₦airaland Forum

07037064060

The carbon footprint of the average American’s diet has shrunk by about 9 percent, largely because people are eating less beef, according to a new report.

Changes in the American diet—lower consumption of not only beef, but orange juice, pork, whole milk and chicken—meant that the average American’s diet-related greenhouse gas emissions dropped from 1,932 kilograms in 2005 to 1,762 in 2014.

The analysis “just shows that small changes in our diets have impacts,” said Sujatha Bergen, a food specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s a very concrete association between reduced red meat consumption and reduced emissions.”

The biggest contributor to the reduction was a decline in beef consumption of about 19 percent over the course of the decade, adding up to a cumulative reduction of 185 million tons of climate change pollution. Total emissions cuts from dietary changes were 271 million tons. During that time, overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions averaged more than 6 billion tons a year.

Despite the improvement, the dietary changes pale by comparison to overall American emissions from a wealthy lifestyle. The average American has a carbon footprint of about 16 tons and the average U.S. car accounts for roughly 5 tons of emissions per year. China is the world leader in total carbon pollution, but the average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the contribution of the average American.

Americans eat more beef per capita than any other country except Argentina and Uruguay, and beef still contributed more than a third of the United States’ diet-related climate emissions — about 34 percent in 2014.

The beef industry, which has been long criticized for its outsized carbon footprint, said Wednesday that NRDC’s consumption calculations failed to factor in beef exports, which surged over that timeframe. The industry points to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which says beef production in the U.S. has remained relatively stable, from about 25 billion pounds in 2005 to 24 billion in 2014.

“It’s not fair to link consumption numbers domestically to production numbers domestically,” said Hillary Makens, a spokesperson for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Sara Place, a research director at the association, said that cattle-related emissions dropped only 6 percent over that time period and only because of a decline in the number of cattle.

“One of the major things that’s happened in the beef industry is we’re producing more beef with fewer animals,” Place explained. “From 1975 to today, it takes a third fewer beef cattle to produce the same amount of beef.”

NRDC also looked at food that increased diet-related greenhouse gas emissions. Americans ate more dairy products, including cheese, yogurt and butter, between 2005 and 2014. Like beef, production of dairy products is resource intensive.

Products from livestock, whether beef or dairy, have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years for their emissions. Raising cattle requires large amounts of land and feed, mostly corn and soy, which is heavily fertilized. Processing and applying fertilizer releases nitrous oxide, a gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, methane is emitted from cattle through their digestive systems and from manure disposal and it has at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

Bergen warned against drawing any nutritional conclusions from the study, but noted that nutritionists and federal dietary guidelines have long encouraged more consumption of vegetables and less saturated fat.

“We do know that red meat and dairy happen to be high in saturated fats,” Bergen said, “and there’s a very high correlation between health benefits and environmental benefits.”

source:healthatwill.com

The carbon footprint of the average American's diet has shrunk by about 9 percent, largely because people are eating less beef, according to a new report.

Changes in the American diet—lower consumption of not only beef, but orange juice, pork, whole milk and chicken—meant that the average American's diet-related greenhouse gas emissions dropped from 1,932 kilograms in 2005 to 1,762 in 2014.

The analysis "just shows that small changes in our diets have impacts," said Sujatha Bergen, a food specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "There's a very concrete association between reduced red meat consumption and reduced emissions."

The biggest contributor to the reduction was a decline in beef consumption of about 19 percent over the course of the decade, adding up to a cumulative reduction of 185 million tons of climate change pollution. Total emissions cuts from dietary changes were 271 million tons. During that time, overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions averaged more than 6 billion tons a year.

Despite the improvement, the dietary changes pale by comparison to overall American emissions from a wealthy lifestyle. The average American has a carbon footprint of about 16 tons and the average U.S. car accounts for roughly 5 tons of emissions per year. China is the world leader in total carbon pollution, but the average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the contribution of the average American.

Americans eat more beef per capita than any other country except Argentina and Uruguay, and beef still contributed more than a third of the United States' diet-related climate emissions — about 34 percent in 2014.

The beef industry, which has been long criticized for its outsized carbon footprint, said Wednesday that NRDC's consumption calculations failed to factor in beef exports, which surged over that timeframe. The industry points to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which says beef production in the U.S. has remained relatively stable, from about 25 billion pounds in 2005 to 24 billion in 2014.

"It's not fair to link consumption numbers domestically to production numbers domestically," said Hillary Makens, a spokesperson for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Sara Place, a research director at the association, said that cattle-related emissions dropped only 6 percent over that time period and only because of a decline in the number of cattle.

"One of the major things that's happened in the beef industry is we're producing more beef with fewer animals," Place explained. "From 1975 to today, it takes a third fewer beef cattle to produce the same amount of beef."

NRDC also looked at food that increased diet-related greenhouse gas emissions. Americans ate more dairy products, including cheese, yogurt and butter, between 2005 and 2014. Like beef, production of dairy products is resource intensive.

Products from livestock, whether beef or dairy, have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years for their emissions. Raising cattle requires large amounts of land and feed, mostly corn and soy, which is heavily fertilized. Processing and applying fertilizer releases nitrous oxide, a gas with nearly 300 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, methane is emitted from cattle through their digestive systems and from manure disposal and it has at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

Bergen warned against drawing any nutritional conclusions from the study, but noted that nutritionists and federal dietary guidelines have long encouraged more consumption of vegetables and less saturated fat.

"We do know that red meat and dairy happen to be high in saturated fats," Bergen said, "and there's a very high correlation between health benefits and environmental benefits."

see also http://www.healthatwill.com/burning-question-how-does-your-diet-affect-your-gut-bacteria/
http://www.healthatwill.com/don-who-claims-discovery-of-hivaids-cure-petitions-senate-over-fgs-negligence/

I was commuting on my bike and riding twice a day, 6 miles each way. Nearly every other day, I was going to the gym and working out. Then, I tore a calf muscle playing basketball. It hurt, a lot, and it sidelined me from my usual workouts for six weeks. But, the injury did not sideline me from the dinner table or the snacks I was used to eating. I knew I should change my diet to match my level of activity, but I struggled to do so.

I went back into the gym and weighed myself, did a rough BMI calculation and decided I needed to get active rehabilitating my calf and the rest of my body. I got married the week of my calf injury, and a couple months into our marriage, my wife was struggling with candida overgrowth that resulted in headache, body aches and fatigue. Her nutritionist suggested she try the candida diet, and being the supportive husband I was, I decided I’d go on it with her. In two weeks, I lost 12 pounds. My weight-loss stabilized, I felt stronger and I had less of the typical afternoon fatigue I experienced most days. Here’s how it worked, and how you can do it, too: Week 1: The cleanse and detox This was the toughest part for me. Your diet is pretty much limited to veggies, lots of water and a detox drink. You shouldn’t work out really hard during this phase, but you can still continue light exercise. You should avoid caffeine and alcohol, so it means giving up coffee (at least for a little while). The detox drink was the hardest part for me. It contains apple cider vinegar (ACV) and lemon juice, and I had a really hard time stomaching the ACV. This stage is listed as optional on the candida diet website, but I endured it anyway.

Toward the end of the first week, we both felt a little ill. This is a side effect of candida die-off, and it passes pretty quickly.

Stage 2: The candida diet This stage is more balanced than the detox stage, but it still eliminates added sugar and most starchy vegetables. It is designed to meet basic nutritional needs while starving the candida. Even if you don’t have an overgrowth of candida, it’s easy to see the benefits from going without added sugars and starch. If you really are struggling with some kind of candida infection, this phase of the diet can last from a few weeks (if you follow the diet strictly and have a mild candida overgrowth) to months (if you have a more severe case or “cheat” often).

From a diet side, you don’t have to count calories; just avoid certain foods and add natural probiotics and antifungals. We learned to make our own yogurt and eat a lot of asparagus, broccoli and kale. Here is a list of foods you should eat. We avoided some things we really love, like fruits, grains and tuna. We cheated from time to time with caffeine and alcohol. Here is a list of the things you should avoid. The outcome By the end of 30 days, I had lost a little over 20 pounds, and my wife a little under. I’d lost a couple of inches around my waist, and I felt much better. My workouts felt easier, and my energy level was more consistent throughout the day. We stayed on the diet for 90 days before slowly reintroducing other foods back into our diet. We still avoid glutenous grains, added sugars and most starchy vegetables. The candida diet is a good jump start, regardless of whether you have candida overgrowth or not. It’s the best diet I have found for a quick detox and reasonably quick weight-loss that also trains you to eat better in the long term. The candida diet also works well if you are vegan. It is pretty easy to adapt the diet to almost any food preferences. If you want to lose weight fast and just feel better, the candida diet may be just the thing for you.

see more http://www.healthatwill.com/truth-fallacies-obesity-weight-loss-medications/

http://www.healthatwill.com/diet-wrecking-teeth-gums/

Hello everyone. Two weeks ago, we spoke about some dynamics of obesity and managing our weight, compatible with our body type. To recap, in that discussion, we spoke about some of the causes of obesity and weight gain. We spoke about the interaction between one’s culture, environment, exercise habits, and eating styles. We also addressed one’s genetic, biochemical and physiological “set point,” that may contribute to weight management. Finally, we spoke briefly about some cases of obesity that are due to an imbalance of the hormone, insulin. This bring us up to date and since this is a large and protracted topic, today in Part 2 as a follow-up on this topic, we will not overburden ourselves with details, but rather, we will hit some of the essential points, at a personal level, where we can all easily relate to them in our daily lives. So, let’s get started.

FALLACIES & TRUTHS ABOUT OBESITY:

Fallacies and truths are usually accurate 99 percent of the time. There is always the exception to the rule. So, before you enter into a weight-control program, please be aware of some of the truths and fallacies regarding obesity and weight management, such as:

Fallacy # 1: Fad diets can successfully make you lose weight and keep the weight off.

Fallacy # 2: Physicians or weight clinics can successfully make you lose weight and keep the weight off.

Fallacy # 3: Counting calories is a good way to help you lose weight and keep the weight off.

Fallacy # 4: The cause of your weight problem is overeating and/or lack of exercise alone.

Truth # 1: If obese, you have a lifetime disease (but it can be controlled and/or remedied).

Truth # 2: You cannot eat what others eat (i.e., your friends, etc.) and stay thin.

Truth # 3: Anyone can lose weight and stay slim (and healthy) provided the causes of their weight gain is determined, addressed, and corrected.

Truth # 4: You cannot lose weight and keep it off by strictly following any special diet or by taking a weight-loss pill, or solely by following an exercise program. To succeed you must address all of the contributing factors causing your, obesity.
read more http://www.healthatwill.com/truth-fallacies-obesity-weight-loss-medications/