Earthworms Are Made of Carbon

Healthy soil is rich with living organisms — bacteria, fungus, insects, plants and worms. Each of these organisms are full of carbon. Where did they get their carbon? It was taken out of the air by plants and is now on or below the surface of the earth.

If you are concerned about carbon dioxide levels rising in the atmosphere, you should be determined to get more of that carbon dioxide out of the air and into the ground. The amount of carbon dioxide that can be sequestered per acre is considerable.

The healthier the soil, the more living organisms live in it.

And one of the best indicators of healthy, living soil is the presence of earthworms. So we can focus on this simple goal — more earthworms — and we will be moving in the direction of reversing climate change.

Is Organically Grown Food Better Than Conventionally Grown Food?

When a study comes out that shows organic oranges have more vitamin C than conventionally grown oranges, it doesn't make the news. We fully expect that. But when a study shows that there is no difference, it makes headlines. The soundbite headline from recent meta-study by Stanford says organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally grown food.

But that's an oversimplified description of what they actually found. In an article published on the Stanford School of Medicine web site, they report that the study found:

1. Organic produce contains more phenols.
2. Organic produce contains more phosphorus.
3. Organic milk often contains more omega-3 fatty acids.
4. Organic produce is 30 percent less likely to contain pesticides.
5. Children eating organic diets have lower levels of pesticides in their urine.
6. Organic chicken and pork are less likely to expose you to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Those are some of the findings of the Stanford study that created this headline: "Little Evidence of Health Benefits From Organic Foods." The Stanford study was a meta-study, meaning they looked at data from many studies. Another meta-study, which you can read about here, found the opposite. The study was by Newcastle University in England, and it found that organic produce was more nutritious, with more vitamin C, and "many more of the plant-defense molecules that in people help shield against cancer and heart disease."

How could these meta-studies come up with such divergent results? Partly because the nutritional content of fruits and vegetables not only vary by season and region, but can also vary because of the history of a particular plot. Let's say the soil has been exhausted by conventional farming for twenty years, and is then sold to an organic farmer who begins to build that topsoil back up. The first few years the crops might be relatively low in nutrients because plants can absorb more nutrients — especially minerals — from soil rich with living organisms. To create healthy soil full of earthworms, fungi, nematodes, bacteria, algae, protozoa, arthropods, insects and small vertebrates, it takes awhile. But when that soil has been built up, the food grown in the soil tends to be more nutritious.

On the other hand, a forest may have been burned to create fresh new farmland on rich soil. The food was grown conventionally but the soil has not yet been exhausted, so the produce may be very nutritious even though it isn't organic.

Organic food is usually more expensive than conventionally grown food. The Stanford study was trying to determine whether that extra expense is worth it to consumers. Does that food confer a big enough advantage to be worth it? This is a fair question, but it doesn't address a bigger issue. One of the main reasons to buy organic food is its affect on the environment. Conventional farming uses pesticides, herbicides and fungicides as well as artificial fertilizers. All of these can cause environmental damage. The toxins kill pests, but can also kill birds, mammals, other plants, the living organisms in the soil, etc. Chemical fertilizers run off into the rivers and eventually into the oceans and can cause algae blooms that suffocate fish, etc.

So even if organic food was no more nutritious, it would still be worth paying extra for. If you've ever been angry at a corporation for putting profits before the environment because it is morally wrong, then you know that buying food grown in a way that harms the environment because it is cheaper would be equally and similarly wrong.

Another aspect of this is the unknown effects of genetically modified organisms. GMOs cannot be used in organic products. Organic farmers are not allowed to use GMO seeds, and the animals cannot eat GMO feed.

Organic methods tend to be more humane as well. Chickens labeled "organic," for example, are cage-free, even if the label doesn't say "cage-free." And they never get vaccines or antibiotics.

Your best bet for the highest quality, most nutritional food that has the most benign effect on the environment is to always buy organically grown food. One of our most precious natural resources is healthy living soil. Organic practices take care of the soil, the most important foundation of all terrestrial life. For that reason alone, organic food is worth the extra price.

Read more: Does Dirt Need Saving?

Adam Khan is the author of Principles For Personal Growth, Slotralogy, Antivirus For Your Mind, and co-author with Klassy Evans of How to Change the Way You Look at Things (in Plain English). Follow his podcast, The Adam Bomb.

How Many Earthworms Are In An Acre?

 "Over the last few decades, earthworm censuses have found over a million worms per acre in Geneva, New York; Frederick, Maryland; and LaCrosse, Wisconsin."

- Quoted from the book, The Earth Moved: On the Remarkable Achievements of Earthworms

When Fasting, You Don't Have to Be a Purist

I use Keto-Diastix when I'm fasting. It tells me when I've gone into ketosis, and how far I've gone. It's a little stick you pee on that changes color depending on how many ketones are in the pee. I've noticed that I don't like how it feels to be in deep ketosis, so I often suck on a mint or drink a little juice to raise it slightly — to stay in ketosis but not too deeply. I like to stay around moderate or a little more (as it shows in the picture).

I also occasionally, when it feels right, have a little chicken broth. Probably average one cup of broth a day, but I don't stick to any regimen about it, unless I'm doing an experiment, like when I wanted to find out what happens after the third day of a water-only fast (read about that here).

This morning, the sixth day of a fast, my hip hurt and I felt generally yucky. But I didn't want to break my fast yet, so I compromised and had about an ounce of cooked hamburger meat (about the size of my little finger) and a single cooked Brussels sprout, and a piece of lettuce. After awhile I felt fine. Apparently that's all I needed. It is now ten hours later and I still feel fine, haven't had anything else to eat, and am still in ketosis.

The point of this is that you don't need to think in terms of absolutes. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Fasting can be relatively pleasant, and you don't need to be hardcore about it. If you go for awhile without food, that's good. If you have a little something and then go even longer, that's even better (until your fast turns into starvation, which you should avoid).

Adam Khan is the author of Principles For Personal Growth, Slotralogy, Antivirus For Your Mind, and co-author with Klassy Evans of How to Change the Way You Look at Things (in Plain English). Follow his podcast, The Adam Bomb. 

The Difference Between Fasting and Starving

Most of the literature on fasting makes a distinction between fasting and starvation. When you fast, you go through distinct stages. The first day you're using up glycogen stores in your muscles and liver. You're also burning fat for energy. The second day you're still burning fat, but without glucose, your body breaks down some of your muscle to burn the fat (not much muscle — not enough to worry about). Sometime during the third day, you enter ketosis (where you are burning fat for fuel).

If you are like most of us, you have some fat on your body. So you have enough fuel for awhile. Eventually, if you keep fasting, you will run out of fat and your body will have to start breaking down muscle for energy.

The moment you burn your last gram of body fat, you are no longer fasting. As soon as you start breaking down muscle for energy, you're starving and it is unhealthy to continue. You should stop fasting and start eating.

I've never gotten that far, and you probably shouldn't either. But in the fasting literature, it says that you know it when you hit that point. You are suddenly no longer merely hungry. You feel a dangerous, urgent, starvation. They all say it is an undeniable, easily recognizable change and you will have no doubt about it.

Adam Khan is the author of Principles For Personal Growth, Slotralogy, Antivirus For Your Mind, and co-author with Klassy Evans of How to Change the Way You Look at Things (in Plain English). Follow his podcast, The Adam Bomb.

The Cost of Fasting

Fasting is so good for you in many different ways. Profoundly good for you. And yet, it is effortless. It is a lack of doing something. And how many things can you think of that are really good for you that not only don't cost you any money, but save you money? And save you time.

So here's something that requires no physical effort and no money, and saves you money and time. And it is really good for you.

That's amazing.

The Accidental Discovery of Atmospheric Lead Poisoning

Episode 7 of the Cosmos series was about a scientist, Clair Patterson, researching the decay of uranium and lead in pieces of a meteorite. In the process, he accidentally discovered that our atmosphere had far more lead in it than it did two hundred years ago.

Patterson tracked down the source of this atmospheric lead to leaded gasoline. Until 1987, lead was added to gasoline to prevent "knocking."

Unfortunately, the oil industry was funding Patterson's research, and, needless to say, they didn't like it. Patterson made a major discovery, but it was another 20 years before lead was made illegal as a fuel additive. The oil industry had already paid a highly credentialed scientist to testify with assurance that the amount of lead in the atmosphere was completely natural. Patterson's work showed it was not.

This Cosmos episode was a surprising place to learn about the reach and power of oil money, and the oil industry's determination to maintain its monopoly at all costs.

Read more:

• America's Real Criminal Element: Lead (evidence of the impact of leaded gasoline on crime)
• The Rise & Fall of General Motors and the Subjugation of the Industrialized World (a short history of how lead got in gasoline in the first place)
• Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (a description of the show)