Which is the more dangerous? This solid glass milk bottle from Ronnybrook Farms in Ancramdale, NY or this waxed cardboard milk box from somewhere between the star-filled dimensions of The Twilight Zone and the subterranean recesses of Warehouse 13?

Aside from the obviously non-dangerous photographic differences between the smooth bottle with the crinkled cap reminiscent of milk delivery systems of the first half of the twentieth century and its now ubiquitous cardboard replacement, there is a significant difference in the contents of these two vessels. The one on the left contains unhomogenized milk and the one on the right contains - yep - homogenized milk! More of a danger than most people would suspect.

Unlike pasteurization - which kills 99.999% of dangerous bacteria, or ultra-pasteurization - which also kills “vital vitamins and enzymes such as galactase (aids in the absorption of calcium) and lipase (causes milk fat to self destruct after the body absorbs its fat-soluble nutrients),” homogenization does not kill anything. Except us. Though it is a slow kill.

Homogenization breaks up the creamy fat that floats to the top of glass bottles of unhomogenized milk. Then it disperses it into teeny-weeny little pinpoints of creamy fat that are so small they no longer float but remain in suspension with the rest of the milk.

 [Right click and select
View Image to enlarge.]

The trouble is that those little pinpoints of creamy fat are now tiny enough to get absorbed by the villi in our small intestines. And once absorbed into the villi, they make their way into our arteries leading to all sorts of cardiovascular difficulties. A real bummer!

So why did the milk people commit this abominable crime so detrimental to our health and theirs as well? Increased $ale$. They conducted a few consumer surveys asking the test subjects what they thought of milk with cream floating at the top and got all sorts of negative answers.

“Oooh! What gooey crud is this?” “Looks terrible! Get rid of it or I won’t buy any more milk.” “I can’t shake it enough to mix it real good. Tastes creepy this way.” “Wish something could be done about this yucky, floating cream.” “I’m tired of shaking the bottle to mix the cream with the rest of the milk.”

And the milk people listened to the voice of the people. People who are now dead, as the surveys were done back in the 1950’s.  And even though statistics show fewer deaths from cardiovascular diseases prior to the 1950’s, modern day researchers still scratch their heads while drinking homogenized milk and ask, “Why can’t we figure out what’s causing all this cardiovascular ill health?”

SPECIAL NOTE:  The container in the second photo is intentionally blank because the brand name of the milk does not matter. Nor does it matter whether the milk is whole milk or 2% milk or any other percentage milk. Nearly 100% of all the milk most of us find in our local supermarkets is homogenized. A full 100% in many supermarkets! Except for skim milk, which tastes terrible because there is nothing left in it to get homogenized. It’s nearly pure water.

So where has all the unhomogenized milk gone?

Good question. Worthy of Captain Jack Sparrow.  Er . . . when he was a toddler, perhaps.

Where indeed has it gone? And more to the point, can you get some that’s still fresh? If you really want to know the answers to these questions, the links below will help you. If you take the time, use the energy, and spend the money for phone calls, you will probably find a supplier in your area with access to a dairy farm that still produces unhomogenized milk.

But remember to read labels carefully. Unhomogenized milk can still be pasteurized. If it is not pasteurized, it is called “raw milk.” And that will be another choice you will have to make. Is your health and the health of your family worth the time, the trouble, and the expense? I believe it is.

LINK 1

LINK 2

[ Photos: Courtesy of www.ronnybrook.com, www.foodmag.com, www.energymanagertraining.com, and www.biog1105-1106.org/demos/105/unit6/peptidases.7.html ]

What the heck is  AAAH  ZOH  DIE  CAR  BON  AAAH  MIDE?  And why is it in my bread? That’s like Jack Sparrow asking, “Why is the rum gone?” With about the same chance of getting a decent answer for it.

Actually, it may not be in your bread. Some breads have it and some breads don’t. Can you tell the difference in the photos above? Unlikely. The photos are just mirror images of each other. It doesn’t matter what the breads look like. Azodicarbonamide is not visible to the naked eye. Or any other kind of eye.

Unless you read the ingredients on the wrapper surrounding the bread, you will have no way of knowing.  Apparently however, anyone who processes foods with azodicarbonamide must list it in their ingredients label. With three exceptions.

If they happen to live in Australia or Europe, the chemical is banned, so they better not be listing it. If they happen to live in the Republic of Singapore, the penalty for using this poison is up to 15 years imprisonment and a $450,000 fine, in which case they also better not be listing it.

But anywhere else in the world, including right here in the good old USA, it’s perfectly legal for bakers to list and use the stuff. Our own FDA has no problems with it. They claim it makes the bread doughier. “But why is the rum gone?”

So the next time you shop for bread, check the label for anything that starts with AZOD, and if there IS no label  . . .  well, I know what I would do.

Photo: Courtesy of http://www.bloemhof.com

LINK 1

LINK 2

LINK 3

Everyone knows what shoes look like, so no need for pictures of ‘em here.

Bare feet are another story. Actually, it’s this story, or this post, or . . .  the point is we don’t see much of bare feet, except for our own or those of our significant other. Some may ask, “What is a significant other?” And others may ask,  “Why is it we see their bare feet so often?” I say, “Neither of those questions have much to do with our topic and most people know the answers anyway.” We need a question for which most people do not have the answer. I have it!

What is an “insignificant other?” There’s a question that begs an answer, but we can discuss that in another post. It’s totally off-topic. How about, “Why do we see so few bare feet during the course of our daily living?” And now we do a little Family Feud dialog with “Survey says!” And the answer just pops out at us with no delay whatsoever. Shoes!

Yes, shoes! That’s why we don’t need any pictures of ‘em cluttering up the bare feet above. We don’t see much of bare feet, but we do see a whole lot of shoes. And rightly so. Shoes provide us with a very important service.

They protect us from the dangers to be found on the ground. Some may ask, “What dangers?” I say, “Glass shards for one.” Others may ask,  “What are shards?” I say, “Don’t ask.” Just know they are very sharp and very tiny and very nasty. And none of us want them embedded into the bottom of our feet. Another clear and present danger of bouncing around barefoot is the increased odds of our stepping onto sharp rocks, or sharp pieces of metal, or sharp pieces of wood, or sharp . . . the key word here is “sharp” and basically that’s why we wear shoes. To protect us from turning the skin on the bottom of our feet into a tangled mess of blood, dirt, and raw flesh that would not only give us great pain but would also expose our bodies to infectious diseases and other unpleasant things that would lead to our untimely demise. In a word, survival.

On the other hand, if we could find a place devoid of dangerously sharp objects, then running around barefoot could be beneficial for us. Stepping onto, or into, unsharp objects cannot really harm us. What can a little twig, or branch, or leaf, or smooth pavement, or dirt, or mud, or grease, or rainwater, or sand, or rotted food, or animal dung do to us? A little push into our skin? We can bounce back from that with no trouble. A little grime? We just wash it off with a little soap and water. No problem.

And the benefits are tremendous. Blister reduction. Fungus reduction. Increased muscle flexibility, better posture, increased stamina, and a difficult-to-define, overall happier feeling when we can wiggle our toes in total freedom from oppressive confinement.

Humankind has walked on the various surfaces of this planet for a very long time, and wearing shoes, when the weather does not require it, remains a relatively new idea. Perhaps going barefoot is better.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Seems like an easy choice. But is it?

Organic foods are healthier but more expensive. Chemical foods are poisonous, cheaper, and not labeled organic. Yet some of the foods labeled organic can still have harmful chemicals in them. Arsenic, after all, is organic. Always read the fine print. If you can find it. 95% (and that’s a conservative estimate) of anything in a supermarket is filled with dangerous, life-threatening chemicals. That’s what keeps prices from skyrocketing. Chemicals are cheap. If it costs them less to manufacture it, it costs us less to buy it. With more of us feeling the pinch lately, we would all like to save a little more on food.

But the questions are, “Can we live with it?” or “Will it kill us tomorrow or down the road?” Filling our bodies with pesticide-packed, hormone-injected, preservative-laced, artificially-fertilized, chemical food is not a good thing. It will age us prematurely, shorten our lifespans, and generally make us feel more uncomfortable. But if the poisons act slowly and take more than forty years to do all that, do we really care? Besides, maybe we can reduce the odds of bodily damage if we can pick and choose as to the number of chemicals and which ones might be more harmful than others. That might work.

Unfortunately, many of the nastier chemicals are not so easy to spot. Oh, it’s easy enough to read a label and look for stuff impossible to pronounce, but that’s only if the label is correctly printed and is actually on the package. There are many chemical foods filled with preservatives for extended shelf life and at least 13 to 39 artificial this-and-that chemicals designed to keep bugs and fungi from destroying them before they get to us. Chemicals also make chemical foods look nice and pretty and, sometimes, taste even better. But the labels don’t always show it. Often they are misprinted or missing completely.

PERSONAL INCIDENT:

About two years ago, my wife and I went to the meat section of our local grocery store and bought a loin of pork. There was no label on it other than the one with the price, what it was, and a sell-by date. After we cooked it, served it, and tried to eat it, we found it incredibly salty and at the same time mushy. We had to throw it out.

The next day, we asked the butcher at the store about it and he said, “it comes that way now.” We asked him, “What way?” He said, “injected with a meat tenderizer to make it easier to eat.” We asked him why it needed to be easier to eat than before. He said, “Now that they’re producing pigs with less fat so people don’t get heart problems, the cooked meat is way too tough and dry and people, especially people with dentures, can’t eat it like that. So they add chemicals to it to  keep the moisture in and break down the meat fibers.” My wife and I just looked at each other in disbelief.

We then asked him why there was no label on the package to indicate that it had chemicals in it and what those chemicals are. He said, “the label is on the shrink-wrap part of the whole section of meat when it comes into the store. We take that off before cutting it into smaller sections. We have other labels that we then stick on to the smaller packages. Somebody must have forgotten to put ‘em on, heh, heh!”

Amazing!

Then there are the labels that intentionally disguise the chemical information with a phrase like “natural flavor.” We all know “artificial flavor” is made from chemicals, but who would have thought that “natural flavor” could be just as detrimental to our health? Adding to the problem, some “natural flavors” are, in fact, safe. But when we think about it, why would any food have to have “natural flavor” added to it. It should already have all the flavor it needs. If it doesn’t, then why doesn’t it? What has been done to it to make it lose the flavor it was supposed to have? Like blueberry jam with natural flavors added. Blueberries have flavor. Blueberries have a lot of flavor. They taste great, right off the bush. So why add natural flavor to them?

And what about blueberry muffins? Why do they always have aluminum in their ingredients? For years now, aluminum has been associated with Alzheimer’s Disease. Why would a manufacturer put aluminum in their blueberry muffin mix? Because it makes it look nice and pretty. Then they add the chemicals that make it smell like blueberries, and the flavors that make it taste like blueberries, and it’s all cheaper than real blueberries are. In fact, some blueberry muffins have no blueberries in them at all. But that doesn’t stop the label from calling them blueberry muffins. I guess it’s because they have that blueberry color in them.

Still, everybody wants to save money, so we pass by the organic section of the food markets, saying to ourselves that it is just way too expensive, and besides, the organic foods do not look nice and pretty. Instead, we buy the foods with the chemicals in them and save tons of money. Money that we honestly need to meet the costs of the constantly increasing number of visits we make to our doctors offices.

Silly, isn’t it? One way or another, the money disappears.

It seems to me, we’re better off broke and healthy than broke and sickly.

LINK 1

LINK 2

[Tomato, courtesy of http://www.buzzle.com/articles/organic-food-better-diet.html]
[Lips, courtesy of http://browsei.com/Pictures/501/Mo-chemicals]

Wow! Wine vs. Beer? Talk about opening up a can of worms! But let’s not get into a “knock down, drag out” just yet. Lots of people like both, though not at the same time! And certainly not mixed up in the same flagon. Yuk!

So what happens when we sit down at some sort of dining arena ready for a hearty lunch or dinner?  We’ll assume here that neither the wine nor the beer will do with a ham ‘n’ egg breakfast special, right? So lunch or dinner it is, then. But how do we make the decision? Do we reach in our pocket for a large coin and try the George Raft flip? Or is it a mood thing?

Maybe we could slug down a beer before the meal and try the wine during the meal. A good idea, if we’re looking to regurgitate the more solid portions of the meal. So where does that leave us?  [scratch head here]  Hmmm.

How about another approach, then? Beer is served in a large flagon or stein. Ok, we know what a stein is but what the devil is a flagon? Let’s just call it a really large stein. Actually, in medieval times, a flagon was used almost exclusively with wine. But that was then and this is now and a flagon is still larger than a stein. Anyway, these days wine is served in this tiny little tulip-shaped thingy atop an even tinier little glass stem. So what’s the point?

The point is beer is voluminous. Big. Large. Filling. In other words, a whole lot of liquid. A glass of wine doesn’t even get filled up all the way. It just barely makes four or five ounces. Not big. Not large. Not filling. In fewer words, very little liquid. So what does the amount of liquid have to do with the price of beans when we’ve just ordered a nice juicy steak? Well, look at it this way. Do we want numerous, masticated chunks of steer sinew sloshing around in a sea of our stomach juices during our lunch or dinner? Or would we prefer a few sips of a nice acidic juice to help our stomach do its job? (i.e., digestion)

Beer or ale at the local pub with a bowl of pretzels or beer nuts nearby is a horse of a different color. The pretzels and the nut-mash absorb liquid better than a deep-sea sponge. And if we feel, or hear, too much sloshing, we just chomp down on a few more . . . You get the idea.

So the next time a waiter asks you what sort of alcoholic beverage you’d like with your lunch or dinner, no worries! You’ll know what to do. Or will you?

LINK 1

LINK 2

OK! We’re talking California reds here. Not France, Spain, or Italy. Just good old California red wine.

Don’t let the names Ferrari and Provenance side-track you.  Somewhere on the label, front or back, it is going to say California. Of course, you might have spotted the words,  Napa Valley, clearly printed on the label in the second photo and most folks would recognize Napa Valley as part of California, but Alexander Valley is another story. Actually, it’s another valley. Still in California, though. And as long as they’re both in California, it doesn’t matter to the problem at hand, which is - how do you decide between them?

SPECIAL NOTE: Regardless of where on this planet these two grape varieties have been harvested and turned into red, alcoholic grape juice, the Cab is going to be more mouth-puckering, more tannic, and the Mer is going to be less mouth-puckering and less tannic. Do you want the insides of your mouth ripped apart by tannins or gently caressed by subtle smoothness? The food you select should guide you, but the decision is still yours.

So the next time you go out to dinner and you want to try a red wine with whatever dead creature part you’ve chosen to ingest, all you have to remember is what you’ve just read above.

Or you could trust the waiter to decide for you.

Maybe.

LINK 1

LINK 2

According to Mandelbrot, B.B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman and Company.. ISBN 0-7167-1186-9, a fractal is “a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole.”

But the real question is do you like ‘em? Find ‘em intriguing? Or are they just so much fluff? In other words, would you put a four-foot by six-foot painting of one on your living room wall?

I would.

If I had more than one living room.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Okay, so times are tough. But times have been tough before. Everything runs in cycles. Give it some time. Things will get better.

Eventually.

So is stooping over a dingy floor mopping up street dirt really better than scooping competitive reporters on the latest and hottest story? Is the old phrase “inquiring people want to know“out of sync with modern times? Is journalism out and are retail stores in? Depends on who you listen to and “who you trust.”

LINK 1

LINK 2

LINK 3

Will either make a difference? It is important to make a difference. Nothing is 100%. Improvement is always necessary and always around the corner even when things look bright and rosy. And these days things do not look all that bright and rosy, do they?

In terms of their generations, their views, and their philosophies, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden both bring to their respective running mates what those running mates lack. And in a presidential horse race that is still neck-and-neck, the question that remains is whether either will bring enough oomph! to their potential administrations to result in a significant difference in the future of our lives, regardless of who wins the race.

Sarah Palin brings youth, conservatism, and new-style Alaskan politics to the presidential arena. A sort of new-frontierswoman type of politics. Did someone say a female version of Davy Crockett? “Daaveeee, Daaaavy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier.” Like Davy, Sarah Palin is a person who can “kick some Washington butt” and get things done. Well, of course! She’s a Mom, after all. And we all know how tough and relentless Moms can be. And caring. And mindful of the needs of others. She provides a good balance to John McCain’s battle-seasoned soldier image. Sarah Palin and John McCain work well together.

On the other hand, her youth brings with it a “lack of experience in the field.” Being a Mom, and a mayor of a town, and a governor of a state apparently do not count as much as being a junior senator from Illinois. Nor is she a graduate of Harvard University. Nor is she a man. Perhaps if she had been a male senator as long as Ted Kennedy or, even better, if she had already been president, like Bill Clinton, then perhaps she would be qualified to be president of the United States. I say “perhaps” because I cannot seem to recall the official list of qualifications an American citizen must have before running for vice-president or president. I keep thinking of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan and their particular list of qualifications. The former was a haberdasher and the latter an actor. Did you know that U.S. scholars consider Truman one of the ten best presidents the United States ever had? Amazing!

And what about Joe Biden? Well, he brings old age, liberalism, and old-style Washington politics to the presidential arena. He has been around Washington, D.C. longer than John McCain. He knows the ropes, perhaps even better than Ted Kennedy. He can advise Barack Obama on foreign policy issues and the “tricks of the trade” in the nation’s capital. Such as the tricks involved in first trying to “bail out” our nation’s economy and, after that failed, now trying to “rescue” it.

And his experience surplus can balance out Barack Obama’s experience deficit in other areas as well. But Joe Biden may not be all that interested in actually changing the type of Washington politics with which he has grown and prospered all these years. This could present a problem for a Democratic administration because this is the same Washington politics that Barack Obama has promised to fix through change. Is it possible Joe Biden and Barack Obama will not work well together? Is it possible they might actually be at odds with each other?

Who can tell? But these are just some of the facts we must consider “long before” the day comes when we cast our votes for the next president of the United States. And “long before” is just about to end. The leaves have already begun to fall in New England.

Perhaps the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden can give us a clue as to how we should vote this November.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Decisions. Decisions. What to do? For whom should we vote? Who is the better man for the job? Who will guide us along the path to a better future?

Did you know that some people are so upset about the current state of politics in this country that they plan to protest by not voting at all? I think every citizen of our great country should exercise his or her right to vote. But only in a dictatorship would citizens be forced to vote. And for only one candidate. “When there is only one candidate, there can be only one choice.” So I suppose it is just as much our right not to vote.

Trouble is that not voting can lead to dictatorships. Military rule. Nasty stuff. And there is plenty of that around the globe. Fortunately for us, we have a democracy with built-in safeguards to prevent that kind of thing from happening. Don’t we? You know, like the safeguards we have to protect our economy and keep banks afloat if they get greedy in their gambling and start losing our money.

The truth is that democracies require vigilance. The freedoms we enjoy today can make us vulnerable to attack tomorrow. Attack from individuals who cannot conceive of free people making free choices. Our current way of life frightens them. And that fear grows in them constantly and breeds a hatred for us that we cannot really understand. Many such people exist all over the world, and many are living in this country right now waiting and watching us for signs of weakness.

They do this for two reasons: first, to prove to themselves that they are right about what they think of us and, second, to plan actions they feel are appropriate to change our way of life to more closely resemble their way of life, thereby reducing their fears.

This is why we have to be very careful how we cast our votes for our next president. We must choose wisely. We cannot afford to choose poorly.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Which of the two pans above makes the healthier (and safer) meal for you and your family?

The shiny-looking pan has a stainless steel cooking surface. The dark-surfaced pan has a non-stick coating glued or stuck or melted or somehow “fused” onto the metal below it. Both are professional cookware pans. And sometimes, food sticks more to the cookware surface on the left and makes it harder to clean than the one on the right. But is the convenience of “easy to clean cookware” worth the risk of poisoning yourself and your family? What a question!

Of course it is not. And if you actually believed it would make the food cooked on it dangerous for you and your family, you would not use it, would you? But you do not believe it is dangerous because you see it being sold everywhere and you say to yourself, “How could something that is being sold everywhere really be dangerous?” “Surely, some regulatory agency would have put a stop to it if that were the case.” And you wind up buying it and using it, totally convinced that it is safe and that you and your family have nothing to worry about.

But is it really safe? Do you really have nothing to worry about? Below are two links that might help you make a more informed decision. Take a look. You may be surprised by what you find.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Which do you use to hold up your trousers? And does it really matter?

Well, yes it does matter because it concerns your health. A belt cinched around your waist constricts your internal organs as well as veins and arteries in the surrounding area. Why is such constriction bad for you? It slows down processes in your body that should be moving along at a pace that is natural for you. And natural means - no constriction. So, not only does wearing a belt increase your chances of getting indigestion, it can also lead to a host of circulatory and other diseases.

Suspenders to the rescue!

After all, belts are a relative newcomer compared to the tried-and-true suspenders (or braces, as the British refer to them). One caveat on getting suspenders, however. Get the ones with the button holes and make sure your trousers have buttons in the right places to match the suspenders’ button holes. Claw-type grippers on suspenders damage trouser material so avoid them and demand ones with button holes.

Like the ones above, at Springhill Mercantile or the slightly more expensive ones that can be found at Trafalgar Leathergoods or at other clothing stores that carry them.

LINK 1

LINK 2

P.S. - If you wear a belt just for decoration because your trousers fit perfectly when you first put them on, remember that trousers tighten up when you sit. And if they fit perfectly when you are sitting, they will be too loose when you stand.

Wow, is this ad old or what! That little girl must be a great-grandma by now. How embarrassing! But enough about her plight. The message is clear. Clothing prevents getting a tan.

Strange word, tan. “Darkening of the skin” is more descriptive of what actually occurs after a certain amount of UV (ultraviolet) light lands on your skin. Unless too much lands on it and you get a “burn” instead. But it takes six syllables to get that whole darkening thing out of your mouth while “tan” or “burn” requires only a miserly one. Certainly more efficient. And what if your skin is coal black or you’re an albino? The answer to that is pretty easy. No tan for you - although you can still get the burn. UV does not discriminate. But for those of us who are not coal black or albino, we have to consider whether a tan is a good thing or a bad thing. How do we resolve such a weighty dilemma?

Is it just a matter of aesthetics? Do we feel we look better with darker skin or lighter skin? (But that’s for another post, so let’s not get distracted here. Let’s forget about aesthetics for the moment.) Is there a health benefit - or detriment - to exposure to ultraviolet light? Now, there’s a topic with two clear sides to it.

On the one side, there are those who would have us believe UV light is very dangerous. They are represented by sites such as www.SkinCancer.org which take a dim view of sunlight. [Don’t you just love it when a word fits in like that?]

And on the other side, there are those who would have us believe UV light is beneficial to the point of curing and/or preventing certain diseases including various forms of cancer. They are represented by sites such as www.VitaminDCouncil.org which take a brighter view of sunlight. [Two in a row!]

How are we to decide between the two? Who (or Whom) can we trust? [Shades of Johnny, that one.] Aye, there’s the rub. [And Willie.] And speaking of rubbing, make sure you rub in that sunscreen. Oops, that too has to wait for another post - on whether or not sunscreens themselves cause cancer. Let’s stick to the topic. Is tanning a good thing or not?

LINK 1

LINK 2

Do you bake cookies and muffins? Or at least, eat some once in a while?

Then you use, or are eating, baking soda or baking powder or both. And both have tons of sodium and no potassium. That’s bad! Especially for your heart. Very bad!

According to the USDA and most health practitioners, the body needs about twice as much potassium as sodium. And it’s really easy to get the sodium. It’s in thousands of foods. Not so with potassium. Plus, the body has no way to store potassium. What a bummer! That means you need to take in about 4,700 mg of potassium every day. That’s a lot of potassium. Where are you going to get it? With sodium, all you need is about 2300 mg (maximum) per day and no sweat if you don’t have access to salt crystals - unless you’re a desert nomad.

What’s even worse is that the more sodium you put in your body, the faster your body gets rid of whatever potassium it’s getting. Unless you’ve got problems with your kidneys that prevent them from dumping excess potassium, you need to lower your sodium intake and increase your potassium intake, big time. Good kidneys will even it all out.

So we’re back to the old story that salt (sodium chloride) is a bad thing. But now, avoiding salt isn’t enough. Sodium is the real problem. It’s in nearly everything we eat! But it doesn’t have to be. Cookie-wise and muffin-wise, at least.

Just dump the old baking sodas and baking powders and use ones containing potassium and low sodium. The ones below from ener-g.com and hainpurefoods.com haven’t got any sodium at all. But you’re not likely to find them in your local store. They’re nearly as hard to find as hen’s teeth. If you can’t or don’t want to bake your own, find someone who’ll do it for you.

Entrepreneurs take note: heart healthy cookies and muffins could be very profitable.

LINK 1

LINK 2

LINK 3

Ok. You’re probably not going to dunk a doughnut into a cup of tea. But that in itself doesn’t make coffee better. Or does it?

Dunkin’ Donuts, after all, has been around a long time. I guess the real question has to do with what you’re looking for. A taste treat, a quick pick-me-up, or a health drink? Or maybe all three. So even if you missed the Coffee Tea and Me EXPO last October, there are other places you can find the latest word on the intriguing coffee vs. tea debate. The links below will lead you to a few.

LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3

Special Notes:

1. If you choose coffee, try to roast your own. Or at least try to grind your own. And then use a French Press to brew it.

2. If you choose tea, white tea has the most anti-oxidants, followed by green tea, and then black.

3. Or do like the British, drink both!