Home / Health
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts

Do You want to lose 10 pounds in a week? Try this simple and effective diet!

Well, what if I tell you there is a way to do just that?

Now, I’ve tried my fair share of diets, and some work, some do not work.

It is worth noting that some diets are just not cut for everyone, as we are all different people, different metabolism, blood type and so on.

However, I can certainly say that this diet is one that can help you lose 10 pounds, in just one week. And the best part is, you do not need to starve yourself to get the results you want.
Do You want to lose 10 pounds in a week? Try this simple and effective diet!
Do You want to lose 10 pounds in a week? Try this simple and effective diet!

Let’s start with the breakfast, which is the most important meal of the day.

Before you even start thinking about breakfast, I recommend squeezing one fresh lemon into a glass of cold water. Drink it on an empty stomach to purify and detox your body from toxins and also kickstart your metabolism.

Now, half an hour after you’ve drunk the glass of water, it is time to think about breakfast.

What you want are fruits. Now everyone who tells you can eat fruits through the whole day is not being honest with you.

The truth is, the best time to eat fruits is in the morning when the sugars from fruits are distributed nicely through our body.

Read more Here

Health : Thailand confirms two cases of Zika-linked microcephaly

Thai health officials have confirmed two cases of microcephaly, a severe birth defect linked to the Zika virus.

It is the first time in South East Asia that the disease has been linked to the condition, which causes abnormally small brains and heads.

Several countries in the region have reported Zika cases. The virus is transmitted by the Aedes mosquito which also spreads dengue and chikungunya.

 

The current outbreak of the disease was first detected in Brazil last year.
Cases have recently been reported across South East Asia.

Zika outbreak: What you need to know
"To summarise we have found two cases of small heads linked to Zika, the first cases in Thailand," said Prasert Thongcharoen, from the Department of Disease Control.

The WHO said these were first cases of Zika-linked microcephaly in South East Asia.

Thailand has confirmed about 350 cases of Zika since January - including 25 pregnant women - one of the highest numbers in the region.

Source : www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37516465
Banning sodas is a lot different than refusing to let government money subsidize their purchase

Banning sodas is a lot different than refusing to let government money subsidize their purchase

5% of food stamps supposedly go to sodas.  Instead of regulating everyone's intake of sodas, why not ban letting food stamp dollars being spent on them?
food stamps, makes up about $80 billion of the $100 billion a year cost of the farm bill, providing aid to some 46 million people. . . .
From the Washington Post:

The 42 million Americans receiving federal food stamps use those benefits to buy $4 billion of soda every year, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. . . .
Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

Newest piece at National Review Online: Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

My newest piece starts this way:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to ban sugary soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. He believes that by this measure he can reduce obesity. But plenty of evidence indicates that he will fail. The ban will inconvenience people and waste their time, but it will not make them thinner.  
Bloomberg didn’t originate this type of idea. Public schools, which hold their students captive for much of their day, have tried a similar approach to making students lose weight. And some have gone further than Bloomberg’s limit on cup size and have banned such drinks completely. But even complete bans haven’t worked. Students simply drink more sugary drinks after school. According to an article in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior analyzing data for Maine, “keeping such drinks out of teenagers’ reach during school hours may not be enough.” . . .
Michelle Obama supports Bloomberg's ban. 
she said, "We applaud anyone who's stepping up to think about what changes work in their communities. New York is one example." . . .
"New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks"

"New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks"

So you ban large soft drinks. Will that reduce the amount that people drink of soft drinks?  Probably.  Sure, there are substitute ways of drinking it -- get two drinks (though not as easy to carry).  Will it get people to switch large milk shakes?  What is next?  Limits on portion size?  Mayor Bloomberg strikes again.  From the NY Times:

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.
“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall. . . .
Liberals want to keep out of people's bedrooms?
Go drink that coffee

Go drink that coffee

From MSNBC:
men who drank at least six cups of coffee a day had a 10 percent lower chance of dying during the 14-year study period than those who drank none. For women, the risk was 15 percent lower, according to Freedman’s work, published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. . . .
"Mad Men" and drinking

"Mad Men" and drinking

Anyone who has seen an episode of the TV series "Mad Men" knows about how much these creative advertising types are depicted as drinking alcohol. Well, there is now some research that indicates that drinking enhances creativity.
Drinking alcohol may enhance a person’s problem solving skills, according to a new study. Scientists found that men who either drank two pints of beer or two glasses of wine before solving brain teasers not only got more questions right, they also were quicker in delivering correct answers, compared to men who answered the questions sober. While the latest findings go against the traditional beliefs that alcohol impairs analytical thinking and rational thoughts, lead author Professor Jennifer Wiley of the University of Illinois at Chicago discovered that alcohol may enhance creativity problem solving by reducing the mind’s working memory capacity, which is the ability to concentrate on something in particular. “Working memory capacity is considered the ability to control one’s attention,” Wiley told the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS). “It’s the ability to remember one thing while you’re thinking about something else.” While the latest study found that alcohol may enhance creative problem solving, previous research found that increased working memory capacity actually led to better analytical problem-solving performance. . . .
So are short high intensity workouts as good as long more leisurely ones?

So are short high intensity workouts as good as long more leisurely ones?

That is what a growing body of research seems to indicate. From Fox News:
Many health groups have drummed into our heads that we need to do 30 minutes or more of moderate intensity exercise five days a week, totaling at least 150 minutes. But according to the Physical Activity Guidelines published by the National Institutes of Health, 75 minutes a week of high intensity physical activity can significantly lower your risk of heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes and depression. That’s only 15 minutes a day, five days a week. If going all out for 15 minutes doesn’t sound like your thing, you can get the same improvements by doing 10 short, 60-second intervals. According to researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, young men who did high-intensity interval training, or HIIT, which involved 30 seconds of all-out effort at 100 percent of their maximum heart rate, saw similar improvements in their leg muscles as those who did multiple, hour-long sessions of steady cycling, and spent 90 percent more time exercising. . . .
A 'Universal' Cancer Vaccine?

A 'Universal' Cancer Vaccine?

From the UK Telegraph:
The therapy, which targets a molecule found in 90 per cent of all cancers, could provide a universal injection that allows patients' immune systems to fight off common cancers including breast and prostate cancer. Preliminary results from early clinical trials have shown the vaccine can trigger an immune response in patients and reduce levels of disease. The scientists behind the vaccine now hope to conduct larger trials in patients to prove it can be effective against a range of different cancers. They believe it could be used to combat small tumours if they are detected early enough or to help prevent the return and spread of disease in patients who have undergone other forms of treatment such as surgery. Cancer cells usually evade patient's immune systems because they are not recognised as being a threat. While the immune system usually attacks foreign cells such as bacteria, tumours are formed of the patient's own cells that have malfunctioned. . . .
What happens when shortages of organs make doctors desparate

What happens when shortages of organs make doctors desparate

The shortage of organs makes people to undesirable things. In particular, doctors will ignore signs of recovery. Wouldn't it be better if we let patients get paid for their organs? From the WSJ:

But what are you giving up when you check the donor box on your license? Your organs, of course—but much more. You're also giving up your right to informed consent. Doctors don't have to tell you or your relatives what they will do to your body during an organ harvest operation because you'll be dead, with no legal rights. . . . .

The current criteria on brain death were set by a Harvard Medical School committee in 1968, at a time when organ transplantation was making great strides. In 1981, the Uniform Determination of Death Act made brain death a legal form of death in all 50 states.

The exam for brain death is simple. A doctor splashes ice water in your ears (to look for shivering in the eyes), pokes your eyes with a cotton swab and checks for any gag reflex, among other rudimentary tests. It takes less time than a standard eye exam. Finally, in what's called the apnea test, the ventilator is disconnected to see if you can breathe unassisted. If not, you are brain dead. (Some or all of the above tests are repeated hours later for confirmation.)

Here's the weird part. If you fail the apnea test, your respirator is reconnected. You will begin to breathe again, your heart pumping blood, keeping the organs fresh. Doctors like to say that, at this point, the "person" has departed the body. You will now be called a BHC, or beating-heart cadaver. . . .

In a 1999 article in the peer-reviewed journal Anesthesiology, Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington, reported a case in which a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma began breathing spontaneously after being declared brain dead. The physicians said that, because there was no chance of recovery, he could still be considered dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move, and then react to the scalpel with hypertension. . . . .

If Florida Gov Signs bill, Doctors won't be able to grill patients about gun ownership

I have run into these types of doctors myself in the past. My book The Bias Against Guns has a discussion of what happened when I took some of my kids to the medical clinic at Yale University. Michael Graham has a similar story here.

With a stroke of the governor's pen, Florida is positioned to become the first state in the nation to prohibit physicians from asking patients if they have guns in their homes, a move some doctors say will interfere with health care.
The Florida Senate passed House Bill 155 last month by a 27-10 vote and the measure now awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Rick Scott. If signed, it would ban doctors from asking about the presence of guns or ammunition in the home.
Republican State Rep. Jason Brodeur, a sponsor of the bill, proposed the legislation following an incident in which a Florida pediatrician told a mother to find another doctor when she refused to answer questions about guns in her home.
Supporters of the legislation, including the National Rifle Association, say they're seeking to stop doctors from invading their privacy. Critics of the bill, however, claim that doctors need to ask patients about guns to ensure their safety and to make sure they remain out of the reach of children.
"The [bill], if enacted, would limit pediatricians’ capacity to do what they do best -- compassionately and effectively care for children," read a March 30 statement released by The American Academy of Pediatrics. "Because unintentional injuries continue to be the leading cause of death in children older than 1 year, pediatricians play a key role in injury prevention by providing anticipatory guidance to parents during office visits to help minimize the risk of injury in the child’s everyday environment." . . .


A copy of the law is available here. Note that other states first tried to force doctors to ask patients about gun ownership.

Here is what I wrote on this topic a few years ago. Given the costs of gunlocks, there isn't much of a problem to solve in Florida or other states.


Here are what doctors are saying about the law.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' position on firearm-related injuries states "the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries" to them.
Timothy Wheeler, a retired surgeon in Upland, Calif., founder and director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, cites the position statement as proof that pediatricians want to ban firearms. Pediatric residents "think it's normal to ask about guns in the home," he says. "They don't understand that it is an ethical boundary violation."
Louis St. Petery, a Tallahassee pediatric cardiologist and executive vice president of the Florida Pediatric Society, says prevention, not politics, drives children's doctors to inquire about firearms. . . .
Six simple things that increase life expectancy

Six simple things that increase life expectancy

Fox News as a useful summary available here. I had one issue to raise:

In fact, studies suggest that daily exercise can add up to three years to your life. . . .


Assuming one works out one hour a day, that you are awake for 16 hours a day, and a zero interest rate, in 48 years you would have spent an amount of time exercising to the increase in life expectancy. Discounting by even a small interest rate would dramatically reduce the number of years that one would have to exercise before the work canceled out the benefit.
Stimulus dollars spent on anti-obesity campaign

Stimulus dollars spent on anti-obesity campaign

So much for the claim that the Stimulus was being spent on what the Democrats called jobs programs.

A stimulus-funded anti-obesity campaign has spread throughout the country. And the $650 million Recovery Act program called Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) is funding not just anti-obesity campaigns in New York City, but campaigns throughout the country.

Thirty-one localities — from cities in Hawaii to Maine to South Carolina — have received grants to combat the effects of sugary drinks and trans fats on residents’ waistlines.

The state of California was by far the biggest beneficiary, receiving $55.1 million to do things like “reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and promote healthy eating” and “implement physical education policies in schools.” Of that grant, $32.1 million went to Los Angeles, $16.1 million went to San Diego, and $6.9 million went to Santa Clara. Yet California is one of the country’s slimmest states.

Washington State received $25.5 million in taxpayer dollars to fight obesity. The grant went directly to the Seattle and King County Department of Public Health. However, according to Forbes rankings, Seattle is one of the top ten fittest cities in America. Nonetheless, in 2010, Seattle announced a campaign to reduce consumption of sugary drinks, modeled after “materials developed in New York City.”

The Philadelphia Department of Public Health received $25.4 million to “make healthy foods more available and affordable” and remove “unhealthy food” from schools.

Cook County and the City of Chicago in Illinois received $15.9 million and $11.6 million, respectively, to promote healthy living and anti-smoking campaigns.

Pima County in Arizona received $15.8 million. And in Texas, San Antonio got $15.6 million while the city of Austin, which is ranked as one of the fittest cities in America, got $7.5 million.

The affluent city of Boston, Massachusetts, where lawmakers are considering a ban on soft drinks, received $12.5 million in grants. In return, the city promised to decrease consumption of sugary beverages, increase active transit, and infuse more physical activity and health education into the school system. . . .
May Cell Phones Prevent Alzheimer's?

May Cell Phones Prevent Alzheimer's?

After all the lack of findings that cell phones cause cancer, it is interesting to see this work that indicates a benefit from cell phones.

A study in mice suggests using cellphones may help prevent some of the brain-wasting effects of Alzheimer's disease, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

After long-term exposure to electromagnetic waves such as those used in cell phones, mice genetically altered to develop Alzheimer's performed as well on memory and thinking skill tests as healthy mice, the researchers wrote in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease.

The results were a major surprise and open the possibility of developing a noninvasive, drug-free treatment for Alzheimer's, said lead author Gary Arendash of the University of South Florida.

He said he had expected cell phone exposure to increase the effects of dementia.

"Quite to the contrary, those mice were protected if the cell phone exposure was stared in early adulthood. Or if the cellphone exposure was started after they were already memory- impaired, it reversed that impairment," Arendash said in a telephone interview.

Arendash's team exposed the mice to electromagnetic waves equivalent to those emitted by a cellphone pressed against a human head for two hours daily over seven to nine months.

At the end of that time, they found cellphone exposure erased a build-up of beta amyloid, a protein that serves as a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease.

The Alzheimer's mice showed improvement and had reversal of their brain pathology, he said.

"It (the electromagnetic wave) prevents the aggregation of that bad protein of the brain," Arendash said. "The findings are intriguing to us because they open up a whole new field in neuroscience, we believe, which is the long-term effects of electromagnetic fields on memory."

Arendash said his team was modifying the experiment to see if they could produce faster results and begin testing humans. . . .
Young Children who are spanked end up being happier and more successful

Young Children who are spanked end up being happier and more successful

As far as these types of studies go, this sample of 2,600 people is relatively large.

Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.” . . .
Calorie Posting Laws at NYC restaurants don't alter what people eat

Calorie Posting Laws at NYC restaurants don't alter what people eat

Calorie posting laws in NYC haven't been altering what people eat. This might not be a big cost for large chains per dollar of food that they serve, but what about fancy "Foodie" restaurants? No change in today's menu because the food hasn't been tested yet for its calorie count. If you only serve food once as an experiment and you are a small restaurant, how can it pay to send the food off for testing? It will surely reduce innovation in food.

A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains.

The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains – McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken – in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and nine out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs, come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.

“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview. . . . .
May be prison is torture

May be prison is torture

I assume that criminals smoke at relatively high rates. Of course, this isn't going to save money for the state on health care costs. Smokers die relatively younger and when they do die, they die relatively quickly. From the AP:

Inmates in Nevada's prison system are preparing for life without cigarettes as they prepare for a smoking ban to take effect July 1.

The majority of other states already ban tobacco use in prisons. Nevada is joining them because of health care costs, cleanliness and a 2006 state law that bans smoking indoors.

But inmates won't get aids like gum and patches to help them quit, only instructional DVDs to tell them how to stop.

Prisons spokeswoman Susan Pardee says the department can't control how the products are used, so they're not allowing them. . . . .
Spending more time in the sun improves health

Spending more time in the sun improves health

The BBC has this:

Spending more time in the sun could help older people cut their risk of heart disease and diabetes say experts.

Sun exposure helps the skin make vitamin D - a vitamin older people are generally deficient in due to their lifestyles and ageing processes.

A team at Warwick University has shown a deficiency increases the risk of metabolic syndrome, which is linked to diabetes and cardiovascular disease. . . . . . .
Should healthy adults be able to take so-called "smart" pills?

Should healthy adults be able to take so-called "smart" pills?

I have posted frequently on this in the past, so I thought that I would point out this debate covered in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

A year after a commentary in the journal Nature ignited a debate about the use among academics of drugs to enhance their mental energy and ability to work long hours, a group of scientists and ethicists write in the same journal that they believe, in theory, that healthy people should have the right to use “smart” pills.

The authors of the new essay, according to the Associated Press, pose a number of caveats on that statement, including calling for more research about the unknown risks of using the drugs, which are commonly prescribed for sleep disorders or hyperactivity. But the authors assert that “we should welcome new methods of improving our brain function,” and that doing it with pills is no more morally objectionable than eating right or getting a good night’s sleep.

One of the seven authors, Martha J. Farah, who is director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, noted that surveys and informal polls have shown that some professors and students acknowledge using such drugs illegally to help them study or remain alert for long hours. “It’s a felony, but it’s being done,” Ms. Farah told the news service. As more effective brain-boosting pills are developed, she said, demand for them is likely to grow.

While some health experts agreed that the issue deserves attention, Leigh Turner, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, took issue with the essay: “It’s a nice puff piece for selling medications for people who don’t have an illness of any kind,” he told the Associated Press.

The essay, “Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy,” is available online to Nature subscribers or for purchase.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)