Thanks to The Cellulite Investigation I've been made aware of a possible connection between xenoestrogens and my unfortunate tendency to get severe cramps with that time of the month.
I am pretty sure I had these symptoms before the big change in my lifestyle that I associate with my cellulite, which was getting a job and being able to choose what I ate outside my parents' home - so if that's the case, most of my exposure to endocrine disruptors was likely from non-organic meat and dairy, and canned food. Maybe shampoo. But the number of chemical cleaners, plastic storage containers and personal care products in my house growing up was very limited. These days, however, not so limited.
And what of the connection wherein drinking a lot of alcohol on or before the first few days of my period will make for far worse cramping symptoms? Must keep in mind....
Let's see what happens when I get rid of a lot of these possible causes!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Overhaul!
I remember a while back close to when I first started posting here, I wrote a post titled "Times they are a-changin' " or something like that. Well, after having planted the metaphorical seeds, I feel like that is finally starting to really come true. I have learned so much over the past month about why it is necessary, desirable and possibly imperative to adopt healthier lifestyle practices.
I am phasing out sources of endocrine disruptors - mainly xenoestrogens - and dramatically changing my diet. I'll try to detail the progress here. I don't know if anyone will be reading it or not... even if not, this is so beneficial just for me to look back on!
I am practicing for my new diet currently and will step into it fully March 1st. I am hoping for health soon... or at least, that it's on its way.
Cheers
I am phasing out sources of endocrine disruptors - mainly xenoestrogens - and dramatically changing my diet. I'll try to detail the progress here. I don't know if anyone will be reading it or not... even if not, this is so beneficial just for me to look back on!
I am practicing for my new diet currently and will step into it fully March 1st. I am hoping for health soon... or at least, that it's on its way.
Cheers
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Soyeah...
I've already designated soy as one food substance that I am greatly cutting down on with the objective to eventually remove it from my diet, because it doesn't get along with my system. At first I thought I might have a mild allergy or intolerance. Then, I figured that maybe my reaction to soy happens just because it is very difficult to digest. Maybe a combination of both.
I have also heard through talks with friends and acquaintances that some aspect of soy can mimic estrogen and affect body functions in that way (I link this to my previous learning about "obesogens").
Here is another article on soy and the nutrient blockers it can contain in some of it's forms, as well as some other indicators that it is a food that should be eaten at a much reduced level, and in fermented form only whenever possible.
I have also heard through talks with friends and acquaintances that some aspect of soy can mimic estrogen and affect body functions in that way (I link this to my previous learning about "obesogens").
Here is another article on soy and the nutrient blockers it can contain in some of it's forms, as well as some other indicators that it is a food that should be eaten at a much reduced level, and in fermented form only whenever possible.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Rehydration
So what's another popular source of HFCS/ glucose-fructose? Sports drinks. And there are times when a sports drink can be comforting... like during any period of dehydration. Mmm electrolytes. Yuck HFCS.
Here's a link to a home-made recipe for an electrolyte replenishing drink.
They've listed 'sugar' which I can interpret as 50% fructose. I wonder if I could use pure dextrose as a substitute.
Here's a link to a home-made recipe for an electrolyte replenishing drink.
They've listed 'sugar' which I can interpret as 50% fructose. I wonder if I could use pure dextrose as a substitute.
Follow-up on Agave: not so good
Agave nectar... supposed to be better for you, lower glycemic index and that.
Having refreshed my research on sugars, I am now drawing the conclusion that agave nectar is in fact worse for you, because it has far higher amounts of fructose than regular sugar. As high as 90% of the total sugar in the refined agave syrup can be fructose, and the other portion mainly glucose. As of right now I do not know the average proportion, but on the lower end I think it's around 50% glucose to 50% fructose, which puts it right back beside table sugar only in the best case scenario. See my last post about sugar investigation.
So long, agave. Looks like I am moving on to explore my next options: stevia, and dextrose.
Having refreshed my research on sugars, I am now drawing the conclusion that agave nectar is in fact worse for you, because it has far higher amounts of fructose than regular sugar. As high as 90% of the total sugar in the refined agave syrup can be fructose, and the other portion mainly glucose. As of right now I do not know the average proportion, but on the lower end I think it's around 50% glucose to 50% fructose, which puts it right back beside table sugar only in the best case scenario. See my last post about sugar investigation.
So long, agave. Looks like I am moving on to explore my next options: stevia, and dextrose.
Sugars... a non-chemist's approach.
I always seem to have to backtrack over previous learning, having the kind of brain that forgets things that I don't use daily. Well... I don't like to think about it, but my recent review of various sugars (it can be confusing to me, and I would think many other people as well, exactly what is meant by 'sugars') has distilled some more information for me in a way that I will hopefully not be forgetting ever again.
I am not a chemist, and so any of my explanations on the topic will almost definitely lack technical accuracy. But I hope that I get the main idea right to pass on. Having read through many wikipedia pages involving various chemical... erm, things... as a non-chemist, I learn something new every time but it can be tough going. I probably even learned some of this in high school chemistry, but, like I was just explaining, I can't often keep super specific knowledge that I don't commonly use. There are probably a lot of people like me out there, in this respect.
What people commonly mean* when they say "sugar" is the kind of granulated table sugar that comes in a package. This stuff is sucrose. Sucrose is a molecule that is made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Your system easily breaks this bond as it processes the sucrose that you've ingested. So, when we read 'sucrose' or 'table sugar' and commonly just 'sugar,' what it means for our bodies is that it is 50% fructose and 50% glucose we are ingesting.
*note: in other cases, when some people (seemingly often those confusing chemist types) say 'sugar,' they are using it as a wider classification for a number of similar sweet tasting carbohydrates. These could include sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose etc. Keep this in mind to avoid confusion.
Next up: glucose. Glucose is stuff that our body needs for energy, and overall our main source of fuel. It occurs naturally in fruit and the types of food that we would call 'carbohydrates'. We have very good systems for breaking it down. So in a normal body system, glucose by itself is alright. Obviously this is different and not so okay for diabetics (research project for me later).
And following: fructose. Fructose is also naturally occurring in fruit and various places, but this is the one that is NOT good for us. Our bodies cannot process the molecule the same way they can process glucose. It ends up getting stored awkwardly and unhealthily, and leading to various health problems, the least of which is some unfortunate weight gain, and eventually resulting in obesity, high blood pressure (hypertension), and heart disease to name a few. Another crazy bad effect of fructose is the reaction that it goes through while the body tries to process it does not produce any of the signals that tells our body to stop eating. So we just eat more and more because instead of knowing to stop, it becomes addicting! The best way to cope is to try to drastically reduce fructose in the diet, which is what I am going to be attempting. Things we can eat to help us deal with fructose are: lots of antioxidants, and lots of fibre. Fructose in many cases comes naturally prepackaged with its own helping of fibre, in the form of these things called fruit. This is why it is okay to eat fruit, even though they contain fructose. This is NOT the case in terms of juice, where most or all of the fibre has been removed.
So, now, let's tackle a weird one: Glucose-fructose (or glucose/fructose). By what it looks like, this should be basically another name for sucrose, referring back to the above explanation, right? Wrong. Glucose-fructose is a pseudo-chemical sounding name (used mainly in Canada, for labeling, as I gather) what is generally known as high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.
HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is used in more foods than not, it seems these days, as a sweetener. This is because it can be produced more cheaply than sugar, and in the United States, making it so that economically the U.S. is less dependent on trade for sugar cane. It is also sweeter than sugar. It is mostly a blend of fructose and glucose, made from heavily processed corn (read as: evilly processed corn). The percentage of fructose in HFCS can be from around 90% to 40% (people serious about quoting this should check the figures elsewhere, but this gives you the general idea). This stuff generally gets pumped into other highly processed foods that are devoid of antioxidants and lacking in fibre, so it's harder to redeem in my opinion. If they are using HFCS, there's probably other stuff in there that's not good for you either. As well as the high fructose content, there are supposed to be a couple other gross chemically things floating around in it from the heavy processing, as well.
Summing up - Fructose: gross!!!! HFCS: bad!!! Glucose-fructose: damn you HFCS, don't try to hide behind confusing labeling (the whole 'sugar' thing is bad enough). We know what you are... NOT GOOD for us. Don't try to tempt me with that free can of soda.
I am not a chemist, and so any of my explanations on the topic will almost definitely lack technical accuracy. But I hope that I get the main idea right to pass on. Having read through many wikipedia pages involving various chemical... erm, things... as a non-chemist, I learn something new every time but it can be tough going. I probably even learned some of this in high school chemistry, but, like I was just explaining, I can't often keep super specific knowledge that I don't commonly use. There are probably a lot of people like me out there, in this respect.
What people commonly mean* when they say "sugar" is the kind of granulated table sugar that comes in a package. This stuff is sucrose. Sucrose is a molecule that is made up of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule joined together. Your system easily breaks this bond as it processes the sucrose that you've ingested. So, when we read 'sucrose' or 'table sugar' and commonly just 'sugar,' what it means for our bodies is that it is 50% fructose and 50% glucose we are ingesting.
*note: in other cases, when some people (seemingly often those confusing chemist types) say 'sugar,' they are using it as a wider classification for a number of similar sweet tasting carbohydrates. These could include sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, maltose etc. Keep this in mind to avoid confusion.
Next up: glucose. Glucose is stuff that our body needs for energy, and overall our main source of fuel. It occurs naturally in fruit and the types of food that we would call 'carbohydrates'. We have very good systems for breaking it down. So in a normal body system, glucose by itself is alright. Obviously this is different and not so okay for diabetics (research project for me later).
And following: fructose. Fructose is also naturally occurring in fruit and various places, but this is the one that is NOT good for us. Our bodies cannot process the molecule the same way they can process glucose. It ends up getting stored awkwardly and unhealthily, and leading to various health problems, the least of which is some unfortunate weight gain, and eventually resulting in obesity, high blood pressure (hypertension), and heart disease to name a few. Another crazy bad effect of fructose is the reaction that it goes through while the body tries to process it does not produce any of the signals that tells our body to stop eating. So we just eat more and more because instead of knowing to stop, it becomes addicting! The best way to cope is to try to drastically reduce fructose in the diet, which is what I am going to be attempting. Things we can eat to help us deal with fructose are: lots of antioxidants, and lots of fibre. Fructose in many cases comes naturally prepackaged with its own helping of fibre, in the form of these things called fruit. This is why it is okay to eat fruit, even though they contain fructose. This is NOT the case in terms of juice, where most or all of the fibre has been removed.
So, now, let's tackle a weird one: Glucose-fructose (or glucose/fructose). By what it looks like, this should be basically another name for sucrose, referring back to the above explanation, right? Wrong. Glucose-fructose is a pseudo-chemical sounding name (used mainly in Canada, for labeling, as I gather) what is generally known as high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.
HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is used in more foods than not, it seems these days, as a sweetener. This is because it can be produced more cheaply than sugar, and in the United States, making it so that economically the U.S. is less dependent on trade for sugar cane. It is also sweeter than sugar. It is mostly a blend of fructose and glucose, made from heavily processed corn (read as: evilly processed corn). The percentage of fructose in HFCS can be from around 90% to 40% (people serious about quoting this should check the figures elsewhere, but this gives you the general idea). This stuff generally gets pumped into other highly processed foods that are devoid of antioxidants and lacking in fibre, so it's harder to redeem in my opinion. If they are using HFCS, there's probably other stuff in there that's not good for you either. As well as the high fructose content, there are supposed to be a couple other gross chemically things floating around in it from the heavy processing, as well.
Summing up - Fructose: gross!!!! HFCS: bad!!! Glucose-fructose: damn you HFCS, don't try to hide behind confusing labeling (the whole 'sugar' thing is bad enough). We know what you are... NOT GOOD for us. Don't try to tempt me with that free can of soda.
Monday, July 25, 2011
With fingernails that shine like justice
Recently, added new vitamin supplements to my (albeit patchy) regime including a calcium-magnesium-zinc combination, and a chewable glucosamine tablet (mmm berry flavored) and discovered after about two or three weeks that my fingernails were remarkably strong, long and not flaking apart at the tips. These things never happen together, until now. I believe these circumstances to be correlated.
On top of that, I used a nail buffer which, in my opinion, is an excellent way to improve the nails aesthetically without exposing your body to an extra little helping of chemicals that could be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. I used to love nail polish as a kid, but over the years it started feeling uncomfortable when I put it on, like something wasn't quite right. So no more of that for me. I find the more natural look to be preferable as well. As long as you don't file them down so thin that they break or bend anyway, but that's why its good to start with healhy nails in the first place. WIN.
On top of that, I used a nail buffer which, in my opinion, is an excellent way to improve the nails aesthetically without exposing your body to an extra little helping of chemicals that could be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. I used to love nail polish as a kid, but over the years it started feeling uncomfortable when I put it on, like something wasn't quite right. So no more of that for me. I find the more natural look to be preferable as well. As long as you don't file them down so thin that they break or bend anyway, but that's why its good to start with healhy nails in the first place. WIN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)