Dopamine and serotonin tend to be the major players in the addiction of numerous drugs and alcohol. A study performed by McBride proved that alcohol elicits a response from both of these neurotransmitters and are correlated with addictive behavior and alcohol (McBride, 1991). A study done by Gessa showed that marijuana elicits a response from cannabinoids, our neurotransmitters that control cravings, and that these cannabinoids regulate mesolimbic dopamine (Gessa, 1997). Even cigarettes have been proven to elicit a response of serotonin and dopamine (Staley, 2001).
So how does this apply too food? Sugar also elicits a response from both serotonin and dopamine. A Wurtman article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition explained the mechanisms behind the release of serotonin. Tryptophan is a precursor for the release of serotonin. This study confirmed that high-carbohydrate diets leave excessive tryptophan in the blood and this leads to an increase in serotonin (Wurtman, 2003). Nicole Avena published data in 2008 that proved that sugar elicits a response from dopamine as well as cannabinoids (Avena, 2008). To be sure that the brain responds the same way with drug use Dr. Gold decided to check brain images of people that were constantly overeating. He determined that the images were similar to the brain images taken from people addicted to drugs (Gold, 2011). In 1994 Noble showed that obese individuals had the same dopamine gene markers as alcoholics and drug addicts (Noble, 1994).
This gives us the proof that certain foods will make us feel good by releasing serotonin and dopamine and also make us crave them by releasing cannabinoids. Understanding these concepts can give us a better understanding on how to treat food addiction. Drewnowski at the University of Washington actually tested the opiate blocker Nalaxone on food cravings. His study was successful in stopping binge eating (Drewnowski, 1995). In some serious food addiction cases this may be a reliable option to treat binge eating.
Kriz is a specialist that deals in treating people with overeating addiction. His research suggests that binge eating is caused by physical cravings. The characteristics of binge eating are as follows; eating when not hungry, uncontrollable eating, feeling guilty about eating too much, and frequently dieting without losing weight. Kriz believes in treating the physical cravings first and this means avoiding problematic foods completely while attempting to lose weight (Kriz, 2002). This even means artificial sweeteners as they too have been proven to elicit a similar neurotransmitter response.
In conclusion, we need to realize and accept the fact that foods have an addictive quality to them if we ever want to be successful in long term weight loss goals.
The new awareness is partly because the number of children with severe food allergies has increased sharply. About six million school-age kids in the U.S., or one out of every 13, has serious food allergies, according to the latest medical research published in 2011 in the American Academy of Pediatrics' official journal. The number of children with food allergies rose 18% from 1997 through 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Swedish LCHF revolution is spreading to our neighbors Norway and Finland. Like Sweden they are now experiencing shortages of real butter.
Here is a local paper from Norway yesterday. The big text reads: “The stores in Troms COMPLETELY OUT of butter and cream”. Also in the green section: “The Low Carb trend continues in full force”!
The black sheep of Scandinavia is Denmark. They fear fat so much they even started taxing saturated fat (like butter) last month. Soon we may see diverging obesity rates: Sweden, Norway, Finland going down and Denmark going up. That could be a good lesson to the world.
What a stunning collapse! There is no way back for this. So long as newspapers have at the centre - the Paper - the press and their distribution costs - this is what happens.
So who is next? I think that Universities are on track.
They too have a model based on a huge investment in plant. Combined with this a strict and highly structured offering. Just like a newspaper. But now on the horizon - non plant based alternatives - The best brands are going online quickly - The Khan Academy is a sort of Craigslist too.
University cost have risen even faster than health care costs and the value of the degree has plummeted. High student debt levels and high unemployment are causing families to look for better alternatives.
Like Newspapers, once 15% of revenues are lost, the whole thing starts to unravel. Fot the only easy costs to cut are the Newsroom or the Classroom. The impossible costs are all related to infrastructure - the plant.
The Universities that will lose the most will be those that hang onto the idea of a place being the only way. Culture will make this the fate of most.
But some will get through this I think. The very elite - like MIT etc who are already going full tilt into the global online world and maybe the very small who can offer a real student experience.
Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, featured in the films "FRESH" and "Food, Inc.," is a living example of how incredibly successful and sustainable natural farming can be. He produces beef, chicken, eggs, turkey, rabbits and vegetables. Yet, Joel calls himself a grass-farmer, for it is the grass that transforms the sun into energy that his animals then feed on. By closely observing nature, Joel created a rotational grazing system that not only allows the land to heal but also allows the animals to behave the way the were meant to—expressing their "chicken-ness" or "pig-ness," as Joel would say.
Cows are moved every day, which mimics their natural patterns and promotes revegetation. Sanitation is accomplished by birds. The birds (chickens and turkeys) arrive three days after the cows leave—via the Eggmobile—and scratch around in the pasture, doing what chickens do best.
No pesticides. No herbicides. No antibiotics. No seed spreading. Salatin hasn't planted a seed or purchased a chemical fertilizer in 50 years. He just lets herbivores be herbivores and cooperates with nature, instead of fighting it. It's a different and refreshing philosophy.
Instead of making 150 dollars per acre per year from a crop that produces food for three months, but lays fallow for the rest of the year, he's making $3,000 per acre by rotating crops throughout the year, thereby making use of his land all 12 months—and maintaining its ecological balance at the same time. This generates complimentary income streams. But can the entire world be fed this way?
Monocropping is More Productive and More Profitable… WRONG!
Proponents of monocropping argue that crop specialization is the only way to feed the masses, that it's far more profitable than having small independent farms in every township. But is this really true? Recent studies suggest just the opposite!
Studies are showing that medium sized organic farms are far more profitable than ANY sized industrial agricultural operation.
Rotational grazing of dairy cows was also shown to be more profitable. The researchers concluded:
"Under the market scenarios that prevailed between 1993 and 2006, intensive rotational grazing and organic grain and forage systems were the most profitable systems on highly productive land in southern Wisconsin."
The research team also concluded that government policies supporting monoculture are "outdated," and that it's time for support to be shifted toward programs that promote crop rotation and organic farming.
As it turns out, when you eliminate the agricultural chemicals, antibiotics, veterinary treatments, specialized machinery and multi-million dollar buildings, fuel costs, insurance costs, and the rest of the steep financial requirements of a big industrial operation, your cost of producing food makes a welcome dive into the doable. And did I mention… the food from organic farms is better? So, if small to medium-scale organic farming is more profitable, why aren't all farmers doing it?
Over the last thirty years, we have witnessed a massive consolidation of our food system. Never have so few corporations been responsible for more of our food chain. Of the 40,000 food items in a typical U.S. grocery store, more than half are now brought to us by just 10 corporations. Today, three companies process more than 70 percent of all U.S. beef, Tyson, Cargill and JBS. More than 90 percent of soybean seeds and 80 percent of corn seeds used in the United States are sold by just one company: Monsanto. Four companies are responsible for up to 90 percent of the global trade in grain. And one in four food dollars is spent at Walmart.
What does this matter for those of us who eat? Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, the destruction of soil fertility, the pollution of our water, and health epidemics including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. More and more, the choices that determine the food on our shelves are made by corporations concerned less with protecting our health, our environment, or our jobs than with profit margins and executive bonuses.
This consolidation also fuels the influence of concentrated economic power in politics: Last year alone, the biggest food companies spent tens of millions lobbying on Capitol Hill with more than $37 million used in the fight against junk food marketing guidelines for kids.
On a global scale, the consolidation of our food system has meant devastation for farmers, forests and the climate. Take the controversial food additive palm oil. In the past decade, palm oil has become the most widely traded vegetable oil in the world and is now found in half of all packaged goods on U.S. grocery store shelves. But the large-scale production of palm oil -- driven by agribusiness demand for the relatively cheap ingredient -- has come at a cost: palm oil plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia are razing rainforests, releasing massive quantities of greenhouse gases and displacing Indigenous communities.
From the global to the local, nothing is more personal than this threat to our food. And nothing more inspiring than the movement that is fighting back. On Monday February 27, tens of thousands of people -- including farmers and food workers, parents and students, urban gardeners and chefs -- will participate in a Global Day of Action to Occupy our Food Supply.
"The résumé is vanishing as a way of representing who you are," says Launa Forehand of Jobspring, a Silicon Valley recruiting boutique that specializes in entry-level and junior placements. The job seekers looking to fill the nearly 300,000 new jobs in information technology that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts will have been created between 2008 and 2018—a growth rate of 30 percent—are proving their value through participation in online communities, and employers are increasingly using those venues to find and vet candidates.
The new job-search environment affects people of all ages, but younger workers may have an advantage: they're not shy about putting their lives online. "Millennials share a greater willingness to expose themselves, and not just the good stuff," says John Hagel, head of Deloitte's Center for the Edge and coauthor of The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Made Smartly, Can Set Big Things in Motion. "Being willing to share things you don't know and seeking help in solving problems you're working on are enormously powerful ways to attract people who share your interests."
A strong online reputation is allowing some job seekers with limited qualifications to skip over the dues-paying phase of their career and move directly into a higher-level position. "Networks can shortcut their career path, leading them to higher-level jobs and better pay much faster than in the past," Hagel says.
One of the fantasies of the machine age is that hiring is a science - that actually knowing someone is a bad thing. That you can know all you need to know with a resume and an interview.
Any of us who have hired a lot know that the interview and the resume are often gamed and are poor substitutes for real knowledge.
Now you can see people online for a long period of time - you can make a sound judgement - not just about their work skills but much more importantly - about their character.
For the real issue when hiring is not skill but character. Yes the person has to be able to do the work - but will they fit with you? Are they a child in adult guise? Are they a whiner? Have they grown up?
I have found that it is hard to hide who you really are over time online. In fact the child/people cannot help but reveal themselves.