• 30Nov


    DailyGood: Food for Your Soul:  An Interview with Satish Kumar

    ““Once a week make time to bake bread with wholesome, organic, stoneground flour and if you say ‘I don’t have time to bake bread, then I say ‘you don’t have time to live….”

  • 12Apr
     Masterpiece on Raw Vegan Living with my
    friend Markus Rothkranz!

    Check it out here:

    Here is the link again:
    Warning:  You may want to drink a green smoothie before listening to this
    With gratitude,
    Steve Prussack
    Host of Raw Vegan Radio
  • 19Mar


    The Rumpus Interview with Dr. Neal Barnard

    By Suzanne Koven

    September 26th, 2012

    I love cheeseburgers. How they smell and how they taste. With fried onions and lettuce and tomatoes and lots of ketchup. I love the memory of eating them in the bar in Baltimore where my husband and I went all the time early in our marriage–the place that served them big as saucers in red plastic paper-lined baskets, with cold National Premium on tap and ’80s hits by Donna Summer and Joe Jackson on the jukebox.

    I don’t eat too many cheeseburgers these days. Middle age, caring for my once-vibrant mother after her heart attack and stroke, and decades spent counseling my patients about the dangers of saturated fat have sobered me into moderation.

    But lately I’ve been wondering if moderation is enough.

    Reports of the cruel treatment of animals raised for food, such as a recent undercover video leading to shutdown of a California slaughterhouse, force me to face the fact that eating animals always involves, well, killing animals. Information, presented in the popular documentary Forks Over Knives, about the health problems caused by even “healthier” versions of animal products, such as lean meat, fish, and low-fat dairy products, makes me wonder about avoiding all animal products—going vegan.

    Change is hard—especially when it involves food, so deeply tied to identity. Who would I be if I never had another pastrami on rye, hunk of cheddar, or Thanksgiving turkey? But who would I be, as a person and as a doctor, if kept eating these things?

    I discussed my quandary with author, medical researcher, and activist Dr. Neal Barnard. Dr. Barnard has advocated for animal protection and veganism for the past thirty years. Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine (PCRM), the nonprofit he founded in 1985, works to educate clinicians and the public about the benefits of veganism, and to end animal experimentation. Dr. Barnard also conducts research on the effects of vegan diets on diabetes, chronic pain, and other conditions, and lobbies the U.S. government for changes in agricultural subsidies and healthier school lunches.

    I met with Dr. Barnard in the Washington office of PCRM. He’s 58 but looks…I was going to say “younger” but I really mean healthier. He’s lean and energetic and makes you realize how flabby and lethargic most Americans of all ages look these days.

    He’s an excellent advertisement for a vegan diet.

    Dr. Barnard had much to say about what motivates people to adopt veganism, about the idea that humans are natural carnivores, about what’s really involved in producing animal-derived food, and about Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.

    Though he was open to discussing any aspect of his work, I was most interested in how people decide not to eat animals and then stick with that decision. I told him that—like the average Rumpus reader, I imagine—I’m not blind to animal cruelty, not blind to the health effects of eating animal products, or to the relation of meat eating to global warming. And yet I’ve found it hard, over the years, not to slip back into denial about these things and start eating meat again.

    I began by asking Dr. Barnard about the moment when he, born into a family of cattle ranchers, decided to become a lifelong vegan.


    The Rumpus: I read that you stopped eating meat one day when you were in medical school. You assisted in an autopsy on someone who’d had a heart attack, saw the fat in the arteries and the severed ribs. And then you went to the hospital cafeteria for lunch and they were serving…ribs. That moment seems to encapsulate the complementary missions in your career: promoting health and preventing cruelty to animals. At the time, which felt more important to you?

    Dr. Neal Barnard: You know there’s another piece of it, which is the element of disgust. The way you’d feel if someone handed you a glass of blood. In some cultures that would be a totally normal thing to do. But in our culture, that would be absolutely disgusting. I’ve heard it said that of all of the motivators, that is the strongest one. The health messages and morality messages pale compared with that.

    But to answer your question more directly, both were important. I grew up in North Dakota, and I was aware of what animals go through because I had driven animals to slaughter and I’d killed animals. And I was aware that there were certain ethical issues, but they weren’t preying on my mind very heavily. And I was aware of the health issues—sort of.

    Rumpus: But isn’t there an evolutionary basis for meat eating—for us not to be disgusted by it? We have canine teeth, our forebears speared animals and ate them. Aren’t we hardwired for meat eating? Is the fact that cooking meat smells good to us really just a cultural thing?

    Barnard: Meat smells good, bleu cheese smells good—to some people. But it’s acquired. If you ask a guy who’s thirty-five if a cold beer on a hot summer day would taste good, he’d say, “Yeah, that would taste wonderful.” But if you could go back in time to his first taste behind the garage when he was fifteen, it probably tasted disgusting. We acquire certain tastes for things.

    And if you took a baby and put a bunny in front of him, and if you had a cat and a bunny, the cat at any age would want to attack and kill the bunny and the child would say, “Oh, look at the bunny!” So the idea that we have some innate aggression towards animals…we don’t.

    About the teeth: if you open the mouth of a cat, a carnivore, you see that they have long canines, way beyond the other teeth. If you open the mouth of a dog, you see the same. If you open your mouth, you don’t. You have canines that are the same length as your incisors. If you have long canine teeth, it allows you to do two things: one, it allows you to snatch your prey. The other thing it allows you to do is to pull away the hide. If a dog happens to catch a rabbit or another animal, it can very easily remove the hide. If a cat catches a squirrel, they have no trouble with that. But if a person does that, they will work all day and all night to get the skin off of an animal, because they don’t have long canine teeth anymore.

    We also don’t have claws. Plus we’re not fast. Plus we don’t have very good vision, or good sense of smell. An owl is a predator and can detect a mouse at a tremendous distance. Dogs have a sense of smell much greater than ours and they’re much faster than we are. We have fairly dull senses, fairly slow locomotion. In our Olympic trials, we celebrate speeds that would be an embarrassment to a bird or a dog or another animal.

    We have nothing to kill prey with and nothing to remove the hide with. So the question is when did that change come? It’s something like 3.5 million years ago that we lost our long canine teeth. And most of the great apes did, too—and they’re almost entirely vegetarian. Chimpanzees will eat a little bit of meat. But, they never eat dairy products, and no other animal would do that.

    Rumpus: What do you think that’s all about, humans eating dairy? Is that an evolutionary thing or purely cultural?

    Barnard: It isn’t evolution. It’s creativity. It’s the same as eating meat. Meat eating wasn’t really practical until the Stone Age. The Stone Age gave us arrow heads and eventually knives, and that allowed us to kill animals in ways you couldn’t before, and once you had them you were able to remove the skin and bones.

    We’re not carnivores. We’ve never been carnivores, ever. And even today, the most you can say is that people have become honorary omnivores. And that’s only because a) we are creative and find ways to do things that are not natural for us; and b) the dangers of eating animal products occur after the age of reproduction. If people developed cardiovascular disease that was fatal by the age of twelve or thirteen, eating animals would have died out long ago. You get it after you’ve already reproduced.

    Dairy is a northern European invention and nothing that nature ever had in mind. It’s all because we figured out how to make cows stand still.

    Rumpus: So suppose someone wants to pull back on this 3.5 million years of meat and dairy eating. How do you feel about the incremental approach? Giving up just red meat, say. Or becoming a pescatarian, or a lacto-ovo vegetarian rather than a vegan?

    Barnard: It doesn’t do a lot of good for your health to move from red meat to white meat, but it gets you further down the road towards making more substantial changes later. So any move is a good move. And while it’s certainly true that many people think that dairy doesn’t have a cost to the animal, it’s because they never went to a dairy farm.

    Rumpus: How about this trend I’ve noticed: super-aggressive meat eating—usually locavore or “farm to table.” In the TV show Portlandia, they make fun of these restaurants where the waiter tells you what a nice life the chicken led before it arrived on your plate. I went to a place in Boston that serves locally sourced pork with the jaw and teeth on the side as a garnish. Among modern, urban, liberal people, this seems to be a thing—among the same people who you’d think would be exploring vegetarianism. Have you noticed this?

    Barnard: Yeah, that’s the same person who reads Cigar Afficionado. It’s someone who’s thumbing their nose at science and hoping they’re an exception to the rule.

    Rumpus: But it’s a whole movement, it seems, in culinary culture. You think “locavore,” etc. is a smokescreen?

    Barnard: It’s a rationalization—and this too shall pass.

    Rumpus: It’ll pass because we can’t sustain it environmentally and we can’t sustain it health-wise? Because ultimately you get just as sick from a free-range chicken as from Chick Fil-A?

    Barnard: Apologizing to the animals or having them come from a local farm doesn’t change the ethics of it nor does it change the health aspects of it.

    Rumpus: How about seafood? I know someone who doesn’t eat meat or poultry but she does eat shellfish because she feels that while she couldn’t kill a cow or a chicken, she could net a shrimp herself. She can’t imagine that a shrimp suffers. Is shrimp really part of the same spectrum of suffering that you talk about?

    Barnard: She’s just feeling what she can picture—and she can’t picture the shrimp suffering very much. On the other hand, if she saw her six-year-old son pulling the wings off a butterfly, or pulling the legs off a bug one by one, would she send him to a psychiatrist or not?

    Rumpus: So it’s a narrative that works for us—that animals don’t suffer as we do—and we go with that?

    Barnard: I think that’s right. Another thing to think about is why people make the decisions that they do. The evidence that someone who eats animal remains is much more likely to have heart attacks, certain cancers, weight problems, hypertension, dementia of the Alzheimer’s type—that evidence is quite conclusive. So why do they do it? Well, first, they might not have the information. There’s a lot of noise, a lot of conflicting information out there. That’s the first thing.

    Rumpus: You mean like about milk being the “perfect food”…?

    Barnard: Yes: “you need red meat for iron,” “you need ‘complete’ protein,” whatever… The second thing is: where is your herd going? I think herd mentality is a good thing overall. Because if every sheep had to figure out the velocity of the wolf and their personal risk, that would take forever. It’s much better to say, “If the herd is running, I’m running with those guys.” And humans have herd mentality, too.

    Rumpus: I read somewhere that you said there are no non-vegetarians, only “pre-vegetarians.” Do you see our “herd” running in the right direction?

    Barnard: Well, we’re kind of running in two different directions. Overall, our population is in the worst shape it’s ever been. Children are in terrible shape. We have absolutely unprecedented numbers of obese and overweight children—one in three now. A generation ago it was something like one in ten. However, meat intake is starting to fall. It peaked in 2004. We’re down about 5% from 2004. We were at 201.5 lbs per person per year. I’m talking about all meat together—red meat, chicken, poultry, fish. And we’re now at 188.9 lbs per person per year in the U.S. That’s good. So we’ve been in bad shape, and the effects of our previous meat eating are still very evident, but at the same time, conflicting with that in a good way is that the number of people who are changing is bigger than it’s ever been.

    Rumpus: I’ve noticed that your work recently has emphasized the public health aspects of veganism, perhaps more than animal protection. Is that because the public health issues are so overwhelming?

    Barnard: I think both are really intertwined. Take diabetes: it’s the worst it’s ever been in the U.S. and in almost every other country. And it’s getting worse year by year. The federal government’s response is to fund research that is headed towards making new drugs. To do that, the government spends approximately half a billion dollars a year on animal research, consuming about 70,000 animals per year. I am going to assert that the use of those animals in developing drugs would have made sense decades ago before it was really clear that diabetes is a lifestyle-related disease for the most part. So instead, if we studied human beings which can include human genes, human blood samples, and human behavior, then you can leave the animals out of the labs and you can leave them off your plate.

    Rumpus: In terms of your work, do you feel that the upcoming election matters a lot? In other words, do you see President Obama as being a positive leader in terms of your work?

    Barnard: As a nonprofit we are absolutely not allowed to make any comment about a political candidate, however I will say this: we have pushed the current administration to be more vigorous, and whoever is in the next administration, we’ll push them, too. I feel that [Michelle Obama’s] “Let’s Move” campaign is mostly window dressing. I’d hoped it wouldn’t be that way and it doesn’t have to be that way. Does she really want to stop childhood obesity? I don’t know the answer to that. I can’t tell.

    Rumpus: But of course she’s operating in such a hostile environment…

    Barnard: But it has become a very feeble effort. And whether it was ever intended to be more than that, I don’t know. But my feeling is, if it’s literacy [Laura Bush’s cause] or billboards [referring to Lady Bird Johnson’s attempt to get ugly signs off highways], you can fool around, because nobody is going to die as a result. But if you’re talking about something like childhood obesity, which kills those children when they grow up, you can’t say “Do more hula hoops,” as if that will solve it. And so we have encouraged the first lady to show some leadership and to try to get this government to stop subsidizing unhealthy food, to stop promoting exercise as a substitute for good eating habits.

    Rumpus: And has the administration been receptive?

    Barnard: Completely unreceptive.

    Rumpus: Just because it’s too big to…

    Barnard: I can’t speak for them. All I know is that they have shown no interest in going in the direction that we have suggested.

    Rumpus: What about the medical profession? I can tell you that the colleagues in my primary care group are not promoting vegetarianism, or even talking much about nutrition at all. Some of that has to do with time. Some of it has to do with the fact that we’re so poorly educated in nutrition. And yet, why are we not making the connection?

    Barnard: I think it starts with doctors knowing what nutrition can do. Up until now, it’s been pretty disappointing. You bring a person in with diabetes and start them on “medical nutrition therapy” [a standard, non-vegetarian diabetic diet] and nothing happens. You start them on insulin and you can bring their glucose down as much a you want. When we use vegan diets, the results are much better and you have a much more grateful patient.

    Rumpus: And haven’t you compared them head to head in a study? Was vegan better?

    Barnard: In our NIH trial the vegan diet is way, way better.

    Rumpus: What about Atkins, low-carb, or “paleo” diets? Some argue that it’s carbohydrates, not saturated animal fats that cause obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

    Barnard: The thinnest people on the planet are those who eat the most carbohydrates. I’m thinking of people in rural Japan and China, where McDonald’s hasn’t yet arrived. These are the thinnest, healthiest, longest-lived people with the least risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. As soon as you put a McDonald’s in their neighborhood, rice intake and intake of carbohydrates in general fall dramatically, waistlines get wider, diabetes goes up. In Japan, from 1980 to 1990, diabetes went up from less than 5% to about 11-12% of the population. Just like that. So the idea that carbohydrates are responsible for that is complete nonsense. People do lose weight on an Atkins diet. The reason they lose weight is because of calorie reduction. If a person’s caloric intake has not fallen, if they are really shoveling in the steak, they don’t lose weight. And a third of low carb dieters will have a substantial elevation in their cholesterol. And there was a paper on cognition, that said that objectively, though they may not be aware of it, people on [an] Atkins diet are slower, their reaction time is not as good.

    Rumpus: We have made progress, though. We’ve gone from those dusty health food stores of the 1970s, to veggie burgers everywhere…

    Barnard: Including at the Republican National Convention! They had veggie burgers on the menu!

    Rumpus: Do you feel like the environment in which you’re working is less hostile and less lonely than back in the early days of your career?

    Barnard: Dramatically so. Bill Clinton went vegan, and Rosie O’Donnell, Ellen Degeneres, and the Williams sisters… In the past couple of years there have been all these athletes, including super runners and football players… If you look at what’s happened to those dusty health food stores, they’re gone. They’ve been replaced by Whole Foods and similar places that are enormous, that have every possible vegan product that you could ever want.

    Rumpus: But Whole Foods is expensive. Have you gone to developing countries? Have you gotten the reaction that veganism is somehow a luxury of rich, Western people?

    Barnard: No, it’s the reverse. In China, because China is gaining wealth, rice consumption is way down. Rice is a poor person’s food, and they’re eating less of it. To wait in line at a fast food chain is cool. And they haven’t historically had weight problems. So they don’t have this culture of, “I need to lose weight.” Whereas Americans do have that culture.

    Rumpus: But it sounds like they’re not far behind us…

    Barnard: Oh, they’re leap-frogging us! But I don’t think China or Japan or India, for that matter—where there’s a lot of diabetes now—I don’t think they’re putting two and two together: that it’s the Western diet that’s causing it. Since I first went to India twenty some years ago, there’s been a palpable change. There’s now pizza everywhere, meat is much more popular than it’s ever been. Vegetarianism is “that quaint thing our parents did.”

    Rumpus: So, I just want to circle back to the very beginning of our conversation, to disgust. That’s a hard sell if that’s the most potent motivator. To encourage veganism do we have to disgust people and make them feel guilty and force them to look at what they don’t want to look at?

    Barnard: I think we have to do everything that’s useful. We’re doctors. Our job is to tell the truth. And it doesn’t have to be embellished in any way. People have to know that if they’ve wanted to lose weight, if they’ve wanted to get their diabetes better and get their cholesterol down, here is how it works. Beyond that point, you can’t force people into changes, you have to guide them. I think it’s also fair game to play all the emotional cards, which can mean talking about celebrities and how they’ve changed—which helps us to realize that part of our “herd” are moving in a different direction.

    I am always struck by how difficult it is for people to see how much cruelty they are bringing not only upon animals but upon themselves and their loved ones and other people, how much we are screwing up the planet, how much we are hurting our own health, how hard it is to change all that, how eager people are to make a buck at everybody else’s expense—all those things are discouraging.

    But I think it’s fair, if something really is disgusting, to make people aware of it. For example, I just sampled about 120 chicken samples in Buffalo, New York. And we sent them to the lab and tested for fecal contaminaton. We’ll find it in about half of the samples. If you take a chicken thigh and wring it out, there’s fecal soup that comes out of it because there’s chicken feces everywhere in these places, and as they go through the chill bath, that spreads it around and the meat soaks it up and that measurably increases the weight of the chicken product they’re selling. How many people know that? They see the little preparation label that tells you to make sure you cook it, as if somehow a little peppering of bacteria has come from the atmosphere. They don’t realize that it’s chicken dung that’s not just on the surface but soaked into the meat. So people are serving their kids cooked poop. I think it’s fair game for people to know that. They may decide they’re going to do it anyway. But if some people think, “Why am I eating a dead bird soaked in poop?” I think if some people get disgusted by that, it’s all to the good. Their coronary arteries will be healthier.

    Suzanne Koven is a primary care internist in Boston and a columnist at the Boston Globe. E-mail her at inpracticemd@gmail.com and visit her website atsuzannekovenmd.com. More from this author →

  • 06Jul


    The Dalai Lama, Arianna Huffington Interview: His Holiness Discusses Compassion, Science, Religion And Sleep

    His Holiness the Dalai Lama sat down with Arianna Huffington at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London to celebrate his Templeton Prize, and discuss the importance of a productive conversation between spirituality and science.

    The Dalai Lama’s role in fostering positive interactions between religion and science is one of the reasons why he was honored by the prize.

    As the Templeton Foundation notes: “For decades, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama has vigorously focused on the connections between the investigative traditions of science and Buddhism as a way to better understand and advance what both disciplines might offer the world.”

    Arianna Huffington also asked HH Dalai Lama about the importance of sleep; the epidemic of stress, anxiety, and drugs — legal and illegal; and compassion, which is emphasized in the practice of Buddhism.

    The Templeton Prize comes with a cash award of $1.7 million dollars, which His Holiness has donated to Save The Children.

    Read the transcript of the interview below:

    Arianna Huffington: You have been working with neuroscientists for many years now. What do you hope to achieve through this collaboration between science and spirituality?

    His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Two purpose: One purpose, up to date scientific research mainly based on matters. Now, later part of 20th century, and now beginning of this 21st century, now scientific research field now expanding, including human emotions, mind. That’s one purpose. The reason we cannot explain fully what humans are thinking about these thing just on research on brain alone. That’s one purpose. The second purpose: on the basis of scientific finding, more awareness, the how importance of our emotion for our health and healthy society and family. Now, through training of mind, how much can develop our health, our healthy society. So, and me personally, my main effort to promote these values, not through religious field, but without touching religion, simply use our common sense and common experience and then scientific finding, so to make more awareness to public. My main hope is eventually, in modern education field, introduce education about warm-heartedness, not based on religion, but based on common experience and a common sort of sense, and then scientific finding. So in that respect, you see, I’ve found a lot of useful information from scientific research work.

    AH: In the West, there is now an epidemic of prescribing drugs. Is there an alternative? Are you actually saying that we can educate the mind, educate the heart, and change the brain as neuroscientists like Peter Davidson, who’s here, have been arguing?

    HHDL: Oh, yes! These drugs, too much alcohol, these things person whose mind very calm, very happy, they never touch these things. Because some kind of, sort of, the mental level, too much worry, too much anxiety, then they just hope some of these drugs may bring more peace of mind, at least for short period. So that’s very harmful. It’s actually, it’s just like painkiller, not for, actually not addressing the real sort of problem, just for temporary sort of calm. So these are problems have to solve through training your mind, through develop better awareness. Now, for example, too much anxiety, too much anxious, these ultimately, religion with extreme self-centered attitude. Just opposite of that, more concern of others’ well-being, that mental thinking ultimately open our mind. Then, that will reduce fear, distrust, gaining more self-confidence, that brings inner peace. That brings our mood more calm. So that, I should call, secular way to approach these secular ethics. If you have religious faith, very good, you can add on secular ethics, then religious belief, add on it, very good. But even those people who have no interest about religion, okay, it’s not religion, but you can train through education. So religion, any religion, no matter what sort of wonderful religion, never be universal. So now education is universal, so we have to sort of find ways and means through education system, from kindergarten up to university level, to make awareness these good things, the values, inner values. That, if we say, oh, practice of compassion is something holy, nobody listen. If say, warm-heartedness really reduce your blood pressure, your anxiety, your too much stress, your health improve, then people pay attention.

    AH: You’re emphasizing peace of mind throughout the day. We’re about to launch a GPS for the Soul to help people course-correct and get us to that place of mindfulness and peace that you so often write about. Victor Chan, whom you’ve worked with, talks about compassion gyms. Do we actually need physical locations where we can go and practice compassion and strengthen those compassion muscles the way we strengthen our physical muscles?

    HHDL: Yes, some scientific research, I don’t know the particular word, through training of mind actually change in brain. So, what call that? [Someone says, “Neuroplasticity.”] Oh, now that one, actually you can change through training of mind. So maybe, actually, you see through new awareness, new sort of familiarities, certain idea, its effect on our body.

    AH: So you go to bed at 8:30 at night and you wake up at 3:30. You clearly put a lot of emphasis on sleep, which we love, because at The Huffington Post we have dedicated sections on sleep. So what’s the secret of sound sleep, and why is it so important?

    HHDL: For me, very important. The other day, in Delhi, of course my car always provided by government. This one driver, one new driver come, then I ask him, “How many hours you sleep?” He says, “Four hours.” Then I told him, “Four hours not adequate. So you must sleep six hours.” Then next day, I met, “How many hours?” Then he told me, “Six hours.” So I believe, you see, sleep, complete restful, and also I think important is daytime your mind calm, relaxed. Then dream, during night, it’s sleep, also then, happy dream. Too much anxiety in daytime, then even in dream, some kind of nightmare, or these things happen. So, and anyway, for me, sleep, sound sleep usually eight hours, sometimes, last night, nine hours. Very sound sleep. And then also, when I handed over all my political responsibility to a … person, political leadership, formally, that night, very unusual sound sleep.

    Watch A Slideshow Of Interview Highlights Below:

    Loading Slideshow

    ·        Arianna Huffington and the Dalai Lama Discuss Science and Spirituality

    Arianna Huffington talks to the Dalai Lama about his work with neuroscientists and the relationship between science and spirituality.

    ·        Arianna Huffington Discusses Drug Dependency Epidemic With the Dalai Lama

    Arianna Huffington and the Dalai Lama discuss the problem of over-medicating and prescription drugs with the Dalai Lama.

    ·        Arianna and the Dalai Lama Discuss Sleep

    The Dalai Lama is keen on the effects of rest and sleep and in this exclusive interview with Arianna, gives his secrets to a good night’s sleep.

    ·        Arianna Huffington and the Dalai Lama Discuss GPS For the Soul

    The Dalai Lama gives his tips on peace of mind and how to achieve it to Arianna as she talks to him in an exclusive interview at St. Paul’s Cathedral.

    ·        Arianna Huffington Interviews the Dalai Lama at St. Paul’s Cathedral

    Arianna Huffington sat down with the Dalai Lama in an exclusive interview at London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. In the interview, Arianna asks his Holiness about his work with science and how he bridges it with his spirituality, sleep and GPS for the soul.

  • 07May

    Exclusive Interview with Carol Alt


    In this exclusive audio interview with David Wolfe and NY Times best-selling author Carol Alt, you will discover the following:
    Celebrity secrets on how to be a beautiful, sexy, vibrant at any age through raw food nutrition.
    How to gently transition into a raw food diet without sacrificing your favorite foods and dishes!
    Why a raw food is your best weapon against inflammation and premature aging.
    The importance of getting raw fats into your diet that alkalize your system and keep your skin looking youthful and radiant.

  • 05Feb


    Raw Food Side Effects You Might Not Be Comfortable With: The Kevin Gianni Interview
    A great interview

  • 17Dec

    Here are my thoughts on this interview… (Kevin Gianni)


    1. The bromine, flour, thyroid connection.

    I have interviewed a good deal of experts who have explained that wheat flour has a negative effect on the thyroid. I’m sure you may have heard this before as well. What I hadn’t heard until now, is that Dr. Brownstein believes that the bromine added to flour is what damages the thyroid. Some experts put weight on the gluten, but Dr. Brownstein sees it differently (though does attribute gluten to be an issue as well.)

    Dr. Brownstein says that the thyroid uptakes bromine if there is not enough iodine and this causes interference with thyroid function.

    The gluten theory is that the body produces antibodies to the gluten protein that are similar to thyroid tissue and these antibodies attack the thyroid as well as the gluten. This has the workings of a classic autoimmune disease.

    So I’m not sure which one is right (or both), but both outcomes tell you hybridized, processed flour (with excess gluten) is not something you should eat if you want a healthy thyroid – or healthy waistline.

    2. Can you get your iodine from your seaweed?

    I asked Dr. Brownstein if eating seaweeds was enough to get sufficient amounts of iodine. His response wasn’t exactly a simple one.

    First, you have to get your seaweed from a clean area that is not pumping industrial chemicals, flouride, bromine, arsenic or any other toxic substance into the water. You can ask your sea vegetable provider if they do any type of testing. (We test ours for heavy metals.)

    You have to make sure the product is fresh, since over time the plant will lose it’s nutritional value.

    You also have to make sure that you’re absorbing the iodine that is in the seaweed.

    So I’m sure Dr. Brownstein would agree, it’s not about the seaweed you take in – it’s also about how you digest it.

    The best way to determine if you are getting adequate amount of iodine from sea vegetables is to continually test to make sure your levels are at optimal levels (or rise if you’re low.)

    3. The skin iodine test not accurate.

    Dr. Brownstein has confirmed (adding to a long list of people) that the skin test for iodine is fairly inaccurate. About 80% of the iodine evaporates, so there’s very little science or control involved in this “test” at all.

    Urinary testing for iodine is the most accurate in Dr. Brownstein’s opinion.

    4. Estrogen is everywhere.

    You’d think that all the talk you hear about estrogenic compounds everywhere, every man would be turning into women and every woman would have breast cancer. (Well, wait… Maybe we are…)

    Plastics and soy are two estrogenic substances that need to be heavily avoided in order to get your hormones back into balance. This doesn’t mean that you never should eat soy or you never should drink anything from plastic – it means you need to be very careful about your intake so that you don’t fake your body out with estrogen it doesn’t need.

    Good news is… Iodine can help modulate estrogen. So having good iodine levels will help you keep your estrogen in check.

    5. Will kale really destroy your thyroid?

    There is a lot of talk about cruciferous vegetables like kale and cabbage can destroy your thyroid (or at least slow down its function.)

    Dr. Brownstein confirms that he’s seen low thyroid function with those who eat a lot of cruciferous vegetables – but mainly in the vegan patients he sees. This is an interesting distinction that he’s seen clinically and I wonder if it’s because most vegans / raw foodies eat a lot of kale or if it’s a combination of what they’re not eating and the cruciferous vegetables.

    I don’t know the answer to this, but I’m going to explore it further.

    6. Vegan diet can be done, but…

    For those of you who are vegans, Dr. Brownstein has good news. He thinks the vegan diet can be done, but with a few caveats. You must work with a practitioner, study it, keep your blood tests monitors and focus on it with a good deal of intensity. If you have this time and energy to focus on your food, then go for it – see what happens. If you don’t you may be better suited to adjust your diet to fit your level of commitment.

    The diet debate will likely be endless, but to add my own thoughts, I too believe that some people can thrive on a pure vegan diet. I also believe that others cannot. Regardless of what our ancestors ate, we have to come to terms with the fact that we’re not our ancestors any more. We’ve changed. Some of us have different gene expression that requires different food.

    Our diet decisions have to be made by taking a few very important considerations and weighing them according to your physical and emotional needs.

    Some of these are:

    - Environmental impact of the food you eat.
    - Ethical considerations.
    - Animal welfare.
    - Personal health.
    - Community health considerations.
    - If you’re judging others or not.

    If you assess all of these, you will be able to figure out where you’re at and what diet to choose for your needs.

  • 15Oct

    “I did a killer ultra last Sunday called Twin Peaks. Two weeks after the last, Sierra Nevada. A fellow runner’s Garmin logged 19,000 feet of ascending. Inexplicably hard at times, and yet in the last 10 miles descending from Santiago Peak in utter darkness wearing headlights on technical terrain, we found ourselves laughing joyously.

    I’ve identified a 100 mile trail run just a few days before my birthday in February.

  • 24Apr


    Mandala Publications » Interview with a Dakini – The official publication of the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition

    The dakini mentioned in the Lama Zopa email ~ Here is an interview with her from Mandala magazine.

  • 12Mar

    Interview with author of The 100 Thing Challenge
    via Boing Boing by Mark Frauenfelder on 3/10/11


    Recently I interviewed Dave Bruno, the author of a book called The 100 Thing Challenge: How I Got Rid of Almost Everything, Remade My Life, and Regained My Soul, in which Dave describes his attempt to whittle down his possessions to just 100 items (he’s married and has kids, which made his challenger tougher). I found the book to be very entertaining and inspiring, and I asked Dave if I could interview him for Boing Boing. He kindly obliged.

    On page 40 of your book, you describe what the challenge was. Can you describe it for our readers?

    Essentially, the objective of the 100 Thing Challenge was to live one year with 100 or less personal possessions. I tried to count anything that was definitely mine: all clothes, my camping gear, wallet, wedding ring, car, mobile phone, stuff like that. But I didn’t count stuff like our couch or kitchen table or place settings.

    Also I put some rules in place. For example, I said that if I was going to replace an item, say my sunglasses, then I had to get rid of the old item before purchasing the new item. Another example was that if I was gifted an item, I gave myself seven days to determine if I’d give it away or keep it and, if necessary, purge something else to make room for it.

    I probably should mention the big cheat. In our house we are readers. No TV. No game consoles. Pretty much our living room decor consists of books. So on my list of 100 things was “one library.” Some people feel like this invalidates what I’ve done. I don’t think I could justify myself to those people. But one positive thing that has come out of my big cheat is that it has allowed others some liberty in their efforts to simplify. For example, a lot of crafters have been interested in the 100 Thing Challenge. I think that by me keeping my library, some of them feel it’s legitimate for them to simplify but still keep their crafting supplies. I think that’s cool.

    What’s wrong with having a lot of stuff?

    We’d have to put “wrong,” “a lot,” and “stuff” into some context to answer that question properly. But for argument’s sake, I’ll just say that yeah, it’s not good to have a lot of stuff. Why shouldn’t I? Because stuff isn’t passive and I’m not superhuman. Stuff requires maintenance, both physical and emotional. It influences what we do and what we want to do. A normal human being can only handle having so much stuff before the stuff starts to take control, whether it be clutter or wasted time or unhealthy desires. If we don’t self-impose limits, stuff is always going to win.

    Also, and I think we’re all coming to understand this more, the priority on having lots of stuff has damaged the earth and hurt many developing people groups. So it’s like, those of us who jump headlong into overconsumption help destroy the world. But our over consumption thrashes ourselves, too. Who’s getting the benefit? Maybe some microbe that feasts on ocean garage gyres. But the rest of us aren’t deriving much good from consumer indulgence.

    You mention that having a lot of things puts a strain on you. How so?

    At the most fundamental level, stuff requires time to keep organized, cleaned, operating, etc. It’s like the iPad my parents gave me. (Ironically, it was a gift because they were proud I’d gained some fame as a minimalist… sigh.) It’s taken me a year to figure out what to do with the thing. Flipboard shows some promise to help me streamline news reading and some social media connections. Keynote has been a little helpful. I like the iPad, but truly at this point it’s taken up more energy than it’s provided efficiency. That’s a trivial strain, I guess. But this kind of strain gets compounded when we add lots more stuff to our lives.

    Also stuff takes up mental and even spiritual energy. I mean, think about cars. The research we do. The visualization of ourselves zipping around town. We learn a whole new vocabulary about features and financing options, as if this knowledge somehow makes us smart enough to over-spend on credit, which is how most cars are purchased. Then what happens? We drive off the lot and start coveting next year’s model or the sport package or a different color interior. When we go through this time and time again, purchase after purchase, it causes quite a strain on our souls.

    What triggered your idea to take the 100 Thing Challenge?

    While the actual moment I said, “I’m taking the 100 Thing Challenge!” was a snap decision one day in the summer of 2007, the idea of simplicity had been brewing for years. I come from an eccentric Italian family that put a big priority on material possessions. So there’s probably some family dynamics involved. Also, I’ve seen some people close to me crash and burn because of living for stuff. At Wheaton College, where I got my M.A. in 2002, I studied the effects of suburbanization and mass consumerism on America. I’m religious, a Christian, and think that a life of simplicity matches up with my faith. Anyway, all those influences, and probably more, got me thinking hard about my own life. The 100 Thing Challenge just felt like the honest thing for me to do. I was against mass consumerism but was participating in it. It seemed like I had to stop myself.

    Dave-Bruno.jpgWhat was your goal?

    My goal was simple, I wanted to break free from American-style consumerism, the pressure to always want more and more. What I mean is that I wanted to form habits that matched my convictions. Before the 100 Thing Challenge I believed that living for stuff was a dead end lifestyle, but I still managed to own too many things. I wanted to finish the 100 Thing Challenge and have a new way of approaching consumption. To that end, the goal has succeeded in my personal life. My consumer behavior has completely changed.

    Another goal emerged as the 100 Thing Challenge gained notoriety. I’ve gotten the chance to encourage people in the U.S. and other consumer-oriented societies to consider some form of simple living. I’m not trying to “change the world,” but it’s become a goal to influence as many people as I come in contact with to embrace simple living as an alternative to over consumption.

    When did the experiment run?

    Officially from November of 2008 to November of 2009. I guess it’s worth mentioning that a year after the challenge officially ended, I’m still pretty much at about 100 things.

    What did your wife and daughters think of the Challenge? Did you ask them to join you?

    I have three pre-teen daughters who are all old enough to understand their dad is a bit weird when it comes to stuff. In my humble parenting opinion, that’s enough of a lesson for now. Children need to be directed by adults, that’s for sure. But the best lessons are observational not dictatorial.

    My wife didn’t participate either. But over the last couple of years she’s definitely purged a ton of her own stuff. And together we’ve downsized hundreds of household items from furniture to nicknacks. We both agree that we still have too much stuff, so we keep at it. Our goal isn’t everyone in the family doing the 100 Thing Challenge, but it is a goal to simplify our household.

    What were the things you kept? What did you keep that you didn’t use? What are you sorry about getting rid of?

    Mostly, I kept the necessities. I guess I kept quite a bit of adventure gear, though. In fact, I took up surfing during the year of my 100 Thing Challenge. So I got a few things for that which I used quite a bit until the water got really cold. San Diego has warm air and cold water! Anyway, the surfing and camping gear didn’t get tons of use, but I deemed it all worth keeping because of how much I like getting outside when I get the chance.

    Honestly, I don’t have much regret about the things I purged. If anything, I’m a bit bummed that I got rid of a nice DSLR. Also, I sold my guitar. That was the one thing I rebought after the challenge was over, a new guitar. So I suppose I should have kept the old one.

    You said you realized you bought things to aid your escape from a dull life. What do you mean by that?

    My wife and I called it “shop therapy.” We’d reach the weekend without anything planned, having felt like the previous week had been lackluster, and not having a clear sense of what we wanted to achieve down the road. Talk about a dull Saturday! So we’d hit the mall for a little purchase pick-me-up. I’ve spoken to other folks who’ve done the same. It’s like, “Oh, I just bought something. I feel a little more alive.”

    You said it felt good to get rid of things that unburdened you from unrealized aspirations, like becoming a rock climber or a building a model train layout. Could you explain?

    No matter how much I tried, I just didn’t actually want to build a model train layout with my Marklin Z-gauge trains. I love the idea of tinkering and building, especially with anything electronic and motorized. I hope that someday my life has margin enough for me to do some hobby work. Yet, the trains I had were not about enjoying a hobby. They were about trying to be something that I am not.

    Same with the rock climbing gear. I’m never going to be found dangling from a crack on El Cap in Yosemite. The rock climbing gear was less about aspiration and more about not accepting who I truly am. And don’t get me wrong. I love getting outside. This year I summited Mount Whitney in March. It was the real deal — crampons, axe, fifteen-degree nights. That’s a far cry from serious roped-up rock climbing, though. I’m not a rock climber.

    All to say, some of the stuff I held onto I kept because it seemed like the stuff that the person I wished I’d be would keep. Getting rid of those things has helped me to be more content with who I actually am. In the past when I sought after an achievement, I’d often start by asking myself what I needed to buy. Now shopping is way down the list on my steps to achieving goals.

    What happened as a result of doing this Challenge that you didn’t expect?

    I’m a bit stunned by all the attention. But maybe that’s just an indication that a lot of people feel the pressures of consumerism in their lives. People want permission to simplify.

    Did you save money?

    Well, sure! But also, the 100 Thing Challenge motivated us to get even more serious about saving money. Because of it, we’re taking 2011 to get our personal finances more streamlined.

    One thing I like to say is that when we use our money and skills well, it’s always good for an economy, be it a personal or national economy.

    What’s hard about doing what you did?

    It’s really easy to get stuff in our culture, but it’s very hard to get rid of stuff. Sometimes I couldn’t even give away something valuable — people already have so much. It took a concerted effort to purge week after week and month after month. That said, living with less stuff has been a cinch. Way easier than you might imagine. You really got to want to simplify to do it. Once you do simplify, though, you’re not going to want to go back to excess.

    You wrote “What we really want we cannot buy.” What do we really want?

    What I mean is that we really, truly, honestly cannot buy the stuff we all long for the most: contentment, purpose, love, meaning. Look, there are people who disagree with me on this. They’ll say, “Fine for you Dave. As for me, I love Ferraris, and a new one would give me all the purpose and contentment I need.” Pardon me but, bullshit. If we really think that things are going to satisfy our souls, then we’re lying to ourselves. That lie has done so much damage to people I know and care about. It has thrashed our economy. It has hurt the world. I’m tired of mincing words. Thousands of ads a day tell us we can buy our way to a better life. We know deep down inside that’s not true, and it’s time we start living like we know it.

    What did you learn from the challenge? How has it changed the way you live and the way you think?

    One thing I learned is that there are a lot of other people in this world who feel stuck in stuff. Many people have houses, garages, and off-site storage units filled with stuff, but they feel empty in their heart, their relationships, and their work. The fact that consumerism doesn’t offer fulfillment is on the minds of lots of people. I talk to people all the time who feel frustrated with this circumstance but don’t know what to do. Something that the 100 Thing Challenge taught me is that it’s possible to break free of consumerism. It’s not an overnight process. But after living a year without much stuff, I’ve learned it is doable and enjoyable. I’m freed from consumerism, and freedom changes the way we live and think.

    On March 14, 2011 Dave Bruno will present “Contribution Over Consumption: The 100 Thing Challenge Story” at SXSW Interactive, Austin. More information here.