I don’t read major newspapers because I don’t believe in supporting their mainly misinformed views, corporate and political pandering, and negative stories with my dollars. But yesterday I was visiting my family and flicked through one of the Sunday papers they had next to the lounge.

As I turned the pages, a health story grabbed my attention (as they always do). I wish I had cut out the article and bought it with me, because I can’t quite remember the headline, but it was about how women are increasing in weight around their mid-section because they are now drinking as much alcohol as men are.

Men have been known to suffer from the “beer belly syndrome” where chronic drinkers increase in weight around their waist, but can lose it from their legs, giving them a certain type of appearance. The article went on to explain how this body type (fat belly, skinny legs) is now occurring in more women as their alcohol consumption increases.

All sounds quite straightforward up to now doesn’t it?

And it would have been, except for the photo’s they chose to put with the story. Two young girls, Brittany Spears and Charlotte Church, both in bikini’s and being described by the newspaper as “overweight” and representative of the problem featured in the article.

I couldn’t believe my eyes. These girls both looked absolutely gorgeous. Feminine, womanly, totally in proportion, not anorexcially thin, but by no stretch of the imagination could you even call them plump. They looked fantastic and I was left wondering about what motivated the matching of these photo’s to that particular article.

To me there didn’t seem to be any connection whatsoever.

Ok, maybe the girls drink a bit, but the story wasn’t about drinking per se, it was about drinking related to a certain body shape and the health risks associated with that. But the girls didn’t have the body shape they were talking about in the article at all.

Quite obviously the photo’s were chosen because the girls are famous and it provided the content with a celebrity link that probably grabbed more readers attention than it would have otherwise.

But what message is this sending out?

That we all must be skinny to the point of emaciation to gain approval in the eyes of the mass media? That a woman’s naturally fit, healthy, curvy body is not to be appreciated, but denigrated in print?

No wonder I don’t read newspapers! They take the worst of human nature and glorify it for mass marketing consumption and that does not help the state of our minds or the world we live in.

What we fill our minds with is just as important as what we fill our bodies with, and this derogatory slant on what could of been an informative article, just highlights what a warped sense of “news” abounds in the world.

I think next time, I’ll just line the bin with newspaper BEFORE I flick through it!

In the news this week, an Australian study has shown that there has been a significant drop in breast cancer rates that can be attributed directly to women stopping HRT therapy after warnings of a link came out a few years ago.

It is estimated that there was a 40% drop in usage at that time, and this has correlated into fewer cases of breast cancer, that the authors of the study could find no other contributing factors for.

In an article published on the ABC news site it states “really what this means is that women and their doctors have had a very positive impact on breast cancer in Australia and it really shows that by incorporating solid evidence about HRT into clinical practise, we can have an impact on breast cancer”. 

I would actually explain this another way:

“really what this means is that pharmaceutical companies and their cohorts (doctors) have been using menopausal women in a huge medical experiment with no regard for the safety and long term effects of their product; and as soon as women were made aware of this, they stopped using it”.

I don’t think for one minute that the drop in HRT usage is due to a mutual collaboration between women and their doctors - in some cases maybe - but in my opinion, HRT is often stopped because women are horrified that they have been duped by greedy drug companies hiding the truth about their dangerous products.

HRT (and “the pill”) are synthetic drugs that are “similar” to our own natural hormones but not identical - and that difference is enormous.  Natural hormones are not able to be patented, and therefore drug companies cannot make obscene fortunes off of them - so synthetics are developed to take their place. 

Unfortunately whenever you put something synthetic into your body - there are going to be consequences and often quite serious consequences.

There is a much safer alternative to HRT and that is called BHRT - bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, which uses hormones identical to our own that our body recognises.  Of course any hormone supplementation has its risks and it is much better to heal the body naturally wherever possible - but if a very good assessment has been done (see www.salivahormonereport.com) then BHRT can be a consideration in some cases.

What more evidence do we need to give HRT the flick and stop drug companies from running their experiments on us??

The issue of eating meat is a very contentious one, with people on both sides of the debate holding strong moral, ethical, economical and nutritional views.

In this short blog-post I’m not going to delve into those highly sensitive topics and weigh up one against the other – as that could easily turn into a 1000 page novel – but I did want to highlight some facts around how our high meat consumption is destroying not only our health, but our environment.

Years ago John Robbins, author of “Diet For A New America” printed a little book called “Realities For The ‘90’s” which outlined environmental and nutritional facts pertaining to our high meat consumption.

For example:
• Amount of U.S. cropland producing livestock feed: 64%
• Amount of U.S. cropland producing fruits and vegetables: 2%
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from legumes: 2
• Activity that accounts for more than half of all water consumed for all purposes in the United States: Livestock production
• The number of gallons of water needed to produce 1 edible pound of Tomatoes: 23, Carrots: 33, Grapes: 70, Beef: 5214

Well, you get the picture…

To produce the amount of meat that we are conditioned to eat in Western society, we are ruining the environment, wasting valuable resources and contributing to massive amounts of pollution.

With governments subsidising meat producing farmers, meat has become a very cheap commodity, when in reality the price should be much, much higher and a “luxury” item rather than an everyday staple in the diet.

Although I can be quite idealistic when it comes to picturing the “perfect world”, most often I can see a realistic step by step journey of getting there, or at least travelling in that direction.  And for many people, going instantly from meat three times a day seven days a week, to becoming a vegan or vegetarian, is not a realistic step and they refuse to even consider it.

So, for the average person in society, getting them to cut their meat consumption down to just 1 or 2 meals per week, rather than 21 meals per week is a realistic step, (once they learn some fantastic raw gourmet food preparation techniques, that is!) 

Just this one change would have an enormous impact on most people’s health, and it would also be saving our natural resources and our environment at the same time, although the people who make a living out of the meat industry would have something to say about that I’m sure!

Next time you’re meal planning, just give a thought to the above issues and make sure you plan a few vegetarian days in your week – your body ( and the planet) will thank you for it.

When I was younger I always got caught up in thinking that everyone else was better than I was and knew more than I did, and in my own mind I elevated many people onto a pedestal. 

I learned very painfully over the years, that very few people are who they appear to be, or who they project to the public, and I found that blatant hypocrisy in people quite a shock. 

Now I’m not expecting that everyone has to be perfect, but there is a level of integrity that I think shines through when you are coming from the heart.  I couldn’t in all honesty be a naturopath and teach people about healthy living, if I myself didn’t embrace those principles.  I would feel like a fraud.

It must be very stressful to project one image to the public, and then to live another. 

There are those of us who do our best to walk with integrity who can see the false web that people weave around themselves with their own self deception. 

There are also those that know all the right words and appear to be conscious and aware, but they have never really done the deep work, the depths of enquiry to meet yourself and know that you are accountable for who you are in this world. 

Then we have the “success junkies” who again have missed the point and think that if everyone just did their affirmations and watched “The Secret”, then they would have the perfect life.

Everyone is searching for answers, not only to health concerns, but to the bigger questions in life.  And although there are wonderful, special people out there that can teach us an enormous amount – the most profound insights are found within.

So keep on learning, but also keep in mind that you are just as important and have just as much to offer as the “guru” on the stage.  Have faith in yourself, be open to new information, but also know that we are all struggling along doing the best we can, and there’s no need to ever see yourself as less than anyone else.

That’s not a bad thought for the day