We are so excited to have shared our mission and experiences with you. Over the last couple weeks we have explored how excess fat is detrimental to your health. In addition, we’ve given you an in-depth understanding and presented expert advice for dealing with it. Last week we shared with you a few who have detoxified their bodies, breaking the bonds of fat oppression and emerging as new healthy people. In this week’s issue, we would like to share the numbers. Thousands of people just like you have used our custom wellness and weight loss program to achieve their goals. The only side effect, of this ultra successful detox is weight loss, but you make the final call. Truth is in the numbers…
- 90% of clients surveyed have lost 15 pounds or more
- After one year, over 79% of our clients have kept the weight off
- 95% report additional health improvements ranging from lower blood pressure and cholesterol to better sleep, more energy and less pain.
Now, these facts are astounding, but the best news is that these people aren’t just those die-hard over-achievers. These same results are totally possible for you. Here is why: over 91% of people surveyed experienced little or no physical hunger while on this plan. Unlike most diets, we cater to the everyday person who has struggled for years with their weight.
We are successful because we customize a medically supervised program specifically for your time, budget and needs. It starts with a no risk, free trial. If you decide that this is the right option for you, your coordinator will make arrangements to get you the product and set you up with a coach who will personally walk you through the process. This individual will constantly be at your fingertips by phone, email and text. The entire experience is catered directly to your needs. Don’t like to work out? Don’t worry! We encourage you to workout after the program, but while on it, only light workout is accepted and none is ok.
Each program consists of whole organic foods from your local grocery store, custom supplementation, education, one on one coaching and an online portal. The process is supervised by our medical team and catered specifically to your needs. Check it out by visiting our weight loss page.
There is growing concern today about the effect of poor nutrients in our food supply. One of the most popular discussions in the natural foods world is regarding grass fed vs. grain fed beef. Which one is better? Does it really matter? We offer the argument that there is a huge difference, and doing your homework on the subject and becoming aware of the current beef industry practices will spur you on to making new, healthier decisions for yourself and your family.
While you should always conduct your own research, we’ve compiled several references on the subject into one article to start you on your journey.
Today all cattle are typically raised on grass pastures in the early months of their lives. But in the 1950s, cattle farmers looking to cut costs and increase beef production began transporting the animals to feed lots, where they could be fattened quicker on inexpensive, high-calorie grains (corn). Grain feeding increased intramuscular fat in the animals, leading to a marbling effect. This made meat more flavorful and tender, but also raised fat and cholesterol levels.
Cattle now spend approximately the last 80 days of their lives confined in feedlots eating grain with the purpose of “fattening” them up, thereby increasing the farmers’ bottom dollar.
So why exactly should we switch to grass fed beef? The reasons are many!
Benefits of Grass Fed Beef
- Grass fed beef is lower in fat!
“Because meat from grass-fed animals is lower in fat than meat from grain-fed animals, it is also lower in calories. (Fat has 9 calories per gram, compared with only 4 calories for protein and carbohydrates. The greater the fat content, the greater the number of calories.) As an example, a 6-ounce steak from a grass-finished steer can have 100 fewer calories than a 6-ounce steak from a grain-fed steer. If you eat a typical amount of beef (66.5 pounds a year), switching to lean grass-fed beef will save you 17,733 calories a year—without requiring any willpower or change in your eating habits. If everything else in your diet remains constant, you’ll lose about six pounds a year. If all Americans switched to grass-fed meat, our national epidemic of obesity might diminish.
In the past few years, producers of grass-fed beef have been looking for ways to increase the amount of marbling in the meat so that consumers will have a more familiar product. But even these fatter cuts of grass-fed beef are lower in fat and calories than beef from grain-fed cattle.”
- Grass fed beef offers more omega-3.
Meat from grass-fed animals has two to four times more omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain- fed animals. Omega-3s are called “good fats” because they play a vital role in every cell and system in your body. For example, of all the fats, they are the most heart-friendly. People who have ample amounts of omega-3s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat. Remarkably, they are 50 percent less likely to suffer a heart attack. Omega-3s are essential for your brain as well. People with a diet rich in omega-3s are less likely to suffer from depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder (hyperactivity), or Alzheimer’s disease.
Another benefit of omega-3s is that they may reduce your risk of cancer. In animal studies, these essential fats have slowed the growth of a wide array of cancers and also kept them from spreading.
Omega-3s are most abundant in seafood and certain nuts and seeds such as flaxseeds and walnuts, but they are also found in animals raised on pasture. The reason is simple. Omega-3s are formed in the chloroplasts of green leaves and algae. Sixty percent of the fatty acids in grass are omega-3s. When cattle are taken off omega-3 rich grass and shipped to a feedlot to be fattened on omega-3 poor grain, they begin losing their store of this beneficial fat. Each day that an animal spends in the feedlot, its supply of omega-3s is diminished. The graph below illustrates this steady decline.
When chickens are housed indoors and deprived of greens, their meat and eggs also become artificially low in omega-3s. Eggs from pastured hens can contain as much as 10 times more omega-3s than eggs from factory hens.
It has been estimated that only 40 percent of Americans consume an adequate supply of omega-3 fatty acids. Twenty percent have blood levels so low that they cannot be detected. Switching to the meat, milk, and dairy products of grass-fed animals is one way to restore this vital nutrient to your diet.
- The CLA Bonus.
Meat and dairy products from grass-fed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called “conjugated linoleic acid” or CLA. When animals are raised on fresh pasture alone, their products contain from three to five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets. (A steak from the most marbled grass-fed animals will have the most CLA ,as much of the CLA is stored in fat cells.) CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer. In laboratory animals, a very small percentage of CLA—a mere 0.1 percent of total calories—greatly reduced tumor growth.  There is new evidence that CLA may also reduce cancer risk in humans. In a Finnish study, women who had the highest levels of CLA in their diet, had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels. Switching from grain-fed to grass-fed meat and dairy products places women in this lowest risk category.13 Researcher Tilak Dhiman from Utah State University estimates that you may be able to lower your risk of cancer simply by eating the following grass-fed products each day: one glass of whole milk, one ounce of cheese, and one serving of meat. You would have to eat five times that amount of grain-fed meat and dairy products to get the same level of protection.
- Vitamin E.
In addition to being higher in omega-3s and CLA, meat from grass-fed animals is also higher in vitamin E. The graph below shows vitamin E levels in meat from: 1) feedlot cattle, 2) feedlot cattle given high doses of synthetic vitamin E (1,000 IU per day), and 3) cattle raised on fresh pasture with no added supplements. The meat from the pastured cattle is four times higher in vitamin E than the meat from the feedlot cattle and, interestingly, almost twice as high as the meat from the feedlot cattle given vitamin E supplements. In humans, vitamin E is linked with a lower risk of heart disease and cancer. This potent antioxidant may also have anti-aging properties. Most Americans are deficient in vitamin E.
Data from: Smith, G.C. “Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle to improve shelf life and case life of beef for domestic and international markets.” Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1171
- Grass fed beef is more humane.
“From a humanitarian perspective, there is yet another advantage to pastured animal products. The animals themselves are not forced to live in confinement. The cruelties of modern factory farming are so severe that you don’t have to be a vegetarian or an animal rights activist to find the conditions to be intolerable, and a violation of the human-animal bond. Pastured livestock are not forced to endure the miseries of factory farming. They are not cooped up in cages barely larger than their own bodies, or packed together like sardines for months on end standing knee deep in their own manure” 11
- Grass fed beef is much better for the environment.
According to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, the corn we feed our feedlot cattle accounts for a staggering amount of fossil fuel energy. Growing the corn used to feed livestock in this country takes vast quantities of chemical fertilizer, which in turn takes vast quantities of oil. Because of this dependence on petroleum, Pimentel says, a typical steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in his lifetime. Comments Michael Pollan,
“We have succeeded in industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine.”
In addition to consuming less energy, grass-fed beef has another environmental advantage – it is far less polluting. The animals’ wastes drop onto the land, becoming nutrients for the next cycle of crops. In feedlots and other forms of factory farming, however, the animals’ wastes build up in enormous quantities, becoming a staggering source of water and air pollution.11
The evidence is convincing. And the responsibility is ours. So, while switching to grass fed beef is definitely more expensive, we owe it to our bodies and to the environment to choose grass fed every time.
1. Siscovick, D. S., T. E. Raghunathan, et al. (1995). “Dietary Intake and Cell Membrane Levels of Long-Chain n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest.” JAMA 274(17): 1363-1367.
2. Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function.
3. Rose, D. P., J. M. Connolly, et al. (1995). “Influence of Diets Containing Eicosapentaenoic or Docasahexaenoic Acid on Growth and Metastasis of Breast Cancer Cells in Nude Mice.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87(8): 587-92.
4. Tisdale, M. J. (1999). “Wasting in cancer.” J Nutr 129(1S Suppl): 243S-246S.
5. Tashiro, T., H. Yamamori, et al. (1998). “n-3 versus n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in critical illness.” Nutrition 14(6): 551-3.
6. Duckett, S. K., D. G. Wagner, et al. (1993). “Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition.” J Anim Sci 71(8): 2079-88.
7. Lopez-Bote, C. J., R.Sanz Arias, A.I. Rey, A. Castano, B. Isabel, J. Thos (1998). “Effect of free-range feeding on omega-3 fatty acids and alpha-tocopherol content and oxidative stability of eggs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 72: 33-40.
8. Dolecek, T. A. and G. Grandits (1991). “Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT).” World Rev Nutr Diet 66: 205-16.
9. Dhiman, T. R., G. R. Anand, et al. (1999). “Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets.” J Dairy Sci 82(10): 2146-56. Interestingly, when the pasture was machine-harvested and then fed to the animals as hay, the cows produced far less CLA than when they were grazing on that pasture, even though the hay was made from the very same grass. The fat that the animals use to produce CLA is oxidized during the wilting, drying process. For maximum CLA, animals need to be grazing living pasture.
10. Ip, C, J.A. Scimeca, et al. (1994) “Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anti-carcinogen from animal fat sources.” p. 1053. Cancer 74(3 suppl):1050-4.
There is growing concern today over the health and nutrition of Americans. Due to effects of pesticides, food additives and decreased nutrients in our food supply we are seeing more and more incidents of toxicity and preventable diseases. What can be done? Is organic food a realistic and worthwhile alternative?
In the references below we have provided “food for thought,” but you should conduct your own research or speak to your Rejuvenation professional more about your health concerns.
A recent article in the Journal of Applied Nutrition gave credence to the notion that organic foods have higher nutrient levels than non-organic food. In this study the mineral content of organic apples, pears, potatoes, wheat, and sweet corn were compared to commercial varieties. Overall the organic foods showed much higher levels of nutrient minerals and much lower levels of heavy metals.
Here are a few of the nutrients that were found in higher levels in the organic foods:
- Chromium is a micronutrient that is low in Western diets. Its deficiency is associated with the onset of adult diabetes and atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Chromium was found to be higher in organic foods by an average of 78%.
- Selenium is one of the antioxidant nutrients that protect us from damage by environmental chemicals. It is protective against cancers and heart disease. It was found to be an average of 390% higher in organic foods.
- Calcium, needed for strong bones, averaged 63% higher in organics.
- Boron, which has been shown to help prevent osteoporosis (along with calcium), averaged 70% more.
- Lithium, which is used to treat certain types of depression, was 188% higher.
- Magnesium, which reduces mortality from heart attacks, keeps muscles from spasming, and eases the symptoms of PMS, averaged 138% more.
When they studied organic food for mineral levels, the researchers also looked for the amount of the heavy metals aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury. Aluminum has been implicated for years in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Its content in organic food averaged 40% less than in commercial foods. Lead toxicity, which has been in the news a lot lately, can adversely affect our children’s’ IQ. It averaged 29% lower in organic foods. Mercury, which can cause neurologic damage, averaged 25% lower in organic foods.
Besides the lower levels of heavy metals, there are the chemical residues themselves. The big question is whether or not the accumulation of pesticide residues in non-organic foods is a real health concern or not. Studies have never been able to conclusively show a direct correlation between residues in food and a decline of human health, but there are numerous problems in doing any such study. The first is that you would need a population of people who are free of chemical residues to compare to, and no one has been able to find such a group. According to an ongoing EPA study of fat samples taken from surgeries and autopsies across the country, we are all loaded with chemical residues. Similar studies done on other countries all show the same results.
Other studies have looked at vitamin levels of food plants treated with certain pesticides. They showed that application of some pesticides would significantly lower the vitamin levels in the plants they were applied to. This is different than the notion that plants raised with chemicals are low in nutrients because the soil is depleted. This shows that chemicals actually reduce the amount of nutrients in plants after application. The nutrients most often affected are vitamin C, beta carotene, and the B vitamins. These are vitally necessary for the body to withstand the onslaught of chemical toxins. Vitamin C has been well documented by two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling to prevent and treat cancers. Beta carotene has been shown to be a stimulant of the immune system, and is sometimes able to prevent lung cancer.
The clearest studies that we have about pesticide residues and disease are those looking at breast cancer. In the last few years there have been a series of studies, each building upon the other, looking at the level of DDT, DDE, and PCB in women. They have very clearly shown that chemical residues in the serum and fat cells of women greatly increase the risk of breast cancer. Since breast cancer is a major killer of women in this country it is reasonable to say that avoidance of pesticide residues in food (the only known route of exposure to DDT in this country, since we no longer use it to spray for mosquitoes) could save numerous lives and reduce our health care cost dramatically.”1
In a report by CBS on March 16, 2010, titled, “Shocking” Reasons to go Organic, it stated the following:
“Health Benefits of Organic Foods:2
- More Nutrients: Studies show that organic foods may have increased levels of nutrients like antioxidants than conventionally grown foods
- Fertility Health: Pesticides found in conventionally grown foods have been shown to reduce fertility
- Immune System Protection: The chemicals in non-organic foods may also harm your immune system, leaving you more susceptible to illness and some forms of cancer
- Hormones and weight gain: New research has shown that some agricultural chemicals could actually be making you fat by interfering with your hormone levels.
- Unknown effects of GMOs: Many people are concerned about genetically modified foods, especially since many of them have never been tested on humans. Organic foods are never genetically modified.
“There are numerous benefits to both eating organic foods, and to organic gardening. I personally believe that a huge benefit comes from a renewed relationship with nature. It starts with an “I won’t poison you, you won’t poison me” attitude, and ends with “I’ll nurture and respect you, you nurture and respect me.” Doing your own organic gardening makes this a personal commitment. Gardening is just plain good for the soul. One of my patients told me that they refer to their time spent in the garden a “going to see my therapist.” There is nothing quite like getting your hands in the soil for really good “grounding”.
In addition to the mental and emotional benefits of growing and eating organic food, there are also the physical benefits. These physical benefits can be boiled down to nutrients present in organic foods that are not in commercial foods and toxins not in organic foods that are present in commercial foods.
The Best Organic Basics:
When it comes to eating organic, the easiest and most effective way to start is with the basics. Men’s Health narrowed down four areas where it really pays to go organic:
- Organic beef comes from livestock that eats an organic diet, and in June, new FDA regulations will mandate that they spend at least 30 percent of their lives grazing on pasture grasses. That’s important, because studies show grass-fed meat has 60% more omega-3s, 200% more vitamin E, and 2 to 3 times as much of a cancer-fighting fat called CLA that might even help you lose weight.
- Likewise, organic chicken is healthier than non-organic chicken. One study found that it has 28 percent more omega-3 fatty acids.
- Studies show that organic milk has 50% more vitamin E, 75% more beta-carotene, and 70% more omega-3 fatty acids than regular. It also has more than double the amount of certain antioxidants that have been shown to keep your eyes healthy as you age.
- Organic milk is also free of commonly used growth hormones, which increases infertility in cows and has been linked to prostate and breast cancers in humans.
- It costs about a dollar more per half-gallon, but it’s worth it. Plus you can generally cut costs by getting coupons online. Stonyfieldfarm.com, for instance, offers printable coupons on their site.
- Organic chickens, like cows, spend a portion of their life grazing. That means that, along with their organic feed, they have access to the chicken’s food of choice, which is a cocktail of worms and grubs. And when animals eat their favorite foods, humans benefit. According to a study from Penn State, eggs from grazing chickens have twice as much vitamin E, 40 percent more vitamin A, and 3 times as many omega-3s. Plus they taste better!
Compared to mass-produced conventional eggs, organic usually costs a couple extra bucks per carton. But again, that’s a small price for the health of your body and planet.
Fruits and Vegetables
- According to estimates by the Environmental Working Group — the agency that developed the “Dirty Dozen” list — you can reduce your pesticide exposure by 80 percent simply by choosing organic versions of these 12 fruits and vegetables: peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, kale, lettuce, imported grapes, carrots and pears.
- As a general rule towards fruits and vegetables, when it comes to edible skins you’d be wise to choose organic.
- These 15 fruits and vegetables were the lowest in pesticides, so it’s not as important to buy organic versions of them: onions, avocadoes, sweet corn, pineapples, mangoes, asparagus, sweet peas, kiwis, cabbage, eggplants, papayas, watermelon, broccoli, sweet potatoes, tomatoes
- Most of these fruits and vegetables are protected from pesticide contamination by thick skins.”
Choose your foods wisely…for your health and for our planet!
The Vitamin D Council reported Sunday that the Stanley Cup finalists, Chicago Blackhawks, have been undergoing Vitamin D therapy for about 18 months. The team is playing better than ever, defeating the regular season champions, San Jose Sharks, 4 games in a row. The Blackhawks are seasoned athletes, but to dominate the best meant that they needed to be in near perfect shape. Read more “Vitamin D and Hard Work Propel Chicago Blackhawks to Stanley Cup Finals”
Your body is designed to get its sugars slowly from the complex foods we eat; it is not designed to handle the high amount of sugar that enters it every time you gulp down a soda or eat a piece of candy.
Sugar can be listed as:
In addition it’s been linked to hyperactivity and lack of concentration in children. One can of soda can contain as much as 16 teaspoons of sugar, and of course has no food value whatsoever!
Contributed by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D., Author of the book “Lick the Sugar Habit”1
In addition to throwing off the body’s homeostasis, excess sugar may result in a number of other significant consequences. The following is a listing of some of sugar’s metabolic consequences from a variety of medical journals and other scientific publications.
Sugar suppresses the immune system
- Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body
- Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children
- Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides
- Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection (infectious diseases)
- Sugar causes loss of tissue elasticity and function. The more sugar you eat the more elasticity and function you lose
- Sugar reduces high density lipoproteins
- Sugar leads to cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostrate, and rectum
- Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose
- Sugar causes copper deficiency
- Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium
- Sugar can weaken eyesight
- Sugar raises the level of neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine
- Sugar can cause hypoglycemia
- Sugar can produce an acidic digestive tract
- Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline levels in children
- Sugar can cause tooth decay
- Sugar can cause varicose veins
- Sugar can interfere with the absorption of protein
- Sugar causes food allergies
- Sugar can contribute to diabetes
- Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy
- Sugar can contribute to eczema in children
- Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease
- Sugar can impair the structure of DNA
- Sugar can change the structure of protein
- Sugar can make our skin age by changing the structure of collagen
- Sugar can cause cataracts
- Sugar can cause atherosclerosis
- Sugar can increase the body’s fluid retention
- Sugar can make the tendons more brittle
- Sugar can cause headaches, including migraine
- Sugar may contribute to adrenal fatigue
- Sugar feeds candida
1. Appleton, N. 2002. Lick the Sugar Habit. California: Penquin publishing.
While all metals used for dental restoration can be toxic, the most unsafe are the mercury dental amalgams (silver/mercury) used for filings. According to Dr. Taylor, “these so-called ‘silver fillings’ actually contain 50% mercury and only 25% silver.” Mercury has been recognized as a poison since the 1500s, yet mercury amalgams have been used in dentistry since the 1820s. Even the American Dental Association, which has so far refused to ban amalgams, now instructs dentists to “ know the potential hazards and symptoms of mercury exposure, such as the development of sensitivity and neuropathy,” to use a non-touch technique for handling the amalgam, and to store it under liquid, preferably glycerin or radiographic fixer solution, in unbreakable tightly sealed containers.2
I don’t feel comfortable using a substance (mercury amalgams) designated by the EPA to be waste disposal hazard. I can’t throw it in the trash, bury it in the ground, or put it in a landfill, but they say it’s okay to put it in people’s mouths. That doesn’t make sense.2
——-Richard D. Fischer, D.D.S.
Studies by the World Health Organization show that a single amalgam can release 3-17 micrograms of mercury per day.2
1. Huggins, H. 1991. “Dental Mercury Hygiene: Summary of Recommendations in 1990.” Journal of the American Dental Association 122(August 1991), 112.
2. W. Melillo. “ How Safe is Mercury in Dentistry?”The Washington Post Weekly Journal of Medicine, Science and Society ( September 1991).4. www.halehuggins.com
Microwaves can seriously deplete the nutrients in food.
As microwaves generated by the magnetron bombard the food, they cause the polar molecules to rotate at the same frequency, millions of times per second. They oscillate around their axis in response to a reversal of the electric field which occurs billions of times per second. All this agitation creates “molecular friction”, which heats up the food. This unusual type of heating causes substantial damage to the surrounding molecules, often forcefully deforming them or tearing them apart. It is this friction and heat which can destroy the fragile structure of vitamins and enzymes in the food.
Microwaves may also cause pathological changes in our bodies. Once the structure of a food is altered, it is unable to perform the desired function in our bodies. Clinical studies have shown that microwave heating of milk or cooking of vegetables is associated with a decline in hemoglobin levels.
These reductions may contribute to anemia, thyroid deficiency, and rheumatism. Histological studies1 with microwaved broccoli and carrots have revealed that the molecular structures of nutrients are deformed by high-frequency reversal of polarity, even up to the point of destroying the cell walls, whereas in conventional cooking the cell structures remained intact. Microwaving may even result in the development of new, hitherto unknown substances. The microwaves-induced reversal of the polarity causes the cells in the nutrients to become destructively polarized, possibly allowing for the creation of free radicals 1. All free radicals have a strong tendency to cause reactions. They can interact with enzymes thus causing a disruption of biological processes.
In 1973, two American scientists, P. Czerski and W.M. Leach proved that microwaves cause cancer in animals.2 A group of scientists at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California discovered that microwaving breast milk leads to a significant loss of the immunological properties of milk, the authors of the study concluded that microwaving is definitely “not a suitable heat treatment modality for breast milk”.2 Their study on the effects of microwaved food on human beings in comparison to conventionally prepared food showed that food which had been cooked in a microwave oven caused significant changes in the blood immediately after ingestion by the test individuals.2
1. SCHRUMPF, E., CHARLEY, H. (1975): TEXTURE OF BROCCOLI AND CARROTS COOKED BY MICROWAVE ENERGY. – J. FOOD SCIENCE, 4O: 1 025-29.
2. 0 BLANC, B. H. / HERTEL, H. U. ( 1992): COMPARATIVE STUDY ABOUT THE INFLUENCE ON MAN BY FOOD PREPARED CONVENTIONALLY AND IN THE MICROWAVE-OVEN.