Episode 11: The Weekend Means Everything
Subscribe to Itunes / RSS Download
News:
None, unless you count me complaining about my fingers hurting.
Questions:
Can I start running now or after the fat loss?
Lots of questions about my Fat Loss for Hypothyroid article
Does diet soda make you fat?
PMS woes advice
How can I tell what I am going to look like in the end?
My thoughts on Food Inc.
My thought on home exercise videos
Training for the fireman relay (goodluck bob)
Jump roping for fat loss
My Book
Reviews/Subscribe
If you are a member of itunes please leave a review and subscribe to the podcast to help move it up in the charts some.
Related posts:
Argh! You must be uploading to iTunes and RSS still since I can’t get either, so I’m streaming right now – ugh – Fast and the Furious? srsly?
Ha yeah it’s up now and working.
PS-Don’t judge me, bastard.
I’m not judging you…. just your taste in movies… .
Speaking of water retention/cloaking …. bounced up to 245 (20lbs) last weekend (w00000 salt!) and am just about back to my normal waterlogged self after annoying my co-workers, flushing the toilet every 30 minutes this week.. hahaha… Finally decided to call the local Endo/naturpath and he’s on vacation for 2 weeks – d’OH!!
do you believe it is ethical to feed corn to cattle (which they are not evolved to eat) even if you pamper them otherwise?
Mike-Yeah you know if after all this time you are still having these types of issues my man, I would get some stuff checked out. It would be one thing if you never took part of any refeeds and were a dumbass but you have been pretty consistent on both fronts. I didn’t realize you were still stuck in water land.
Sue-I personally purchase free range and grass fed food. I do it for personal moral reasons and don’t like to support feed pins. I was also once a vegetarian and could be again, but again only for personal moral reasons. Again it is a personal decision.
That being said I don’t believe there is anything dangerous about the meat. All the other hormone scares have not been proven by unbiased research. There is a slight difference it might seem in grass feed beef versus regular in certian nutrients and fatty acids.
However claims that they grassfed has less inflammatory fatty acids does not seem to be true on large levels, they just often have a slightly higher omega 3 count.
Here is one study that looks at this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18641180?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
On a personal note if you think I want to come out in support of something that can harm animals, I don’t. Believe me I would love to find the smoking gun, but the truth of it is that there are no real reasons, other than moral, to remove that type of meat from the stores.
Edit: Actually there could be some cases made for economical arguments as well, but it is still a gray area and would need massive overhaul to the governmental system as a whole. Still, want to throw that out there. Also not everyone is going to agree with that depending on if you are a “everyone for themselves” type.
I don’t believe in carrying a cause under scare tactics or false information just to get my way. Present all the facts as best as they are available, and then figure out what is going to help you lay down your head at night.
Thanks so much for that link, Leigh – haven’t listened to the podcast yet but I think your take on the grass vs. corn fed issue is along the lines of my instincts but I’ve never pursued the intricacies of the research.
Look fwd. to having a listen.
Here is the study that shows a slightly higher difference in content. To the best of my knowledge from research this is the highest difference I have found. It should be noted that this is Australian raised cattle and that alone could bare a difference versus American and the feed is not the typical feed for american cattle. Just worth pointing out.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500874?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Mike-It is a very big big topic, all of it. The pesticides, meat, organics, etc. I have had my head buried in research for months about it and over and over again we are seeing the same things.
The most interesting points I have found are on the pesticides. Such a botched up job the organics have made of all this. They just aren’t doing things right anymore than the “big bad” that we are supposed to be fighting.
If people don’t think that Food Inc. isn’t just another billboard for a money making scheme, think again.
It is indeed a huge topic – one marred by special interest, confounders, bias and the like. I agree that organic has its issues and will actually have more issues when larger agri-business buy them out. We’re lulled into believing that organic will become more readily available and cheaper, however big agra will certainly pressure government to lessen organic standards.
The research I’ve done has not conclusively shown organic to be healthier per se – although this is a difficult area to draw hard-lined conclusions from with the aforementioned limitations.
In its traditional sense, organic farming is more environmentally friendly, although as mentioned that is changing. As a father of 2 young children I am also more compelled to try and feed them organic foods as pesticides have to potential to impact children more profoundly (there is an admitted parental protective bias here though).
Basically my choice to eat organic, grass fed, wild, etc. comes down to money. I simply can’t afford to eat this way all the time so I “pick my spots”. I know people who will go to the ends of bankruptcy to ensure they are eating organic, “pure” foods. And although there is certainly an element of “orthorexia” associated with the “organic only” crowd, I do think there is environmental merit to buying local and organic foods.
Regarding Food Inc. I don’t think it came across as overtly alarmist or skewed. I highly respect Michael Pollan and have never found his claims to be overstated – at least not in the research I’ve done. The thesis of the film is the highly undesirable elements of the industrialized food industry. I really don’t think I could formulate an cogent argument against anything that was mentioned in the film. (the one exception being the organic yogurt guy that thought selling his brand to walmart would have a huge “green” effect on the environment”). I think the concerns brought forth by the film are very real.
UGH things like this frustrate me!!!
Leigh thank you for giving a different angle on this. I watched Food Inc. and was so outraged but to be honest I don’t know anymore about one than the other.
Is there a solution? What would you propose?
I am a vegetarian and the animal situation is what bothers me the most. Could you please write some more on this?
I am really looking forward to Body By Eats now, I thought it was just a cookbook or something.
Jenna-heh well it is about a collection of food and recipes, but it is much more than that. It wasn’t supposed to be, which is why people who have been reading about it for awhile have a confused view on it. I had no intentions on writing this type of information in the book.
Is there a solution? I think there is a personal solution for yourself, but overall, it is like saying I have a solution for world hunger. I have ideas, but that is a big difference between ideas becoming applied.
Take for example the worlds water problems. There are real viable solutions to this problem. Real answers and answers that make sense. What other problems will arise because of these answers? There would be problems with jobs, housing, over population, etc. I think these are problems worth facing, but it’s only the beginning of why people aren’t sprinting towards the solution.
I will write more on it on the blog and there is going to be a bit of this touched on in Body By Eats.
Just wanted to thank you for answering my PMS question on the podcast. I’ll give it a shot with your suggestions.
I am also a huge Fast and Furious Fan, Yes, I own all 4 of them. Sounds like the perfect way to spend some time.
Leigh, yep.. no movement either way, cept water cycling. I don’t feel tired or worn out or anything, but it’s time to rule stuff out.
Re: corn fed beef… at work is a guy that raises his own beef and feeds them corn. The home-grown corn fed stuff is LEAN, and tastes a million times better than anything you’d get at the store.
I don’t think the difference in beef quality lies in the cattle’s diet, but rather the conditions the cattle are raise in. During a road trip a few years ago I drove through El Paso, TX where there are HUGE ranches right along the highway. Tens of thousands of cattle jam-packed tight, shoulder to shoulder in the pens, unable to move and graze, basically stuck in place to wallow in filth. Bet that has more to do with whatever diseases and sicknesses cattle get, than what they’re being fed.
Mike H.-
I hear your concerns and the following is merely for conversation. I obviously respect your opinions.
Here is a small sample of the “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” section on organics.
(This has not been edited yet)
As to Micheal Pollan’s work, while I agree it is better than most at his level, there are still some flaws there. I don’t mean it as an insult, I would enjoy a conversation with the man, but if I can address the issues given via the Food Inc. site.
Via Food Inc -”Pesticides- Cancers, autism and neurological disorders are associated with the use of pesticides especially amongst farm workers and their communities. Learn about what pesticides are in your food and their effects.”
That is a shock statement. Cancer has never been proven in humans or autism. The link studies are very flawed. Those studies could have shown a telephone or anything could have done it. Also just look up some of the natural pesticides that are used in organics, and there is no need to even bother with this apple/apple argument.
Via Food Inc – Environment – Did you know that the average food product travels about 1,500 miles to get to your grocery store? And that transporting food accounts for 30,800 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year?
I agree, if their only argument was for local farming only. Would I like to see a change overall, absolutely, but the organic bunnie crackers at my local earthfare where shipped from California and I am in north carolina. Almost none of the organic food here, even in health stores, is local.
Also organic farming produces less yield and more waste. If you want a champion for the best bang for you buck it would actually be in GMO farming with things like “No till farming.” Not saying you have to support GMO, but they know how to be efficient. Organics is not about being efficient, organics is about a mindset.
Also people forget what biotechnology has their hand in. Want to get rid of oil dependence? Well it’s the same club. Antibodies, vaccine, cancer research, stem cell, etc. This is certainly not a black and white argument.
Via Food inc Farm Worker Protection- Farm workers are the backbone of our agricultural industry, bringing fresh food everyday to our tables. They deserve basic workplace protections like good wages, access to shade and water.
This is an economical issue and I can see support or opposition to this. Not relavanet to health though.
Via Food Inc-GMO-Some of our most important staple foods have been fundamentally altered, and genetically engineered meat and produce have already invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries.
Nothing is natural about farming. We manipulated the whole system. The food we eat today, even the organics, was created through our breeding and over years of crop manipulation. The problem now is the “what is too far?” question that looms over peoples head. It’s okay to dig, cross breed, and keep animals in pins, but at a limit.
These become ethical issues and that is fine. The problem is that people are trying to win these ethical issues with health scares, and that isn’t. If you aren’t okay with man playing god, no problem. However, if you understand cell work it just isn’t dangerous and if anything could be helpful. This stuff is weird and weird must be bad.
Remember you can’t assume that something is bad just because it is there. That is flawed logic.
I can go on. The foodbourne illness issues would stand exactly the same as with organics. Does no one remember that organic spinach was among the ecoli problems? Not to mention that you can get sick from mishandling food no matter how it is grown. I will admit to a higher likelyhood for things to go wrong with apathetic workers. Obviously people who would work in that type of environment are on average more likely to have lower standards and therefor more accidents. Still, people act as if no one (law) can do anything in these places and that just isn’t so.
I agree that people should be aware of what they eat. I believe in the ethical treatment of animals. I believe in supporting your local businesses. I just don’t believe in scary the shit out of people to do it.
In the immortal words of Keanu Reaves… whoa
Not quite sure how to respond to this, but let’s just say that being served has never quite felt so good : ) You’ll have to forgive the following scattered thoughts as I’m currently bouncing somewhere between cloud 9 and mount ego : )
In short;
I don’t have any opposition to what you’ve stated. The issue really exits on a continuum of ethics/environment and health and I’m in the infancy stages of figuring out where I come out, although I know that these issues are far more about ethics than health. I will agree that in trying to promote organic, people will often haphazardly throw in unsupported health issues to fortify their ethical/environmental positions.
The info on organic farming is fascinating and I am eager to learn more. I never thought the environmental impact difference between organic and conventional farming would be so muddled /inconclusive/contradictory.
You bring up a salient point on the issue of “natural” pesticides. It is a reminder that the general population doesn’t put “chemical” in its proper context. The organic industry at large tends to convey messages of “natural”, “purity” and has done a masterful job of convincing people that the extra scratch we fork out for organic is worth its weight in gold. Still, I would like to see more independent research on the matter.
I’ve always ranked eating local above eating organic due to the carbon footprint difference alone. Again, there is a cost issue to consider. I am willing to pay more for local, but I’m not going to drop $5 on an amount of arugula that wouldn’t be enough to feed an anorexic amoeba.
If I were to be completely honest, my choices here are somewhat emotional as well – I “feel good” when I buy from a local farmer.
Regarding Food Inc. – I’ll admit that I had never seen the trailer or navigated through the official site. Yes, from what you’ve shown they use a lot of alarmist language. This doesn’t seem to be the case in the actual film – perhaps just provocative marketing.
I still think there are MASSIVE issues of inequality in farming and I fully support any initiative that will help shift the balance of power a little more towards the farmers – the ones that don’t even own their own farms anymore. The Mexican farmers that got screwed by NAFTA, the Kenyan coffee bean farmers that sell 1Kg bags of beans for $.13 that ends up being sold for $22 once it gets to the consumer.
I’ve jumped from “Omnivore’s Dilemma” to Patel’s “Stuffed and Starved”, but again my head is full (and huge).
Knowledge. Bomb. FTW.
Thank you so so much for all of that Leigh. I still feel the way I do about the animals and I appreciate that you support that. It leaves me questioning so many things now. I am REALLY looking forward to the book.
PS-You can really tell when you like the person you are arguing with
Pfft what that Mike H punk?
Not even.
Okay fine, I would have his babies. Their music tastes would be awesome.
Yes, I appreciate your knowledge bombs on this Leigh, and your balanced approach. I am much inclined to jump on the earth-lovin’ bandwagon and assume organics are better, so I find this input interesting and good food for thought. (grooaaaaaan…)
On what feels like a totally frivalous note amidst this intense political and food activist conversation, can I just also comment that your line THE WEEKEND MEANS EVERYTHING is exactly what I needed to hear on a Friday (I always, always, always feel weak on Fridays, my Monday-ironclad-resolve has totally crumbled) and it has provided good fortification against the temptations of the weekend. This week is our anniversary big meal out, and, though I fully expect to indulge a bit and enjoy, I hope to have more of a sane handle on that than full-out gluttony.
Love the uber-long, meaty podcast!!! But I am glutton like that.
Sorry Leigh but I have a huge problem with the things you are saying. You obviously have a very little understand of this subject. Stick to your “move more, eat less” stuff and leave the science to the pros. There is no way that traditional farming is better than organic farming, period. Take a look at these studies and explain to me how they are wrong.
* A nine-year study by USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) researchers at Beltsville, MD, has shown that organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming can, according to results published in the July 2007 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
Source: “No Shortcuts in Checking Soil Health,” http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm?pf=1.
* Research at The Rodale Institute has shown that organic practices can remove about 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it in an acre of farmland per year. Thus, Rodale estimates that if all 434 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of eliminating 217 million cars—nearly 88 percent of all cars in the country today and more than a third of all the automobiles in the world.
* The Long-Term Agricultural Research (LTAR) initiative funded by the Leopold Center in Iowa has shown greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations in grain-based cropping systems, according to an article in the Summer 2007 Leopold Letter. The initiative, begun in 1998, is being conducted at the Neely-Kinyon Research Farm near Greenfield, IA. The research tests whether organic systems relying on inputs such as composted manure can promote stable yields, soil quality, and plant protection. Results are then compared with a corn-soybean rotation supported by greater levels of inputs such as fossil-based fuels.
Source: Leopold Letter, Summer 2007
* Research conducted jointly by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the agricultural consulting firm AGSTAT published in the March-April 2008 Agronomy Journal showed that organic crop rotations had similar yields to their conventional counterparts. The research compared six cropping systems (three cash grain and three foraged-based crops), which ranged from diverse organic systems to conventional systems. Results of this multi-year study found that forage crops produced using organic methods yielded as much or more dry matter as their conventional counterparts “with quality sufficient to produce as much milk as…conventional systems.” The results of the study also revealed that organic corn, soybeans, and winter wheat produced 90 percent as well as the same crops produced in a conventional manner.
Source: http://www.newswise.com/institutions/view/?id=1622
* A study published in the March 6 online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science showed that fertilizing apple trees with synthetic chemicals produced more adverse environmental effects than feeding them with organic manure or alfalfa. The findings, published by Stanford University graduate student Sasha B. Kramer and colleagues, showed that the use of organic versus chemical fertilizers helped reduce nitrogen pollution.
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, March 6, 2008.
* Two Brazilian research groups have warned that the Amazon Rain Forest may shrink nearly 20 percent by the year 2030 due to farming, road construction, and poor government surveillance of deforestation.
* According to research performed by Tufts University biologists, tadpoles experienced negative physiological changes, including deformed hearts and malfunctioning kidneys and digestive systems, in early phases of their lives when they were exposed to atrazine, an herbicide commonly used to treat golf courses and residential lawns. While causation had not yet been conclusively determined, researchers found that “compared with control populations, the tadpoles that were exposed to atrazine had a dramatically higher incidence of abnormalities.”
Source: http://www.newswise.com/institutions/view/?id=1939.
* Research performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Environmental Sciences division revealed that hypoxia, a fatal condition that affects thousands of fish, shrimp, and shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico each year, is partly the result of fertilizer run-off from agricultural activities in the Mississippi basin. The run-off, along with the temperature differentials created when the warm water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers come into contact with the cold Gulf waters, forms a deadly combination whereby algae grows, dies, decomposes and uses up the oxygen the aforementioned organisms need for survival. To combat this problem, and reduce phosphorus production, which is also seen as a contributing factor in the rise of hypoxia, researchers have proposed increasing the use of environmentally sustainable biofuel, improving nutrient management, and restoring wetlands in the affected areas.
Source: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/539988/.
* An article, “Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the use of pesticides and other contaminants reduces plant yield by one-third as a result of impaired symbiotic nitrogen fixation. “Agrichemicals are blocking the host plant’s phytochemical recruitment signal,” according to study lead author Jennifer E. Fox, a postdoctoral researcher in the Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Oregon.
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants,” Vol. 104, No. 24. June 12, 2007.
* Research at the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science has show negative effects of the commonly used herbicide atrazine on phytoplankton, the free-floating algae that form the base of the food chain for aquatic animals. Results, published in January 2007 in the journal Pesticide—Biochemistry and Physiology, showed protein levels in phytoplankton decreased as a result of exposure to atrazine.
Source: Pesticide—Biochemistry and Physiology, January 2007
* The United Nations in February 2006 released a report entitled “Challenges to International Waters: Regional Assessments in a Global Perspectives,” resulting from the Global International Waters Assessment project. Noting “pressures from human activities have weakened the ability of aquatic ecosystems to perform essential functions,” the report looked at freshwater shortage, pollution, over-fishing, habitat modification, and global change. Pointing out that oxygen-depleted zones are present not only in enclosed seas such as the Baltic and Black Seas but also in large coastal areas, the report states, “Globally, harmful algal blooms are considerably more widespread and frequent than they were a decade ago, a situation that is expected to further deteriorate by 2020 due to the increased application of agricultural fertilizers, especially in Asia and Africa.” The project also found that reduced stream flow inappropriate irrigation practices and use of groundwater “have increased the salinity of freshwater throughout the world. As a result, agricultural land is becoming too saline to support important crops.” The report recommends an integrated approach linking water management to land and economic management.
Source: http://www.giwa.net/publications/finalreport/.
* Canadian researchers have found that the toxic pesticide DDT still is having damaging effects on birds despite being banned in the United States and Canada for the past three decades. Andrew Iwaniuk, lead author of a study published in Behavioural Brain Research (online July 7, 2006, “The effects of environmental exposure to DDT on the brain of a songbird: Changes in structures associated with mating and song”) reported that robins’ eggs that had been exposed to the pesticide during development resulted in birds with up to 30 percent less tissue in certain areas of their brains. As a result, they were unable to sing complicated songs, defend their territory or build nests properly. Iwaniuk, who is with the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, estimated that at least 15 to 20 generations of robins have been adversely affected since the pesticide was first applied.
Source: Behavioral Brain Research, online edition, “The effects of environmental exposure to DDT on the brain of a songbird: Changes in structures associated with mating and song,” July 7, 2006.
I am short on time so I will get to the few I can.
By the way, I get you copy and pasted this from a pro organic farming site. In the future look at a more non biased option.
* Research at The Rodale Institute has shown that organic practices can remove about 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it in an acre of farmland per year. Thus, Rodale estimates that if all 434 million acres of U.S. cropland were converted to organic practices, it would be the equivalent of eliminating 217 million cars—nearly 88 percent of all cars in the country today and more than a third of all the automobiles in the world.
This a farming practice issue more than it is an organic issue. Not to mention the true bad boy in emissions is in ammonia. While there are organic farming methods that can be used to reduce this there are bioengineering methods that can do it better. The organic method can make a small difference though but it does take cost to farmers on a higher level that even most organic farmers don’t use. There are rules to be considered an organic farm and you would be surprised how few of them you need to follow. If you think that the best farming techniques are used on all farm you are wrong. It takes a lot of money, extra material, and time to just lower ammonia.
As for carbon, a lot these things can be done outside of organics or not. This is more than a pesticide issue. Short term point is that you have to realize what it actually takes to farm, I don’t think you do.
* Research conducted jointly by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the agricultural consulting firm AGSTAT published in the March-April 2008 Agronomy Journal showed that organic crop rotations had similar yields to their conventional counterparts. The research compared six cropping systems (three cash grain and three foraged-based crops), which ranged from diverse organic systems to conventional systems. Results of this multi-year study found that forage crops produced using organic methods yielded as much or more dry matter as their conventional counterparts “with quality sufficient to produce as much milk as…conventional systems.” The results of the study also revealed that organic corn, soybeans, and winter wheat produced 90 percent as well as the same crops produced in a conventional manner.
Source: http://www.newswise.com/institutions/view/?id=1622
This is a nice and fancy way of saying less yield.
* Two Brazilian research groups have warned that the Amazon Rain Forest may shrink nearly 20 percent by the year 2030 due to farming, road construction, and poor government surveillance of deforestation.
I agree that stupid people do stupid things. Still, organic farms also would take more land to produce the same amount of crops. So it’s a toss up.
* According to research performed by Tufts University biologists, tadpoles experienced negative physiological changes, including deformed hearts and malfunctioning kidneys and digestive systems, in early phases of their lives when they were exposed to atrazine, an herbicide commonly used to treat golf courses and residential lawns. While causation had not yet been conclusively determined, researchers found that “compared with control populations, the tadpoles that were exposed to atrazine had a dramatically higher incidence of abnormalities.”
Source: http://www.newswise.com/institutions/view/?id=1939.
This is what the Organic pesticide Copper Sulfate does.
Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate (16). It is a Federal violation to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered species or adverse changes to their natural habitat (17). Bees are endangered by strong, water-based copper compounds, such as a Bordeaux mixture of copper sulphate, lime and water (5). Copper sulfate and similar fungicides have been poisonous to sheep and chickens on farms at normal application rates. Most animal life in soil, including large earthworms, have been eliminated by the extensive use of copper-containing fungicides in orchards (12). Frogs died after being given intravenous doses of 25 mg/kg of copper sulfate. The lethal concentration fifty, or LC50, is that concentration of a chemical in air or water that kills half of the experimental animals exposed to it for a set time period. The 96-hour LC50 of copper sulfate to pond snails is 0.39 mg/l, at 20 degrees C. Higher concentrations of the material caused some behavioral changes, such as secretion of mucous, and discharge of eggs and embryos (13).
You are just trading out one thing that harms small living things for another.
Jason-
It seems to me that Leigh is, in fact, leaving the science (research, studies, results, etc) to the pros. What she appears to be doing is pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies (accdental and/or intentional) in their findings. So if there are things to be questioned in these findings, why exactly should we be taking them as gospel truth?
To add-
I believe in better farming. I don’t think that really has anything to do with organics overall. I think a cross breed of many tools can be used to produce the better results.
I think that you can treat animals ethically, do as little damage to the environment as possible, and keep cost down by combining efforts and coming to a middle ground solution.
This isn’t about me saying that organics are bad, this is about me saying they aren’t the answer and they certainly aren’t what they are claiming to be. We are buying into a story of what we want it to be.
Leigh,
I’m interested in the topic on marathon training for fat loss. I have gained 4-5 lbs since training for the marathon. I do eat in a surplus of 500-800 calories one day per week after my long runs (15 miles or more).
How do I know if I’m gaining muscle or fat?
Thanks!
Leigh,
Thanks for answering my question and giving your thoughts about Food Inc. I thought you might have been of the opinion that the messaging in the movie was somewhat alarmist, and that may be true. The amount of information out there regarding farming practices and organics is massive, too much for a regular person (not interested in spending their spare time researching this kind of stuff) to sift through. In a perfect world, I would just like people to be more aware of what they are consuming, whether it be farm raised, organic, local, or whatever. I think if the general public saw the conditions that caged chickens have to live in to deliver cheaper eggs to the grocery store, they would think twice about buying them. Same goes for the farming practices. I think it’s a personal choice, but how educated are people about the options? 90% of the time, the deciding factor is sticker price. If more people shun the products that support inhumane practices, surely there would be less demand. I agree with you that there is no need to scare the bejesus out of people to get the message accross, but I do think this movie provided some food for thought and hope it has encouraged people to think about what they are consuming and where it came from.
Thanks again for discussing this topic and keep up the great work!
Trying to figure out why I can only download the Ask Leigh podcasts that are less than about 45 MB. On both itunes and the RSS feed, it gets to around that point and stops. I’m subscribed to several other podcasts and don’t have this issue with any of them. I’ve done the unsubscribe/resubscribe/delete your folder/restart your computer/pat your head/rub your tummy routine several times. Gah! At least you know I’m a loyal listener, right?
Let me throw a question out there to the listeners. How would you feel about one question being answered at a time daily?
It seems like that might solve a lot of the problems. Let me know what you think and if so I can probably work that out.
Leigh I usually stream your podcast because I can’t download them either. I would love a smaller daily podcast. Thanks!
In the future why don’t you decide to give a shit about the earth and how people are treated. I don’t care what the studies say, I know that its better and it sure as hell tastes better. Go ahead and be conservative and stick to your agenda. I think about my kids and the future of this country. Obviously you are above thinking abotu things like that.
I
I would LOVE daily podcasts!
Leigh,
I prefer the longer podcasts as I listen to you while I walk my dogs. I would like them daily if they were long enough, maybe 20-30 minutes. I’m sure you have better things to do though
“In the future why don’t you decide to give a shit about the earth and how people are treated. I don’t care what the studies say, I know that its better and it sure as hell tastes better.”
It is kind of interesting to make a statement like that when your first post on my blog was listing roughly 7-8 synopsis on studies from a pro-organic farming site.
I care about the people, I just don’t treat them as stupid or feel the need to lie to them to achieve my agenda. I give the information the best I can. If you actually showed me something that said organics was better I would be happy to look at it. All I see is that sometimes organics may do certain things better and so does GMO and traditional methods. There isn’t a clear answer here and my speculation is that there wont be.
“Go ahead and be conservative and stick to your agenda. I think about my kids and the future of this country. Obviously you are above thinking abotu things like that.”
Are you implying that I am a rich closed minded person who thinks I am above things? If so that is literally the most hilarious and wrong accusations ever thrown at me.
Haven’t yet seen Food, Inc., though I guess I’ll rent it when it comes out on DVD. I’ll know to watch it with a very large grain of salt.
My head is hurting just from all the info here in the comment thread about organics, etc. Thanks for posting that, Leigh!
I’m with Katie–I like longer podcasts as I listen to them during my walks. Though I guess I could also save up shorter daily ones and listen to them in one go…
I don’t usually comment on your blogs even though I really look forward to the podcast each week. Even if the question aren’t specifically relevant to me (although the weekend means everything definitely was) I still find it motivating.
Anyway, just wanted to toss out a little love to balance out the troll. Maybe one of these days I’ll even ask a question.
I would prefer the longer podcasts too, but happy with any amount of info you put out there.
Please keep the longer podcasts – I only listen to long podcasts as I like to save them for my walks. I enjoy your podcasts but I’d probably stop listening to them if they were really short… it is hard to enjoy something when it ends just as your interest peaks.
I like the longer ones too. I get so excited when I see a new podcast that I can listen to on my dog walks too.
Ha okay, long podcasts for the win.
Emily I will do everything I can to figure out why this is a problem. Right now me and my tech guy are stumped but we will be victorious!
I would actually love long ones everyday Leigh
but if not then just long ones once a week.
yeah i want the LONG ones to stay, they get me thru walks.
Of course i would love LONG ones DAILY , LOL but we all know u have better things to do than entertain us all the time!!!!
Thanks
Shari
I vote for long podcast too!
Another idea – if you don’t have time to answer all the quesions…maybe give a link or a good resource we could use to find the info ourselves. Thanks Leigh!
Cassie
Leigh,
Your less-frequent presence here and on JP Fitness make me think your creative juices are really humming in super-drive as your deadlines for launch of Body By Eats approach, and I’m really excited for you! Don’t forget to breathe… and look at the flowers…
creatively, Etana
Leigh,
I could have written Emily’s comment because my podcast download issues mirror hers to a ” T “. I have also followed all the troubleshooting recommendations w/out success. I cannot figure out why this only happens to the Ask Leigh podcast and none of the others I subscribe to. Next stop, the Genius Bar @ the Mac store…
Thanks for all your efforts to fix this; I appreciate it!!
My Best. Sally
Hey Sally, I’m on a PC so I’m not sure the “geniuses” at the Mac store will be able to do much. It’s not an itunes issue because it also happens with the RSS feed.