quote the Los Angeles Times) and “more efficient” (to quote Reuters). But don’t rush out just yet to Whole Foods to stock up on organic arugula or chard.

Organic farming boils down to essentially two principles: Soluble mineral inputs, such as artificial nitrogen fertilizer, are forbidden, and so is the use of synthetic herbicides and pesticides. Another of the organic systems tested by the Swiss scientists, called bio-dynamic, was dreamed up by the German “anthroposophist” mystic Rudolf Steiner in the 1920s. Biodynamic farming uses such novel preparations as manure fermented in a cow’s horn that is buried in the soil for six months through autumn and winter. To these original principles, organic farmers’ organizations have recently proscribed growing genetically enhanced crops.

One of the most frequent criticisms of organic agriculture is that it is not as productive as conventional farming. The Swiss scientists confirmed this: Their organic plots were on average 20 percent less productive than conventional plots. For potatoes, organic production was about 40 percent lower. The researchers also point out that “cereal crop yields in Europe typically are 60 to 70% of those under conventional management.” Furthermore, they dispelled the notion that organic crops are superior food by noting, “There were minor differences between the farming systems in food quality.”

The Swiss scientists based their claims for greater organic “efficiency” chiefly on the differences in the amount of energy used to produce the crops. Since the same horticultural techniques were used on both conventional and organic plots, the difference in energy use was mostly the result of counting the energy used to produce inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. On this basis, the researchers claim in their Science article that organic farms use about 50 percent less energy. However, looking at the fine print, one discovers that “since crop yields were considerably higher in the conventional systems, the difference in energy needed to produce a crop unit was only 19 percent lower in the organic systems.”

Secondly, the researchers declare that they found nutrients “in the organic systems to be 34 to 51% lower than in conventional systems, whereas mean crop yield was only 20% lower over a period of 21 years.” But–to ask the organic advocates’ own question–is organic agriculture sustainable over the long run? Again, the fine print says no. As their research confirms, organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. Eventually, as these minerals are used up, organic crop production will fall below its already low level. Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization.

“The Swiss researchers are not thinking globally, they’re only acting locally,” says Alex Avery, director of research for the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues. Avery points out that organic farming can supply food for niche markets of affluent consumers but cannot feed a hungry world. Other methods of food production can. In his new book Enriching the Earth, the University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil credits the Haber-Bosch method of producing nitrogen fertilizer, invented in 1909, with sustaining two billion people today.

Synthetic fertilizers now supply 40 percent of all the nitrogen used by crop plants. Without this artificially produced fertilizer, farmers would simply not be able to grow the crops necessary to feed the world’s population. Organic sources of nitrogen, such as animal manure and leguminous plants, would supply only about a quarter of the nitrogen needed. (The remainder comes from rain and lightening.) Other inventions, such as high-yielding crop varieties and modern farm equipment, have also been vital to boosting food supplies. For example, when farm tractors arrived after the 1920s, they replaced draft animals that consumed a quarter of the crops grown in the United States.

Keep in mind that plants cannot tell the difference between “natural” sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium and “artificial” sources of those elements. The reason is that there isno difference, outside the minds of organic farmers.

The Swiss researchers did find some true benefits from organic farming, including greater water retention by the soil and a higher presence of beneficial insects. Unfortunately, they did not test their organic systems against the newest form of conventional agriculture, no-till farming combined with genetically enhanced crops. This uses much less energy and less pesticides than the old-fashioned systems examined by the Swiss scientists.

Since no-till farmers don’t plow, their tractors use less fuel. Also, since weed control is achieved using environmentally benign herbicides instead of mechanical removal through plowing, even more fuel is saved. Finally, no-till farmers use less insecticide, since genetically enhanced crops can protect themselves against pests. Against all this, organic farming’s 19 percent energy advantage would likely disappear.

No-till farming matches several other advantages of organic agriculture as well. Both methods offer improved soil structure, more water retention, greatly reduced soil erosion, less pesticide and fertilizer runoff, and a higher presence of beneficial insects. Although organic farmers refuse to see it, switching to genetically enhanced crops would go a long way toward accomplishing their avowed goals of restoring their land and helping the natural environment.

One final argument often offered by organic enthusiasts is that organic farming is more profitable. Of course, the reason organic foods command a premium at supermarkets is that so many consumers have been bamboozled into thinking that they are somehow superior. If organic farming became widespread, that premium would dissipate and take its higher profitability with it.

As the Cambridge chemist John Emsley recently concluded, “The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to ‘organic farming’–an estimated 2 billion people would perish.” News reports may hail the Swiss study as proving that organic farming is sustainable, but it actually did the opposite.

-

Original article posted at Reason Magazine 2002.

-

The below article by Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent for the UK Publication, The Independent,  Entitled Organic food ‘no healthier than conventional’ is a must read!

-

Organic food is no healthier than conventional food, according to the world’s biggest research project into the issue.

-

A review of scientific studies for the past 50 years found there were no significant nutritional differences between conventional produce and organic fruit, vegetables, meat and milk.

The findings, intended to answer once and for all a long-running controversy, attack one of the pillars underpinning organic food produced without artificial fertilisers and with higher animal welfare standards: that is is healthier for individuals as well as better for the environment.

However organic farming experts criticised the study carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and questioned why it dismissed evidence it gathered that organic food is higher in some nutrients.

The Food Standards Agency commissioned the research to discover whether Britain’s £2bn organic industry could claim higher health benefits for its products.

Of 162 scientific papers, researchers found 55 that were high quality and checked them for different minerals and vitamins such as Vitamin C and iron. In “satisfactory quality studies” there was no difference between the organic and non-organic farming in 20 of 23 nutritional categories. Organic was better satisfactory studies, organic food had “statistically higher levels” of phospohorous and acidity, but conventional was higher in nitrates.

Dr Alan Dangour, who led the study, said: “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally-produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

“We found broadly that there was no important difference between organic and conventional produce.”

The Food Standards Agency stressed that while people bought organic produce for several reasons, it considered that the long-running debate about whether they were more healthy was now over.

Gill Fine, FSA director of dietary health, said: “This study does not mean we should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally-produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

The result accords with the FSA’s previous advice that there was “no significant” health benefit from eating organic produce and also echoes the views expressed by previous Government Defra ministers that the case for organic food being healthier is unproven.

Supporters of organic farming, however, claimed that the results were flawed because of the criteria used to select the most important research.

When all 162 studies rather than the 55 highest quality ones were taken into account, organic farming was frequently higher in nutrients than conventional produce. For instance, beta carotenes were 53 per cent higher and flavanoids 38 per cent higher in organic food than non-organic food.

Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association, complained: “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences. This was because these studies did not meet particular criteria fixed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“Although the researchers say that the differences between organic and non-organic food are not ‘important’, due to the relatively few studies, they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.”

A leading academic, Carlo Leifert, professor of ecology at Newcastle University, also attacked the study. Professor Leifert has been conducting a £12m four-year EU-funded study. Some initial research, published last year in the Journal of Science, Agricultural and Food last year, found that organic milk contained around 60 per cent more antioxidants and beneficial fatty acids than normal milk.

Provisional results from another part of the same study, which has not yet been published, suggests that organic wheat, tomatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce also had between 10 and 20 per cent more vitamins. Neither have been included in the FSA review.

“With these literarure reviews you can influence the outcome by the way that you select the papers that you use for your meta-analysis,” Professor Leifert said.

“My feeling – and quite a lot of people think this – is that this is probably the study that delivers what the FSA wanted as an outcome. If you look at the differences they found – a 50 per cent increase in beta carotenes and a 30 per cent increase in flavanoids – they are quite significant differences, and they come to the conclusion that there’s no systematic nutritional differences. That’s just not very convincing.”

During the past decade, sales of organic produce have soared, rising 22 per cent between 2005 and 2007, hitting £2.1bn last year.

Nine out of 10 households buy organic food. Britain has the third biggest market for organic food, after Germany and Italy, though it still only accounts for only 1 per cent of retail sales and 3.5 per cent of British farmland.

Although organic supporters have mostly trumpeted the environment as the biggest reason for buying organic, “quality and taste” is the biggest factor by buyers, shows research.

Britain’s biggest organic farmer, Guy Watson, whose Riverford organic food network serves 40,000 customers, said the research was likely to hit his sales nationally. “In terms of the organic market industry as a whole, this is clearly not going to be helpful,” said, adding that he did not believe his veg box scheme would be affected. “People buy from us really for flavour and freshness and secondly because they trust us in a general way.”

The National Farmers Union said it had always said that both conventional and organic food to be “equally healthy and nutritious.” The NFU said: “It is down to the consumer to choose what kind of food they wish to buy just as it is down to the individual farmer to decide which system he wants to employ – previous research has found there is no evidence to prove organic food is healthier than conventional and we believe there is space in the market for all models of farming to thrive and prosper.”

• • NORMAL
  • LARGE
  • EXTRA LARGE

-

That said, it’s well understood that nutrition is major factor in getting stronger and improving your overall fitness, conditioning and physical appearance.

-

So, for my next few posts, I’m going to provide you with some eye opening knowledge about Organic Foods.

-

First up, I’m going to address the TRUTH about the claims that Organic Food is healthier than non-organic food.

-

Read this statement written by Dr. Rob Johnston in his article entitled

The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can’t afford

-

” To quote Hohenheim University: “No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results.” What research there is does not support the claims made for organic food.

Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites.

This high level of infection among organic chickens could cross-contaminate non-organic chickens processed on the same production lines. Organic farmers boast that their animals are not routinely treated with antibiotics or (for example) worming medicines. But, as a result, organic animals suffer more diseases. In 2006 an Austrian and Dutch study found that a quarter of organic pigs had pneumonia against 4 per cent of conventionally raised pigs; their piglets died twice as often.

Disease is the major reason why organic animals are only half the weight of conventionally reared animals – so organic farming is not necessarily a boon to animal welfare.”

-

I have nothing personal against Organic Foods. In fact, I’ve  shopped organic for years. However, I do have something against being uninformed.

-

I have to admit that upon spending a few hours a week investingating Organic Foods, I’ve been shocked at what I’ve discovered.

-

I will be hitting you with a great deal of these discoveries and Truths about Organic Foods in upcoming posts so keep checking back. I promise that you don’t want to miss a single post!

-

-