Why You Should Ditch Sugar In Favor of Honey

While honey and sugar share similar degrees of sweetness, the differences in the way our bodies respond to them are profound.

Technically, honey and sugar (sucrose) both exist because they are food for their respective species.
In the case of sugarcane, a member of the the grass family (Poaceae) which includes wheat, maize and rice, sucrose provides energy for its leaves and is an easily transportable source of energy for other parts of the plant, such as the root, that do not produce their own energy.
Honey, of course, is produced by bees from the nectar of flowers solely for the purpose of food.

Beyond this obvious similarity, the differences between honey and sugar, however, are much more profound.

First, honey is a whole food and sucrose is not.  In other words, sucrose is an isolate – technically only one chemical compound – lifted from a background of hundreds of other components within the whole plant, whereas honey is composed of an equally complex array of compounds, many of which are well-known (including macronutrients and micronutrients, enzymes, probiotics and prebiotics, etc.), others whose role is still completely a mystery.

Even the "sugar" in honey, which we might mistakenly equate (due to caloric and nutrient classification equivalencies) to the "sugar" from sugarcane, is a complex mixture of the monosacharrides (one-sugars) glucose and fructose, and at least 25 different oligosaccharides (which are sugars composed of between two to ten monosaccharides linked together), including small amounts of the disacchardide sucrose, as well as trisaccharides (three-sugars) like melezitose and erlose.[i]

Interestingly, if you were to isolate out the fructose from honey, and consume it in isolation in American-size doses (over two ounces a day), it would likely contribute to over 70 fructose-induced adverse health effects; primarily insulin resistance, fatty liver, obesity, hypertension and elevated blood sugar. But place that fructose back into the complex nestled background of nutrient chemistries we call honey, and the fructose loses its monochemical malignancy to our health. Food is the ultimate delivery system for nutrition. Reduce whole foods to parts, and then concentrate and consume them excessively, and you have the recipe for a health disaster that we can see all around us today in the simultaneously overnourished/malnourished masses who still think a 'calorie is a calorie,' and a 'carb is a carb,' without realizing that the qualitative differences are so profound that one literally heals, while the other literally kills.

But the differences between honey and sugar are not simply based on their respective chemical and nutritional compositions, but also the length of time we humans have had to adapt to them as a source of energy and nourishment.

Honey was the primary concentrated sweetener consumed by humans until after the 1800's when industrial production of sugarcane-derived sugar was initiated.  While the first written reference to honey is found on a 4,000 year old Sumerian tablet,[ii] and depictions of humans seeking honey have been found in cave paintings at in Spain that are at least 8,000 years old, we can assume that our love affair with the sweet stuff graciously provided by the bee goes back much further, perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago.

Regardless of the exact date of its introduction into our diet, from the perspective of evolutionary biology and nutrition, it is clear that our body has had infinitely more time to adapt to honey than sugar.  It is instructive, as well, that sugarcane is in the same grass family whose seeds in the form of "cereal grains" we now consume in such plenty that, arguably, we are now slowly digging our graves with our teeth (particularly, our grain-grinding molars). After all, we have only been consuming them for 10-20,000 years, and in some cases less than 10 generations - a nanosecond in biological time, even if from the lived perspective of a single human lifespan, or even cultural time as a whole, it may seem like "forever."

For those skeptics who consider this reflection on the differences between honey and sugar mere theory, there is now plenty of clinical research confirming their significant differences.

A double-blind, randomized clinical study titled, "Effect of honey versus sucrose on appetite, appetite-regulating hormones, and postmeal thermogenesis," published in 2010 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, compared the effects of honey or sugar on appetite hormones (ghrelin, peptide YY) and glycemic and thermic effects after a meal, in 14 healthy, nonobese women.

The researchers found that the group given 450 calorie (kcal) honey in their breakfasts had "A blunted glycemic response may be beneficial for reducing glucose intolerance," and saw positive modulation of appetite hormones, i.e. delayed the postprandial ghrelin response and enhanced total peptide YY levels.[iii]

Another study published in Journal of Medical Food in 2004, which compared honey to dextrose and sucrose, found that natural honey was capable of lowering plasma glucose, C-reactive protein, homocysteine in healthy, diabetic and hyperlipidemic subjects.[iv]

Animal research also confirms that, when compared to sucrose, honey is more effective at promoting lower weight gain, adiposity (fat accumulation), and triglycerides.[v]

Why Consuming Honey Raw Is So Important

Raw honey contains enzymes and probiotics which are destroyed when heated or used in cooking applications.  These compounds are of no small significance and contribute directly or indirectly to honey's many well-known health benefits.  Take the active starch-digesting enzyme amylase, for instance, found only in the raw form of honey in a form known as diastase, which is believed to contribute to clearing antigen-antibody immune complexes associated with allergies to pollens, while also reducing mast cell degranulation associated with histamine, and related inflammatory hormone, release linked to allergic symptoms. Also, if it is local honey, it will pick up small amount of local pollen which may help to "immunize," or desensitize an overly active immune response to these environmental triggers. There is also the enzyme in raw honey known as glucose oxidase, which produces hydrogen peroxide and gluconic acid from glucose. The hydrogen peroxide formed as a result of this enzyme is associated with honey's well-known wound sterilizing and healing properties.

READ MORE: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-you-should-ditch-sugar-favor-honey

It’s official! Connecticut becomes first state to enact GMO labeling law!

Image: occupy.com

RT.com

The governor of Connecticut hosted a ceremonial signing outside an organic restaurant in the city of Fairfield on Wednesday to commemorate the state’s passing of what could be the first GMO labeling law of its type in the United States.

Voters in Connecticut decided back in June to approve a bill requiring that all foods meant for human consumption that contain genetically-modified ingredients be properly labeled. Unless some neighboring states in the region follow suit, however, the status of that law remains in limbo.

The Connecticut bill requires at least four other Northeastern states with a combined population of no fewer than 20 million to approve similar acts before it can officially go on the books. And while so far proponents of a GMO labeling initiative have found allies in one adjacent state, it could very well be a long-time coming before the proper support is rallied.

Voters in Maine have already elected to pass a near-identical measure, but residents in a region that includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont must come together to do the same in at least three other locales.

Outside the Catch A Healthy Habit restaurant in Fairfield on Wednesday, Gov. Dannel Malloy implored his counterparts to consider joining in their fight.

“I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require the labeling of GMOs,” Malloy said, according to Fairfield’s Daily Voice. “The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers’ right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action.”

Tara Cook-Littman, the director of GMO Free Connecticut, applauded the efforts by advocates in the state and country working towards new laws.

“As the catalyst for GMO labeling in the United States, Connecticut residents should feel proud,” she told reporters. “We are hopeful that legislators throughout the Northeast will follow the lead of Governor Malloy and all our legislative champions by passing laws that give consumers transparency in labeling. It is a great honor for all of us to stand with Governor Malloy as he signs the first in the nation GMO labeling law.”

More than 60 countries across the world have approved mandatory labeling laws for GMO foods already, and polling suggests that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of doing the same. So far, in fact, almost half of all US states have introduces bill that, if approved, would either require labeling of GMO foods or prohibit them altogether.

“Surveys have always found 80 to 95 percent of people wanting labeling,” Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen told the Rodale News health site back in April. “People are paying attention to food, and because of that they’re more interested in GMO issues and buying food that’s more local and food without pesticides and other added ingredients.”

Now with Connecticut taking the lead, Gov. Malloy hopes other states will do the same.

“This is a beginning, and I want to be clear what it is a beginning of,” he told the Fairfield Citizen before Wednesday’s event. “It is a national movement that will requiring (food) labeling.”

“People need to demand GMO labeling,” Malloy told WFSB News on the day of the ceremonial signing. “Some companies are doing this and we need to move in that direction.”

“This is the time,” he said to the Citizen. “You better get ready; people are coming and this is not a movement you are going to stop.”

Malloy was flanked by state lawmakers from both the right and the left at Wednesday’s event, and Republicans and Democrats alike are now aligning themselves in the fight.

“This bill moves forward and reinforces our fundamental right to know what is in our food so we can make informed choices about what we feed our families,” said Rep. Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield-Trumbull), according to reporter Christina Chiarelli. “Consumers may or may not wish to purchase foods that they know to be genetically modified, but they need the information made available to them to make those informed choices.”

“Passing this bill is courageous and monumental,” added Rep. Philip Miller (D-Essex). “It is an affirmation for healthy, sustainable agriculture and responsible stewardship of our food supply. The ever growing grassroots efforts of Connecticut citizens has come to fruition with the passing of this legislation. I thank Governor Malloy for being a champion of our right to participate in building our economy as fully informed consumers and citizens.”

Currently 15 nations in the European Union require labels on GMO products, and Zambia, Benin and Serbia have all instated prohibitions against products. Just earlier this week, China for the fifth time blocked a cargo shipment of US corn from entering the country, citing concerns of GMO contamination.

Source: RT.com

How to Make Organic Lotion Bars at Home

wellnessmama.com

I’ve finally reached a point where I make all of our toiletry products by hand. I’ve saved a lot of money doing this with bulk ingredients, and I love that I’m not putting any chemicals on my family’s skin. (Finally even replaced my make-up with homemade versions)

I’ve made lotion in the past, but was excited to stumble on this great variation, which is solid at room temperature and looks like a bar of soap. It is also even easier to make than lotion because it doesn’t require any emulsifying with water, which is the tough step. These are solid at room temperature like a bar of soap, but when rubbed on the skin, a tiny amount melts and is transferred to the skin, leaving a highly moisturizing and very thin layer.

There are endless variations on this lotion bar recipe too. You could add any mixture of essential oils, or add zinc oxide to make a diaper rash bar. I’ve also modified for a deodorant bar that is more like stick deodorant (that recipe coming soon) and travels well. I’m infusing oil for a neosporin imitation bar and my homemade sunscreen bars are drying now (I’ll post those too!).

These are fun presents, and could be made for baby shower gifts, birthdays, Christmas gifts, or for pregnant moms to use to prevent stretch marks. Did I mention it is super easy?

The Ingredients:

• 1 part coconut oil
• 1 part shea butter, cocoa butter or mango butter (or a mix of all three equal to 1 part) 
• 1 part beeswax (can add an extra ounce or two if you want a thicker consistency, which leaves less lotion on the skin when used)
• Optional: Vitamin E oil to preserve. I added 1 tsp vitamin E oil for  this recipe made with 1 cup of each ingredient)

This recipe can be adjusted to make any quantity that you’d like. I made with 1 part=1 cup so I used 1 cup of coconut oil, 1 cup beeswax and 1/3 cup each of shea butter, cocoa butter and mango butter (though I could have used 1 cup of any of the individual ones). I also added about 50 drops of lavender essential oil. I set them in silicon baking cups though any mold or shape would work. The recipe I used made exactly 12 lotion bars.

How to Make:

-Combine all ingredients (except essential oils if using) in a double boiler, or a glass bowl over a smaller saucepan with 1 inch of water in it. UPDATE: Combine in a quart size glass mason jar with a lid instead and place this in a small saucepan of water until melted. This will save your bowl and you can just designate this jar for these type of projects and not even need to wash it out…

-Turn the burner on and bring water to a boil. Stir ingredients constantly until they are melted and smooth:

-lotion bars recipe How to Make Lotion Bars Remove from heat and add the essential oils.

-Gently stir by hand until essential oils are incorporated.

-Carefully pour into molds or whatever you will be allowing the lotion bars to harden in. I used these silicon baking cups, though any mold would work.

-Allow the lotion bars to cool completely before attempting to pop out of molds. These could be made in different shaped molds for different holiday gifts (hearts for valentines, flowers for Mother’s day, etc.) or made in a square baking pan and then cut into actual bars.

Super Easy and only three ingredients! Ever used a lotion bar? Will you make these? Share below!

Source: wellnessmama.com

Renamed Aspartame Now Being Marketed as a Natural Sweetener

Artificial sweeteners especially aspartame has gotten a bad rap over the years, most likely due to studies showing they cause cancer. But not to worry Ajinomoto the company that makes

Aspartame has changed the name to AminoSweet. It has the same toxic ingredients but a nice new sounding name. And if you or your child happens to be allergic to Aspartame, well don’t take it personally it’s just business.

Despite the evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market . In continues to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.

Most consumers are oblivious to the fact that Aspartame was invented as a drug but upon discovery of its’ sweet taste was magically transformed from a drug to a food additive. HFA wants to warn our readers to beware of a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing or in this case Aspartame dressed up as Aminosweet.

Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.

Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.

G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the “habit of saying yes” and of encouraging a “subconscious spirit of participation” in getting the chemical approved.

G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.

In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the “questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety”. FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.

The details of aspartame’s history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency’s multi-million dollar approval process. Changing aspartame’s name to something that is “appealing and memorable”, in Ajinomoto’s own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company’s multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.

Source: http://worldtruth.tv/aspartame-has-been-renamed-and-is-now-being-marketed-as-a-natural-sweetener/

GMO linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans – report

Image: AFP Photo / Khaled Desouki

RT.com

Genetically modified foods such as soy and corn may be responsible for a number of gluten-related maladies including intestinal disorders now plaguing 18 million Americans, according to a new report released on Tuesday.

The report was released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and cites authoritative data from the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as international research.

“Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in death,” said Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT in a statement released on their website.

Smith cited how a “possible environmental trigger may be the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the American food supply, which occurred in the mid-1990s,” describing the nine GM crops currently on the market.

In soy, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa, “Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders,” according to Smith.


It’s the BT-toxin in genetically modified foods which kills insects by “puncturing holes in their cells.” The toxin is present in ‘every kernel’ of Bt-corn and survives human digestion, with a 2012 study confirming that it punctures holes in human cells as well.

The GMO-related damage was linked to five different areas: Intestinal permeability, imbalanced gut bacteria, immune activation and allergic response, impaired digestion, and damage to the intestinal wall.

The IRT release also indicated that glyphosate, a weed killer sold under the brand name ‘Roundup’ was also found to have a negative effect on intestinal bacteria. GMO crops contain high levels of the toxin at harvest.

“Even with minimal exposure, glyphosate can significantly reduce the population of beneficial gut bacteria and promote the overgrowth of harmful strains,” the report found.

Dr. Tom O’Bryan, internationally recognized expert on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease, says that “the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the last 17 years.”

Internist, Emily Linder, offered some backup for the report’s findings. She removed GMO from her patients’ diets, finding that recovery from intestinal diseases was faster and more complete.

“I believe that GMOs in our diet contribute to the rise in gluten-sensitivity in the US population,” Linder said in the release.

Source: RT.com

Why the Latest Attack on Multivitamins is Nothing More than Big Pharma Propaganda

Image: wikimedia.org

Mike Adams | Natural News

Today the mainstream media is gleefully reporting findings they mistakenly believe show all multivitamins to be worthless at preventing disease. "Case Closed: Multivitamins Should Not Be Used," declares Forbes. "New studies dispel multivitamin myths," reports NBC News. And CBS News shouts, "case is closed" after studies find no health benefits."

The problem with all these headlines is they're based on an editorial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a pro-pharma publication almost entirely funded by pharmaceuticals which compete with multivitamins. When I visited the study publication page on Annals.org, I was immediately greeted with a pop-up advertisement trying to hawk a pharmaceutical drug.

It's almost as if the pharma-funded publication is saying, "Here, while we trash the reputation of vitamins, why don't you buy some drugs from our sponsors?"

Why pharmaceuticals are never subjected to the same scrutiny as multivitamins

What the media doesn't report, of course, is that if pharmaceuticals were subjected to the same basic questions covered in this study -- do multivitamins enhance cognitive function? Do they prevent heart disease? -- pharmaceuticals would prove to be disastrous. They not only don't work; they also might kill you in the process of not working.

So why isn't the media reporting that the "case is closed" on how drugs and medications fail to prevent chronic degenerative disease?

The answer is because this scrutiny is reserved solely for nutritional supplements. In today's distorted system of quack medicine, junk science and pro-pharma propaganda, medications never have to be proven effective to be promoted and hyped. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever, for example, that chemotherapy prevents the progression of cancer (chemo actually causes more cancer), or that statin drugs enhance lifespan. There is no evidence whatsoever that ADHD drugs create healthy children or that antidepressants cure depression. Yet all these drugs are heavily hyped by medical journal (i.e. "drug journals") and the mainstream media without regard for their disastrous lack of efficacy and safety.

So there's a dangerous double standard in all this. Nobody asks whether drugs actually create health, but multivitamins are routinely subjected to intense scrutiny on this very question.

Studies were contrived through the use of synthetic vitamins

To make sure these multivitamin studies fail to produce positive results, these studies are universally structured so that they are based on cheap, low-grade, synthetic vitamins and inorganic minerals. Not coincidentally, these brands of low-grade multivitamins are actually manufactured by companies owned by pharmaceutical interests. They really do have a financial incentive to make multivitamins look bad, and so their multivitamin formulations are intentionally designed to fail.

The vitamin E studied in this science review, for example, was synthetic, isolated vitamin E which already has a long history of being toxic for human consumption. Note carefully that these researchers never looked at full-spectrum vitamin E, including the tocopherols, nor did they bother to study a food concentrate form of vitamin E (because it would have been amazingly beneficial to heart health).

If I wanted to make all cars look dangerous, I could buy a dozen old Ford Pinto cars, line them up bumper to bumper, fill them with gasoline and ram them together in a mock road accident that caused them all to explode. From that, I could declare, "All cars are unsafe!" even though I only tested the Pinto. That's the same as what's happening with these multivitamin studies. They intentionally choose the most toxic forms of synthetic nutrients, then they use the negative results to declare that all multivitamins are dangerous.

Beta carotene, too, was studied as a synthetic chemical in isolation, not as a food-sourced nutrient like you might find in carrots or squash. So what these studies really prove is only that synthetic chemical vitamins are toxic to human health.

Guess who makes all these synthetic chemical vitamins? Companies like Bayer and BASF, the same companies that also manufacture raw materials for pharmaceutical manufacturing.

How the media uses "nutritional misdirection" to trick the public into thinking nutrition is bad

The mainstream media, of course, is all too happy to use journalist tricks of misdirection and false implication to misinform the public about nutrition. In claiming that "multivitamins are worthless," they are utterly failing to differentiate between cheap, pharma-manufactured synthetic multivitamins versus high-quality food-based multivitamins that really do work to enhance human health and prevent disease.

You won't find these scientists testing high-quality supplements from Life Extension, for example. Those supplements would produce positive results, and that's not what the pro-pharma scientists running these contrived studies want to show.

You also won't find them studying superfood powders, whole food concentrates or food-based supplements like the ones produced by MegaFood. Those supplements contain food-based nutrients and organic minerals -- the kind of nutrients the human body expects to see in food intake. Those supplements produce phenomenal results for enhanced human health. Researchers who publish in pharma-funded science journals will never study high-end multivitamins and nutritional supplements for the simple reason that the results would be too positive!

Synthetic drugs are even more harmful to human health than synthetic vitamins

The bigger question in all this, however, is just how harmful synthetic drugs are to human health. If synthetic vitamins produce negative health outcomes, then synthetic drugs produce truly disastrous results. Many drugs can simply kill you outright.

Synthetic drugs -- including PPIs, blood pressure medications, diabetes drugs, statin drugs, Alzheimer's drugs, osteoporosis drugs and so on -- are specifically designed to interfere with human physiology. Their entire intent is to "block" some chemical process in the body and thereby attempt to control symptoms of disease (without actually addressing the root cause of disease).

High-quality supplements and superfoods, on the other hand, are designed to prevent the causes of disease before they ever become symptomatic. They treat the root causes, in other words, rather than the mere symptoms.

This is why high-end food-based supplements, superfoods, medicinal herbs and other food concentrates are so effective at preventing disease. Conversely, this is also why isolated chemical drugs are so terrible at the same thing. No drug actually reverses any disease. They merely mask symptoms while allowing the underlying causes of disease to worsen. This is easily demonstrated: if a person taking blood pressure medications stops taking those medications, their blood pressure suddenly rises. The medication never addressed the cause of high blood pressure; it merely artificially interfered with physiology in a way that created a contrived, temporary lowering of measurable blood pressure.

These drug-pushing scientists and science journals want you to take pharmaceuticals, not nutrition

Let's get down to the real motivation in all this, however. The Annals of Internal Medicine and the scientists behind this extremely deceptive junk science all share the same intention: they want you to trust in drugs, not multivitamins.

Their job is to discredit multivitamins while simultaneously brainwashing consumers into believing that drugs are somehow "vital nutrients" that they need to survive. That's the foundation of modern medicine, after all: you are an incomplete human being unless and until you undergo medical intervention with a vaccine, a psychiatric drug, a cancer treatment or some other chemical that thereby makes you "whole."

Modern reductionist medical science wants to push drugs as the new multivitamins, but to do that, they first have to discredit multivitamins. Once multivitamins have been destroyed, they can convince the public (with yet more quack science) that everybody needs a statin pill every day. Everyone needs to drink toxic fluoride to have healthy teeth. Everyone needs to be injected with mercury, aluminum and MSG in order to be immune to the flu.

That's the real con in all this: The attack on multivitamins sets the stage for the unveiling of a new wave of "daily drug vitamins" the industry will push on everyone: adults, children, senior citizens and even unborn babies.

The population, you see, is never sufficiently medicated (from the point of view of Big Pharma). Drug companies must find new ways to convince people they need more drugs even when they aren't sick! The way to accomplish this is to position medications as essential nutrients. That's what you are seeing unfold right now.

Remember, too, that these scientists also insist that food can't prevent disease. All food is worthless for medical purposes, they insist. Only patented pharmaceuticals can treat, cure or prevent any disease, they ridiculously claim.

That's their worldview: Nutrition is bad, organic food is bad and herbs are bad. What's good? Vaccines, GMOs, medications and chemotherapy. To these science quacks, everyone in America should stop consuming good nutrition and start popping more medications and lining up for vaccine injections. That's the pathway to good health, didn't you know?

Take the Health Ranger's advice

Want some real advice on all this? Here's my take:

• Avoid cheap, synthetic multivitamins and supplements. Don't swallow pills made by pharma companies. Avoid cheap minerals like calcium carbonate or magnesium oxide.

• EAT REAL FOOD. Whole food. Organic, non-GMO food. Your No. 1 best source of nutrition should always be food. Grow your own sprouts or garden and eat those foods. Buy foods from CSAs or local farmers' markets. Eating real food should always be your foundation for nutritional health.

• If you want to take supplements, invest in high-end, quality supplements based on food concentrates or food extracts. Nutrients derived from real food tend to be far healthier than synthetic nutrients.

• Consume superfoods daily for full-spectrum high-density nutrition. Each morning, I drink a blend of superfood powders with avocado, coconut water and hemp protein.

• Don't believe anything the mainstream media reports about nutrition. Mainstream media reporters are, by and large, outrageously ignorant about nutrition, isolated nutrients, whole foods, the games Big Pharma plays, the corruption of the science journals and so on. If you want to listen to someone who really knows nutrition, you need to find people who specialize in it (and who haven't sold out to the failed medical institutions of modern society).

Source: naturalnews.com

Easy and Natural Methods for Teeth Whitening

I remember the TV ad about the teacher who taught the kids about colors, and when she asked them what was the color of her teeth, they said yellow and beige but not white. Of course she was upset. Who wouldn’t be upset? Even if you maintain a perfect oral hygiene, the color of your teeth gradually darkens with age. However using natural methods, you can return your teeth to the perfect white color without going to the dentist.

White teeth and aesthetic mouth affect our overall appearance, the impression we leave, and our interpersonal communications. A study conducted in U.S. found that people with whiter and aesthetic smile are 30% more successful than people with a not perfect smile, get higher positions more easily, have higher confidence and radiate health and happiness.

But over the years, teeth may yellow or change color and lose their lustre and whiteness. The reasons are varied, including smoking, age, genetics, injury, bad fillings, root canals, lack of oral hygiene, consuming foods that stain the teeth like wine, coffee , tea and some spices, consumption of acidic beverages such as soda or citrus juices that erode the enamel, some antibiotic treatments in childhood and fluoride.
Methods that will help you get whiter teeth:

There are a variety of treatments and products for teeth whitening: You can have teeth whitening treatment in clinic using laser or LED, or using whitening gel, and you can use household products including whitening toothpastes and mouthwashes, teeth whitening stickers or bottles containing whitening liquid which you apply to your teeth using a special brush.

It is important to remember that medical bleach (high concentration hydrogen peroxide based gel) is indeed very effective, but during the whitening teeth process there is oxidation of dentin (the inner layer of the tooth). The acidic substance may lead to irritation of the nerve, to pain and sensitivity. On the other hand, domestic products based on the low concentration of the active ingredient are washed away by saliva, so are less effective, and the results are disappointing and are not significant for the long term. So what can you do?

1. Baking soda

Mix strawberries with baking soda: strawberries are rich in malic acid, which removes stains caused by cigarettes, wine, cola or coffee. Mix the pulp of strawberries with little baking soda and rub the mixture on your teeth. Leave for about 10-20 minutes and brush your teeth thoroughly. Please note – although baking soda whitens the teeth, it can erode the enamel layer, so don’t repeat this treatment more than once to twice a week. 

2. Banana or orange peel

Rub the inner side of a banana skin or orange peel on your teeth, wait 10 minutes and brush the teeth well. The vitamins and minerals in the skin, including potassium and bromine, will whiten the teeth. 

3. Apple cider vinegar and lemon

Squeeze approximately 1/4 lemon and add 2 tablespoons apple cider vinegar. Dip a brush in the mixture, brush and rinse your mouth well. The mixture can help remove wine, coffee or nicotine stains. Please note – excess acidity could erode the tooth enamel, so don’t repeat this treatments more than once to twice a week. 

4. Coal powder

Dip the toothbrush in a container with coal dust, brush and rinse well with lukewarm water. Coal is a material that absorbs chemicals and toxins. It is able to absorb the acid stains, bacteria and plaque, and help whiten the teeth and removing stains. 

5. Brush with salt

Dip the toothbrush in powdered salt, brush and rinse well. The salt disinfects and absorbs, and can remove light stains of wine or caffeine. 

6. Gargle olive oil or coconut oil

These are antibacterial oils, rich in antioxidants that can help in cleaning, disinfecting and removing light stains from the tooth. Add a few drops to the brush or gurgle for a few minutes, and rinse well. You can also add a little bit of peppermint oil to disinfect.
 
7. Brush with pomegranate juice

The juice is rich in antioxidants and can help remove stains from the tooth. Dip the brush in natural pomegranate juice, brush and rinse well. 

8. Don’t smoke

The nicotine leaves stains on the enamel and discolors the teeth. Avoid smoking or at least reduce the amount of cigarettes. 

9. Don’t drink too much citrus juice

Consume citrus juices moderately, such as lemonade or orange juice: they contain pH which could erode the enamel and stain the outer layer of the tooth with the natural color of the juice. Try not to consume more than 2-3 cups per day. 

10. Reduce the consumption of dark/staining drinks

Drinking lots of coffee, tea (including green tea and herbal teas), cola or red wine will stain the teeth and leave spots and greyish or yellowish residue on the tooth. 

11. Don’t consume too much spices with vivid colors

The intense color of turmeric, curry, paprika and other spices indicates their healthy properties, but they can stain the teeth and therefore you should consume them in moderation. 

12. Rinse your mouth with cold or lukewarm water

If you’ve eaten curry chicken, drunk coffee or smoked, rinse your mouth with cold or lukewarm water immediately after. This will help in removing pigments from the saliva and reducing their adherence to the tooth. 

13. Keep oral hygiene with oil pulling

Oil pulling is mentioned in the Ayurvedic medicine. The basic idea is that oil is swished in the mouth for a short time each day and this action helps improve oral health and whiten the teeth.You need to swish a couple teaspoons of a vegetable based oil (coconut oil is the most recommended) in the mouth for about 20 minutes and then spit it out and rinses well. Oil pulling is usually recommended to be done first thing in the morning before eating or drinking, and after it you brush your teeth in the normal morning routine.

It is also recommended to visit dental hygienist at least once a year. Cleaning and polishing after plaque removal treatment will help to remove residue and stains from the teeth.

Try these methods and see which one works best for you. Have a beautiful white smile!


Source: http://www.healthyandnaturalworld.com/13-natural-methods-for-teeth-whitening/