Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for October 3rd, 2019

How the world works

leave a comment »

An extremely interesting article to read at a time when the wheels seem to be coming off the American experiment. James Fallows writes in the Atlantic:

IN Japan in the springtime of 1992 a trip to Hitotsubashi University, famous for its economics and business faculties, brought me unexpected good luck. Like several other Japanese universities, Hitotsubashi is almost heartbreaking in its cuteness. The road from the station to the main campus is lined with cherry trees, and my feet stirred up little puffs of white petals. Students glided along on their bicycles, looking as if they were enjoying the one stress-free moment of their lives.

They probably were. In surveys huge majorities of students say that they study “never” or “hardly at all” during their university careers. They had enough of that in high school.

I had gone to Hitotsubashi to interview a professor who was making waves. Since the end of the Second World War, Japanese diplomats and businessmen have acted as if the American economy should be the model for Japan’s own industrial growth. Not only should Japanese industries try to catch up with America’s lead in technology and production but also the nation should evolve toward a standard of economic maturity set by the United States. Where Japan’s economy differed from the American model—for instance, in close alliances between corporations which U.S. antitrust laws would forbid—the difference should be considered temporary, until Japan caught up.

Through the 1980s a number of foreign observers challenged this assumption, saying that Japan’s economy might not necessarily become more like America’s with the passing years. Starting in 1990 a number of Japanese businessmen and scholars began publicly saying the same thing, suggesting that Japan’s business system might be based on premises different from those that prevailed in the West. Professor Iwao Nakatani, the man I went to Hitotsubashi to meet, was one of the most respected members of this group, and I spent the afternoon listening to his argument while, through the window I watched petals drifting down.

On the way back to the station I saw a bookstore sign advertising Western-language books for sale. I walked to the back of the narrow store and for the thousandth time felt both intrigued and embarrassed by the consequences of the worldwide spread of the English language. In row upon row sat a jumble of books that had nothing in common except that they were published in English. Self-help manuals by Zig Ziglar. Bodice-rippers from the Harlequin series. A Betty Crocker cookbook. The complete works of Sigmund Freud. One book by, and another about, Friedrich List.

Friedrich List! For at least five years I’d been scanning used-book stores in Japan and America looking for just these books, having had no luck in English-language libraries. I’d scoured stores in Taiwan that specialized in pirated reprints of English-language books for about a tenth their original cost. I’d called the legendary Strand bookstore, in Manhattan, from my home in Kuala Lumpur, begging them to send me a note about the success of their search (it failed) rather than make me wait on hold. In all that time these were the first books by or about List I’d actually laid eyes on.

One was a biography, by a professor in the north of England. The other was a translation, by the same professor, of a short book List had written in German. Both were slim volumes, which, judging by the dust on their covers, had been on the shelf for years. I gasped when I opened the first book’s cover and saw how high the price was—9,500 yen, about $75. For the set? I asked hopefully. No, apiece, the young woman running the store told me. Books are always expensive in Japan, but even so this seemed steep. No doubt the books had been priced in the era when one dollar was worth twice as many yen as it was by the time I walked into the store. I opened my wallet, pulled out a 10,000-yen note, took my change and the biography, and left the store. A few feet down the sidewalk I turned around, walked back to the store, and used the rest of my money to buy the other book. I would always have regretted passing it up.

WHY Friedrich List? The more I had heard about List in the preceding five years, from economists in Seoul and Osaka and Tokyo, the more I had wondered why I had virtually never heard of him while studying economics in England and the United States. By the time I saw his books in the shop beneath the cherry trees, I had come to think of him as the dog that didn’t bark. He illustrated the strange self-selectivity of Anglo-American thinking about economics.

I emphasize “Anglo-American” because in this area the United Kingdom and the United States are like each other and different from most of the rest of the world. The two countries have dominated world politics for more than a century, and the dominance of the English language lets them ignore what is being said and thought overseas—and just how isolated they have become. The difference shows up this way: The Anglo-American system of politics and economics, like any system, rests on certain principles and beliefs. But rather than acting as if these are the best principles, or the ones their societies prefer, Britons and Americans often act as if these were the only possible principles and no one, except in error, could choose any others. Political economics becomes an essentially religious question, subject to the standard drawback of any religion—the failure to understand why people outside the faith might act as they do.

To make this more specific: Today’s Anglo-American world view rests on the shoulders of three men. One is Isaac Newton, the father of modern science. One is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the father of liberal political theory. (If we want to keep this purely Anglo-American, John Locke can serve in his place.) And one is Adam Smith, the father of laissez-faire economics. From these founding titans come the principles by which advanced society, in the Anglo-American view, is supposed to work. A society is supposed to understand the laws of nature as Newton outlined them. It is supposed to recognize the paramount dignity of the individual, thanks to Rousseau, Locke, and their followers. And it is supposed to recognize that the most prosperous future for the greatest number of people comes from the free workings of the market. So Adam Smith taught, with axioms that were enriched by David Ricardo, Alfred Marshall, and the other giants of neoclassical economics.

The most important thing about this summary is the moral equivalence of the various principles. Isaac Newton worked in the realm of fundamental science. Without saying so explicitly, today’s British and American economists act as if the economic principles they follow had a similar hard, provable, undebatable basis. If you don’t believe in the laws of physics—actions create reactions, the universe tends toward greater entropy—you are by definition irrational. And so with economics. If you don’t accept the views derived from Adam Smith—that free competition is ultimately best for all participants, that protection and interference are inherently wrong—then you are a flat-earther.

Outside the United States and Britain the matter looks quite different. About science there is no dispute. “Western” physics is the physics of the world. About politics there is more debate: with the rise of Asian economies some Asian political leaders, notably Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore, and several cautious figures in Japan, have in effect been saying that Rousseau’s political philosophy is not necessarily the world’s philosophy. Societies may work best, Lee and others have said, if they pay less attention to the individual and more to the welfare of the group.

But the difference is largest when it comes to economics. In the non-Anglophone world Adam Smith is merely one of several theorists who had important ideas about organizing economies. In most of East Asia and continental Europe the study of economics is less theoretical than in England and America (which is why English-speakers monopolize Nobel Prizes) and more geared toward solving business problems.

In Japan economics has in effect been considered a branch of geopolitics—that is, as the key to the nation’s strength or vulnerability in dealing with other powers. From this practical-minded perspective English-language theorists seem less useful than their challengers, such as Friedrich List.

Two Clashing World Views

BRITONS and Americans tend to see the past two centuries of economics us one long progression toward rationality and good sense. In 1776 Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations made the case against old-style mercantilism, just as the Declaration of Independence made the case against old-style feudal and royal domination. Since then more and more of the world has come to the correct view—or so it seems in the Anglo-American countries. Along the way the world has met such impediments as neo-mercantilism, radical unionism, sweeping protectionism, socialism, and, of course, communism. One by one the worst threats have given way. Except for a few lamentable areas of backsliding, the world has seen the wisdom of Adam Smith’s ways.

Yet during this whole time there has been an alternative school of thought. The Enlightenment philosophers were not the only ones to think about how the world should be organized. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Germans were also active—to say nothing of the theorists at work in Tokugawa Japan, late imperial China, czarist Russia, and elsewhere.

The Germans deserve emphasis—more than the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, and so on because many of their philosophies endure. These did not take root in England or America, but they were carefully studied, adapted, and applied in parts of Europe and Asia, notably Japan. In place of Rousseau and Locke the Germans offered Hegel. In place of Adam Smith they had Friedrich List.

The German economic vision differs from the Anglo-American in many ways, but the crucial differences are these:

“Automatic” growth versus deliberate development. The Anglo-American approach emphasizes the unpredictability and unplannability of economics. Technologies change. Tastes change. Political and human circumstances change. And because life is so fluid, attempts at central planning are virtually doomed to fail. The best way to “plan,” therefore is to leave the adaptation to the people who have their own money at stake. These are the millions of entrepreneurs who make up any country’s economy. No planning agency could have better information than they about the direction things are moving, and no one could have a stronger incentive than those who hope to make a profit and avoid a loss. By the logic of the Anglo-American system, if each individual does what is best for him or her, the result will be what is best for the nation as a whole.

Although List and others did not use exactly this term, the German school was more concerned with “market failures.” In the language of modern economics these are the cases in which normal market forces produce a clearly undesirable result. The standard illustration involves pollution. If the law allows factories to dump pollutants into the air or water, then every factory will do so. Otherwise, their competitors will have lower costs and will squeeze them out. This “rational” behavior will leave everyone worse off. The answer to such a market failure is for the society—that is, the government—to set standards that all factories must obey.

Friedrich List and his best-known American counterpart, Alexander Hamilton, argued that industrial development entailed a more sweeping sort of market failure. Societies did not automatically move from farming to small crafts to major industries just because millions of small merchants were making decisions for themselves. If every person put his money where the return was greatest, the money might not automatically go where it would do the nation the most good. For it to do so required a plan, a push, an exercise of central power. List drew heavily on the history of his times—in which the British government deliberately encouraged British manufacturing and the fledgling American government deliberately discouraged foreign competitors.

This is the gist of List’s argument, from The Natural System of Political Economy, which he wrote in five weeks in 1837:

The cosmopolitan theorists [List’s term for Smith and his ilk] do not question the importance of industrial expansion. They assume, however, that this can be achieved by adopting the policy of free trade and by leaving individuals to pursue their own private interests. They believe that in such circumstances a country will automatically secure the development of those branches of manufacture which are best suited to its own particular situation. They consider that government action to stimulate the establishment of industries does more harm than good….

The lessons of history justify our opposition to the assertion that states reach economic maturity most rapidly if left to their own devices. A study of the origin of various branches of manufacture reveals that industrial growth may often have been due to chance. It may be chance that leads certain individuals to a particular place to foster the expansion of an industry that was once small and insignificant—just as seeds blown by chance by the wind may sometimes grow into big trees. But the growth of industries is a process that may take hundreds of years to complete and one should not ascribe to sheer chance what a nation has achieved through its laws and institutions. In England Edward III created the manufacture of woolen cloth and Elizabeth founded the mercantile marine and foreign trade. In France Colbert was responsible for all that a great power needs to develop its economy. Following these examples every responsible government should strive to remove those obstacles that hinder the progress of civilisation and should stimulate the growth of those economic forces that a nation carries in its bosom.

Consumers versus producers. The Anglo-American approach assumes that the ultimate measure of a society is its level of consumption. Competition is good, because it kills off producers whose prices are too high. Killing them off is good, because more-efficient suppliers will give the consumer a better deal. Foreign trade is very good, because it means that the most efficient suppliers in the whole world will be able to compete. It doesn’t even matter why competitors are willing to sell for less. They may really be more efficient; they may be determined to dump their goods for reasons of their own. In either case the consumer is better off. He has the ton of steel, the cask of wine, or—in today’s terms—the car or computer that he might have bought from a domestic manufacturer, plus the money he saved by buying foreign goods.

In the Friedrich List view, this logic leads to false conclusions. In the long run, List argued, a society’s well-being and its overall wealth are determined not by what the society can buy but by what it can make. This is the corollary of the familiar argument about foreign aid: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life.

List was not concerned here with the morality of consumption. Instead he was interested in both strategic and material well-being. In strategic terms nations ended up being dependent or independent according to their ability to make things for themselves. Why were Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians subservient to England and France in the nineteenth century? Because they could not make the machines and weapons Europeans could. . .

Continue reading. There’s much more and it’s worth reading and thinking about.

I do believe that the US focus on monetization of every possible activity and the pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else has misled us very badly.

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 4:39 pm

When you feel good about eating a plant-based diet: Trump’s USDA Is Letting Factories With Troubling Safety Records Slaughter Chickens Even Faster

leave a comment »

Isaac Arnsdorf reports in ProPublica:

Sixty miles northeast of Atlanta, a chicken statue atop a 25-foot monument proclaims the small city of Gainesville, Georgia, the “Poultry Capital of the World.” In the rolling hills outside of town, white feathers trail the trucks turning into a slaughterhouse operated by a local company called Fieldale Farms.

The Fieldale factory employs about 1,900 people. A lawn sign advertises jobs for $11-plus an hour and a big banner shouts “Think Safe, Work Safe.” But in recent years, according to federal safety records obtained by ProPublica, the factory has been the site of several grisly accidents, resulting in hospitalizations, amputations and death.

Those accidents didn’t prevent Fieldale from getting special permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to speed up its processing lines. Chicken companies have long wanted to operate their plants faster so that they can boost profits, either by producing more chickens or using less labor. But speeding up increases the risks to employees already working in dangerous conditions, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

It’s been only a few months since the speed increase took effect, not long enough to make meaningful before-and-after comparisons. And there is no available data to compare injury rates at the factories with higher speeds to the industry average because the Trump administration scrapped a requirement for employers to submit their injury logs. What is clear, from safety records obtained by ProPublica, is that most of the 11 plants that received permission to run faster did so despite having a history of serious accidents, including deaths.

The chicken industry has higher injury rates than coal mines or construction sites, and it’s the biggest source of finger amputations. Workers are under constant pressure to keep production going at a grueling speed. They typically perform one motion over and over, handling knives just a few inches from the next worker, surrounded by harsh chemicals and spinning blades.

“Increasing line speeds will increase poultry workers’ exposure to all of these hazards,” David Michaels, the head of OSHA from 2009 to 2017, said in a 2012 memo opposing a USDA proposal at the time to increase line speeds. Scientific studies, including both government-funded and industry-sponsored, have established that going faster worsens the risk of repetitive strain injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome. There is also evidence that feeling rushed or struggling to keep up with the work pace are factors in traumatic injuries.

“My conclusion from conducting this detailed research is there is no doubt that increasing line speed will increase laceration injuries to workers,” Melissa Perry, chair of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, said in a submission to the USDA opposing a similar plan to raise line speeds in pork slaughterhouses. The USDA is moving forward with that policy despite an internal investigation into whether the agency relied on flawed data to justify it.

For chicken factories, the USDA isn’t going through the time-consuming and contentious process of making a new regulation with a higher speed limit. Instead, it agreed to waive the existing cap for companies that ask. “This deregulatory action would advance the president’s objective to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens,” the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group, said in its formal request for the waivers.

When the USDA started issuing line speed waivers to poultry plants last year, the agency said it wouldn’t consider the impact on worker safety. “The agency has neither the authority nor the expertise to regulate issues related to establishment worker safety,” the USDA said in its official announcement of the speed waivers. “OSHA is the federal agency with statutory and regulatory authority to promote workplace safety and health.”

But OSHA has no control over line speeds. A spokeswoman with the agency said the USDA “has sole jurisdiction over line speeds at these plants.”

This gap in the regulatory framework puts workers at risk, said Debbie Berkowitz, a former OSHA chief of staff. She now directs the National Employment Law Project’s Worker Health and Safety Program.

“The USDA doesn’t care about worker safety, they just care about increasing profits for huge meatpacking companies,” Berkowitz said. “If production increases and everybody has to work harder and faster in an already dangerous environment, that increases injuries.”

The National Chicken Council’s request for waivers acknowledged that “worker safety is a factor plants must consider when deciding the most appropriate line speed for their operations.” But the trade group argued that this shouldn’t prevent the USDA from issuing waivers because companies could take actions to address the risks.

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service administrator, Carmen Rottenberg, has said in a December interview with trade press that the agency plans to use the line speed waivers to revisit the case for lifting the limit everywhere. The USDA declined to provide an interview with Rottenberg, and her spokesman declined to comment on the timeline for that proposal.

“A Deadly Trap”

Before it received a waiver, the Fieldale plant repeatedly broke safety rules, and managers clashed with OSHA over its enforcement efforts, according to hundreds of pages of records obtained by ProPublica.

Inside the plant, there’s an insulated room for storing ice. Ice cubes fall from the ceiling into a huge mound; they then slide through turning screw-shaped blades that break up the ice and feed the cubes into the factory. The blades are covered by a grate in the floor.

One morning in 2014, a worker went inside to fetch some ice. Some of the bars in the floor grate were loose or missing, but the worker couldn’t see the gaps buried under the ice. His foot fell through the faulty grate and onto the screw-shaped blades, severing his leg below the knee. He crawled out of the ice house and cried for help.

“He’s bleeding bad and he’s in shock,” an employee told the 911 dispatcher. “Please tell them to hurry up before the man dies.”

The worker survived, but his leg was so damaged that all but five inches had to be amputated.

The plant manager, David Rackley, told the OSHA inspector that the worker got hurt because he was “thin” so his foot must have fit through the regular spaces in the grate. The inspector measured the width of the thick rubber boots that the worker was wearing (5 inches) against the spaces in the grate (2 inches). Then Rackley abandoned his claim, according to the OSHA report. The inspector called Rackley’s shifting explanations “deceptive” and “not true.”

The inspector learned from interviewing employees that Fieldale hadn’t bothered to fix the grates despite repeated complaints about the missing bars. Then, right after the accident, the company immediately fixed the grates and “covered up” records of the sudden repair. The inspector called it “a deadly trap.”

Rackley, who is still the plant manager, referred questions to Fieldale’s president, Tom Hensley. In an interview, Hensley repeated the false claim that the worker was injured because he was “small” and “somehow his small little foot got through the guard.” When presented with the inspector’s measurements and discovery that Fieldale “covered up” its repair of the faulty bars, Hensley said he wasn’t aware. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard that,” he said. . .

Continue reading.

And the USDA allows meatpacking plants to do their own food inspections. Note that any food that the plant rejects would hurt its profits. This is called a “conflict of interest.”

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 1:08 pm

Lemons, Nose to Tail

leave a comment »

Those who read the recipes in my blog know that I often use the entire lemon, just cutting off the ends a bit but using all the rest. Apparently it’s a thing. I didn’t know that, I just did it, though preserved lemons showed the way. Rebecca Flint Marx writes in Taste:

For my entire life, I had underestimated lemons. It took the combined forces of a Shaker lemon pie and a Passover salmon to make me understand the depths of my ignorance. Yes, I had happily used lemon juice and lemon zest in everything from sautéed vegetables to fruit cobblers, but the idea of using the whole fruit was alien, even off-putting. All of that sourness, I thought; all of that overwhelming bitterness. But then I ate a slice of the whole lemon pie, and I tasted the very soul of citrus. And then I made the salmon, whose top and bottom I had adorned with paper-thin lemon slices and eventually ate whole, rind and all. I don’t remember why it occurred to me to stick one of them in my mouth, but when I realized how beautifully they had absorbed the oil and juices of the salmon, I wanted to eat them all.

If whole-lemon cooking remains an oddity to many cooks put off by the idea of the fruit’s spongy, bitter pith and overall sourness, it has some respected proponents who recognize that each part of the fruit boasts its own virtues. Its juice is tart and acidic, while its peel contains its fragrant oil, which is where the essence of the fruit lives. Taken together, juice and peel offer a bright, aromatic, sweet-sour jolt of life to any dish they touch.

Anna Jones uses lemon zest and juice with liberal abandon throughout her newest cookbook, The Modern Cook’s Year, but it’s in her lemon cardamom upside-down cake that they find their most full-bodied expression. The lemons here—the recipe uses five—are seeded, sliced thin, and candied in a simple syrup, then arranged around the bottom of the cake pan, where they “burnish as the cake cooks,” Jones writes. Once the cake is finished and cooled, it’s flipped so that the fruit becomes “a gilded lemon roof,” according to Jones. When I made it, on a gray December day, the finished cake’s lemon-tiled facade evoked the actual shining sun, a corrective to my moderate seasonal depression. The flavor itself was a reminder of the sheer lemony-ness that the skin contains, that glorious citrus perfume paired with a very specific—and pleasing—creamy-chewy texture that evokes nothing but itself.

Plenty of cooks and bakers have found ways to incorporate the entire fruit into their desserts. Both David Lebovitz and Deb Perelman have recipes for whole-lemon bars, while Dorie Greenspan published a recipe for a whole-lemon tart in The New York Times; its flavor, she says in the headnote, “is exuberantly full.” And then, of course, there were the Shakers, a Christian sect perhaps best known for minimalist, well-made furniture and, in culinary circles, for their namesake lemon pie. The baker and gardener Sarah Owens has a recipe for one in her new cookbook, Heirloom; it “speaks to the pure flavor of lemon,” Owens writes, along with the wisdom of using the whole fruit, which (minus the seeds), she here slices thin and macerates for 24 hours with sage, sugar, and salt before mixing with the rest of the pie’s filling.

On the savory side, whole lemons present a wide, puckery world of opportunities. Chief among them is preservation, a process practiced for centuries by cooks throughout India, North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, and Iran. Brining and preserving lemons in salt and their juices mellows their bitterness and creates a sweet, salty, and sour flavor heavy with citrus and umami. Preserved lemons make an ideal accompaniment to everything from grilled meat and fish to salads; the pickling liquid adds depth and dimension to Bloody Marys.

In her new cookbook Nothing Fancy, Alison Roman fries slices of lemon in chicken fat as part of her one-pot chicken with dates and caramelized lemon. She both pan-fries and salts them in her pan-fried sardines with fried and salted lemons; their tanginess, she writes, slices through all of the fat from the browned butter in the recipe. Roman is . . .

Continue reading. The piece ends with links to three recipes using the lemon entire:

Pan-Fried Sardines With Fried and Salted Lemons

Shaker Lemon and Sage Pie

Lemon and Cardamom Upside-Down Cake

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 12:30 pm

Posted in Daily life, Food, Recipes

How Not to Die from Cancer

leave a comment »

A blog post from Michael Greger MD:

After Dr. Dean Ornish conquered our number-one killer, heart disease, he moved on to killer number-two. What happens if cancer is put on a plant-based diet? Ornish and colleagues found that the progression of early-stage prostate cancer could be reversed with a plant-based diet and other healthy lifestyle behaviors.

If the blood of those eating the Standard American Diet is dripped onto cancer cells growing in a petri dish, cancer growth is cut down about 9 percent. And if they’ve followed a plant-based diet for a year? Their blood can slash cancer growth by 70 percent. So the blood circulating thgouhout the bodies of those eating plant-based diets had nearly eight times the stopping power when it came to suppressing cancer cell growth.

That was for cell growth of prostate cancer, the leading cancer-killer specific to men. In younger women, breast cancer is the top cancer-killer. Researchers wanted to repeat the study with women using breast cancer cells, but they didn’t want to wait a whole year to get the results. Women are dying now. So they figured they’d see what a plant-based diet could do after just two weeks against three different types of human breast cancer.

As you can see in my video How Not to Die from Cancer, the study showed cancer growth started out at 100 percent, but then dropped after the subjects ate a plant-based diet for 14 days. A layer of breast cancer cells was laid down in a petri dish, and then blood from women eating the Standard American Diet was dripped on it. As you can see in the video, even the blood of women eating pretty poor diets had some ability to break down cancer. After just two weeks of eating healthfully, though, blood was drawn from those same women—so they effectively acted as their own controls—and was dripped on a new carpet of breast cancer cells. You can see for yourself that only a few individual cancer cells remained. Their bodies cleaned up. After only 14 days on a plant-based diet, their bloodstream became that much more hostile to cancer.

Slowing down the growth of cancer cells is nice, but getting rid of them all together is even better. This is what’s called apoptosis, programmed cell death. After eating healthfully, the women’s own bodies were able to somehow reprogram the cancer cells, forcing them into early retirement.

In my video, you can see what’s called TUNEL imaging, which allows researchers to measure DNA fragmentation, or cell death. With this technology, dying cancer cells appear as little white spots. From the start of the study, you can see one small white speck in the upper left of the image, showing that the blood of an average woman on a typical American diet can knock off a few breast cancer cells. After 14 days of healthy, plant-based living, however, her blood turned that one small white speck into a multitude of white spots. It’s as if she’s an entirely different woman inside! The same blood now coursing through these women’s bodies gained the power to significantly slow down and even stop breast cancer cell growth after just two weeks of eating a plant-based diet.

What kind of blood do we want in our body? What kind of immune system? Do we want blood that just rolls over when new cancer cells pop up, or do we want blood circulating to every nook and cranny of our body with the power to slow down and stop them?

The dramatic strengthening of cancer defenses shown in the study was after 14 days of a plant-based diet—and exercise.The researchers had the women walking 30 to 60 minutes a day. Given there were two factors, how do we know what role the diet played? Researchers decided to put it to the test.

In my video, you can see a chart that first shows how blood taken from those who ate a plant-based diet and had a routine of mild exercise, such as walking every day, over an average of 14 years, exhibited significant cancer cell clearance. The researchers then compared the substantial cancer-stopping power of plant eaters to that of an average sedentary American, which you can see is basically nonexistent.

The researchers also analyzed a third group. . .

Continue reading. There’s much more.

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 9:08 am

Sleeping octopus changes color while dreaming

leave a comment »

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 8:51 am

Posted in Daily life

Merkur 37G slant and Mama Bear Spellbound Woods

leave a comment »

Spellbound Woods is one of my favorite fragrances, and this morning the RazoRock Bruce 22mm brush shown made the usual superb lather from a Mama Bear soap.

The Merkur 37 remains a very good slant, and the Hoffritz vintage slant, a rebranded 37, is an excellent find if you can get one at a reasonable price. Three passes, perfect result, no damage. I have the 37G because I loved the 37C so much I wanted to mark the razor as a special favorite.

A god splash of Saint Charles Shave’s Woods aftershave, and the day is properly launched.

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2019 at 8:17 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: