What a true pioneer Jack Lalanne was with his educational fitness show . Even today at 95 years old Jack continues to be one of the best ambassadors of a healthy lifestyle.
Category: Nutrition (Page 26 of 45)
Are taking multivitamins necessary? do they work? How does a vegan get leaner? Should they be eating soy? Are testosterone boosters safe and effective? Which ones should I take and what’s the best way to take them?
Below is a sample of the recent Q&A column on www.bullz-eye.com.
Q:Mike,
I?m currently taking a multivitamin because I?m trying to change my health for the better. Is this a good choice? Should I be taking other supplements?
A:Sergio, Short answer No. Multi vitamins are a waste because the absorption is so poor. Some vitamins and minerals compete with one another making absorption even worse.
What I take: Vitamin D (most important) 10,000iu per day, Vitamin A once per week 5000iu, CoQ10 100mg/day, Omega 3 fish oil, CLA, and cook with coconut and olive oils.
I recommend reading my article “Daily consumption for optimum health”, and below are a few other websites to consult.
vitamindcouncil.org
westonaprice.org
vitamin-d-max.com (this is where I purchase vitamin D)
vitacost.com (this is where I get omega 3, CLA and CoQ10.)
therabiotics.net (this is where I get my probiotics)
Did you know if you want to reduce your risk of cancer, you should join a study. Promoters of vegetarianism have been singing the praises of a report on two studies in the British Journal of Cancer. The report notes two prospective studies, the Epic-Oxford cohort and the Oxford Vegetarian study, examining cancer incidence among vegetarians. The report studied 61566 British men and women, comprising 32403 meat eaters, 8562 non-meat eaters who ate fish and 20601 vegetarians. The average follow-up was 12.2 years. Vegetarians had less bladder, stomach and blood cancer than meat and fish eaters. However vegetarians had higher rates of colon, rectal and cervical cancers. These numbers as with many studies are deceiving.
According to this report the chance of a meat eater developing bladder cancer is 1 in 518; for vegetarians it was 1 in 1677; for fish eaters it was 1 in 1400. Even though the report shows meat eaters are over three times more likely to develop bladder cancer, it?s still only a .19% chance. Your chance of developing cervical cancer if you?re a meat eater was 1 in 1982; for fish eaters it?s 1 in 890; for vegetarians it?s 1 in 948. Judging by this report, a vegetarian female is twice as likely to develop cervical cancer compared to her meat eating amigo, but still only a .10% chance. The play on numbers in this report is inexcusable but all too common.
The differences in the various cancer rates between the 3 groups overall were insignificant; however the fish eaters were found to have the largest reduced cancer risk. Curiously, which you don?t see reported in mainstream sources, there was no difference found in all cause mortality between the diet groups. However, all the diet groups had a 50% less reduced risk of all cause mortality compared to the general population. Hmmmm.
In another analysis of two studies, the Oxford Vegetarian Study and the Health Food Shoppers Study, researchers compared the mortality of vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Mortality rates were 52% and 59% of the general population respectively. However, strangely unreported by vegetarians, there was no difference in mortality rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in either study. Researchers concluded that the benefits found in the subjects of both studies compared to the general population may be attributed to non-dietary factors.
Here’s an interesting video message by Dr. Mercola discussing the negative effects of?consuming soy products.? It has been my belief for a very long time that soy should be avoided, period.? The only forms that are permissible in my, and many other expert opinions, are the fermented varieties; miso, tempeh, and soy sauce.? This does not mean it’s OK to eat these foods as “food sources”.? Even in the Asian communities?miso, tempeh and soy sauce?are only used as condiments.
And if you are a Bullz-eye.com reader who has an infant or a child, do not, I repeat DO NOT allow them to consume any soy what-so-ever.? If you want your kids to have physical and mental developmental problems, feed them soy.? ?
A new ad campaign try’s to tell viewers fructose is not different from other sugars. Well this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, We’ve known for decades fructose is metabolized completely differently from other sugars and has a whole host of side effects. And the studies keep coming.
Overweight study participants showed more evidence of insulin resistance and other risk factors for heart disease and diabetes when 25 percent of their calories came from fructose-sweetened beverages instead of glucose-sweetened beverages.
A study looked at 32 overweight or obese men and women. Over a 10-week period, they drank either glucose or fructose sweetened beverages totaling 25 percent of their daily calorie intake.
Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that the fructose-consuming group gained more of the dangerous belly fat that has been linked to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke. The fructose group also had higher total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and greater insulin resistance. Mercola.com
Russ Bianchi, a pharmacologist and toxicologist, explains: “there is no safe form of fructose available from any source, unless already existing in an unprocessed apple or other piece of fruit. The science is known and epidemiologically proven”.
If you follow the obesity epidemic in the U.S., you’ll find that Americans are eating less fat. In 1965 men ate an average of 139 grams and women 83 grams of fat per day. In 1995 men ate 101 grams and women ate 65 grams of fat per day. With the way fat has been demonized over the last four decades, you’d expect an increase in fat consumption to be the main cause of the obesity epidemic, yet it’s not.
What does mirror the increase in fat Americans is the consumption pattern of HFCS. Between the years of 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased 1,000 percent, and today represents 40 percent of the sweeteners added to foods and beverages. It is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Is it any wonder why obesity is an epidemic? One of the main ingredients in our food supply not only converts to fat when we consume it, it facilitates fat storage. And Americans as a whole are eating more and more and more.
FOLLOW US!
CATEGORIES
© 2026 BottomLineFitness.com
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑