Saturday, June 28, 2008

anything i can buy at health food store for depression

anything i can buy at health food store for depression?

Other - Health - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :

1 :
studies have shown that large amounts of dark chocolate (at least 60% cocoa) help reduce depression. so go to the health food store, stock up on dark chocolate, and have some fun! :)
2 :
yes, melatonin pills.. help you sleep and are good for treating depression.
3 :
St. Johns Wort
4 :
maybe some chocolate :) other than that id see a doctor just incase and get the proper treatement for it
5 :
St. John's Wort. It's used effectively to treat mild to moderate depression in studies completed in Germany. It's a natural herb, so, any health food store should have it. So, it's worth a try! Good luck with that!
6 :
I'm sure they'll say they do. Call them and ask! Or go in and ask. Good luck with that. :)
7 :
This was my favorite herbal combination when I was trying to get over a very close friends death: At night: take velarian root and melatonin durring the day : take St John's wart and Flintstones vitamins Flintstones just made sense to me at the time... you body only retains what it can absorb within so much time. And flintstones are pre-digested (chewed) so I thought my body would absorb more... I don't have a clue if that's true. Anyway! watch your diet, too. That will help a lot. Eats tons of fruits and vegetables and make sure you're eating at leat three meals a day! And talk to your doctor! Mine did not want to put me on meds... and my therapist did not put me on meds... and I was so depressed I really thought I would be made to take something and I wasn't strongly opposed to it. That's not always what your doctor will do! Don't be afraid to speak to someone about what's going on. Good luck!
8 :
Ummm, last time I looked, chocolate wasn't readily available at health food stores. Nice try, though



 Read more discussions :

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

do you think that fast food industries have hurtful effect on peoples' health

do you think that fast food industries have hurtful effect on peoples' health?
Please, let us know if your under or over 35 and your gender! Thank you for helping us!
Other - Health - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No. People themselves have a hurtful effect on their own health. Fast food is supposed to be a treat. When I was growing up, we were allowed McDonalds and fizzy drinks, but only as occasional treats - not for every day. If people are so greedy/dim that they abuse fast foods and ready meals, it is THEIR problem. How on earth is that the fault of the junk food industry?? I mean really. We all have to take responsibilty for own OWN health.
2 :
People eating too much fast food had a hurtful effect on peoples' health. I'm over 35, and male




Read more discussions :

Friday, June 20, 2008

Is it necessary to seal food completely when it is put in the microwave in order to prevent health risks

Is it necessary to seal food completely when it is put in the microwave in order to prevent health risks?
I'm wondering this because my parents say that the radiation is bad.
Other - Science - 4 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
A. if you seal it too much it will explode in the MW B. Don't trust anybody like them with knowledge about how technology works.
2 :
Most parents can't hook the DVD player up to the TV. They aren't really the best source of technology information.
3 :
No, the microwave doesn't make your food radioactive. All a microwave does is heat the water molecules inside the food, you can put completely unprotected food inside it with no problems.
4 :
Sorry, but I don't think your parents know what the word "radiation" means. The cooked food does not retain any "radiation"; it's not that sort of radiation. It's the microwave radiation that cooks the food. If the sealing kept the radiation out (it doesn't), it wouldn't even cook. And if you seal it completely, the water vapour pressure might burst the seal.



 Read more discussions :

Monday, June 16, 2008

trying to loss weigh, just not sure whats all health food

trying to loss weigh, just not sure whats all health food?
okay im trying to start eating haelty, but im not exsactly sure whats good food and whats not. i know pasta, sugar and bread. Is bad what what alse is bad and what is good.
Diet & Fitness - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Those are all good foods, but stay away from bleached (aka white) products like white bread. Really exercise is the best thing for you. You should lose weight to be healthy not to be thin. A healthy person is always more attractive than someone thin that looks sick.
2 :
If you want really healthy, Go organic. Go buy the book "The Makers Diet" by Jorden Rubin. It has many ideas, recipes even natural health remedies, ways to lose weight... You love it!
3 :
no food is bad. the best diet is a mix of all the groups in the food pyramid. but in less quantity than usual. you have to know how much calories you consume, and based on this, make your diet plan eating less calories than what you need. it is the way to loose weight, because your body starts to consume your extra fat that you have to function properly. try to eat less fat, but allways add some to your diet, it is needen to consume energy! (believe it or not!), eat breads and pasta, but as natural as possible (rye, etc), some meat, preferably lean meat, a lot of veggies. and drink lots of water.
4 :
Bad = Fried, burned , uncooked meat. Good= baked , boiled, raw . You gotta ear everything in the right amount, even if it's pasta, sugar or bread. Meals should have everything carbs,protein,vitamins. 2/4 of plate should be raw(veggie, fruit..) 1/4 carb(bread) and 1/4 protein (fish, chicken ..)
5 :
Lose weight with negative calorie foods The foods, which utilize more calories to digest than the calorie foods in fact have, are known as negative calorie foods. It is harder for the body to consume calories from these negative calorie foods. I mean to say that our body has to work hard in order to take out calories from these foods. With this kind of food very small amount of calorie actually turn in to fat, as there is very small amount of calorie available. You will get the maximum benefit of negative calorie foods when you take them alone without any junk food. There are large number of fruits and vegetables, which are having negative calorie results. Some of these foods are Raspberry, papaya, strawberry, zucchini, Carrot, Beets, and Asparagus. Here is the complete listing of Negative calorie foods Fruits * Apple * Cantaloupe * Honeydew * Grapefruit * Blueberries * Mango * Papaya * Peach * Lemon/Lime * Orange * Pineapple * Raspberry * Strawberry * Tomato * Tangerine * Turnip * Watermelon Vegetables * Asparagus * Beet Root * Broccoli * Cabbage * Carrot * Cauliflower * Celery * Chicory * Hot Chili * Cucumber * Garden cress * Garlic * Green Beans * Lettuce * Onion * Radish * Spinach * Turnip * Zucchini So you should go for negative calorie foods in order to lose weight in your daily routine



 Read more discussions :

Thursday, June 12, 2008

why do people expect the government to provide for them, from health insurance, food stamps, housing to etc

why do people expect the government to provide for them, from health insurance, food stamps, housing to etc.?
thats not there job a government is ment to do what a person or state can not complete by thereself providing for a person is not there job, if it was there job you would see almost every country doing so and that doesnt happen. like pregnant woman that get on wic , medicare, etc when a child is born, they knew they were pregnant so they should have planned period, they need to take care the needs of there children thereselves and not depend on the government, what would they have done if they were born before these programs existed. they got thereselves pregnant why should the government pay out because of that. i think no one but disabled people should have the government provide for them with everybody else there is always an excuse, you can' afford something, lazy, etc. get your butt up and get a job or get a better one its not the government job you messed up your life and they therefor should not take the burrden Also before anyone say anything about other countries that have government health care do you know that they tax the crap out of you for it so anyone that thinks the government should provide for would you accept them taking 10-20% more in taxes yes or no Im studying government and take several government classes and that provide for things such as health, housing and stuff like food stamps and wic is not part of what a government is supposed to do. A government is supposed to do what one person can not do on there on and thats it also providing crap for citizens only came about in the 20th century what happen before than nothing so why is it expected now Im talking about people who are not classified as disabled, mental ill, or anything in that such manner. im talking about people who are fully capable or working i know someone who said there were getting stuff from the government from the time the child was born to the time the child turned 18 and other people get pregnant again and again, and also teen pregnancies that should be there damn parents problem not the government for people talking about retiring and then getting government assistants, in some countries people dont retire they countinue with work just not as much as they use to should or shouldnt people be responsible for their own welfare yes or no also governments that do provide these services dont have as many people as the us does the us is the third largest country by population do you see india or china doing anything like that no because it would cost to much give every the same thing. and that is also something that is done in communist countries everybody getting the same thing

Government - 21 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because that is the Democrat ways of life. Make all the Republicans work thier butt off to pay for free democratic social programs.
2 :
It is the government's job to see to it that all people can afford to pay for these things themselves, but when the government lets large corporations make large profits at the expense of people who cannot afford high prices, then the government is not doing it's duty
3 :
You answered your own question: "thats not there job a government is ment to do what a person or state can not complete by thereself" The vast majority of people who benefit from those programs are disabled or have other issues which prevent them from getting what they need themselves. In addition, you are promoting only ONE of MANY views of what governemnt is supposed to do. Maybe if people asked for more from their government, people like you would learn how to spell in school.... Very few who are able to work are part of these programs. That is a gross exageration perpetuated by the ignorant.
4 :
aww come on now, we could all use 5 gallons of milk and a 10 pound block of gubment cheese.....no?
5 :
Government is by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE? Or what?
6 :
i basically agree with you, but when the fictional person you are talking about does have a baby we as society basically have 2 choices. feed the baby or let it starve. aren't we supposed to be a "Christian Nation?" so what would Jesus do?
7 :
Did you know that in countries like Canada and the UK, with higher taxes and universal health care, people have longer average life expectancies? I guess where you grew up the government also didn't provide decent schooling. If they had, you might know how to use capital letters, how to spell, and you might also be able to compose a sentence. You might also have learned that the government is actually every one of us, every citizen, so when the government provides a service, it is us providing it, and when the government doesn't provide a service, it is us not providing it. It is fact that the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada or the UK, and still leaves 40 million Americans not covered by any plan. It is true that it is personal choice in some cases, but families that have had a serious illness end up being uninsurable at any affordable cost.
8 :
I do not think it is the government's job either. All of these programs essentially buy votes for politicians. Why do you think republicans don't mess with social programs? They don't want to lose the undecided votes.
9 :
Because people are human. They Fuq up and need help occaisonaly. I don't understand some peoples willlingness to say to hell with the rest of humanity, I am the only one that matters and anyone who doesn't think like me, make decisions like me, or make as much money as me can take a flying @#&! at a rolling donut. WTF is wrong with the spell check?
10 :
It's not the Democrats OR the Republicans. Government assistance is supposed to be TEMPORARY,NOT multi-generational. Housing,food stamps, WIC(Women,Infants,and Children) Child Day Care should be limited between six to twelve months. NO MORE! If you haven't got your cr@p together by then,then out you go into the street.
11 :
Let's get one thing clear. Americans pay too much for health care and most of it is no better than what you get in other industrialized countries. I have lived in both the UK and the USA. I have used healthcare services all my life. In the UK, services are just as good as the USA. It's just that treatment is based on need, not on how good your insurance plan is. Now consider cost. The British worker on average wages pays one third less in taxes for healthcare than the average American worker pays in taxes and insurance premiums. No scholarly study has even attempted to quantify the effects of co-pays and co-insurance. In the UK the only healthcare costs incurred at point of use are prescription charges that four-fifths of people getting prescriptions don't even pay. You see, in the UK everyone over 60 gets free medication at point of use. Free. For nothing. At no cost. Gratis. There is no need to choose between paying the gas bill (in the hope that having heat will stop you from getting sick) and buying medicine (which you need even more because you couldn't afford the gas bill). Meanwhile, in the USA, people retire then start paying big bucks out of a fixed income for healthcare or accept second-rate treatment through Medicare. I can never retire in the USA. I will always need a job that gives health benefits, just so that I can afford the medicine that will keep me alive. The USA is in a great position. The world has had state-controlled healthcare for almost sixty years. We can devise a plan that takes the best bits and leaves out the worst bits. Lets take the initiative now to reduce costs and build a healthcare system that will be the envy of the world.
12 :
I supose if you accept capitalism as the way to exploit the resources (land, mineral wealth, labor) of our nation because it is most efficient in producing the "goodies of society", then you need politics to determine how to distribute these goodies. Left to themselves, capitalists will exploit people and other natural resources to extinction and pass the "goodies" to the few on top. If not for the labor unions, there would be 72 hr work weeks with no overtime, no retirement, no insurance. Once they kill the labor unions, the USA will revert back to these "good old days" because the capitalists will not fear its employees turning to the unions. If management, say, values Volvo at $1 billion, then turns around and pays $4 billion for it, why is it that the laborers who actually build the cars get laid off when the company loses money and has to tighten its belt? Who provides for these powerless people when they do the best job they can, play by the rules and end up out of work because of the decision of some 20 million dollar a year CEO? And who is seeking to end the right of women to end an unwanted or unafordable pregnancy? What does society owe to the members of society. Sure there are those who take advantage of the paltry handouts we offer. But there still remains the few vultures who manipulate the government so they can suck hundreds of millions annually from the government. Focus on the rich and powerful who cause the misery and not on the weak and powerless who merely suffer so the elite can maintain their own positions above the rest of society.
13 :
LOL!! Seems clear you didn't get much benefit from government education!
14 :
People expect the government to take care of them because that is exactly what the government has encouraged for many decades. But that mindset is about to undergo a very dramatic change and a completer turnabout.
15 :
All part of the Nanny state.......sad
16 :
Congratulations! You think in a mature, responsible manner. I really don't know the answer because I don't believe that way. I suppose people THINK that it's easier to let the government take care of you from cradle to grave. What they don't understand is that if they do that, they have no real freedom. They are totally dependent on them for everything. Of course the left LOVES this, if people are dependent on the hand outs, more votes for them.
17 :
I hope you never have a hard time..sounds as if you never did. When people are down on there luck. It should be the GOV, responsiblity to help. That person is a contributing factor, to America. What did he pay his taxes for. I do understand your point, of preparing yourself, by making sure you have wha you need to take care of your child, if you plan on having one. That shouldn't be the GOV responsibility. But people fall on hard times. Helping someone out with food ,housing,funds.Help keep the crime down just a bit. Think of all the poor people that would be robbing and stealing...just to eat. There is a reason for the help.
18 :
It's normally easier when the governmaent provides for its people. But, what happens when the government takes it away? Then you're left with a bunch of people who relied on something that now isn't there. It's probably best to not rely on government programs as best as you can.
19 :
I don't know, maybe because they are providing for everyone else.
20 :
Anyone can apply for wic; rich or poor! The responsiblity of the government is to make sure we do not fall in a mode of poverty. However that's not working! But the government has to make sure we stay healthy and to provide certain means to do that. If a person is sick and can spread the sickness to others would it be right for the government to turn their back or try to make something work to help control of unwanted sickness?
21 :
Personally, I am sick of the government rewarding people's bad decisions and irresponsibilty with my hard-earned tax dollars. Welfare should be eliminated entirely, with the exception of veterans and people who are born with disabilities (Down's syndrome, etc) There are jobs all over the place. Pick-up any newspaper. There are pages and pages of them. And, you've got dopes like Arnold Schwarzenegger who want to give free health care to people who aren't even American citizens. We need to kick his socialist butt out of office ASAP. Also, FYI---the income tax rate for the average worker in Canda is about 55%. I'd rather decide how I spend my money than have the government decide for me.



Read more discussions :

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Can I eat chocolate as a health food

Can I eat chocolate as a health food?
I do have high pressure, have a family history of heart disease, and I'm relatively normal weight - 22 BMI, the lower part of "normal" weight. I've been reading some interesting literature on dark chocolate and how consuming relatively large amounts does NOT raise serum cholesterol, blood pressure, or LDL oxidation. One of the "downsides" however is high caloric intake, which leads to obesity if you don't exercise it off. I've been reading that in order to achieve "favorable" results in lowering of blood pressure, you have to theoretically consume at least 100mg of dark chocolate per day. Here is the 2005 study: http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/46/2/398 This puts me in a unique situation since I can gain a few extra pounds (without compromising health.) I can think of 3 considerations before I attempt anything, 1. obviously increase physical activity, 2. lower caloric intake of other foods without sacrificing essential vitamins and mineral requirements, 3. be aware of lead poisoning present in a lot of chocolate bars. The bars will be 85% cocoa. Tell me stranger, what do you think?
Diet & Fitness - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Many weight loss experts are agreeing with this philosophy ? that having a little room in a diet for a treat makes it much easier to eat healthy the rest of the time. If that alone is not?t enough reason to make you feel it's okay to have a little bit of chocolate every day (yes, I?m assuming you like chocolate because I?m a chocoholic and can?t imagine that anyone would not?t like to have some chocolate every day), scientific research is showing that dark chocolate has some health benefits. Dark chocolate has been found to contain flavoring very similar to those that are in green tea. A few of the health benefits those flavoring antioxidants can have are: improving digestion, stimulating the kidneys, and improving circulation. So, indulging in a little dark chocolate every day can not only have health benefits, but could actually help a person stick to their diet the rest of the day because they know they can have a little treat that will satisfy them but not sabotage their efforts to lose weight.
2 :
yes
3 :
yes u can but limit those it can be dangerous as well
4 :
All things in moderation. One day butter is bad for you, the next day margarine is worse for you than butter. One day beef is bad for you, the next day maybe it's not so bad after all. It depends on who is doing the study, and what they have to gain from the results they are showing you. I got an email once that said commercially made women's menstrual products contain asbestos. At the bottom of the email, there was conveniently placed a number to call a company to order all cotton, washable menstrual pads. Commercially made menstrual products contain no such thing, and never have. Asbestos was never known for it's absorbency that I'm aware of, it was used as a fire retardent in construction until the 80's, and *if* it was ever used in production of menstrual pads, which it was not, it would not have been since then either. If either form was ever manufactured in a building old enough to contain Asbestos in the construction, then either form would have an equal chance of being contaminated by the environment it was manufactured in. Why did I bring that up? You should consider the source of your information before worrying that your chocolate or anything else has unsafe levels or whatever, the FDA would shut a plant down or refuse to allow a product into the country if they found it to be unsafe for the use it was made for, or not labeled properly for it's intended use. I take my chocolate seriously, and did some research on that. What I found, when I did a search for "lead in chocolate", was a list of links on google that went to websites that advertise fair trade organic chocolate, who said that commercially made chocolates contain high levels of lead while their products don't, with no studies, lab analysis, or links to back up that claim. I am not saying that chocolate doesn't contain lead, many items in the food line contain small amounts of such things, certain levels are unavoidable in modern society, but what I am saying is consider the source of that information. I have nothing against fair trade or organic products, and find them quite yummy, I just have a thing against some of the things said in advertising, and while they were saying that commercially made chocolate has high levels of lead, with nothing to back that up, they also offered nothing to back up their claims that their products were 100% lead free, no independent lab analysis or anything. After scrolling through the google links, I went to the United States FDA to see what they had to say about it, and found a document dating to 2006, which you can read here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Metals/Lead/ucm172050.htm There are small levels of lead in chocolate. There is most likely some levels even in certified organic products, polluted air and rain are no respecters of the boundaries of a certified organic farm, and neither are pesticides from the guy next door to the farm. If trace amounts of lead exist naturally in soil, it will be brought up through the roots of any vegetable based product, and if the soil contains stuff from pesticides that are no longer in use, it will contain that also, up to a point. Regardless of who makes a product, the sourcing, production, and manufacturing methods all offer the prospect that trace amounts of "something" could get in there. The main source of contamination of lead in chocolate products in the late 90's was products from Mexico that were wrapped in wrappers containing lead based inks, and the lead from the ink migrated to the chocolate. This may be why some chocolate products emphasize that their wrappers are printed with soy based inks these days. Also Mexican style chocolates that contain chili powder, which by now is making me wonder about chili powder. The standard for such things is different in other countries, but they are tested here. The state of California has the most stringent testing for lead in products, if a product can be sold there, then it is probably the safest possible product available on the market in the US where lead levels are concerned. If I can buy a Hershey bar in California, then I feel reasonably assured that I can buy it here as well. If a product anywhere in the US is regarded as generally safe for it's intended purpose, then I expect it to be so until I hear otherwise, commercially made or not. Today chocolate is considered to have health benefits, tomorrow they might find something they consider to be a detriment, it has thousands of years of use historically not just as a food, but as one of the world's great treasures. Go ahead and enjoy some if you want to, if you want to justify it by it's reported benefits, that's fine too, but question anything a company trying to sell you something has to say about it, regardless of who that company is or who they say they are. I'm more worried about Salmonella and Hepatitis contamination of produce, and ingredients used to doctor imports from some countries



 Read more discussions :

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

anybody feed organic cat food to their cats

anybody feed organic cat food to their cats?

anybody feed their cat organic cat food? I was recently at the health food store (I am eating organic now) and noticed they had organic cat food, can anybody tell me if they noticed any differences in their cat on organic food? um, I'm sorry but...organic is very different from vegetarian...organic just means that the food contains no chemicals, etc... and I know the cat food I looked at had meat in it as I looked at the ingredients. And no, I don't mean "raw" diet...if I meant raw I would've said raw, I said organic cat food.
Cats - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I wouldn't as Organic cat food wouldn't contain meat! and MEAT is essential for cats! I seen organic dog food and it contain NO meat! Taurine is essential for cats! If you want to feed natural though, there is only one book i RECOMMEND, its by the Senior Vet at the Lort Smith Animal Shelter by Sarah Herbert, called Nibble Munch Chop.Remember though Not all human foods are good for cats and neither are HERBs. Cats are Carnviores, but Dogs are omnivores., Cats cannot survive on a Vetable diet only! Dogs can but its Not ideal, they need some meat in there diets too. I would feed the specially formular cat food made by vets even if it processed, as it got all the nutrients nessary for pacific lifestages. Here are some receipies Raw Dinner Suit cat, dog, ferret, turtle Preperation Time Short;5-15mintues to prepare Ingredients 100g fresh lean beaf mince 1/2teaspoon fish oil 3g bone meal(found in some health food shops) 2teaspoons of chopped fresh liver 1/4 carrot, juiced 1/4 cup cauliflowr, broccoli and parsnip pieces Method Proces the cauliflower, broccoli & parsnp pieces into a paste with the carrot juice Mix the mince, liver and bone meal together Add the vegies & fish oil to the meat Mix all the ingredients thoroughly Serve At room temperature If you feed too much meat and not enough vegies, there coats will become greasy. Beef Tartare Suitable for Cat,dogs,ferret,lizard, turtle Prepaaration time Medium 15-45mintues to prepare Ingredients 300g lean beaf steak 1 BACON rasher 1/4 zucchni 1/4celery stick 1 garlic clove 1 teaspon of olive oil 1/2 peeled apple Method Slice the beaf and bacon very finely Then slice it again until it almost resembles a mince Mince the vegetables the same way Grate the Apple Mix the meat, vegetables, apple and olive oil together by hand Mould into shape with a cup sized serving dish Serve Raw at room temperature Pussycat Ravioli Suitable for cat, dog, ferret Preparation time Long; over 45mintues to prepare and cook Ingredients Pasta 300g fine white flour 3eggs Filling 300g minced chicken 1 garlic clove minced 1 tablespoon of olive oil 1/2cup finely grated fresh parmesan Method Sift the flour & make a hole in middle of the flour Beat the eggs gentle and pour into the middle of the flour Mix by hand and then knead until smooth and elastic Cover the dough in clingwrap and place in the fridge for 1/2hour gently fry the garlic and minced chicken until golden. Allow to cool Mix with the cheese-Refrigerate mix Sprinkle flour over bench top Roll out pasta dough until very thin cut the sheet into several equal sections making sure you end up with an even number Place 1/2 teaspoons of the filling at 5cm intervals 1/2 of the pasta, cover with the other half, gentle press down between portions of fillings. Sprinkle lightly with more flour Cut ravioli into individual segments place on lightly floured baking paper and refridgerate or freeze in single layers. Your ravioli is ready to go To cook the ravoili, bring a large pot of water to boil.Add a generous pinch of salt Lower the ravoili in 1 by 1 and keep moving to stop them sticking Boil until tender Serve individual at room temperature.
2 :
I am pretty sure that organic cat food can contain meat. Its vegetarian that cant contain meat. But no, my cat eats regular food. I suppose it would do a certain amount of good, but I dont know how long you would have to wait to see that, ask your vet??
3 :
Do you mean a raw diet?
4 :
I think if you can find a good quality organic cat food that is appropriate for cats, you should go for it (assuming the cat likes it). The supermarket foods are loaded with grains, fillers, additives and chemicals - none of which are good for cats. Cats are much more sensitive to toxins than people or even dogs. Most of us just buy a high quality canned food at the pet stores (like Wellness).
5 :
My cat had crystals in his urine and it was making it hard for him to pee. Apparently, cheap non-organic food contains lots of bad additives that can cause this condition. Also, cats are really only supposed to eat meat, and the non-organic foods often contain other non-meat ingredients. So once I started feeing him organic food (which is basically pure chicken), he got 100% better. Also, he doesn't like to drink water very often and the organic food is very moist, with a lot of broth, so that helps with his bladder as well.
6 :
I feed holistic cat food called Felidae. Holistic on a brand just means the products used in it are things that a human would eat like high quality meat and carbohydrates like brown rice. And once a week my cat gets raw boneless chicken breast and chopped liver and heart. Since switching her to Felidae supplemented with a bit of raw flesh and she doesn't need to eat as much,her cat is shiney and she sheds less,and her poop isn't as large. http://www.canidae.com/cats/cat_and_kitten/dry.html
7 :
You should be aware that organic cat foods may or may not be truly organic. There's no regulation on it like there is with human foods or goods. Most of them tend to be of a better quality than grocery store foods but that's about all I can say about them without reviewing specific brands. The best that I can answer your question is to say that I have DEFINITELY seen a difference in my cats after I switched them from Purina to healthier foods



 Read more discussions :

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Tastiest health food you've ever had

Tastiest health food you've ever had?

Other - Food & Drink - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Smoked Salmon
2 :
Suppose it depends on what you consider "health" foods. I love chicken and prepared the right way it certainly is good for you. I love all fruits, most veggies. Seafood is another favorite, but again, it has to be prepared right as adding things like cream, butter or salt cut the health benefits down by far.
3 :
edemame / blue fin tuna
4 :
subway!!
5 :
grilled lamb with asparagus and bechamel sauce. and a little dry white wine.
6 :
Not a food. A drink. I helped some neighbors bail hay. Up while it's still dark and work till it's too dark to see. Dust, floaty plant stuff, dry dry hay. All day. 16 hours. Into the house for the hottest hour long shower you can stand. But first things first. Reach into the refrigerator for a cold glass bottle of Coke. The first 10 swallows (generally I downed the whole bottle anyway) are better than sex itself.
7 :
Chicken with vegetable Jenny http://www.beltfurnaces.com



 Read more discussions :