Researchers at the University of South Florida asked volunteers about calorie intake, they got some fascinating results.
“We studied the link between how a food feels in your mouth and the amount we eat, the types of food we choose, and how many calories we think we are consuming,” wrote study authors Dipayan Biswas and Courtney Szocs, both from the University of South Florida, and others, HealthDay reported.
The folks in the study asked about calorie count chose the crunchy brownies over the smooth. On the other hand, the majority of the non diet-conscious individuals went for the smooth ones.
“Understanding how the texture of food can influence calorie perceptions, food choice, and consumption amount can help nudge consumers towards making healthier choices,” the researchers concluded. Continue reading
So with no proven health benefits and with too many questions concerning safety and long term addiction, e-cigarettes should come with at least the same restrictions, warnings and health concerns as with regular tobacco cigarettes.
For more on the dangers of smoking in general check out my page – How bad is smoking?
Originally posted on Valley Doctor:
There’s been much in the news recently about e-cigarettes. The Santa Cruz City Council has just voted to update the city’s tobacco related ordinances which would ban the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is currently restricted and requiring the product to be sold only by vendors with tobacco retail licenses. Thus, Santa Cruz joins some 50 California state cities and counties in creating such restrictions.
E-cigarettes, also called vape pens or e-hookahs, are made to resemble cigarettes. They are battery-operated, which allows conversion of liquid nicotine into a vapor which enters the lungs and is easily absorbed into the blood stream. There’s no tobacco, flame, smoke, tar or carbon monoxide which is probably the only good thing that can be said for this product.
I’d like to touch upon some of the questions and concerns regarding electronic cigarettes.
Are e-cigarettes safer than regular cigarettes?
They are probably safer than cigarettes…
View original 313 more words
Drinks like beer, malt liquor, wine, and hard liquor contain alcohol. Alcohol is the ingredient that gets you drunk, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Hard liquor—such as whiskey, rum, or gin—has more alcohol in it than beer, malt liquor, or wine.
These drink sizes have about the same amount of alcohol in them:
1 ½ ounces of hard liquor
5 ounces of wine
8 ounces of malt liquor
12 ounces of beer
A little goes a long way.
No cue is unchangeable. Altering the environment in which you live and work, Lowe suggests—shopping for less-energy-dense foods, putting the Doritos out of reach on the top shelf, changing your commute so that you don’t drive by the doughnut shop—can go a long way toward changing the patterns of hunger that have become ingrained in your routine.
Originally posted on Cooking with Kathy Man:
Maria Konnikova wrote in The New Yorker
Here are a few of the things that can make you hungry: seeing, smelling, reading, or even thinking about food. Hearing music that reminds you of a good meal. Walking by a place where you once ate something good. Even after you’ve just had a hearty lunch, imagining something delicious can make you salivate. Being genuinely hungry, on the other hand—in the sense of physiologically needing food—matters little. It’s enough to walk by a doughnut shop to start wanting a doughnut. Studies show that rats that have eaten a lot are just as eager to eat chocolate cereal as hungry rats are to eat laboratory chow. Humans don’t seem all that different. More often than not, we eat because we want to eat—not because we need to. Recent studies show that our physical level of hunger, in fact, does not correlate strongly…
View original 1,837 more words
The British government has successfully educated individuals about reducing their sodium consumption and has aggressively encouraged companies to market less-salty foods, the Center for Science in the Public Interest reported.
And according to the findings published today in BMJ Open, those efforts are likely partly responsible for plummeting rates of heart attack and stroke deaths in the United Kingdom.
It’s a shame that while the British government has actively prompted progress on the part of industry and consumers, our Food and Drug Administration dithers, waiting in vain for more than 40 years for companies to voluntarily cut salt. It’s a strategy that has plainly failed, as Americans are still getting more than twice as much sodium as they should, mostly from processed and restaurant foods.
Almost four years ago the Institute of Medicine called on the FDA to set mandatory limits on the levels of sodium allowed in various categories of food. Doing that would have been the single most effective (and inexpensive) thing the FDA could have done to save hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of health care dollars. Halving Americans’ sodium intake could save 100,000 lives annually. Because the Obama Administration hasn’t done anything, America is unnecessarily digging about 100,000 early graves every year, each to be filled with a heart attack or stroke victim.
I want to clarify that I am against government telling us we can’t have diet sodas over 16 ounces like in New York, but it seems the government can make some rules on healthy amounts of certain ingredients like salt and sugar which have proven harmful to us humans. As the CSPI release said, we are digging 100,000 early graves a year. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns. We have the FDA fiddling while citizens who don’t pay attention to their health are dying at a terrible rate.
Salt consumption has been a subject of numerous posts in this blog. Here are a few:
How Much is Too Much Salt?
Some Sneaky Salt Statistics
Why is Walmart Cutting Sugar, Fat and Salt in its Foods?
Where Does All the Salt in our Diets Come From?
Filed under aging, Center for Science in the Public Interest, heart, heart disease, heart problems, salt, sodium, stroke, Weight, weight control, weight loss
I think that probably the most widespread misconception about being healthy in general and losing weight in particular is that exercise is optional. It isn’t. As I wrote in an earlier post, you need to Move ya body. A skinny body with no muscle tone is not a healthy body. Also, and most importantly, exercise excites important activity in the brain. In a lot of ways the brain benefits as much as the body from exercise. Check out Important facts about your brain (and exercise)
Have a lovely day!
The use of the new method, which has been patented by TU/e, can avoid the need for biopsies to be taken from millions of men around the world. The procedure will no longer be necessary for a large part of the 70% of men from whom biopsies are currently taken unnecessarily.
Originally posted on Cooking with Kathy Man:
A prostate image generated with the new technique. The red area indicates the tumor.
Each year prostate tissue samples are taken from over a million men – in most cases using 12 large biopsy needles – to check whether they have prostate cancer. This procedure, which was recently described by an American urology professor as ‘barbaric’1, shows that 70% of the subjects do not have cancer. A patient-friendly examination, which drastically reduces the need for biopsies has been developed at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), together with AMC Amsterdam.
Hundreds of thousands of men die each year from prostate cancer. The standard procedure used worldwide for prostate cancer examinations starts with measurement of the PSA (prostate specific antigen) value in the blood. If this is high, physicians will usually remove samples of prostate tissue through the anus at six to sixteen points for pathological examination. However, 70% of the subjects…
View original 604 more words