What's in an apple? Buying organic, healthful produce becomes increasingly complicated

These days, it seems increasingly difficult to know what to shop for at the grocery store. Is organic always better than conventional? What if it's an "organic" product that's been flown half-way around the world, burning up fossil fuels that contribute to global warming? How do you decide what's better: A conventional apple grown locally with chemical pesticides, or an organic apple from another continent?

This is a common conundrum among consumers: How do you decide which grocery products are best for not just your own personal health, but also the health of the planet? It's a more complex decision than it might first seem. For one thing, much of the information necessary to make an informed decision simply isn't available to consumers. There is not determined enforcement of the rule, for example, that foods are accurately labeled with their country of origin. Nor is there any requirement to disclose which foods were grown with pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals banned in the United States (and U.K.) but still legal in other places like Central and South America.

If that last sentence surprises you, it should: not one in a hundred American consumers are aware that it is perfectly legal for U.S. chemical companies to export dangerous chemical pesticides (like DDT) that have been banned for use on crops in the United States. Those pesticides are sold to countries with lower environmental and health standards which turn around and use them on crops that are exported right back to the USA. So U.S. consumers end up eating produce grown with the very same pesticides banned in the United States, and it's all perfectly legal and openly accepted by the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In the U.S., there's also the issue of so-called "illegal immigrants" (which I believe to be a strange term, since in my opinion there's no such thing as an "illegal" human being). On one hand, U.S. consumers demand cheap produce that can only be grown and harvested with the help of illegal immigrant labor. On the other hand, Americans grumble about too many Mexicans migrating into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, claiming they are stealing jobs and bankruptcing cities and states. And yet, not surprisingly, when most consumers have a choice between a $3 apple grown on a farm that pays legal wages to U.S. workers and a $1 apple grown on a farm that pays "illegal" wages to an undocumented worker from Mexico, most Americans will choose the $1 apple (and in doing so, they are in fact continuing to vote for the very illegal immigration they claim to oppose).

Challenging to consumers
Making an informed produce purchasing decision at the grocery store, it turns out, is nearly impossible these days. There's no way to know where the food came from, what soils it was grown in, the immigration status of those who harvested it, and which chemicals were used on it. And to make matters worse, powerful food corporations are constantly trying to water down the definition of "organic" to include the agricultural use of obscene substances such as raw human sewage. (Fortunately, that was not ultimately allowed under the "organic" label, but the food companies tried to sneak it in!)

The only way to truly know where your food comes from is to know your local farmers. When you know the people growing your food, and you can meet them face to face, then you know what you're getting. That's why I'm a huge supporter of CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture), farmers' markets, backyard gardening and local food co-ops. Through organizations like these, consumers can maintain close relationships with the people who grow their food, and farmers are able to exercise far greater control over what they grow, how they grow it, and how much they get paid for it.

Large commercial food companies like ADM would prefer that farmers remain isolated from consumers. They want all the food processing to go through them first, where they set the prices and conditions that farmers are forced to accept. Other corporations have used intellectual property control over genetically modified seeds to threaten farmers who are refusing to adopt their pesticide-ready crop varieties. It's all part of a plan to control the global food supply -- an endeavor that inevitably destroys local farming as well as agricultural biodiversity (which leaves crops susceptible to future wipeouts from infectious disease).

Sure, these companies can produce a nice, round, shiny apple at the grocery store for an unbelievably low price, but at what cost to the world? The existence of that apple is based on numerous inputs that may be highly detrimental to the health of the planet as a whole: The burning of fossil fuels for farming and transportation, the use of chemical pesticides that wash downstream and poison aquatic ecosystems, the use of artificial fertilizers that lack real soil nutrition, the destruction of microbial life in agricultural soils, the loss of biodiversity and the subsequent decline in wildlife populations, and so on.

The history is all there
When you look at an apple, you're really looking at an historical account of everything that happened to bring you that apple. The whole story is written into that apple. There's the intention of the people involved with producing that apple, the health of the soils, the use of chemicals (or not) on the apple, the impact on the environment, and much more.

An organic, locally-farmed apple from a small family farm tells a very different story: Respect for nature, positive intention, healthful soils, humility in nature, connection with plants and animals, biodiversity, minimal use of fossil fuels, and so on. This is the kind of apple I'd like to eat... how about you?

Now here's the real kicker in all this: When you eat an apple, you absorb and assimilate the story that went into creating that apple! So eating an organic, locally-grown, consciously-harvested apple gives you not only nourishment and biochemical nutrition, it also gives you the positive energy of abundance, humility, harmony and happiness. A conventionally-grown apple, on the other hand, is more likely to give you the story of greed, desperation, depletion, fear and disease. Is that the energy you want circulating in your veins?

An apple, you see, is made of much more than its chemical constituents. All fruits and vegetables have water, and water stores emotional energy, passing it on to those who consume the water. Since an apple is probably something like 75% water by volume, eating an apple is actually an exercise in chewing mostly on water.

Aren't you curious to know what kind of energy and intention is in that water? You should be. Because beyond the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients in the apple, the water impacts your body, mind and spirit more than anything else. And one of the reasons we see so much obesity in America today is because people are eating empty, lifeless food products that provide only calories but no energetic nourishment. The food is mostly an empty shell, lifeless and devoid of positive vibration (and then they cook it, irradiate it and process it even more to give it shelf life!).

For the most part, the food isn't being grown, harvested and sold at a high enough vibration to end the cravings human beings have for nourishment at all levels: physical, emotional and spiritual. The food being sold today is missing something, and if you want complete food that's nourishing at all levels, I strongly recommend you grow it yourself or work with local farmers who you know are passionate about cooperating with nature to maximize abundance for themselves and those around them.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guies, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NewsTarget email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org

The FDA still allows serious conflicts of interest in decision panel experts

(NewsTarget) Earlier this year, the FDA announced a series of significant changes to its policy on conflict of interest in advisory panels. Up until now, there have been no rules barring experts with financial conflicts of interest from participating in the panels, which recommend to the agency which drugs, diagnostic tests and medical devices should be approved for use.

The FDA has come under increasing fire lately for its policies toward conflicts of interest. Because the FDA almost always accepts the recommendations of its advisory panels, critics have been particularly concerned that many of the "experts" that make up these panels have financial ties to the companies that make the products being reviewed.

Under the new rules, no one who has received $50,000 or more in financial benefits from a company in the previous 12 months -- including direct research grants, stocks and consulting fees -- may participate in a panel about any of that company's products. People who have received less than $50,000 in the past year may participate but not vote.

While welcoming the announcement as a step in the right direction, many critics claim that the new rules do not go far enough. R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist from the University of Wisconsin, noted that the FDA ignored the national Institute of Medicine's recommendation to cap the number of members with conflicts of interest on any given advisory panel.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, said that the new rules fail to take into account more subtle forms of influence.

"A drug rep who takes someone to a memorable restaurant twice a year to chat about their research is spending relatively little money but is building a relationship that is likely to be more influential than giving a $2,000 honorarium -- perhaps even more than a $50,000 grant...funded by several companies," she said.

Zuckerman also pointed out that simply being barred from voting does not prevent someone from influencing a panel's decision.

"The votes are often unanimous, because the group comes to a consensus -- almost always to approve a product," she said.

September 1, 2007 - The Day the Raw Almonds Died in North America

(NewsTarget Citizen Journalism Report) In April 2007, Newstarget reported on the Almond Board of California and USDA's plans to make the pasteurization of almonds mandatory. The final plan was published in the Federal Registry on March 30, 2007 and we are now beyond the implementation date of September 1, 2007.

According to the final regulations, all almonds must be pasteurized either thermally or with propylene oxide. The only exception to the pasteurization requirement would be for almonds exported outside of the United States, Canada and Mexico, and those almonds are required to be labeled as “unpasteurized.” Growers are also exempt from having to perform the pasteurization process directly if they choose, but are required to then ship the unpasteurized almonds to a “handler” corporation where the chemical or heat pasteurization would occur before final distribution.

Although steam pasteurization falls within the chemical standards of organic processing, it eliminates the option of organic raw almonds. Since the USDA denies any impact on the nutritional value of the almonds, producers of steam pasteurized almonds have been and will still legally able to label and market them as “raw” if they so choose. Nevertheless, the required pasteurization temperature of 158 degrees is well above the 110 to 120 degree breakpoint considered as a standard for raw food and therefore raw food proponents consider this to be an endorsement of deceptive marketing practices. According to the comments listed in the Federal Registry, one supporter of the new regulations has already begun pasteurizing his almonds and stated that “his raw almond business has increased since implementing 100 percent treatment with no increase in quality complaints.” His identity and the size of his farm was not disclosed.

The only other currently accepted and available method for pasteurization is fumigation with propylene oxide. Propylene oxide is a chemical compound used to manufacture sealants, aerosol pain concentrates, varnish removers, waterproofing compounds, and pesticides in addition to its uses as a fumigant in food production. It is listed as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, has been shown in studies of rats to harm developing fetuses and may cause neuropathological changes in both rats and monkeys. According to the USDA, PPO is currently not permitted for food use in Canada or the EU but is allowed in Mexico.

Comments opposing the new regulations came from small growers who contend that these rules will force them out of business. The USDA’s response was to suggest that these growers examine their business model and determine the feasibility of remaining in business, and that their concerns had to be weighed against the safety of the population as a whole.

This new regulation effectively and completely ends any North American consumer ability to purchase domestically grown true organic, raw almonds except for residents of California who have access to local growers who can sell them at farmstead stands or by ordering from growers such as D&S Ranches in Selma, California who seem poised to fight this ruling.

The Almond Board of California and the USDA have cooperated in a manner that sends several interesting messages to consumers both here and abroad. Not requiring pasteurization for almonds destined for consumers outside of North America implies either that safety is more of a concern for domestic consumers or that foreign consumers are better able to evaluate their personal health decisions. It also suggests that the expense of pasteurization could negatively impact our competitiveness in the global almond market, which is contradictory to the USDA’s suggestion to small growers that competitive issues are not as important as public health safety. Finally, since California is the world’s largest producer of almonds, the extension of this regulation to Canada and Mexico means that the United States is essentially forcing its own policies on the citizens of other nations.

Consumers should keep in mind that any almonds labeled as “raw” in stores now are pasteurized and perhaps have been for quite some time.

Although it seems unlikely that the new regulations will be reconsidered since an appeal for implementation delay has already been rejected, organic and raw food advocates are still trying to bring public attention to the issue. Consumers can raise their voices by contacting their representatives or by visiting sites like Organic Consumers, which has an online petition for members, and the Cornucopia Institute, which has sample letters for printing and mailing.


About the author
Andrea is a Denver area financial planner, financial educator with the Heartland Institute of Financial Education, writer, wife & mother. Questions, comments and story ideas may be directed to AndreaNewsTarget@hotmail.com.

Mass drugging of schoolchildren remains dark secret of public education, psychiatry

Believe it or not, until recently, it has been perfectly legal for schools to force schoolchildren to be put on psychoactive mind-altering drugs as a condition of attending that school. That is, the school administrator or counselor could insist that a certain child be dosed with mind-altering drugs. It sounds bizarre, but it was absolutely true until just recently.

Finally, Congress has passed legislation that bans schools from forcing parents to drug their children for behavioral problems. This law was even signed by President Bush, believe it or not.

Now you may think that, gee, this wasn't a problem, I never heard about this. But in fact it was a huge problem. There have been many cases where children were denied an education because their parents refused to put them on narcotic stimulants, antidepressants and other drugs that we now know cause violent behavior and increased risk of suicide. There were schools actually forcing parents to put their children on drugs that would cause aggressive behavior and suicidal thoughts. And, in extreme cases, these drugs actually caused or contributed to the kind of mass murders like we saw in Columbine where the two high school students picked up assault rifles, went to school, and blew away teachers and classmates. These two kids were on antidepressant drugs -- it's still one of the most censored stories of the last decade.

Think about it: these kids were taking antidepressants when they blew away their classmates and teachers. And yet the school districts are insisting that more children be put on these drugs!

Now, I knew there were problems with the public school system, I knew that a lot of public education was a complete waste of time and that many public schools are nothing more than taxpayer funded daycare. But even I was horrified to learn that our public schools are turning into mental institutions and forcing children to be dosed on psychoactive drugs just to be there. What happened to the right of children to have an honest education these days? What happened to the right of parents to protect their children from the abusive behavior of drug companies and psychiatrists who irresponsibly over-prescribe these drugs even though they're increasingly aware of the toxic, dangerous side effects of these drugs?

(By the way, three years ago, anybody who said that antidepressant drugs cause violent behavior was called a nut case. Now it's a commonly recognized scientific truth, published in peer-reviewed journals and widely acknowledged by the scientific community. It just goes to show you how unpopular it is when you're a few years ahead of the public perception on these things.)

This law has been needed for quite some time. And who was against this law? Of course, it was the psychiatrists! The community of psychiatrists did not want to let go of this power, because when you have the power to force children to take drugs and to force parents to put children on those drugs, you have consolidated power over entire communities. That's what the psychiatrists have done -- when psychiatrists were given the right to prescribe drugs, they were given power, and they don't want to let go of that power. So they fought bitterly against this bill and they aren't happy with its passage.

But of course, they're continuing to just invent new fictitious diseases by diagnosing children with so-called mental disorders that have no verifiable scientific basis whatsoever. These diseases are completely fictional (like "social anxiety disorder" and "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"). The hallucinations, it seems, are in the minds of the psychiatrists, not in the minds of the children. And when it comes to behavioral disorders, if you want to calm down the children and help them pay attention and learn more effectively, you've got to look at nutrition, not drugs. You have to get the sugar out of their diets, you have to take the food additives and the hydrogenated oils and the high-fructose corn syrup out of their diets. When you do that, 80% of these children that have been diagnosed with ADHD become non-ADHD children in two weeks or less. 80%. All you've got to do is take these food additives out of their diet, and all of a sudden they're normal, wonderful children who can learn and focus. They don't need drugs.

The threshold for drugging children is far too low in this country -- we have far too many people interested in the power, the profits and the control of drugging children. And it is laws like this that we need passed in this country. We need people to know (especially parents) that they don't have to agree to having their children dosed on toxic drugs. They have the right to say no! They have the right to protect their children from the ambitions of psychiatrists, the megalomania of an industry that wants to drug entire populations, and the profit-seeking ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry.

What's interesting is that one of the main proponents of this bill was the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). Other groups that supported this law include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the National Foundation of Women Legislators (NFWL), and Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education.

You may wonder why the NAACP, in particular, backed legislation like this. The answer is because it was predominantly black children who were being labeled as problem children and dosed with these drugs. The black community in America is watching an entire generation be dosed up with mind-altering drugs. That's as sad as anything I've ever seen in this country. Instead of helping these young black children get an honest education and get the skills that they need to succeed in life, we had psychiatrists and drug companies just putting them on drugs that basically numb their brains to the point where, sure, they're no longer a behavioral problem, but they're not learning anything either. How does that help society? It doesn't. All it does is create another high school dropout who can't function because they didn't get an honest education.

I'm going to be called a racist for saying this (like I care), but here goes: there are a lot of white psychiatrists drugging the heck out of low-income black children and calling it "medicine." That's not medicine, that's a chemical assault on the children of America. And frankly, African Americans have every right to be outraged about it.

So let's stop drugging our children and let's start teaching them for a change. Let's get the psychiatrists out of our schools and get the drug companies away from our children. Why is it that we teach our children to "just say no to drugs," and then we turn around and dose them up on powerful narcotics anyway? What kind of message does that send to our nation's youth?

While we're at it, let's start paying teachers honest salaries so that we can attract and retain high-quality people into the teaching industry. Let's start funding our schools with the money they need to actually provide quality education and let's have some serious school reform so that we can eliminate the old bureaucracy that currently runs our public schools all across the country.

We have a system of education here that's 200 years old; nothing much has changed! We still have chalkboards, erasers and stodgy lecture formats for conveying information to students. We need something new in our schools, and there are a lot of hard-working teachers and administrators who have great ideas but are shut down by the bureaucracy and psychiatrists who insist on drugging the students. Let these people have a chance to get some work done, to do the teaching they want to do, to put new ideas into action and see what works in terms of educating our children. I believe that teachers are teachers for the right reason -- they want to work with children; they want to help children learn. We need to give them the tools and the funds that they need to be better teachers, and that means making sure our kids are off of drugs so they have the state of mind necessary for learning.

Because right now, we're not raising a generation of smart, well-educated children. We're producing a wave of over-diagnosed, over-drugged, over-labeled children who are increasingly incapable of functioning as productive citizens in society.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He's also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NewsTarget subscriptions. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

St. John's Wort proven more effective than antidepressant drugs for treating depression

A new study published in Germany has found that St. John's Wort, a medicinal herb frequently blamed by conventional medicine for interfering with prescription drugs, is more effective than a popular antidepressant drug in treating depression. The study found that the herb is actually much more effective than antidepressant drugs, since more than half of those taking St. John's Wort in the trial experienced improvements in symptoms of mental depression. Conversely, only 1/3 of those taking the popular antidepressant drug showed such improvements. Not surprisingly, those taking the herb also showed significantly fewer negative side effects compared to those taking the prescription drug.

This is a case in which the herb is not only more effective, but also safer; a fact that should not be surprising, since medicinal herbs are typically more effective and significantly safer than prescription drugs. Also, St. John’s Wort is a natural medicinal herb that has been used safely and effectively by cultures throughout the world for thousands of years. So with the findings of this study, we once again see a much better alternative for treating depression than prescription drugs

We also learned recently that St. John’s Wort is only one of many natural treatments for severe depression. A diet of select foods high in omega-3 fatty acids offers good, strong nutrition normally lacking in the American diet, and also aids in treating depression much more effectively than prescription drugs.

However, if you are in search of a way to treat your depression, it is always much better to eliminate the depression at its source, rather than try to mask its symptoms with a drug or an herb. Many people tend to use St. John's Wort and other herbs in an allopathic fashion, which means they attempt to counter a disease or symptom with a chemical, regardless of whether that chemical comes from a plant or a prescription drug. Using medicinal herbs or prescription drugs in such a way is really not a healthy way to treat symptoms, disorders or diseases. The only way to achieve a high state of health is to pursue a healthy lifestyle through nutrition, physical activity, exposure to natural sunlight, strong social interaction, brain exercise, good breathing, staying away from environmental toxins, and so on.

But while the study shows St. John's Wort to be more effective than antidepressant drugs, an educated naturopathic physician or nutritionist may not suggest that you simply switch from antidepressants to St. John's Wort. That is still an allopathic approach. An educated person would recommend that you improve your lifestyle by adopting healthy food and exercise habits, which would eliminate the depression without the need for any herbs or drugs.

As expected, this news about the effectiveness of St. John's Wort drives Big Pharma crazy, since they cannot stand for researchers to discover yet another herb or food that works better than their drugs. Naturally, they hope that very few people ever discover this news, since it doesn't serve their interests. They want people to use prescription drugs, and the fewer people who know about nutrition and disease prevention, the better the profits are for the pharmaceutical industry.

As I've said before, I don't believe that this is some grand conspiracy. It's simply greed in action. The drug companies have no reason to tell people they can eliminate depression through phototherapy or by eating flax seeds, walnuts, fish oils and molasses. They want people to think the only solution is a chemical solution; that if you have a symptom, you need a drug.

And surprisingly, many people believe just that. I have seen perfectly healthy individuals believe some diagnosis of depression, and walk around popping Prozac pills every couple of hours. I ask them, "Why are you taking these drugs?" And they say, "My doctor told me to." I usually ask them if they do everything that people wearing lab coats with medical degrees tell them. At that point they're usually annoyed and leave, taking an extra Prozac pill as they go. They are likely thinking that they have been verbally assaulted and now need additional chemical help.

But all joking aside; the fact remains that our population would be quite foolish to follow the advice of doctors and take chemicals to treat depression based on these diagnoses.

What people should do instead is take care of their own health to avoid needing prescription drugs in the first place. We do not need antidepressants, statin drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, beta blockers, or any other popular drugs. We certainly do not need drugs like Viagra, since its users likely only need the drug due to either poor nutrition or the fact that they are taking statin drugs, which interfere with their normal sex hormone production. In practically every case, it is quite appropriate to ditch the drugs with the supervision of a qualified health professional, and instead shift your lifestyle to become healthier.

If you still find yourself clinically depressed and in want of a quick fix, reach for St. John's Wort instead of antidepressant prescription drugs.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known as the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission statements are located at www.HealthRanger.org

Distorted research claims exercise is bad for you

I'm always amazed at simple-minded researchers who can't seem to handle anything more than a single variable equation. The latest comes from a growing collection of researchers and sports science figures who conclude exercise is bad for you. Why do some people reach this conclusion? Because they figured out that exercise creates free radicals, therefore you won't live as long with all these free radicals in your body.

How's that for twisted logic? Exercise is actually bad for you. Of course, many people in America will love this news, because it confirms their strategy for longevity: sitting on the couch and watching TV. Now, they are proven correct by this research! Being sedentary will extend your lifespan, at least if you believe these simple-minded researchers.

As I mentioned, they can only handle single-variable equations: X=5, or X=12. They can't handle anything like X+Y=12, because apparently, the Y variable is too complicated for them and it has no place in their research. What is the Y variable that I'm talking about here in terms of exercise, free radicals, and longevity? It's nutrition and antioxidants. If you engage in a lot of physical exercise, yet refuse to supplement your diet with superfoods, antioxidants, or other nutritional supplements, then yes, in fact, you are perhaps creating more oxidative stress than if you did nothing. And this is a common mistake made by many people who engage in various forms of exercise.

It's most common in body builders. Body builders seem to put all the emphasis on the cosmetic effect of building muscle mass, and no emphasis on long-term health. Many of them, it seems, will do anything to add a bit more muscle mass, regardless of what happens to their internal organs, immune system, endocrine system, and so on.

What they need is good nutrition. If you exercise and take nutritional supplements to boost the antioxidant level in your tissues, that you will be far healthier than doing either one alone, and of course you will be enormously healthier than the average person.

So it is this combination that matters -- physical exercise and outstanding nutrition. If you do one without the other, you don't get the same beneficial effect. It's even true if you just take nutritional supplements and neglect exercise, because exercise is what moves blood around your body. If you aren't exercising, you aren't distributing the good nutrition that you're ingesting, and it doesn't reach all the cells in your body. Remember that the health of your total system is a reflection of your health at the cellular level. Therefore, if you want to be healthy as a whole person, and have healthy organs, healthy function, and good longevity, then get your cells healthy. The only way to do that is to eat superfoods, nutritional supplements, take lots of vitamins and minerals, and avoid depleting those substances by refusing to ingest foods and beverages that actually strip your body of nutrition. Those include white flour, added sugars, soft drinks, and so on.

At the same time, you have to keep in mind what level of exercise you are subjecting yourself to. There's no doubting that physical exercise can be quite strenuous on the human body. This is especially true if you engage in strength training. It is, in fact, the aim of strength training -- you want to stress your body so that your body adapts, and the way it adapts is by building additional muscle mass in order to equip you with the physical structures you need to better meet those same stresses in the future. Body building is, in fact, the application of stress adaptive responses in a structured way.

But the mistake in all of this research is leaving out the nutrition factor. They probably performed this experiment on everyday, average Americans, and if so, they got a distorted result, and this is one of the huge problems with much of the so-called scientific research being conducted today. It's actually being conducted on a distorted population, because practically everybody has nutritional deficiencies, is chronically dehydrated, suffers from lack of zinc and magnesium and B vitamins and so on. When you conduct tests on the so-called average American, you're actually conducting tests on diseased people and then drawing conclusions from that. Those conclusions don't support the scientific realities that would emerge if these studies were conducted on healthy people.

Because the more important question to ask in all of this is: how does physical exercise improve longevity and reduce the risk of death, especially when combined with superior nutrition and healthy lifestyle habits? That's the question that matters, and that's the question I've been answering for readers through thousands of articles, reports, and e-books over the last several years. That's the question that really matters. And the answers certainly won't be found in simple-minded research that claims exercise is bad for you.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. Known as the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission statements are located at www.HealthRanger.org