Food Emulsifiers Linked to Gastrointestinal Disease

When you eat something from a box, can, or jar, chances are you’ve eaten an emulsifier. Emulsifiers like xanthan gum, any and all lecithins, and carrageenan extend the shelf life of products and improve their texture. Unfortunately, a recent study published in Cancer Research says they also promote intestinal inflammation, foster the growth of harmful bacteria, and increase the risk of tumors and colon cancer.

The Studies

This was not the first study on the emulsifiers and their impact on health. A previous study found that a group of healthy mice fed a diet including 1% of a commonly used emulsifier were unable to properly control their blood sugar levels, ate more, and gained more weight. An examination of the mice’s gut tissue revealed signs of low-level inflammation. In the same study, a group of mice predisposed to intestinal disease fed the same amount of emulsifiers saw an increase in the symptoms of conditions like inflammatory bowel disease and colitis. The emulsifiers increased the amount of harmful bacteria living deep in the protective mucous in the gut, increasing the potential for irritated and inflamed intestinal tissue.

Recommended: Fungal Infections – ow to Eliminate Yeast, Candida, and Mold Infections For Good

The results of the previous study dovetail nicely into the most recent emulsifier study. In the previous study, the emulsifiers caused inflammation and increased the mice’s risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. The study released in November 2016 found that the regular consumption of emulsifiers disrupted the balance of the gut and increased the growth of colorectal tumors and rates of colon cancer. This makes sense as cancer thrives in an inflamed environment where damaged cells provide food for it.

For both of these studies, the mice consumed emulsifiers in amounts proportional to the amount found in processed foods. Federal food regulations limit the amount of a particular emulsifier to 1 or 2 percent. The regulators don’t, however, place any kind of limit on the number of emulsifiers that can be present in any given food. The mice in these studies were only exposed to two emulsifiers, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose. A basic, gluten-free loaf of white sandwich bread from Udi’s (probably the most well-known and easily accessible gluten-free brand of bread) has four added emulsifiers, xanthan gum, guar gum, sodium alginate, and locust bean gum. If one percent of two different emulsifiers can disrupt the intestinal microbiome in a significant way, what does one percent of four different emulsifiers do? Now imagine the filling between the bread also contains an emulsifier or two. That amount of emulsifying food additives causes serious gastrointestinal health issues in mice. Do we know what it’s doing to humans?

But We Aren’t Mice

The biggest issue with a study like this is the fact that we aren’t mice, and our diet requirements are different. A study like this on humans could be more difficult, in part due to the proliferation of these compounds. It’s also worth mentioning that only two emulsifying agents were used in this study, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose. Both of these emulsifiers are more processed than “natural” emulsifiers like lecithins and gums, and comparing the results found in this study with a study focusing on different emulsifiers might provide more answers.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

But You Already Knew That, Didn’t You?

So why does it matter? It’s only a study on lab mice that doesn’t actually prove anything, right? This study doesn’t change anything, but not for the reason you may think. Emulsifiers and most importantly, the processed food where you find them, are not good for you. This isn’t a matter of “if only we knew more.” Do the details make a difference when the universally acknowledged healthy lifestyle is the lifestyle that preaches whole foods and avoids the processed?

We live in the real world though and unless you’re homesteading in a big way, a box, can, bag, or jar will eventually make its way into your kitchen. You cannot escape the emulsifiers. Carrageenan, gums, and lecithins are some of the more easily identified emulsifiers, but until writing this article, I had no idea what polysorbate 80 actually did. Reading the label is imperative. If it reads more like a science kit than a recipe, your gastrointestinal system will not thank you.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Antibiotic Side Effects Are Contagious – C. Diff Infections Are On the Rise

The gut microbiome is getting some recognition lately. Scientists are finding increasing evidence that the delicate balance of the gut is responsible for making and keeping us healthy. The focus of the microbiome has turned attention to antibiotics and the damage we are doing by overusing them. Antibiotics disrupt the natural balance of the gut, destroying beneficial bacteria and allowing pathogens to thrive unchecked. If you’re not using prescription antibiotics there are plenty of other sources you’re likely getting it from.

A microbiota is “the ecological community of commensal, symbiotic and pathogenic microorganisms that literally share our body space”- Wikipedia

The Nitty-Gritty

…a recent study found that occupying the same hospital room as someone who has been given antibiotics increases your likelihood of developing a bacterial infection…

C. diff is a bacteria that inflames the colon and is spread by spores from person to person. C. diff exists throughout organic environments (water, air, human and animal waste, earth, and food products) and for some people, the bacteria can exist in the intestine without ever making its host sick. When it does cause an infection, symptoms range from watery diarrhea and mild cramping to more severe cramping and diarrhea, kidney failure, fever, and dehydration. Potentially deadly,  C. diff is especially common in hospital settings due to the widespread use of antibiotics. Much like Candida, C. diff thrives when antibiotics wipe the good bacteria from the intestine, leaving it unable to fight off the infection. C. diff is also quite hardy, and the spores that spread it can survive outside of the body for up to 90 days.

With the Rise of Antibiotics Comes the Rise of Everyday Infections

Overprescribed to humans and animals, antibiotics have invaded our lives in multiple ways, forcing crafty bacteria, fungi, and viruses to adapt. The recommended conventional treatment for C. diff is antibiotics, which seems crazy, as antibiotics created the ideal environment for C. diff to thrive.

Rates of C. diff infections are rising in and out of hospitals and in populations not traditionally susceptible to it, like children or people without a history of antibiotic use. So why is it spreading to these populations? The reason behind the increase of C. diff infections in children can be explained by the increasing amounts of antibiotics they’re exposed to both internally and environmentally.

Even if you aren’t using antibiotics yourself, a recent study found that occupying the same hospital room as someone who has been given antibiotics increases your likelihood of developing a bacterial infection like Clostridium difficile colitis (or C. diff).

The world seems determined to impact our health through antibiotics in one way or another. The idea that someone taking antibiotics in the same room as you is enough to increase your chance of a bacterial infection is scary. Also scary; the question why does it affect you. If antibiotics have the potential to do that much damage to our vital and not even fully understood microflora, what have we been doing to ourselves and when is the bottom going to fall out of this whole thing?

Taking a Step Back

So let’s take a step back from antibiotics. If you’re reading this, on this website, you’ve probably started choosing the meat you eat very carefully, if you even eat meat at all. A diet consisting of fresh, raw, organic produce (big, beautiful salads with over twenty veggies in them) gives your body and immune system the nutrition it needs, and exercise also plays a part. In the event a bacterial or fungal infection occurs, paying attention to your body and catching it early gives you the chance to take care of yourself.

Of course, that isn’t everything, and sometimes we eat something we shouldn’t or there’s a particularly nasty little bug hanging around. Supplements like Oil of Oregano, Coptis Chinesis, or a good Detox can provide relief. Antibiotics are not your first answer.  Antibiotics were designed as a medicine of last resort, so make them that.

Related Reading:

Sources:


Considering Home Birth

Recently, a new article about hospital charges has been making the rounds on social media. A family received their bill for the birth of their child. Included in the itemized statement was a $39.35 fee for the mother to hold her baby immediately after his birth with skin-to-skin contact.

The official explanation that is given for charging a mother to hold her child is the need for an extra person to stand beside her to ensure the baby is not dropped (think C-Section cases, drugged up moms, etc.) While this may initially sound reasonable, when the high of finally meeting your little one wears off, that forty dollar charge can take on a different persona.

Skin-to-skin contact is incredibly beneficial for both the mother and baby. It helps baby regulate temperature, increases the odds for a healthy breastfeeding relationship, and reduces postpartum depression. It’s a simple act that could set up a successful mother and baby relationship, but not all hospitals are willing to offer it, even with a charge. That forty dollars is now a symbol of a standard of care that places money and legal liability before patient needs.

hospital-hold-the-baby-bill

So often we are unable to choose whether or not to go to the hospital. Hospitals provide a necessary and important service. For trauma care, there is no better place to be. But is this the case for childbirth?

Yes, hospital deliveries may be the best choice for a woman with a high-risk pregnancy, but home births are a viable option for women who are considered low-risk. Since statistics show the same or better outcomes for home births, what are the benefits from choosing a home birth? What is the downside?

The Upside

When women give birth at home with a trained midwife, they are less likely to experience birth interventions like episiotomies and fetal electronic monitoring. Mothers are less likely to suffer from postpartum hemorrhages, severe perineal tears, and infections. Comparison studies between planned home births and hospital births in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands (the industrialized country with the highest percentage of recorded home births) have found that home births compare positively to the hospital outcomes. Fewer births result in C-sections, and the mother’s health is often better.

A home birth also gives the mother more control and comfort in her surroundings. Being in your home where you are able to play the music you want, enjoy food and water at leisure, and chose whatever position is most comfortable and makes the most sense to you during birth can have an enormous impact psychologically and hormonally. Stress hormones can stop or impede a labor. In the hospital that opens the door to increasing amounts of obstetric intervention. Pain and stress that could be gently eased with a hot bath at home can be interpreted as a need for pitocin and increased fetal monitoring, which in turn increases the chances of complications.

Know Your Risks

Yes, home birth can be amazing, but it isn’t all sunshine and roses. Anyone interested in or considering a home birth needs to do their research.

Look at the risks frequently associated with home births and plan scenarios for how you would handle them. Frank discussions with your midwife are a necessity. There is the possibility that things will go wrong, and knowing the fastest route to the hospital can make a big difference in your birth outcome.

But Then That’s Me

I’ve always heard my mother say her her hips were too small, messed up, or weird whenever we talked about her birth experience. She even claims her doctors agreed. I even remember her making a comment (looking back, a wildly inappropriate one) about how my youngest sister had good hips for having kids, but I had inherited hers.

When I told her I was looking into homebirth, she seemed all for it. But then she started making comments about how she wished she could have given birth naturally but her babies were too big. After one discussion with a nurse friend who spends her time “praying for all the dead babies”, my mother spent the rest of my pregnancy frantically trying to talk me out of having a home birth. All I heard from her was a litany of ways my home birth was going to go wrong and how irresponsible my decision was when all that mattered was a healthy baby. Though I’m sure most women experience doubts and fears about home birth, my doubts and fears had taken physical form.

Here’s the kicker. After two healthy home births, I have to admit she was right about one thing – I had inherited her hips. Both of my labors were long and included painful back labor in spite of positioning exercises and various other attempts to avoid it. I had to contort into weird positions to coax the little ones out of the tunnel. I’m left to conclude that it’s just me and my weird ass pelvis. If I were an obstetrician in the hospital, I’d C-section someone like me if only for taking so damn long and refusing to let anyone touch me.

But that’s the problem with the way we currently treat birth in a modern medical setting. We’re no longer doing everything in our power to ensure the best possible emotional and physical outcome for baby and mother. We’re seeing a beautiful moment that has the potential to leave a woman feeling better about her bond with her baby, an act that can help combat post-partum depression, and reducing it to another extra charge on the hospital bill.

I keep thinking back on my children’s births, imagining how badly things could have gone in the hospital, and how glad I am that I chose to give birth at home. My children are perfect. I’m here, happy, healthy and above all empowered. I never participated in a standard of care that would have labeled me as flawed. Unlike my mother, I will not spend the rest of my life apologizing to my kids for my weird hips. As far as I’m concerned, they worked just fine.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


CDC Alert: Candida Auris – Our Latest Superbug Creation

Fungal infections caused by Candida are the most common type of fungal infections in the world. Fiercely opportunistic, Candida is a part of everyone’s intestinal flora. It doesn’t actually cause problems unless it takes over and crowds out the good bacteria. Then it causes numerous health issues. Four different species of Candida make up the majority of fungal infections in the United States: Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida glabrata, and Candida parapsilosis. If you catch them early, most of these Candida infections can be taken care of with an adjustment in diet.

A Possible Scenario

The conventional medical treatment for Candida involves pharmaceuticals. Somewhat effective in killing Candida, these drugs also kill other microbes in the intestinal tract and leave you without enough beneficial bacteria to fight off other new infections.

The Center for Disease Control has issued a clinical alert to U.S. healthcare facilities asking them to be on the lookout for one such infection associated with high mortality, a resilient species of yeast called Candida auris that has shown resistance to three major classes of antifungals.

The New, Interesting Fun Guy on the Block

Identified in 10 countries worldwide, including the U.S, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, Candida auris causes invasive infections in the ear, bloodstream, and wounds. It has also shown up in the respiratory tract and in urine tests.

It may be underreported. Advanced testing facilities are needed to isolate and confirm Candida auris since it closely resembles other species of Candida. There’s speculation that Candida auris is not a new species as much as it is a result of the medical community’s unintentional and highly successful super-bacteria and fungus breeding program.

The Hospital is a Petri Dish

So why the clinical alert from the CDC, as opposed to a general notice? Tests of Candida auris outbreaks in healthcare facilities in other countries have been very closely related genetically, suggesting that the healthcare facilities are where the fungus is developing and thriving. 

pathogen memeConsider the sad irony. The fungal and bacterial pathogens that pose the most risk to us are the result of the healthcare and farm industries.

The origin of the average yeast infection isn’t a mystery, as Candida exists in everyone’s personal microbes. But the evolution of a common garden variety microbe into a species associated with a high mortality rate gets a boost from the lack of competition and the survive and thrive environment of a hospital. Go to the hospital for a yeast infection, take medication and wipe it out (along with a lot of your beneficial microbes), and you might pick up something new while you are even less equipped to fight pathogens. Convenient, no?

Are We Prepared for What’s Next?

There was one confirmed case of Candida auris in the U.S. in 2013 (although due to the lack of definitive testing, that number is likely to be higher). Sure that’s one case. But if only one confirmed case in the United States is enough for the CDC to issue a clinical alert, what does that say about this particular infection?

Bacteria and fungi are becoming increasingly resistant to drug therapy and last resort medications, and it stands to reason that the evolution of parasites and other microbes will follow close behind. In the twenty years since the first identification of Candida auris, the fungus is rapidly burning a hole through standard treatments. It’s past time to stop making drug therapy the first response. If the symptoms of these conditions continue to be merely managed and repeat infections are treated rather than addressing their causes with real change and education, everyone will be affected, not just the people who have to check into the hospital.

Related Reading:
Sources:


How Bacteria Is Evolving – Should We Be Worried? (the answer is yes!)

Ah, bacteria, the original cockroach. No matter what you use to try and annihilate it, it keeps coming back, stronger than before. Strains of bacteria like listeria, campylobacter, and salmonella caused food poisoning affecting one in six people in the U.S. The bacteria resistant to the “antibiotic of last resort” has arrived in the U.S., and researchers in Canada have discovered a newly evolved, heat-loving strain of E. coli that survives temperatures high enough to cook meat medium-well. If harmful bacteria were to go into business, the stock would be climbing and the future would look terrific.

Dealing With the Usual Suspects

Gonorrhea is showing signs of resistance to last resort treatment in 10 different countries, and there are no new antibiotics in development to treat it.

Chipotle has suffered business setbacks. Blue Bell Creameries are permanently closed. Most recently, General Mills has recalled a full lot of their Gold Medal flour. The common thread? E. coli, listeria, salmonella, and all of those pesky bacteria responsible for over four million pounds of food being recalled in the U.S. in 2015 and food poisoning affecting roughly 48 million people.

The methods for detecting bacteria and pathogens in our food have become more sophisticated, so it’s likely there have been many unrecorded outbreaks in the past. But then again, the number of cases attributed to the most well-known bacteria that cause food poisoning (like listeria, salmonella, or E. coli), have remained steady over the years, while campylobacter bacteria and rare Vibrio infections are on the rise. When increased detection and better food safety standards still do not result in a decline in pathogens, where does that leave us?

Soooo…Fire?

From food safety 101 we know that food is only considered safe when we heat it enough to kill off harmful bacteria. But what do you do when the bacteria has mutated to withstand those temperatures, like the strain of E. coli discovered by Canadian researchers?

Food safety literature recommends heating beef to 160 degrees, although they also note that 140 degrees is a sufficient temperature to kill harmful bacteria in less than a minute. But the new strain of E. coli does not die. In fact, it lived for over an hour at a temperature of  140 degrees. Right now, 16 genes with this mutation are present in about 2% of E. coli strains (good and bad), but with the other evolutionary strides bacteria have been making, who knows what will happen!

Fire’s Out. Soooo…Antibiotics?

People in the U.S. can now look forward to the newest shot fired in the bacteria vs. antibiotic war, now that bacteria has been found to be immune to colistin, a long-acknowledged “antibiotic of last resort”. Constant use of antibiotics has encouraged bacteria to evolve, to build up an immunity to these drugs.

An entire group of antibiotics – sulphonamides – is being phased out due to bacteria resistance. Gonorrhea is showing signs of resistance to last resort treatment in 10 different countries, and there are no new antibiotics in development to treat it.  Stories like these are becoming more and more common as our extensive use of antibiotics continues to breed stronger bacteria. We respond with new antibiotics and the next generation of the bacteria is more resistant than before. When it ends, do you really think we’re going to end up on top?

Can We Actually Control the Bacteria?

If your reaction to hearing all of this bad news about bacteria is to scream something along the lines of, “Kill it with fire!” you’re not alone. Solutions like antibiotics, antibacterial soaps, and hand sanitizers came with a price. They became part of the problem.

There are no easy answers here. Ideally, we will stop treating livestock with unneeded antibiotics. We will stop the indiscriminate use of antibiotics to treat infections and seek alternative treatments whenever possible. Maybe we will go so far as to change our diets to build immunity and encourage our natural, protective bacteria to thrive.

Are we past the point that these changes will be enough. Is our microbial world going to end up a cautionary tale a la Jurassic Park? Keep in mind that we can’t just seal off the island.

Related Reading:
Sources:


EU Proposal to Renew Glyphosate License Blocked!

Europe has become a battleground between environmental groups and big biotech companies. A French farmer won a case against Monsanto after suffering neurological problems due to inhaling their weedkiller, Lasso. By now, everyone has seen the study from the World Health Organization’s cancer agency calling glyphosate, the darling of Monsanto’s herbicides, probably carcinogenic. Instances like these and many others have left some European Nations wary of these chemicals, as evidence of their toxicity to humans is on the rise.

The Votes Are…Not In

And now we come to a crossroads. The European license for glyphosate is scheduled to expire on June 30. Previous meetings of nations of the European Union to renew the license for a 15-year span have ended in stalemates, as countries have refused to support that renewal in the face of growing scientific unrest and public opposition. The latest meeting took place Monday, with the executive body of the European Union, the European Commission (which is not affiliated with any specific country), proposing a 12- to 18-month extension for more scientific study. Malta was the only voice speaking against the extension, but the lack of votes from Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg kept the extension from being adopted.

The Results Are…Likely To Go One of Two Ways

So what happens now, with the glyphosate license expiring in less than a month? Option one would be an executive decision by the European Commission ignoring the lack of agreement from EU Nations and reauthorizing glyphosate. While possible, this scenario flies in the face of the Commission’s support of the democratic process that led to last year’s law allowing countries to make their own decisions regarding genetically modified crops. The leader of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has publicly proclaimed his unwillingness to act against the interests of the majority view. The proposal of an extension did receive support from many countries, though, and Monsanto could see losses of potentially up to $5 billion dollars, which could result in some serious corporate pressure on the Commission.

What’s behind door number two? The simple option: leave it be. If a new agreement is not in place by the 30th of June, the license  is expired and all glyphosate products need to be gone from European Union shelves in six months. Is this more likely to happen if there are only eight votes either blocking or missing in keeping glyphosate from the shiny new license it desires? It seems unlikely until you consider some of the countries that abstained: Germany, France, and Italy, aka, three of the most powerful countries in the EU. The more you look at it, the more prudent this option becomes, really. Glyphosate has been labeled as probably cancer-causing. A product with issues (dangerous malfunctions, allergens or food contamination) would be pulled the shelves immediately. Why is glyphosate any different?

The Whole World Should be Watching

Europe has been on the forefront of recent biotech regulations in agriculture, and the decision, in this case, will resonate throughout the world. Supporters of a renewed license have pointed to the fear and confusion this will cause with consumers, which consumers would be well within their rights to feel. A probable cancer-causing chemical that has previously been sprayed with wild abandon is pulled off of shelves until a scientific consensus can be reached. What exactly is there to fear again? The knowledge that safety takes a backseat to profits, perhaps.

Related Reading:
Sources


Following the Photo Trail: Truly Healthy Celebrities After 40

Let’s face it: the majority of celebrities have a leg up in the looks department. But being born beautiful doesn’t mean you stay that way. The damage the body accumulates over time from poor food choices and an excessive use of substances like cigarettes, alcohol, and/or drugs (both recreational and pharmaceutical) can only be disguised with special effects for so long.

Then there are those celebrities who seem to get better looking as they age, prompting countless people to ask, “How do they do it?” Some of Hollywood’s finest have realized that the only way to keep what your momma gave you is through regular exercise and, most importantly, an exemplary diet.

Meryl Streep

Meryl StreepInstantly recognizable, Meryl Streep has been appearing in plays, movies, and television since the 1970s. What’s not so well known is her advocacy for organic, local food. Meryl was the founder of a food co-op and CSA when she lived in Connecticut as well as Mothers and Others, a campaign calling for tougher pesticide residue standards. She is meticulous about reading labels and finding the food she eats from trusted sources. Though not a vegetarian, she makes tries to eat less meat and to find grass-fed, organic beef. Her formidable talent is the reason she’s a fixture in prestige pictures, but the fact that she has retained her looks with only a slight luminous softening can be attributed to the smart choices she makes in regards to the food she consumes. Maybe the ketogenic diet had something to do with it?

Lenny Kravitz

Oh, Lenny. A rock star, sex symbol, and renaissance man, he released his first album in 1989. The years since then are the only indication that Lenny is actually aging, as his face remains ever the same. But how? Working out is an important piece in every healthy lifestyle, but that alone doesn’t account for over 25 years of looking fantastic. His secret? Listening to his body.

A vegetarian for 15 years, he then transitioned eating grass-fed, organic meat after he felt his body needed it. Now he focuses on fish (especially as he lives in the Bahamas for much of the year) and vegetables, often from his own organic farm. To round that out, Lenny never goes anywhere without his juicer. He might enjoy a decadent, outrageous cheat every once in awhile, but he knows that staying and looking healthy is about focusing on quality, organic food, especially vegetables.

Jared Leto

Jared LetoActor Jared Leto is a well-known vegan (or “cheagan”) who’s transformed his body for various roles over the years, a practice that’s given him a unique perspective on how food affects the body. While his Oscar-winning role required him to whittle down to under 120 pounds, another of his jobs required him to gain 67 pounds, which he accomplished through binge-eating foods like giant pizzas. Years of eating well left his body unprepared to deal with the weight, and he experienced problems with his feet and was at one point even using a wheelchair. The experience left Jared more committed to a healthy, active lifestyle, and it’s the reason why the changes to his face between now and the mid-1990s have been so minimal.

Susan Sarandon

Susan SarandonWe’ve been seeing more of Susan Sarandon in the news lately, whether celebrating the 25th anniversary of her film Thelma and Louise or professing her unabashed love for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. A woman unafraid to speak her mind, she’s also a fantastic advertisement for the benefits of taking care of yourself. She’s credits her exemplary outsides to her insides. A vegetarian for a period of time, she now prefers to eat a diet of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables while limiting red meat, carbs, and refined grains. Susan found that avoiding smoking and drinking alcohol while focusing on eating well, exercising regularly, and practicing deep breathing and visualization has translated to her looking and feeling her best. Yes, the outside reflects the in. It’s no wonder she looks better than ever.

Lucy Liu

Lucy LiuDetermining Lucy Liu’s age through photos alone is impossible. While she takes advantage of moisturizers, oils, and plants like aloe vera to protect her skin, she also credits what she eats for the longevity of her looks. Drinking lots of water and eating lots fresh fruits and vegetables is the easiest way to take care of your skin. Gluten-free for a while, Lucy takes a common sense approach to her health, with occasional treats but a focus on eating fresh foods balanced with an exercise regimen and meditation. She makes smart choices when it comes to her health as well as her career. You never know where she’ll show up next…but she will look gorgeous.

Jennifer Lopez

She’s been a fly girl, a dancer, singer, and an actress (among other things), and she’s looked damn good the entire time. People who work with Jennifer Lopez, from directors to peers to trainers, all eventually mention one thing: this woman is disciplined. That same discipline is evident in her diet. She snacks on fruits and vegetables, focuses on eating lean meats and nutrient dense foods, and avoids processed foods, fueling her body with the best quality, organic food she can find. Jennifer has always been active, from sports in high school to her years as a dancer to her current commitment to working out. She pairs that activity with an eating regimen that includes salads, other veggies, whole grains, and lean meats. Her lifestyle has allowed her to stay fit and glowing since her first movie role in 1986. It’s easy for Jenny from the Block to remember where she came from when her face in the mirror hasn’t really changed.

Tilda Swinton

Tilda SwintonAn artsy, oddball chameleon capable of disappearing into a role, Tilda Swinton’s distinctive looks render her immediately recognizable no matter her hairstyle or age. She does things on her own terms, and she credits good genes, luck of the draw, and her lifestyle in the Scottish highlands. While the first two are definitely factors, her life in Scotland has her cooking vegetables she grows herself and eating eggs from her own chickens. She’s not forthcoming with the details of her diet, but then she wouldn’t be the mysterious Tilda we know and love if she revealed too many details. All we know is that she likes to keep it simple. It’s clear from looking at the numerous photos of her from her collaborations over the years, that her choices and easy-going lifestyle have left her radiant.

Angela Bassett

Angela BassettStella got her groove back 18 years ago, but it’s plain to see Angela Bassett never really lost hers. Since her career got going in the nineties, Angela has always maintained that diet is more important than exercise in keeping herself in top shape. Her diet is similar to the Paleo program, with organic lean protein and non-starchy vegetables. She also stays away from processed foods, grain, and sugar. That doesn’t mean she’s willing to sacrifice taste though. Angela tries to keep it interesting by choosing flavorful and passionate food. She especially emphasizes eating non-starchy veggies, and you can tell that she’s willing to put in the work to be as healthy and happy as she can be.

Jason Mraz

Jason MrazHe isn’t quite over 40, and he’s only been in the public eye for 15 years or so. But when it comes to eating well and making smart, healthy choices, Jason Mraz is doing some pretty cool stuff. He eats locally whenever possible, travels with his Vita-mix for green smoothies, uses soap and vinegar to manage pests on his avocado farm, and sells the fruits of his labor to Chipotle while donating leftover avocados to local food banks. Mostly vegan after supporting a bandmate with diabetes in trying a vegetarian and raw diet, he makes an exception for eggs from the chickens that provide the fertilizer for his farm. He’s also a big fan of yoga. Hippie much? Yup! Jason is the perfect example of someone who saw what a difference eating well and being healthy can do and took control of his food chain to ensure that he’s eating is the best quality. The proof is in the chocolate avocado pudding (grown on your own avocado farm, of course).

Who Else Is Out There?

We’re never going to know exactly what celebrities eat. Most of the interviews about diet, especially for actresses, talk about how they only eat this or that…but then they mention they still indulge in some particular treat once in awhile in a somewhat vague attempt at relatability. We’re definitely not getting the whole story. For every interview that claims he or she is eating salmon and quinoa salad, there are most likely a hundred different things happening healthwise behind the scenes.

Obviously, genetics play a role here. Some actors are so humble that’s all they will ever attribute their good looks too. But that humility minimizes the importance of  diet is and how the choices they make help maintain their appearance. We are biologically wired to find healthy people more attractive. Makeup and plastic surgery can only hide so many unhealthy choices. Good food means healthy skin, eyes, teeth, and nails, and it gives a person an indefinable aura.

These celebrities are by no means the only celebrities who choose to eat properly, but they are some of the rich and famous who’ve surpassed expectations through the years of being in the public eye. When you see someone on the screen who looks years younger than they actually are, there are probably some serious health stories behind it. Who’s your favorite?

Related Reading:
Sources