Monday, June 08, 2009
No matter what kind diet program you are on, you will lose weight if you burn more energy than you consume. Low-carb diets work because you must strict meal plans that effectively limit caloric intake. In low carbohydrate diet control the calories intake to your body via food is the key.
Low carb diets is not essentially a starvation diet, so don’t make it become like starvation diet.
Starvation diet is not good and in the meantime, many health problems can result. Very low-calorie diets should only be undertaken under the close supervision of a physician --- I warn you.
The American Academy of Family Physicians provides the following definition of low-carbohydrate diets.
Low-carbohydrate diets restrict caloric intake by reducing the consumption of carbohydrates to 20 to 60 g per day ( typically less than 20 percent of the daily caloric intake ). The consumption of protein and fat is increased to compensate for part of the calories that formerly came from carbohydrates
We can see that the primary goal in low carb diets is focus on a high quantity of fat intake. But replace carbohydrate with fat may develop increased in cholesterol levels.
There is variant of low carb diets that are focus on high protein intake.
The potential problems is it may cause abnormal excretion of calcium. Especially in young age. Calcium consumption is often below the minimal requirement, and losing excess calcium can lead to Osteoporosis.
What is the benefits of low carb diets? This articles will give you details about it.
Low carb diets is not essentially a starvation diet, so don’t make it become like starvation diet.
Starvation diet is not good and in the meantime, many health problems can result. Very low-calorie diets should only be undertaken under the close supervision of a physician --- I warn you.
The American Academy of Family Physicians provides the following definition of low-carbohydrate diets.
Low-carbohydrate diets restrict caloric intake by reducing the consumption of carbohydrates to 20 to 60 g per day ( typically less than 20 percent of the daily caloric intake ). The consumption of protein and fat is increased to compensate for part of the calories that formerly came from carbohydrates
We can see that the primary goal in low carb diets is focus on a high quantity of fat intake. But replace carbohydrate with fat may develop increased in cholesterol levels.
There is variant of low carb diets that are focus on high protein intake.
The potential problems is it may cause abnormal excretion of calcium. Especially in young age. Calcium consumption is often below the minimal requirement, and losing excess calcium can lead to Osteoporosis.
What is the benefits of low carb diets? This articles will give you details about it.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Health, climate change vie for boost in US Congress
* Two top priorities for Obama see progress
* Enacting healthcare reform seen more likely this year
* Democrats still face tough fights on both (Adds details on Sen. Kennedy legislation in paragraph 14)
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - Barack Obama may be pressuring Congress as no U.S. president has for decades as he aims to get two big domestic goals passed this year -- reforming health care and fighting global warming.
"It's not impossible to do both, but that would be more than a Congress has ever given a president, maybe since the first First 100 Days," said Brookings Institution senior fellow Stephen Hess, referring to the start of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" presidency in 1933.
A further time constraint may be the pressures imposed by the campaign next year for congressional elections in November when the seats of all 435 U.S. representatives and a third of the 100 senators are up for grabs.
Congress in the past often has shown itself to be unable to handle more than one big issue a year, but Obama and his fellow Democrats, who control the Senate and House of Representatives, see a window of opportunity this year to pass two long-standing Democratic goals.
Expanding health care to the uninsured and reducing pollution associated with climate change would have an economic impact on nearly every consumer and most U.S. companies -- from health insurers and utilities, to oil refineries, ailing automakers, steel manufacturers and small businesses.
Nonetheless, Democratic leaders are giving it a run, placing both initiatives on a fast track -- with or without much Republican support.
"The one that has the highest probability of making it is health care," said Bruce Josten, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He noted a full legislative agenda later this year, including annual spending bills, a Supreme Court confirmation and tax legislation, could crowd out a climate bill debate in the Senate.
Nevertheless, several congressional committees are pushing ahead with their review of the bill that aims to cut industry's carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 with alternative energy sources and energy efficiencies.
The bill's prospects are strengthened by an unusual coalition of environmentalists, corporations and labor unions that have joined the effort. Obama is trying to sell climate change legislation as much more than doing something good for the environment. "Green" job creation and weaning the country off of foreign oil are his major talking points.
According to several Democratic lawmakers, the White House is already working hard to woo Senate Democratic and Republican moderates who will hold the keys to obtaining the needed 60-vote majority in the 100-member Senate.
In the meantime, environmentalists are heartened that four months into Obama's presidency such wide-ranging legislation is advancing, even with its concessions to some industries.
"If it became law today it would be the most important piece of energy and environmental legislation Congress ever produced," said one activist.
HEALTH CARE IN THE LEAD
Of the two, health care might be the bill that is more likely to reach Obama's desk for enactment by year's end. Both houses of Congress hope to blend their respective bills into a compromise measure by October -- Obama's deadline.
Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy has a major role in drafting the new health care bill as head of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The bill would require individuals and businesses to purchase insurance and prohibit insurance companies from refusing to cover anyone because of health history.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said for the next five weeks, the Senate's normal three-day work week will be extended to five so a health care reform bill can be passed.
"I want to emphasize what the president said, that health care is an absolute priority," said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a member of the House Democratic leadership, when asked by Reuters about the two bills' prospects. "But we believe we're going to do both" in the House, he added.
In the midst of a deep economic recession and with medical bills contributing to an estimated 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, providing health care for those without insurance is paramount to Obama.
Fifteen years ago, then-President Bill Clinton tried to keep a campaign pledge to enact universal health care, only to fail miserably. That contributed to significant Democratic losses in the 1994 congressional elections.
Since then, the health care problem has worsened with medical costs escalating and 46 million uninsured. Democrats claim they've learned their lesson about unfulfilled promises.
They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits.
Republicans keep hammering away at any proposed government-run health insurance. "A government plan could undercut private health plans, forcing people off the health plans they like," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned.
Behind the scenes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressuring her lieutenants to speed up work on the climate change legislation, which won strong backing last month from the politically diverse House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pelosi hopes to pass this bill in June or July. Even if the legislation were to go no further this year, Obama would have a major accomplishment to tout in December, when world leaders are set to meet in Copenhagen to discuss global warming.
But the legislation likely would result in higher energy bills for American consumers, an especially difficult sell during a recession.
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Eric Beech)
* Two top priorities for Obama see progress
* Enacting healthcare reform seen more likely this year
* Democrats still face tough fights on both (Adds details on Sen. Kennedy legislation in paragraph 14)
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - Barack Obama may be pressuring Congress as no U.S. president has for decades as he aims to get two big domestic goals passed this year -- reforming health care and fighting global warming.
"It's not impossible to do both, but that would be more than a Congress has ever given a president, maybe since the first First 100 Days," said Brookings Institution senior fellow Stephen Hess, referring to the start of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" presidency in 1933.
A further time constraint may be the pressures imposed by the campaign next year for congressional elections in November when the seats of all 435 U.S. representatives and a third of the 100 senators are up for grabs.
Congress in the past often has shown itself to be unable to handle more than one big issue a year, but Obama and his fellow Democrats, who control the Senate and House of Representatives, see a window of opportunity this year to pass two long-standing Democratic goals.
Expanding health care to the uninsured and reducing pollution associated with climate change would have an economic impact on nearly every consumer and most U.S. companies -- from health insurers and utilities, to oil refineries, ailing automakers, steel manufacturers and small businesses.
Nonetheless, Democratic leaders are giving it a run, placing both initiatives on a fast track -- with or without much Republican support.
"The one that has the highest probability of making it is health care," said Bruce Josten, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He noted a full legislative agenda later this year, including annual spending bills, a Supreme Court confirmation and tax legislation, could crowd out a climate bill debate in the Senate.
Nevertheless, several congressional committees are pushing ahead with their review of the bill that aims to cut industry's carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 with alternative energy sources and energy efficiencies.
The bill's prospects are strengthened by an unusual coalition of environmentalists, corporations and labor unions that have joined the effort. Obama is trying to sell climate change legislation as much more than doing something good for the environment. "Green" job creation and weaning the country off of foreign oil are his major talking points.
According to several Democratic lawmakers, the White House is already working hard to woo Senate Democratic and Republican moderates who will hold the keys to obtaining the needed 60-vote majority in the 100-member Senate.
In the meantime, environmentalists are heartened that four months into Obama's presidency such wide-ranging legislation is advancing, even with its concessions to some industries.
"If it became law today it would be the most important piece of energy and environmental legislation Congress ever produced," said one activist.
HEALTH CARE IN THE LEAD
Of the two, health care might be the bill that is more likely to reach Obama's desk for enactment by year's end. Both houses of Congress hope to blend their respective bills into a compromise measure by October -- Obama's deadline.
Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy has a major role in drafting the new health care bill as head of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The bill would require individuals and businesses to purchase insurance and prohibit insurance companies from refusing to cover anyone because of health history.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said for the next five weeks, the Senate's normal three-day work week will be extended to five so a health care reform bill can be passed.
"I want to emphasize what the president said, that health care is an absolute priority," said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a member of the House Democratic leadership, when asked by Reuters about the two bills' prospects. "But we believe we're going to do both" in the House, he added.
In the midst of a deep economic recession and with medical bills contributing to an estimated 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, providing health care for those without insurance is paramount to Obama.
Fifteen years ago, then-President Bill Clinton tried to keep a campaign pledge to enact universal health care, only to fail miserably. That contributed to significant Democratic losses in the 1994 congressional elections.
Since then, the health care problem has worsened with medical costs escalating and 46 million uninsured. Democrats claim they've learned their lesson about unfulfilled promises.
They still have to find a sound way to pay for expanding health care, a tough job amid staggering U.S. budget deficits.
Republicans keep hammering away at any proposed government-run health insurance. "A government plan could undercut private health plans, forcing people off the health plans they like," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned.
Behind the scenes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressuring her lieutenants to speed up work on the climate change legislation, which won strong backing last month from the politically diverse House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pelosi hopes to pass this bill in June or July. Even if the legislation were to go no further this year, Obama would have a major accomplishment to tout in December, when world leaders are set to meet in Copenhagen to discuss global warming.
But the legislation likely would result in higher energy bills for American consumers, an especially difficult sell during a recession.
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Eric Beech)
Monday, June 08, 2009
Stents no better than heart drugs in diabetics
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Diabetics with stable heart disease do just as well taking drugs alone as getting quick angioplasty or bypass surgery to open blocked heart arteries, U.S. researchers said on Sunday.
They said patients advised to have angioplasty and a heart stent to restore blood flow and ease chest pain could safely wait and give drugs a chance to work.
But those with more severe disease sent for more invasive heart bypass surgery might be able to avoid a future heart attack if they have the surgery right away.
The study also found no difference in heart risks between two strategies for treating type 2 diabetes -- increasing the amount of insulin or lowering the body's resistance to its own insulin with drugs such as either metformin or GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia, also known as rosiglitazone, which had been thought to raise the risk of heart attacks.
"If you have diabetes and heart disease such that a bypass surgery is a recommended procedure, you should have that early rather than delaying it," said Dr. Trevor Orchard of the University of Pittsburgh, whose study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Orchard said the study, also being presented at the American Diabetes Association meeting in New Orleans, offers evidence on how best to treat people with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease. More than 65 percent of people with diabetes die from heart disease or stroke.
For GlaxoSmithKline, the study represents a positive sign that Avandia may be safer than earlier analyses had suggested.
But it may be another blow for stent makers such as Boston Scientific Corp and Johnson & Johnson, whose U.S. sales plummeted after a similar study two years ago showed stents were no better than drugs at preventing death and heart attacks in all types of heart patients.
Stents are wire mesh tubes that prop open diseased arteries after they have been unclogged during angioplasty.
QUESTIONING ANGIOPLASTY
In a commentary in the journal, Dr. William Boden of the University at Buffalo in New York said doctors should question why so many diabetics still get angioplasty.
"The continued high rate of use of (angioplasty) (1.24 million procedures per year in the U.S.) and the high rate of drug-eluting stent usage strongly suggests that we critically reassess our approach to revascularization, if needed, in diabetics with coronary disease," Boden wrote.
Diabetics with stable chest pain account for about 40 percent of all U.S. patients who get angioplasty, according to Wachovia analyst Larry Biegelsen, who said the findings could cut U.S. procedures by 3 percent.
The study involved 2,368 patients who either got treated right away with angioplasty, usually with a stent, and drugs or simply got drug treatment. It found no difference in the rates of death, heart attack or stroke after five years.
Abbott Laboratories Inc spokesman Jonathon Hamilton downplayed the findings and said many patients in the study were treated with older stents. He said in an e-mail newer stents might have shown a benefit over medical treatment.
The study also looked at the risks and benefits of two strategies for controlling blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes, in which people lose the ability to use insulin.
One group took insulin injections or drugs known as sulfonylureas that boost the body's production of insulin. The other took insulin-sensitizing drugs like metformin or drugs known as glitazones, which include Avandia or Takeda Pharmaceutical Co's pioglitazone, brand name Actos.
Orchard said about 60 percent of patients in the insulin-sensitizing group took rosiglitazone or Avandia. He said there was no increased risk of heart attacks among patients in this group.
(Editing by Maggie Fox)
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Diabetics with stable heart disease do just as well taking drugs alone as getting quick angioplasty or bypass surgery to open blocked heart arteries, U.S. researchers said on Sunday.
They said patients advised to have angioplasty and a heart stent to restore blood flow and ease chest pain could safely wait and give drugs a chance to work.
But those with more severe disease sent for more invasive heart bypass surgery might be able to avoid a future heart attack if they have the surgery right away.
The study also found no difference in heart risks between two strategies for treating type 2 diabetes -- increasing the amount of insulin or lowering the body's resistance to its own insulin with drugs such as either metformin or GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia, also known as rosiglitazone, which had been thought to raise the risk of heart attacks.
"If you have diabetes and heart disease such that a bypass surgery is a recommended procedure, you should have that early rather than delaying it," said Dr. Trevor Orchard of the University of Pittsburgh, whose study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Orchard said the study, also being presented at the American Diabetes Association meeting in New Orleans, offers evidence on how best to treat people with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease. More than 65 percent of people with diabetes die from heart disease or stroke.
For GlaxoSmithKline, the study represents a positive sign that Avandia may be safer than earlier analyses had suggested.
But it may be another blow for stent makers such as Boston Scientific Corp and Johnson & Johnson, whose U.S. sales plummeted after a similar study two years ago showed stents were no better than drugs at preventing death and heart attacks in all types of heart patients.
Stents are wire mesh tubes that prop open diseased arteries after they have been unclogged during angioplasty.
QUESTIONING ANGIOPLASTY
In a commentary in the journal, Dr. William Boden of the University at Buffalo in New York said doctors should question why so many diabetics still get angioplasty.
"The continued high rate of use of (angioplasty) (1.24 million procedures per year in the U.S.) and the high rate of drug-eluting stent usage strongly suggests that we critically reassess our approach to revascularization, if needed, in diabetics with coronary disease," Boden wrote.
Diabetics with stable chest pain account for about 40 percent of all U.S. patients who get angioplasty, according to Wachovia analyst Larry Biegelsen, who said the findings could cut U.S. procedures by 3 percent.
The study involved 2,368 patients who either got treated right away with angioplasty, usually with a stent, and drugs or simply got drug treatment. It found no difference in the rates of death, heart attack or stroke after five years.
Abbott Laboratories Inc spokesman Jonathon Hamilton downplayed the findings and said many patients in the study were treated with older stents. He said in an e-mail newer stents might have shown a benefit over medical treatment.
The study also looked at the risks and benefits of two strategies for controlling blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes, in which people lose the ability to use insulin.
One group took insulin injections or drugs known as sulfonylureas that boost the body's production of insulin. The other took insulin-sensitizing drugs like metformin or drugs known as glitazones, which include Avandia or Takeda Pharmaceutical Co's pioglitazone, brand name Actos.
Orchard said about 60 percent of patients in the insulin-sensitizing group took rosiglitazone or Avandia. He said there was no increased risk of heart attacks among patients in this group.
(Editing by Maggie Fox)
Sunday, June 07, 2009
We often difficult to separate the fact from popular beliefs. This is some fact from popular beliefs/myth related to eating disorder. Read this, because knowledge can help many people to deal with their eating disorder. And remember that it is incredibly important to get help as soon as you notice that there is a problem, and do not feel ashamed to reach out for help.
All diet can lead to Eating disorder. ( Myth )
Though dieting is not synonymous with an eating disorder, it can increase a person’s chance of developing one.
Only teenage girls can suffer from eating disorders. ( Myth )
Anyone at any age can fall victim to this terrible disorder.
All exercise is healthful, more exercise will always make you more healthy. ( Myth )
Extreme exercise is dangerous. Too much exercise is hard on your body
and can cause stress fractures and other serious medical problems.
You can never fully recover from an eating disorder. ( Myth )
Recovery takes a long time, but with hard work and the proper treatment, you can fully recover from your eating disorder.
Men with eating disorders are always gay. ( Myth )
Someone's sexual preference has nothing to do with them developing an eating disorder.
Eating disorders are solely a problem with food. ( Myth )
With all eating disorders, weight is the focus of life. By focusing on food, weight and calories, a person is able to block out or numb painful feelings and emotions. Some use food as a way to comfort themselves. Eating disorders are NOT a problem with food. They are in fact only a symptom of underlying problems.
Eating disorder is not connected with obesity. ( Myth )
Recent years have seen a renewal of interest in the relationship between eating disorders and obesity. Two eating disorders have now been linked to obesity. The first is binge eating disorder and the second is the night eating syndrome.
Bulimics always purge by vomiting. ( Myth )
Not all bulimics try to rid themselves of the calories they have consumed by vomiting. Purging can take the form of laxatives, diuretics, exercising, or fasting.
Bulimia can not cause death. ( Myth )
Bulimics are at a high risk for dying, especially if they are purging, using laxatives and doing excessive exercise. Many bulimics have died from cardiac arrest which is usually caused by low potassium or an electrolyte imbalance. Others have died from a ruptured esophagus.
People with eating disorders do this to hurt their family and friends. ( Myth )
People with eating disorders are doing this to themselves. They are usually very upset when they know the people around them are worried or hurt by their eating disorder.
People cannot have more than one eating disorder. ( Myth )
Many people have more than one eating disorder. It is very common for someone to suffer with more than one eating disorder.
Compulsive eating is not an eating disorder. ( Myth )
It is very much an eating disorder and is just as serious as anorexia and bulimia.
Eating disorders have increased in frequency as a consequence of society's emphasis and preoccupation with thinness. Understand the causes of eating disorder and free yourself from eating disorder for your health.
All diet can lead to Eating disorder. ( Myth )
Though dieting is not synonymous with an eating disorder, it can increase a person’s chance of developing one.
Only teenage girls can suffer from eating disorders. ( Myth )
Anyone at any age can fall victim to this terrible disorder.
All exercise is healthful, more exercise will always make you more healthy. ( Myth )
Extreme exercise is dangerous. Too much exercise is hard on your body
and can cause stress fractures and other serious medical problems.
You can never fully recover from an eating disorder. ( Myth )
Recovery takes a long time, but with hard work and the proper treatment, you can fully recover from your eating disorder.
Men with eating disorders are always gay. ( Myth )
Someone's sexual preference has nothing to do with them developing an eating disorder.
Eating disorders are solely a problem with food. ( Myth )
With all eating disorders, weight is the focus of life. By focusing on food, weight and calories, a person is able to block out or numb painful feelings and emotions. Some use food as a way to comfort themselves. Eating disorders are NOT a problem with food. They are in fact only a symptom of underlying problems.
Eating disorder is not connected with obesity. ( Myth )
Recent years have seen a renewal of interest in the relationship between eating disorders and obesity. Two eating disorders have now been linked to obesity. The first is binge eating disorder and the second is the night eating syndrome.
Bulimics always purge by vomiting. ( Myth )
Not all bulimics try to rid themselves of the calories they have consumed by vomiting. Purging can take the form of laxatives, diuretics, exercising, or fasting.
Bulimia can not cause death. ( Myth )
Bulimics are at a high risk for dying, especially if they are purging, using laxatives and doing excessive exercise. Many bulimics have died from cardiac arrest which is usually caused by low potassium or an electrolyte imbalance. Others have died from a ruptured esophagus.
People with eating disorders do this to hurt their family and friends. ( Myth )
People with eating disorders are doing this to themselves. They are usually very upset when they know the people around them are worried or hurt by their eating disorder.
People cannot have more than one eating disorder. ( Myth )
Many people have more than one eating disorder. It is very common for someone to suffer with more than one eating disorder.
Compulsive eating is not an eating disorder. ( Myth )
It is very much an eating disorder and is just as serious as anorexia and bulimia.
Eating disorders have increased in frequency as a consequence of society's emphasis and preoccupation with thinness. Understand the causes of eating disorder and free yourself from eating disorder for your health.
