Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nutrition. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2015

New WHO guidelines advise lowering sugar intake

By Sally Robertson, BSc  -  Medical News

New World Health Organization guidelines recommend that people reduce their daily free sugar intake to less than 10% of their total calorie intake, with a reduction to 5% representing a further target.

“Making policy changes to support this will be key if countries are to live up to their commitments to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases,” says Dr Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development.

Gayvoronskaya_Yana / Shutterstock.com

Free sugars are the monosaccharides and disaccharides added to food and drink by manufacturers, cooks or consumers, as well as the sugars that occur naturally in fruit juice or honey, for example. The WHO guideline does not refer to the sugars found in fresh fruit and vegetables or milk, as no evidence exists to suggest that those sugars adversely affect our health.

Alison Tedstone, Director of the Diet and Obesity team, Public Health England, says surveys show that the average current daily free sugar intake among adults in the UK accounts for 11.6% of the total calorie intake, while among children it accounts for 15.2%.

The recommendation of less than 10% is based on a review of scientific evidence showing that a lower sugar intake among adults is associated with lower body weight and, among children, it is associated with a reduced likelihood of overweight and obesity. Furthermore, the evidence supports that an intake higher than 10% is associated with increased rates of tooth decay.

Dr Branca says:

We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay

The quality of the evidence reviewed means that WHO can rank the recommendation as “strong” and therefore suitable for implementation as policy in most situations. The plans will now be subjected to public consultation, with firm recommendations expected to be put in place this summer and translated into food-based dietary guidelines and public health interventions to reduce sugar intake. Examples of such interventions include a reduction in the marketing of sugary food to children and the introduction of nutrition labeling for food products.

However, due to obesity rates rising worldwide, many experts believe that a goal of less than 10% is still too high and campaign group “Action for Sugar” is pressing for 5% to become the new target. Although the WHO now acknowledge that further health benefits can be achieved if the 5% goal is implemented, only three nationwide studies have demonstrated those health benefits. The WHO can therefore only make a “conditional” rather than “strong” recommendation for issuing this 5% goal for implementation.

A conditional recommendation refers to one that would probably be beneficial if adhered to but where the associated trade-offs between the desirable and undesirable effects still need to be clarified before the recommendation can be adopted as policy.

UK campaigners say it is a "tragedy" that it has taken 10 years for the WHO to think about changing its advice on sugar intake.

“We should aim for 5% if we can,” says Branca.

The update to the WHO guideline is part of the organization’s efforts to improve current dietary guidelines about preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. The guidelines on sugar intake should be used in combination with other nutrition recommendations and goals, particularly those related to the intake of fats and fatty acids such as trans-fat and saturated fat.

Sources:

Related:

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Ex-Trader Joe’s President To Open Expired Food Store For The Poor

supermarket-ea08b05518f081473796e64c16dae85704f298b3-s6-c30

Fox News: We’ve all heard about the massive food waste Americans incur every year.

‘Sell-by’, ‘best-by’ and ‘use-by’ dates are mostly unregulated and confusing for consumers when it comes to throwing items out –a factor that contributes to $165 billion of food wasted every year.

But the former president of Trader Joe’s Doug Rauch says he’s got a solution.

In May, he’s launching The Daily Table, a grocery store and restaurant in Dorchester, Mass., that will offer inexpensive food considered ‘unsellable’ by regular grocery stores.

Food available will include fruits and vegetables that are expired and repurposed food that will be incorporated into hot meals. Other items for sale will be products that are fine to eat but may have damaged packaging.

“Most families know that they’re not giving their kids the nutrition they need. But they just can’t afford it, they don’t have an option,” Rauch recently told Salon.

His big idea: Make healthy food available for the working poor at the same price as fast food by using expired food.

A recent report from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic says Americans are prematurely throwing out food, largely because of confusion over what expiration dates actually mean.

Dana Gunders with the Natural Resources Defense Council and co-author of the study, said that as much as 40 percent of food in the U.S. –or the equivalent of $165 billion– is wasted, thrown away to fill our landfills after spoiling in the refrigerator or pantry.

Although Daily Table will be setup as a non-profit, it is a retail store, not a food bank or a soup kitchen.

Rauch is hardly the first to sell expired food or slightly damaged items deemed unsellable for cosmetic reasons. Discount supermarkets already offer many of the same items, but don’t sell prepared food.

Yet, critics have accused Rauch of taking rich people’s food, repurposing it, and selling it to the poor, something he just shrugs off.

“I might say, without naming the names, one of the leading, best regarded brands in the large, national, food industry — they basically recover the food within their stores, cook it up and put it out on their hot trays the next day,” Rauch said in an 2013 interview with NPR. “That’s the stuff that we’re going to be talking about. We’re talking about taking and recovering food. Most of what we offer will be fruits and vegetables that have a use-by date on it that’ll be several days out.” 

supermarket.jpg

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Keeping Pets Safe for Thanksgiving: The “Not So Safe” or No-No Pet Food List

pet-friendly-home Just One More Pet (JOMP) – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: The following foods are not safe for dogs, cats, potbellied pigs, or guinea pigs. Never give the following foods or beverages to your pets:

  • *Alcohol of any kind (a no-no for all animals)
  • *Anything with Caffeine (a no-no for all animals)
  • Avocados – especially for birds and cats
  • Baby food if it contains onion powder
  • Bones from Ham, Chicken, Turkey or Cooked Bones that can splinter
  • * (Raw) Bread or Yeast Dough
  • Candied Yams
  • Casseroles (unless you absolutely know that none of the no-no foods are in them)
  • *Chocolate and Cocoa (this includes things like brownies and chocolate chip cookies) and dark chocolate is the worst
  • Raw cookie dough can also kill dogs and small children.
  • *Grapes or raisins
  • Jell-O Molds
  • (Raw) Liver
  • *Macadamia Nuts (this includes things like cookies and pies) and go easy on nuts in general (nuts in general are not great for dogs, but walnuts, macadamia nuts, and pecans are particularly harmful and add the additional possibilities of health problems caused by fungus and mold. Peanuts and peanut butter are not on the no-no list but could also cause problems because of mold issues). Nuts are rich in monounsaturated fats, which are healthy for humans, but too much fat of any kind increases the risk of pancreatitis in dogs.
  • Milk (and American Cheese) can be a problem for some dogs. They can be lactose intolerant like some people.
  • Mushrooms, particularly wild mushrooms.
  • Nutmeg
  • *Onions, including onion powder (garlic should be fed in moderation)
  • Pecans, including Pecan Pie (nuts in general are not great for dogs, but walnuts, macadamia nuts, and pecans are particularly harmful and add the additional possibilities of health problems caused by fungus and mold.  Peanuts and peanut butter are not on the no-no list but could also cause problems because of mold issues).
  • Potato Skins and Green Potatoes (potatoes in general are not digestible by dogs).
  • Pork Products because of the nitrates
  • Stuffing (it usually contains onions, which are very harmful to pets)
  • Large amounts of Grains (often a main ingredient in cheap commercial pet foods)
  • *Raisins and grapes
  • Raw eggs (raw egg whites) – (According to the ASPCA, raw egg whites contain avidin, which damages a dog’s metabolism and creates a biotin deficiency, so they recommend owners should discard the white if feeding a dog raw eggs.  Others disagree.)
  • Tomatoes (plant and fruit) – All parts of the plant except the tomato itself are poisonous to humans
  • Vitamin A in large amounts causes toxicity
  • Walnuts (nuts in general are not great for dogs, but walnuts, macadamia nuts, and pecans are particularly harmful and add the additional possibilities of health problems caused by fungus and mold. Peanuts and peanut butter are not on the no-no list but could also cause problems, for humans as well, because of mold issues).
  • *Xylitol and anything with it in it.

Depending on the amount consumed and the size, breed, species and age of the animal many of the items above can cause death, but they definitely can and usually cause discomfort for the pet/animal, more and expensive vet bills for you, butt scooting, and stress in your pets and for you. Distention of the abdomen, vomiting, muscle tremors, paralysis bloody stool, depression, stress, jaundice, disorientation, diarrhea, lethargy, lack of coordination, difficulty breathing, tremors, coma, abnormal fluid accumulation, drooling, restlessness, anemia and seizures are among the symptoms and conditions that can be caused by the aforementioned foods.

The range of diseases and conditions caused or intensified by the No-No Foods for pets include: coma, heart arrhythmia and cardiac arrest, paralysis, pancreatitis, inflammation throughout the body, seizures and tremors, gastric-dilitation volvulus (twisted stomach) and death.

*Causing the most severe health problems and the most incidents of death.

Tobacco products and many plants and herbs are also bad for pets.  Poinsettias, tomato plants and the Sago Palm are among the common plants that are toxic to dogs/pets. 

How to keep your dog safe during Thanksgiving holidays

“Holidays Are Great and Fun To Share With Our Pets, As Long As We Avoid the No-No Foods”

Common Foods That Are Harmful Or Even Fatal to Dogs

Pets and Toxic Plants

More Dogs (and Cats) Getting High, Sick and Fat In States Where Marijuana Is Legal – Drugs, unless prescribed or are specifically made and approved for animals, are a No-No!

Cooking real food or feeding a raw diet is generally the best option for most pets, but pet parents need to know the general restrictions as well as those for their particular pet plus make sure that their furkids are getting all the nutrients they need and avoiding too many fats, sugars and of course the no-no food list!  Commercial pet food, including kibble, is a rather new creation along with pre-packaged, processed and restaurant-style junk food for humans, including baby food and baby formula, filled with questionable additives and unrecognizable ingredients; none of which are proving to be the best choices, just read the labels.  All were invented for the consumers’ convenience and the profit for their manufacturers not good health and nutrition. The more fresh and freshly prepared food from good sources, as well as mother’s milk over formula for babies, the healthier we, our children and our pets are and will be!

When Raw Food is NOT the Right Food for Your Pet

Every species, breed or type of animal has its own requirements and no-no’s.  As a pet parent or the parent of a learning pet parent, it is your job to find out what those requirements and no-no’s are and meet those needs.  A pet is a living creature that adds joy to our lives.  We are all God’s creatures and any animal is a gift that has been given to you to cherish and take care of properly!!

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Chicken nuggets contain bone, organ parts, study finds

chicken-nuggets

Published October 04, 2013 - Reuters/FoxNewsHealth 

Stand-up comedians have long joked that some things, like the actual components of chicken nuggets, are better left mysterious.

Recently, Mississippi researchers found out why: two nuggets they examined consisted of 50 percent or less chicken muscle tissue, the breast or thigh meat that comes to mind when a customer thinks of "chicken."

The nuggets came from two national fast food chains in Jackson. The three researchers selected one nugget from each box, preserved, dissected and stained the nuggets, then looked at them under a microscope.

The first nugget was about half muscle, with the rest a mix of fat, blood vessels and nerves. Close inspection revealed cells that line the skin and internal organs of the bird, the authors write in the American Journal of Medicine.

The second nugget was only 40 percent muscle, and the remainder was fat, cartilage and pieces of bone.

"We all know white chicken meat to be one of the best sources of lean protein available and encourage our patients to eat it," lead author Dr. Richard D. deShazo of the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, said.

"What has happened is that some companies have chosen to use an artificial mixture of chicken parts rather than low-fat chicken white meat, batter it up and fry it and still call it chicken," deShazo told Reuters Health.

"It is really a chicken by-product high in calories, salt, sugar and fat that is a very unhealthy choice. Even worse, it tastes great and kids love it and it is marketed to them."

The nuggets he examined would be okay to eat occasionally, but he worries that since they are cheap, convenient and taste good, kids eat them often. His own grandchildren "beg" for chicken nuggets all the time, and he compromises by making them at home by pan-frying chicken breasts with a small amount of oil, deShazo said.

"Chicken nuggets are an excellent source of protein, especially for kids who might be picky eaters," said Ashley Peterson, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the National Chicken Council (NCC), a non-profit trade group representing the U.S. chicken industry.

According to the NCC, its member producers and processors account for about 95 percent of the chicken produced in the U.S.

"This study evaluates only two chicken nugget samples out of the billions of chicken nuggets that are made every year," Peterson said. A sample size of two nuggets is simply too small to generalize to an entire category of food, she told Reuters Health.

Two nuggets is a small sample size, deShazo acknowledged, and some chains have begun to use primarily white meat in their nuggets - just not the particular restaurants he visited.

"Chicken nuggets tend to have an elevated fat content because they are breaded and fried. But it's no secret what is in a chicken nugget - most quick service restaurants have nutritional information posted in the store or on their website," Peterson said.

"And every package of chicken nuggets in the grocery store by law contains an ingredient list and a complete nutritional profile, including fat content," she said.

The brief chicken nugget exploration was not meant to be an exposé of the chicken industry or fast food generally, but to remind consumers that "not everything that tastes good is good for you," deShazo said.

He and his colleagues chose not to reveal which chain restaurants they visited.

Consumers aren't necessarily being misled, since much of the nutritional information they need is readily available, he said.

"We just don't take the time to understand basic nutritional facts."

Saturday, June 29, 2013

11 Food Ingredients Banned Outside the U.S. That Americans Eat

M and M s

Do you like M&Ms and Nutrigrain Bars? They both contain ingredients banned in other countries.  From ABC NEWS:

A recently published list of foods banned in countries outside the U.S. has riled the plates of many in the food industry.

Last week, Buzzfeed published a list of 8 ingredients banned outside the U.S. that are found in foods in America. The list was derived from the book, Rich Food Poor Food: The Ultimate Grocery Purchasing System (GPS)/(Kindle), written by husband and wife team Jayson Calton, who has a Ph.D. in nutrition, and Mira Calton, a licensed certified nutritionist.

Said Mira Calton: "We call it our GPS of grocery purchasing system: how to identify dangerous ingredients -- so people can shop safe and smart in the grocery store."

The book includes a list of banned foods and dangerous foods, which they call "poor food..."

Calton said manufacturers are not putting these ingredients in their food to be "bad people."

"It might have been part of their original formula and sometimes they don't know," Calton said.

The Food and Drug Administration assures the public that despite the frenzy over the list of ingredients banned in some countries outside the U.S., it is doing its job of monitoring food safety.

"As part of FDA's overall commitment to ensure the safety of the food supply, the agency uses an extensive, science-based process to evaluate the safety of food additives," the agency said in a statement to ABC News. "The law requires that the FDA determine there is reasonable certainty that an additive does not cause harm when it is used as intended. The agency continues to monitor the science on food additives and is prepared to take appropriate action if there are safety concerns. When determining that a food or ingredient is 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS for its intended use in food, the same quantity and quality of evidence is required as is needed to approve a food additive."

Derek Lowe, a chemist who has a Ph.D. from Duke University, said the list is an example of "chemophobia." He told ABC News his reaction to the viral online list was "incredulity and revulsion."

"The thing is, I'm not reflexively saying people should eat all the food additives they can find. I don't myself. But the amount of understanding in the article was so minimal, it really pushed my buttons as a scientist," Lowe said.

The Caltons said they are not calling on the FDA to ban these ingredients, but they said "all of the ingredients on the list pose a potential danger to consumers and we feel the consumer should be made aware so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to buy a product with these ingredients."

Julie Jones, a professor emeritus with St. Catherine University in Minnesota and author of the textbook, Food Safety, said what drives one country to ban a food and not another often has to do with as much politics as it does science.

If one believes Paracelsus's principle, "the dose makes the poison," Jones said she believes these products have gone through the correct due diligence in the U.S.

"We have science and politics and they are different in each country," Jones said.

Here are 11 ingredients noted as banned in other countries and what some experts have to say about them:

PHOTO: Kellogg's blueberry nutrigrain bars have Blue 1 in them.

Amazon inage

Blue #1 food coloring

Banned in Norway, Finland and France, Blue #1 and Blue #2 can be found in candy, cereal, drinks and pet food in the U.S., the Caltons say.

Kellogg's did not reply to multiple requests for comment about its use of Blue #1 listed as an ingredient in some Nutrigrain bars.

Michael Pariza, professor emeritus of food science and past director of Food Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most food dyes are not dangerous, with the exception of Yellow #5, but they can influence our perception of food -- for better or worse.

"Taste, appearance and smell all go together. You can have the most fantastic, nutritious thing in the world, but if it looks bad and smells bad, you're not going to eat it," he said.

Blue #1 was at one point banned in several other European countries, but the EU later certified it as safe, said Lowe. Norway banned almost all food dyes from 1978 until 2001, but since then, they have had virtually the same regulations as the EU, he added.

Lowe said synthesized compounds, when used in food, "are often things that are effective in small amounts, because they're so expensive," as is the case with artificial dyes.

"People see the bright colors in cake icing and sugary cereals and figure that the stuff must be glopped on like paint, but paint doesn't have very much dye or pigment in it, either," Lowe writes in his blog.

M&Ms

PHOTO: Blue M&Ms contain blue 2.

Getty Images

Blue #2 food coloring

"Until the twentieth century, food coloring was obtained from natural sources," Jayson and Mira Calton write in "Rich Food, Poor Food." "People gathered spices, like saffron and turmeric, to add rich hues to their otherwise bland-colored foods. While this method may have been somewhat limiting in shades, at least it was safe. Today, most artificial colors are made from coal tar."

Blue #2 is listed as an ingredient in Mars' M&Ms. In a statement from Mars, the company said, "Around the globe there can be slightly different formulations and products available based on both local requirements and consumer preferences. All the colors we use in our products, no matter where they are sold, comply with our own strict internal quality and safety requirements as well as all applicable laws, regulations and safety assessments relating to colors added to food. All colors are declared on the label in accordance with applicable national laws and regulations and always meet the highest safety standards."

Lowe said the concern about blue food dye's connection to brain cancer is "unproven," referring to studies in the 1980s with Blue #2. Lowe said rats were fed the dye over a long period in much larger concentrations -- up to 2 percent of their total food intake -- than even the most dedicated junk-food eater could encounter.

"Gliomas were seen in the male rats, but with no dose-response, and at levels consistent with historical controls in the particular rat strain. No one has ever been able to find any real-world connection," Lowe wrote.

Kraft Macaroni and Cheese

PHOTO: Kraft Mac n' Cheese contains Yellow 5 and Yellow 6.

Amazon image

Yellow #5 (Tartazine), Yellow #6 food coloring

Yellow #5 is banned in Norway and Austria due to compounds benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, the Caltons say.

"Six of the eleven studies on yellow #5 showed that it caused genotoxicity, a deterioration of the cell's genetic material with potential to mutate healthy DNA," the book, "Rich Foods, Poor Foods," states.

Companies in the U.S. are required to list Yellow #5 in their ingredients because some people have sensitivity to it.

"Companies are so sensitive about allergies, but peanut allergies would be far more common than Tartazine," Pariza said.

Yellow #6 is banned in Norway and Finland, the Caltons say, but Lowe said the dye is approved across the EU.

Lowe said benzidine and 4-minobiphenyl are two different names for the same compound, which is known as a human carcinogen.

"But it's not a component of any food dye, certainly not of yellow #5, and it's not even any part of its chemical structure," Lowe said.

A spokeswoman for Kraft provided a statement to ABC News, stating, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority. We carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold. So in the U.S., we only use ingredients that are approved and deemed safe for food use by the Food and Drug Administration."

The International Food Information Council has said food ingredients are "carefully regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that foods containing them are safe to eat and are accurately labeled."

Kraft Catalina Dressing

PHOTO: Kraft Catalina dressing contains Red 40.

Amazon image

Red #40

"Red #40 may contain the carcinogenic contaminant p-Cresidine and is thought to cause tumors of the immune system," according to "Rich Food, Poor Food". "In the UK, it is not recommended for children," the Caltons write, but it is approved for use in the EU.

The ingredient can be found in fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, grenadine, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy and other products, the Caltons say.

Lowe said he can't find evidence for risk of tumors due to Red #40 and Cresidine "is certainly not a contaminant in the dyestuff" but is one pure compound.

"There is a possibility for cresidinesulfonic acid to be produced as a metabolite, but that's a very different substance than Cresidine itself," Lowe said.

Jones said high amounts of some ingredients could be damaging to some people, but that depends on the amount of consumption and the content of one's diet in general.

"Unless you are crazy and you do drink 8 liters of pop a day, your diet is so disordered already, no wonder what you eat is toxic-- eating things in a way that never intended to be eaten," she said.

Kraft said, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority" and the company "carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold."

Mountain Dew

PHOTO: Mountain Dew contains bvo.

Amazon image

Brominated vegetable oil

Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, acts as an emulsifier in soda and sports drinks, preventing the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface. The ingredient is banned more than 100 countries because it contains bromine, a chemical whose vapors can be corrosive or toxic, the Caltons say.

Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo, which owns Mountain Dew, said, "We take consumer safety and product integrity seriously and we can assure you that Mountain Dew is safe. As standard practice, we constantly evaluate our formulas and ingredients to ensure they comply with all regulations and meet the high quality standards our consumers expect."

Lowe said the same chemical dangers of consuming a bromine directly can be said of chlorine.

Bromine-containing compounds can indeed cause bad reactions in people but not because bromine is a corrosive gas, he said.

"When a bromine atom is bonded to a carbon, as it is in BVO, it's no longer bromine-the-pure-element, any more than the chlorine in table salt is the World War I poison gas, or the phosphorus in your DNA is the burning white phosphorus found in military tracer shells," Lowe said.

PHOTO: Country hearth breads contains azodicarbonomide.

Getty Images

Azodicarbonamide

This ingredient, which can bleach flour, is banned in Australia, the U.K. and many European countries, said the Caltons, who call it an "asthma-causing" allergen. Up to 45 parts per million is considered safe in the U.S. and it's found in a wide range of breads and baked goods here.

While Lowe acknowledges the chemical can be used to "foam" foamed plastics, "the conditions inside hot plastic, you will be glad to hear, are quite different from those inside warm bread dough," he said. In that environment, azodicarbonamide doesn't react to make birurea - it turns into several gaseous products, which are what blow up the bubbles of the foam, which is not its purpose in bread dough.

While repeated or prolonged contact to the chemical may cause asthma and skin sensitization, Lowe said that refers to the pure chemical and not 45 parts per million in uncooked flour.

"If you're handling drums of the stuff at the plastics plant, you should be wearing protective gear. If you're eating a roll, no," Lowe writes.

flatbread and bagel chips

PHOTO: Flatbreads contain brominated flour.

Getty Images

Potassium Bromate (Bromated flour)

Potassium bromate, which strengthens dough, contains bromine, is also in brominated vegetable oil.

"The good news is that American bread manufacturers tell us that it disappears from the product during baking and deem that potassium bromate is safe as there is only negligible residue," the Caltons write in their book. "However, the pastry chefs in Paris disagree. In fact, government regulatory bodies in Europe, Canada, China, and many other regions have banned the use of this additive. In California, if potassium bromate has been added, a product must carry a warning label."

Lowe points out that bromate is different from bromide and bromine.

"Chloride is the anion in table salt, but it's also the anion in hydrochloric acid. Hypochlorite anion is laundry bleach," said Lowe. "Perchlorate anion is in solid rocket fuel. They're all different; that's the point of chemistry."

Olestra (Olean)

Olestra fat substitute is banned in the U.K. and Canada because it causes a depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoid, the Caltons say, "robbing us of vital micronutrients that our foods should be delivering."

It is found in Ruffles Light and Lay's WOW chips. Frito-Lay did not return a request for comment about its use of Olestra.

Lowe acknowledges that the non-caloric fat substitute interferes with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, "but potato chips are not a very good source of vitamins to start with," he writes.

He also points out that Olestra is found only in two brands of potato chips, "since it was a major failure in the market."

"And vitamin absorption can be messed with by all kinds of things, including other vitamins (folic acid supplements can interfere with B12 absorption, just to pick one). But I can agree with the plan of not eating the stuff: I think that if you're going to eat potato chips, eat a reasonable amount of the real ones," he writes in his blog.

Chex

PHOTO: Chex mix contains Bha/BHT.

Getty Images

Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)

Banned in England, and other European countries, "these waxy solids act as preservatives to prevent food from becoming rancid and developing objectionable odors," the Caltons write.

The state of California lists this ingredient as a possible carcinogen.

General Mills did not respond to a request about its use of BHT in Chex cereals.

Lowe said that BHT is approved by the EU and, "Animal studies notwithstanding, attempts to correlate human exposure to these compounds with any types of cancer have always come up negative."

Some dairy

PHOTO: Non-organic dairy products contain rbst and rbgh.

Getty Images

rBGH and rBST

Recombinant bovine growth hormone and recombinant bovine somatotropin, a synthetic version of bovine growth hormone, can be found in nonorganic dairy products unless noted on the packaging.

"However, several regions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, have banned rBGH and rBST because of their dangerous impacts on both human and bovine health," the Caltons say.

American dairy producer, Stonyfield, opposes the use of rBST because of economics and cow health.

"An increase in milk supply generally leads to a drop in the price paid to farmers," Stonyfield says on its website. "Price drops have put many farms out of business."

In 1993, the FDA approved the use of rBST in dairy cows based on a review of existing scientific studies.

Beth Meyer, a spokeswoman for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Inc (ADADC), a regional organization representing dairy farmers in New York, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, said over the last 20 years rBST has been heavily researched and separate reviews by the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food And Agriculture Organization Committee, the American Medical Association, as well as regulatory agencies in Canada and the European Union have corroborated the FDA's conclusion.

"RBST is one of many management tools used by U.S. dairy farmers to provide a safe, affordable food supply," she said.

Canada and several European countries have affirmed that milk produced from rBST cows is safe for human consumption. These countries don't allow the sale of rBST to local farmers for reasons including economics, social customs and general opposition to technological advances used to promote efficient food production, not human health concerns.

Bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is given to dairy cattle to increase milk production, Lowe said, and BGH levels in the milk of treated cows are not higher than in untreated ones.

"Secondly, BGH is not active as a growth hormone in humans - it's selective for the cow receptor, not the human one," he said.

Lowe points out BGH was banned in some countries due to animal welfare concerns. "As far as human health, there doesn't seem to be any evidence it's bad for humans," he said.

Chicken feed

PHOTO: Chicken feed contains arsenic.

Getty Images

Arsenic

The Caltons warn about traces of arsenic, which has been banned in all foods in the EU, that can be found in some chicken feed.

Last month, Johns Hopkins University scientists said they found amounts of arsenic in chicken that exceeded naturally occurring levels.

But the National Chicken Council says chickens raised for meat or broilers (for meat production) are no longer given any feed additives containing arsenic.

"Broilers used to be given a product called Roxarsone which contained trace amounts of arsenic, but it was pulled from the market in 2011 and is no longer manufactured. No other products containing arsenic are currently fed to broilers in the U.S." said Tom Super, spokesman for the council.

Lowe points out that 100 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic have been found in white rice, though he said that doesn't pose a human health risk.

Arsenic can be found in groundwater supplies in a number of countries, according to the World Health Organization.

"It's very hard to have a diet anywhere in the world that doesn't have a trace amount of arsenic," Jones said.

h/t to Tim Conway Jr. and TLA

Related: 

Is This Why the Europeans Don't Get Sick Like Americans Do? 

How Cells from an Aborted Fetus are Used to Create Novel Flavor Enhancers 

Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids 

Americans Eat the Cheapest Food in the World, But What is It Really Costing? 

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food 

Mad moms to food police: We'll eat what we want 

OBESITY CONSPIRACY: The U.S. Government Scandal that's Really Making You Fat 

Japan Cancels GMO Wheat Order After Concerns Over U.S. Grain Developed By Monsanto

Also checkout:  Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health/(Kindle) 

Perils of Peanuts and Peanut Butter… Even Organic 

Margarine Verses Butter 

Splenda - safer than aspartame but is it really safe? 

You Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT 

12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet 

Whole Foods Vows to Label GMO’s by 2018   

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Pet Food 

Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive ‘So-Called’ Do-Gooders? (Plus: Monsanto and GMO Foods) 

Monsanto Shill And USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Says Government Will Change The Way Citizens Eat 

World Wide Obesity Epidemic 

Are You Eating, Drinking and Breathing Monsanto’s New ‘Agent Orange’?  

GM Foods Not Served in Monsanto Cafeteria 

Would You Vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

George Soros and Food Safety 

PDF File:  Liar, Liar: FDA Secrets, Scandals & Slip Ups! 

Dumbing Down Society Part 1: Foods, Beverages, and Meds (Media and Education

Senate Bill S.510 Passed… Quickly Explained Here

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Plans made to hide artificial sweetener in milk -in-milk

‘Integrity of food supply poised for another blow'

milkGlass-275x275WND: Milk industry heavyweights have asked the federal government for permission to include an artificial sweetener in milk products for schools, without telling parents and children.

A health and nutrition organization is criticizing the plan.

“The integrity of our food supply is poised for another blow,” said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

She said that asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without full disclosure will only lead to further distrust among consumers.

“This is a bad idea for consumers and not a smart idea for the industry either,” she said.

The proposal is aimed “principally at replacing sugar in flavored milks served to school children,” her organization explained.

But the FDA also asks for the right to put hidden artificial sweeteners in a host of dairy products, including nonfat dried milk (always added to reduced-fat milks), yogurt, cream, half-and-half, sour cream, eggnog and whipping cream.

The request comes from the International Dairy Foods Association and the national Milk Producers Federal, which have pending a petition before the Food and Drug Administration to be “amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient.”

According to a promotional website for the artificial sweetener aspartame, it already is found in “more than 6,000 products and is consumed by over 200 million people around the world.”

But an activist doctor, Joseph Mercola, who runs his own health website, contends such a move “could endanger your health for decades to come, and disproportionally harm underprivileged children who rely on school lunches for the bulk of their nutrition.”

The doctor said if the change is approved by the Obama administration, “that would mean anytime you see the world ‘milk’ on the label, it could include aspartame, sucralose or any other dangerous artificial sweetener, but you could never be quite sure, since there will be no mention of it – not by listing the artificial sweetener used, nor with a no- or low-calorie type label, which is a tip-off that the product might contain a non-nutritive sweetener.”

Mercola’s online analysis blasted the idea.

“The IDFA and NMPF claim the proposed amendments would ‘promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products’ since many children are more inclined to drink flavored milk products than unflavored milk,” he wrote.

“According to the Federal Register: ‘The proposed amendments would assist in meeting several initiatives aimed at improving the nutrition and health profile of food served in the nation’s schools. Those initiatives include state-level programs designed to limit the quantity of sugar served to children during the school day.’

“As if that’s not nonsensical enough, the IDFA and NMPF argue that the proposed amendments would ‘promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace.’ How could altering the definition of ‘milk’ to include unidentified artificial sweeteners possibly promote honesty or fair dealing in the marketplace, you might ask?”

He said the explanation is that the advocates of artificial sweeteners claim consumers find it easier to evaluate the nutritional value of milk with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such information.

“In order to understand this twisted logic, you need to know that the FDA already allows the dairy industry to use the unmodified ‘milk’ label for products that contain added sugar or high fructose corn syrup.”

The logic then, is that allowing other sweeteners without having them listed would “promote honesty.”

The doctor explained the goal appears to be “fooling your kids into drinking otherwise unpopular fat free or low fat milk and allowing the national school breakfast and lunch programs to ‘look good’ by successfully reducing overall calories of the meals while simultaneously helping the dairy industry protect profits.”

The Price Foundation said consumers already are crying foul and are submitting comments to the FDA about the proposal.

The foundation said thousands of adverse reactions to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, mostly concerned with abnormal brain function, brain tumors, epilepsy and Parkinson’s.

“Children’s brains are four times more susceptible to damage from excitotoxins like aspartame than those of adults and react with ADD ADHD type symptoms, impaired learning, depression and nausea,” the foundation report said. “People who are sensitive to aspartame can have life-threatening reactions to it.”

It reported: “In May, 2010, The International Journal of Genomics published a study In Vivo Cytogenetic Studies on Aspartame where scientists observed significant chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice following exposure to aspartame. Because of the genotoxicity they found, scientists advised caution when using aspartame in food and beverages as a sweetener.”

The Price Foundation has posted links on how to comment on the issue.

So how did this get past the Food Gestapo Chief, Michelle Obama?  Just asking??

Related:

The Aspartame Trap: You May Be Unknowingly Ingesting this Toxic Sweetener

Splenda – Safer Than Aspartame But Is It Really Safe?

America's Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You With Name Change

Sweetened Drinks Associated with Increased Depression Risk

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Mad moms to food police: We'll eat what we want

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food

From Mercola.com

baby food, infant food, baby cereal, junk food, nestle, gerberSome baby foods contain as much sugar and saturated fats as chocolate cookies or cheeseburgers.

A survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found examples that were 29 percent sugar, and others that contained trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease.

The Children’s Food Campaign, part of food and farming campaign group Sustain, examined the nutritional content of 107 baby and toddler foods. Only half the products were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar.

So, what about organic baby food — is it your safest choice?

Maybe not…

Katharine Wroth of Grist was curious about her organic baby food options, so she took a look at several types of baby food.

She found that, among other results, Earth’s Best had an extensive selection, but also had high sodium levels. Gerber Organic was easy to find, but came in plastic containers. Organic Baby was from a good company, but was sometimes hard to find.

Plum Organics had BPA-free packaging, but a high price and limited flavor options. Happy Baby had the same advantages and the same problems. Little Lettice comes from a company that uses local ingredients and doesn’t ship outside the region, but that means it is only available in Massachusetts.

In the final analysis, the frozen baby foods tasted better than the jarred ones, but they would be prohibitively expensive if they were all you bought. However, they also noted that there is one option that is affordable, tasty, and healthy: making your own.

As shocking as these findings are, I’m still not surprised. As the food industry is notorious for flooding the market with unhealthy foods – why should you believe the baby food sector is that much different?

Just What Are You Feeding Your Baby?

The results of a survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found that one brand of dry biscuits contained a staggering 29 percent sugar!

Other weaning biscuits were found to contain unlabeled trans fat, which is known to increase LDL, also known as "bad" cholesterol, while lowering levels of HDL, or "good" cholesterol. It can also cause clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems, and can increase the risk of heart disease.

Many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.

None of these reasons have anything to do with benefitting the health of your child.

Yet despite all the science available on the dangers of trans fats, when a researcher from the Children’s Food Campaign (CFC) spoke to one of the baby food manufacturers, asking about the trans fats in their products, he was told that they were “pretty sure” that there were no trans fats in their baby biscuits, but that they would check with a nutritionist.

They called back two days later and admitted that their biscuits do contain trans fats, but assured the CFC researcher that “trans fats aren’t any worse than saturated fats and that it is the whole diet that matters.”

The CFC researcher was also told that tiny amounts of trans fats “do not pose a health risk, and that if there was any concrete evidence that trans fats were dangerous, they wouldn’t be allowed.”

That’s the kind of ignorant nonsense you have to contend with from many sources within the food industry, but rest assured, they are completely wrong.

As far back as 2002, the Institute of Medicine concluded there is no safe level of trans fat.

Said Christine Haigh, joint-coordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign,

“The results of this survey are staggering. Many foods marketed for babies and young children are often advertised as “healthy”.
In reality, in terms of sugar and saturated fat content, some are worse than junk food. In particular, failing to correctly label products that contain dangerous trans fats is outrageous.”

Infant Formulas and Processed Baby Food Do Not Equal Healthy Babies

Hopefully, you already know that the absolute healthiest food for your baby is breast milk. Unfortunately, many mothers and their infants are paying a hefty price for advertising promoting powdered baby formulas over breastfeeding. The United Nations even blames the manufacturers of formulas and their deceptive marketing practices for the drastic decline in breastfeeding across the world, which is negatively impacting the health of millions of babies.

Nestle continues to be one of the main culprits in dissuading mothers from breastfeeding. Campaigners first called for a boycott of Nestle back in 1977 to try to limit their dirty marketing techniques in some of the poorest of countries. Thirty years later, it is crystal clear that it has done nothing to stop them, even though they are still one of the most boycotted brands in the world.

Unfortunately, infant formulas are still a popular choice here in the United States as well.

I strongly advocate breastfeeding if at all possible. If for some reason you're unable to breastfeed, however, please read my previous article, Healthy Alternative to Conventional Infant Formula, for advice on how to make homemade baby formula and infant “starter foods.”

And while on the subject of formula, please avoid soy infant formulas at all costs!

What are some of the problems associated with soy formula?

Well, for starters it can:

Soy formula can also contain potentially high concentrations of aluminum and manganese.

It is generally given to infants who aren't breastfeeding and have trouble taking regular cow-milk-based infant formulas. While I am no fan of these formulas either, they tend to be safer than soy formula.

However, the cow-milk-based formulas are derived from pasteurized milk, and if you haven't heard by now, pasteurized milk is not good for you or your baby. Fortunately, you can use raw milk to produce a terrific infant formula, but, again, remember that breast milk is ALWAYS best.

Is Organic Baby Food as Good as Homemade?

Just as organic food in general has become more popular, the demand for organic baby food has increased as well. In 2007, parents were spending $116 million on organics for their babies, a 21.6 percent increase from the previous year alone. But that’s still a tiny slice of the $3.6 billion baby food industry as a whole.

But are organic baby foods the ideal choice?

One mother’s independent evaluation shows you may still end up feeding your child ingredients he or she does not need at that tender young age, such as excessive amounts of salt.

Now, whereas an adequate intake of sodium is required for optimal growth of fat, bone and muscle tissues, you will not get these health benefits from regular processed salt, but from natural unprocessed salts – which you can bet your bottom dollar is NOT what’s used in most processed baby food, organic or not.

You may also expose your infant to toxic contaminants like BPA from plastic containers, even if the content itself is agreeable.

When you make homemade baby food however, you have complete control over the ingredients; no unresolved questions about potential additives, preservatives, mysterious “natural flavors,” etcetera.

Yes, it may require a little more time—but in the end, it’s up to you to decide what the health of your family is worth to you.

Simply cooking a squash or sweet potato, mashing it up and putting it into an ice cube tray is an easy way to have ready-made multiple servings available for the rest of the week.

Egg yolk is another healthy food that requires little preparation. According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby's first solid food, starting at 4 months, whether your baby is breastfed or formula-fed. Egg yolks from free-range hens will contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child’s brain and nervous system.

However, the egg whites may cause an allergic reaction so they’re best avoided until your child is at least one year old.

Here’s a simple, healthy recipe you may want to try:

  • 1 organic egg from a pasture-fed (free-range) hen
  • 1/2 teaspoon grated raw, frozen organic liver (optional)
  • pinch natural unprocessed salt

Boil the egg for 3 1/2 minutes. Place in a bowl and peel off the shell. Remove the egg white and discard. The yolk should be soft and warm, not hot, with its enzyme content intact. Sprinkle with a small amount of natural salt.

If you wish to add liver, grate it on the small holes of a grater while frozen. Allow to warm up and stir into the egg yolk.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Michelle Obama’s Nutritional Finger-Waggling

Amen!! I felt exactly the same way… How dare Michelle Obama intimidate and scold a disciplined Olympian who just won two Golds for her country for splurging by eating an egg McMuffin. (NBC for once had the fortitude to title their coverage… Michelle Obama scolds Gabby Douglas instead of ‘teases’ like a lot to the a_s kissers did, but then felt they had to soften it by adding a lot of kitsch to their video coverage).

Wow talk about being out of touch and a wet blanket.  It almost made me feel bad for the President and certainly did for their girls!

I mean really? For an Egg McMuffin?  These Olympic athletes can eat endless calories because they work out all the time and if you know this gal’s story… she is disciplined and deserves a splurge!  And it wasn’t like she said ‘I ate a quarter pounder with cheese, fries, and a chocolate shake followed by an apple pie…’ It as an  egg McMuffin~

I am not a McDonalds defender. Americans need to eat better and we certainly eat too much fast food but this is not the way to cure that ill!

God help us if Ms. O and crew get 4 more years to police our food and everything else!  M~

Mark America (links added):

Setting Her Back?

On Monday night’s renewal of the Jay Leno show, Michelle Obama appeared along with Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas, and as the discussion went on, Douglas mentioned eating a celebratory Egg McMuffin from McDonalds. Self-appointed National Nutrition Czar Michelle Obama, who enjoys telling everybody on the planet what to eat, chided Douglas over the choice. I realize this was said mainly in jest, but frankly, Michelle Obama needs to shut the hell up. Gabby Douglas needs Michelle Obama as a nutrition adviser like I need her husband as an automobile consultant. “No, I don’t want an exploding electric car, Mr. President.” There’s something wrong with the Obamas, and it comes down to their desire to run the lives of others, but more than this, there is something unseemly about a woman who has no accomplishments of note (beyond marrying a guy who was elected President), counseling or even jokingly chiding an Olympian about her choices of foods.

Really, what the hell has Michelle Obama ever accomplished? She was an attorney for a while, and there are questions to whether she can still practice. And she served in some positions in Chicago that appeared to have been little more than political favors to her husband, where a cloud still hangs over her (and cronies Axelrod and Jarrett’s) decisions and programs. Apart from that, and apart from spending millions of taxpayer dollars on her seemingly endless string of vacations, I can’t imagine what has qualified the lady to give any sort of nutritional advice to anyone, never mind an Olympian who has managed to train her whole life long and win Olympic glory all without the help of Michelle Obama. There were no quotas, no set-asides, and no special favors for Gabby Douglas, her only way forward and up to the top available having been to achieve it by her own efforts. She didn’t obtain Olympic fame and fortune by marrying a gymnastics judge.

I have no problem with first spouses who are accomplished in their own right. I think it’s terrific to see First Ladies becoming involved in various causes, but they shouldn’t have any official power, and in truth, they shouldn’t have any role in governance because we don’t elect them. Until Hillary Clinton, most first ladies tended to restrain themselves to charitable activities and voluntary efforts, more or less, but something was wrong with Hillary Clinton becoming involved in health-care plans, just as there’s something wrong with Michelle Obama nattering-on about nutrition. Hillary Clinton is not a medical professional, an insurance professional, and at the time, she hadn’t been elected to anything. Similarly, Michelle Obama is not a nutritionist, knows damnably little about food beyond consuming it, but certainly little about its production, and yet here she chastises the Olympian? Of course, she also toured Army posts earlier this year examining their dining facilities, and what nutrition is available to our soldiers, as if the Army needs her advice or direction.

I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m tired of her fake wisdom and her husband’s fake Presidency. For the better part of four years, we have had to listen to these two self-aggrandized nit-wits chiding the nation over this or that, but frankly, it’s time for them to shut the hell up. At every turn, here they are to remind us of a ruling family in some tin-pot dictatorship, like Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the Philippines, and while we can guess than Michelle doesn’t have 2700 pair of shoes, she does seem to have a thing for belts. I don’t believe the American people hired Barack Obama to provide a nutrition consultant in the form of his wife, and I don’t think the American people need any more lectures on the evils of oil. It’s long past time for these two to leave the White House, and be stricken from the American memory in the same way we have tried to forget James and Rosalyn Carter.

The next time I see Michelle Obama doing anything athletically, gracefully, and with extraordinary discipline, it will be the first, but until then, she should leave the nutritional concerns of our Olympians, our soldiers, and indeed our entire nation to qualified parties. When I notice how emaciated Barack appears, I wonder how well she’s looking after her own family’s nutrition. In stark contrast, like the champion she is, Gabby Douglas handled the situation with good humor, and her gracious approach sits well with her Olympic achievement. It’s too bad we don’t have a First Lady with similar grace and class.

mcdonalds7

Let us also remember that McDonald’s is a huge multi-national (CFR elitist company) sponsor of and contributor to the Olympics… But can you really take their money and demonize them at the same time?

Related:

More Fruit, Fewer Fries: Michelle Obama Might Have Taken the ‘Happy’ Out of McDonald’s Happy Meals

Food Fights and Class Warfare

Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption

OBESITY CONSPIRACY: The U.S. Government Scandal that's Really Making You Fat

Health department raids community picnic and destroys all food with bleach

Deal-making, arm-twisting, and sellouts

Friday, March 9, 2012

Simple Guidebook Designed by a Registered Dietitian for WalMart Shopping - Please Vote

Eat Healthy by Shopping at Walmart

Please vote for the nutrition guidebook created for Walmart's Get on the Shelf competition by a the daughter of a good friend of ours!

If she wins her product/book will be put on Walmart's shelves. The voting dates for the first round of voting are from March 7th to April 3rd and you are allowed to vote once a day.

Her guidebook "Eat Healthy by Shopping at Walmart" is posted at http://www.getontheshelf.com/product/3805/Eat-Healthy-by-Shopping-. Below is a video posted that describes her product with instructions on how to vote. You can either vote through Facebook or text 3805 to 383838.

Video: Vote to Get on the Shelf

Vote by SMSVote using Facebook

Share on Twitter Pin It Share on Facebook Share via Email

In the entrant's words:

A simple guidebook designed by a registered dietitian to show shoppers that with some planning and preparation they can maintain a healthy diet by taking advantage of the convenience and low prices offered by Walmart.

Source: Getontheshelf

Young entrepreurs are our future and eating better (cheaply) should be all our goal for our health as well as the health of our pocketbooks in the present economy.

Thanks in advance for your votes!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

A Warrior of fitness named Jack

So Fair D-Boy or DevGru operator; ODA  member or SEAL;  PJ or  MARSOC  man; MSST Guardsman  or   Force Marine.. Let alone you other fit HRT,    Secret Service and Agency SAD types... Think your fairly fit ? Hmmm?

clip_image001

When it comes to fitness and Longevity  who is tops,  just know that the late great  Francois Henri "Jack" LaLanne (September 26, 1914 - January 23, 2011) was an American fitness, exercise, and nutritional expert and motivational speaker who is sometimes called "the godfather of fitness" and the "first fitness superhero.

He was a honorable serving sailor with  U.S. Navy in World War  II and a special force in physical nature. Due to an accident in his teens leaving him with a bum knee,  he could not do a full squat.  Though he so impressed the doctors with his push-ups and handstands , skirted by the induction medical personnel and gained an enlistment. looked like a body builder his 3 hour daily regime was not about steroids and showing off.  he regularly did  hi rep weight  circuits with double his body weight until he was into his late seventies. He influenced a whole lot of American citizens to be fit and American operators to be fitter and eat better. He was unbeatable at what he preached and did. SEALs talk of their Rudy Boesch as the fittest frogman to span many decades of SEAL operating;  Like Rudy,  Jack LaLanne's humility did not have him boast of his feats -- though no one ever out did jack in push-ups of any kind!  Even then he think of thought of his old training buddy the also late, great Walt Stack as the fittest man ( see interview with Jack in Playboy magazine  mid 1980's  where he refers to the late great Walt Stack as the fittest man..)

Nevertheless, Jack outlived outlived Walt -  and while he aged,  Jack's feats surpassed  most of the fittest special operators, SEALs and PJ's included. So when you throw in the towel for retirement at 38 step up to the plate and see if youc an maintain what he did until  ages 70...and 96 years old.  

  • 1954 (age 40): swam the entire length (8,981 ft/1.7 mi) of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, under water, with 140 pounds (64 kg; 10 st) of air tanks and other equipment strapped to his body; a world record.
  • 1955 (age 41): swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco while handcuffed. When interviewed afterwards he was quoted as saying that the worst thing about the ordeal was being handcuffed, which significantly reduced his chance to do a jumping jack.
  • 1956 (age 42): set a world record of 1,033 push-ups in 23 minutes on You Asked For It,[31] a television program hosted by Art Baker.
  • 1957 (age 43): swam the Golden Gate channel while towing a 2,500-pound (1,100 kg; 180 st) cabin cruiser. The swift ocean currents turned this one-mile (1.6 km) swim into a swimming distance of 6.5 miles (10.5 km).
  • 1958 (age 44): maneuvered a paddleboard nonstop from Farallon Islands to the San Francisco shore. The 30-mile (48 km) trip took 9.5 hours.
  • 1959 (age 45): did 1,000 star jumps and 1,000 chin-ups in 1 hour, 22 minutes and The Jack LaLanne Show went nationwide.
  • 1974 (age 60): For the second time, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf. Again, he was handcuffed, but this time he was also shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat.
  • 1975 (age 61): Repeating his performance of 21 years earlier, he again swam the entire length of the Golden Gate Bridge, underwater and handcuffed, but this time he was shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat.
  • 1976 (age 62): To commemorate the "Spirit of '76", United States Bicentennial, he swam one mile (1.6 km) in Long Beach Harbor. He was handcuffed and shackled, and he towed 13 boats (representing the 13 original colonies) containing 76 people.[32]
  • 1979 (age 65): towed 65 boats in Lake Ashinoko, near Tokyo, Japan. He was handcuffed and shackled, and the boats were filled with 6,500 pounds (2,900 kg; 460 st) of Louisiana Pacific wood pulp.[33]
  • 1980 (age 66): towed 10 boats in North Miami, Florida. The boats carried 77 people, and he towed them for over one mile (1.6 km) in less than one hour.
  • 1984 (age 70): handcuffed, shackled, and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 rowboats, one with several guests, from the Queen's Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 mile

( For the record: as a fit warrior , the  father of Special Forces, Aaron Bank, after he retired at age 50 ...swam  in the ocean around San Clemente, Ca.  Pier near daily until he was 75, going on  to live and worked out till 101  fit as a fiddle )  So keep it up Operators!