The World's Top Five Superfoods for Silky Smooth Skin
A special article by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) When it comes to healthy-looking skin, nutrition beats cosmetics hands down. Creating radiant, glowing, youthful-looking skin can best be accomplished by focusing on what's inside, not by covering up the skin with artificial colors that try to paint a new face on the outside. But which superfoods, exactly, are best for supporting healthy skin in the first place?
In this article, I reveal the five best superfoods and health supplements I know of for creating youthful-looking skin with the power of nutrition. All of these supplements are available right now. Below, I'll tell you how and where to get them.
Superfood #1: Astaxanthin
What's astaxanthin, you ask? It's a deep-red microalgae that's a fat-soluble antioxidant. That means it can be delivered to the fat molecules of your body, and that includes your skin, of course, which is primarily made of fat and water (by weight).
Astaxanthin is one of my top nutrients of all time. It even protects the skin from sunburn, eliminating the need to use toxic sunscreen lotions. In addition, astaxanthin protects the brain from Alzheimer's disease, the eyes from UV light damage and the entire nervous system from oxidative damage.
You can get astaxanthin at www.Nutrex-Hawaii.com or www.Vitacost.com
Read my article on astaxanthin here: http://www.naturalnews.com/023177.html
The best way to take astaxanthin is with a dietary source of healthy fats (see below). That's because astaxanthin binds to fats during digestion and is carried with those fats throughout your body where it protects organs and cells from free radical damage. There is probably no stronger fat-soluble antioxidant in the world than astaxanthin.
Superfood #2: Ocean-Derived Omega-3 Oils
As hinted above, the best way to take astaxanthin is with high-quality omega-3 oils. Ocean-derived omega-3 oils are legendary for their ability to support the body's healthy response to inflammation, meaning that many people are finding marine omega-3s to be a safer, more natural and far more affordable alternative to dangerous NSAIDS and prescription anti-inflammatory drugs (such as Vioxx, which is well known for doubling the risk of heart attacks and stroke)*.
While there are lots of sources of omega-3 oils to choose from, the ocean-derived omega-3s are far more potent than plant-derived omega-3s such as flaxseed oil or chia seeds. The two best omega-3 products I know of are Moxxor, made from green-lipped mussel oil, and LivingFuel Super Essentials, made from sardines and anchovies (wildcrafted, not farmed).
NaturalNews has no financial relationship with Living Fuel. Its Super Essentials product, which combines a small amount of astaxanthin with fish oils, is available here: www.LivingFuel.com
NaturalNews is a distributor of Moxxor, and over 1,000 NaturalNews readers have now joined in distributing Moxxor's green-lipped mussel oil, which is grown in eco-friendly aquaculture farms off the coast of New Zealand. The mussels feed on marine phytoplankton and are completely free of heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs and other chemicals. The product can be purchased here:
https://www.mymoxxor.com/ProductListPage.aspx?ID=naturalnews
Or you can get the product at a discount by joining the NaturalNews Moxxor team, explained here: http://www.naturalnews.com/MoxorDemoNN.asp
Marine omega-3 oils not only support healthy skin, they also support and enhance the health of the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system and many other functions of the human body, including moods and balanced brain function.
Superfood #3: Raw foods and fresh juice
Raw vegetable juice does wonders for healthy skin. There's something about daily juicing that just brings out the most radiant, youthful-looking skin in people.
Live foods, of course, support living, vibrant skin. Dead foods cause skin to age rapidly, and eating fried foods or animal products may cause your skin to break out with acne, eczema or various rashes. Consuming raw vegetable juice on a daily basis is a powerful way to support healthy skin. You'll notice the different in 30 days or less!
Read my article on juicing to learn which juicer I recommend, and what recipe to start with: http://www.naturalnews.com/024586.html
Or learn about "Juice Feasting" at www.JuiceFeasting.com
Superfood #4: Shellfish, Pumpkin Seeds and Zinc
Zinc is an essential nutrient for skin repair and injury repair (it's also really important for prostate health). If you're deficient in zinc (and probably 70% or more of Americans are), your skin will never look as good as it could. Zinc gives your cells the ability to properly construct and maintain their physical integrity, and it speeds the regeneration of new skin following injuries such as scrapes, scratches or cuts.
Shellfish and pumpkin seeds are good natural sources of zinc. It can also be taken as a nutritional supplement. A good low-cost source is VitaCost at:
http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Zinc-Gluconate-Picolinate
A high-end source is Wellness Resources' "Strengthener Plus," which also happens to contain MSM, a sulfur derivative that belongs near the top of anyone's list of skin-supporting nutritional supplements. I highly recommend Wellness Resources products, as the company was founded by Health Freedom champion Byron Richards. Here's the product page:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/products/strengthener_plus.php
I do not have financial relationships with either of these companies.
Superfood #5: Clean Water
Okay, I know water doesn't technically count as a superfood, but perhaps it should! Adequate hydration is essential for optimum skin health. Far too many consumers are chronically dehydrated, and as a result they suffer systemic dehydration of their skin, which makes it look older, more wrinkled and less smooth.
Drinking adequate water is crucial for supporting your skin health, but you've got to drink clean water to accomplish this, not tap water.
The cleanest water, of course, is natural spring water. If you're lucky enough to live near a spring, bottle up your drinking water from it (test it for contamination first, of course), and consume that.
Don't buy bottled water as it creates a mountain of waste (plastic bottles). Furthermore, the Bisphenol-A in the plastic bottles has been proven so toxic that it was recently banned from baby bottles in Canada.
So what's the next best choice for your drinking water? Bottle your own. Get yourself an Aquasana water filter, which is, in my view, the No. 1 consumer water filter on the market today. NaturalNews is an affiliate of Aquasana, so your purchase helps support our network. To pay you back, we negotiated a discount for NaturalNews readers on Aquasana products, including the countertop unit, under-the-sink unit, and the highly-recommended shower filter unit which I personally take with me everywhere I travel (it protects you from the toxic chlorine in public water supplies).
Get your Aquasana products at a discount here:
http://www.aquasanaaffiliates.com/b.asp?id=4115
Nutrition is the key to healthy skin
In summary, nutrition and hydration are the keys to healthy skin. Consume omega-3 supplements on a regular basis, take astaxanthin, drink plenty of clean water, and drink fresh juice on a regular basis. Also be sure to take in plenty of trace minerals through sources like sea salt. Healthy salt allows your skin and body to hold on to water, lubricating joints, boosting nervous system function and smoothing out the skin. Good sources for healthy see salt are www.MountainRoseHerbs.com or www.TransitionNutrition.com
At the same time, here are some foods to avoid if you want healthy skin:
Avoid MILK and DAIRY products. Read: Four Ways Milk Causes Acne at http://www.naturalnews.com/024613.html
Avoid FRIED foods, including fried snack chips.
Avoid pharmaceuticals, since many of them cause skin hypersensitivity to sunlight, and that can lead to skin damage (especially if you're not taking astaxanthin).
Avoid DEAD foods (manufactured foods or processed foods), as they contain chemical additives, unhealthy oils and nutritionally-depleted ingredients (like white flour) that strip the skin of nutrients.
* This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. None of the products mentioned here are intended to treat, cure, diagnose or prevent any disease.
To your health,
- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor, www.NaturalNews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here to unsubscribe
Not yet a subscriber? Sign up at:
http://www.NaturalNews.com/ReaderRegistration.html
Please DO NOT reply to this email. To contact NaturalNews,
email: reply@naturalnews.com
Privacy policy: http://www.naturalnews.com/privacypolicy.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NaturalNews Insider is published by Truth Publishing,
which is solely responsible for all content.
Truth Publishing International, Ltd.
12F-4, No.171, Sec. 4, Nanjing E. Rd., Songshan District,
Taipei 105, Taiwan
Thursday, January 21, 2010
How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet
How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet
TIME
By Lisa Abend
On a farm in coastal Maine, a barn is going up. Right now it’s little more than a concrete slab and some wooden beams, but when it’s finished, the barn will provide winter shelter for up to six cows and a few head of sheep. None of this would be remarkable if it weren’t for the fact that the people building the barn are two of the most highly regarded organic-vegetable farmers in the country: Eliot Coleman wrote the bible of organic farming, The New Organic Grower, and Barbara Damrosch is the Washington Post’s gardening columnist. At a time when a growing number of environmental activists are calling for an end to eating meat, this veggie-centric power couple is beginning to raise it. “Why?” asks Coleman, tromping through the mud on his way toward a greenhouse bursting with December turnips. “Because I care about the fate of the planet.”
Ever since the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a 2006 report that attributed 18% of the world’s man-made greenhouse-gas emissions to livestock — more, the report noted, than what’s produced by transportation — livestock has taken an increasingly hard rap. At first, it was just vegetarian groups that used the U.N.’s findings as evidence for the superiority of an all-plant diet. But since then, a broader range of environmentalists has taken up the cause. At a recent European Parliament hearing titled “Global Warming and Food Policy: Less Meat = Less Heat,” Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argued that reducing meat consumption is a “simple, effective and short-term delivery measure in which everybody could contribute” to emissions reductions.
And of all the animals that humans eat, none are held more responsible for climate change than the ones that moo. Cows not only consume more energy-intensive feed than other livestock; they also produce more methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — than other animals do. “If your primary concern is to curb emissions, you shouldn’t be eating beef,” says Nathan Pelletier, an ecological economist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., noting that cows produce 13 to 30 lb. of carbon dioxide per pound of meat.
So how can Coleman and Damrosch believe that adding livestock to their farm will help the planet? Cattleman Ridge Shinn has the answer. On a wintry Saturday at his farm in Hardwick, Mass., he is out in his pastures encouraging a herd of plump Devon cows to move to a grassy new paddock. Over the course of a year, his 100 cattle will rotate across 175 acres four or five times. “Conventional cattle raising is like mining,” he says. “It’s unsustainable, because you’re just taking without putting anything back. But when you rotate cattle on grass, you change the equation. You put back more than you take.”
It works like this: grass is a perennial. Rotate cattle and other ruminants across pastures full of it, and the animals’ grazing will cut the blades — which spurs new growth — while their trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. The plant’s roots also help maintain soil health by retaining water and microbes. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere.
Compare that with the estimated 99% of U.S. beef cattle that live out their last months on feedlots, where they are stuffed with corn and soybeans. In the past few decades, the growth of these concentrated animal-feeding operations has resulted in millions of acres of grassland being abandoned or converted — along with vast swaths of forest — into profitable cropland for livestock feed. “Much of the carbon footprint of beef comes from growing grain to feed the animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, transportation,” says Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. “Grass-fed beef has a much lighter carbon footprint.” Indeed, although grass-fed cattle may produce more methane than conventional ones (high-fiber plants are harder to digest than cereals, as anyone who has felt the gastric effects of eating broccoli or cabbage can attest), their net emissions are lower because they help the soil sequester carbon.
From Vermont, where veal and dairy farmer Abe Collins is developing software designed to help farmers foster carbon-rich topsoil quickly, to Denmark, where Thomas Harttung’s Aarstiderne farm grazes 150 head of cattle, a vanguard of small farmers are trying to get the word out about how much more eco-friendly they are than factory farming. “If you suspend a cow in the air with buckets of grain, then it’s a bad guy,” Harttung explains. “But if you put it where it belongs — on grass — that cow becomes not just carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.” Collins goes even further. “With proper management, pastoralists, ranchers and farmers could achieve a 2% increase in soil-carbon levels on existing agricultural, grazing and desert lands over the next two decades,” he estimates. Some researchers hypothesize that just a 1% increase (over, admittedly, vast acreages) could be enough to capture the total equivalent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
This math works out in part because farmers like Shinn don’t use fertilizers or pesticides to maintain their pastures and need no energy to produce what their animals eat other than what they get free from the sun. Furthermore, pasturing frequently uses land that would otherwise be unproductive. “I’d like to see someone try to raise soybeans here,” he says, gesturing toward the rocky, sloping fields around him.
By many standards, pastured beef is healthier. That’s certainly the case for the animals involved; grass feeding obviates the antibiotics that feedlots are forced to administer in order to prevent the acidosis that occurs when cows are fed grain. But it also appears to be true for people who eat cows. Compared with conventional beef, grass-fed is lower in saturated fat and higher in omega-3s, the heart-healthy fatty acids found in salmon.
But not everyone is sold on its superiority. In addition to citing grass-fed meat’s higher price tag — Shinn’s ground beef ends up retailing for about $7 a pound, more than twice the price of conventional beef — feedlot producers say that only through their economies of scale can the industry produce enough meat to satisfy demand, especially for a growing population. These critics note that because grass is less caloric than grain, it takes two to three years to get a pastured cow to slaughter weight, whereas a feedlot animal requires only 14 months. “Not only does it take fewer animals on a feedlot to produce the same amount of meat,” says Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (which contests the U.N.’s 18% figure), “but because they grow so quickly, they have less chance to produce greenhouse gases.”
To Allan Savory, the economies-of-scale mentality ignores the role that grass-fed herbivores can play in fighting climate change. A former wildlife conservationist in Zimbabwe, Savory once blamed overgrazing for desertification. “I was prepared to shoot every bloody rancher in the country,” he recalls. But through rotational grazing of large herds of ruminants, he found he could reverse land degradation, turning dead soil into thriving grassland.
Like him, Coleman now scoffs at the environmentalist vogue for vilifying meat eating. “The idea that giving up meat is the solution for the world’s ills is ridiculous,” he says at his Maine farm. “A vegetarian eating tofu made in a factory from soybeans grown in Brazil is responsible for a lot more CO2 than I am.” A lifetime raising vegetables year-round has taught him to value the elegance of natural systems. Once he and Damrosch have brought in their livestock, they’ll “be able to use the manure to feed the plants, and the plant waste to feed the animals,” he says. “And even though we can’t eat the grass, we’ll be turning it into something we can.”
TIME
By Lisa Abend
On a farm in coastal Maine, a barn is going up. Right now it’s little more than a concrete slab and some wooden beams, but when it’s finished, the barn will provide winter shelter for up to six cows and a few head of sheep. None of this would be remarkable if it weren’t for the fact that the people building the barn are two of the most highly regarded organic-vegetable farmers in the country: Eliot Coleman wrote the bible of organic farming, The New Organic Grower, and Barbara Damrosch is the Washington Post’s gardening columnist. At a time when a growing number of environmental activists are calling for an end to eating meat, this veggie-centric power couple is beginning to raise it. “Why?” asks Coleman, tromping through the mud on his way toward a greenhouse bursting with December turnips. “Because I care about the fate of the planet.”
Ever since the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a 2006 report that attributed 18% of the world’s man-made greenhouse-gas emissions to livestock — more, the report noted, than what’s produced by transportation — livestock has taken an increasingly hard rap. At first, it was just vegetarian groups that used the U.N.’s findings as evidence for the superiority of an all-plant diet. But since then, a broader range of environmentalists has taken up the cause. At a recent European Parliament hearing titled “Global Warming and Food Policy: Less Meat = Less Heat,” Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argued that reducing meat consumption is a “simple, effective and short-term delivery measure in which everybody could contribute” to emissions reductions.
And of all the animals that humans eat, none are held more responsible for climate change than the ones that moo. Cows not only consume more energy-intensive feed than other livestock; they also produce more methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — than other animals do. “If your primary concern is to curb emissions, you shouldn’t be eating beef,” says Nathan Pelletier, an ecological economist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., noting that cows produce 13 to 30 lb. of carbon dioxide per pound of meat.
So how can Coleman and Damrosch believe that adding livestock to their farm will help the planet? Cattleman Ridge Shinn has the answer. On a wintry Saturday at his farm in Hardwick, Mass., he is out in his pastures encouraging a herd of plump Devon cows to move to a grassy new paddock. Over the course of a year, his 100 cattle will rotate across 175 acres four or five times. “Conventional cattle raising is like mining,” he says. “It’s unsustainable, because you’re just taking without putting anything back. But when you rotate cattle on grass, you change the equation. You put back more than you take.”
It works like this: grass is a perennial. Rotate cattle and other ruminants across pastures full of it, and the animals’ grazing will cut the blades — which spurs new growth — while their trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. The plant’s roots also help maintain soil health by retaining water and microbes. And healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere.
Compare that with the estimated 99% of U.S. beef cattle that live out their last months on feedlots, where they are stuffed with corn and soybeans. In the past few decades, the growth of these concentrated animal-feeding operations has resulted in millions of acres of grassland being abandoned or converted — along with vast swaths of forest — into profitable cropland for livestock feed. “Much of the carbon footprint of beef comes from growing grain to feed the animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, transportation,” says Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. “Grass-fed beef has a much lighter carbon footprint.” Indeed, although grass-fed cattle may produce more methane than conventional ones (high-fiber plants are harder to digest than cereals, as anyone who has felt the gastric effects of eating broccoli or cabbage can attest), their net emissions are lower because they help the soil sequester carbon.
From Vermont, where veal and dairy farmer Abe Collins is developing software designed to help farmers foster carbon-rich topsoil quickly, to Denmark, where Thomas Harttung’s Aarstiderne farm grazes 150 head of cattle, a vanguard of small farmers are trying to get the word out about how much more eco-friendly they are than factory farming. “If you suspend a cow in the air with buckets of grain, then it’s a bad guy,” Harttung explains. “But if you put it where it belongs — on grass — that cow becomes not just carbon-neutral but carbon-negative.” Collins goes even further. “With proper management, pastoralists, ranchers and farmers could achieve a 2% increase in soil-carbon levels on existing agricultural, grazing and desert lands over the next two decades,” he estimates. Some researchers hypothesize that just a 1% increase (over, admittedly, vast acreages) could be enough to capture the total equivalent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
This math works out in part because farmers like Shinn don’t use fertilizers or pesticides to maintain their pastures and need no energy to produce what their animals eat other than what they get free from the sun. Furthermore, pasturing frequently uses land that would otherwise be unproductive. “I’d like to see someone try to raise soybeans here,” he says, gesturing toward the rocky, sloping fields around him.
By many standards, pastured beef is healthier. That’s certainly the case for the animals involved; grass feeding obviates the antibiotics that feedlots are forced to administer in order to prevent the acidosis that occurs when cows are fed grain. But it also appears to be true for people who eat cows. Compared with conventional beef, grass-fed is lower in saturated fat and higher in omega-3s, the heart-healthy fatty acids found in salmon.
But not everyone is sold on its superiority. In addition to citing grass-fed meat’s higher price tag — Shinn’s ground beef ends up retailing for about $7 a pound, more than twice the price of conventional beef — feedlot producers say that only through their economies of scale can the industry produce enough meat to satisfy demand, especially for a growing population. These critics note that because grass is less caloric than grain, it takes two to three years to get a pastured cow to slaughter weight, whereas a feedlot animal requires only 14 months. “Not only does it take fewer animals on a feedlot to produce the same amount of meat,” says Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (which contests the U.N.’s 18% figure), “but because they grow so quickly, they have less chance to produce greenhouse gases.”
To Allan Savory, the economies-of-scale mentality ignores the role that grass-fed herbivores can play in fighting climate change. A former wildlife conservationist in Zimbabwe, Savory once blamed overgrazing for desertification. “I was prepared to shoot every bloody rancher in the country,” he recalls. But through rotational grazing of large herds of ruminants, he found he could reverse land degradation, turning dead soil into thriving grassland.
Like him, Coleman now scoffs at the environmentalist vogue for vilifying meat eating. “The idea that giving up meat is the solution for the world’s ills is ridiculous,” he says at his Maine farm. “A vegetarian eating tofu made in a factory from soybeans grown in Brazil is responsible for a lot more CO2 than I am.” A lifetime raising vegetables year-round has taught him to value the elegance of natural systems. Once he and Damrosch have brought in their livestock, they’ll “be able to use the manure to feed the plants, and the plant waste to feed the animals,” he says. “And even though we can’t eat the grass, we’ll be turning it into something we can.”
Monday, January 18, 2010
Dragon Herbs founder Ron Teeguarden shares his wisdom and experience
Great Interview Mike Adams Interviews Ron Teeguarden, Dragon Herbs founder.
He has created great products that I use everyday they are wonderful!
Click here to listen now (MP3).
He has created great products that I use everyday they are wonderful!
Click here to listen now (MP3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)