After reading the article I realized their advice was awful. So I took the first day’s meal plan and used my Nutrition Program to analyze the calories and nutrition.
Here’s their menu for the day-
Breakfast- Pumpkin oatmeal, 2 tablespoons no-sugar-added peanut butter
Lunch- – Mexican stuffed peppers
Dinner- Easy fried rice with egg
Snack- Banana peanut butter ice cream
Notice there are a LOT of empty carbs and very little veggies, and no fruit?
The breakdown; 3875 calories! Yikes!
19% fat- ok
68% carbs- way too high as most of the calories come from dairy and rice (empty calories)
Protein- 13% – too low
Only 45% of needed B12 was achieved.
Other nutrients were met but only by taking in more than twice needed calorie!
These doctors have voiced how important clean skin care is, but the recommendations they make (about thoer own skincare lines) are WAY OFF BASE! Many of these products include toxic ingredients such as butylene glycol, Sodium Hyaluronate, Glycerin, etc. Even products labeled natural or even organic contains these 3 ingredients which wreak havoc on the skin. Every skincare product they recommend (which they sell) are devoid of toxic ingredients. The last one list doesn’t give an igredient list on their pages that sell the product!
Scan almost any clean beauty retailer’s “About” page — Detox Market, Credo, Follain, Beautycounter — and you’ll notice two keywords: health and safety. That’s because the movement’s overarching mission is to eliminate chemicals ,known to be toxic to the human body from personal care products, including suspected cancer-causing agents (formaldehyde releasers, parabens) and hormone disruptors (phthalates, pesticides). While that’s no doubt a win for overall wellness, it does leave one critical question unanswered: Is clean beauty better for your skin? These seven dermatologists, cosmetic chemists, and renowned aestheticians think so.
“From my unique vantage point as a facialist for the past 25 years, having treated over 25,000 faces, I have seen how the proliferation of harsh ingredients — including dimethicone, fragrance, colorants, and sulfates — compromise the skin’s lipid barrier, thereby sensitizing the skin,” Angela Caglia, a celebrity aesthetician who works with Barbra Streisand and Minnie Driver, tells The Zoe Report. The integrity of the skin barrier is also a sticking point for cosmetic scientist Dr. Shuting Hu, Ph.D., who works with clean beauty brand Acaderma. “I personally believe in using clean ingredients as it is the very best way to prevent skin irritation and skin barrier damages, both of which are better for skin health,” Dr. Hu tells TZR. “Not only is it my belief, it is also scientifically proven.”
There’s a catch, though: Terms like “clean,” “natural,” “green,” and “non-toxic” aren’t regulated by the FDA — so, in theory, any brand can market any ingredient as clean (although the threat of callout culture tends to keep companies in line). “We really need a good working definition for ‘clean’ and ‘non-toxic,’” Marie Veronique Nadeau, a chemist and founder of her namesake skincare line, tells The Zoe Report. She personally considers an ingredient clean when it has “a track record for safety and efficacy” via scientific studies — and that goes for both naturals and synthetics. “It just makes more sense to use ingredients that are safe in your own opinion,” she says.
Ahead, seven skincare experts explain why they believe clean beauty is the healthiest choice for your skin — and reveal the natural and non-toxic products they swear by.
Dr. Nava Greenfield, Board-Certified Dermatologist
You need to be just as careful about what you put on your skin as what you eat and drink,” Dr. Nava Greenfield, M.D., a board-certified dermatologist, tells TZR. “Numerous studies have confirmed that products used topically on the skin penetrate into the bloodstream and affect your body.” She suggests cross-checking your products with the Environmental Working Group’s toxicity database to pinpoint any potentially harmful ingredients.
Marie Veronique Nadeau, Chemist & Brand Founder
“Absolutely, ‘clean’ and ‘non-toxic’ ingredients are better for the health of the skin,” Nadeau says. When it comes to formulating her own products, Nadeau adds a third descriptor to the list: active. “It’s not enough that it won’t harm you — people also need to be asking, ‘Is it active? Is it going to be doing something for my skin?’”
To this end, she recommends incorporating clean versions of vitamin C and vitamin B3 — aka, niacinamide — into your routine. “You need vitamin C to build collagen, and it also does any number of other cool things like limit hyperpigmentation and provide UV protection,” Nadeau says. “Vitamin B3 protects mitochondrial DNA from free radical damage. This is about as close as we’re going to get to slowing the aging process in the skin, so it’s a must-have for anyone interested in keeping skin healthy and youthful-looking.”
Britta Plug, Aesthetician & Brand Founder
“I avoid processed food and chemicals — I feel my best that way — and I apply the same reasoning to my skincare,” Britta Plug, a holistic aesthetician and co-founder of Wildling, tells The Zoe Report. According to Plug (and science), harsh chemicals can negatively impact the skin’s microbiome and disrupt its inherent functions. “Natural products are much more likely to support the skin’s innate intelligence, and support all of its functions, flora, and barrier system,” she says.
Her go-to products, naturally, come from her own line. “I’m obsessed with the sweet fern in our Empress Tonic,” Plug says. “It’s amazing for kickstarting detoxification by stimulating lymphatic flow, and it’s also great for skin irritations.” After spritzing with the Tonic, she reaches for Wildling’s Empress Oil. “The balm of gilead in the oil is pure magic for stimulating circulation and reducing fine lines and breakouts,” the aesthetician explains. “It also smells like a dreamy forest.”
Dr. Shuting Hu, Cosmetic Scientist
Dr. Hu is passionate about clean skincare — but emphasizes that clean doesn’t always mean natural. “Plenty of natural ingredients are irritating, and not all natural materials are made equally,” she says. “Some high quality synthesized ingredients are also clean, like vitamin C.”
In her work with Acaderma, Dr. Hu defines “clean” as any ingredient that minimizes irritation to the skin while maintaining efficacy. Her favorite? “Seh-Haw EXTM,” a brand-exclusive form of African kinkeliba extract that moisturizes dehydrated skin and boosts the barrier. “We spent two years optimizing the extraction and purification process of Seh-Haw EXTM to make sure no organic solvents were used in the whole process, and that there were no causes of pollution to the environment,” she says.
Angela Caglia, Celebrity Aesthetician & Brand Founder
“Through a process of trial and error in my treatment room, I’ve discovered which ingredients work and which ingredients make skin more susceptible to external aging factors,” Caglia says. (Considering her clients include age-defying celebs like Helena Christensen, I totally trust her.)
“One ingredient, in particular, that I’ve discovered helps with maintaining homeostasis is the organically-grown Limnanthes alba flower, indigenous to the Pacific Northwest, from which meadowfoam seed oil is derived through a unique cold pressing process,” she shares. “The reason why I love it is that it’s similar in molecular structure to our own sebum, which means it’s able to deeply penetrate the skin’s surface to deliver high levels of essential fatty acids and antioxidants where they’re needed most.” It can be found throughout the aesthetician’s namesake skincare line.
Athena Hewett, Aesthetician & Brand Founder
“Like much of the population, I have sensitive skin,” Athena Hewett, an aesthetician and founder of skincare brand Monastery, tells The Zoe Report. When she discovered that even hypoallergenic ingredients were irritating her skin, she decided to launch her own company — where she’s redefined “non-toxic” as “100 percent natural.”
“Take propylene glycol, for example — this chemical is used to make polyester, is considered non-toxic, and is found in nearly all of the skincare products out today,” she says. “I am highly allergic to this ingredient as are many of my clients, but most of them have no idea that this is what has been wrong with their skin. When someone lays on my table and I notice dermatitis, I can almost guarantee that they are putting propylene glycol on their skin in some form or another. Sadly, this ingredient is just one of many.” Hewett now looks to naturals for safe — and sensitivity-friendly — skincare solutions. “I love watching what raspberry seed oil does to the skin,” she says. “It makes up our Gold Oil, and it immediately soothes and reduces redness.”
Sarah Akram, Aesthetician
“I am a believer in integrative skincare, meaning just like what you put inside of your body, what you put on its surface can make a big difference in how you look and feel,” Sarah Akram, a Washington D.C.-based aesthetician and the founder of her namesake skincare boutique, tells TZR. “Just like you’d drink a cold pressed juice for optimum nutrient intake, you should take a similar approach to your skincare routine and overall skin health.”
She suggests looking for products packed with pure, natural ingredients (i.e., not “naturally-derived” — which is basically a synonym for “synthetic”). The facialists’ top pick? The Antioxidant Defence Creme by Environ. “This moisturizer is loaded with antioxidants like vitamin C and E to strengthen skin cells and fight free radicals,” Akram says. “Antioxidants are so important in the fight against premature aging, they actually work with your SPF to protect and correct the effects of harmful UV rays.” And, of course, they’re abundant in nature.
On the Menu for delivery Week after next. I love shortbread cookies!
- 1/4 cup butter, softened
- 1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract
- 1/2 cup sweet rice flour
- 1/4 cup confectioners’ sugar
- 1 to 2 tablespoons baking cocoa
1. In a small bowl, cream butter until light and fluffy. Beat in vanilla. Combine the flour, sugar and cocoa; add to creamed mixture. Beat until dough holds together, about 3 minutes.
2. Pat into a 9×4-in. rectangle. Cut into 2×1-1/2-in. strips. Place 1 in. apart on ungreased baking sheets. Prick with a fork.
3. Bake at 300° for 20-25 minutes or until set. Cool for 5 minutes before removing from pan to a wire rack to cool completely.
Cambridge’s artificial leaf uses two perovskite light absorbers and a cobalt catalyst to convert sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into syngas
by Virgil Andrei
The humble leaf is an incredible little machine, converting sunlight and carbon dioxide into energy for a plant. Artificial versions could be useful renewable energy sources, or even used to produce fuels. Now, researchers from the University of Cambridge have developed an artificial leaf that can produce synthetic gas (or syngas) without releasing carbon dioxide.
Syngas is made from hydrogen and carbon monoxide, sometimes with a bit of carbon dioxide thrown in. While it can technically be burned to generate electricity or for gas lighting and heating, it more often acts as an intermediate step in manufacturing products, including plastics, fertilizers, and fuels like diesel. Unfortunately, producing it can release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
“You may not have heard of syngas itself but every day, you consume products that were created using it,” says Erwin Reisner, senior author of the study. “Being able to produce it sustainably would be a critical step in closing the global carbon cycle and establishing a sustainable chemical and fuel industry.”
To help with that, the Cambridge team developed a new artificial leaf prototype that can produce syngas through photosynthesis. The new device contains two light absorbers made of perovskite, and a cobalt catalyst. When these are placed in water, one side produces oxygen, while the other reduces carbon dioxide and water into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Those latter two gases can then be combined into syngas.
The team showed that the technology can still work even in relatively low light, like that on cloudy or rainy days. The perovskite was chosen because it’s good at absorbing light and creating a voltage, which is why it’s showing up in solar panels so much lately. Meanwhile the cobalt in the catalyst is lower cost and more efficient at creating carbon monoxide than other materials.
That said, the conversion efficiencies are still quite low – the new design currently produces hydrogen at an efficiency of 0.06 percent and carbon monoxide at 0.02 percent.
The new device joins a range of artificial leaf designs that are being developed to create a range of useful products, like electricity, drugs, fertilizers, and hydrogen fuel. Ultimately, the team hopes to be able to skip the middleman syngas stage.
“What we’d like to do next, instead of first making syngas and then converting it into liquid fuel, is to make the liquid fuel in one step from carbon dioxide and water,” says Reisner. “There is a major demand for liquid fuels to power heavy transport, shipping and aviation sustainably.”
The research was published in the journal Nature Materials.
Source: University of Cambridge
If you eat out often, eat fast foods, eat purchased baked goods, if you eat anything with partially hydrogenated oils, canned frosting, margarines you are eating trans fats. I have worked in many high end restaurants and I can tell you that most restaurants do not use real butter, they use an oil blend, because of the cost. And those are vegetable oils that mostly contain soy, canola and other vegetable oils. Many products, such as popcorn or pizza still contain trans fat.
People with higher levels of trans fats in their blood may be 50% to 75% more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease or dementia from any cause, according to a new study published Wednesday in the journal Neurology.
“This study demonstrates that there are negative ‘brain/cognitive’ outcomes, in addition to the known cardiovascular outcomes, that are related to a diet that has (a) high content of trans fats,” said neurologist Dr. Neelum T. Aggarwal, who was not involved in the study. Aggarwal, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, is co-leader of the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center in Chicago.
Over 1,600 Japanese men and women without dementia were followed over a 10-year period. A blood test for trans fat levels was done at the start of the study and their diets were analyzed.
Researchers then adjusted for other factors that could affect the risk of dementia, such as high blood pressure, diabetes and smoking. They found that people with the two highest levels of trans fats were 52% and 74% more likely to develop dementia than those with the lowest levels.
“The study used blood marker levels of trans fats, rather than more traditionally used dietary questionnaires, which increases the scientific validity of the results,” said neurologist Dr. Richard Isaacson, director of the Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.
“This study is important as it builds upon prior evidence that dietary intake of trans fats can increase risk of Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Isaacson, who was also not involved in the study.
Trans fats can occur naturally in small amounts in certain meat and dairy foods, but by far the greatest exposure comes from the man-made version.
Also called trans fatty acids, artificial trans fats are created by an industrialized process that adds hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils to make them more solid (think of semi-soft margarine and shortening).
The food industry loves trans fats because they are cheap to produce, last a long time and give foods a great taste and texture.
Besides fried foods, trans fats are found in coffee creamer, cakes, pie crusts, frozen pizza, cookies, crackers, biscuits and dozens of other processed foods.
In the Japanese study, researchers found sweet pastries were the strongest contributor to higher trans fats levels. Margarine was next, followed by candies, caramels, croissants, non-dairy creamers, ice cream and rice crackers.
After extensive research revealed the connection between trans fats and the increase of bad cholesterol (LDL), combined with a reduction of good cholesterol (HDL), the US Food and Drug Administration banned trans fats in 2015.
Companies were given three years to stop using them; then the FDA began granting extensions to various parts of the industry. The latest extension runs out January 1.
But even if every manufacturer complies by the first of the year, that doesn’t mean trans fats are gone from the grocery shelves. According to the FDA, if one serving of the food contains less than 0.5 grams, companies can label the food as “0 grams” of trans fats.
Even in small doses, artificial trans fats will still be around to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other conditions, such as dementia.
“In the United States, the small amounts still allowed in foods can really add up if people eat multiple servings of these foods, and trans fats are still allowed in many other countries,” said study author Dr. Toshiharu Ninomiya, a professor at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, in a statement.
“People at risk still need to pay careful attention to nutrition labels,” Isaacson said. “When it comes to nutrition labels, the fewer ingredients, the better! Focus on natural whole food, and minimize or avoid those that are highly processed.”
Aggarwal added: “This message must be delivered in countries where the ban of trans fats has not been enacted or difficult to enforce.”
By Tori Sprung at inverse.com
As a society, we aren’t getting as much exercise as we should. In fact, current activity guidelines state that adults should get at least 150 minutes of moderately intense activity — or 75 minutes of vigorous activity — every week. But research has found that one in four adults aren’t active enough.
It’s easy to see why. Many of us drive to work instead of walking — and for those of us who work desk jobs, many are often so focused on what we’re doing, we rarely get up from our desks except to visit the bathroom or get a drink. In short, though we might be busy, we aren’t moving very much. But after dealing with the stress of work week after week, it’s easy to daydream about unwinding on a warm beach, doing nothing but lounging around for a fortnight. But this might not be what our bodies need. In fact, it might actually be more harmful than we realize.
Our research looked at what effect even short periods of physical inactivity had on our bodies. We found that even just two weeks of low activity actually increased participants’ risk of later developing serious health conditions such as cardiovascular disease.
We know that physical activity is good for us. This is irrefutable, and we’ve known this for a long time. As far back as the 1950s, the link between day-to-day physical activity and health was first identified in the London transport workers study.
The study found that bus drivers were more likely to experience a heart attack compared to their bus conductor counterparts. The main difference between these two groups was that conductors spent their working day on their feet collecting fares from commuters, while bus drivers spent their days sitting down.
Since then, some have branded physical activity a “miracle cure” for cardiovascular risk. Yet, as a society, we are more sedentary than ever, and cardiovascular-related deaths remain the leading cause of death worldwide.
While we know that having a physically active lifestyle will improve our health, surely we aren’t doing any additional harm, even if we choose not to be physically active? We decided to examine exactly what the harmful effects of being physically inactive are.
For our study, we recruited young (aged 18-50 years), healthy weight (BMI less than 30), physically active individuals (meaning that they take more than 10,000 steps per day on average). After carrying out assessments to measure blood vessel health, body composition, and blood sugar control, we asked them to become inactive for two weeks.
Researchers assessed study participants’ health results after two weeks with a step counter.
To achieve this, participants were provided with a step counter and asked not to exceed 1,500 steps per day, which equates to approximately two laps of a full sized football pitch. After two weeks, we reassessed their blood vessel health, body composition, and blood sugar control to examine what effects two weeks of inactivity had on them. We then asked them to resume their usual routine and behaviors. Two weeks after resuming their normal daily lifestyles, we checked participants’ health markers to see if they’d returned to where they were when they’d started the trial.
Our group of participants successfully reduced their step count by an average of around 10,000 steps per day and, in doing so, increased their waking sedentary time by an average of 103 minutes per day. Artery function decreased following this two-week period of relative inactivity, but returned to their normal levels after two weeks following their usual lifestyles.
We were interested in seeing how activity levels influenced blood vessel health, since this is where most cardiovascular disease starts. Most of us don’t realize that our blood vessels are a complex system. They’re lined with muscle and constantly adapt to our needs by dilating (opening) and constricting (closing) to distribute blood where it’s most needed. For example, during exercise, vessels feeding organs such as the stomach will constrict, as it is inactive at this time, and so blood is redistributed to our working muscles to fuel movement. One of the earliest detectable signs of cardiovascular risk is a reduced function of this dilatory capacity.
To measure this, we used an imaging technique called flow-mediated dilation or FMD. FMD measures how well the arteries dilate and constrict, and it has been found to predict our future cardiovascular risk.
We found that after as little as two weeks of inactivity there was a reduction in artery function. This indicates the start of cardiovascular disease development as a result of being inactive. We also observed an increase in traditional risk factors, such as body fat, waist circumference, fitness, and diabetes markers, including liver fat and insulin sensitivity.
Something we also observed — which we initially weren’t researching —was that resuming normal activity levels following two weeks of being physically inactive was below baseline. That is to say, our participants did not return back to normal within two weeks of completing the intervention.
This is interesting to consider, especially regarding the potential longer-term effects of acute physical inactivity. In real-world terms, acute physical inactivity could mean a bout of flu or a two-week beach holiday — anything that can have a potential longer-term effect on our usual habits and behavior.
These results show us that we need to make changes to public health messages and emphasize the harmful effect of even short-term physical inactivity. Small alterations to daily living can have a significant impact on health — positively or negatively. People should be encouraged to increase their physical activity levels, in any way possible. Simply increasing daily physical activity can have measurable benefits. This could include having a 10-minute walk during your lunch hour, standing from your desk on an hourly basis to break up sitting time, or parking your car at the back of the supermarket parking lot to get more steps in.
The impact of spending a large proportion of the day being inactive has received a lot of research in recent years. In fact, it has become a hot point of discussion among exercise scientists. As technology advances and our lives become increasingly geared towards convenience, it’s important this kind of research continues.
The health consequences of sedentary behavior are severe and numerous. Moving more in everyday life could be key in improving your overall health.
#lactosefree, #glutenfree, #organic, #mealdelivery, #mealdeliveryservice, #milliebarnes, #healthy, #healing, #allergies, #immunesystem, #cancer, #gersondiet, #nutrition, #glutenfreedesserts, #soups, #coaching, #nutritioncoaching, #mealsdelivered, #gettingwell, #moreenergy, #antiaging, #paleo, #wellness, #holistic, #livewell, #mediterreanean, #cooking
In one of the more startling developments in food science, 12,000 doctors in the United States are petitioning for warning labels on cheese. “Dairy cheese contains reproductive hormones that may increase breast cancer mortality risk,” they warned.
What, is cheddar the new cigarette? No. Casein and estrogen are not nicotine and nobody’s about to blotch Brie with a label saying “Eating this kills.”
It is not suggested that eating cheese causes breast cancer. It isn’t even categorically proven that eating cheese really is associated with higher breast cancer rates, or that eating cheese causes higher mortality rates among women who already developed breast cancer. There are a lot of studies but the methodology is hardly uniform or even necessarily reliable, and there are innumerable parameters, including some that may be overriding. Like smoking, or living in nuclear waste. Those are parameters that tend to outweigh other parameters.
But the associations found so far are compelling enough for the doctors to choose to speak up.
A woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is 12.8 percent, or one in eight, in the United States. For men, it’s 0.13 percent, or just over one in a hundred.
The rate of invasive breast cancer incidence is lower, the Health Ministry told Haaretz — in Israel, it’s is 92.2 per 100,000 among Jews, and 69.8 among Arabs (compared to 124 per 100,000 in America — all figures for 2016). The older the person, the higher the probability: in Israel, almost 80 percent of breast cancer patients are aged over 50, and around 5,000 breast cancer patients are detected each year.
Certain individuals are at higher risk because of genetic factors, lifestyle factors or factors that nobody knows about yet — including, it seems, a predilection for high-fat fromage.
Among the evidence: A 2017 study funded by the National Cancer Institute that identified a 53 percent increase in the probability of breast cancer development among women who ate “the most American, cheddar, and cream cheeses.”
Another study found that among women with breast cancer, eating cheese is associated with a higher mortality risk. In a nearly 12-year follow-up, women eating one or more servings of high-fat dairy products a day (which could mean whole milk) had 49 percent higher breast cancer mortality.
“High-fat dairy products, such as cheese, are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer,” concludes the PCRM.
Proving associations between food and morbidity is extremely difficult because of the overwhelming number of parameters involved. Take cheese. What is cheese, anyway? “Dairy foods are complex mixtures which include nutrients and non-nutrient substances that could potentially influence cancer etiology, including breast cancer,” explains a separate paper published in Current Developments in Nutrition.
Let’s assume we can figure out what cheese is. If eating cheese really is associated with breast cancer, what component or components are responsible? We don’t know. If the culprit is the fat component, is there a safe level of fat in cheese? We don’t know. Does the risk outweigh the nutritional benefits of cheese to the lactose tolerant? What if the data is skewed by people lying about their cheese habit, or smoking, or diet in general, or their exposure to other carcinogens?
The culprit in cheese, if there is one, may be estrogenic hormones, though science never did understand exactly why a higher lifetime exposure to estrogen may be associated with breast cancer risk (which, again, does not mean the estrogen causes breast cancer).
Should we be eating cheese at all? Mammals wean their young, who after that turning point do not eat dairy and tend to lose their ability to produce lactase (the enzyme that digests milk and its products). But some studies do indicate that general dairy consumption — including, but not confined to high-fat — is good for us. Certainly it can be an advantage for vegetarians, if they can digest it.
In humans, the perpetuation of infantilism in the form of dairy consumption seems to have developed well after the domestication of the goat, sheep and cow some 11,000 years ago. The earliest-ever direct evidence of milk consumption was in, of all places, Britain — nowhere near where the animals were first husbanded, though whether the Neolithic farmers 6,000 years ago could actually digest the stuff or were stoic about the results of eating it is not clear.
Last year, archaeologists identified the earliest-known hard cheese, in an ancient Egyptian tomb dated to around 1615 B.C.E. It had been made of a mix of milks from sheep, goat and African buffalo.
Breast cancer, like all cancers, is enigmatic, and if there are risks they’re worth knowing about. Alcohol consumption is also associated with higher cancer risk, for instance, and yet again science isn’t sure why. Particulate smog is as well.
#mealdeliveryservice, #jax,#lactosefree,#glutenfree,#JacksonvilleFL,#nutritioncoaching, #allergies,#cancer,#energy,#higherenergy,#healing, #beyondpaleo