Amazing Beautiful – Wondrous Things … Animals, Kids, Inspiration, Fun : )

Wondrous Things – Articles, Musings, Posts, Tids and Bits About Things Kind, Good, Natural, Healthy, Wealthy, Wise, Enlightening (Hopefully) Fun! : )
Today it is Friday, May 18, 2012, 10:47 am. in Southern California.
Welcome! : ) This site was created to provide interesting tidbits and facts that seem especially positive, uplifting, entertaining, interesting, inspirational, or of particular benefit to health and well being. Be sure to check out the numerous articles collection listed in the right column. We're glad you're here and hope you enjoy the content. If you have anything wonderful to share, please tell us about it, here.  
 
~~~

Red Wine & Grape Juice

Are Red Wine and Grape Juice Good for You or Not?

The reason I bring this up is because a grandfatherly person I dearly respect (he died before I was born), drank natural, “new wine” every day after the age of 35 until his passing at the age of a very healthy, albeit terminal, 92. (edited as per request by Commenter below)

He said that wine was not for everybody, but he enjoyed it in small quantities of never more than 2 small glasses per day, each glass being less than 6 or 7 ounces.

He also ate very small portions of food per day which he insisted, was paramount in maintaining his perfect health till his very last day, when he passed quietly and peacefully in his sleep.

He lived an exemplary life filled with joy, completion, love and happiness, and was dearly beloved by his loving family.

The wine he drank had no preservatives or additives and was pesticide and chemical free.

It should be noted that wine is derived from “raw” grape juice, then naturally fermented and filtered, while grape juice is heated or pasteurized.

This treatment may change the nature of grape juice, thus explaining its slightly lower benefits.

However, “raw” or unpasteurized grape juice might be of equal benefit as red wine – the research is not in on that one.

Past and new research supports the claim that the polyphenolic compounds in red wine and red or purple grape juice DO inhibit atheroschlerosis and MAY extend life expectancy for 5 years or more.

Whether you should drink 1/2 glass of wine or less than 2 glasses of wine per day depends upon the researcher you speak with.

Note: The research seems to apply to men at this time – whether women would receive same benefits is up for question.

Alcohol tolerance differs between men and women, and women are known to suffer liver disease due to alchohol consumption far sooner than men.

Research links:
“Red wine polyphenolic compounds inhibit atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E–deficient mice independently of effects on lipid peroxidation1,2,3″
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/1/54

“Wines and grape juices as modulators of platelet aggregation in healthy human subjects.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8814965…

“Grape juice, but not orange juice or grapefruit juice, inhibits human platelet aggregation.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613766

“Light wine intake is associated with longer life expectancy in men”
http://www.physorg.com/news91903963.html

“Drinking polyphenol-rich concord grape juice may improve memory in older adults. Pilot Study Showed Improved Memory Skills in Older Adults with Early Memory Decline.”
http://www.welchs.com/…memory-in-older-adults


 
 
~~~
 
 

Truth About Red Meat

Here’s a tasty steak. Is it good for you? This study may have some answers for you.

Okay. Here’s the latest skinny about eating red meat and processed meats and how it affects your risk of dying from cancer and/or heart disease. Cheery!

Below, you will find a rather comprehensive article about the newest research on this joyous topic conducted via the National Cancer Institute (not a particularly rinkydink organization).

The Not So Good News
You have at least a 20% to 50% higher risk of cancer or heart disease if you eat the equivalent of a red meat quarter pound hamburger per day. (We’re not talking about soyburgers, folks.)

Of course, there are always those who believe it’s not worth living anyway unless they can chow down on a steak a day, anyhoos. So be it.

The Not So Bad News
Processed meats were slightly less likely than the red stuff to increase your risk of dying from cancer or heart attack. Oscar Meyer should be relieved and proud.

Must be all those helpful preservatives, organ meats and veggie fillers. Right? : )

The research did not include those who were vegetarians. That would be another interesting study. 

For some unknown reason, it would probably just so happen to be that a diet of veggies only might have even lower rates of dying from cancer and heart disease than eating meat.

Why?

Because nobody said life is fair! : )

SUMMARY: Red and processed meat intakes were associated with moderate increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality. The objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality among
The researchers followed  more than 545,000 people who were AARP members, aged 50 to 71 years old, for 10 years. Over 70,000 people died during that period of time.

Study subjects were recruited from AARP members, a group that’s healthier than other similarly aged Americans. That means the findings may not apply to all groups, Sinha said. The study relied on people’s memory of what they ate, which can be faulty.

Men and women in the highest vs lowest 20% of red and processed meat intakes had elevated risks for overall mortality. Regarding cause-specific mortality, men and women had elevated risks for cancer mortality for red and processed meat intakes.

Furthermore, cardiovascular disease risk was elevated for men and women in the highest 20% of red and processed meat  intakes. When comparing the highest with the lowest 20% of white meat intake, there was an inverse association for total mortality and cancer mortality, as well as all other deaths for both men and women.

In the final analysis, results took into account factors such as smoking, family history of cancer and body weight.

Conclusion: Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

Researcher:
Rashmi Sinha is an investigator in the Nutrition Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, at the National Cancer Institute. Research interests include the role of meat, heterocyclic aromatic amines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cancer etiology, as well as the interaction of genetic susceptibility and nutrition in cancer. Other interests include vitamins A, C and E and cancer, DDT and breast cancer, and development of biomarkers of diet. Sinha’s honors include the National Institute of Health Award of Merit and the Technology Transfer Award. Sinha is associate editor of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, is a reviewer for numerous journals, and has served on a variety of professional committees and boards.

In other words, eating around a quarter pound of red meat daily had a 22 percent higher risk of dying from cancer and a 27 percent higher rate of dying from heart disease than those who ate less than 5 ounces of red meat per week.

Women had a 20 percent higher risk of dying from cancer and 50 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease than those women who ate small amounts.

As for processed meats, the rates of dying from cancer and heart disease were only slightly lower than red meat.

The lowest rates of increased death due to cancer and heart disease were among those who ate white meat and fish.

“11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could have been prevented if they had decreased their meat consumption to the equivalent of a quarter of a small hamburger a day. The chance of men dying of cardiovascular disease would have decreased 11 percent – and 21 percent for women.”

Additional Meat Consumption Information:
Diets containing substantial amounts of red or preserved meats may increase the risk of various cancers. This association may be due to a combination of factors, such as content of fat, protein, and iron, and/or meat preparation (e.g. cooking or preserving methods).

Laboratory results have shown that meats cooked at high temperatures contain heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are mutagenic and carcinogenic in animals. To investigate the role of these compounds we have created separate databases for mutagenic activity,

HCAs, and PAHs, which we have used in conjunction with a validated meat-cooking food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The role of meat type, cooking methods, doneness levels, and meat-cooking mutagens has been examined in both case-control studies and prospective cohort studies.

The results from these studies are mixed for different sub-types of meat, cooking methods, and doneness levels, as well as for estimated intakes of mutagenic activity, HCA, and PAHs.

An additional role of red meat in colon cancer could be through the contribution to N-nitroso compound (NOC) exposure.

Humans can be exposed to NOCs by exogenous (produced outside the body ) routes (from processed meats in particular) and by endogenous (produced within the body) routes.

Endogenous exposure to NOCs has been shown to be dose-dependently related to the amount of red meat in the diet. Recent work suggests that heme iron in red meat may explain the high levels of endogenous NOC, levels equivalent to those found in cigarette smoke.

NOTES:

First Study:

A 124-item food frequency questionnaire ( http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/DHQ/forms/files/shared/dhq1.2002.sample.pdf ) was completed at baseline.

The food frequency questionnaire collected information on the usual consumption of foods and drinks and portion sizes over the last 12 months.

The validity of the food frequency questionnaire was estimated using two 24-hour recalls,8 and the estimated energy-adjusted correlations ranged from 0.36 to 0.76 for various nutrients and attenuation factors ranged from 0.24 to 0.68.

Red meat intake was calculated using the frequency of consumption and portion size information of all types of beef and pork and included bacon, beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburger, hotdogs, liver, pork, sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew.

White meat included chicken, turkey, and fish and included poultry cold cuts, chicken mixtures, canned tuna, and low-fat sausages and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry.

Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats (red and white meat), cold cuts (red and white meat), ham, regular hotdogs and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry.

The components constituting red or white and processed meats can overlap because both can include meats such as bacon, sausage, and ham, while processed meat can also included smoked turkey and chicken.

During 10 years of follow-up, there were 47,976 male deaths and 23,276 female deaths.

In general, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake tended to consume a slightly lower amount of white meat but a higher amount of processed meat compared with those in the lowest 20%.

Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes.

RELATED ARTICLES FROM SCIENCE DAILY

Eating More Red And Processed Meats Linked To Greater Risk For Bowel And Lung Cancer, Findings Suggest (Dec. 11, 2007) — New findings provide evidence that people who eat a lot of red and processed meats have greater risk of developing bowel and lung cancer than people who eat small quantities. The research by Amanda …  > read more
 
Red Meat Linked To Breast Cancer (Apr. 8, 2007) — Eating red meat increases a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer, according to new research from the University of …  > read more
 
Long-term High Consumption Of Red And Processed Meat Linked With Increased Risk For Colon Cancer (Jan. 13, 2005) — High consumption of red and processed meat over a long period of time is associated with an increased risk for a certain type of colon cancer, according to a study in the January 12 issue of …  > read more
 
Eating Red Meat Will Not Increase Colorectal Cancer Risk, Study Suggests (June 13, 2007) — Recent studies published in the journal Cancer Science have disproved the common myth that consumption of red meat increases colorectal cancer risk. The study also found that consumption of fish and …  > read more
 
Moooooove Over, Chicken! — Study Shows Lean Red Meat Can Play A Role In Low-Fat Diet (July 2, 1999) — For years, physicians have avoided red meat when designing heart-healthy diets for their patients. Turns out that’s a bum steer, according to a study published in the June 28 issue of the …  > read more


 
 
~~~
 
 

Four Factors of Success

“The Four Things…”

There are 2 relatively new books out. Coincidentally, one substantiates the other to an almost mystical degree, yet both books and authors are totally unrelated.

The subject matter by which they are intertwined couldn’t be more timely and important to so many seekers of happiness, success, health.

I had the good fortune to bump into the first book quite by chance, then found the second book by fortuitous love for Bookstore Pastries at Borders and the proximity of the Best Seller Table to said pastries.

An aside regarding specific Bookstore pastry – to whit: Their round raspberry scone heated to soft warm perfection chased by Seattle’s Best creamy hot fresh coffee laced with sweet… nice. Very nice.

All right… to continue…

About the first book…

The Mind of the Market by Michael Shermer

Mr. Shermer expounds brilliantly and provocatively upon the most interesting of facts regarding the subliminal and conscious mind and how it is affected by marketing.

Once one understands these mechanisms and harnesses the basic underpinnings of human nature, marketing can become more effective.

On the other hand, armed with the knowledge of marketing techniques, the consumer can be smarter, more astute and more aware of carefully crafted sales manipulation.

Amongst other excruciatingly exacting and fascinating information about the science of marketing, this book proposes the 4 following factors that most characterize the happy and successful:

1. Love of Family
2. Love of Friends and Community
3. Enjoying Your Work
4. Some form of Spirituality focussed on Love

Where on the List is making money? Buying Toys and Gadgets? Having lots of lovely sex? Traveling the world? Seeking fun and adventure? Adorning oneself with gems and jewels?

None of these things were even close to these top four factors.

How strange.

The second book is called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

In the very beginning, he tells the tale of the Rosetans who immigrated to the Pennsylvania area from Roseta, Italy.

Researchers discovered that the American Rosetans were almost completely free of heart disease at age 65, 50% less than the entire United States. How could this be? Was it the diet? life style? the water, land, genetics?

What factors contributed to this astounding statistic?

In what other ways were the American Rosetans blessed?

Additionally, it turns out that there was no suicide, no alcoholism, no drug addiction, very little crime. No ulcers, no one on welfare.

As one researcher noted wistfully about walking about the town, “It was magical.”

The story begins in the 1800s when a young priest settled in the new Roseto, forming spiritual societies and organizing festivals.

He encourages the clearing of land in the long back yards to plants onions, beans, potatoes, melons and fruit trees giving out seeds and bulbs.

The townsfolk began raising their own pigs and growing grapes to make homemade wines right in their back yards as well.

Undoubted they raised herbs, spice plants, salad greens and other vegetables as well although the book did not specify.

Small shops, bakeries, restaurants and little neighborhood bars sprang up. One would always see shopkeepers and customers walking, talking, socializing in front of the businesses.

Was the food special? Did it match the food from the Old Country?

Not at all. In the old country, they used olive oil, Here in New Roseto, they used lard. In fact, Rosetans ate a diet of 41% fat.

Rather than the thin crusted pizzas in Italy with tomatoes, anchovies and perhaps a bit of onion, the American Rosetans ate pizzas replete with sausage, ham, pepperoni, salami.

Rather than eating sweets only on special occasions, they now ate sweets all year round.

So what was the difference?

Was it hardy genes? Special fertile land? Research disovered these played no part.

This is what they DID discover about the new Rosetans:

They lived with extended family, respecting their grandpar3ents. They all shared in a unifying calming spiritual church environment.

And very interestingly… along with 22 civic organizations, Mr. Gladwell notes that the Rosetans lived within an “egalitarian ethos.”

This “ethos” discouraged the wealthier from flaunting their success, while helping the unsuccessful avoid the shame of revealing their failures. They lived in a more “obscure” climate of success and failure.

It was surmised the the following 4 factors contributed to the health and happiness of the new Rosetans:

1. Close knit loving families
2. Friends
3. Culture of Community
4. Spirituality

It seems that the following 4 factors of Book 1 and Book 2 have a 75% concurrence rate.

Coincidence? As of now, I tend to think both authors are very much onto something.

Long ago, we started a series of community websites. We rather knew then that community was more valuable than the suburbs would lead you to believe.

We were not alone. Perhaps everyone can reach into themselves and know that in working together, we work well.

There are those who believe in the Lone Wolf, the singular man, the isolationist philosophy, the “every man for himself” attitude.

Some think of running off to a wild spot to survive on their own.

But, it most likely seems that those who will do best in the future are those who can work together as a community.

What do you think?


 
 
~~~