Today, Kevin gives you more proof that the FTC is monitoring this radio show!
iPhone Keeps Record Of Everywhere You Go
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin gives you a story from the ‘Obama was wrong’ file and gives you a few tips on how to make a good first impression when applying for a job.
Change The Way You Think
Local Ice Cream Makers Face Shutdown By State
Illinois Shutting Down Ice Cream Maker For Using Fresh Fruit
How Much Does Michelle Obama Spend on Vacations With Taxpayer Money?
Worker Paid For 12 Years Without Ever Showing Up!
U.S. Economy Fails to Add Jobs
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
April 17, 2012
By Nancy Shute
“Now this is what is wrong with the food people are eating in America. A bacon sundae – are you kidding?!” –KTRN
Is Burger King’s new bacon sundae a delightful concept, or the most recent example of all that’s wrong about American food?
That’s pretty much the divide in opinion here at Salt Central, as well as in online forums and social media, where the bacon sundae is inspiring fierce debate. “Really? I know sales are low and all but REALLY?” questioned one Twitter skeptic. “Americans eat death, pay for the privilege,” added another. Countered by an enthusiast who typed: “IT’S ABOUT TIME!”
That’s a lot of passion for a $2.49 menu item available only at a handful of Burger Kings in Nashville, Tenn. “The company is currently testing menu items in a small sampling of U.S. restaurants,” spokesperson Randi Farynyk told The Salt. “The brand does not have plans to expand the test to additional markets at this time.”
Drat. Count me among the staffers here who said “Yeah!” when the sweet-salty-savory news broke. Since NPR wasn’t popping for a road trip, I had to turn to Sam Bradley, a 27-year-old Nashville resident I found on Twitter, for confirmation. She had already trundled over to her local Burger King to check it out.
February 23, 2012
By Keelan Balderson
“This simple solution to concerns over meat and animal welfare is to become a vegetarian – problem solved.” –KTRN
Although news that scientists are beginning to develop artificial meat might be considered a step in the right direction for animal welfare, the concept is not without potential health and liberty concerns.
Debate aside about whether eating meat is right or wrong, the fact is people do eat a lot of meat, some 275 million tons in 2007 . The problem, however, is people are eating a lot of bad meat…cows raised on unnatural corn, instead of grass; animals locked in dark cages and pumped with steroids, instead of wandering around in the grass or mud; cloned animals instead of nature’s natural way. This has produced meat that is considerably higher in fat, considerably lower in nutrition, and an attitude considerably lacking in empathy.
A factory-farmed chicken in 2004 for example, contained more than twice as much fat as free range chicken in 1940 . Farming has degenerated, not improved. On top of this we also have a food processing culture that takes this tortured sub-par meat and strips it even further of any healthy contents; mixing it with artificial flavors and preservatives, packing it with salt and sugar, until it’s no longer recognizable as the fresh food our grandparents once ate.
As the disastrous health effects of this frankenfood become more apparent, slowly we’re beginning to see a resurgence of good organic production methods. It’s a renaissance.
Whole Foods is booming in America and moving to the UK. Major supermarkets are being forced to offer organic free-range alternatives. Communities are having grass-fed beef and organic vegetable boxes delivered from local farms. Things are starting to feel natural again, and with innovation of sustainable farming, or, more accurately, fine tuning of farming to the ecosystem, there’s no need to destroy the earth.
Take the Polyface method , where the natural instincts and digestive needs of the animals are combined to create an efficient system where the cows eat the grass, then the chickens are moved in to scratch the dung and peck at the dropped grains and new grass sprouts, then their dung fertilizes the soil, and the pigs plow the soil in to fertile compost. All of it in tune with nature.
February 20, 2012
By Mike Adams
I’m not sure which is the more offensive way to create meat. There’s the current “factory farm” method where masses of hormone-jacked, antibiotics-injected cows are kept confined in what can only be called bovine concentration camps while they’re fed genetically modified corn, then slaughtered without compassion and subjected to diabolical meat-harvesting machinery that turns a cow carcass into corporate profits. On the other hand, there’s the new method being touted across the media: Test tube hamburgers made from thin strips of meat grown in a nutrient vat laced with bovine fetus stem cells. Yumm!
The test tube meat strips actually pulsate and twitch during their laboratory growth phase, by the way, and they’re ultimately ground up with strips of test tube fat grown in a similar way to produce a fatty hamburger-like substance. This has been accomplished by Professor Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who announced his team’s results at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) yesterday.
“In October we are going to provide a proof of concept showing out of stem cells we can make a product that looks, feels and hopefully tastes like meat,” says Mark Post at the announcement. Of course, what does processed meat actually taste like anyway? MSG, sodium nitrite and processed salt, for the most part. So making lab-grown meat taste like today’s factory-processed meat only requires the injection of a few additives into the growth culture. Imagine growing meat patties with MSG inside every cell!
Creating one hamburger will require 3,000 strips of meat, each just half a millimeter thick and grown in laboratory vats. Unlike a cow, which requires roughly two years to grow to the point of slaughter, a test tube burger can be produced in just six weeks.
February 8th, 2012
The Raw Story
By: Agence France-Presse
Ninety percent of Americans eat too much salt every day, and the top food offenders include cheeseburgers, pizza, bread, deli meat and potato chips, US health officials said on Tuesday.
The average American eats about 3,300 milligrams of sodium per day, and that does not include salt added from the shaker on the table, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vital Signs report.
US guidelines recommend that people limit sodium to less than 2,300 milligrams per day.
High risk populations — including African-Americans, people 51 and older and those with with high blood pressure, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease – should stick to 1,500 milligrams daily.
“Too much sodium raises blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke,” said CDC director Thomas Frieden.
“These diseases kill more than 800,000 Americans each year and contribute an estimated $273 billion in health care costs.”
The report pointed to 10 types of food that add up to more than 40 percent of the nation’s sodium intake.
Poultry, soups, cheese, pasta dishes, meatloaf rounded out the top 10.
Some 65 percent of Americans’ sodium comes from food sold in stores, and 25 percent comes from meals in restaurants.
The CDC urged people to check labels for salt content, eat more fresh vegetables without sauce, and limit consumption of processed foods.
February 8th, 2012
By: Lindsey Tanner
Junk food remains plentiful at the nation’s elementary schools despite widespread efforts to curb childhood obesity, a new study suggests. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of public and private schools surveyed sold sweet or salty snack foods in vending machines or other places, the study found. There was little change over the four years, a surprising finding given vocal advocacy campaigns to improve kids’ diets, said researcher Lindsey Turner, a health psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the study’s lead author. The study focused on snacks not sold during mealtimes, which until recently weren’t subject to government nutrition standards.
Schools most likely to sell chips, cookies or similar foods were in the South, where obesity rates are the highest; these foods were scarcest at schools in the West. The results are concerning, Turner said, because they show that many schools have not heeded messages from health advocates including the Institute of Medicine, which in a 2007 report urged limiting availability of food in schools outside of mealtimes, and said these items should not be sugary, salty or fatty snack foods. Many schools in the study also offered more healthy foods outside of mealtimes, including fruit and vegetables. But selling them along with junk food may tempt kids to skip the healthy options, and sends “mixed messages about healthful nutrition,” Dr. Thomas Robinson, a Stanford University pediatrician and obesity prevention researcher.
Robinson called the study results “sobering” and said a key strategy for reversing childhood obesity includes improving nutrition in schools. Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese. Policies that limit junk food sold in schools have been linked with less obesity among students, said C. Tracy Orleans, a senior scientist at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which paid for the study.
The study appears in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, released Monday. Robinson wrote an accompanying editorial. Anti-obesity advocates also have pushed to remove sugary sodas from schools, and some states and schools have enacted bans. Also, a 2010 report found a big decline in sales of these drinks to schools during some of the years studied. The new study, which focused only on foods, is based on surveys mailed to principals at public and private elementary schools. Nearly 4,000 responded, or more than half of those contacted. The participating schools were nationally representative and there were no geographic or economic differences in schools that didn’t respond that would affect the results, Turner said.
Overall, about 45 percent of schools sold sugary and salty snacks. Some schools sold low-fat salty snacks and baked goods, including pretzels and low-fat ice cream, but their high sugar or salt content makes them a poor choice, Turner said. Candy, salty snacks and regular-fat baked goods were more common at private schools than public schools; and low-fat ice cream was more common at both types of schools than full-fat ice cream snacks. The study authors say their results should encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to crack down on junk food in schools. A law enacted in December 2010, after the study ended, gives the agency authority to do so, and it is developing changes.
Before that measure, USDA policy restricted schools from selling foods “of minimal nutritional value” during mealtimes. Under the new law, the agency can set nutrition standards for all foods sold in U.S. schools.
Another USDA change announced last month focuses on making school lunches healthier, with changes including less sodium and more whole grains. The changes affecting snack foods “need to be comprehensive, they need to be strong, they need to be specific,” and they could be “a game-changer,” said Orleans. A website for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service says restricting these foods can pose challenges for schools, because many rely on sales of snack foods to boost revenue. But it also explains why changes are needed.
“The constant availability of foods and beverages may increase the likelihood of impulse buying and contribute to overeating by some students,” the USDA website says. It lists states and school districts that have imposed some restrictions on these foods.
January 25, 2012
“Who new there was a national peanut butter day. Wonder is Congress took a vote and made this into law? Either way, peanut butter rocks. Almond butter is probably better, but have you have tried it? It’s not nearly as tasty.” –KTRN
If you didn’t know, today is National Peanut Butter Day. So we thought we’d take a moment to honor the humble spread, not only for its role in our childhoods and its deliciously rich taste, but also for its nutritional power. Sure, the stuff is yummy, but did you know that peanut butter can also play a role in preventing everything from heart disease to Alzheimer’s?
Keep in mind that all-natural peanut butter without added ingredients is the healthy option — many brands include added sugar. And, as with all good things, everything in moderation: a spoonful may be healthy, but a whole jar is certainly not.
Here are some top health properties for peanut butter:
It’s Heart Healthy
Yes, peanut butter has saturated fat and some sodium, but that doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a good-for-you treat. As nutrition expert Dr. Walter C. Willett wrote in the Havard Heart Letter, one serving of peanut butter (about two tablespoons) contains 3.3 grams of saturated fat, but a whopping 12.3 grams of unsaturated fat. That ratio of about 80 percent unsaturated fat is akin to olive oil, a known heart booster. Explained Willet:
The body’s response to saturated fat in food is to increase the amounts of both harmful LDL and protective HDL in circulation. In moderation, some saturated fat is okay. Eating a lot of it, though, promotes artery-clogging atherosclerosis, the process that underlies most cardiovascular disease. In contrast, unsaturated fats, which make up the majority of the fat content in peanut butter, help reduce LDL cholesterol and lower the risk of heart disease.
It’s High In Potassium, The ‘Good’ Salt
A high-sodium diet is associated with high blood pressure, stroke and a host of other conditions, but a high-potassium diet can actually reduce risk of heart disease and improve health. One 2010 study even found that eating just 4.7 grams of potassium had the same health benefit as cutting out 4 grams of sodium. (Of course eating enough peanut butter to reach 4.7 grams of potassium would be excessive, but try combining it with a banana, for a double punch.)
January 2, 2012
By Elizabeth Walling
For years we’ve been told to lower our salt intake for our health. Individuals at risk for heart attack are especially admonished to drop their salt intake as low as possible. As it turns out, this seemingly harmless recommendation is actually putting us at a higher risk for conditions like heart disease and stroke. Although salt has been construed as a vial substance responsible for ruining our heart health, new research says too little salt may be just as harmful as too much.
Salt Your Food… in Moderation
Researchers from McMaster University in Ontario looked at data from drug trials involving nearly 30,000 individuals who already had heart disease or diabetes. Participants in these trials had their sodium intake measured through urine analysis and were followed for an average of four to five years to record the incidence of heart-related hospitalizations and deaths.
After adjusting for factors like medications, weight, smoking and cholesterol levels, researchers found that too little salt is doing harm instead of good. Those who consumed between 4,000 and 6,000 milligrams of sodium per day–more than double the current recommendations–were at the least risk for heart disease and stroke.
People who ate a diet lower in salt didn’t experience less risk, but more. Researchers found that people who consume 2,000 to 3,000 mg of sodium per day were actually 20 percent more likely to experience death or hospitalization related to heart conditions, compared to those consuming between 4,000 and 6,000 mg daily.
But don’t take this as advice that salt intake should be completely unlimited. Moderation appears to be key because consuming too much salt puts you at even higher risk. Those who consumed more than 8,000 mg of sodium per day were 50 to 70 percent more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, or to be hospitalized or die from heart disease.
November 16, 2011
By Jonathan V. Wright, MD
The Miracle That Could Have Saved 353,000 Americans in One Year!
According to the American Heart Association: “Coronary heart disease caused 445,687 deaths in 2005 and is the single leading cause of death in America today.”2 If this 2005 death rate could have been reduced by 60%, 267,412 of our friends, neighbors, and family members would still be with us. Also according to the American Heart Association: “Stroke killed 143,579 people in 2005. It’s the third largest cause of death, ranking behind diseases of the heart and all forms of cancer. Stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States.”3 A 60% reduction in deaths from stroke would cut 143,579 deaths to 57,432 – still too many, but very significantly less.
The International Salt Secret That Could Save Your Heart – and Your Life
Can you imagine deaths from stroke and heart disease plummeting by 60% throughout an entire country? It would be a “public health” dream! And, yet, it’s absolutely for real … Just not here in these United States. At least, not yet.
So where did this remarkable decrease in deaths from heart disease and stroke occur? Botswana? Kyrgyzstan? Some other obscure “third world” country? No. It happened in a major industrialized European country – Finland.1
So why hasn’t this amazing “public health” feat been publicized? Well, if I had to guess, I’d say it’s because the amazing improvement had very little to do with any sort of patent medication. In fact, 85% to 90% of this dramatic reduction in deaths is due entirely to simple diet changes – reduction of saturated/unsaturated fat ratio and, according to the study on this phenomenon, a nationwide “… replacement of common salt by a novel sodium-reduced, potassium-, magnesium-, and l-lysine HCI-enriched salt, both in home kitchens and in the food industry.”
According to this same 1996 report: “Adherence to anti-hypertensive drug therapy has been quite good. However, the drug treatment does not seem to account for more than 5-6 percent of the observed fall of blood pressure, and 10-15 percent of the decrease in deaths from strokes and ischaemic heart disease.” The report went on to note that during the same time period “… marked increases in the intake of alcohol, obesity among men, and smoking among women have been observed.”
Wow! While male obesity, female smoking, and alcohol intake all increased to a “marked” degree, the death rate from heart disease and stroke still declined by 60% – and only 10%–15% of the over-all decline could be attributed in any way to patent medicines. If that situation were reversed, and patent medications were responsible for such a positive change, you can bet we’d be overrun with publicity about how they “save lives.”
So maybe the lack of attention this breakthrough received means that it was a fluke. After all, the study was published in 1996 – the situation must have changed for the worse again … and that’s why we haven’t heard about it, right?
Well, I’m very happy to tell you that’s not the case! Not only has this decrease in the death rate from stroke and heart disease continued, the situation has gotten even better!
According to a follow-up study published in 2006, there has been “… a 75 to 80 percent decrease in both stroke and coronary heart disease mortality in Finland.” And by 2006, there was an increase in life expectancy of both male and female Finns of six to seven years.