by and large, the research has shown that for people predisposed to migraines, regular exercise, at least a few times a week, either does no harm or may have modest benefits.
Research: Spending time in nature is good for us, but we underestimate just how good it is
From the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest blog.
Note, for those who don’t have an instinctive sense for metric temperature measurements (ahem), 2.5 degrees Celsius is 36.5 degrees Fahrenheit; 14.6 C is 58 F.
(Ottawa parkway and skyline)People underestimate the psychological benefits of spending time in nature. That’s according to Elizabeth Nisbet and John Zelenski who say the consequence is that people spend less time outside in green spaces than they would do otherwise: this undermines their affiliation with the natural world and reduces the likelihood that they will care about the environment.
One hundred and fifty Carleton University students participated in what they thought was a study of “personality and impressions of the campus area”. Carleton is located in Ottawa, with a green corridor that runs through the city located nearby. Half the students took a 17 minute walk - either along a canal path near the campus to an arboretum, or via underground tunnels used on campus for getting around. Afterwards they completed questionnaires about how they felt. The other students predicted how they would feel, either after the outdoor, nature-filled walk or after the tunnel walk, but they didn’t actually take the walk. Both routes were equally familiar to all the students. The study was conducted on dry Autumn days with temperatures ranging from 2.5 to 14.6 degrees Celsius.
The key findings are that students felt more positive emotions after the natural walk than they did after the tunnel walk, but that those in the forecasting condition underestimated the positive benefits of a natural walk and overestimated the positive benefits of the tunnel walk. The students in the natural walk condition also reported feeling more connected to nature, an association that was mediated by their more positive emotions.
A second study was similar to the first, but this time the students who took the walks were the same ones who made predictions about how they’d feel afterwards. Also, different indoor and outdoor routes were used. Exactly the same findings were observed - students felt in a better mood after outdoor, natural walks and more connected with nature, yet they failed to anticipate the magnitude of these benefits.
(Source: bps-research-digest.blogspot.com)
For those who follow a plant-based diet, it’s not uncommon for friends and family to voice concern over a number of nutritional issues that aren’t grounded in fact. “Where will you get your protein?” or “You’ve got to drink milk to get calcium!” are comments often heard. In the same vein, when it’s learned that a vitamin B12 supplement is routinely recommended for vegetarians, and especially vegans, many are quick to conclude that a plant-based diet is inferior. After all, if a total plant-based diet is so healthy, then why doesn’t it supply all essential nutrients and micronutrients? This has led to confusion, even among vegans. So let’s take a look at the science regarding B12 and dispel some myths along the way.
What Should Your Step Count Goal Be?
What Should Your Step Count Goal Be?
Dr. Catrine Tudor-Locke recommends the following based on research:
Classification of pedometer-determined physical activity in healthy adults:
1) Under 5000 steps/day may be used as a “sedentary lifestyle index”
2) 5,000-7,499 steps/day is typical of daily activity excluding sports/exercise and might be considered “low active.”
3) 7,500-9,999 likely includes some exercise or walking (and/or a job that requires more walking) and might be considered “somewhat active.”
4) 10,000 steps/day indicates the point that should be used to classify individuals as “active”.
5) Individuals who take more than 12,500 steps/day are likely to be classified as “highly active”.
(Source: walking.about.com)
Excuse me while I throw this down, I’m old and cranky and tired of hearing the idiocy repeated by people who ought to know better.
Real women do not have curves. Real women do not look like just one thing.
Click through for the whole thing.
Epidemiologists from the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio reported data showing that diet soft drink consumption is associated with increased waist circumference in humans, and a second study that found aspartame raised fasting glucose (blood sugar) in diabetes-prone mice.
“Data from this and other prospective studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners as healthy alternatives may be ill-advised,” said Helen P. Hazuda, Ph.D., professor and chief of the Division of Clinical Epidemiology in the School of Medicine. “They may be free of calories but not of consequences.”
Diet soft drink users, as a group, experienced 70 percent greater increases in waist circumference compared with non-users. Frequent users, who said they consumed two or more diet sodas a day, experienced waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than those of non-users.
Click to read more.
If you’re still drinking aspartame-laced diet soda, I’d recommend watching the documentary Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World about the history of Aspartame. It’s about the corporate fraud (led by Donald Rumsfeld) that went into getting Aspartame approved for human consumption. And the biological consequences of putting those corporate petrochemicals into your body like they were some kind of food as opposed to toxic crap that makes you fat and ruins your health.
New research indicates that supermarket chickens may be the source of the superbug, those antibiotic-resistant strains of E.coli among humans.
There’s a new paper out in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases that makes a provocative claim: There is enough similarity between drug-resistance genes in E. coli carried by chickens and E. coli infecting humans that the chickens may be the source of it.
If it is correct — and it seems plausible and is backed by past research — the claim provides another piece of evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture has a direct effect on human health.
Both glasses are 16 oz (2 cup) glasses. The glass on the left is 100 calories of regular Coca-Cola, and the glass on the right is the sugar that the 100 calories of soda contains.
The reason I don’t drink soda….
yup, ditto
And the fun part is, your body would throw it all up if you were to eat that much straight sugar. So what does the soda company do? Add chemicals that suppress the need to throw it all up after you’ve had it.
(via fuckyeahstrength)
The two competing philosophies underlying barefoot running
From a post at Barefoot Running University.
For me, the scariest part of this debate isn’t that people object to the premise of barefoot or minimalist shoe running. The scariest part is they seem to completely dismiss the idea. There’s two competing hypotheses:
1. Humans have an innate “best running form” which takes advantage of our physiology. This form can be seen in children running without shoes. Based on this hypothesis, humans have been running successfully barefoot or in minimalist shoes for at least tens of thousands of years. This is the premise behind barefoot running, and by extension, minimalist shoe running. It’s the idea that you’re a strong, capable organism able to do wonderful things under your own power.
Natural freedom.
2. The vast majority of humans are inherently flawed and require special artificial devices and technologies built into special shoes in order to run. Since we are all flawed, we need experts to design special plastic, leather, and rubber shoes and shoe inserts that will allow us to run. Based on this hypothesis, our species have only been successful runners for about three or four decades. This is the same group that will claim heel striking is natural. It’s the idea that we’re weak, feeble piles of goo incapable of even the simplest forms of movement without the aid of a magical device.
Artificial dependence.
For some people, #2 may be a better option. After all, there is no one right answer for all people. But is this the way we want to frame all human movement? We’re all fundamentally flawed and need artificial technology?
(Source: barefootrunninguniversity.com)
What I’ve been discovering with my journey with Health Month is that I’m traveling along with one more rule than I thought I had. That rule is to be able to accept failure and keep moving. I think I’m doing it better than I ever have.
(via makingabetterme)
