Like: Isn't weight loss still (mostly) a mathematical equation? Is the fact that exercise did not prevent weight gain indicative that women who exercised were eating more to fuel their energy to exercise? Or is it disproving the whole generally accepted notion that weight loss is all about calories in vs. calories out.
Inquiring minds want to know, but might be too lazy to find out. Since, you know, there's now no motivation not to be lazy, right?
What? Is that not how I'm supposed to interpret this study? :)
It's not that this pancreas will create insulin...there will still be a need to have some kind of patch/pump system to provide the insulin, but the "pancreas" would monitor levels and dispense in an automated fashion.
Read the whole post, so much information.
It may not be a hovercraft, but it feels like the future to me!
If you've ever considered becoming vegan because for health reasons, then you might get the little boost you need by signing up for the PCRM's 21-day vegan kickstart. I signed up, even though I'm already a vegan, because after all: Who wouldn't want daily healthy tips and recipes?
And just in case you'd like some links on vegan being the healthiest way to eat:
“I typically recommend people go out for a period of time—depending on the time of the year, the time of day, the latitude, and the degree of skin pigmentation—if you know you’re going to get a mild sunburn after 30 minutes, I typically recommend about 10, no more than 15, minutes of arms and legs exposure, or if you’re in a bathing suit, abdomen and back exposure as well, 2 to 3 times a week. Always wear sun protection on your face because that’s the most sun-damaged area and it’s only about 9% of your body surface, so it doesn’t provide you with that much vitamin D. Go out, enjoy yourself, get some sensible sun exposure, then put sunscreen on if you plan to stay out for a longer period of time. People with a higher degree skin pigmentation, such as African Americans, are walking around with an SPF of 8 to 15. That’s why they need to be exposed for much longer periods of time and why people of color are at especially high risk of having vitamin D deficiency.”
So yeah, "always wear sun protection on your face". D'oh.
I really can't say I know what to think. I can't say I think much about the Surgeon General. The only two I can name are C. Everett Koop and Jocelyn Elders. And I can't understand exactly why Obama would expend a controversial selection on such a low-profile role?
Sigh. The list never ends. Whether it's hidden animal ingredients or testing, unfair business practices or environmental policies, or just plain safety: The list of products to eschew grows longer the more attention you pay.
I think it's safe to say these are modern canaries in the coal mines of our kitchens. And while their lungs may be much, MUCH tinier than ours, so we can all debate how long it would take to kill us...I'm really not comfortable with using something that would kill a bird if I had one. Are you?
Unfortunate that we just received a bunch of Calphalon cookware as wedding gifts. Guess I unknowingly registered to be slowly poisoned.
The question is whether you'll trust that GreenPan is truly safe...or if we just haven't figured out yet how it's dangerous.
I'm torn. I really can't imagine throwing out all of this very new and very expensive cookware. I don't cook a lot or for extended periods. I don't own birds. The EWG mostly wants warnings affixed to warn bird owners, not humans.
One of my regular reads, ShortWoman pointed me to a story about the Department of Health and Human Services with this provocative paragraph (Which is only part of a much longer post about the global war on women that I urge you to go read):
And now, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has decided that they know better than actual doctors, and is attempting to redefine pregnancy in such a way as to magically turn the use of hormonal birth control into an “abortion.” This would of course free up pharmacists and doctors to refuse allow women to get it on “moral” grounds. It would also effectively prevent any public health system from dispensing birth control. This, ironically, will raise the number of unwanted pregnancies, which will in turn raise the numbers of abortions out there. Bizarro Government.
In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services.
And goes on to describe how the government proposal seeks to define "abortion" as follows:
Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
Finally, as I've mentioned before, I follow Mike Leavitt's blog...he the Secretary of the Dept. of H&HS. And in a post, entitled "Physician Conscience", he says the following:
An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.
The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.
The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.
So, I like Secretary Leavitt's blog in general...it's not mind-blowingly creative, but he does tell long, substantive stories about his travels around the country and the world looking at public health issues. It's an insider view at a lot of different kinds of places and problems.
All that to say that although I'm sure he and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum I respect what he does and I respect that he blogs. The above, however andunfortunately, is plain old political doublespeak. At first you might think he's denying that he's trying to define contraceptives as abortion. He says "Not true", and if you only scan it quickly you might be relieved.
But be not so relieved. All he is doing is denying that the intent of the proposed regulations is to address abortion or contraception. No, the intent is to accommodate physician conscience.
Whatever. I don't really care about the intent, what matters is the outcome...what does the regulation, you know, regulate?
His blog post doesn't pass the smell test by about a mile.
I'm going to point you to two posts on a prolific blog that could suck up all the time in my day if I weren't careful: The Women's Bioethics Project.
The first discusses a ruling Kansas that is requiring a healthcare provider to turn over the medical records of all patients who not only received but inquired about late-term abortions.
The Women's Bioethics Project lays out the details pretty succinctly, so I recommend reading their post.
I'll just say that the details provided make it clear this isn't really about medicine, or even about law enforcement (which the folks who want those records are purporting the issue to be) but about politics plain and simple. Or perhaps more about the continued assault on a government that respects all religions and is ruled by none.
The second is about the Daily Mail's report that british scientists have discovered how to turn women's one marrow into sperm. Yes, you read that right. So, now, apparently, we really can self-reproduce.
I don't know why I'm pointing this out, except I find some of the comments on the Daily Mail story pretty funny in their paranoia, especially the ones about malevolent feminism. Hilarious.
'cause it's women who have cause all the world's problems, yeah.