Herb roasted lamb with lentils





Herb Roasted Lamb with Lentils


1 cup lentils

1-2 yellow onions, cut into rings

3-5 cloves of garlic, crushed

A few fresh sprigs of thyme

A few fresh sprigs of rosemary

Salt and black pepper to taste

  4. Set crockpot to low for 6-8 hours.



Your Guide to Navigating Sugar, Celiac Disease & the Media Frenzy


A few days ago I was flooded with messages from family, friends, and followers, sharing a New York Times article that had shocked them all. This article detailed how the sugar industry paid scientists in the 60’s to target saturated fat as the primary factor in heart disease instead of sugar.

591735.jpgThe Sugar Association, previous known as the “Sugar Research Foundation”, paid over $50,000 to multiple researchers in order to keep the focus on saturated fat as opposed to the role of sugar in the development of heart disease.

Although every person that shared this with me expressed some level of surprise, it didn’t even elicit a heavy sigh or jaw-drop for me. This article sums up the standard of nutrition and health research in the United States for close to a century.

First there was the Seven Countries Study in the late 50’s in which one researcher set out to prove his personal belief that animal protein and fat was the cause of heart disease…with funding of $200,000 from the U.S. Public Health Service!

This “scientist” went on to cherry-pick six countries that best supported his belief, while removing 14 others that had low rates of heart disease despite diets full of saturated fat and animal products.

Later there was the China Study, where a researcher looked at the rates of cancer for the whole of China, took the daily diet of one particular area, and applied it to the whole country, claiming that the diet was the sole cause of the low cancer rates. Next, the researcher exposed rats to cancer causing toxins, fed them highly processed, inflammatory protein that their natural diets wouldn’t include, and when the cancer cells grew, claimed that all animal protein would cause the same results in humans!

Dgssi2id you know that there is such a thing as the “Gatorade Sports Science Institute”? And that nearly every recommendation regarding hydration, whether from a study or just propagation of long-standing rhetoric, comes from this “institute”?

So, we’ve got food producers paying for the studies that will affect national health guidelines, guaranteeing sales of their products.

We’ve got researchers trying to prove that their personal beliefs and diets are best for preventing disease while burying any data that disproves their hypothesis.

And we’ve got enormous leaps of faith, referred to as epidemiological studies, assuming that 1 single factor is the end-all be-all for a population of millions.

But now we are at the peak of the information age! People can now go online and look at the actual studies. We can find the fallacies and the strengths in different studies, and then that information can be spread across the globe in a matter of seconds thanks to social media.

Other countries have been testing for Celiac disease at birth for decades.

celiaci-940x625Italy is proposing a new law that could result in jail time for parents that force a vegan diet on their children (due to lack of naturally occurring essential nutrients such as EPA/DHA, B vitamins, and activated fat-soluble vitamins).

Government agencies are trying to limit prescription of opiates and benzodiazepines (even if the damage has already been done).

All this represents a shift in the paradigm of health. No longer is there one Standard American Diet.

Some people are replacing grains with veggies while others only eat “ancient” grains that have been sprouted. Some people limit protein and calories while others skip breakfast to reap the same fasting benefits. People are aware that buying pastured beef or pork from a local farmer, or buying chickens to have their own source of eggs, is a choice that not only affects their health, but the environment as a whole.

Keep one eye on the news, whether popular sources like the New York Times or digital forms found on blogs and doctor-run websites. But keep the other eye on the actual research. When an article has some super catchy title, see if there is a link to the study.

Read the methods – is it based on dozens of individuals in a perfectly controlled facility 24/7? Or does it make assumptions from a birds-eye view of millions?

Read the conclusions – does a diet of grass-fed pastured beef cause cancer? Or is the true danger a specific molecule found in highly-processed meats, that is normally consumed on a whole pizza or between two buns of sugar?

I guess what I’m saying is empower yourself!

Some of this may be complicated in the beginning, but as you read more and more, you’ll pick it up just like a second language…and remember I’m only a message away!


Stay Healthy During the Holidays








Epidemiological Studies

I spend hours every day reading studies, articles, and researching health-related matters. When I find a new publication or exploration of a topic, I get excited to dive in. That being said, some studies and articles are more useful than others.

One type of study that is used frequently to make health claims and guide public policy is an “epidemiological study”. Epidemiology is the study of a set population, or group of people, to develop correlations or inferences.

The problem is that these do not prove anything. When we find a strong correlation between factors, we should use that as a starting point to conduct further research. An epidemiological study, by itself, should never be the basis for making health policies.

Let me give some examples.

Epidemiology suggests that soy is a healthy incorporation in a diet. This is due to the fact that Asian countries consume high amounts of soy on a regular basis and don’t experience the same health problems as Western nations.

However, no other factors are taken into account.

The soy that Asians consume has not been genetically modified to the same extent as ours, nor has it been grown in soils depleted of minerals. Also, most Asian dishes use fermented soy or the bean in its natural state.

Asian cultures consume more wild-caught fish (high in anti-inflammatory omega-3s), sea vegetables (loaded with vitamins and minerals), and opt for white rice, with less anti-nutrients and gut-damaging proteins than typical “heart-healthy” whole grains such as wheat and oatmeal.

Historically, Asians don’t consume as much processed food as Americans. They don’t cook in corn or canola oil, they don’t have packaged foods at every meal, and they don’t go out to eat as often.

And finally, they are far more active – walking, biking, and taking the stairs as part of daily life.

Because of these factors, we cannot confidently say that the consumption of soy in Asian countries is the cause of their better health.

When we look at soy mechanistically, we find phytoestrogens that have the potential to skew hormone levels, leading to fat-storage and growth of cancer cells. It is extremely high in inflammatory omega-6s. Take into consideration our growing practices, extensive refinement process, and consumption of soy byproducts, and soy consumption in the US no longer seems as safe.

Another example of epidemiology lacking substance:

In March of this year, there was a headline stating: “Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking”. These news reports were based upon two studies: one epidemiological study of over 6000 adults and one study of mice in a laboratory.

The results of these studies suggested that a high protein diet (over 20% of calories) was “positively associated with diabetes-related mortality”. When you look at the numbers, one person in the “high-protein” group (consisting of over 1000 individuals) died from diabetes.

The lead researcher running this study owns a plant-derived protein supplement company…explaining the claim that only animal-protein is dangerous.

Some other issues:

There was no way to control for protein quality. There has never been a study showing negative outcomes from consumption of wild-caught fish, grass-fed beef, or eggs from pasture-raised chickens.

The mice that experienced growth of cancer tumors were implanted with melanoma cells before the study began. Plus, the study found that high protein consumption was “not associated with all-cause, CVD, or cancer mortality”. Therefore, the protein-cancer correlation was in fact disproved.

Finally, diet was self-reported. The average participant reported consuming 1,800 calories a day…30% lower than the national average. This suggests major under-reporting.

So, even though the study was riddled with flaws, and actually found no increased risk from animal-protein consumption, the results were phrased to dissuade individuals from consuming meat.

To get back to my original point – epidemiology is used too often to prove a pre-existing belief, promote a political agenda, or increase profits.

By itself, epidemiology is no different than trying to claim that the number of birds flying over a particular region somehow determines cancer rates in that area.

Certainly we should use any research tactic available to ask questions and form a hypothesis…but ultimately, we need to examine issues in every way possible.

Once we’ve investigated mechanisms, done cohort studies and some “food-diary” studies with pictures, it’s time to form a hypothesis and conduct a blinded, crossover, metabolic ward trial to draw some real conclusions!

New York Times Op-Ed Piece









– Mark Bittman, New York Times Contributing Op-Ed Writer




Next week I’ll get back to posting my original content.

Thanks for reading!

Two Interesting News Articles

Over the past week, I came across two news articles that I’d love to share with all of you.

The first article is from MSNBC.

This article reveals that billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies goes towards producing and distributing unhealthy food. The reason I want to share this is not solely to point towards archaic food subsidies as a major barrier to health…but to exemplify the conflicts of interests involved in allowing the USDA to dictate dietary guidelines.

The United States Department of Agriculture was created to sustain adequate food production for our country’s growing population…it now exists to ensure its agricultural endeavors remain profitable. As the USDA was able to invest more resources, they were also able to start dictating policy and recommending what Americans should and should not eat.

And guess what studies, research, and information dissemination they funded? Anything that even remotely suggested complex carbs and unsaturated fats are best for human consumption. And guess what the USDA produces best? Corn, dairy, soy, and wheat – all foods that are high in carbs, polyunsaturated fats, and low in protein.

And now, even though humans are consuming more of these foods than ever, the organizations are still searching for any means to increase sales and profits. Thus, they have started using subsidized foods to create a “value-added” product that they can market and package…and oh yes, genetically modifying foods to override hunger-signaling and light up the pleasure-centers of our brains!

The second article I found on NBC.com.

This article discusses how organic milk is more healthful than regular milk. Again, my motivation for sharing this article is not just to convey the direct message but rather to discuss the reasoning that they gloss over…the fact that cows are meant to eat grass!

They discuss organic milk as being optimal as if it’s the label organic that ensures a better nutritional profile. However, for milk to be labelled organic, the cows must consume grass for a certain number of months out of the year. This article does mention that grass-feeding, as opposed to grain-feeding, is what results in a better product…but why is it discussing organic milk rather than local, 100% grass-fed milk?

It also mentions that 2% or full-fat milk is preferable because of the healthy fat content. Again, I have to ask why the article is focused on organic versus conventional milk while local, raw milk will be grass-fed AND contain its natural fat profile, seeing as it is not manipulated or processed.

The answer is that organic milk is a marketable product that results in greater profits. The profits that federal agencies receive from small family farms are far less, or, at times, nonexistent.

These issues of subsidizing the corn, soy, and dairy industry, as well as the value of dairy in general, are both topics I’d like to discuss in greater depth down the road. However, I’ll wrap up here because sometimes, no matter how hard I try, I get emotional or frustrated with our current food and healthcare system.

The positive takeaway is that these issues are coming to light! The general public now has easy access to the concept of omega-3 vs omega-6 content in milk and the power of food production conglomerates. And remember the old adage: “Knowledge is power”!

So, let’s keep learning and hopefully, we can reverse our spiral of steadily declining health in the modern world.

Review of New York Times Article

How has your sleep been in the past week? Any of the tactics from my last post help?

This week I’ll review an article I came across on the New York Times website.

Initially, I wanted to post a lot more news articles. I also wanted to include a lot more in-line citations and references. I tried this in earlier posts but, ultimately, scrapped those attempts. I found it led to biased cherry-picking of studies and data.

Obviously I have my opinion, and I’m sure that comes through at times but, ultimately, I want to provide reliable and verifiable information for everyone…not convince people that what I do is best.

The news article, titled “Dietary Report Card Disappoints”, discusses many of the shortcomings of our nation’s health. The real thing that stuck out to me (maybe because of my opinion! haha) was the following quote:

 “There’s been a huge increase in grains in the last 30 years — bread, cereal, pasta, rice, burritos, pizza crust, panini, muffins, scones — mostly made from white flour,” she said. “We’ve been blaming the obesity epidemic on sweets, and we are eating too much sugar, but we need to pay more attention to grains.

“It would not be great to simply replace refined grains like white flour and white rice with whole grains,” she added. “We need to cut back on grains, period.”

This is the first time I’ve seen a mainstream source acknowledge our nations over-consumption of grains.

This report also discusses over-consumption of sugars, primarily high-fructose corn syrup. The article recommends fruit which is a perfect, more nutritious alternative to fulfill a sweet-craving.

Early on in this piece, saturated fat is lumped into the same category as “heart-damaging trans fats” and lists margarine and shortening as sources of saturated fats. Fortunately, we all know that saturated fats may be the safest for the heart and that margarine is dangerous because of its trans-fat content (occurring through the process of hydrogenation).

Another flaw is when the nutritionist quoted in the article, Liebman, reports that consuming beef and pork, as opposed to chicken and fish, is a problem. Fish is certainly the best protein source but, believe it or not, beef is preferable to chicken. One ounce of chicken has 8 grams of fat (1500mg Omega 6 and 100mg Omega 3), while one ounce of grass-fed beef only has 3.6 grams of fat (120mg Omega 6 and 25mg Omega 3). Crunching these numbers, the O6/O3 ratio of chicken is 15/1 while beef is 5/1. Clearly beef is leaner and has an O6/O3 ratio closer to the optimal 2/1 range.

One protein source the article recommends is frozen fish and farm-raised mussels…a timely callback to my recipe post two weeks ago!

Dairy is discussed within this article but again, critical details are overlooked. Liebman approves of the “decline in whole milk consumption and the booming popularity of mostly low-fat yogurt”. However, dairy is problematic for many people due to lactose intolerance and the inflammatory nature of its primary protein – casein. Also, the majority of dairy in the U.S. is pasteurized and homogenized. This means that a raw food, with living enzymes, vitamins, and minerals, is heated and processed into a dead substance. Manufacturers must then add synthetic vitamins and minerals and stamp it with a short shelf life.

The final topic covered is portion sizes, particularly in restaurants. This is a very valid point. Restaurants, along with food processing companies, have increased the palatability of certain foods. By tinkering with man-made forms of sodium, sugar, and fat, they have found a way to completely override our bodies natural hunger signals. An interesting comparison: one 16-ounce soda contains the same amount of sugar as FOUR FEET of the sugarcane plant. Imagine how much fibrous and inedible plant matter you’d have to gnaw through to ingest that amount of fructose naturally.

To limit my intake of unhealthy portion sizes of processed food, I merely treat eating-out as an indulgence. Also, considering the cost of one meal at a restaurant, I cannot frequently justify going out to eat. By eating nutrient-dense, homemade meals 99% of the time, going out to eat every month or so is far more enjoyable and doesn’t negatively affect my health and performance.

Well, that’s all I have for my review of this New York Times article. If you ever see reports, studies, or anything else you’d like me to break-down for you, don’t hesitate to e-mail me directly…it’s always fun for me. Thanks!