Smokers' Choice.

Smokers tend to resist antismoking efforts that rely on “rational” approaches such as taxes, and researchers have pointed to confounding influences, including social factors and addiction. But differences in smokers’ decision-making processes may also be at play.

A recent study from the Baylor College of Medicine found that smokers and nonsmokers react differently to news of how much they could have made in a stock-market game. The feedback was purely incidental: it offered no financial incentive to adjust one’s investment strategy, yet nonsmokers were swayed by what might have been and changed their tactics. Smokers ignored the input, even though they processed the information in the same part of the brain as their nonsmoking peers did.

The study does not address whether smokers’ behavior is a cause or an effect of their addictions but rather adds to a growing list of ways in which human beings sometimes ignore reason when it comes to decision making. In the book Predictably Irrational (HarperCollins, 2008), behavioral economist Dan Ariely of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology catalogues a bevy of errors, biases and otherwise illogical human behavior. Other behavioral economists are doing the same on the premise that these absurdities are understand­able, and they are just beginning to team up with neuroscientists to try to tease out the roots of decision-making biases in the brain.

The hope is that this knowledge will one day inform policy. To combat smoking, for example, policymakers could “use evidence of what brain areas are active during the [decision-making] process to design other strategies” more nuanced than taxation, says behavioral economist Colin Camerer of the California Institute of Technology.

The field of neuroeconomics is in its infancy, however. Neuroscientists agree with behavioral economists that in the future it will be possible to use our irrationalities to our advantage, but as for whether their work could soon steer policy, “I think it’s just too early” to make a decision, Ariely says.

Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smokers-choice

How to Avoid the Temptations of Immediate Gratification (complete)

You know you want me.Image: iStock/Debbi Smirnoff

How to Avoid the Temptations of Immediate Gratification

Neuroscience hints at the power of imagining the future


By Melanie Bauer


You cannot resist the small, sweet reward of a cookie even though the larger, delayed reward of a healthier body is ultimately more desirable.
 
What leads some of us to give in to our immediate urges, while others are able to endure the wait for bigger and better outcomes? Neurologists are investigating the brain to answer this question. They are interested in comparing the brain activity of individuals who act impulsively—those who choose rewards now over later—to that of patient folks.

Traditionally, the assumption of researchers in this field, and the related field of behavioral economics, has been that impulsive people choose immediate rewards simply because they dislike waiting. In these prior studies, when presented with a hypothetical choice between, say, $50 now or $100 in a year, impulsive individuals went for the $50. Additionally, they showed a greater brain response to the immediate $50 reward—in the part of the brain that represents how much you are enjoying a reward (the ventral striatum)—than did patient people.

Researchers interpreted this brain response as the impulsive individuals’ preference for immediacy. 

So while impulsive individuals would claim “carpe diem” and “strike while the iron is hot” as their life mantras, the less quoted “carpent tua poma nepotes” and “good things come to those who wait” are patient individuals’ words to live by.


However, impulsivity may not simply be due to how long people are willing to wait for gratification. A recent study by a team of researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that when people waited for a reward, patient people were seen—through the lens of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine—imagining the future. In more patient people, the researchers observed increased activity in the region of the brain that helps you think about the future (the anterior prefrontal cortex).

The patient individuals, it seems, devoted more energy to imagining receiving their reward later.What sets this Washington University study apart from previous studies is that researchers have never before focused on the brain responses of individuals after they make a decision and are waiting for their reward. 

Instead, researchers have typically measured brain activity while people are making their choices. Prior researchers likely disregarded the waiting period because their studies used hypothetical rewards over long delays. Because people weren’t actually waiting in real time to receive a real reward, the researchers could not monitor the brain during this waiting period. 

This new study presented people with real rewards in the form of squirts of juice either immediately or at a delay of up to a minute. In fact, the researchers squirted the juice straight into the mouths of study subjects, in much the same way that animals have been rewarded in similar studies.


This future thinking, which is associated with the anterior prefrontal cortex (aPFC), has also been found in neuropsychological studies that focus on two different, but related phenomena:

1.   prospective memory—remembering to do something in the future, like fill up your gas tank on the way home from work—and 

2. episodic future thought—thinking about the future, such as imagining what you’ll cook for dinner later tonight. 

Now, one more phenomenon can be added to the list of contexts in which people imagine a future outcome and activate their a PFC:

3. imagining future rewards.

One problem with the future is its vagueness. While you are able to imagine in your mind going to the gas station or cooking dinner in general, the exact details of these activities are not clear. You don’t know which pump you’ll use at the gas station, or precisely what time you’ll remove the pizza from the oven. In this way, the future is fuzzy. This fuzziness can make the future less appealing. 

Remember the marshmallow experiment that tested the willpower of children to resist the temptation to eat a marshmallow placed on a table in front of them, so they could receive two marshmallows after they waited? 

Research* suggests that if that one marshmallow was made more abstract—such as hiding it from view or just showing a picture of it—the reward would become less appealing and more similar in appeal to receiving two marshmallows at a future time. On the flip side, making the future less fuzzy by focusing on the details—eating double the marshmallows currently being presented—could also make the future marshmallows more attractive than the present singular marshmallow. In this way kids would have an easier time resisting the one marshmallow now in exchange for the two marshmallows in the future.

Perhaps a combination of this fuzziness research (i.e., delay of gratification research) with recent neuroeconomics research—linking impulsivity with a lack of future thinking—could be useful for clinicians who are developing treatment plans for impulsive individuals. Because the future is fuzzy and impulsive people have an especially hard time imagining it, clinical treatments could involve de-emphasizing the present, making it more abstract, and building a concrete image of the future. 

For example, while it may be quicker, easier, and cheaper to buy fast food for dinner—immediate rewards that are all very desirable—people could learn to visualize larger future rewards when deciding what to eat, such as avoiding ailments like obesity and Type-2 diabetes. 

They could also avoid driving past their favorite fast food restaurants and only stock their cupboards with nutritious foods so the most visually salient meal options are healthy ones. This could help shift the attractive light from being cast on the present desire for fast food to instead being on the future desire for a healthy body.

For impulsive individuals who repeatedly make decisions that satisfy their current desires at the expense of their future needs, the negative effects on their health can be significant. 

Given the host of public health issues that involve impulsivity, research in neuroeconomics could prove important. Future research could measure the effects of an intervention on the brain. Can we get impulsive people to produce activity in their brain that shows they’re thinking about the future in a concrete way, making them look and act more patiently in the laboratory? Do these interventions lead to real-life choices to invest in the future and not give in to present impulses? Not to mention, could adapting the mindset that the future is worth waiting for help the rest of us keep some of our New Year’s resolutions?


Link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-avoid-the-temptations-of-immediate-gratification

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)



Melanie Bauer is a graduate student in psychology at Washington University in St. Louis studying cognitive aging. She will write her dissertation on informal science education, and has also contributed to The Open Notebook. Connect with Melanie

 at melaniesbauer.weebly.com or 

on Twitter 

https://twitter.com/search?q=MelanieSBauer



*Abstract

A characteristic marker of impulsive decision making is the discounting of delayed rewards, demonstrated via choice preferences and choice-related brain activity. However, delay discounting may also arise from how subjective reward value is dynamically represented in the brain when anticipating an upcoming chosen reward. In the current study, brain activity was continuously monitored as human participants freely selected an immediate or delayed primary liquid reward and then waited for the specified delay before consuming it. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) exhibited a characteristic pattern of activity dynamics during the delay period, as well as modulation during choice, that is consistent with the time-discounted coding of subjective value. The ventral striatum (VS) exhibited a similar activity pattern, but preferentially in impulsive individuals. A contrasting profile of delay-related and choice activation was observed in the anterior PFC (aPFC), but selectively in patient individuals. Functional connectivity analyses indicated that both vmPFC and aPFC exerted modulatory, but opposite, influences on VS activation. These results link behavioral impulsivity and self-control to dynamically evolving neural representations of future reward value, not just during choice, but also during postchoice delay periods.

• Received February 26, 2012.
• Revision received November 5, 2012.
• Accepted November 7, 2012.

Link: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/1/344.abstract

More Than an Apple a Day: Preventing Our Most Common Diseases

Note: 

Dr. Greger builds a strong case for switching to a plant-based diet for the health of it.  He talks about the benefits to people suffering from autoimmune diseases like m.s.

This would help the planet by reducing cattle production.

Published on Jul 15, 2013

Subscribe for free to Dr. Greger's videos at:
http://bit.ly/nutritionfactsupdates

DESCRIPTION: Dr. Greger has scoured the world's scholarly literature on clinical nutrition and developed this brand-new live presentation on the latest in cutting-edge research on how a healthy diet can affect some of our most common medical conditions.

In my annual nutrition review last year, Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uproo...), I explored the role diet may play in preventing, arresting, and even reversing our top 15 killers. Actually, if you recall, the top 16. Since side effects from prescription drugs kill an estimated 100,000 Americans a year, the sixth leading cause of death may actually be doctors.
And that's just from adverse drug reactions. Add in medical mistakes (which the Institute of Medicine estimates kills at least 44,000 Americans) and that brings "health"care up to our country's third leading cause of death. Throw in hospital-acquired infections, and we're talking maybe 187,000 Americans dead every year (and millions injured) by medical care.

The best way to avoid the adverse effects of medical and surgical tests and treatments is not to avoid doctors, but to avoid getting sick in the first place. This year I thought I'd run through the top dozen reasons people visit their doctors to highlight some of the latest research in hopes of moving my colleagues and me lower down the list of common killers.

So you can more easily navigate through the menu of diseases I cover, this presentation is also available on DVD through my website (http://www.drgreger.org/DVDs) or Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UT...). If you want to share copies with others I have a five for $40 (http://www.drgreger.org/DVDs) special. All proceeds from the sales of all my books, DVDs, and presentations all go to charity.

Have a question for Dr. Greger about this video? Leave it in the comment section at http://nutritionfacts.org/video/more-... and he'll try to answer it!

• Category

  Science & Technology

• License

  Standard YouTube License

  
  

  
  

Link:
http://youtu.be/qyyHsb6WGgY

The 300 Billionth Burger

Economix - Explaining the Science of Everyday Life
JULY 22, 2013
By NANCY FOLBRE



In his autobiography, “Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald’s,” Ray Kroc described the company he built as “my personal monument to capitalism.”

The monument is a towering one. Only ballpark estimates are available, because McDonald’s stopped posting estimates of its cumulative burger sales when they reached 99 billion in 1994. But the company is on track to hit the 300 billion mark in the near future, if it hasn’t already.

With total revenue that exceeds the gross domestic product of Ecuador, McDonald’s is virtually a culinary country of its own. Not surprisingly, it has become a recurrent focus of political contention.

This year’s protests against the low pay of its employees reflect: 

- larger concerns about the decline of good jobs in the United States, and

- the company’s recently published personal budgeting advice reflects remarkably widespread disregard for people trying to get by on poverty-level wages.

A company that can sell 300 billion burgers clearly knows how to respond to consumer concerns. As Eric Schlosser explains in “Fast Food Nation,” McDonald’s moved relatively quickly to improve standards of humane treatment for the (nonhuman) animals in its supply chain. 

In the wake of bad publicity from Morgan Spurlock’s film “Supersize Me,” the company made significant efforts to improve the nutritional value of its menu. Last year, the company took the lead in a commitment to post calorie counts for every item.

Of course, the company’s nutritional impact is influenced by policies over which it has little direct control. In the United States, Big Macs cost less than a salad largely because our agricultural policies subsidize the price of meat far more generously than the prices of fresh vegetables and fruits.

The low wages the company pays its workers also reflect the economic environment. In this country they average less than $8 an hour, reflecting a federal minimum wage that has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for four years. If the minimum wage were adjusted to correct for inflation, its 1968 peak would amount to about $9.42 today.

More than 88 percent of those who would benefit from a higher minimum are over the age of 20.

Global comparisons demonstrate that macroeconomic conditions and government regulation — not individual skill or effort — determine the level of company wages relative to prices.  

In 2005, the now-defunct Asian Labour News estimated that it took:

- workers in America at McDonald’s took about 30 minutes to earn enough to buy a Big Mac. 

- workers in China, it took workers behind the counter about 3 hours 58 minutes; 

- workers in India, 8 hours 34 minutes.

The relative bargaining power of low-wage workers has a far greater impact on burger prices than differences in efficiency. 

Underlying differences in labor markets — as well as factors influencing international exchange rates — help explain why Big Macs are relatively expensive in dollar terms in high-wage countries such as Norway and Switzerland and relatively cheap in low-wage ones like India and China.

Americans whose top priority is minimizing burger costs should perhaps shop overseas. 
Low-price fast food offers some quick visible benefits. 

But consumers who are also workers need to consider its long-run implications for their own wages and living standards. Happy Meals don’t necessarily lead to happy families.

Wage trends in fast food are not simply a result of impersonal market forces. Corporate policy matters. According to Bloomberg News, the disparity between the pay of McDonald’s fast-food workers and its chief executive officer has doubled in the last 10 years, while the company lobbied against minimum wage increases and discouraged unionization.

The budgeting advice that the company management recently offered employees — effectively lampooned in a video posted by the group Low Pay Is Not Okay — reveals a management that is out of touch with the experience of its workers.  It includes estimates for rent and utilities, but it does not mention food, clothing, gas, or child care. It presumes that they will hold a second job and find health insurance costing only $20 a month.

The sample budget assumes hourly gross pay of about $15 an hour (assuming a 40-hour workweek), far more than most McDonald’s employees will ever earn. In other words, the company’s own calculations suggest that it fails to offer a living wage.

It is hard to imagine Ray Kroc, a self-made businessman who started out selling milkshake machines, ever patronizing his employees in such a careless way.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, more than two-thirds of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage, and some restaurant owners are also on board.

McDonald’s could put a living wage on its menu. You could ask for it the next time you hit the takeout window.

Or you could just drive past the golden arches in search of a better monument to your ideals.

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Link: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/the-300-billionth-burger/?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Plant Based Nutrition: Julieanna Hever at TEDxConejo 2012

Published on Jul 1, 2012


Julieanna Hever, also known as The Plant-Based Dietitian, is a passionate advocate of the miracles associated with following a whole food, plant-based diet-the established effects of which provide positive healthful benefits.

Julieanna is the author of the best-selling book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plant-Based Nutrition, and the nutrition columnist for VegNews Magazine. She is the co-author of the brand new book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Gluten-Free Vegan Cooking, which she wrote with Chef Beverly Lynn Bennett.

Julieanna counsels a variety of clients throughout the world from her Los Angeles, California-based private practice including elite athletes, adults, and children with various nutritional and/or medical concerns.

Julieanna was recently featured on The Dr. Oz Show and Reluctantly Healthy, co-stars on The Chef and The Dietitian, on numerous radio shows, and has lectured extensively throughout the United States. She is published in prominent journals, magazines, blogs, and newsletters. As co-producer and star of the "infotainment" documentary To Your Health, Julieanna interviewed a host of the plant-based world's most respected doctors and researchers to bring this important information to film and television audiences.

Her work as the Executive Director of EarthSave, International, has also provided an opportunity for Julieanna to bring whole food, plant-based nutrition to the forefront of efforts to improve the current global health crisis.

Julieanna received her Bachelors degree from UCLA and Masters of Science in Nutrition at California State University, Northridge, where she also completed her Dietetic Internship. She has taught as part of Dr. T. Colin Campbell's eCornell Plant-Based Nutrition Certification Program, worked as a clinical dietitian at Century City Doctors Hospital, and has consulted for numerous businesses.

To learn more, visit Julieanna at her website:

www.PlantBasedDietitian.com 

and her blog:

http://toyourhealthnutrition.blogspot.ca/




Category - Howto & Style
License - Standard YouTube License

Link:  http://youtu.be/vgCSunBfREQ

Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner at TEDxOU

Published on Feb 12, 2013

TED Fellow Christina Warinner is an expert on ancient diets. So how much of the diet phad the "Paleo Diet" is based on an actual Paleolithic diet? The answer is not really any of it.

Dr. Christina Warinner has excavated around the world, from the Maya jungles of Belize to the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, and she is pioneering the biomolecular investigation of archaeological dental calculus (tartar) to study long-term trends in human health and diet. 

She is a 2012 TED Fellow, and her work has been featured in Wired UK, the Observer, CNN.com, Der Freitag, and Sveriges TV. She obtained her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2010, specializing in ancient DNA analysis and paleodietary reconstruction.

Category - Education
License - Standard YouTube License

Link:  http://youtu.be/BMOjVYgYaG8

First Lab-Grown Burger Will Be Served

Image: Flickr, Mike Licht

JESSE EMSPAK for Discovery News  

 Science-fiction writers have been writing about artificial meats for decades.

The trope tends to dictate that poorer people eat the vat-grown stuff, while the idle rich feast on real cows. For now though, the reality has been reversed: A burger made of meat grown in a lab will set a hungry person back $325,000 (£216,000).

That's one expensive burger, some 100,000 times more expensive than usual. The price is the amount of funding that Mark Post, a vascular physiologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, got for his project of growing meat in a Petri dish rather than a cow. (The source of the funding hasn't been revealed yet).

To make his meat, Post harvested stem cells from the waste of slaughterhouses. That doesn't alter the fact that the cells themselves are still the same ones that are in a cow in any case.

Post added nutrients to the cells, causing them to grow into muscle tissue, which he then stretched out to "exercise" and keep it from atrophying. Lacking blood, the meat doesn't have any color. And so far, the strips he's made are only about an inch long and very thin. But packing enough of them together produces a reasonable meat patty.

That's what Post plans to offer on Aug. 5: a taste of a burger made with the lab-grown meat at an invitation-only event.

Eating lab-grown meat isn't just for people who are squeamish about eating animals (it seems unlikely that many vegetarians will be mollified by its vat-grown status). The real issue is that cow and pig meat is land and energy-intensive. And the demand for meat worldwide is going up as people become wealthier. Between the deforestation for pasture and the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, more meat production isn't looking like a sustainable option.

On the other hand, there's a lot of work that goes into growing stem cells into muscle. When you consider the effort that's necessary to create the product, it's not clear that culturing meat uses any less energy or generates less carbon, even if it is more indirect.

via Reuters, NBC News

  

TOPICS: ARTIFICIAL, BURGER, DEV & DESIGN, FOOD, GROWTH, HEALTH & FITNESS, LAB, TECH, WORK & PLAY

Discovery News

Link: http://mashable.com/2013/07/16/first-lab-burger/

Eat Vegan before 6:00 to Lose Weight and Restore your Health--for Good

“The art is long, life is short, opportunity fleeting, experiment dangerous, judgment difficult.”
― Hippocrates

VB6

Eat Vegan before 6:00 to Lose Weight and Restore your Health--for Good

by Bittman, Mark
(Book - - 2013)


"The best-selling author and popular NYT columnist gives us his innovative and easy diet plan, complete with recipes--by eating vegan every day before 6:00pm, you can lose weight and dramatically improve your health. Every day we learn new benefits of the vegan diet, and discover how cutting meat and animal products out can still mean a world of delicious meals. Now Mark Bittman brings his expertise to vegan cooking, giving you an easy-to-follow diet plan plus 50 simple everyday recipes--exclusively vegan meals for breakfast and lunch, and as flexible as you need to be for dinner. Building on his hit book Food Matters, Bittman outlines in six principles the reasons that a partially vegan diet can dramatically improve your health. When you eat lots of fruits and veggies while cutting back on meat and dairy, and cook as much as possible at home, you automatically find yourself eating more sensible portions and almost no junk food. You can live healthier, not just eat healthier, when you eat with eyes wide open. This is Bittman's flexible, ethical way of eating better and losing weight, using common sense in the kitchen"--Provided by publisher.

Food That Kills - Full Documentary

This is a 20 year old video presentation but my still be relevant...


...........................................



Presented in 1993


Official Website for Dr. Michael Klaper
http://doctorklaper.com/index.html



Link: http://youtu.be/KNCGkprGW_o


The New York Times; Rethinking The Meat Guzzler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/wee...

Herbivore vs. Carnivore - You be the judge !
http://www.bizarro.com/videos/mov/Veg...

http://www.foodkills.org/


Dr. M. Klaper
http://www.vegsource.com/klaper/

Explore the consequences of a meat (animal based) diet. Are we really designed to be omnivores OR does a plant based diet suit us best?

MEDICAL STATISTICS
* The third highest cause of deaths in the US is what is termed "iatrogenic", which means "induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy." This accounts for an estimated 225,000 deaths per annum which is about 10% of total deaths from all causes including old age. Of these, 12,000 deaths result from unnecessary surgery. The highest cause of deaths in the US is heart disease (725,000) and the 2nd highest is cancer (549,000). Both of these were almost unheard of at the beginning of the twentieth century.

* 180,000 deaths a year occur due to adverse reactions to prescription medications. By comparison, general accidents in life account for 98,000 per annum. This includes 42,000 from car accidents, 120 from airline crashes**, 90 from being struck by lightning** and 5 from Anthrax (in 2001). 15,500 die from murders and 20,000 from flu or its complications.
**averaged over 2-3 decades

Causes of Death Further Breakdown
1. Tobacco 435,000
2. Poor diet and physical inactivity 400,000
3. Alcohol consumption 85,000
4. Infectious agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia) 75,000
5. Toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos) 55,000
6. Motor vehicle accidents 43,000
7. Firearms 29,000
8. Sexual behavior 20,000
9. Illicit use of drugs 17,000
* Despite all the media hype about how good the US medical system is and how we're winning the war against cancer, these statistics tell a very different story:
According to the 2001 World Health Organization report, "World Health Report Health Systems: Improving Performance", the U.S. ranks 37th out of 191 countries. A commentary published in the July 26, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association notes that in a comparison of the top 13 industrial countries based on 16 health indicators, the U.S. ranked on average 12th. The countries included in the study were, in order from the top-ranked (best health care) to the lowest-ranked, as follows: Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the U.S., and Germany. Of the 13 countries compared, only Germany ranked lower overall than the U.S. In fact, the U.S. ranked dead last for three indicators. These were low-birth-weight percentages, neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall, and years of potential life lost. These rankings do not paint a picture of a country that has the world's best health care.
Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like we're asked to believe, after the massive research funding backed by the government?
From the U.S. government's own raw statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year --- deaths/ 100,000
1967--- 157.2
1970--- 162.9
1982--- 187.3
1987--- 198.2
1988--- 198.4
1989--- 201.0
1990--- 203.2
1991--- 204.1
1992--- 204.1
1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. A 40% increase in cancer deaths per capita in the last 4 decades is hardly "winning the war against cancer."

* An estimated 2 million people a year (11% of those admitted) catch infections in hospitals that they didn't have when they were admitted and approximately 90,000 of them die from these infections. An approximate list in order of likelihood is: urinary tract infections (34%), surgical site infections (17%), respiratory infections especially pneumonia (13%), blood infections/bacteraemia (14%), skin (especially burns), gastrointestinal tract infections, and central nervous system infections.
* About 2,216,000 annual hospitalizations result in adverse drug reactions and these account for 106,000 deaths annually.

* As Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn demonstrates in his book "Confessions of a Medical Heretic", when hospitals or doctors go on strike, the death rate goes down and when they go back to work, the death rates rise again.

* Its estimated, that 80% of the population will end up with a tumor, cancer, disease or some type of physical problems or pain. This means approximately 4 out of 5 people are on the highway to some type of physical tragedy.
* Side effects of commonly used over the counter pain relievers include gastric ulcers, bleeding stomachs, hospitalizations and 16,500 deaths last year.


Category


Education

License


Standard YouTube License




















Presented by: Dr. Michael Klaper - 1993

Official Website for Dr. Michael Klaper
http://doctorklaper.com/index.html

STUDIES:
Dietary fat intake and carotid artery wall thickness: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/81...


WATCH *Forks Over Knives*
See the full documentary FREE online -
http://viooz.co/movies/976-forks-over...




A River of Waste: The Hazardous Truth About Factory Farms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-WAG...

Make Yourself Heart Attack Proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0...

High-protein Diets: Trading Your Health for Temporary Weight Loss
http://drmcdougall.com/res_high_prote...

Explore the consequences of a meat (animal based) diet. Are we really designed to be omnivores OR does a plant based diet suit us best?
*** Herbivore vs. Carnivore - You be the judge ! ***
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOdVW6...

Great websites for helping you transfer from a meat based to a plant based diet.

THE SLOW POISONING OF YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN
How science and medicine have betrayed you
http://www.foodkills.org/

21-Day Vegan Kickstarter Meal Plan
http://www.pcrm.org/kickstarthome/mea...

Dr. John McDougall
http://www.drmcdougall.com/

VegSource
http://www.vegsource.com/

NOT Milk
http://www.notmilk.com/

The Most Comprehensive Listing of Country Health Profiles and World Health Rankings for all leading Causes of Death ever assembled in one place.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/wo...


Category - Education

License - Standard YouTube License

Read Labels

Posted on Jun 8, 2013

Excerpt from SCHOPPING SCHOOL -- DVD available here:http://bit.ly/VCWesB Dietitian Jeff Novick deconstructs food labels and teaches his easy 3-point system to know whether a food is good, bad -- or at least which one is the healthiest choice. A short excerpt from Jeff's nearly 3-hour SHOPPING SCHOOL program. More info here http://bit.ly/VCWesB

• Category

  Education

• License

  Standard YouTube License

  
  

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-zAC8L3u4&feature=share&list=UUlEsPxvotpTJ1Z8eu2Y97rg

Uploaded videos (playlist)

Published on Jun 8, 2013

Excerpt from SCHOPPING SCHOOL -- DVD available here:http://bit.ly/VCWesB Dietitian Jeff Novick deconstructs food labels and teaches his easy 3-point system to know whether a food is good, bad -- or at least which one is the healthiest choice. A short excerpt from Jeff's nearly 3-hour SHOPPING SCHOOL program. More info here http://bit.ly/VCWesB

• Category

  Education

• License

  Standard YouTube License

  
  

  LinK:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-zAC8L3u4&feature=share&list=UUlEsPxvotpTJ1Z8eu2Y97rg

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

Animal Protein -- Meat and Dairy -- Cause Cancer

``Who is in control of the information`` are just some of the really wise words spoken in this talk. Dr. Campbell gives us plenty of easy to understand facts to help us decide to eat healthy and maybe even become Vegan.  Save your health, save the planet....because Cows are a big contributor to pollution of all kinds. Plus, large corporations are doing slash and burn agriculture, literally mowing down the Amazon jungle to farm cattle

loaded on Dec 2, 2009

Celebrated Cornell University professor T. Colin Campbell Phd, presents the overwhelming evidence showing that animal protein is one of the most potent carcinogens people are exposed to.

This is the FULL 45 MINUTE talk from Dr. Campbell's appearance at the 2005 VegSource Healthy Lifestyle Expo.

More info and Expo talks are available on DVD in our IN OUR STORE https://secure2.vegsource.com/catalog/

• Category

  Education

• License

  Standard YouTube License

  
  

Link: http://youtu.be/yfsT-qYeqGM