60 Minutes Stole My Program?!?

Written by on

The Faceless Fat Loss program covers as one of the perhaps five central ideas that sugar is a bit of a problem…

…Actually, a little bit MORE than a “bit” of a problem.

The mainstream is finally acknowledging what the alternative researchers, like myself, have been screaming at people for years now.

The segment from 60 minutes is below via the link.  Just watch it.

For those of you in the FLFL program, you will see near identical information presented during those segments.

So you won’t learn much of anything new.

But note the information regarding insulin receptors on cancer tumors.

The big picture is finally on its way to being assembled folks.

And it’s about time.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher

The segment on 60 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56Gpf1f5_A

60 Minutes of Sugar

Written by on

The long-running 60 minutes documentary show will air a segment tonight on sugar as a toxin/poison, and will likely reference the notion of placing warning labels on foods containing sugars, so that consumers are aware of how they can be negatively impacted by what they’re consuming…not too different from the warning labels we see on cigarettes.

I have a huge focus on sugar in my Faceless Fat Loss materials.  It seems like mass awareness is finally happening, such that ten to twenty years from now, more knowledge of this issue will be commonplace.  The added bonus with this movement is that with more awareness, come more readily-funded studies into the subject matter, and what has been known to alternative practitioners for years, will be a standard part of western medicine practice…finally…thereby reducing or reversing a great great many health problems that people are facing today.

It should be interesting to see how the issue is handled on the show.

After all, 60 minutes is a prime time media staple.  Almost as much as sugar is an economic food staple.

I’m curious to see how the subject is approached, and will get an even bigger kick out of seeing who the advertising sponsors are for the show.

Not that the two need be related in any way at all…such is the nature of commerce.

Questioning the Mayo Clinic’s Findings:

Written by on

In the March 2012 issue of the Mayo Clinic Health Letter, an article covering the “Risks of Vitamin Supplements” discusses various vitamins and minerals and how their use seems to suggest that they could be more of a danger than an actual help.

While I do not necessarily disagree with their findings in full, there is so much information omitted from the research that the reader is not left with enough to decide on which approach may be best for him or her.

As most of you know, I’m all for getting as much of our nutritional content from our foods as possible, while perhaps using some additional whole-food supplements, and naturally-sourced supplements on occasion to enhance our health as well.  These supplements that I use and promote are overwhelmingly nature-based, as compared to being constructed in a lab.  I am not completely against using vitamins and minerals that may have been formulated in a laboratory environment for specific purposes, such as during illness or injury where applicable, but the fact remains that a great many people will read this article presented by the Mayo Clinic, and misunderstand its intentions, based on having their own interpretation of what’s being conveyed.

For example, the article states that when it comes to minerals such as magnesium (we’ll use this example specifically since it was referenced) that an Iowa Women’s Health Study indicated that “the risk of premature death increased 3.6 percent in those taking magnesium…”

They failed to tell the reading audience exactly what kind of magnesium was being taken.  Was this a pill form of magnesium?  (Of which there are many varieties)  Was magnesium sterate or other additives with questionable safety added to the supplement?  Was the supplement actually absorbed in their bodies?  Did they run any kind of tests to determine blood plasma levels of magnesium (which by the way, would not be an adequate test to determine whether the person was magnesium deficient or not since so much of the body’s magnesium stores are intercellular).  Were the participants taking enough magnesium to experience bowel tolerance?  Did the researchers understand that taking magnesium pills can take years to build up in the body to adequate, healthy magnesium levels?

The list of questions goes on and on.

But a huge number of people will read the article, from an organization that has a long-standing reputation of respect and admiration, and will misunderstand exactly what the findings where actually about.