James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

The term comes bearing a certain promise outlined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but have we wrongly translated organic from “grown without pesticides” to “more nutritious and delicious?”

If someone were to ask why you threw organic tomatoes into your basket at the store, you might respond that organic is safer for you and your family. If pressed, factors like taste, texture and nutrition might also pop up in the discussion. But is that even correct?

.

.

.

Click the link below for article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

As an average consumer, you probably have a vague awareness of the nutritional value of your animal proteins — fish being better than red meat, for example. The issue can be complicated, because all animal proteins have pros and cons, research can come up with conflicting results, and studies can surprise us. For example, research suggests that in terms of cholesterol alone, eating white meat chicken is as bad for you as eating beef.

Still, there’s a generally agreed upon hierarchy of nutritional value when it comes to animal protein and small shifts in your diet might have greater effects than you realize. In a study of the Danish population, researchers found that Danes could gain more than 7,000 years of healthy life annually if they ate the recommended quantity (12 ounces per week) of fish, while at the same time replacing red and processed meats in their diet. 

“It’s important to note that there is no one-size-fits-all healthier diet or meat per se,” said Janese Laster, a physician nutrition specialist in the District. Also crucial? “There are differences in farming practices, so throughout the United States, each person is getting different risks and benefits from the meats.” Keeping that in mind, here are some conclusions that can be made about different categories of animal protein, starting with the good. 

.

(iStock)

.

.

Click the link below for article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Trust me, I understand—in theory—that I should be stronger. Yes, I’m an aerobic beast (or an aerobic addict, if you prefer), but I’m not oblivious to the benefits of having a reasonable amount of muscle. When I play the “look, you’re touching the ceiling!” game with my 18-month-old, I’d prefer that she get bored before I have to admit that Daddy can’t military-press her anymore. And I’m hoping that 20 years from now I’ll still be able to push myself out of an armchair without help.

But there’s a gap between “should” and “do.” This gap is one of the most vexing riddles in public health, and even people like me, who spend their days telling other people what they should be doing, aren’t immune to it. For that reason, I’m always eager for reminders of what’s at stake—and two new papers offer some eye-opening insights into the benefits of strength training, even for people who consistently blow the aerobic exercise guidelines out of the water.

.

.

.

Click the link below for article:

.

__________________________________________