Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Rating Supermarket Foods - 3 stars is Healthier

Hannaford Guides Consumers

From Adbusters #74, Nov-Dec 2007
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/74/Hannaford_Guides_Consumers.html

The Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain developed a formula based on 21 measures, from calcium to fat to sodium, to rate the nutritional value of 27,000 products. Three stars are awarded to its healthiest products and zero to products that did not meet certain standards. Almost eighty percent of the products rated did not receive any stars.

The clear winners: fresh fruit and vegetables. All received three stars.

altOther high scorers included pasta (88 percent of the products reviewed earned stars), cereals (55 percent) and seafood – 43 percent of those items snagged at least one star, and salmon earned three. By comparison, the high sodium content of canned soup meant that just 12 percent of the rated items earned one star or more. About a quarter of meat products got at least a single star; boneless, skinless chicken breasts won three.

Soft drinks received no stars. Bakery products also didn’t fare well: just seven percent earned even one star. Cookies, cakes and pies had too much added fat and sugar and not enough fiber. Bread often scored too high on sodium to earn any stars.

In the dairy case, skim milk earned three stars, whole milk got none (due to its fat content) while one percent milk snagged two stars. Nonfat, plain yogurt also earned three stars, but most other yogurt received none because of too much added sugar. Eggs went unstarred, although egg substitutes, which are low in cholesterol, often earned a star or more. Margarine was not rated, but it may be assessed in the second phase of the program. Butter earned no stars.

For the last 50 years, large food corporations set the agenda on what kind of products end up on supermarket shelves and in the kitchen pantry for millions of people. Trans-fats, preservatives, processed edibles of all kinds were introduced not to respond to consumer demand, but to provide longer shelf life for food suppliers. Today, a small chain of grocers called Hannaford is reversing the tide, with a nutrition system that gives consumers a quick, non-biased rating of the healthiness of the foods they purchase. Their “Guiding Stars” nutrition system has led to consumer groups hailing them as “heroes,” and has put big food companies against the ropes for selling “health-conscious” foods that don’t deliver what they promise.

Hannaford began the Guiding Stars effort to help consumers navigate the aisles for healthy products, much like travelers used stars in the past to guide their travels. Using a mathematical formula that scored food on positive traits (vitamins and minerals, fiber and whole grains) as well as negative (trans-fats, saturated fat, cholesterol, added sodium and sugars), Hannaford’s team of nutritionists devised a three-star system to rate their products. Products were given one star (good nutritional value), two stars (better nutritional value) or three (best nutritional value). Of the 27,000 products surveyed, a surprising 77 percent of them received zero stars; among them were foods that are advertised as being good for you.

Companies like Campbell’s were quick to defend themselves when products in their Healthy Request line of soup received zero stars. “We don’t like the idea that there are good and bad foods out there,” said John Faulkner, director of brand communication at Campbell Soup Company in The New York Times. Calling the Guiding Stars an “arbitrary grading system,” he insisted that his company’s soup aligned with the government’s definition of healthy food. A. Elizabeth Sloan, president of Sloan Trends, also commented that it was unrealistic for the manufacturers to remove all the fat, sugar and salt because nobody would buy the result. “Look at all those super-duper healthy products that are in those healthy food stores. They don’t taste good.”

Marion Nestle, food guru and a professor of nutrition at New York University, feels that the abysmal marks given by Hannaford reveal “what happens when an independent group sets the criteria.” As evidence of the system’s lack of bias, most of Hannaford’s own store-branded products received no stars. Nestle told Adbusters that while Hannaford’s system is difficult to know because the company has not made the criteria public, she supports the store’s initiative. “I like the Guiding Stars idea in principle,” she commented, “and I think it could be really useful particularly because the criteria – whatever they are – must be really strict. I am most curious to know whether the system encourages healthier choices.” Nestle will be meeting with a member of Hannaford later this year to discuss the results of their program.

The publicity generated by the Guiding Stars is putting the heat on other distributors to label the health value of their products. Already, with the move toward local and organic food, consumer demand has swayed big food distributors to providing better food for the masses. Several companies, including Wegman’s, Kroger and heb have started their own versions of this type of program, albeit with different guidelines. Even if you don’t shop at one of the 150 Hannaford grocery stores in the us, it may not be long before every store boasts a similar system – completely independent of influence from manufacturers – that helps people distinguish the real healthy foods from those that only claim healthiness on the label. With the Hannaford Guiding Stars lighting the way, consumers are already on the path toward taking back control of what they eat.

_Jenny Uechi



Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
-
Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Genes & Cells Affected By Thoughts - Genes Do NOT Control - Environment & Beliefs/Perceptions Influence

From the Better Humans Webpage:
http://www.betterhumans.com/

The Effect Of Thoughts On The Body
http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/16774.aspx

Here are two lectures by Bruce Lipton (http://www.brucelipton.com/) click on the links and watch the videos. Lots of details that show genes do not determine how humans and other organisms work. Which means humans have much more influence over themselves than science has yet to admit against ever more evidence showing past hypothesises about genetic control are dead wrong.


Watch the last part of the 2nd webpage if the long winded details are too much. Then back up to learn a bit more.

Bruce's beliefs may well be as inaccurate as the bypothesises that have been shown to be inaccurate.
Knowing that old beliefs are not accurate doesn't mean the new ones are accurate. I doubt that all of his speculations have or will pan out.

Knowing that beliefs can be changed, that beliefs can cause considerable harm or can be helpful, opens up many more healthy possibilities.

If nothing else letting go of beliefs that are no longer useful can allow vast changes in ones life.


---
1. How DNA works - environmental signals activate the dna (blueprints) - behavior is created by perception, each cell has a brain, perceptions may not be accurate eg an unfounded belief - use it or loose it - the belief of aging will kill you -
http://www.eruptingmind.com/positive-thoughts-health/

accurate perceptions that are in line with what is healthful and what is possible in the environment can be life nurturing
dysfunctional beliefs that are not healthful or are not possible in the environment can be harmful to life


2. The universe is made of energy (Energetics, Wholistic, Uncertainty) - it is not only physical matter (Materialism, reductionism, determinism).
http://www.eruptingmind.com/how-thoughts-effect-body/
---


Notice what beliefs attempt to determine your behaviors. What beliefs/perceptions would you choose if you set aside the beliefs that were imported into you by culture, society, advertising, education etc etc.

Stress is a primary mechanism that allows cancer causing hormones to be influenced.
Energy healing is more affective than expected.

Cells move forward toward better health or retreat to protection or don't move. Both movements use energy. The more protection the less health. Can be so afraid that health shuts down.

Cells of a body work together as community. Stress reduces community.

Regulate stress for better health.

Reflex behavior reduces chances of intelligent decisions.


Adaptation/adjustments to stress can be a choice not random. Cells can actually choose to adjust to deal with stress - science used to say this was impossible.

Simultaneous creation and evolution.

Natural selection isn't what it was expected to be.

Body is saying deal with the stress - not cover up the symptoms. Covering up symptoms can be a disaster for a body.

The world has everything in it. Your beliefs generate perception of reality. Live in Fear - find fear. Live in belief of struggle - always fighting.

Brain waves sent out of body - broadcast. People interconnected by energy - power of prayer, power of hate -

Change beliefs, respond to the environment, can change your life as fast as you beliefs, you are not a victim since you can change your beliefs.

Turn off dysfunction beleifs. Watch your thoughts, create new thoughts, alter your environment.
Being powerful, being responsible ... much more than being determined by your genes, culture, society ...


From Bruce's website:

Insights into the Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Mind Over Genes

Bruce H. Lipton, PhD ©2007
http://www.brucelipton.com/

The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles is a book that brings attention to the amazing new awareness that is currently rewriting the science of biology and medicine. Until recently, conventional science has held that genes control life, a concept known as genetic determinism. While this disempowering belief is still held as truth by the mainstream public, leading edge research in the exciting new field of epigenetics reveals a completely different truth. Genes do not control life. It is the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment that controls gene activity. In the end, it comes down to a simple case of “mind over matter” in controlling the fate of our lives.


The Grand Convergence - Merging Science & Shamanism

Two events that are in-depth explorations of science, alchemy and shamanism:

Join Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. and Nicki Scully as they weave together science and spirituality in a dynamic presentation that may transform your core beliefs about reality. Bruce brings his extensive background in cellular biology, quantum physics, and consciousness. Nicki will apply her vast experience as a practioner of metaphysics, Alchemical Healing, shamanic traditions and ancient Egyptian mystical arts.




Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
-
Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World


Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Carcinogens in cosmetics Petrochemicals in perfume A Toxic Reality

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products.

there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue

I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.
+++



I'll Have My Cosmetics with a Side of Infertility, Please

By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2007.


Author Stacy Malkan reveals the dangerous truth about everyday products we put in our hair and on our skin.

Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.

In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.

In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.

AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.

Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?

Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?

It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.

It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.

Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?

Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.

As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?

There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.

Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?

That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.

In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?

Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion.

So it's not just a makeup problem.

No, it's not just a makeup problem. It's all products. And we know that some chemicals in these products are particularly problematic for men. We're all exposed to phthalates, and phthalates interfere with the production of testosterone, and they're linked to health effects like lower sperm counts, birth defects of the penis, testicular tumors.

You've had to struggle with some scary health problems. Tell us about that.

Like many of us, I've had bizarre health problems that nobody can explain: benign lumps in my breasts and thyroid, which is quite common among young women to have thyroid problems. And then also infertility, which is something that's becoming an increasingly common experience for people. And so many of us have heard from our doctors, "Well, we don't know why; we can't tell you why." But I think that's an interesting disconnect that we're looking at how to treat disease, but we're not looking at how to prevent disease.

You admit in the book that you used to be addicted to makeup and so-called personal care products. Do you think that could be related to the health issues you've had?

Well, who knows, and we can never say what caused what and so that's why risk assessment is not a useful tool to -- how do I want to say this -- that's why, in my opinion, we need to get rid of toxins wherever we possibly can in makeup, shampoo and lipstick is obviously a place where they don't need to be. But, yes, I did use a lot of cosmetic products -- 200 chemicals a day just in those products. And I also grew up in a very industrialized neighborhood near one of the largest incinerators in Massachusetts, near oil refineries. And we really didn't talk about these issues at all.

Do you think part of the problem with creating awareness around this issue is that the effects from toxins are often not that immediate? People don't say, Oh, I've been to this toxic site and now I have a rash all over my body.

Right, and that's what we hear from the cosmetics companies when they say, "Well, my product is safe if used as directed, and you can't prove otherwise." Which is true. We can't say that use of X product led to X disease because we're talking about long-term diseases with contributing factors. Doctors usually can't tell us why we got cancer, because it could be due to multiple factors in our pasts. We also know that exposures during critical windows of development -- babies in the womb, even teenagers -- can lead to later-life diseases.

Can you give me an idea of how many chemicals one product can contain? Earlier you said you were exposed to 200 chemicals a day during your youth, but that's not all from one product.

No, I used about 20 products a day. The average woman in the U.S. according to our survey uses 12 products a day with about 180 chemicals. And men use about six products with 80 chemicals combined. But it depends on the product. Some products have dozens of chemicals -- fragrances can have dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that aren't listed on the label. And even fragrance-free products can have a masking fragrance.

Talk a little about the history of the cosmetics industry. When did it come about and why is it so unregulated?

The cosmetics industry has fought really hard to keep itself unregulated for the last 30 years. It was first regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. That is a 350-page law with about 1.5 pages that address cosmetics. But it didn't give the FDA the power to require testing (cosmetic) products before they go on the market. The FDA can't require follow-up health monitoring; they can't even recall products. Basically, the FDA has to prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take action. There were several attempts to regulate the industry over the years, and the most well-known was in the 1970s with Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. He proposed that cosmetics should be regulated more like drugs, where there's a rigorous testing protocol that has to happen before products go on the market, but that was shot down and co-opted. What the industry has done is propose voluntary regulations every time a regulatory threat arises. And so the system that we have now is an industry-sponsored and run panel called the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board, which is in charge of determining the safety of ingredients in cosmetics. We found lots of problems with that panel. They rushed through ingredients quickly, they hadn't looked at most of the ingredients or actually used these products and, most of the time, they find things to be safe. Even when they do make recommendations to restrict or eliminate ingredients, the industry is free to ignore them and sometimes does.

You say in the book that some companies have different formulations of the same products. Some, with harmful toxins removed, go to Europe, and others, with toxins, go to the U.S. Why is that?

Well, it's outrageous, but Europe has much better health protection laws, and they really take a precautionary approach. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and so they take a precautionary approach by saying, "We know these chemicals are hazardous." Nobody argues about that. Instead of arguing about at what level are they safe in products, we need to take them out of the products and figure out how to make products without them. The United States, on the other hand, says, "We need to be able to prove that an ingredient in this product causes harm before we're going to do anything about it. Consequently, there are lots of known toxins in consumer products. It's not just cosmetics. Another example is formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets -- perfectly legal in the United States. You can buy kitchen cabinets, and they're wafting the carcinogen formaldehyde into your kitchen. You can't sell those cabinets in Europe, in Japan, even in China.

Is it really expensive for companies to reformulate their products to remove toxic chemicals?

It's not expensive to reformulate; many companies have already done it because they had to do it if they want to sell in the European market.

When did you begin working on cosmetic issues? How has the industry changed since then? What's the future outlook?

Well, we started the cosmetics campaign in 2002, when we were concerned about phthalates and found out they were in the majority of cosmetic products. At that time, we started to contact companies to try to have a dialogue with them about the chemicals they were using. ... Overall, I would say the mainstream companies have been incredibly resistant to any kind of change, but we have seen a big change in some products in the last few years. Because Europe banned phthalates, we were able to use that to pressure companies to remove phthalates from some U.S. products, particularly nail products. So we've seen a major shift in the formulation of nail products in the last few years because of the campaign (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalates have been removed from most nail products). So, it's possible that companies can change. They are changing, but not enough and not fast enough.

One thing that struck me about this book is that it's not just a story about cosmetic hazards. It's a story about activism. What was the thinking behind that?

Well, activism is fun, first of all. I think it's the best job in the world. And the inspiring stories from so many people from moms to former models who are speaking out, to the teenagers who have lobbied in Sacramento to get bills passed and now realize they have a political voice that they want to keep using, to nurses who have come together to pressure companies to pass protective policies. I think that's all so positive, and I think that people are coming together in ways that we haven't before.

What practical advice can you give to people wanting to clean up their cosmetics bags?

My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products. For instance, hair color and bubble bath are two things that I've given up. But there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue, experiment with different kinds of natural products and just make changes as you can. You can also use the skin deep database to research your products. ... The onus at this point is on consumers to do our own research.

Anything else you'd like to add?

I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.

To learn more and take action, visit safecosmetics.org. To find out what toxins are in your personal care products, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org. And to buy the book, check out notjustaprettyface.org.



Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
-
Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World


GETTING LEAD OUT OF YOUNG MAY HAVE CAUSED DROP IN CRIME

Lead exposure, crime seem to correlate
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-28-lead-crime_N.htm?csp=34&loc=interstitialskip
 
Updated 1d 14h ago | Comments3 | Recommend 
 CRIME RATES RISE, FALL WITH LEAD LEVELS
/news/_photos/2007/10/28/lead_crime_va.gif

For decades, researchers have known that lead poisoning lowers children's IQs and puts them at risk for severe learning disabilities and more impulsive, sometimes violent behavior. New research increasingly suggests that lead also affects long-term juvenile and adult crime rates.

Among the most startling findings: a pair of studies by economist Rick Nevin that suggest the nation's violent-crime rate in the second half of the 20th century is closely tied to the widespread consumption of leaded gasoline. Its gradual demise in the 1970s, he says, did more to stop violent crime among people who came of age in its wake than any social policy.

The sharp drop in violent crime in the 1990s has been attributed to the dot-com boom, more police on the streets and, with a measure of controversy, to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Nevin, a consultant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, began comparing leaded-gas consumption through the 20th century with FBI crime statistics.

Researchers already knew lead inhibits children's ability to control impulses. They also knew that people exposed to lead as youngsters were more likely to have both juvenile and adult criminal records.

Nevin wondered whether millions of people exposed as babies to higher levels of lead through car exhaust would commit more violent crimes than those exposed to lower levels.

He found a "stunning" fit, he says. The trend lines match almost perfectly: Leaded-gas use climbed in the 1940s and fell in the early 1970s; 23 years later, rates for violent crime followed in near unison. He also studied lead-paint levels from 1879 over the next 60 years, matching them to murder rates from 1900 to 1959.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: IQS

Nevin published his work in the journal Environmental Research in 2000; health advocates embraced the findings.

But Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says there are many more factors to consider — economic trends, incarceration policies and policing strategies, among others — before researchers can tie long-term violence levels and lead so closely.

"There is probably a real correlation, but we simply don't know if there is a real causal connection," he says. "It hasn't been proved, as far as I'm concerned."

Nevin says a study published in April ties lead exposure and crime in nine nations. "In light of all the other research, we should have a new sense of urgency about eliminating the remaining risk of lead-paint hazards," he says.



Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
-
Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World


Saturday, October 27, 2007

Longevity - World Wide Commonality - Plant Based Diet, Legumes, Physical Activity, No Smoking, Family, Social Engagement

Longevity Secrets

http://www.bluezones.com/live-longer-better/longevity-secrets/

National Geographic writer Dan Buetter explored three areas in the world where people live the longest: Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; and Loma Linda, California. Below is a summary of his secrets. 

bz_photo9.gif


































Simple Secrets of a Long & Healthy Life

By Tom Venuto
Co-author of Fit Over 40
http://www.mindpowernews.com/SecretsLongerLiving.htm

Hello! This is Tom Venuto here, co author of the best selling ebook, Fit Over 40: Role-Models For Excellence At Any Age.

As I was standing at the newsstand today, I couldn't help but notice the headline on the cover of the latest issue of National Geographic:

"The Secrets Of Living Longer"

As I flipped through the cover story feature inside, two photographs really got my attention...

"Who You Calling Old?" says the caption under a photograph of Frank Shearer, age 100, as he kicks up the spray water skiing near his home in Washington State.

Also inside (and on the cover) is a photograph of 84 year old Okinawan Fumiyasu Yamakawa standing on his head in a Yoga posture. The story explains that this is part of his training for his annual decathalon (where his favorite events are pole vault and high jump).

As I continued to read, the parallels between this story and the findings Jon and I uncovered when we were doing research and interviews for our Fit Over 40 book were striking.

Geographic writer Dan Buettner posed the question, "What if I said you could add up to ten years to your life?"

Great question, isn't it?

The fact is, there are simple steps you can take to dramatically increase the probability that you will live a longer and healthier life. Lifelong fitness and health are not accidents. Genetics help, but lifestyle choices under your control are far more important.

Although the "secret to long life" still seems to be a mystery to many, the truth is, it's a fairly simple matter and more people are coming to agreement about how it is done.

In the National Geographic story, journalist Dan Buetter wrote about the research that has been done in recent years to uncover the keys to longevity in three of the healthiest, most long lived groups in the world: the Okinawans, Adventists (of California) and the Sardinians.

These groups boast a higher rate of centenarians and suffer a much lower incidence of degenerative diseases that kill thousands of people in other parts of the industrialized world.

Sardinia, an Italian island with a population of 1.6 million, has the world's highest percentage of people who have reached the 100-year-old mark. Five of the world's 40 oldest people live in Sardinia and some 135 people per million live to see their 100th birthday, (the western average is closer to 75).

Comparing the Sardinians to the other two groups, there were many differences in backgrounds and beliefs, some as diverse as vegetarian diets to higher fat and protein "mediterranean" diets. However, there were striking similarities across all three groups.

Let's look at some of them.

Basic Similarities of Groups With Healthy Longevity

Okinawans

  • Keep lifelong friends
  • Eat small portions (low calories/don't overindulge)
  • Eat fish
  • Stay physically active & keep working
  • Find purpose in life

Adventists

  • Eat nuts, beans, grains, fruits and vegetables
  • Do not s moke
  • Obeserve the Sabbath
  • Have faith in a higher power
  • Strong social and family ties

Sardinians

  • Drink red wine (in moderation)
  • Devotion to family
  • Eat high omega 3 foods (pecorino cheese for example)
  • Stay physically active and never stop working

All three groups:

  • Do not smoke
  • Put family first
  • Get physical activity every day
  • Stay socially engaged
  • Eat fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and whole grains

Could It Possibly Be That Simple?

So that's it? Those are the secrets to long life? Could it possibly be that simple? What about research in genetics? Haven't there been some breakthroughs in high tech laboratories? What about pharmaceuticals? Have any new drugs been developed that add years to your life without side effects? Isn't supplement science advancing by leaps and bounds? Isn't there something more "cutting edge?"

After all, you've heard this type of simple, "trite" advice since you were a kid; this is nothing new, so it couldn't be of any consequence, right?

Well, perhaps there is far more to it than these simple lifestyle factors, but while the scientists are busy in their laboratories looking for "Big breakthoughs" (which they can SELL for BIG $$$$$), could these simple steps be a good place for all of us to start?

Could we look at people who are walking, talking, living breathing role models of health and longevity excellence and simply do what they do?

ARE YOU CURRENTLY DOING WHAT THEY DO?

  • Are you physically active - consistently, year round, year after year?
  • Are you a non smoker?
  • Do you eat fruits, vegetables and whole grains?
  • Do you control stress?

If not, how could you expect the same results in your life, (unless you are one of the few lucky, genetically blessed ones?) In Fit Over 40, Jon Benson and I set out to do something similar to what the anti aging researchers did in Okinawa, Sardinia and California on an even more practical level and with greater emphasis on the important physical activity and nutritional factors which contribute so heavily to making you look and feel younger.

The simple process of "modeling" is the investigative tool that enabled us to trace the effect of longevity back to its causes.

Jon and I researched, profiled and interviewed more than 50 men and women over age 40 who had achieved remarkable health and fitness, often against incredible odds (such as terrible genetics, open heart surgery, paralysis, multiple sclerosis or diabetes), across a wide variety of demographics and personal backgrounds.

As in the three groups profiled in the National geographic story, there were differences in the role models we studied as well, but, again, there were resounding similarities.

Let's compare this to some of our own findings from Fit Over 40

What our 50 over 40 role models had in common:

  • Eat natural foods including fruits, vegetables whole grains along with lean proteins
  • Eat good fats (omega 3)
  • Eat small portions frequently (5-6 meals per day compared to 3 large ones or skipping meals)
  • Stay physically active
  • Participate in some type of strength training program, most often, weight training

In Fit Over 40, We delved even deeper into the lifestyles and mindsets of the fit and ageless. We discovered that there are numerous beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that are almost always found in men and women over age 40 who are extraordinarily fit and healthy.

I listed 18 of them alltogether in my chapter of Fit Over 40 called, "The Excellence Mindset." Here are just a few of them, most of which, match up with the results of the studies on the Okinawans, Sardinians and Adventists. (To see them all 18 of them, be sure to grab a copy of Fit Over 40).

  • I value and enjoy good friendships, and I will continue making new friends
  • I have a strong sense of purpose and meaning in my life (I have connected with my core values)
  • I stay busy working or engaged in something that brings me satisfaction
  • I cope well with stress
  • I laugh a lot and have a great sense of humor
  • I let go of resentments and forgive everyone for everything

The bottom line, and grand conclusion we can draw from of all this is:

"Success leaves clues," as Tony Robbins likes to say.

It's not a mystery anymore - we already know how to live a long and healthy life: You don't need to dig through the latest research or wait for the next "breakthrough"; All you have to do is find and Model real people who have already done it!

Longevity researchers have studied three groups of people from diverse cultures and backgrounds, all of which have extraordinary health and longevity, and found that they all have certain things in common. You can duplicate these things in your own life

In Fit Over 40, Jon and I studied more than 50 exemplars of health, fitness and longevity and we found the same thing: Dozens of men and women from diverse backgrounds, achieved extraordinary health and fitness from age 40 to age 80+, and again, they all had certain things in common, you we can duplicate these things in your own life!

By studying what they did and duplicating it in your own life could you add ten years to your life? If you're suffering from obesity, fatigue or health problems, could you begin to feel better, look better and turn your life around, starting today?

Why not put some of these simple and proven keys to health and longevity to work in your own life - today - and find out?

Until next time, A kent'annos!

That's the Sardinian greeting (and toast), that means, "May you live to be 100!"

Sincerely.
Tom Venuto
Co-author, Fit Over 40


Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
-
Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World