A log of articles I found for later reading. ...................................................... ..............................Not necessarily my point of view though.

Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

ADHD Drugs Cause Hallucinations in Children; Psychiatry Pushes Hallucinogenic Drugs for Profit

(NaturalNews) New research published in the journal Pediatrics reveals that the ADHD drugs prescribed to millions of children are causing them to experience frightening hallucinations. Children on these drugs hallucinated that snakes and bugs were crawling all over them, says Reuters, and some kids taking the drugs experience other bizarre psychotic side effects such as thinking they ran into a wall and falling to the ground even when no wall was present.
ADHD drugs, of course, are powerful psychotropic mind-altering chemicals that are often molecularly identical to street drugs. The industry of psychiatry is virtually owned by Big Pharma, which hopes to drug every child, teenager and adult with at least one mind-altering medication.
The drugs reviewed in this study include: Ritalin and Focalin XR (Novartis), Adderall XR and Daytrana patch (Shire), Concerta (Johnson & Johnson), Strattera (Eli Lilly), Metadate CD (Celltech Pharmaceuticals) and Provigil (Cephalon).
Researchers noticed that only children taking these drugs suffered from hallucinations. Those taking placebo had no hallucinations, and the children who stopped taking ADHD drugs saw their hallucinations cease.
Reuters reports that "…FDA researchers urged doctors to discuss the potential side effects with parents and children to help ease their anxiety if such symptoms should occur." So instead of getting their kids off these drugs, the FDA thinks parents and kids just need to "talk about the hallucinations" to ease their anxiety.
And if that's not enough, I suppose, there are anti-anxiety drugs they can both take in order to avoid getting too uptight about the fact that their children are on hallucinogenic drugs.

Stop the insanity!

I'm just going to come right out and say the obvious: These children are tripping out on hallucinogenic, mind-altering street drugs. This isn't "treatment" for some genuine health problem; it's a legalized mass-drugging campaign that's permanently harming the brains of children while earning sick profits for Big Pharma.
The psychiatric pill pushers have managed to turn a generation of children into druggies who are now demonstrating the same symptoms as a street junkie burnout. And rather than trying to get kids OFF these drugs, the FDA, Big Pharma and modern psychiatrists are doing everything in their power to put MORE kids on these dangerous, hallucinogenic drugs!
That this continues in America today is outrageous. In a nation that spends billions of dollars on the so-called "War on Drugs" -- see the Drug War Clock at http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm -- to ignore the mass drugging of its own children with hallucinogenic street drugs relabeled as "medication" is unconscionable.
If there's really a War on Drugs, why doesn't that war target the biggest drug pushers of all? Big Pharma has put more kids on drugs than any street corner crack dealer could ever hope to achieve. In fact, the entire industry of psychiatric medicine is little more than a legalized drug dealing network that hides behind the jargon of "medicine" and "therapy."

Mind-numbed parents lead to drugged children

It's not just the industry that's to blame on all this, either: Parents who allow their children to be drugged with these hallucinogenic ADHD drugs are just as much a part of the problem. In the same households where parents are adamantly restricting their child's use of pot or alcohol, they will literally feed that same kid dose after dose of hallucinogenic street drugs on the advice of a psychiatric medicine quack who's on the take from Big Pharma.
What are they thinking? Say no to drugs, but say yes to hallucinogenic psychotropic drugs if a corrupt psychiatrist tells you your kid needs them?
Somehow, when speed is labeled under Big Pharma's brand names, it eludes all rational thinking by parents, doctors, pharmacists and drug war zealots. It is one of the largest sectors of the hallucinogenic drug trade in America, and yet it goes completely unnoticed by virtually everyone.
My latest hip-hop song takes a shot at mind-altering medications with some disturbing, uncensored lyrics. Listen to "SSRIs - S.S.R.Lies" here: http://www.naturalnews.com/SSRIs_S_...

The ugly truth about the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs, of course, was never really about ending drug use in the first place. It was about eliminating the competition for Big Pharma, making sure kids get off generic black market drugs and get onto brand-name Big Pharma drugs. To legitimize this mass drugging of children, the industry of modern psychiatry was created, with all its imaginary (hallucinated?) disorders and dysfunctions used to befuddle the public with seemingly intelligent-sounding technical jargon.
It's all just drug-pushing psychobabble, of course. Disorders like ADHD are purely fictional, having no basis in reality whatsoever, and the brain shrinkage pointed to by psychiatrists who claim ADHD causes stunted growth is actually the result of the amphetamine drugs they put the kids on. It is well documented that drugs like Ritalin cause stunted grown and reduced brain size (http://www.naturalnews.com/021944.html).
The degree of quackery present in the psychiatric industry today is simply staggering. And to think that mainstream doctors defend this quackery is yet more evidence that modern medicine has nothing whatsoever to do with actual science; it's all based on a Cult of Pharmacology where all drugs are considered good and necessary, regardless of the mountain of evidence showing them to be dangerous and medically useless.
This is where I have to challenge all the so-called "skeptics" out there who attack natural medicine. These skeptics and self-proclaimed quack observers are, in fact, among the greatest quacks of all. Why? Because they aren't skeptical in the least about psychiatric medicine!

The skeptics are quacks

Where is the skepticism about this home-grown brand of legalized drug pushing? Where are all the intelligent questions demanding proof that ADHD is a genuine disease and not just something made up to sell more drugs? The skeptics are silent when it comes to psychiatric medicine, and in their silence they reveal themselves to be quacks.
Logic, reason and scientific evidence are all thrown out the window on the subject of psychiatric disorders. The most rational-sounding skeptics are instantly transformed into psychobabble-spouting quacks who defend the indefensible -- the mass drugging of children with powerful hallucinogenic street drugs as "treatment" for some imaginary disease.
Sure, the skeptics will attack meditation, crystals, prayer, intention, chiropractic care and even herbal medicine (all of which can be healing, by the way), but when it comes to the loopy loose logic of psychiatric medicine inventing diseases and drugging up the children with hallucinogenic amphetamines, they swallow the whole thing without blinking an eye!
So much for the credibility of the so-called skeptics and quack busters. It turns out they're quacks themselves. They've simply subscribed to their own form of quackery: Drugs and surgery for all!
The quacks are on crack, and they're supporting an industry that hands out speed to the children. Meanwhile, the War on Drugs fills the prisons with people who smoked a little weed while completely ignoring the psychiatric pill pushers. Crazy, huh? I'm beginning to thinking everybody's on drugs!
Just remember, folks: If you want to sell drugs to kids, just get FDA approval first. It keeps the DEA off your back and fools parents into thinking your hallucinogenic drugs are "medicine."

via http://www.naturalnews.com/025433.html

New Research Confirms Vitamin D Blocks Formation of Breast Cancer

(NaturalNews) Women with a higher vitamin D intake may be a quarter less likely to die from breast cancer than women with lower levels, scientists have found.
In a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto analyzed the vitamin D intake of 759 breast cancer patients and 1,135 women without breast cancer, accounting for both dietary intake and vitamin D production from exposure to sunlight. They found that women with a higher vitamin D intake had a 24 percent lower risk of acquiring hormone receptor-positive breast cancer than women with a lower vitamin intake.
"Few epidemiologic studies have considered the association between vitamin D and hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer," the researchers wrote.
Hormone receptor-positive breast tumors have their growth stimulated by the female sex hormones estrogen and progesterone, and are the most common form of breast cancer diagnosed in the United States.
The researchers also found that women with higher vitamin D intake had a 26 percent lower risk of developing hormone receptor-negative tumors, however, and a 21 percent lower chance of developing mixed-receptor tumors, which are receptive to only one hormone type. Unlike the correlation with receptor-positive tumors, these correlations were not statistically significant.
"This study suggests that vitamin D is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer regardless of [hormone receptor] status of the tumor," the researchers wrote.
Breast cancer is the second most common and the fifth most lethal cancer in the world, with more than one million new diagnoses and 500,000 deaths each year. In the United States, 180,000 women are diagnosed with the disease and 40,000 are killed every year.
The current study is not the first to suggest that vitamin D intake may affect breast cancer risk and prognosis. In fact, the idea has been around since the 1940s, when researchers noted that cancer deaths increased with distance from the equator.
Technically a hormone, vitamin D is produced naturally by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight. It has long been known to be critical for proper calcium absorption and bone health, and deficiency can lead to rickets in children and osteoporosis in adults.
Just 15 minutes of sun on the face and hands is considered to provide enough vitamin D for an average light-skinned individual, with 20 to 30 minutes needed for darker skinned people. Because the sun is weaker farther from the equator, however, many people are not able to synthesize all the vitamin D they need themselves, especially during winter months when the days are shorter. For people in those circumstances, dietary vitamin D is also available from certain fatty fish, in fortified grain and dairy products, and in the form of supplements.
Research has linked vitamin D deficiency to an increased risk of a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, pancreas and prostate. Another study conducted by University of Toronto and Mount Sinai Hospital researchers found that women who were vitamin D deficient at the time of breast cancer diagnosis had a 75 percent higher risk of death than women with adequate levels, and a 100 percent higher risk of having their cancer metastasize.
Recommended daily vitamin D intake remains controversial, with the governments of Canada and the United States recommending only 200 IU per day for children and 400 IU per day for adults, the amounts long accepted as necessary to stave off bone and dental problems. Recent research suggests that much higher levels are needed to protect against cancers, diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders, however, leading the Canadian Cancer Society and other groups to recommend 1,000 IU per day for adults.

 

via http://www.naturalnews.com/025397.html

What To Ask Your Doctor During Your Visit

Your relationship with your doctor greatly influences your ability to make wise health decisions. It can also affect the outcome of your care. Partner with your doctor in making decisions about your health care. Common goals, shared effort, and good communication are the basis of successful doctor-patient partnerships.
Questions to ask your doctor
Even if you don't have a plan for treating your condition, your doctor does! These important questions will help you and your doctor create a treatment plan that is right for you.
How should I treat my condition?
What problems could occur from my condition?
What will happen if I don't treat my condition?
What lifestyle changes can help me deal with my condition?
How will this condition affect my life in the long-term?
When should I set my next appointment?
Questions if you receive a prescription
Some conditions can be managed with diet, exercise or other lifestyle changes; but it may be necessary to take a prescription medication as well. If you receive a prescription from your health professional, here are some specific questions you should be asking:
What is the benefit of this medication over another?
How does my medication work?
How do I take my medication?
Is my medication available in generic?
What are the possible side effects of my medication and what should I do if I
experience any?
What should I do if I miss a dose?
What are the risks of not taking my medication as prescribed?
How long will I have to take my medication?

via http://healthierhealth.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-to-ask-your-doctor-during-your.html

Sunday, January 25, 2009

People procrastinate when asked to think in the abstract

TO SOME there is nothing so urgent that it cannot be postponed in favour of a cup of tea. Such procrastination is a mystery to psychologists, who wonder why people would sabotage themselves in this way. A team of researchers led by Sean McCrea of the University of Konstanz, in Germany, reckon they have found a piece of the puzzle. People act in a timely way when given concrete tasks but dawdle when they view them in abstract terms.

Dr McCrea and his colleagues conducted three separate studies. First they recruited 34 students who were offered €2.50 ($3.30) for completing a questionnaire within the subsequent three weeks. Half of the students were then sent an email asking them to write a couple of sentences on how they might go about various activities, such as opening a bank account or keeping a diary. The others were asked to write about why someone might want to open a bank account or keep a diary.

For their second study, Dr McCrea and his colleagues recruited 50 students, who were offered the same sums and timespans as the first lot. Half of these students were asked to provide examples of members of a group, for example, naming any type of bird. The task was inverted for the other students, who were asked to name a category to which birds belong.

Finally the researchers asked 51 students, who were again offered cash and given a deadline, to examine a copy of “La Parade” by Georges Seurat, a 19th-century French artist. Half were given information about pointillism, the technique Seurat used to create the impression of solid colours from small dots of paint. The others were told that the painting was an example of neo-impressionism in which the artist had used colour to evoke harmony and emotion. Both groups were then asked to rate the importance of colour in 13 other works of art.

As the team report in Psychological Science, in all three studies, those who were presented with concrete tasks and information responded more promptly than did those who were asked to think in an abstract way. Moreover, almost all the students who had been prompted to think in concrete terms completed their tasks by the deadline while up to 56% of students asked to think in abstract terms failed to respond at all.

Theories abound for why people procrastinate. Some psychologists think that those who delay completing tasks do so because they have low confidence that they will succeed in that task. Perhaps procrastinators are perfectionists or they may just be depressed. Others believe they are impulsive and lack self-control. Earlier research has shown that people defer tasks that are unappealing, difficult or expensive, which is no great surprise. Dr McCrea and his colleagues, however, are the first to show that the way in which a task is presented also influences when it gets done.

Those seeking to cajole a colleague, friend or spouse into action might ponder the finding, though perhaps not for too long. It might be better to offer a procrastinator a concrete choice—Lapsang Souchong or Darjeeling?—rather than asking him just what sort of a person it is who would drink tea when time is of the essence.

via http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12971028

Why do the majority of people never get cancer?

PhysOrg.com) -- Every year, millions of people are diagnosed with cancer - a remarkably high number. But what about the flipside of those statistics? That is, two out of three people never get cancer, and more than half of heavy smokers don’t get cancer, either. A recent study points out this overlooked fact, and suggests that researchers might discover something by asking why so many people are resistant to the often deadly disease.

 

George Klein, Professor Emeritus at the Microbiology and Tumor Biology Center at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, has been teaching and researching since the mid-1940s. In a recent study called “Toward a genetics of cancer resistance” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Klein highlights evidence of several biological cancer resistance mechanisms that some individuals have that seem to prevent them from developing cancer. Perhaps, Klein says, there are cancer-resistant genotypes that “nip cancer in the bud” and keep most of us healthy.

As Klein explains, the suffering of cancer patients and their families has inspired most cancer researchers to focus on the genetics of cancer susceptibility. On the other hand, the genetics of cancer resistance has been largely unexplored, possibly because it is assumed to be merely the other side of the susceptibility coin. For example, if cancer is caused by mutations in genes that control cell division, then it logically seems that cancer resistance is simply a low occurrence of these mutations.

But, Klein says, maybe there is another alternative to the concept of cancer resistance. Perhaps most people have various protective mechanisms that counteract the development of cancer cells and stop the disease from progressing beyond the earliest stages.

“Cancer resistance must be investigated on its own merits,” Klein told PhysOrg.com. “It is possible and even likely that evolution has provided our species with highly efficient cancer resistance mechanisms. These may be the mechanisms that prevent most circulating, disseminated cancer cells that are found in the blood of all cancer patients to grow into metastasis, and can also nip cancerous foci (islands of cells in, for example, the prostate or the breast) in the bud, so that they do not progress.”

In a previous discussion, Klein and his coauthors identified five kinds of anticancer mechanisms. The first type is immunological, which applies to virus-associated cancers. For instance, researchers have compared the antibody responses of the squirrel monkey and the marmoset when infected with Herpesvirus saimri, a virus that is endogenous to squirrel monkeys but that the marmoset never encounters. When exposed to the virus, the marmosets, but not the squirrel monkeys, develop rapidly growing lymphomas. The researchers found a striking difference in the timing of each animal’s antibody response. In the tumor-resistant squirrel monkeys, the antibodies rose to a high level just three days after the infection, but, for the marmosets, the response took three weeks. By that time, the marmosets already had a rapidly growing virus-driven lymphoma. Research has shown that such immunological responses are influenced by genetic variation.

Sponsored Links  (Ads by Google)

Apoptosis Detection Kits
Detect apoptosis with ICT's whole cell caspase detection kits
www.immunochemistry.com

Sybr Cells To Ct
Complete workflows for real-time RT-PCR without RNA purification
www.appliedbiosystems.com/c2ct

The second mechanism is genetic, and the most common example is DNA repair mechanisms. Studies have shown that there are individual variations in the efficiency of DNA repair, which is highlighted in cases such as the specific DNA repair deficiency called xeroderma pigmentosum. Individuals with this deficiency are highly sensitive to ultraviolet light, and even with careful protection they develop multiple skin carcinomas due to the genetic deficiency.

The third mechanism is epigenetic, which involve changes in gene expression, rather than changes in the DNA text itself. Studies have shown that when mice that carry a paternal precancerous mutation inherit a maternal imprinting defect, normal parental imprinting is impaired, which can increase the probability of cancerous development. In humans, this same imprinting defect occurs spontaneously and increases tumor incidence, affecting 10% of humans, and increasing their risk of intestinal cancer about threefold.

The last two anticancer mechanisms are intracellular and intercellular. As part of an intracellular defense, a cell can trigger apoptosis, or cell death, if it detects extensive DNA damage, so that the cell doesn’t reproduce and spread the damage. But sometimes, apoptosis isn’t triggered when it should be. For example, individuals who carry the genetically mutated tumor suppressor p53 run an increased risk of inheriting Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop multiple tumors.

Klein predicts that intercellular surveillance by neighboring cells, the fifth known anticancer mechanism, plays a major role in tumor resistance. Cells that are in direct physical contact with each other can detect precancerous conditions in one another, and together act as a microenvironmental control system to prevent the development and progression of unhealthy cells.

While the first four anticancer mechanisms are known to be influenced by genetic variation, little research has been performed on possible genetic or developmental variations in the efficiency of the intercellular anticancer mechanism. However, Klein mentions a group of largely forgotten experiments from the 1950s and ‘60s, where scientists crossed mouse strains that had a high incidence of cancer in a given tissue (due to inbreeding and selection for that particular type of cancer) with mice from a low incidence strain. In the experiments where they studied mammary cancer, hybrid females were taken from this case. Their own mammary glands were removed surgically. One mammary gland from the high cancer strain parent and one gland from the low cancer strain parent were then transplanted to two opposite flanks of the hybrids. Dealing with two inbred strains and their hybrid progeny, there is no problem with graft rejection, Klein explains.

It turned out that tumor incidence in the normal mammary gland derived from the high cancer parent was tenfold higher than in the mammary gland from the low cancer strain. Since both tissues were in the same host, exposed to the same hormonal and viral influences, it meant that the cancerous propensity of the high cancer strain and/or the resistance of the low cancer strain was at least partly inherited at the level of the tissue itself. This genetic difference could either act at the level of the cancer cells or at the level of their microenvironment.

Klein urges researchers to investigate this intercellular issue, along with the genetics of tumor resistance that act in multiple ways. Evolution seems to have favored some relatively common resistance genes that protect the majority of humans against cancer development. One day, finding out how nature keeps most of us cancer-free could help identify and repair specific genetic mechanisms in the large minority of individuals who do suffer from cancer. However, Klein says that it’s premature to speculate exactly how understanding genetic resistance could help people who are susceptible to cancer.

“First, it has to be shown that such protection mechanisms exist and, if so, what cellular and molecular mechanisms are responsible for them,” he said. “Only after that is clear, is it reasonable to ask whether this knowledge can be applied for the practical purpose of, for example, cancer prevention.”

via http://www.physorg.com/news151840958.html

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Vitamin D 'is mental health aid'

Vitamin D, found in fish and produced by sun exposure, can help stave off the mental decline that can affect people in old age, a study has suggested.

UK and US researchers looked at 2,000 people aged 65 and over.

They found that compared to those with the highest vitamin D levels, those with the lowest were more than twice as likely to have impaired understanding.

Alzheimer's charities said the research was interesting, but more work was needed to understand vitamin D's role.

It would be interesting if a low level of vitamin D was found to be a risk factor for cognitive problems as it is cheap and easy to remedy

Dr Susanne Sorensen
Alzheimer's Society

Vitamin D is important in maintaining bone health, in the absorption of calcium and phosphorus, and in helping the immune system.

The body makes vitamin D when it is exposed to the sun, or it can be obtained from foods such as oily fish, and those fortified with vitamin D, such as milk, cereals, and soya drinks.

But older people's skin is less able to absorb vitamin D from sunlight so they are more reliant on obtaining it from other sources.

Supplements

Animal and lab studies have previously suggested that the vitamin can have a beneficial effect on cognitive function.

The team from the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan, assessed people's cognition, or comprehension skills.

People who have impaired cognitive function are more likely to develop dementia.

The researchers looked at people who had taken part in the Health Survey for England in 2000.

Just over 200 had significant cognitive impairment, assessed by looking at people's attention, orientation in time and space and memory.

The study found that as levels of vitamin D went down, levels of cognitive impairment went up.

The paper will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Geriatric Psychology and Neurology.

Dr Iain Lang from the Peninsula Medical School, who worked on the study, said: "For those of us who live in countries where there are dark winters without much sunlight, like the UK, getting enough vitamin D can be a real problem - particularly for older people, who absorb less vitamin D from sunlight.

"One way to address this might be to provide older adults with vitamin D supplements.

"This has been proposed in the past as a way of improving bone health in older people, but our results suggest it might also have other benefits.

"We need to investigate whether vitamin D supplementation is a cost-effective and low-risk way of reducing older people's risks of developing cognitive impairment and dementia."

Risk factor?

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said: "Many foods that contain vitamin D, such as oily fish, eggs and breakfast cereals, are also good sources of vitamin B12, which, as previous studies have shown, can help protect the brain.

"Diet is known to influence dementia risk. The best way of reducing your risk of developing dementia is to maintain a balanced diet with regular exercise and frequent social interactions."

She added: "These findings may be significant, but much more research is needed."

Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, added: "One in three people over 65 will die with dementia so research into how we can reduce risk is to be encouraged.

"There was some previous evidence to suggest that people with dementia may have a lower level of vitamin D in their blood but it was not clear if this happened after the onset of disease.

"It would be interesting if a low level of vitamin D was found to be a risk factor for cognitive problems as it is cheap and easy to remedy.

"We look forward to seeing the published results of this new research to help us better understand the potential role of vitamin D in reducing risk."

via http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7845703.stm

Green tea: 7 more reasons to love the tiny leaf

Video Click the play button on the video window to the see the story
By now, we know that drinking green tea is undoubtedly good for our bodies. The antioxidant and free-radical scavenging properties of green tea have made it a must-have for the health conscious and numerous studies highlight the potential benefits of green tea including cancer prevention and weight loss.
But green tea isn’t just a delicious and healthful drink; it can also be used as an at-home health and beauty remedy. Read on to find out 7 surprising things you didn’t know about green tea
1. It can reduce puffy peepers: Stayed out too late last night? Soaking a cotton pad in green tea and placing it over eyes for 10 minutes can reduce the puffiness of tired eyes, making you look revitalized and refreshed.
2. It can soothe skin: Spent a little too much time in the sun? Use the naturally calming properties of green tea to soothe sunburned skin. Place green tea in a spray bottle and mist on sunburned areas for all-natural relief. Because it has anti-bacterial qualities, green tea can also be used as an antiseptic to spray on skin blemishes or irritations.
3. It’s great for teeth: Green tea has fluoride in it, making it a superstar for keeping gums and teeth healthy. Green tea can even be used as a mouthwash to maintain breath.
4. It can soothe sore throats: The anti-viral effects of green tea make it an excellent remedy to help prevent the effects of a cold or flu. In fact, you can gargle with green tea to soothe a sore throat.
5. It’s good for the bones:  Naturally high in minerals, green tea aids in strong bone density, which is important for maintaining good posture.
6. It’s a room deodorizer:  Green tea leaves have traditionally been used to naturally absorb odors in a room. Place tea leaves in a bowl to help absorb unpleasant odors or leave some in the fridge in place of baking soda.
7. It’s good for the feet: Soaking tired feet in green tea can prevent unpleasant fungal infections.

via http://www.abc15.com/content/style/beauty/story/Green-tea-7-more-reasons-to-love-the-tiny-leaf/tWUqZbd9NU-YD-PkgoFYEg.cspx

Weight loss easier when you get paid for it: Study

Losing weight is easier when there is money on the line, U.S. researchers say.

CHICAGO -- Losing weight is easier when there is money on the line, U.S. researchers say.

They said weight-loss programs that reward people with money -- and remind them of the cash they stand to lose if they fail -- provided a powerful incentive to lose weight compared with more conventional approaches.

Dr. Kevin Volpp of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine was looking for an effective way to treat obesity, a growing problem that carries serious health risks.

He said many weight-loss programs fail because people are being asked to make sacrifices now for rewards in the future.

“We wanted to create a reward system which gave them rewards in the present,'' said Volpp, whose study appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Volpp and colleagues studied two kinds of incentive programs for weight loss. One was a lottery-based design in which participants played a lottery and were allowed to collect their winnings if they met their weight-loss target.

The lotteries were running daily, and people were told what their winnings would have been if they had met their weight-loss target.

“There is a very strong sense of loss aversion,'' the theory that people are highly motivated to avoid losses, Volpp said in a telephone interview.

“The idea was to create a mechanism where loss aversion would help drive people's motivation,'' he said.

The other was a deposit contract, in which participants invested a small amount of their own money -- between 1 cent and $3 per day -- which they would lose at the end of the month if they failed to reach their goals. People in this group also got a bonus if they met their goal.

“You only received your reward at the end of the month if your weight was below the stated goal for the month,'' Volpp said.

The researchers assigned 57 obese but otherwise healthy people to one of these two groups or a control group, in which people were simply weighed at the end of each month. All were aiming to lose 16 pounds by the end of four months.

People in the incentive groups lost far more weight than those who got no pay for their efforts, with about half of the participants in each group meeting their weight loss goals.

People in the lottery program earned a total of $378.49 and lost about 13 pounds, while people in the deposit group got $272.80 and lost 14 pounds.

Those in the control group, who were merely rewarded by better-fitting jeans, lost about 4 pounds after four months.

Volpp said the studies were highly effective at producing short-term weight loss, but when the money stopped flowing, the weight began to creep back on.

“We need to establish whether they can be effective in sustaining weight loss as well,'' he said.

via http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/story.html?id=1053538

Want to Live to 100? Move to a Blue Zone!

Have you heard? There’s a spiritual movement afoot in America, and it is lead by the chosen one, the goddess divine, the picker of presidents – Madame Oprah Winfrey. But before you groan and turn away, I urge you to consider the latest project infused with Oprah’s superpower support. It is called The Blue Zones, and it makes good sense.  The Blue Zones is the study of areas around the world that have the highest number of centenarians. The people in these areas all share certain lifestyle elements. Mostly importantly, they eat locally. And they eat green.

In 2005, Dr. Luis Rosero-Bixby presented a paper at an international conference claiming that some Costa Ricans have the longest life expectancy of anyone in the world. This was scandalous to some. How could “The Third World” (cue dramatic music: dun dun DUN!) have such a high number of healthy elderly? Scientist Dan Buettner, funded by National Geographic, decided to investigate. Buettner has since revealed why many of his subjects have avoided the diseases of old age that pick the rest of us off like flies. And it is not just Costa Ricans. Locations like Sardinia, Italy, Okinawa, Japan, and Loma Linda, California, also have a high rate of healthy 100 year olds.

So what do these areas have in common? First of all, the people who live in them all promote sustainable living. They load up on local vegetables and plant proteins. The preparation of Blue Zoners’ food also adds to their longevity. The reasoning is this: if you are involved in the planting, harvesting, and preparation of your meals, you are more likely to get a good amount of exercise at an older age. Apparently, sustained, mindless motion such as hoeing is good for the body. My own grandmother constantly crocheted – and she lived to be 91.

Great, so there are places in the world where you can live to be 100. What happens if you don’t live there? Well, you can live life as if you do. Dan Buettner has broken down the rest of the Blue Zones’ shared traits into nine different behaviors. Among others, the behaviors include knowing your purpose in life, making your family a priority, creating a healthy social network, and calming down.

And finally, you can go to www.bluezones.com, answer some questions, and see how you can diffuse the ticking time bomb that is your life. You enter your gender, age, height, weight, and information about your diet and lifestyle. You know, you answer the kind of questions where you start off smug. Then you realize there actually are people out there who eat 4-6 daily servings of whole grains and vegetables AND fruits. Suddenly, your 1-2 servings of vegetables looks pathetic.

Once your information is entered, you get your results. My report had my “biological” age at five years younger than my “chronological” age. (Score whole grains!) I will also live to be 94 years old (rock on!), but will only be disease-free until age 79.9. (Bummer.)

But the good news is that I could add on 3.5 years to my life if I get Blue Zoney. For instance, I could be more spiritual. And in the end, that might not be the worst thing. After all, if it works for Oprah, it can work for her minion. Which may be me. Or it may not be me. I’ll never tell!

Male brain vs. female brain II: What is an “extreme male brain”? What is an “extreme female brain”?

Both the systemizing/mechanistic skills characteristic of the male brain and the empathizing/mentalistic skills characteristic of the female brain are distributed normally in the population. It means that most men and most women have their sex-typical brains in the moderate range, but some people have extremely strong or extremely weak versions (just like most people are of average height, but some people are extremely tall or extremely short). What are the “extreme male brain”? What are the “extreme female brain”?

Simon Baron-Cohen revolutionized the study of autism and autism-spectrum disorders (such as Asperger’s syndrome) by suggesting that autism is a manifestation of an “extreme male brain.” The male brain tends toward systemizing and mechanistic thinking, treating other people as if they were logical systems or machines. If you take this tendency to an extreme, you would treat everyone as if they were machines without minds or feelings. That, according to Baron-Cohen, is the essence of autism, which he calls “mindblindness.” Mindblind people (autistics) are blind to other people’s minds or emotions. In fact, they don’t even know that other people have minds separate from their own; autistics tend to assume that other people know and think exactly what they do. Baron-Cohen’s notion of autism as the extreme male brain explains why an overwhelming majority of autistics (four out of five) are men and there are relatively few female autistics (although, once again, there are exceptions to the general pattern; there is an occasional “girl with a boy’s brain.”)

Even after Baron-Cohen figured out the essence of autism as an extreme male brain, the nature of the other extreme, an extreme female brain, remained a puzzle, until Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock figured out what an extreme female brain might entail.

The female brain tends toward empathizing and mentalizing thinking, treating machines and objects as if they were other people. They attribute minds, thoughts, and feelings to inanimate objects. That, according to Crespi and Badcock, is the essence of paranoid schizophrenia. Paranoid schizophrenics hear voices where there are no people, and they attribute minds and thinking where none exist, such as when they believe other people are talking about or conspiring against them when they aren’t. Paranoid schizophrenics are hypermentalistic, and overinfer minds and emotions in other people, just as autistics are hypomentalistic, and underinfer minds and emotions in other people.

In their forthcoming article in the premier journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Crespi and Badcock present a very convincing case for paranoid schizophrenia as an extreme female brain. Now the whole picture appears to be complete. When your brain is “too male,” too systemizing, too mechanistic, you become autistic. When your brain is “too female,” too empathizing, too mentalistic, you become paranoid schizophrenic. If the extreme male brain of an autistic is “mindblind,” then you might suggest that the extreme female brain of a paranoid schizophrenia is “logicblind.”

[Postscript:  As it turns out, there are subtle differences between Baron-Cohen's theory and Crespi and Badcock's theory which I failed to explain fully in my original post.  While Baron-Cohen suggests that autism results from extreme male brains, Crespi and Badcock propose that autism results from paternal brains (under the control of the father's genes) and paranoid schizophrenia results from maternal brains (under the control of the mother's genes).  I'd refer interested readers to their forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences for further details.]

 

via http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-ii-what-is-extreme-male-brain-w

Exploring the Folds of the Brain--And Their Links to Autism

Key Concepts
  • The cerebral cortex is the structure that gives the organ its convoluted surface. It is involved with high-level processing of our perceptions, thoughts, emotions and actions.
  • Intricate folding permits the expansive cortex to fit inside a skull with limited surface area.
  • Recent discoveries have shown that mechanical tension between neurons creates the hills and valleys of the cortex.
  • The cortical landscape differs between healthy people and individuals with brain disorders that originate during development, such as autism. These shape differences suggest that connections between brain regions of affected individuals also depart from the norm.

 

One of the first things people notice about the human brain is its intricate landscape of hills and valleys. These convolutions derive from the cerebral cortex, a two- to four-millimeter-thick mantle of gelatinous tissue packed with neurons sometimes called gray matter that mediates our perceptions, thoughts, emotions and actions. Other large-brained mammals such as whales, dogs and our great ape cousins have a corrugated cortex, too each with its own characteristic pattern of convolutions. But small-brained mammals and other vertebrates have relatively smooth brains. The cortex of large-brained mammals expanded considerably over the course of evolution much more so than the skull. Indeed, the surface area of a flattened human cortex equivalent to that of an extra-large pizza is three times larger than the inner surface of the braincase. Thus, the only way the cortex of humans and other brainy species can fit into the skull is by folding.

This folding is not random, as in a crumpled piece of paper. Rather it exhibits a pattern that is consistent from person to person. How does this folding occur in the first place? And what, if anything, can the resulting topography reveal about brain function? New research indicates that a network of nerve fibers physically pulls the pliable cortex into shape during development and holds it in place throughout life. Disturbances to this network during development or later, as a result of a stroke or injury, can have far-reaching consequences for brain shape and neural communication. These discoveries could therefore lead to new strategies for diagnosing and treating patients with certain mental disorders.

Scientists have pondered the brain's intricate form for centuries. In the early 1800s German physician Franz Joseph Gall proposed that the shape of a person's brain and skull spoke volumes about that individual's intelligence and personality a theory known as phrenology. This influential, albeit scientifically unsupported, idea led to the collection and study of "criminal," "degenerate" and "genius" brains. Then, in the latter part of the 19th century, Swiss anatomist Wilhelm His posited that the brain develops as a sequence of events guided by physical forces. British polymath D'Arcy Thompson built on that foundation, showing that the shapes of many structures, biological and inanimate, result from physical self-organization.

Provocative though they were, these early suppositions eventually faded from view. Phrenology became known as a pseudoscience, and modern genetic theories eclipsed the biomechanical approach to understanding brain structure. Recently, however, evidence from novel brain-imaging techniques, aided by sophisticated computational analyses, has lent fresh support to some of those 19th-century notions.

Hints that His and Thompson were on the right track with their ideas about physical forces shaping biological structures surfaced in 1997. Neurobiologist David Van Essen of Washington University in St. Louis published a hypothesis in Nature in which he suggested that the nerve fibers that link different regions of the cortex, thereby enabling them to communicate with one another, produce small tension forces that pull at this gelatinous tissue. In a human fetus, the cortex starts out smooth and mostly remains that way for the first six months of development. During that time, the newborn neurons send out their spindly fibers, or axons, to hook up with the receptive components, or dendrites, of target neurons in other regions of the cortex. The axons then become tethered to the dendrites. As the cortex expands, the axons grow ever more taught, stretching like rubber bands. Late in the second trimester, while neurons are still emerging, migrating and connecting, the cortex begins to fold. By the time of birth the cortex has more or less completed development and attained its characteristically wrinkled form.

Van Essen argued that two regions that are strongly linked that is, connected via numerous axons are drawn closer together during development by way of the mechanical tension along the tethered axons, producing an outward bulge, or gyrus, between them. A pair of weakly connected regions, in contrast, drifts apart, becoming separated by a valley, or sulcus.

Modern techniques for tracing neural pathways have made it possible to test the hypothesis that the communication system of the cortex is also responsible for shaping the brain. According to a simple mechanical model, if each axon pulls with a small amount of force, the combined force of axons linking strongly connected areas should straighten the axon paths. Using a tool known as retrograde tracing, in which a dye injected in a small area of the cortex is taken up by the endings of axons and transported backward to the parent cell body, it is possible to show which regions send axons to the injection site. Furthermore, the method can reveal both how dense the connections of an area are and what shapes their axon paths take. Our retrograde tracing studies of a large number of neural connections in the rhesus macaque have demonstrated that, as predicted, most connections follow straight or slightly curved paths. Moreover, the denser the connections are, the straighter they tend to run.

The sculpting power of neural connections is particularly evident in the shape differences between language regions in the left and right hemispheres of the human brain [see "Specializations of the Human Brain," by Norman Geschwind; Scientific American, September 1979]. Take, for instance, the form of the Sylvian fissure a prominent sulcus that separates the frontal and posterior language regions. The fissure on the left side of the brain is quite a bit shallower than the one on the right. The asymmetry seems to be related to the anatomy of a large fiber bundle called the arcuate fascicle, which travels around the fissure to connect the frontal and posterior language regions. Based on this observation and the fact that the left hemisphere is predominantly responsible for language in most people, we postulated in a paper published in 2006 that the arcuate fascicle on the left is denser than the one on the right. A number of imaging studies of the human brain have confirmed this asymmetrical fiber density. In theory, then, the larger fiber bundle should have a greater pulling strength and therefore be straighter than the bundle on the right side. This hypothesis has yet to be tested, however.

Mechanical forces shape more than just the large-scale features of the cerebral cortex. They also have an effect on its layered structure. The cortex is made of horizontal tiers of cells, stacked up as in a multilayered cake. Most areas have six layers, and individual layers in those areas vary in thickness and composition. For example, the regions of the cortex that govern the primary senses have a thick layer 4, and the region that controls voluntary motor functions has a thick layer 5. Meanwhile the association areas of the cortex which underlie thinking and memory, among other things have a thick layer 3.

Such variations in laminar structure have been used to divide the cortex into specialized areas for more than 100 years, most famously by German anatomist Korbinian Brodmann, who created a map of the cortex that is still in use today. Folding changes the relative thickness of the layers, as would happen if one were to bend a stack of sponges. In the gyri, the top layers of the cortex are stretched and thinner, whereas in the sulci, the top layers are compressed and thicker. The relations are reversed in the deep layers of the cortex.

Based on these observations, some scientists had suggested that whereas the shapes of layers and neurons change as they are stretched or compressed, the total area of the cortex and the number of neurons it comprises are the same. If so, thick regions (such as the deep layers of gyri) should contain fewer neurons than thin regions of the cortex. This isometric model, as it is known, assumes that during development neurons first migrate to the cortex and then the cortex folds. For an analogy, imagine folding a bag of rice. The shape of the bag changes, but its capacity and the number of grains are the same before and after folding.

Our investigations into the density of neurons in areas of the prefrontal cortex in rhesus macaques reveal that the isometric model is wrong, though. Using estimates based on representative samples of frontal cortex, we determined that the deep layers of gyri are just as densely populated with neurons as the deep layers of sulci. And because the deep layers of gyri are thicker, there are actually more neurons under a unit area in gyri than in sulci.

Our discovery hinted that the physical forces that mold the gyri and sulci also influence neuronal migration. Developmental studies in humans have bolstered this suggestion. Rather than occurring sequentially, the migration of neurons to the cortex and the folding of the cortex partially overlap in time. Consequently, as the cortex folds, the resulting stretching and compressing of layers may well affect the passage of newly born neurons that migrate into the cortex late in development, which in turn would affect the composition of the cortex.

Moreover, the shapes of individual neurons differ depending on where in the cortex they reside. Neurons situated in the deep layers of gyri, for example, are squeezed from the sides and appear elongated. In contrast, neurons located in the deep layers of sulci are stretched and look flattened. The shapes of these cells are consistent with having been modified by mechanical forces as the cortex folded. It will be an intriguing challenge to figure out whether such systematic differences in the shapes of neurons in gyri and sulci also affect their function.

Our computer simulations suggest that they do: for example, because the cortical sheet is much thicker in the gyri than in the sulci, signals impinging on the dendrites of neurons at the bottom of a gyrus must travel a longer distance to the cell body than do signals impinging on the dendrites of neurons at the bottom of a sulci. Researchers can test the effect of these physical differences on the function of neurons by recording the activity of individual neurons across the undulating cortical landscape work that, to our knowledge, has yet to be undertaken.

To fully understand the relation between form and function, scientists will need to look at an abundance of brains. The good news is that now that we can observe the living human brain using noninvasive imaging techniques, such as structural magnetic resonance imaging, and reconstruct it in three dimensions on computers, we are able to collect images of a great many brains far more than are featured in any of the classical collections of brains obtained after death. Re searchers are systematically studying these extensive databases using sophisticated computer programs to analyze brain shape. One of the key findings from this research is that clear differences exist between the cortical folds of healthy people and those of patients with mental diseases that start in development, when neurons, connections and convolutions form. The mechanical relation between fiber connections and convolutions may explain these deviations from the norm.

Research into this potential link is still in its early phases. But over the past couple of years, several research teams have reported that the brains of schizophrenic patients exhibit reduced cortical folding overall relative to the brains of normal people. The findings are controversial, because the location and type of the folding aberrations vary considerably from person to person. We can say with certainty, however, that brain shape generally differs between schizophrenics and healthy people. Experts have often attributed schizophrenia to a perturbed neurochemical balance. The new work suggests that there is additionally a flaw in the circuitry of the brain's communication system, although the nature of the flaw remains unknown.

People diagnosed with autism also exhibit abnormal cortical convolutions. Specifically, some of their sulci appear to be deeper and slightly out of place as compared with those of healthy subjects. In light of this finding, researchers have begun to conceive of autism as a condition that arises from the miswiring of the brain. Studies of brain function support that notion, showing that in autistic people, communication between nearby cortical areas increases, whereas communication between distant areas decreases. As a result, these patients have difficulties ignoring irrelevant things and shifting their attention when it is appropriate to do so.

Mental disorders and learning disabilities can also be associated with aberrations in the composition of the cortical layers. For instance, in the late 1970s neurologist Albert Galaburda of Harvard Medical School found that in dyslexia the pyramidal neurons that form the chief communication system of the cerebral cortex are shifted from their normal position in the layers of the language and auditory areas of the frontal cortex. Schizophrenia, too, may leave imprints on the cortical architecture: some frontal areas of the cortex in affected individuals are aberrant in their neural density. Abnormal distribution of neurons in cortical layers disrupts their pattern of connections, which ultimately impairs the fundamental function of the nervous system in communication. Researchers are just beginning to probe structural abnormalities of the cortex in people with autism, which may further elucidate this puzzling condition.

More studies are needed to ascertain whether other neurological diseases that originate during development also bring about changes in the number and positions of neurons in the cortical layers. Thinking of schizophrenia and autism as disorders that affect neural networks, as opposed to localized parts of the brain, might lead to novel strategies for diagnosis and treatment. For instance, patients who have these conditions might profit from performing tasks that engage different parts of the brain, just as dyslexics benefit from using visual and multimodal aids in learning.

Modern neuroimaging methods have also enabled scientists to test the phrenological notion that cortical convolutions or the amount of gray matter in different brain regions can reveal a person's talents. Here, too, linking form and function is fraught with difficulty. The connection is clearest in people who routinely engage in well-defined coordinated mental and physical exercise.

Professional musicians offer one such example. These individuals, who need to practice extensively, systematically differ from nonmusicians in motor regions of the cortex that are involved in the control of their particular instruments. Still, clear folding patterns that distinguish broader mental talents remain elusive.

We still have much to unravel. For one, we do not yet understand how individual gyri attain their specific size and shape, any more than we understand the developmental underpinnings of variation in ear or nose shape among individuals. Variation is a very complex problem. Computational models that simulate the diversity of physical interactions between neurons during cortical development may throw light on this question in the future. So far, however, the models are very preliminary because of the complexity of the physical interactions and the limited amount of developmental data available.

Scholars are also keen to know more about how the cortex develops. Topping our wish list is a detailed timetable of the formation of the many different connections that make up its extensive communication system. By marking neurons in animals, we will be able to determine when different parts of the cortex develop in the womb, which, in turn, will enable scientists to experimentally modify the development of distinct layers or neurons. Information about the sequence of development will help reveal events that result in abnormal brain morphology and function. The range of neurological diseases with vastly different symptoms such as those seen in schizophrenia, autism, Williams syndrome, childhood epilepsy, and other disorders may be the result of pathology arising at different times in development and variously affecting regions, layers and sets of neurons that happen to be emerging, migrating or connecting when the process goes awry.

To be sure, mechanical forces are not alone in modeling the brain. Comparisons of brain shape have demonstrated that brains of closely related people are more similar to one another than are brains of unrelated people, indicating that genetic programs are at work, too. Perhaps genetic processes control the timing of development of the cortex, and simple physical forces shape the brain as nerve cells are born, migrate and interconnect in a self-organizing fashion. Such a combination may help explain the remarkable regularity of the major convolutions among individuals, as well as the diversity of small convolutions, which differ even in identical twins.

Many of the current concepts about the shape of the brain have come full circle from ideas first proposed more than a century ago, including the notion of a link between brain shape and brain function. Systematic comparisons of brain shape across populations of normal subjects and patients with brain disorders affirm that the landscape of the brain does correlate with mental function and dysfunction.

But even with the advanced imaging methods for measuring brains, experts still cannot recognize the cortex of a genius or a criminal when they see one. New models of cortex folding that combine genetics and physical principles will help us integrate what we know about morphology, development and connectivity so that we may eventually unlock these and other secrets of the brain.

 

via http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sculpting-the-brain

Thursday, January 22, 2009

How Can I Lose 10 Pounds in Two Months?

Your Questions

I get plenty of questions in various comments throughout the website, but I also get comments and questions via the Project Swole Contact Form.

Generally I address those questions through e-mail, but often I do not have the time to reply to each and every question personally.

From now on I want to take a more proactive approach to answering your questions by posting them separately in the blog. This way we can be sure that everyone benefits from the Q & A.

Paula wrote:

“I am looking to loose my belly (its a small one but there non the less) in the next 2 months. I want to drop about 10lbs and get tone. I’m not a huge meat eater, my protein usually comes from fish, chicken and tofu. Do you have any recommendations, besides eating fewer than 100g of carbs and hitting the treadmill everyday?”

Response:

Paula, let me start by saying that I do not recommend you to hit the treadmill everyday. You could probably hit the treadmill about 20 times in one day (with an axe) and never have to hit it again.

You won’t be using the treadmill much at all actually, as long as we can find suitable alternatives. In fact if you own and hate a treadmill I would recommend you start some sledgehammer training by bludgeoning the thing to pieces in the backyard. (I hate treadmills only slightly less than squatting in a smith machine.)

The only details I know about you are what you described above, so I’m limited in my ability to tell you what to do. I can assure you that I’ll do the best I can with what I have, which is inevitably not that much considering all I have is my own brain.

There will be 3 steps to this 2 month weight loss, and you have to follow all 3 in order to see the results you want.

Preparation

Before you start this program, you should weigh yourself either on Sunday night or Monday morning and take all the measurements you care about. Usually I take measurements at the mid upper arm, chest, waist, belly button, hips, and mid thigh. Record all these numbers and repeat once a week. Keep it consistent though; if you measure on Sunday night, always measure on Sunday night.

  1. Diet
    Since diet is responsible for 80% of your fat loss results, we should tackle diet first.

    What you need to do, is to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks each day.
    The meals should consist of 4 oz of lean meat such as chicken, turkey, eggs (whites), and fish; a complex carb such as oatmeal, whole grain bread, brown rice, whole grain cereal, a sweet potato (or yam), or a small white potato; and a green vegetable such as asparagus, broccoli, bean, peas, or salad.

    Only one 4 oz serving of meat and one serving of your chosen carbohydrate is allowed, while multiple servings of vegetables are encouraged.

    For your snacks you will choose a piece of fruit, a serving of dry roasted unsalted nuts, more vegetables, a low sugar protein shake or protein bar, or another 4 oz of lean meat. Also consider dairy products such as yogurt, cottage cheese, milk, and cheese, but make sure those products have NO SUGAR in them.

    Most meals will add up to about 350 calories, while snacks will be roughly 150 calories, for a total of roughly 1500 calories. Since I don’t know anything about you, I am using 1500 as a baseline.

    A more accurate way to get a base caloric level would be to multiply your current weight by 13 to get a maintenance level and subtract about 200 calories to put you in a deficit. You would then add or subtract 100 calories each week depending on whether you lose too little, too much, or just the right amount of weight the previous week.

    Ideally you will lose 5 lbs in the first 10 days and 2 pounds each week thereafter. You can see how easy it is to lose 10 lbs in just 2 months.

    So what’s the catch? You have to really commit to this kind of diet in order to lose 10 lbs in 2 months. You have to get all your meals in as scheduled and you have to eliminate added sugar and junk food of any kind. This is a strict diet designed to lose weight quickly. A better representation will be presented when I publish Project Shred in the near future.

    Please do yourself a favor and commit to this diet entirely for one month. Do not cheat even once. This is the way you will lose 10 lbs in 2 months, not by just eating healthy.

    Besides this diet is just about the healthiest eating you can do, so imagine if you could convert to this type of eating full time for the rest of your life. I’ve seen no less than 4 people already decide to do this after trying the diet for a couple weeks.

  2. Exercise
    You really should exercise 5-6 times each week for maximal fat loss when following this plan, however I have seen people get good results with only 3, 1 hour long workouts in a week.

    This can be 2 cardio workouts and 3 weight training workouts, 5 cardio workouts, however you choose to split it up is fine with me. Cardio and weight lifting workouts must be at least 30 minutes in duration, but remember that if you only workout 3 times, and each workout is a low intensity 30 minute cardio workout on the treadmill, you will definitely NOT maximize your fat loss.

    For weight training, you should follow a 3 day total body workout routine, an example of which you can find here: total body workout routine.

    For cardio, you should follow an high intensity interval training (HIIT) sprint routine where you sprint for 30 seconds, slow down for 2 minutes, sprint for 30 seconds, slow down for 2 minutes, and keep repeating this for 20 minutes. HIIT training can be done with many exercises including machines, jogging, biking, rowing, stair sprints, etc…

    If you have a better solution for high intensity cardio, please do it. Some examples might be spinning, extreme kickboxing, jumping rope, or a plyometric circuit. Just please don’t walk on the treadmill for 30 minutes and call it a ‘cardio workout’.

    Don’t forget to also stretch for 10 minutes after each workout session.

  3. Lifestyle
    You may not believe I’m about to say this, but this might not be the best time to make major lifestyle changes, with a couple exceptions. My reason being because this diet is going to be tough enough as it is, never mind making psychologically taxing changes like quitting cigarettes. That could be the sort of straw that can break a camel’s back.

    Instead focus on positive lifestyle changes that you can add to your life. Things like sleeping an extra hour or drinking an extra bottle of water. You should be drinking 8, 8 oz glasses each day. If you must drink coffee, limit it to one cup per day. NO SUGAR. Learn to drink it black or with 1/2 a shot of skim milk. Decaf would be even better.

    Be sure to take your multi-vitamin each day as well as any other supplements you might use, like calcium and possibly a fiber pill or powder. Trust me when I say the extra fiber will come in handy on this diet. Also pick up an Omega-3 fatty acid supplement such as Fish Oil or Flaxseed Oil.

    Attempt to stay de-stressed as much as possible. Meditate if that’s what you do. Watch a movie if that’s what you do. Whatever it is, try to relax whenever possible. Also, if possible try to do a bit of sex. Sex always obliterates stress completely… at least for an hour or so.

Afterward

On a positive note, you can relax a bit after the first month. Stay strict for 30 days, then allow foods to creep back in that you know are pretty healthy such as light flavored yogurt, cottage cheese with pineapple, lean ground beef, whole egg omelets, etc…

The important piece will be to keep your eating habits pretty healthy, maintain your workout routine, keep living healthy, and keep the calories monitored so that you don’t regular go above your maintenance level.

After the 2 months, I would highly suggest you don’t go back to eating junk food. Always keep your sugars, animal fats, trans fats, and starches low. Foods like pasta, lamb, nachos, and cake should be avoided 99% of the time. Staying strict on this diet will make your body feel awesome and I really don’t think you will enjoy eating garbage food again. And keep having sex.

via http://www.projectswole.com/your-questions/how-can-i-lose-10-pounds-in-two-months/

Death is only the beginning

Any animal that uses emotions to focus its attention has a evolutionarily relevant fear of death. When something supposedly death-related appears in its immediacy, the animal must attend to identifying and responding to possible threats, each in its own way. We humans have inherited this fear of death, but human intelligence allows many new ways for environmental cues to suggest death to us. This is a clear comparative advantage, but it brings us some problems too. So we usually have a hard time trying to manage our wandering thoughts, in order to avoid triggering this fear too often, and to avoid a more than necessary level of response to the identified threat. This trouble in thinking about death is often used to explain "irrational" behavior like delay in in writing wills, or arranging for life insurance or HIV tests, or interest in odd religious believes.
Death as a great mistery
People in every culture believe in some kind of afterlife or, at the very least, are unsure about what happens to the mind at death. Why do we wonder where our mind goes when the body is dead? After all, the mind is what the brain does - i.e., it's more a verb than a noum.
The common view of death as a great mistery usually is brushed aside as an emotionally fueled desire to believe that death isn't the end of the road. According to the proponents of the Terror Management Theory, a school of research in Social Psychology, we possess a "secret" arsenal of psychological defenses designed to keep our death anxieties at bay. Writing books, for example, would be interpreted as an exercise in "symbolic immortality", even if we are no believers in the afterlife: We write them for posterity, to enable a concrete set of our ephemeral ideas to outlive our biological organisms. Other, less obvious, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes would also exist to assuage what would otherwise be crippling anxiety about the ego's existence. Actually, this is only a part of a wider machinery: Our innate, dangerous and necessary art of self-deception, something that, e.g., Adam Smith, Freud and Sartre have placed at the core of their theories of human behavior and emotions. But the concept of self-deception, in its various forms, has a longer history in the western thought. E.g,. Penelope doesn't really want Odysseus to come back home, nor is he truly so sad to be leaving again at the end of the story; Romeo and Juliette were not quite sure of their love.
Here's a brief sequence of daily facts representing common instances of human self-deception. "Marital aggrandizement" is an unrealisticly positive assessment of one's spouse and marriage, a technical term often used by psychologists to refer to the all-important selective forgetfulness, one of the basis elements of a satisfactory marriage. Most people think they are smarter than average; if necessary, we redefine the dimension of the "competition" so we can "win". People talk down some of their skills in some areas to signal and maintain a self-image of modesty. We look with an artificial skepticism to our previous selves, seeking to confirm the (usually false) impression that we are capable of taking a long, hard look at ourselves, and, most of all, to support our current and largely positive self-image. When people cannot claim a credit themselves, they often seek the glory of affiliation, and then they cannot fathom that their affiliated causes couldn't be always nation-worthy. Debates and exchange of information between experts often polarize opinion rather than producing even partial convergence. This reluctance to defer not always appears to be a well-grounded suspicion of others. Many people are deliberately dismissive and irrational in their points of view, while maintaining a passionate self-righteousness. They are the opposite of how "information gatherers/processors" would behave; i.e., people don't behave as having "rational expectations", so their biased perception of the world is one of the most important factors for understanding incentives.
We usually don't feel very afraid of death, and we are not aware of thinking about death much. However, it seems that we are just not very aware of how much the fear of death directs our thinking. Psychologists have found that even weak death cues measurably change our thinking, usually in the direction of larger self-deception. Some people think the religion and other supernatural beliefs exist primarily to help people deal with death fears. However, a small number of researcher on psychology are now increasingly arguing that these irrational beliefs are an inevitable by-product of the evolution of self-consciousness. All the abovementioned behaviors/beliefs were fully functional for our distant ancestors: By believing more in themselves and in their affiliations, they would credibly signal their ability and loyalty, which might inspire their neighbors to help to protect them more from threats. They also "suffered" the illusion that their minds were immortal. Unmistakenly, we have inherited all these gross irrationality from them, so that we, by virtue of our evolved cognitive architectures, e.g., had trouble conceptualizing our own psychological inexistence from the start. E.g., be you an "extinctivist" or a "continuist", your own mortality is unfalsifiable from the first-person perspective. Instead of the usual "cultural indoctrination hypothesis", this new theory assumes the falsifiable "simulation constraint hypothesis": As we've never consciously been without consciousness, even our best simulations of "true nothingness" just aren't good enough, then in order to imagine what it's like to be dead we appeal to our background of conscious experiences(1). Indeed, from an evolutionary perspective, a coherent theory about psychological death is not necessarily vital, sufficing, instead, that we understand the cessation of "agency", something even a baby can do.
Despite the underlying reasons, some kind and level of self-deception is often OK or even necessary. E.g, depressed people, even though their thought processes are often quite irrational, tend to have more accurate views about their real standing in the world. However, self-deception can also exist for our great disadvantage. Individuals often stick with their political views even when a contrary reality stares them in the face. Entire sectors of today's modern economies are based on self-deception. E.g., people spend their money with gym memberships because they are unwilling to confromt their illusions about how much they dislike exercise. (Or they might think, incorrectly, that the flat fee will get them to go to the gym more often.) This clear cost of a specific self-deception (about exercise) demonstrates how strong an incentive we have to self-deceive. Add to this the higher and not so measurable long-run health costs of actually not doing the exercises.
Fairy Tales and Quack Cures
We usually believe that all that abovementioned tales of self-deception are not that applicable to modern society's ever advancing medicine and resulting health/life span improvements. As we understand a great deal about the mechanisms of life, we have generated reasoned hypotheses about the causes of death and the interventions that might prevent it. But biological systems are far too complex for us to have so much confidence in such hypotheses. Furthermore, informal medical judgements often fall short of statistical standards, so that clinical experience cannot by itself assure much thing. Indeed, doctors mostly just copy what doctors around them do and don't rely on specific scientific studies.
Drugs approved by the regulatory body to treat a certain condition can be freely prescribed to treat any other condition, regardless of what studies say. Even within the approved uses there are serious doubts. Today's blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have being under hard criticism for more than 10 years. Three common problems are most often cited:

  1. drug companies often do a bunch of trials, but only report the trials that make their drugs look good;
  2. drug companines usually run best case trials - i.e., on patients most likely to benefit and under doctors most likely to make good decisions;
  3. patients who experience side-effects are assured that they are getting the real treatment (the enhanced placebo effect, or unblinding).


The antidepressants (ADs) debate is a particularly "hot" instance of this problem, with formally published populist titles as "Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo" and "The Emperor's new drugs". Although the pooling of various studies, including previously unreported "negatives", results in a highly statistically significant effect in favor of ADs (agains placebo), the cause and the size of this effect are much disputed. Even if we assume or conclude that at least the Emperor's clothes are made of "real cloth"(2), remains the "weaker" argument that the effect is small enough to be clinically unimportant. Aside from the discussion about how big an effect is required to be clinically important, the fact is that today's standard RCTs are not designed to determine the size of the effect in usual clinical practice (i.e., their effectiveness). Indeed, to be able to estimate the real added value of ADs in particular patient groups is generally recognized to be no easy task.
Generally speaking, there's increasing concern that in modern medical research, false findings may be the majority, or even the vast majority of published research claims. In august, 2005, PLoS Medicine published a paper by John P.A. Ioannides, in which he argues that this should not be surprising, as it can be "easily" proved. Ioannidis derives the following list of corollaries about the probability that a research find is already true (some of them are pretty intuitive):

  1. the smaller the number of studies conducted, the less likely the finding are to be true;
  2. the smaller the effect sizes, the less likely the finds are to be true;
  3. the greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships, the less likely the findings are to be true;
  4. the greater the flexibility in desings, definitions, and analytical modes, the less likely the findings are to be true;
  5. the greater the financial and other interests/prejudices, the less likely the finds are to be true;
  6. the greater the number of scientific teams involved (i.e., replications), the less likely the findings are to be true(3).


At his framework, findings from underpowered, early phase clinical trials would be true about one in four times, or even less frequently if bias is present. A fact: The majority of modern (bio)medical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings. Furthermore, assuming a "null field" (i.e., one with absolutely no yield of true scientific information(4), then one for which is usually expected that all observed effect sizes vary by chance around the null in the absence of bias), all deviations from what's expected by chance alone would be simply a pure measure of the prevailing bias. It follows that, between many "null fields", the fields that claim stronger effects (often with accompanying claims of medical and publich health relevance) are simply those that have sustained the worst biases. It means that too large and too highly significant effects may actually be more likely to be signs of large bias and then should lead researchers to careful thinking about what have gone wrong with their data, analysis, and results.
Correlations-in-the-world studies usually see little to no effect at all of marginal medical care - i.e., the care some people get and other people not get, that is, an useless-in-average care - on health, while gender, exercise and social status, for example, can change lifespans by 10 to 15 years or more. Even a large, randomized trial conducted in the late 1970s by the RAND Institute found no significant difference in general health between people with more (public) health care and those with less(5). Furthermore, it can also be concluded that common/basic care (roughly two thirds of the spending) and marginal care (the remaing third) had the same fraction of "innapropriate" hospital admissions and care-days, and the same fraction of major and catastrophic desease presentations (relative to moderate and asymptomatic desease manifestations; as reviewed a posteriori).
Thus, the strange fact is that we cannot be so sure about why we now live so much longer. However, this type of reasoning is largely ignored by society as whole, as the idea that we mostly don't understand and actually cannot control death, despite all the advancements of medicine and technology in general, is just not a message people want to hear. Then, nations and families spend now a significant proportion of their incomes on medicine, even though at least a third of that has been clearly demonstrated to be on average useless (marginal care), and even though we have good reasons to doubt the value of most of the other two thirds (common care). Meanwhile, we seem relatively uninterested in living longer by trying the things the evidence suggests to work, at an individual basis, such as gaining high social status, exercising more, smoking less, and living in rural areas. We eagerly hand over all our life/death decisions to doctors, in order to think about other things. It's easier just to trust our doctors than having to think about death, or any serious desease at all.
In summary, humans evolved particular health behaviors because of specific contingent features of our ancestors' environments, features that are largely irrelevant today. Furthermore, evolution has lead us largely unware of how self-serving and in-group-oriented (e.g., favouring our families) the functions performed by those behaviors were.
Psychiatry is being lead by the siren call of semiotics, and it's saying, follow me, I'm made of words
[A phrase by a psychiatrist whose online idientity is called "Alone".]
For quite obvious reasons, psychiatry provides one the best examples of the vicious of the current medical research and clinical practice, and of how a completely unresponsive demand-side have contributed to this state of affairs.
Like everything else in life, the problem is on the demand side. It clearly follows from the above description that the demand-side of the market for medicines, or, more generally, for medical treatment, are actually the doctors, rather than the ultimate user of the medical products and services - i.e., you, the patient. It was mentioned also that doctors are highly biased and actually don't merit our blind trust in them, at least in general terms. Not to mention the preposterously biased and uninformative medical journals.
As a matter of fact, plugging in the supply-side of the equation, it appears that the actual efficacy of some would-be drug or treatment could heavily work against it: The doctors (the real demand-side) who would use it were, frequently, the least likely to want to do so. Not necessarilty because they are bad and corrupt, but because they usually have a hard mini-paradigm, and they simply couldn't see anything beyond it.
Medicine is politics, not science: Doctors are generally resistant to published data, journal studies and even to logic, so that to break that mini-paradigms drug companies may often have to recurr to key opinion leaders in the specific field, usually a little group of distinguished academicians, to change perceptions and practices.
So medicine is practiced by what works for the doctors, not the patients, and all the incentive drug companies have is to "discover" drugs that will sell to the doctors (and that can be approved by the regulatory body). And that's all the incentive medical researchers always have had, within drug companies or even in government-sponsored studies: to gain regulatory approval for their would-be drugs, not really future sales, not to mention usefulness for the patient.
Doctors have no current incentive to consider the cost (effectiveness) of the meds they prescribe, therefore there's no incentive to drug companies to create cost-worthy products and services. Within this framework, the best business model the entire supply-side can adopt is the "blockbuster drug model". A common criticism here is that it entices other companies to invest in "me too" drugs, so we always have a quite big number of products of the same class, addressing the same problem/condition, usually the "condition of the moment", without clear differences between them. It means no real incentive to investment in innovation. On the feedback, the model makes the doctors think that its action mechanisms is the only or the most important one, creating a paradigm that's hard to thing outside of. It means that the model confuses science.
There are staggering social consequences attached to this state of affairs. In psychiatry, at least from 1980 to 1998, doctors were all obsessed with Serotonin-Selective Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), to the point that they tried to explain nearly all psychiatric phenomena by means of serotonin mechanisms - i.e., they have prescribed SSRIs for everything. 1998 marks the beggining of the abovementioned AD debate, at least in US. Although increasing over time, the vociferous group of critics was, until recently, just a minority. The cited "Alone" used to refer to April 4th, 2007, as the day when the ADs finally have dead. In this day, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a paper by a group of very distinguished academicians concluding that ADs didn't provide additional benefit to mood stabilizers. In practice, they were declaring the actual abandonment of ADs and the abandonment of their support of the diagnosis "major dipressive disorder" (MDD) as a whole. They were also signaling that the future was indeed in the bipolar spectrum and in the wide use of atypical antipsychotics. After that the arguments of that vociferous minority subtly become mainstream: SSRIs aren't that effective at all, the old "10% better than placebo" is just a statistical trick with little clinical utility, MDD is overdiagnosed, etc. Three interesting facts are worth mentioning here:

  1. these are the same authors who have pushed psychiatry into polipharmacy with ADs (to "everything") long ago;
  2. the data used to corroborate their conclusions are 10 years old;
  3. this was not a big drug company-sponsored study, but a NIMH one.


In fact, distinguished and manipulative academicians are no longer getting the drug companies money; they are now getting the easier and flexible government money, and so they are dangerously pushing the government line.
In summary, all this means some squeeze out of MDD into "life" and the bipolar spectrum, and atypical antipsychotics are now 1st line agents. The clear signal is to psychiatry to use them to replace everything. According to said "Alone", there's no many changes like this in psychiatry, maybe one every 10 years; the last one was the beggining of the Depakote era, before were the SSRIs, each one with its egregeous semantics (e.g., "the kindling model", "the serotonin model of depression"). Being more precise, the recent semantic trick was the following: "mood stabilizers" now include atypical antipsychotics and we've gone from "polipharmacy is not better" to "monotherapy with mood stabilizers - i.e., atypical antipsychotics in this case - is just as good as 2 drugs at once." This little tinkering with language and loyalties brings psychiatry from the (serotonin-based) depression mode to the manic(-depressive) mode. Suffice to say that the developments suffer only some degree of delay in the rest of the world.
Furthermore, note that psychiatry doesn't explain, it only identify. What it commonly does is to call the symptom itself a disorder, which makes it definitional, safely axiomatic, then unrefutable. You're not depressed because you lost your house, you always have depression, and one of the triggers was losing your house. The real problem here is that people are demanding any easy relief, instead of confromting the root causes. In going to a psychiatrist, their socioeconomic problems get demoted to "factors" and their feelings become pathologized. Society needs that illusion/lie, because it has created unrealistic expectations in people, and no real ways of fulfilling them. Furthermore, people "cannot look directly at either the sun or the death" (La Rochefoucauld).

via http://gladstone.posterous.com/death-is-only-the-beginning