I just have a second to post this one.  The Washington Post reports a major study finding that when a pharmaceutical company funds a study, over 90% of the time, the study comes out in their favor.  When drugs go head-to-head, the winner is nearly always whoever funded the study.

A former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine explains ( How to skew ... )

So, I know that this isn't exactly a dollar *per* meal.  Because the dinner obviously costs way more than the breakfast & the lunch.  But if I were on food stamps, there's nothing that says that I have to spend evenly on each meal.  Of course, you also can't buy stuff the way I do on food stamps.  

Therein lies our problem.  It's a big one.  It's faced by tens of thousands of people every day.

I love this inspiring story of how one family avoided the processed food trap on almost no money for food: beans, greens, & cornbread two meals a day, every day but Christmas.  And in Nina Planck's great, fun book on Real Food, she reiterates something important - if you can't afford real, organic food, choose real over organic.  Roast beef over organic canned beef stew.  Green beans over "lowcarb" french fried onions.  Just real food.

Well, ( here's day two... )

The San Francisco food bank is sponsoring a Hunger Challenge - can you live on $1 per meal?  (That's the average amount that someone on food stamps receives.)  I just found out about the blogger component to this, and really, I love the idea!  Raising awareness of what so many people live on, challenging us to live in solidarity with them, and donating the difference to help - brilliant! 

I was getting ready to live on beans & rice this week.  Ick.  Like this empathizing blogger, I envisioned going through the store and realizing again and again what I *couldn't* get.  It is really eye-opening to understand just what so many fellow Americans feel each time they try to shop for their family.

Then I did the math.  For our family of six, we're allotted $126 for the week.

But when you take the amount we spend in a year on food, & divide it by 52, in an ordinary week, buying only organic/pastured meat, produce, dairy, & eggs, we currently only spend $150.

So I thought that maybe part of the contribution I could make this week is contemplating what kind of changes could be made to food supply systems that would help others be able to eat a nourishing meal on that $1/meal.

( Real food on a dollar a meal ... )

Okay, I've been pondering the water thing for a while.  Can it really be necessary to drink 8 cups or more of water every day?  To do this, our ancestors would have done almost nothing but cart water for their large families & villages.  Maybe we're really supposed to have more water-rich veggies, fruits, soups, & fresh milk, with less water-sucking sweets & ill-prepared grains?

( Science + LYM's own experience ... )

Years ago, a teacher in Wisconsin conducted an experiment with her class (p. 31).  They took 6 normal mice, put half in each of two cages, and fed them different diets for 3 months.  One set ate whole, natural food - you know, stuff you can imagine growing, like fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, whole rice or oats - and the other ate the stuff from the cafeteria.  The article doesn't specify, but I can imagine they mean pizza, American "cheese", Coke, hot dogs, candy, cookies, fries, mac & "cheese", white rice/noodles/buns, "riblets," waffles, canned fruit in heavy syrup, chicken patties, tater tots ...

Those mice went berserk.  While the "real food" mice continued to sleep & play normally,

( Well, what did the school do? ... )

( We've known for years that real food is best ... )

We know what we have to do.

Well, this one surprised me.  It seems that a strict self-exam routine  (same day every month, same pattern, same position, note your findings...) had absolutely no improvement in breast cancer mortality over those who did nothing at all.  It also led to twice as many biopsies - meaning all those biopsies, with their own risks, were unnecessary.

So now, rather than promoting self-exams, they're promoting "relaxed breast awareness."  Rather than a strict routine, just "know yourself & what is normal for you."  I didn't see that in the science (since there was no improvement over those who did NOTHING), but sure.  It seems to make sense. 

Said the researchers, "At present, screening by breast self-examination or physical examination cannot be recommended."

While one may ask how a woman should be "aware" of any changes without conducting self-exams, one may also ask how the stress of false positives & unnecessary biopsies affects them, particularly since overwhelmingly stressful events are associated with cancer development.

"The antidepressant Prozac and related drugs are no better than placebo in treating all but the most severely depressed patients" reports a science news service.  Says the UK's The Guardian, "When all the data was pulled together, [including studies suppressed by the manufacturer,] it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs."

Good riddance.

Six years ago, the first blow was dealt: A New York Times piece dared to ask, What if it's all been a big Fat lie?  It came after more than a decade of banning all fat, including those now recognized as "heart-healthy," like almonds, avocados, & olives.  Gradually, we began to realize that *some* fats were okay: namely, unsaturated ones.  Then, they started to tell us that butter was better than margarine.  Now, the truth is coming out that it's trans fats & partially hydrogenated oils that are killing us.  We're even realizing that saturated fats are not the devil - Crisco & margarine are.  After decades of trial, most fats - the natural ones (butter, lard, coconut oil...)  - are finally exonerated.

Did I just say lard?  You bet I did!  

"A popular operation for arthritis of the knee worked no better than a sham procedure in which patients were sedated while surgeons pretended to operate," reported the New York Times a few years ago.  The procedure in question is arthroscopic surgery performed with the intent to benefit osteoarthritis.

Last fall, the FDA came out saying that cough medicine usually doesn't work for kids, and when it does, its risks do not outweigh its benefits (covering up annoying symptoms of a respiratory illness).  In the articles above, we find out that Benedryl, cough suppressants, cold meds, don't work any better than placebos.

We're blessed to have very few colds, one ear infection (the only child ever in group care - "Mother's Morning Out"), and no strep throat in our 11 years of family life.  Hardly anyone gets sick.  I attribute it to years of nursing each child, no group care (including school) exposure, avoiding junk, and a LOT of luck.


More recently, doctors are saying that cough & cold medicines don't do any more than placebos for adults, either.

Long thought to be a vestigial organ b/c they couldn't figure it out, the appendix is being rehabilitated.  It appears likely to be a tiny safe harbor of beneficial bacteria waiting to spring into action to repopulate our guts should they be wiped out through infection.

80% of our immune system is the bacteria in our gut.  They can get out of balance by being wiped out by antibiotics or severe diarrhea, normally good ones (like e. coli) overpopulating b/c of a current weakness letting in an excess of them (e.g., via contaminated water or food), and certain other ways.  It's amazing to know that God working through nature has provided a way for us to replenish our guts in times of hardship. 

Sadly, the researchers have decided it's not worth it to study whether the hypothesis is true.  They claim it can "cure no disease" - really?  Our gut flora don't get unbalanced or wiped out anymore?


How wise are we really, when we assume that if we don't understand it, it must not be? 

Yahoo recently put up an article on sunscreen and how it increases skin cancer.  It confirms several points I've found in digging around the online medical journal studies:

• sunscreen does not protect against melanoma
• relying on sunscreen instead of covering up or managing sun exposure increases skin cancer risk
• our bizarre habits of semi-nudity at beaches are the cause of most of our skin damage
• many sunscreens break down in the sun, some begin in just 15 minutes
• most people use nowhere close to enough sunscreen to provide the claimed SPF level, anyway
• chemicals in sunscreen cause DNA damage and may contribute to cancer, including skin cancer

(The EWG referenced in the article is the consumer group responsible for the Skin Deep Cosmetics Database linked in my other posts on sunscreen.)

Concludes the Yahoo article (from LiveScience.com):  "We merely think we are protected; few really are."

ETA: Link has gone; here's the original from LiveScience.com.

Yes, olive oil.  No, I'm not kidding!

Unrefined olive & coconut oils, and shea butter, have a natural sun protection equivalent to about SPF 4-6.  That means if you are super pale and can't stay out more than 15 min w/o burning, extra virgin olive oil will give you an hour.  For most folks, most of the year, olive oil will get you 2-4hrs protection all by itself.

I've tried it.  It works.  With no chemicals, and the added bonus of being a wonderful moisturizer!  Affordable, too. (esp. compared to commercial natural sunscreens)

Caveat: do read my experience with using it over the course of a day in FL here.  I've found that re-applying will only get additional sun protection if preceeded by a good long session in the shade first.

(No, it's not greasy - just use a little, and it rubs right in.)
(No, it doesn't fry you.  Chances are, the "oil" you remember your friends coating themselves with in the 70s was "baby oil" (mineral oil, a petroleum product), which, according to one site (which I have NOT substantiated), dissolves the skin's natural oils, leaving you more exposed than if you had nothing at all!)
(We keep it in an old vitamin E oil container - holds an ounce or two - with a flip-top lid reclaimed from a lotion bottle.  Perfect, and lovely, too, with the golden oil & black lid.  Fits perfectly in my purse or glove box.)

LYM, are you insane?  How can you recommend one day to avoid sunscreen, and the very next to get daily sun?  That's ridiculous!

Here's the thing.  We need sun.  We're biologically designed to be outside most of our lives, so it's not too surprising that it benefits us.  Not just for vitamin D, but for eyesight, circadian rhythms, mental wellness, and who knows what else we haven't yet discovered.  Our bodies haven't yet gotten the memo that we live indoor lives now.

But - we've migrated.  My pale skin is made for Germany, not Georgia.  I simply do not have enough melanin distributed throughout my skin to protect me from the sun at this latitude.  I can't just go outside and hang out all day in a tunic. 

Sunscreen seemed like a great solution - till we found out it doesn't do much of anything.  It prevents the symptoms of damage w/o preventing the damage itself.  Not to mention the chemicals that are layering onto our largest organ.  So what next?

What does sunscreen protect us from?

• Not melanoma
• Not basal-cell carcinoma

It seems it protects us from most UVB rays, which cause vitamin D production in the skin & cause a burn to start when we exceed our personal tolerance for the sun we're getting.  Most sunscreens made in the last few years also offer some degree of protection from UVA rays (which seem to be responsible for premature aging of the skin).  So that means, best case:

What does it definitely protect us from?

• Sunburn
• Wrinkles

But what happens when you take away the body's warning system - sunburn?  We spend far more time in the sun than our natural protection would allow, so:

What's the cost?

• Vitamin D deficiency
• Depressed immune function.
• Skin cancer.  Old, UVB-only, sunscreens never protected us against 2 of the 3 skin cancer types, including the most deadly form.  Scientists are hoping that newer UVA/UVB ("broad-spectrum") sunscreens do, but so far it's only a guess.  Even if we're right, the most UVA-shielding ingredients are also the ones that break down in the sun, and there is no guarantee that even SPF 70 is protecting you against UVA - SPF only refers to UVB.  (There is rising evidence that melanoma is caused by sun *deficiency*.)
• Risks from the chemicals and nanoparticle physical ingredients themselves.

Three of the risk factors for non-melanoma skin cancer in a recent study - increased time in the sun, changes in clothing style (people who choose not to use sunscreen tend to wear clothing with more coverage), and immune suppression - are increased by sunscreen use.

Many people say, "Go to the beach, play golf, swim all day, but don't forget your sunscreen!" 

But when we put that sunscreen on, are we really protecting ourselves from anything at all?  Or just removing our natural warning system that we've exceeded our personal ability to process the good from the sun, and continuing to stay out with no protection at all, only the appearance of it? 

Get the details here.

Monday's USA Today tells of a 14 year old boy, a normal boy, whose bones were invisible on X-rays.  They were so thin that they appeared clear - the doctor thought the machine was broken.  More tests revealed serious vitamin D deficiency - and bones 50% less dense than they should be.

Rickets is a rising epidemic in the US & Canada, especially among darker skinned folks.  Forty-two percent of US teens, & 40% of small children are D-deficient, which happens well before the rickets stage.  We've known for a while that up to 90% of adults are deficient.  Why?  Sun phobia. 

The body produces vitamin D upon exposure to the sun - but sunscreen prevents that.  We are told by dermatologists and skin cancer experts & every makeup & lotion company that we need SPF products every single day of our lives, winter included.  Sunscreens are mixed into everyday products from moisturizer to lipstick.  Check out just one example: "Apply liberally on face, neck and other exposed areas every morning."  Words like "dangerous" are nearly always attached to the word "sun."   Some phrases from one of my favorite personal care companies: "It [reflects] dangerous UVA-UVB rays."  "Whether it’s overcast, you’re in the car, just had a facial peel, walking the dog…you need a sunscreen!"

Sunscreen doesn't prevent melanoma.  A few years ago, that was an established fact..  Did you know that?  I didn't.  I asked my mother if she knew sunscreen doesn't prevent deadly skin cancer and she said, "No, of course it doesn't!  But it prevents sunburn!"

If sunburn is the body's warning system that I've gotten more sun than my body can safely manage, then what happens when I remove that warning system, but continue to get the sun? 

Naturemomsblog has a great review of the BPA-free sippy cup options, and a low-down on why we've determined that our cumulative Bisphenol-A load is something that needs to be reduced.  For me, I'm trying to eliminate my use of plastic for food, and greatly reduce it in other areas.  I don't feel a strong attraction to "BPA-free plastic" - b/c just a year ago they were swearing that BPA was safe.  What else is in there that we're not hearing about yet?  I think I'll just forgo the chemical cocktail for now.  (Here's a guide for choosing the right plastics when it's unavoidable.) 

So we have some Kleen Kanteens, a Sigg, and a Foogo. 

 Some time last year, when I decided to eliminate certain yucky things from our diets (high fructose corn syrup; artificial colors, sweeteners, flavors, and preservatives), I realized that the alternatives were EXPENSIVE!  (until I found Trader Joe's, but even that didn't entirely solve the problem)  And when I wanted to buy cleaners that were non-toxic and/or biodegradable, well, how could I afford that?  Again, and again, I came up against the dilemma: how can I afford to buy the non-yucky versions of all these things in my life?  Sunscreen, shampoo, kitty litter, detergent ...

The answer for me was not to buy them anymore.  Instead, I've found that when switching away from bad-for-us products, there are two alternatives: buy a "green" or "natural" version of the product, or go all-natural down to the simplest possible way to do it.  

We started making kombucha a few months ago.  It's a fermented sweet tea beverage - you take sweet tea & add a culture called a scoby (or kombucha "mushroom").  After two weeks, the scoby has turned all the sugar into beneficial nutrients & added beneficial bacteria & yeasts (not the bad ones that take over your body & cause health problems), leaving you with a bubbly, tangy drink.   Normally you get a scoby from a friend, but I didn't have one, so I grew my own from a bottle of storebought kombucha (at $3.99/bottle, it was easy to decide to make my own, esp. considering it's no-brainer easy!).  Now I have kombucha in my home and should never run out or have to buy it again!