Slashdot Mirror

Except that the research shows that psilocybin works well, without the ongoing side effects typical of standard drugs, and it works in situations where other treatments fail.

Flu spreads by droplets that are coughed or sneezed out. If you don't have coughing or sneezing symptoms, you aren't going to be an effective vector.

I believe that's a misconception. Flu can also be spread by touch or even just by breathing.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.c...

Aside from ACC schools trying new tests, I think that you are way off. It was tried before and before. What is worse? No research, or something that is paywalled?

Regulate Nicotine as the addictive non-medicinal drug it is. If it was introduced today it would be lumped in with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.

Says the ignorant authoritarian fascist. Are you planning to regulate tobacco by spraying the fields with paraquat? You going after eggplants, potatoes, tomatoes, and the other plants that also contain nicotine? You planning to ban it and neonicotinoids from being used as insecticide (one of the safest in use, BTW)?

As far as your "non-medicinal" claim, nicotine has been shown in many studies, such as this one, that it is useful treatment for schizophrenics.

But, hey, screw those guys, right, Right? Better you get your bullshit authoritarian rules to control everyone's lives. A few sick people are just collateral. Right? RIGHT?

"The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis" - stop, wrong, not even close....
tuberculosis is a bacterial lung disease passed on by breathing the bacteria of infected people. Contributing factors include compromised immune system. ie: from HIV, malnutrition and smoking...
https://www.medicalnewstoday.c...
stop the alcohol fear campaign.

You might have missed the news on CD awhile back, ask your doctor if he/she knows what causes Crohn['s]

This is a very interesting article and they may be on to something, but it is far from the first time Crohn’s disease has been attributed to microbes. They make a good argument, but I don't think that this closes the case yet. They specifically note that this is for "Familial Crohn’s Disease" and not all cases are familial. This was also a study that only looked a 9 family, with an n of 20, so this is not a very large study, and these are likely geographically co-located (but they did not give a lot of data on that). I'll avoid a long history of the disease and just place the gentle reminder that correlation is not causation (and in medicine the level of evidence for proof is often much higher than in other sciences). A lot more research needs to go into this - but investigating the complex relations in the gut biome is probably going to yield some very good insights.

So I'll continue with my standard answer for Crohn's that "we still don't know for sure" - but we're getting closer.

Not at all. There's a ton of good environmental news out there. It's just we never hear about it

I dunno, I recall reading lots of good news about environmental issues. But the reality is, things are getting worse faster than they're getting better. The news reflects that.

To assert the "right to be forgotten" is to assert power over other people's memories. There is no such thing — and there should not be.

If you insist on creating one — for the "evil KKKorporations" — one day your ex will have the power to insist, your memories of the time together be wiped out. It is already possible.

dited into my future child so they're healthy and strong (and smart, if we figure out the rats' nest of interconnected genes influencing intelligence), damn right I'd buy every 'upgrade' I could.

Improving your kids? Small thinking.

Whole body transplants are where it's at. This means curing the known medical issues from dying, decaying and decrypt bags of "naturally" selected flesh.

Sure, this could create a whole new level of botched plastic surgery. But I am willing to let the fabulously wealthy take one for the team and try experimental editing first.

Even in limited per-organ this could be a huge money maker. Perhaps they could start by editing some scalp skin that's not susceptible to DHT poisoning? Imagine: a true permanent cure to male pattern baldness. Drop off a biopsy one week. Come back for a scalp transplant once the skin is ready to apply.

Well, since I presume you want citations you can view instead of textbooks from bio classes... I'm going to start you with a news article that covers such things as the fact that even its inventor said it was not for use with individuals, then direct you to a a medical news site that gives some of the alternates and covers the history, along with a site that has how to work a couple of the alternates. There's quite a bit of scientific lit on the whole topic of its accuracy and validity; you're on your own there, but yes, both things are different and are important for a measure to be much good.

As for the easy-to-understand rule of thumb? The waist-to-hip ratio is probably is the most simple one to work, but you actually have to take out a tape measure----natural waist to widest part of hips; greater than 0.85 for women and 1 for men is usually given as the mark for obesity. I prefer flat-out body fat measuring, and the one that just tweaks the exponent and constant can be found in its raw form and in a calculator form on the list I gave. (That said, I think my doctors just eyeballed my waist to hip ratio, considered my build, and the fact that I tend to forget to eat...)

Really, the thing that ought to be surprising isn't that the BMI is not a good measure on the individual level but that, over a sufficiently large population, it is safe to assume everybody is a white adult male office worker.

Actually... since the tech behind it is based on these sensors and since dogs can already be trained to detect bacteria and prostate cancer by smell, while bladder cancer can be detected by smell as well...
The answer is probably yes.

Actually... since the tech behind it is based on these sensors and since dogs can already be trained to detect bacteria and prostate cancer by smell, while bladder cancer can be detected by smell as well...
The answer is probably yes.

Actually... since the tech behind it is based on these sensors and since dogs can already be trained to detect bacteria and prostate cancer by smell, while bladder cancer can be detected by smell as well...
The answer is probably yes.

Vegetable oils are concentrated evil in every sense of the word and is responsible for most ill health in the west.

What ever.

I'm sure a 3000+ calorie diet of 80% carbs didn't help anything.

These things flood the immune system with inflammation-causing agents, omega-6 and similar compounds, which leads to chronic inflammation.

Shut up with the pseudo bull shit. http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...
"We've come to realize that this inflammation, which can occur anywhere in the body, can cause or promote chronic diseases. We know that animal fats can encourage inflammation, but in this study, we've been able to rule out vegetable oil as a cause."

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

Well, thank heavens placing a stent inside the brain doesn't carry any risks of its own, right?

Let me ELY5: Teflon was invented and hailed as a wonder substance - inert, non-toxic, and slippery. Teflon was used in all manner of places, including cookware. Later it's found that using teflon-coated cookware _as intended*_ resulted in the deaths of birds and flu-like symptoms in humans.

*Using a frying pan at temperatures between 300F and 450F is definitely normal use and can cause 'Teflon Flu'. So is 500F, if you're cooking bacon, which can cause acute lung injury.

She should have been a con artist. I figured you'd be interested and would like to know that, in her professional opinion, they're suitable for use in such environments assuming they're not being kept in complete, sterile, isolation. I expect to know if they can be brought in and put on the network by the end of next week.

Ya know, for someone who isn't an Apple fan, you have probably purchased more Apple gear than the next TEN fanbois, LOL!!!

Your daughter may very well have a promising second-career as a con-artist; but in this particular case, she is right-on.

When the iPad first came out, I was looking into developing a disposable "bag" for just this sort of application. That idea went the way of all my good ideas, and was eventually replaced with another idea of mine for an iPad/tablet "sterilizer" chamber, that would use UV to disinfect one or more iPads/tablets. And of course, charging facilities would be provided, too for charging-while-disinfecting.

iPads are used in thousands of hospitals everyday. Even without the disinfection. In sterile environments, like an Operating Room, they tend to put them in plastic bags (a gallon-ziploc works fine), and yes, the touchscreen does work through the plastic bag. But on the regular "floors", they just treat iPads like a clipboard. No sterilization, no protective sheath/pouch, nothing.

I would say that iPads are probably fairly easy to keep relatively clean (cleaner than a computer keyboard and mouse!!!), simply because there really aren't many cracks and crevices for caked blood, etc, to congregate. The main issue is the Home button, because it gets pressed a zillion times a day, followed by the Sleep/Wake button. But a simple silicone-rubber "boot"-type case would probably work...

Actually veggies are more likely to have feces in them, a LOT more.

citations, bitch.

Namely because they're often grown with cow shit, especially organic ones which are exclusively grown with cow shit or worm shit as synthetic fertilizer can't be used.

citations, bitch.

This has actually lead to a lot of e. coli and salmonella outbreaks.

In fact, the leading cause of food poising is from plant matter, not meat:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Read your own cite, you fucking dumbass:

Close to half of all reported illnesses were caused by "produce".

Sorry, your reference doesn't back up your claim. But, please continue with your moronic blather...

Even taking the cow shit out of the equation entirely, if you actually read the FDA guidelines on allowable contaminants in vegetables, they can include insect body parts, insect shit, insect eggs, and even whole larva.

citations, bitch. and while you're at it, show how the FDA "guidelines" favor vegetables over meat. because that's what you're implying.

I guess you figure that most readers here won't scratch the surface of your ridiculous claims. Protip: you're not the only one with an internet connection and too much time on their hands. From now on, you better make sure your bullshit is backed, you fucking idiotic dolt.

Actually veggies are more likely to have feces in them, a LOT more. Namely because they're often grown with cow shit, especially organic ones which are exclusively grown with cow shit or worm shit as synthetic fertilizer can't be used. This has actually lead to a lot of e. coli and salmonella outbreaks.

In fact, the leading cause of food poising is from plant matter, not meat:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Even taking the cow shit out of the equation entirely, if you actually read the FDA guidelines on allowable contaminants in vegetables, they can include insect body parts, insect shit, insect eggs, and even whole larva.

So yeah if you want to argue that meat is bad, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree here.

Quote from a better article than TFA:
"Prof. Magnusson and colleagues reached their findings using 2-month-old male mice, which were randomized to be fed either a high-fat diet (42% fat, 43% carbohydrate), a high-sugar diet (12% fat, 70% carbohydrate - mainly from sugars) or normal chow."
( http://www.medicalnewstoday.co... )

Note that both could also be called low-protein (less than 18%) and that the second could be called low-fat.
But "Low-Fat, Low-Protein Diet Can Lead To Cognitive Decline" doesn't quite ring the bell that has been rung a thousand times before. A bell that sounds familiar, safe and doesn't cause cognitive dissonance.

You really don't need the invisible hand of the market to fix everything. A much more sensible solution, for example, would be to find ways more people would agree to be organ donors after death.
For example, switching the default from opt-in to opt-out would make a significant difference in organ availability without actually forcing anyone to make a choice they're not comfortable with or could have an adverse influence on their health.

Re insulin response in sucralose: http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Also, protein itself elicits an insulin response.

Admittedly the case for Aspartame is weaker, and I can't find the citation right now, but despite early studies showing no insulin response for Aspartame, a more recent study DID make make a correlation.

Either way, artificial sweeteners being associated with insulin resistance regardless of BMI has been well-established. It stands to reason, given the evidence that Sucralose has been confirmed to result in an Insulin response, and that Insulin management in general is a tricky thing, that one should treat all artificial sweeteners with the same level of suspicion in this regard.

The only thing that excuses Stevia for now is that studies have shown a beneficial effect as opposed to any negative effect. Feel free to be a lab rat, just be an informed lab rat.

Has there been even one instance of a spinal cord severed by trauma being reconnected?

Try this article. Or you could have answered the question yourself by searching for "severed spinal chord repaired."

There are also similar cases where the spinal chord has been cut cleanly and with time, partial mobility has been regained.

We are able to at least partially repair severed spinal cords now. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284152.php. That's a lot further along than a couple of years ago.

It may not be perfection, and connecting one spinal cord to another might not even match up the nerves, but there is progress being made. And we might get a complete repair treatment out of this.

We are able to at least partially repair them now. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284152.php. That's a lot further along than a couple of years ago.

Or British, or Hungarians, or ...

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/s...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

And now that I search on that: http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...
"Majority of weight loss occurs 'via breathing' ... According to researchers from the University of New South Wales in Australia, when weight is lost, the majority of it is breathed out as carbon dioxide. Their paper is published in the Christmas issue of The BMJ. Prof. Andrew Brown and Ruben Meerman reported widespread misconception regarding how weight is lost, finding physicians, dietitians and personal trainers all equally guilty of not knowing. ... The results suggest that the lungs are the main excretory organ for weight loss, with the H20 produced by oxidation departing the body in urine, feces, breath and other bodily fluids. On average, a person weighing 70 kg will exhale around 200 ml of CO2 in 12 breaths each minute. The authors calculate that each breath contains 33 mg of CO2, with 8.9 mg comprised of carbon. A total of 17,280 breaths during the day will get rid of at least 200 g of carbon, with roughly a third of this weight loss occurring during 8 hours of sleep. ..."

I've heard stuff now and then from Andrew Weil on breathing, and breathing well is at the core of Yoga, but your anecdote helps me make a better connection to all that. It may indeed apply very broadly. Thanks!

I've heard in general exercise is great for health (gets the lymph moving to boost the immune system, to begin with), but in general it does not affect weight loss much because people who exercise more tend to eat more after a workout as the body tries to compensate. However, I can wonder if changes in breathing patterns somehow work around that issue?

I would be curious if you had any good tips on what people can do to improve their breathing along the lines of what worked for you? Are they different than, for example, these exercises suggested by Dr. Andrew Weil?
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/AR...

BTW, one other thing missed in so much discussion here and elsewhere on weight is the psychological aspect. People can talk all they want about calories in and calories out, and even ignoring how the type of food and gut bacteria make a difference (as well as your point on breathing). However, as Dr. Joel Fuhrman talks about, we essentially have an "appistat" like a thermostat for hunger, and what seems to control when it shuts off is how full we feel (in terms of physical bulk of fiber and such in the stomach) and also the amount of phytonutrients and micronutrients in the food. If you are not getting either (and the Standard American Diet tends to be lacking in *both*) then it is a continual psychological battle where your body is constantly telling you that you are not finished eating because of the lack of fiber and lack of good nutrients. So you keep eating junk (like processed white bread or sugary drinks), always searching for nutrition. The calories make you fat, but your body still thinks (correctly) that it is missing something, so it goes on trying to make you eat. And studies show that 95%+ of people on diets that focus on calories restriction fail in just a few months for this psychological aspect. We only have so much self-discipline. It is generally only when we change the nature of what we eat that we change our weight. Then we are using our self-discipline for only a short time (a few weeks) to change our eating habits and related taste preferences. After that, low-nutrient junk food generally is not so appealing. See also:
"How to Escape the Pleasure Trap"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...

Although, your point on breathing certainly is another angle on that. As is the general issue on gut bacteria, since both of those affect how much of our food's energy is burned (without really changing much else) or how much is collected or goes through the gut. So, I'm

"But yeah, by all means, keep telling people to switch to e-cigs because "they're better for you." Just like filter and low-tar cigarettes were once touted as the healthier choice."

Shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool. Scientists continue to be shocked at how many adults think that nicotine causes cancer:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

It's smoking that causes cancer. Not vaping.

Why are so many fucking idiots like you spouting this bullshit? And why am I willing to call you a fucking reprobate idiot on my actual slashdot account?

BECAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS LIKE THIS ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE

It's worth some karma. It's worth some anger. It's worth my ego versus yours. If you are opposed to tobacco replacement for smokers, if you spread lies about how e-cigs are like "lite cigs", then you are literally causing cancer. YOU BECOME A CARCINOGEN. And unlike tobacco and the other carcinogens, you have agency, and can fix your goddamned shit. And you best do it fast before a statistically signifigant portion of your smoker friends are injured or killed, when your attitude could instead have lead them to STOP smoking, START vaping, and not have had that happen.

Here's a good study on this topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

And one last thing: Yes, this means that smokers get to have (most of) their cake and eat it too. They still get to sit together and socialize and be cool. They just no longer have to slowly kill themselves. No one had a problem with the nicotine gum, because it obviously sucked and wasn't cool. Vaping IS cool, AND it is saving lives- more than the gum ever did. Vaping is not a "lite" cigarrete. Vaping is an alternate nicotine delivery system that preserves most of the positive effects of smoking while eliminating most of or all of the negative one, most importantly, the cancer risk.

So they'll still be cool and having a good time, but they won't be killing themselves just to live their lives normally. That's a great triumph of technology, not some tragedy.

It's kind of funny that everyone keeps saying that anti-oxidants are good for you, when studies show they're not (one of many links - you can google for more).

The assumption is that they prevent DNA damage by scrubbing the body of free radicals. This ignores a few things - I1) those free radicals are caused by damage that has already happened (cosmic ray hit, mutagen damaging DNA, etc); (2) removing the free radicals removes one of the signals the body needs to trigger either attempt repairs or if it's not possible trigger cell death; (3) the mechanisms for dealing with this damage have evolved over the course of a billion years, and have been optimized to ensure cellular survival only when cellular survival is the optimal solution.

People who go whole-hog on anti-oxidants accumulate more cells with uncorrected damage. Not a good thing.

Understanding the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in apoptosis opens new approaches for controlling cancer growth, and suggests that patients with cancer may not always want to ingest extra antioxidants. Many epidemiological studies suggest that increased intake of fruits and vegetables, and of other foods that contain antioxidants can protect against the DNA damage that can initiate carcinogenesis. However, recent data indicates that cells use reactive oxygen species as part of the signaling process responsible for activating an important mechanism for eliminating cancer cells, programmed cell death (also called apoptosis). Many anti-cancer agents depend on this form of cell death for their efficacy. In this review we present an overview of the role of ROS in carcinogenesis and in apoptosis, and we raise questions about the proper dietary recommendations for individuals with cancer.

Also note that the beneficial claims of anti-oxidants have been widely debunked using longterm double-blind experiments and here and even red wine fails the test

For years, the Western world has marvelled at the so-called French Paradox, which points to the low incidence of coronary heart disease in that population despite their high-cholesterol and high-saturated fat diet. This has been attributed to their regular intake of red wine, with its high levels of resveratrol and other polyphenols.

But this latest study, which assessed a large group of Italians - who consume a diet rich in resveratrol - found that they do not live longer and are just as likely to develop cardiovascular disease or cancer as individuals who consume smaller amounts of the compound.

"The story of resveratrol turns out to be another case where you get a lot of hype about health benefits that doesn't stand the test of time," says Dr. Semba. "The thinking was that certain foods are good for you because they contain resveratrol. We didn't find that at all."

There's a lot of science that looks good and logical on the surface that doesn't stand up to long-term investigation. Anti-oxidants are like cold fusion, but people want to believe, so they ignore the negative evidence.

That is incorrect. Get some actual information.
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/t...

And cats might be the path way to a cure from AIDS(HIV)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

So what's next you can be forced to be scanned and have your thoughts read, it's not testifying in the verbal or written sense. Letter by letter realtime

Tooo slippery...

Overweight people can (with a few exceptions due to medical conditions) change the fact that they're overweight. Gay people by and large cannot make themselves not gay.

Citation needed. For both.

Your "exceptions" are the rule.

Gay people can be celibate.

Frankly I'm more interested in the first point. While gay people can "not be gay," I wouldn't wish it upon them, they've worked hard not to be looked down upon for being gay, and all the more power to them.

Now on to your implied point that it's ok to shame overweight people because they supposedly can change the fact that they're overweight -- just like gay people can change the fact that they have same-sex relationships -- by overcoming fundamental physiological urges that you're oh-so-sure can be overcome by pure willpower.

Having worked in a hospital (and in IT) for over decade, I can tell you that most nurses earn every penny of it.
yes, some of them are idiots, I know, so don't tell me about that one nurse who did ...

For one thing, there is this:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...
and this:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Also, the body of knowledge a RN, PA, or LPN has must be constantly maintained and updated. Medicine is changing faster than any other industry. Seriously, IT does not even come close.

And then there is the other problem.
Sick people are fussy and cranky and a pain to deal with. And then there's the patient's family who raises hell because the nurse didn't do some thing that they read about on the Internet. It's a customer service job at its worst.

Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted.

And before. "It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996."

Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted. Here's a Washington Post article about the effect as well. Your figures about the UK are also wrong, but that is more understandable because they changed the way they counted gun crime which made it look like it increased after the ban was enacted--including nonfatal accidents into the records that were previously not recorded.

"changed the way they counted gun crime"

"previously not recorded"

And we wonder why people could give a rats ass about asking anyone for statistics with excuses like this.

You want to know what any gun statistic actually says? Whatever the fuck the presenter wants it to.

Let's just stop asking for this shit as a tool to present facts on this particular topic, since I've yet to see one presented where ALL parties are in agreement with the numbers.

Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted.

And rapes, and beatings, and other non-gun related violent crimes? Did they also "drop sharply," or did they increase exponentially?

FYI, I already know the answer. I'm just curious if your broken-record train of thought can handle admitting a fact that contradicts the claims you're implying.

Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted. Here's a Washington Post article about the effect as well. Your figures about the UK are also wrong, but that is more understandable because they changed the way they counted gun crime which made it look like it increased after the ban was enacted--including nonfatal accidents into the records that were previously not recorded.

Here's some research, at least on the schizophrenia. However, all the studies show that 1. everyone that had schizophrenic issues where already pre-desposed it having it 2. it only to be caused from teen usage, not in adults.

Basically, if you have a genetic pre-disposition to this kind of mental illness already, AND use for at least 2-3 years WHILE your brain is in it's formation period, you MIGHT have your schizophrenia triggered early. The research doesn't indicate this happens with adults (ei, post brain pathway solidification), so the real warning should be stay away from any and all brain-altering substances until your brain is done forming.

There are still plenty of injuries, and I wager more ammo is shot legally then while committing a crime. So as an accessory to crime guns may not have such much over on cars (after all criminals like to have fast get-away cars).

Incidentally the number one cause of gun deaths is suicides. Life insurances don't pay in that case, a dedicated gun insurance could be regulated so that they'll have to pay for clean-up and funeral.

They should also be required to pay if an insured stolen gun was used to commit a crime.

Lol? Going with a ketogenic diet actually causes your body do become more sensitive to insulin.. Ie less prone to become diabetic.

Going with a diet with a high sugary diet will cause your body to become less insulin sensitive and that is not good. A high-sugar diet also increases the risk of diabetes.. http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

If you look into the history of the recommended diet we have to day this all goes back to a few studies made around 50-60 years ago, and most of the assumptions in them have actually been proven to be false..

A good diet is a mixed diet of both carbs and fat, but carbs should come from things likes apples/potatoes etc, not from processed sugar like corn-syrup. There are so many addetives in todays food that are just bad for us.. And the "low-carb" diets does help with this to a large degree by making you skip allot of them.

I have myself lost around ~17Kg during the last 6 months by going on a low-carb diet and there are a number of factors that comes into play with this.
- You become more aware of what's in the food you eat.
- You become more aware of what things you can/cannot eat without breaking the ketosis.
- You become more insulin sensitive (a good thing!)
- You become less hungry and get more energy. This is a huge benefit when you are trying to lose weight..
    You only eat when you are hungry and you only eat until you are full. If you eat food with high-carb content you will eat more.

I believe the biggest gain i have got from this is that i feel less hungry causing me to eat less. It also have removed lots of the nasty stuff that's put into our foods today.. And the second part is that my cholesterol values have improved quite a bit and have been sick alot less during this time.
I do not say that this is for everyone and you really should study a bit on how it works and so on because if done incorrectly, or if you have a previous medical condition, it can be dangerous.

But to sum it up... I would say that a perfect diet would be switching between foods that are high fat/high carb, but they should never be high-fat and high carb at the same time. And get rid of all the processed sugars an go back to the basics. And skip drinking juice, have a fruit instead ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/... )

The word is ketosis. It is spelled totally different from voodoo. http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

If you restrict carbs, you force your body to process fat, which is the whole idea.

It seems to be largely genetic and starts before birth. http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

"1. Obviously, better education. The causes of autism should be taught in high school health and/or biology classes."
We do not know all of them so sure at some point.
"2. If women are going to drink soda pop instead of fruit juice, maybe we should put the folic acid in the soda."
It is already in cereal and bread products. http://womenshealth.gov/public...
"3. Provide cheap and widely available pregnancy tests, so women know sooner. The cost of providing these test would be WAY less than the societal costs of dealing with autistic kids." They seem pretty cheap to me at least in the US.
"4. Develop a prenatal test for autism, so parents can have the option to terminate the pregnancy. Social conservatives will love this."
Wow since autism is not always crippling do you really think this is close to a good or moral idea? Suppose being transgender or even gay was found to be testable would you be okay with that being a reason to terminate a pregnancy? A great number of autistic people now lead happy productive lives if the issue found early enough and they get the right education.

First they tell us that dark chocolate is good for us because of the antioxidants and that it reduces the amount of fat that your body adsorbs from other foods.
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Then they tell us that whole milk, cheese, etc. keeps us leaner
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesa...

Now bathing in sunlight (don't forget the sunscreen) will help us manage our weight.

So, I guess this means that eating dark chocolate, chasing it down with whole milk, while sitting in the sun and reading (good thing I own a Kindle) will help me get rid of those unwanted pounds... Ahhh... This IS the life.... (grin)

Yes I would take that bet. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or are truly unable to understand what you read. Aspirin is the common name for acetylsalicylic acid. Acetylsalicylic acid is a member of a class of drugs called NSAIDs - NonSteroidal AntiInflammatory Drugs. All aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. All acetylsalicylic acid is an NSAID.

The whole legislative around drugs is selective and by no means in any way coherent. Drinking alcohol is legal, smoking cigarettes is legal. Smoking marijuana is not. And why are Oreos legal?

Ok, that last one was more a joke than anything. But there simply is no rhyme or reason in laws concerning sex, drugs or copyright.

Not to mention that "Alcohol, tobacco and firearms" is more a name for a store than anything else!

The blood in the cord pumps into the baby's body over the few minutes after birth. Docs in America foolishly clamp the cord immediately, which starves the baby of red blood cells and iron. They do this for no other reason than "that's what we've always done". The cord delivers up to 1/3 of the blood that the baby is supposed to have, and premature clamping of the cord is seriously wrong. Let's hope that these 3D printers don't bring with them incorrect delivery techniques...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263181.php

Traveling to such a satellite orbiting a gas giant would still present problems. Anything getting from or to it alive would be a real bitch, because the radiation belt of the gas giant still must be crossed first.

One word: Cabbage.

Sadly, cases like that happened:

Man Holds Up Bank For $1

The ban doesn't apply to diet soda, and even if you aren't overweight, drinking shitloads of dissolved sugar is bad for you as one can of soda a day increases your risk of diabetes.