Archive for 'best food'

Soft drinks aren’t exactly considered to be a health drink. If you ever wondered why they were so bad for you, seeing the ingredient list can help to offer up some insight.

1.Red 40: Though this isn’t necessarily used in every single soft drink out there, it is used in a lot. This is a dye that has been linked to health problems and perhaps to hyperactivity in children. Though it may be used in minimal amounts, the point is that it can lead to too many complications if consumed on a regular basis. Therefore it’s best to read labels and to avoid this whenever possible just to be sure. Some companies have even decided to stop using it, though it is convenient to provide the soft drinks’ necessary color.

2.High Fructose Corn Syrup: We know that this is not top of the list in terms of healthy ingredients, but we may not know just how many health problems it can pose. As this is high in calories and fat and low in nutritional value, it can make you fat and you may not even realize what the culprit is. Many soft drinks have turned to this ingredient over sugar directly as it gives a sweet taste on its own. However if you want to stay healthy and lean, this is not an ingredient that you want to be consuming on a regular basis.

3.Sweeteners: There’s a big controversy on this one as some will argue that sweeteners are better than using sugar directly. Whatever your point of view it’s important to recognize that sweeteners can pose certain health risks and can sneak up on you if you drink soft drinks regularly. While you think that a diet soda is better for you, the high concentration of sweeteners may cause potential risk for cancer later on.

4.Sodium Benzoate: This is a preservative used to keep molds away, and therefore it’s pretty powerful stuff. Though it helps to keep our soft drinks tasting and looking the way that we want them to, it also happens to add extra acid that we don’t necessarily want. Additionally it may build up in our systems and cause an unhealthy situation after awhile.

5.Caffeine: Though caffeine in small amounts isn’t really the problem, the concentration can tend to be quite high when you drink soft drinks. They have large amounts of caffeine and this can cause you to get hooked after awhile. It can mess with your metabolism and make you shaky if you drink too much of it.

Soft drinks are a favorite amongst some, but they can pose certain health risks. Knowing what the most unhealthy ingredients are can really help you to make smart choices when all is said and done.

M.M. Frederick is passionate about helping people find where to get a master of health administration.

Get Your Energy!

An energy drink is giving a lot of talk in markets like the European and American which is the market leader: Monster Energy or Red Bull Energy Drink. But this time i will try to give you about Monster Energy Drink Review.

Monster energy drink began its journey in our market with three varieties, which we will comment on LOCATE: Monster Energy, Monster Energy Lo-Carb (low calorie) and the new Monster Ripper (a mixture of energy drink and juice).

Monster Energy is unlike other energy drinks on the market for its taste and its formula contains ginseng and L-carnitine along with the rest of “energy ingredients (caffeine, taurine, B vitamins).

Packaging

The first thing that strikes us is the size of the can of Monster Energy: half a liter of energy drink! The can is black and is bright green color logo: a letter that simulates a tear them done by a monster that can be seen in the monkey Janson Button F1 pilot. A declaration of intentions …

Tasting Notes

The color of Monster Energy is very similar to that of other energy drinks in a slightly darker tone. On the nose notes appear typical but more diluted medicinal notes and hints of white fruit: melon, apple and touches of gum. In the mouth, the main notes is an energy drink but disappears as the first entry, are more fruity notes (red fruits) and trinkets along with slightly vegetal notes (ginseng).

Recommendation

An energy drink taste very nice and its size (500 ml) is 2.5 times the amount of product found in the standard product cans. A slightly differentiated product taste what you can find on the market, very well finished especially for mixing with alcoholic beverages and that promises to war.

The connection between nutrition and athletics has been well documented, but good nutrition is virtually unpracticed. It is not uncommon for a young athlete to have a burger and French fries before a big game and think nothing of it. But the correlation between optimal performance and an optimal diet for young athletes has been established long ago. It is no surprise that optimal athletic performance requires the proper food and nutrient intake, tailored to that individual, and the individual’s sport as well. Many young athletes today typically gravitate toward eating patterns that are not only unhealthy, but which decrease their chances of optimal performance. If this is your son’s or daughter’s case, it may be time you try a different approach.

The daily calorie intake for every young athlete should be congruent with the sport they play, their gender and age, and also their size and shape. Even children in Aspen, where there may not be many warm weather sports year round, need sufficient energy for skiing and snowboarding. Young athletes, even more than regular young people, need more energy and calories for their growing bodies. If a young athlete has far too few calories than is needed for the body to develop, it could even be damaging to their bodies. It is said that the average girl and boy athletes under the age of 13 need about 2000-2300 calories per day, while girls from 14-18 may need about 2400-2500. But it is no surprise that as the young male’s body grows at a rapid pace, the young athlete needs even more calories to keep up. The average caloric intake for a young male athlete 14-18 years old is about 3,200 calories a day.

Now just because the young athlete needs more calories than a normal person this doesn’t mean that all calories are good. Carbohydrates are the young athletes’ best food source. Carbohydrates work to rapidly break down blood sugar (glucose), which is the body’s primary energy source. The brain, nervous system, and largely all the muscles are fed primarily by glucose. Inadequate carbohydrate intake can lead to fatigue, low energy levels, not to mention a less than optimal performance. It is important for a parent to know, however, the proper intake of carbohydrates in relation to other foods. Carbohydrates should make up around 60% of your young athlete’s diet, with starches and grains being the bulk of that 60%. These are foods like pasta, breads, potatoes and rice.

The young athlete’s body also needs a steady supply of protein as well. Proteins are the building blocks of young muscles and other body tissue that is most vulnerable during this young age. Protein is a less efficient energy source than carbohydrates, but it is no less important. Protein should take up roughly 15-25% of the daily total calories with foods like fish, eggs, lean meats, and poultry being eaten regularly. Fats are important to the young athlete’s diet as well. Good sources of healthy fat are meats, olive oil, nuts, and some dairy products.

Whether you have children in Aspen or New York, whether they play winter or summer sports, make sure your young athletes are getting the proper nutrients so they may enjoy their favorite sport even more.

If you liked this article, tell all your friends about it. They’ll thank you for it. If you have a blog or website, you can link to it or even post it to your own site (don’t forget to mention www.kiddiecookers.com as the original source.

Tags: , , ,

The Best Food

Everyone eats so everyone has an opinion about food. But if health is the objective, mere opinion doesn’t count nor does fad or majority rule.

Most people think the average cooked diet based upon official food pyramids is just fine. Some eat predominantly fast food. Others advocate veganism (eating only plant foods), or lacto-ova vegetarianism (plants plus milk and eggs). There are also proponents of special foods such as fresh juices, soybean products and macrobiotic cooked grains and rice.

Everyone can make arguments on behalf of their beliefs. They can cite examples of people who have escaped disease and lived long. Some argue morality and ethics, such as those who say sentient animal life should not be sacrificed for food. Others set their eating practices by the standards of holy writ that eschew certain forms of foods and sanctify others. Others just eat what tastes good and that’s logic enough for them.

Eating beliefs seem to take on an almost religious character. People feel guarded and pretty zealous about food and don’t like others meddling. But since health is intimately linked to what we take into our mouths, thinking, honest reflection and willingness to change are in order.

It is easy to be deceived because wrong food choices may not manifest their full impact until late in life. Nutrition can even pass through genetically to affect later generations. In this regard, food ideas are also like religion in that hundreds of different sects can each claim to have the truth. But none of them needs to fear disproof since adjudication will not occur until everyone is dead and gone to the afterlife.

The body is extremely adaptable and will attempt to survive on whatever it is given. If the food is incorrect there is usually no immediate harm. But the body will eventually be stressed beyond its ability to adapt, resulting in disease, degeneration and loss of vitality. Unfortunately, such consequences are so far removed in time from the eating regimen that caused them that few understand the relationship.

So be careful before subscribing to bold claims about what is or is not good to eat. The true test of any health idea lies too far out into the future. Our best hope then is to be well grounded philosophically before we slide our legs under the dinner table.

How do we develop a healthy eating philosophy and sort through all of the competing eating ideas? I am going to explain here a very simple principle that is so reasonable you need not even look for proofs. Follow along with me and see if you don’t agree.

Consider the following three premises:

1. Just like a tree is genetically adapted to absorb certain nutrients from soil, and a lion is genetically adapted to thrive on prey, and a deer is genetically adapted to browse on vegetation, so too, are humans genetically adapted to certain kinds of food.

2. The majority of foods we are presently exposed to are a product of the Agricultural/Industrial Revolution and occupy a small part of the genetic history of humans. (Refer back to the 276-mile time-line in which only a few inches represent industrial-type eating practices.)

3. The natural, genetically adapted to food for humans must predate them. In other words, how could humans exist before the food they needed to survive existed? We were completely developed biologically prior to agriculture and any method of food processing. That means whatever diet archetypal humans ate was the perfect diet because that was the diet responsible for the existence and development of the incredibly complex human organism. That diet was the milieu, the environmental nutritional womb, if you will, from which we sprung.

If you consider these three premises, the logical conclusion derived from them is that the best food for humans is that food which they would be able to eat as is, as it is found in nature.

Our tissues were designed to be bathed in food nutrients derived from natural living foods, not with dyes, preservatives, synthetics, nutritiously barren starches and refined sugars and oils. Make no mistake; if we are not eating according to this principle, our bodies are in constant deficiency, imbalance and toxin exposure. The result of generations ignoring this principle is an epidemic of obesity, chronic degenerative diseases and the exhaustion of our digestive processes.

A feature of all natural food is that it is raw – alive if you will. This is consistent with the Law of Biogenesis that says life can only come from preexisting life. Life begets life. In spite of scientists’ dreams to the contrary, we have never observed life springing from non-life, nor have we ever even been able to create life from non-life in a laboratory. If we eat living foods, we enhance our own life. If we eat dead, devitalized foods we become devitalized and dead. Granted, this will not happen all at once, but as the adaptive reserves are exhausted we become just like the dead food we eat.

So a fundamental feature of our natural diet was that it was raw. Yes, even the meats, organs, eggs and insects – raw. Remember, we’re far back in time, even before the use of fire (much less the microwave, stove, oven, grill, deep fryer or extruder). Studies of the diets of past cultures and today’s still-primitive societies reveals that they ate exactly as their genes and the environment dictated.

We were not suddenly dropped from outer space onto Earth with fry pans, matches and rotisseries. We began on the forest floor, not in a line to a fast food counter. We had only our natural bodies in a natural world, exactly like every other creature. Every other organism on Earth eats raw foods exactly like they are found in nature. Do you think nature doesn’t notice our decision to change all that?

Would tofu qualify? No, because tofu is found nowhere in nature. Would oatmeal porridge qualify? No, because oatmeal porridge is found nowhere in nature. Would hamburgers, French fries, pop, breakfast cereals, granola, canned foods, candy, sports drinks, muscle building powders, vitamins and minerals, mashed potatoes, carrot cake, croissants, bagels, Jolly Ranchers, Ding Dongs, Cocoa Krispies, Good ‘n Plentys or Fig Newtons qualify? No. None of these are found as such in nature.

For those of you who are by now panicking (if not gagging) at the thought of eating raw foods, yes, there is danger of food-borne pathogens. But if you are careful and clean, the danger is far less than the danger of a lifetime eating devitalized processed foods. Raw natural foods must be safe or our ancestors would have not survived and we would not exist!

It is a choice. When faced with a choice, why not opt for the wisdom of nature? Is it not strange we are the only creatures on the planet to cook our foods? Is it a wonder, given this, that we succumb with every imaginable chronic degenerative disease virtually unknown in creatures eating the raw natural diet?

Simply think of yourself placed in nature in the total absence of modern technology. Ask yourself the question, what would I eat… and what could I eat? You could eat and digest fruits, nuts, insects, a few plants, honey, worms, grubs, eggs, milk and animal flesh. These are about the only food substances in nature humans are capable of digesting without technological (including fire) intervention. These are, in fact, the very foods that are the mainstay of nomadic primitive societies. Only when these foods become scarce do unpalatable, inedible foods such as most grains and vegetables become cooked and processed to change their palatability, neutralize toxins and increase digestibility.

So that is where we have been. But does this have anything to do with us here today in the 21st century microwave age? It has everything to do with us because it is this expansive historical context that served as the womb that shaped and defined us. It is this natural wild setting that occupies the vast majority of our history and predominates our genetics. It is the incubator within which life on planet Earth has developed.

What would have been the predominant food in the wild? Likely prey. Envision yourself placed back in time in that setting with a family to feed. You would be looking for the most calorie- and nutrient-dense foods you could find. That would not be a few wheat seeds, some grass or a root. You would let the herbivores do all the grazing and digestion with their specialized stomachs that are capable of converting essentially any plant material into edible protein and fat. Then you would eat them. I don’t like that either, but that is the way it is.

Pretty simple isn’t it? We should eat what nature provides that we can digest. Yet this is not explained in nutrition textbooks, and PhD nutritionists graduate without even grasping it. It cuts through all the theory, belief, and guesswork. It matches our natural bodies with our natural food.

Our immersion in modern cookery and food processing has misled us. Foods such as granola, tofu, cauliflower and lettuce, which are marketed as the ultimate health foods, are in fact not natural human foods at all. These products either do not exist in nature, are so scarce as to never possibly be a sustaining food, or in their raw precooked form are unpalatable and even toxic.

For example, raw soybeans contain a variety of chemicals that can stunt growth and interfere with the body’s digestive enzymes. Eat enough of them and you’ll die. Modern grain products are a result of agriculture and in their raw form are unpalatable, indigestible and also toxic. In nature one would never find enough kernels of rice, wheat or barley to even make up a meal, even if they were edible in their raw form. (Sprouted seeds and grains are an exception to this since they are digestible, raw and nutritious.)

Who, if they were really, really hungry – and options were available – would eat raw broccoli, cauliflower or lettuce? These foods are only now made palatable by cooking or doctoring with manufactured dressings.

Now this creates somewhat of a dilemma. Knowing what our natural diet is and consuming it are two different things. We are so acclimated to the modern diet that the notion of eating raw meat, for example, is nauseating to most. Nevertheless, as evidenced by primitive (but nutritionally advanced) peoples, raw meat and organs can be eaten with great nutritional benefit to humans, and they are totally digestible and nontoxic. Some cultures even bury raw meats and let them rot (ferment) and then consume them with gusto. These societies are robustly healthy until modern foods encroach. Then, like a dirty bathtub ring, modern degenerative diseases decimate those people at the periphery in contact with modern foods.

It would be very difficult today to achieve the ideal raw, natural diet. But if the basic principle is kept in mind it helps remind us of our origins and points us to the appropriate, genetically adapted-to foods.

This does not mean no processed or cooked foods should be eaten. It simply means that consistently doing so will stress the body’s genetic capabilities and will ultimately result in less than optimal health.

Look around the grocery store (usually the outside aisles) and consider what it is that could be eaten in its natural state. Increase the proportion of those foods. Processed foods should be chosen that compromise natural principles the least and are as close to nature as possible. They should be whole foods, packaged carefully to protect nutrient value and be free of synthetics, refined oils and sugars.

For example, whole milk yogurt that has not been homogenized or pasteurized is ideal. The same thing pasteurized would be next best. The same thing pasteurized and homogenized next. Worst would be non-fat, pasteurized, homogenized, artificially flavored and sugared yogurt (which is, of course, what the majority eat because it tastes most like what they are used to – candy).

Eat the best foods you can find in variety and moderation and you will be doing the best that can be done.

There, you have in a nutshell what has taken me decades of research, study and thinking to discover. It is simple and obvious, but that is the way of all great truths.

For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to wysong@wysong.net. For resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast cereals please visit www.cerealwysong.com.

Tags: ,

All things aside, “most reputable manufacturers of “super premium” and natural food agree with holistic veterinarians and other experts that the very best diet for your animal companion is one that you make yourself. A homemade diet, carefully balanced nutritionally and using organic foods, is closest to what Mother Nature intended” (Animal Protection Institute, 2004). Before you say you don’t have the time to prepare homemade food for your dog, take a look at the plentiful, excellent recipes available for free on the internet that show you how to prepare a large batch of meals that’ll last at least 3 days. Once every 3 days is not much to ask. Impartial or not, I have to agree with this. As a result, I’m not even going to entertain over processed, nutrient deficient kibbles and canned foods that are packed with additives, preservatives, colourants, fillers, and meat products that really should not be called meat at all. (For some great information on commercial dog food including the standards they have to abide by, their ingredients, and how they’re made, visit the Animal Protection Institute website). So we know we should be feeding all natural or organic homemade meals to our pets, but what should these meals consist of?

There is almost as much contention with this as there is when it comes to humans. There are so many species of dogs now, and mixed breeds keep on appearing. Yet some people still say we should feed dogs like their ancestors. They say that the only biologically appropriate food for dogs is what wolves ate. Obviously the intention here is to push raw diets, but with wolves in the wild, this begins and ends with meat, some berries and grass if they feel unwell. Firstly, there is no evidence as yet to say that dogs come directly from wolves (there is a lot of DNA that does not match) and popular theorist like Darwin have said that it’s just as likely that they came from Jackals and Coyotes. Dogs are not wolves. This is highlighted by the fact that some breeds of dogs get quite unwell when fed good quality raw meats. Dogs, like humans, are incredibly domesticated and interbred, and though this doesn’t mean they should be eating like wolves, it doesn’t mean that they should be eating highly processed, artificial, chemically enhanced rubbish either. Secondly, have you ever heard of a wolf tucking into some broccoli and eggplant? But there are merits to this approach, but only when the supporters of it contradict themselves by saying we should feed our dogs raw fruits and vegetables.

Saying dogs should eat like wolves, is a bit like saying we should be eating like apes. I can’t remember ever seeing an ape go fishing, yet fish, for most people, is incredibly beneficial for health and well being adding important, necessary, elements to our diets. It makes sense that, as with humans, vegetables, fruits, and some whole grains can be really beneficial to dogs. Most dogs are omnivores, and some dogs do better on an all vegetarian diet. Founders of the holistic vet movement, such as Dr. Richard Pitcairn and Juliette DeBairclay-Levy, have always pushed the importance of these food sources. These ingredients have been time-tested for decades. Whole grains (not corn and preferably not wheat), fruits and vegetables are a wonderful addition to a balanced, biologically-appropriate diet. So, it seems that the best food for your dog would be a homemade meal consisting of all natural or organic, biologically appropriate food consisting of a mixture of meat, whole grains, vegetables, and fruit. (Did you see I didn’t say raw? Just be aware, some veggies and meats can be harmful to some breeds if not cooked so as to either kill bacteria and reduce fat content of the meat, and break down some toxins that sit in the hard skins of some veggies – that’s why humans shouldn’t eat raw broccoli either! Knowing that an all natural or organic meal made at home is considered the best, it still doesn’t address the question of balance. Feeding your dog with quality ingredients is a great beginning, but how much of each is right for your pet?

There seems to be little consensus on the general nutritional requirements for dogs. Experts who have spent years and years researching this have come to varying conclusions. Some experts purport that each breed needs to be fed a breed specific diet. This may be a little too specific for some but I think it’s heading in the right direction.

This is the approach that seems most realistic and appropriate to me because it mimics the approach to human nutrition that I follow. Through years of personal training and helping people achieve optimal health and well being, I discovered Metabolic Typing. It is the only nutrition and lifestyle approach that I’ve found that truly treats each person as an individual. One of its best attributes is the process you go through to fine tune diet and lifestyle requirements on a continual basis. There is a lot to learn from this approach. It is person specific, and is current in that you re-test yourself every sixth months to check your requirements at that time. Our lifestyles and environments change, as do our pets, so it makes sense to re asses our dietary intake regularly, and our pets’ to see if they’ve changed. Only in this way can we, as humans, maintain a proper balance. It makes sense for this to be the case with our pets.

Just like human beings, each dog is a unique individual. Yes they’ll have similar characteristics and general dispositions as their dominant breed and the genes they’ve inherited from their parents, but they’ll also have unique characteristics given to them by nature, and their environment. It seems fairly obvious to say then that no pre-made dog food can claim to be THE best, unless it has been tailor made for your pet by a specialist (there are a few people on the web that do this). But…. there are plenty of pet food companies out there which are well within their rights to call their pet food superior. Most of these suggest mixing their all natural or organic food at home with ingredients that are missing from their food, to prepare a fresh home made meal. The ingredient specifics of these and their importance are debated, but on the whole, the less processed the food is the better. Look for ingredients made up of whole foods (foods that haven’t been altered). So how much is enough?

Without getting breed specific, and understanding that I follow those experts who suggest macro nutrient levels to be specific for your breed of dog, here are the generally agreed upon amounts.

• The protein percentage should be about 1/3 or more of the whole meal. Meat is the obvious choice for the bulk of this macronutrient. (Some dogs don’t handle meat well).

• Fat should make up about 1/5 or more, dogs process good fats well. There is a reasonable amount of natural fat in meats, so you shouldn’t need to watch this macronutrient nutrient too closely if feeding meats to your dog.

• That leaves a little under ½ the rest should be veggies, fruits, and whole grains (not corn, and preferably no wheat).

What is the best food for your dog? The simple answer, if your dog’s health is good, vet bills aren’t streaming in and its coat is healthy, then change may not be necessary. Be aware though that a lot of the conditions and diseases that commercial pet foods cause build up over time. If you are suspicious that there is anything at all wrong, or you just want to see if you can give your best friend even more health and vitality, then the time is right to start preparing all natural or organic home made meals from meat, veggies, fruits, and whole grains (minus corn and wheat). Check with a holistic vet near you, and the valuable expert resources on the internet for recipe ideas and do’s and don’ts. Just remember, as with humans, balance is the key. Some raw and some cooked, but all natural and organic, should keep the vet bills at bay, and your pets’ ready for play!

Tags: ,
« Previous posts Back to top