just watched this video on Youtube & i wanna share that to inspire others!!
Thursday, May 29, 2014
The Cancer That Kills More Women than Breast Cancer!!
If you had to guess the number one cancer killer of women, what would you say? Breast cancer? Cervical Cancer? Here's a shocker: Lung Cancer kills almost twice as many woman as any other cancer. And according to a recent survey by the American Lung Association (ALA), only ONE percent of women cited lung cancer when asked to name cancers that affect women.
No wonder ALA is advocating for an increase in funding for lung cancer research. And together with CVS, they've launched a new movement called Lung Force, dedicated to raising awareness of this deadly cancer. First up on their agenda: ending the sale of cigarettes at all CVS stores by October 1, 2014. Huge news, right?!
Award-winning television and Broadway actress Valerie Harper was thrilled to join this powerful campaign. After being diagnosed with lung cancer in 2009, she was surgically cured, but the cancer returned in 2013. At that time, doctors told her she had just months to live. "It was a shock, because I never smoked," says Valerie. Now a year and four months later, Valerie is ready to raise awareness and remove the stigma associated with lung cancer.
"[They say] 'Oh, you smoked, huh?' I go, 'No. I'm in my seventies, and I never smoked a day in my life,'" says Valerie. "But there's second-hand smoke, there's radon, there's behavior, and your genes."
Yet nearly half of more than 1,000 women in the recent survey said they aren't concerned about getting lung cancer, because they never smoked. It's a damaging misconception that needs to be corrected, says Valerie. But even though lung cancer is certainly possible in non-smokers, ditching cigarettes is still the best thing you can do to lower your risk.
"We're here because women should not be dying in these numbers and with so little research funding," says Valerie. "It's getting better all the time. It needs to be getting better faster." To get involved in spreading awareness and raising funding for lung cancer research.
What's the Deal With Drinkable SPF?
Have you heard of the new sunscreen you can drink? Introducing Osmosis Skincare's UV Neutralizer Harmonized Water, a product that claims to provide the equivalent of SPF 30, protecting you from 97 percent of UVA and UVB rays for up to three hours. How? By making the water molecules just below the surface of your skin vibrate, emitting frequencies that cancel out the burn-causing frequencies of UVA and UVB radiation, says Ben Johnson, M.D., general practitioner and founder of Osmosis Skincare.
If that sounds like science fiction to you, you have good reason to be skeptical.
"How can you drink something that causes a vibrational wave in your skin?" says Doris Day, M.D., a dermatologist based in New York. "When you're making a big claim like this, you need solid proof."
And there doesn't seem to be any. "There's no evidence-based scientific data to support the product's SPF 30 claims," says dermatologist Michael Shapiro, M.D., also based in New York. Plus, "Saying that their water is 'imprinted' with vibrational waves which 'isolate' the frequencies that protect against UV rays is dubious at best," he says. He also notes that the company's explanation of how the product works is too vague and too "out there" to allow the public to understand the science behind the claims.
We asked Johnson for the details on the company's research, and well, there's very little. No independent or clinical trials have been conducted on the product. Instead, "the UV Neutralizer was tested internally on roughly 50 people for extended stays in the sun before we launched it," he says. As for what he says to dermatologists who don't believe the hype, Johnson at least understands the skepticism, but urges them (and the public) to try it for themselves.
Here's the thing: Some sun protection can come from the inside out. There's evidence that key nutrients found in certain foods, like phytochemicals in grapes, berries, and walnuts, and sulforaphane in broccoli, can offer some degree of protection. But these are supplemental. Your best bet is to follow Day's advice: "You can get extra sun protection from nutritional sources, but it doesn't replace the need for sunscreen every day and sun-smart behavior."
Is Your Sunscreen Giving You The Full Protection Promised?
Before you rub or spray any sunscreen at the beach, you need to read this: Many sunscreens may not guarantee the protection they provide, according to new research from the Consumer Reports National Research Center.
Researchers tested 20 different water-resistant, broad-spectrum sunscreen lotions and sprays for their effectiveness against UVB radiation (which causes sunburn) and UVA rays (which can lead to aged skin). Sunscreens were applied to test subjects' backs. All of them were supposed to last for 80 minutes of constant water immersion, so researchers tested this by having subjects soak in and out of a tub for that amount of time without re-applying. A sun simulator was used to apply UVB radiation and then UVA radiation. After one day, their skin was examined for redness (signs of UVB) and tanning (signs of UVA).
MORE: Sunscreen Myths Busted
So how many products passed the test? Only seven (!) sunscreens performed well enough against both types of radiation to be recommended by Consumer Reports. And interestingly, only two products sampled (one SPF 50 and one SPF 50+) actually provided the SPF protection promised on the packaging. The other sunscreens provided between four percent and 40 percent less UVB coverage than they claimed. More than half of the products tested well for UVA protection.
Such an eye-opener, right? But don't let this news send you into panic mode. Representatives we spoke to at Consumer Report didn't have access to the laboratory's entire methodology, so it's unclear what might have led to these surprising results or if there were any flaws in the study—like if subjects toweled off after getting out of the water, accidentally rubbing off some sunscreen. This doesn't necessarily mean that all sunscreen labels are lying—it may just mean that following the directions on the label may not always provide the optimal protection for every person in every situation.
MORE: 6 New Sun Care Secrets
Even though these results may seem a little discouraging, we still know that sunscreen is one of your best defenses against UVA and UVB rays. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) recommends sticking to a water-resistant, broad-spectrum protection (similar to the ones in this study) with SPF 30 or higher. But if you're still getting burned, you should take it up to SPF 50, says Erica Kelly, M.D., an associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Medical Branch.
Kelly also notes that you should avoid the sun during midday (when UV rays are at their strongest) and reapply sunscreen (about a shot glass amount for every exposed skin area) if you've been sweating a lot, if you've been in the water, or if you've been sitting in the sun for 80 minutes or longer. Remember, even water-resistant sunscreen isn't totally waterproof—you should still reapply after you towel off. The AAD suggests reapplying after every two hours, but Kelly says you can slather it on more often if necessary.
Google’s Next Phase in Driverless Cars: No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedals
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Humans might be the one problem Google can’t solve.
For the past four years, Google has been working on self-driving cars with a mechanism to return control of the steering wheel to the driver in case of emergency. But Google’s brightest minds now say they can’t make that handoff work anytime soon.
Their answer? Take the driver completely out of the driving.
The company has begun building a fleet of 100 experimental electric-powered vehicles that will dispense with all the standard controls found in modern automobiles. The two-seat vehicle looks a bit like the ultracompact Fiat 500 or the Mercedes-Benz Smart car if you take out the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake and gear shift. The only things the driver controls is a red “e-stop” button for panic stops and a separate start button.
The car would be summoned with a smartphone application. It would pick up a passenger and automatically drive to a destination selected on a smartphone app without any human intervention.
Google won’t say if it intends to get into the car manufacturing business or simply supply technology to carmakers, but it says there are plenty of possibilities if it can persuade regulators to allow cars with no drivers. One potential use: driverless taxi cabs.
In an interview at Google’s headquarters here, Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder who is actively involved in the research program, said the company decided to change the car project more than a year ago after an experiment in which Google employees used autonomous vehicles for their normal commutes to work.
There were no crashes. But Google engineers realized that asking a human passenger — who could be reading or daydreaming or even sleeping — to take over in an emergency won’t work.
“We saw stuff that made us a little nervous,” said Christopher Urmson, a former Carnegie Mellon University roboticist who directs the car project at Google.
The vehicles will have electronic sensors that can see about 600 feet in all directions. Despite that, they will have rearview mirrors because they are required by California’s vehicle code, Dr. Urmson said. The front of the car will be made from a foamlike material in case the computer fails and it hits a pedestrian. It looks like a little bubble car from the future, streamlined to run by itself — a big change from the boxy Lexus SUV Google has been retrofitting the last few years with self-driving technology.
The new Google strategy for autonomous cars is a break from many competing vehicle projects. Mercedes, BMW and Volvo have introduced cars that have the ability to travel without driver intervention in limited circumstances — though none completely eliminate the driver.
That feature, which is generally known as Traffic Jam Assist, allows the car to steer and follow another vehicle in stop-and-go highway driving at low speeds. In the Mercedes version, the system disengages itself if the driver takes his hands off the steering wheel for more than 10 seconds.
Volvo said that by 2017 it planned to have the cars in the hands of ordinary consumers for testing in the streets of Gothenburg, Sweden, where the company has its headquarters.
In the interview, Mr. Brin acknowledged those advances, but said they were incremental. “That stuff seems not entirely in keeping with our mission of being transformative,” he said.
Google’s prototype for its new cars will limit them to a top speed of 25 miles per hour. The cars are intended for driving in urban and suburban settings, not on highways. The low speed will probably keep the cars out of more restrictive regulatory categories for vehicles, giving them more design flexibility.
Google is having 100 cars built by a manufacturer in the Detroit area, which it declined to name. Nor would it say how much the prototype vehicles cost. They will have a range of about 100 miles, powered by an electric motor that is roughly equivalent to the one used by Fiat’s 500e, Dr. Urmson said. They should be road-ready by early next year, Google said.
The current plan is to conduct pilot tests in California, starting with ferrying Google employees between buildings around its sprawling corporate campus here.
Laws permit autonomous vehicles in California, Nevada and Florida. But those laws have generally been written with the expectation that a human driver would be able to take control in emergencies.
Google executives said the initial prototypes would comply with current California automated-driving regulations, issued on May 20. They will have manual controls for testing on California public roads.
In the future, Google hopes to persuade regulators that the cars can operate safely without driver, steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedal. Those cars would rely entirely on Google sensors and software to control them.
So where might the driverless cars be used besides at Google’s offices?
Last year, Lawrence D. Burns, former vice president for research and development at General Motors and now a Google consultant, led a study at the Earth Institute at Columbia University on transforming personal mobility.
The researchers found that Manhattan’s 13,000 taxis made 470,000 trips a day. Their average speed was 10 to 11 m.p.h., carrying an average of 1.4 passengers per trip with an average wait time of five minutes.
In comparison, the report said, it is possible for a futuristic robot fleet of 9,000 shared automated vehicles hailed by smartphone to match that capacity with a wait time of less than one minute. Assuming a 15 percent profit, the current cost of taxi service would be about $4 per trip mile, while in contrast, it was estimated, a Manhattan-based driverless vehicle fleet would cost about 50 cents per mile.
The report showed similar savings in two other case studies — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and Babcock Ranch, a planned community in Florida.
Google is one of the few companies that could take on a challenge like that, said John J. Leonard, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology roboticist. But he added: “I do not expect there to be driverless taxis in Manhattan in my lifetime.”
Mr. Brin said the change in Google’s car strategy did not mean that the company was giving up on its ultimate goal of transforming modern transportation.
“Obviously it will take time, a long time, but I think it has a lot of potential,” he said. “Self-driving cars have the potential to drive in trains much closer together and, in theory, in the future at much higher speeds.
“There is nothing to say that once you demonstrate the safety, why can’t you go 100 miles per hour?”
Apple to Pay $3 Billion to Buy Beats
CUPERTINO, Calif. — Apple, the company that turned digital music into a mainstream phenomenon, said on Wednesday that it was buying Beats Electronics, a rising music brand, for $3 billion, in a move that will help it play catch-up with rivals that offer subscription-based music services.
Apple and Beats executives said the companies would work together to give consumers around the world more options to listen to music. The Beats brand will remain separate from Apple’s, and Apple will offer both Beats’s streaming music service and premium headphones.
Apple said iTunes, which sells individual songs and albums and offers a streaming radio service, would be offered alongside the Beats music service.
Apple and Beats executives said the companies would work together to give consumers around the world more options to listen to music. The Beats brand will remain separate from Apple’s, and Apple will offer both Beats’s streaming music service and premium headphones.
Apple said iTunes, which sells individual songs and albums and offers a streaming radio service, would be offered alongside the Beats music service.
The Beats deal brings Jimmy Iovine, a longtime music executive, and Dr. Dre, the rapper, to work under Eddy Cue, Apple’s executive in charge of Internet services. Dr. Dre and Mr. Iovine, who founded Beats in 2006, join a list of prominent executives whom Apple has added to its roster, including Angela Ahrendts, the former chief of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former chief of Yves Saint Laurent.
In an interview here at Apple’s headquarters, Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, repeatedly emphasized the talent that Dr. Dre and Mr. Iovine would bring to Apple. He also praised the Beats music service, which creates playlists for subscribers.
“These guys are really unique,” Mr. Cook said. “It’s like finding the precise grain of sand on the beach. They’re rare and very hard to find.”
Apple is paying for the deal with $2.6 billion in cash — hardly a dent in the company’s huge cash pile of more than $150 billion — and $400 million in stock. The company expects the deal to be approved this year.
For Apple, the acquisition of Beats, expected for weeks, largely follows a familiar pattern. Apple has historically bought technology outfits that have resources and talent that it can blend into future devices and online services. Beats fits that criterion.
But the Beats deal is also different. Until now, Apple, the richest tech company in the world, has avoided billion-dollar takeovers in favor of smaller deals. The Beats deal is its largest ever.
Apple declined to disclose plans for products it will make with Beats, so it will take time to see how the acquisition materializes. In the meantime, it will raise questions about why Apple, the pioneer of digital music, is buying a music company instead of expanding its own products.
The growth of Apple’s iTunes Store is being hurt by companies like Spotify and Pandora, which allow people to stream music freely with ads or with a paid subscription.
“Apple was at the front of that curve, and if that’s the reason for the acquisition, it would lend credence to the view that maybe they’re not ahead of the curve anymore,” said Maynard Um, a financial analyst at Wells Fargo.
Mr. Cook called the deal a “no-brainer.” He said Apple had bought 27 companies since last year but that did not mean Apple had to buy those companies.
“Could Eddy’s team have built a subscription service? Of course,” he said. “We could’ve built those 27 other things ourselves, too. You don’t build everything yourself. It’s not one thing that excites us here. It’s the people. It’s the service.”
In 2002, Steven P. Jobs, the Apple chief who died nearly three years ago, began trying to persuade record companies to start selling their music online. It was an opportune time for Mr. Jobs because Apple was still relatively small and a less intimidating partner than it could be today, and the music industry was unhappy that people could pirate songs by downloading them online.
Mr. Jobs offered the record companies a legitimate online music outlet, the iTunes Store, to sell their music. But he wanted to make one big change: Customers would have to be permitted to buy any music they wanted à la carte, or one song at a time. The record companies initially resisted, but Mr. Jobs eventually persuaded them to come on board.
The iTunes Store opened in 2003, and it has dominated digital music sales over the last decade. Apple said that it had sold 35 billion songs on iTunes and that iTunes Radio had 40 million listeners.
“When we first approached the labels, the online music business was a disaster,” Mr. Jobs was quoted in “The Perfect Thing” by Steven Levy, a book about the iPod and iTunes. “Nobody had ever sold a song for 99 cents. Nobody really ever sold a song. And we walked in, and we said, ‘We want to sell songs à la carte. We want to sell albums, too, but we want to sell songs individually.’ They thought that would be the death of the album.”
Over the years, Mr. Jobs dismissed many calls for Apple to offer music subscription services because he believed that consumers did not want to rent songs.
Now the technology industry has made a sharp shift. Smartphones, which are miniature Internet-connected computers, are used by more than half of the world’s population. People consume music, games and video on the go, not just when sitting in front of a computer. In the fourth quarter of 2013, 52 percent of American smartphone owners used apps for streaming music like Pandora, according to the NPD Group, a research firm.
At the same time, much has changed for Apple. The company, now under Mr. Cook, is no longer an underdog but the leader of the tech industry, with a lot of money to spend.
Steven Milunovich, a financial analyst for UBS, said he thought the bulk of the acquisition might have been devoted to hiring Mr. Iovine to handle big media negotiations, as Mr. Jobs did for iTunes music in the past.
“Jobs had a distortion field, and that was kind of a unique capability,” Mr. Milunovich said. He added about Mr. Iovine: “Within the music world, this guy’s probably the closest thing you’re going to get to it.”
Still, some other analysts, like Toni Sacconaghi, a financial analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein, were puzzled by the acquisition, especially at the high price. After all, in 1996, Apple paid much less — about $400 million — to acquire the computer company NeXT, which brought Mr. Jobs back to the company.
That turned out to be one of the most transformative technology acquisitions in history: With Mr. Jobs back at the helm, Apple rose from near-bankruptcy into a dominant company.
Mr. Cook said Dr. Dre, born Andre Young, and Mr. Iovine would work with Apple on the next generation of music offerings but declined to share details about future products.
He said they would be working on “products you haven’t thought of yet, and seeing around the next corner to articulate the way to take music to an even higher level than it is now.”
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
How to Make Your Coffee Truly Healthy!!
It's like dark chocolate: How can something so good be good for you? Well, it’s time you started believing in the power of your java.
Coffee is the number one source of antioxidants in the U.S. diet, according to a study from the University of Scranton. Plus, a growing body of research suggests that quaffing a few cups a day can reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, and even prostate cancer.
The catch? While any coffee will provide some payoff, you need to pick the right roast, storage strategy, and brew method if you want joe with mojo. Here’s your step-by-step guide to making your coffee its healthiest.
1. THE ROAST
In the universe of coffee beans, lighter roasts are the dark horses. "The antioxidant effects of coffee are related to compounds called chlorogenic acids," says Peter Martin, M.D., director of the Vanderbilt University Institute for Coffee Studies.
"Roasting green coffee beans transforms these acids into better antioxidants—but if you keep on roasting them, they break down again." So buy light-brown beans. And when you're on the go, ask for Original Blend at Dunkin' Donuts or Blonde at Starbucks.
2. THE STORAGE
Roasted coffee beans have free radicals, which become more numerous the longer the beans are exposed to air, according to a study in Food Chemistry. That's a problem because, as free radical levels rise, some antioxidants in the beans are spent fighting to stabilize them.
Store your beans in an airtight container and don't grind them until you're ready to brew; the same study noted that whole beans had fewer free radicals than ground coffee. For an even grind and smooth-tasting joe, use a burr grinder; it ensures that the particles are more uniform in size. Try the Camano Coffee Mill ($65, redroostertradingcompany.com).
3. THE BREWING
The Keurig is king for convenience, but for antioxidants, the Moka is master. Researchers in Italy examined five different brewing methods and found that coffee percolated in a stovetop Moka pot, an espresso pot, or a Neapolitan-style pot produced coffee with more than double the antioxidant levels of java brewed through a paper filter. Pick up the Bialetti Moka Express ($45, bialettishop.com). Too strong? Add some hot water to espresso to make an americano.
4. THE CUP
How do you take your coffee? Here's your new answer: "Black, without sugar," says Dr. Martin. "Coffee in itself is extremely nutritious—anything you add is diminishing it."
A touch of half-and-half may not add many calories, but new research from Croatia suggests that milk can reduce the antioxidant levels. Of course, if you doctor your drink with sugar or artificial sweeteners, you're just stirring in calories or chemicals. A better way to handle bitter: Add some ground cinnamon to taste.
SWEET TIP
If you're hooked on your morning sugar fix, a bean with a sweeter, brighter flavor profile can ease the transition for your tastebuds. Try Stumptown Coffee Roasters' Colombia La Piramide or Ethiopia Nano Challa.
5 Foods That May Leave You Foggy!
Green tea, blueberries, and whole grains are among the most-common foods that have been shown to boost brain health. But studies suggest that some foods—even traditionally healthy ones—could slow down your brain today and in the future. Research points to these potential culprits:
1. Egg-White Omelet
Sure, an egg-white omelet is packed with protein, but if you skip out on the yolks, you miss out on an important neuroprotective nutrient: choline. Adults who received more choline in their diets performed better on verbal and visual memory tests and may be less likely to suffer from cognitive decline later in life, reports a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Go ahead and eat the whole egg.
2. Agave Nectar
The sweetener contains high levels of fructose—that's why it’s much sweeter than table sugar—which could diminish brain function. In an animal study from the University of California Los Angeles, rats fed a diet supplemented with fructose navigated an already-learned maze at a more sluggish pace and displayed fewer memory skills than rodents fed omega 3s. Researchers speculate it's likely because the fructose caused disturbances in brain cell signaling.
3. Tuna
Eating fish is healthy, since it’s generally packed with omega 3s. But some species, like tuna, contain mercury. Researchers thought that omega 3s were powerful enough to offset the neurotoxin’s negative effects, but one study on middle-aged corporate executives found those with the highest levels of mercury in their bloodstream—from over-consuming high-mercury fish—scored 5 percent lower on a cognitive test. And nearly half of that group had mercury levels that exceeded the amount the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe, according to researchers at the University of South Florida. Low-mercury seafood picks include salmon, sardines, and whitefish.
4. Microwave Popcorn
Many microwave popcorn brands pack their bags with trans fat. You’ve already heard that trans fats hurt your heart—by increasing inflammation and damaging blood vessel linings, which also harms your brain. Older adults with diets high in trans fats had lower cognitive abilities later in life, and their brains were smaller, found a 2011 study in Neurology. Skip foods that list “partially hydrogenated oil” in the ingredients.
5. Cookies and Chips
In a study analyzing nurses’ snacking habits, people who ate unhealthy snacks more than three times a week—like candy, chips, and cookies—made more cognitive errors from lapses in concentration and attention. Why? These snacks are high in fat, which can cause fatigue and zap alertness, according to research in Nutrients.
Why Fast Food Has Gotten Stranger
When the news came out about Domino’s new Specialty Chicken dish, we at Men’s Health decided to do some cold, hard investigative research on the mystery food. (Read: We absolutely see it for ourselves.) Only, when it arrived to our offices, we were disappointed by its lackluster lumpiness. Maybe Domino’s was a little liberal with the description of the dish in its press release as “one of the most creative, innovative menu items” the company ever made.
While we eagerly expected a 12-inch pizza with fried chicken as the new doughy base, what we received was a small, soggy side of chicken nuggets drenched in the normal fare of pizza fixings. Disappointed faces surrounded the table as we anticipated a mind-blowing pizza concoction that ended up looking like lukewarm leftovers.
As for calories, a serving of this chicken dish has between 170 and 230 calories, depending on your topping of choice. However, a "serving" is just four nuggets, and the box contains three servings. So if you eat the full box—12 nuggets—it'll run you between 510 and 690 calories.
All of this made us wonder what’s driving the current surge of seemingly-strange food combinations like Taco Bell’s Waffle Taco, Dunkin’ Donuts Glazed Donut Breakfast Sandwich, or the infamous KFC Double Down (a chicken sandwich in which the chicken takes the place of the bread)—the one that started it all.
Food concocting—or creating strange mixtures like pretzels covered in mayonnaise and salsa—is actually linked to binge eating behavior as well as intense negative self-perception, found one recent study from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “The emotions [the participants] reported after eating strange mixtures were more intensely negative, self-deprecating, and disparaging,” the study authors wrote. Eaters like this also experienced depression, as well as feelings of disgust and guilt.
That’s not to say that splurging on an only-if-you-dare food combination every once in a while will doom you. But making it a habit could impact more than your waistline. Healthy people who ate junk food for 5 consecutive days performed worse on cognitive tests measuring attention, speed, and mood, according to research from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.The high amounts of fat and sugar found in junk food could potentially damage the hippocampus, an area of the brain that helps to regulate mood, memory, and signal when you’re hungry or full.
All of this made us wonder what’s driving the current surge of seemingly-strange food combinations like Taco Bell’s Waffle Taco, Dunkin’ Donuts Glazed Donut Breakfast Sandwich, or the infamous KFC Double Down (a chicken sandwich in which the chicken takes the place of the bread)—the one that started it all.
Food concocting—or creating strange mixtures like pretzels covered in mayonnaise and salsa—is actually linked to binge eating behavior as well as intense negative self-perception, found one recent study from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “The emotions [the participants] reported after eating strange mixtures were more intensely negative, self-deprecating, and disparaging,” the study authors wrote. Eaters like this also experienced depression, as well as feelings of disgust and guilt.
That’s not to say that splurging on an only-if-you-dare food combination every once in a while will doom you. But making it a habit could impact more than your waistline. Healthy people who ate junk food for 5 consecutive days performed worse on cognitive tests measuring attention, speed, and mood, according to research from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.The high amounts of fat and sugar found in junk food could potentially damage the hippocampus, an area of the brain that helps to regulate mood, memory, and signal when you’re hungry or full.
You Won’t Believe the Calories in This Ridiculous Dessert from Cracker Barrel
We’ve seen crazy calorie counts before, but this one is truly insane.
When Men’s Health contributor Sarah Jacobsson Purewal sat down for a family meal at Cracker Barrel, she was shocked when she used the My Fitness Pal app to check the nutrition stats for CB’s Baked Apple Dumplin.
According to My Fitness Pal, this dish packs 3,229 calories. Yes, 3,229!
To double-check those numbers, we visited the Cracker Barrel website, hoping that perhaps My Fitness Pal was wrong.
There was no such information on the site. But we did find this FAQ:
Is nutritional information available for your menu items?
Here at Cracker Barrel, we pride ourselves on using recipes and ingredients that are genuine and of the highest quality available. We strive to prepare and present these food items to you in a way that upholds those authentic traditions of days gone by.Cracker Barrel certainly understands the health-conscious concerns that some of our guests have. While we are currently unable to provide exact calorie or fat content information for our entire menu, the following choices may help you in your selection. You can get very specific nutritional information on some select dishes at both weightwatchers.com and healthydiningfinder.com
Well, thanks for that Cracker Barrel. In other words: “We’re not going to tell you calorie counts because you would FREAK OUT!”
Seriously. The only reason Cracker Barrel is “unable to provide exact calorie or fat content information” is because they don’t want to. Or perhaps because they haven’t been forced to. Which is cool—that’s the company’s right. But if you don’t want to provide nutrition information, we say, just don’t provide it—and save us the lame excuse in your FAQ section.
On a side note, Sarah challenged her 26-year-old brother Timmy—who’s competing in the CrossFit Regionals in Asia in a few weeks—to see if he could actually eat the entire Baked Apple Dumplin in 10 minutes. And you know how it is: When your sister lays down a dare, you can’t just walk away. So he put in his order.
And . . . he was successful.
We had two questions for Timmy:
1. How did it taste?
“It was okay. I thought it would be denser, considering the calorie count, but the dumpling part was actually pretty light and fluffy. It wasn’t amazing, though. I’d say the ice cream was the best part.”
“It was okay. I thought it would be denser, considering the calorie count, but the dumpling part was actually pretty light and fluffy. It wasn’t amazing, though. I’d say the ice cream was the best part.”
2. How did you feel afterward?
“I felt fine! But I ate it at 10 a.m. and I wasn’t hungry for about 10 hours. My mom was convinced I was going to go into diabetic shock.”
“I felt fine! But I ate it at 10 a.m. and I wasn’t hungry for about 10 hours. My mom was convinced I was going to go into diabetic shock.”
Glad that didn’t happen. For what it’s worth, the company line from most restaurants on such desserts is that they’re not meant for one person—they’re meant to be shared. Fair enough: Even if you split this dumpling dish between four people, you’ll still be putting away 807 calories.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Never Complain About Low-Fat Food Again!
You’ve probably fallen into the trap of cooking up a healthier version of a favorite guilty pleasure only to be disappointed when the first bite tastes like cardboard. But it’s possible to give your mind and taste buds a fake-out, reports a new University of Colorado study.
Researchers served test meals of meatloaf with gravy, broccoli and cauliflower in butter sauce, and penne with creamy white sauce to 148 men and women between the ages of 18 and 65. Over the course of a few days, participants ate a full-fat, reduced-fat, and reduced-fat with added spice version of the meal and rated their enjoyment and each of the meal’s components. It turns out participants enjoyed the reduced-fat meal with added spices as much as the full-fat version.
That’s good news if you’re trying to punch up the enjoyment of your trimmed-up diet without adding much to your meal, but when people rated the separate dishes in the meal, they weren’t feeling the spiced-up version quite as much as the full-fat fare.
This is probably because enjoying savory foods is less about the flavor and more about the way the food feels in your mouth, which spices can’t quite mimic, says study author John C. Peters, Ph.D. “We all know that low-fat or fat-free ice cream just isn’t the same as the real thing,” Peters says. “But herbs and spices can work especially well on the everyday items like lean meats and vegetables.”
You don’t need a cabinet filled with the most exotic spices to improve the pleasure factor of most foods. Peters suggest having these common spices handy: garlic, rosemary, thyme, oregano, basil, parsley, cilantro, cinnamon, and cayenne.
For a dish like lean meatloaf, try adding savory herbs—oregano, parsley, and garlic, for instance—for a richer mouthfeel, suggests Rocco DiSpirito, celebrity chef and author of The Pound A Day Diet. He also recommends adding nutmeg to mashed potatoes for added depth without loading on butter, and mustard powder can provide a rich, full-fat taste when you’re making healthier macaroni and cheese.
MohamedsBlog is my FB page !
hey guys, i just created my Facebook page as " MOHAMEDSBLOG " i created it to share the best things in the world that inspire others. please, like my page now MOHAMEDSBLOG.
Bye bye !
Monday, May 26, 2014
Why A Facebook Employee Just Scared The Hell Out Of The Media
Facebook’s head of ad product management Mike Hudack went on a self-described rant on his personal Facebook page this morning, attacking the state of the media for failing to provide a “new home for serious journalism in a format that [feels] Internet-native.”
In the post, Hudack laments the “hollowing out” of most major newspapers, the death spiral of evening and cable news, and the failure of new internet-native media, including BuzzFeed, to “inform the national conversation in any meaningful way.” Hudack’s post seems to have been set off by a particular story from Ezra Klein’s new explainer site, Vox:
He concludes by saying, “It’s hard to tell who’s to blame. But someone should fix this shit.”
The post is, of course, the frustrations of an individual, but given Hudack’s role at one of the most important platforms in online media, his rant will no doubt unnerve anyone in publishing, who already feel powerless at the whim of Facebook’s algorithms.
As others in Hudack’s now-cluttered Facebook thread have pointed out, the concerns in his post ignore the company playing perhaps the most crucial role in media today: Facebook. The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal responded, “My perception is that Facebook is the major factor in almost every trend you identified. I’m not saying this as a hater, but if you asked most people in media why we do these stories, they’d say, ‘They work on Facebook.’”
Hudack’s post and the response from those in the publishing industry illustrate the key tension in the media landscape today, one that influences everything from the struggles illuminated in the New York Times’ “Innovation Report” to the optimization of headlines and the framing of stories. The capricious algorithms of powerful web giants like Facebook and Google can lavish online publishers with unprecedented referral traffic, creating a ripple effect throughout the news industryas they did last November, increasing average referral traffic by over 170% in the blink of an eye. And they can take it away just as easily, as evidenced this week byMetafilter, which must now lay off employees after a seemingly inexplicable demotion by Google search algorithms. Just this morning in a private Facebook journalism group, one social media editor for an online publication lamented the whims of the algorithm writing, “anyone else see Facebook reach and engagement shitting the bed this week?”
Publishers have learned to live and die by the algorithm, mostly because there’s no alternative. And in this relationship the only solace for these organizations is the hope that those with their hands at the dials understand their part in this near one-way relationship. For publishers, Hudack’s post no doubt hints at the media’s greatest fear: that these companies, at an individual level, may not fully realize the power they wield. Facebook’s News Feed Manager Lars Backstrom told BuzzFeed in November that he would like to let user data and the algorithms speak for themselves, telling BuzzFeed, “We do not want to bring our own biases into this … we definitely don’t want to get into the role of saying, ‘You’re a good guy, you’re a bad guy.’” It’s an admirable position, but given the realities of media industry, perhaps an untenable one.
As Madrigal points out in the thread that the tension arises because the two sides — those in charge of the algorithms and those really and truly responsible for making the content — don’t often talk, and when they do, one side is usually dictating terms. “We (speaking for ALL THE MEDIA) would love to talk with Facebook about how we can do more substantive stuff and be rewarded.”
It’s not to say Facebook hasn’t courted the media. The company has made public its attempts to help publishers extend their reach and it has pushed publishers to work more closely with Facebook. For many though, the outreach feels more like lecture than a dialogue.There is, though, one silver lining. When asked in the thread “do you think Facebook could help fix this shit?” Hudack showed signs of cooperation replying, “Yes. I do.” Until then, the algorithm is king and Facebook, like Google is still a complete mystery — a strong ally, until it isn’t
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)