The secret behind The Secret
Have you ever asked yourself:
1. Why do some ignorant people become wealthy while many brilliant people remain poor?
2. Why do many people work very hard and are broke while a few work effortlessly and earn millions?
If you're like me, you've spent the better part of your life trying to figure out how to create more income. Maybe not billions or even millions of dollars, but most everyone I know would like to provide more for their family and security for themselves.
I can't count the number of books I've read on the subject or the dollars I've spent on audio tapes, CDs and seminars. I've been confused when two apparently credible teachers gave conflicting advice. I've been frustrated and distraught when I seemingly followed step by step the teachings of the latest guru only to fail miserably. I've been discouraged and depressed when it appeared that I'd never find the true means to achieve what I sought for me and my family.
To finally discover a method of creating wealth that was based on precise scientific laws and eternal truths was literally a dream come true.
It all started with a program I was introduced to by Bob Proctor, but more on that in a minute.
The back story, as it were, is just as interesting. Because Australian filmmaker Rhonda Byrne was so influenced by the very same teaching that changed my life, that she conceived of and then produced the mega-successful DVD and subsequent book of "The Secret."
It's all based on a "little green book" that's more than 100 years old (no, it's not "As A Man Thinketh," but you'll see many of the same principles at work).
We've posted a four minute video that is well worth watching. You can get the video and "the rest of the story" right here...
As always, thanks for supporting our site :-)
Vic JohnsonFor My Daily Insights
P.S. Stop and think about it. If there's a science for just about everything in the world you can think of, then why shouldn't there be a science for getting rich. That was the first thought I had after I listened to my first lesson. And I can't begin to tell you how excited I got after I realized that not only was that true -- but I had been handed the exact formula that the science was based on. Can I pass the formula on to you? Learn more here...
Sent to you as a courtesy of...
Your friends at AsAManThinketh.netFor a free eBook of James Allens classic:http://www.AsAManThinketh.net
To update your contact information:Change
If you no longer wish to receive communication from us:Cancel MyDailyInsights.com LLCPO Box 1220Melrose, FL 32666If you have received this as a result of spam, please forward the entire message to abuse@mydailyinsights.com. Copyright © 2004 MyDailyInsights.com LLC All rights reserved
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Yahoo! A look inside the world of search from the people at Yahoo!
The "Buzz" on Fourth of JulyOccasionally, I'm a stickler for details. With Independence Day approaching, I thought it would be cool to recreate the first celebration. So, I made a list. Break free from Britain. Have a bonfire on my lawn. Clear my driveway for horse-drawn floats. Stock the feast rum, salted meat, fish, and more rum. Persuade New York to release all its debtors from prison.
Well, I don't have a driveway, so I'm celebrating the new-fangled American way with picnics, parades and, naturally, pyrotechnics.
Enthusiasm for fireworks though, seems a little mixed and it's not because the Fourth falls on a hump day this year. As we noted in our annual Buzz log nod to the Fourth, anticipation for the Fourth of July in the past six months has been 30% higher than in 2006. Yet, recent "fireworks" look-ups are a full 33% lower than last year.
However, tally up all those DIY queries for fireworks stores and specific sellers like phantom fireworks, and the numbers show that interest in our grand explosive tradition hasn't necessarily fizzled out. Yes, guys still tend to be the primary pyros, driving six out of 10 searches. Not that I can prove it, but I suspect it's the boys responsible for all the homemade fireworks searches.
The Buzz has also been tracking a surge for pies. For the most part, apple has been the filling of choice in Search... but we've had a last-minute upset. No, I dare not impugn the wholesome pomaceous fruit and its role in the most American of delicacies, but in the past week, key lime pie has squeezed past to get to the top of the pie heap. And yes, cherry pie is still staying strong in the mix.
As for the heart and soul of July Fourth, I'm happy to report that the patriotic spirit is alive and well. We've tracked searches that look into historical figures and places, clothing and tattoos, decorating the homestead and making crafts, and how to sing songs and recite poetry that shows our love of the motherland. Interestingly, public interest in the Patriot Act picked up noticeably in June. Curiosity and debate about Patriot Act summary, Patriot Act pros and cons and the like shows how Search has become part of the democratic process, and underscores how we the citizenry continue to involve ourselves in the workings of our republic.
However you choose to declare your independence, you won't be alone. Happy Fourth of July.
Vera ChanSenior Buzz Team EditorYahoo! Search
The "Buzz" on Fourth of JulyOccasionally, I'm a stickler for details. With Independence Day approaching, I thought it would be cool to recreate the first celebration. So, I made a list. Break free from Britain. Have a bonfire on my lawn. Clear my driveway for horse-drawn floats. Stock the feast rum, salted meat, fish, and more rum. Persuade New York to release all its debtors from prison.
Well, I don't have a driveway, so I'm celebrating the new-fangled American way with picnics, parades and, naturally, pyrotechnics.
Enthusiasm for fireworks though, seems a little mixed and it's not because the Fourth falls on a hump day this year. As we noted in our annual Buzz log nod to the Fourth, anticipation for the Fourth of July in the past six months has been 30% higher than in 2006. Yet, recent "fireworks" look-ups are a full 33% lower than last year.
However, tally up all those DIY queries for fireworks stores and specific sellers like phantom fireworks, and the numbers show that interest in our grand explosive tradition hasn't necessarily fizzled out. Yes, guys still tend to be the primary pyros, driving six out of 10 searches. Not that I can prove it, but I suspect it's the boys responsible for all the homemade fireworks searches.
The Buzz has also been tracking a surge for pies. For the most part, apple has been the filling of choice in Search... but we've had a last-minute upset. No, I dare not impugn the wholesome pomaceous fruit and its role in the most American of delicacies, but in the past week, key lime pie has squeezed past to get to the top of the pie heap. And yes, cherry pie is still staying strong in the mix.
As for the heart and soul of July Fourth, I'm happy to report that the patriotic spirit is alive and well. We've tracked searches that look into historical figures and places, clothing and tattoos, decorating the homestead and making crafts, and how to sing songs and recite poetry that shows our love of the motherland. Interestingly, public interest in the Patriot Act picked up noticeably in June. Curiosity and debate about Patriot Act summary, Patriot Act pros and cons and the like shows how Search has become part of the democratic process, and underscores how we the citizenry continue to involve ourselves in the workings of our republic.
However you choose to declare your independence, you won't be alone. Happy Fourth of July.
Vera ChanSenior Buzz Team EditorYahoo! Search
Friday, July 6, 2007
How can I find breast cancer early?
How can I find breast cancer early?
The best way to find breast lumps that may be cancer is to do 3 things:
Have regular mammograms.
Have your doctor check your breasts.
Check your breasts yourself every month.
Doing all of these things gives you the best chance to find cancer as early as you can. Finding breast cancer early makes treatment much easier and more effective. More than 90 out of 100 women whose breast cancer is found early will be cured.
Return to top
What is a mammogram?
A mammogram is the most effective way to find breast cancer early, up to 2 years before the lump is even large enough to feel. A mammogram is a special kind of x-ray of your breasts. The amount of radiation used in the x-ray is very small. Mammograms detect cancer because cancer is denser (thicker) than the normal part of the breast. A radiologist will look at the x-rays for signs of cancer or other breast problems.
Return to top
How is a mammogram performed?
Your breast will rest on a shelf and the x-ray machine will be slowly pressed against your breast until you feel pressure. This pressure is needed to spread your breast out so that a better x-ray can be taken. The x-ray takes just 1 or 2 minutes, and the entire process usually takes no more than about 20 minutes.
Do mammograms hurt?
Mammograms can be uncomfortable. But they don't take very long. You may find that planning to have your mammogram shortly after your period makes it less uncomfortable. Your breasts may be less tender at this time.
Return to top
How often should I get a mammogram?
Women age 40 and over should get a mammogram every 1 to 2 years. If you have risk factors for breast cancer, such as a family history of breast cancer, your doctor may want you to have mammograms more often or start having them sooner.
Return to top
How often should my doctor check my breasts?
Every 1 to 2 years beginning when you're 20. Talk with your doctor when it's time for your breasts to be checked.
Return to top
How often should I check my breasts?
Every month beginning at about age 20. At this early age, any small lumps are probably just normal breast glands and ducts. Over time you will get used to how your breasts normally feel so that you're able to tell if a new lump appears. Check your breasts a few days after your period when your breasts aren't so sore. If you don't have periods or if they come at varying times, check your breasts at the same time every month.
Return to top
How do I check for lumps?
Start by standing in front of a mirror. Look at your breasts with your arms at your side, with your arms raised behind your head, and with your arms on your hips and your chest muscles flexed.
Next, lie down with a pillow under your left shoulder. Put your left hand behind your head and feel your left breast with the pads of the 3 middle fingers on your right hand. Start at the outer edge and work around your breast in circles, getting closer to your nipple with each circle. After you've finished checking your breast, squeeze your nipple gently and look for discharge (fluid coming out of the nipple).
Do the same thing to your right breast with a pillow under your right shoulder.
Be sure to include the area up to your collarbone and out to your armpit. You have lymph nodes in this area. Cancer can spread to lymph node tissue.
यू कैन Changes to look for in your breasts
Any new lump (which may or may not be painful or tender)
Unusual thickening of your breasts
Sticky or bloody discharge from your nipples
Any changes in the skin of your nipples or breasts, such as puckering or dimpling
An unusual increase in the size of one breast
One breast unusually lower than the other
The best way to find breast lumps that may be cancer is to do 3 things:
Have regular mammograms.
Have your doctor check your breasts.
Check your breasts yourself every month.
Doing all of these things gives you the best chance to find cancer as early as you can. Finding breast cancer early makes treatment much easier and more effective. More than 90 out of 100 women whose breast cancer is found early will be cured.
Return to top
What is a mammogram?
A mammogram is the most effective way to find breast cancer early, up to 2 years before the lump is even large enough to feel. A mammogram is a special kind of x-ray of your breasts. The amount of radiation used in the x-ray is very small. Mammograms detect cancer because cancer is denser (thicker) than the normal part of the breast. A radiologist will look at the x-rays for signs of cancer or other breast problems.
Return to top
How is a mammogram performed?
Your breast will rest on a shelf and the x-ray machine will be slowly pressed against your breast until you feel pressure. This pressure is needed to spread your breast out so that a better x-ray can be taken. The x-ray takes just 1 or 2 minutes, and the entire process usually takes no more than about 20 minutes.
Do mammograms hurt?
Mammograms can be uncomfortable. But they don't take very long. You may find that planning to have your mammogram shortly after your period makes it less uncomfortable. Your breasts may be less tender at this time.
Return to top
How often should I get a mammogram?
Women age 40 and over should get a mammogram every 1 to 2 years. If you have risk factors for breast cancer, such as a family history of breast cancer, your doctor may want you to have mammograms more often or start having them sooner.
Return to top
How often should my doctor check my breasts?
Every 1 to 2 years beginning when you're 20. Talk with your doctor when it's time for your breasts to be checked.
Return to top
How often should I check my breasts?
Every month beginning at about age 20. At this early age, any small lumps are probably just normal breast glands and ducts. Over time you will get used to how your breasts normally feel so that you're able to tell if a new lump appears. Check your breasts a few days after your period when your breasts aren't so sore. If you don't have periods or if they come at varying times, check your breasts at the same time every month.
Return to top
How do I check for lumps?
Start by standing in front of a mirror. Look at your breasts with your arms at your side, with your arms raised behind your head, and with your arms on your hips and your chest muscles flexed.
Next, lie down with a pillow under your left shoulder. Put your left hand behind your head and feel your left breast with the pads of the 3 middle fingers on your right hand. Start at the outer edge and work around your breast in circles, getting closer to your nipple with each circle. After you've finished checking your breast, squeeze your nipple gently and look for discharge (fluid coming out of the nipple).
Do the same thing to your right breast with a pillow under your right shoulder.
Be sure to include the area up to your collarbone and out to your armpit. You have lymph nodes in this area. Cancer can spread to lymph node tissue.
यू कैन Changes to look for in your breasts
Any new lump (which may or may not be painful or tender)
Unusual thickening of your breasts
Sticky or bloody discharge from your nipples
Any changes in the skin of your nipples or breasts, such as puckering or dimpling
An unusual increase in the size of one breast
One breast unusually lower than the other
Care is Better If You Have Several Illnesses
Care is Better If You Have Several Illnesses
You might think, with all the recent criticism of health care in the USA, that having more than one serious condition would put you at greater risk for poor treatment and nursing; with too much to take care of, one or other of your health problems could be neglected.
Wrong! A report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that the opposite is the case. Three studies of medical care quality provided a total of 7,680 patients. The studies were the Community Quality Index study (6,712 adults living in 12 metropolitan areas across the United States), the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders study (372 vulnerable older patients, defined as community-dwelling persons ages 65 and older who were at increased risk for death or functional decline), and the Veterans Health Administration project (596 male veterans ages 35 and older who were receiving care at 26 clinical sites).
The quality of care was defined as the percentage of quality indicators that were satisfied for each patient. With each additional medical condition, the average quality scores rose – by 2.2%, 1.7%, and 1.7% in the three studies, respectively. There was little, if any, effect of the difficulty of delivering the recommended care on these results. This is good news, reflecting on the quality of health care in different communities. Maybe our health system isn’t quite as bad as everyone makes out.
You might think, with all the recent criticism of health care in the USA, that having more than one serious condition would put you at greater risk for poor treatment and nursing; with too much to take care of, one or other of your health problems could be neglected.
Wrong! A report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that the opposite is the case. Three studies of medical care quality provided a total of 7,680 patients. The studies were the Community Quality Index study (6,712 adults living in 12 metropolitan areas across the United States), the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders study (372 vulnerable older patients, defined as community-dwelling persons ages 65 and older who were at increased risk for death or functional decline), and the Veterans Health Administration project (596 male veterans ages 35 and older who were receiving care at 26 clinical sites).
The quality of care was defined as the percentage of quality indicators that were satisfied for each patient. With each additional medical condition, the average quality scores rose – by 2.2%, 1.7%, and 1.7% in the three studies, respectively. There was little, if any, effect of the difficulty of delivering the recommended care on these results. This is good news, reflecting on the quality of health care in different communities. Maybe our health system isn’t quite as bad as everyone makes out.
ओवारियन कैंसर ऑफ़ थे breas
The Symptom Complex of Ovarian Cancer
In December 2000 I wrote an article, which was posted on HealthandAge.com, drawing attention to the serious delay in the diagnosis, and thus treatment, of ovarian cancer. The quoted study in the journal Cancer listed 7 key symptoms, each reported in at least 25% of victims: abdominal bloating, fatigue, abdominal pain, indigestion, frequent urination, pelvic pain, and constipation. My article was titled “Attention Must Be Paid”, but obviously it hasn’t had widespread effect.
A consensus statement was recently issued by the US Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, and the American Cancer Society, listing 4 cardinal symptoms: bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, feeling full quickly or difficulty eating, and frequent or urgent urination। These aren’t very different from those reported in the first study, seven years ago. The statement recommends that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of these symptoms almost every day for longer than 2 or 3 weeks. They go on to say “It is too soon to tell whether the new measures will work or whether they will lead to a flood of diagnostic tests or even unnecessary operations." If by “working” they mean earlier diagnosis of this otherwise lethal condition, I believe gynecologists and health proving organizations will welcome the recommendation, even if it leads to a “flood of diagnostic tests”. Cancer of the ovary is too serious for patients to be forced into a wait-and-see situation.
In December 2000 I wrote an article, which was posted on HealthandAge.com, drawing attention to the serious delay in the diagnosis, and thus treatment, of ovarian cancer. The quoted study in the journal Cancer listed 7 key symptoms, each reported in at least 25% of victims: abdominal bloating, fatigue, abdominal pain, indigestion, frequent urination, pelvic pain, and constipation. My article was titled “Attention Must Be Paid”, but obviously it hasn’t had widespread effect.
A consensus statement was recently issued by the US Gynecologic Cancer Foundation, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, and the American Cancer Society, listing 4 cardinal symptoms: bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, feeling full quickly or difficulty eating, and frequent or urgent urination। These aren’t very different from those reported in the first study, seven years ago. The statement recommends that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of these symptoms almost every day for longer than 2 or 3 weeks. They go on to say “It is too soon to tell whether the new measures will work or whether they will lead to a flood of diagnostic tests or even unnecessary operations." If by “working” they mean earlier diagnosis of this otherwise lethal condition, I believe gynecologists and health proving organizations will welcome the recommendation, even if it leads to a “flood of diagnostic tests”. Cancer of the ovary is too serious for patients to be forced into a wait-and-see situation.
Monday, May 28, 2007
What are organic foods?
What are organic foods?
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers, bio-engineering, or ionizing radiation. Organic systems replenish and maintain soil fertility, eliminate the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers, and build biologically diverse agriculture.
As of October 21, 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has put in place a set of national standards that food labeled organic must meet, whether it is grown domestically or imported from other countries. To determine whether a food meets the USDA's standards, a U.S. Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the necessary rules. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets distributed to stores or restaurants must be certified as well.
Organic foods of all kinds have nutritional characteristics similar to their conventionally produced counterparts. Essentially the same amount of protein, fat, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber in a glass of organic milk is found in a glass of milk produced non-organically.
What types of organic products exist? Organic foods are available in all food groups.
Organic vegetables, fruits, and grains:
Any certified organic plant product must come from fields that have remained free of chemical application of fertilizers and pesticides for at least three years, and must follow regulations outlined above.
Foods grown on lands not yet meeting organic standards may receive a "transitional" label if they follow the strict requirements for conversion.
All crops have specific regulations for post-harvest handling; this results in a paper trail that includes the date of sale, purchase, and origin of the commodity.
Organic dairy products:
Milk from all dairy animals, including cows, goats, and sheep, may be certified organic. Certified organic products cover nearly the full dairy spectrum, including milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, sour cream, ice cream, and more.
At no time may organic milk be blended or otherwise come into contact with non-organic milk.
Standard hygiene and dairy safety procedures are followed, including pasteurization. Certification requires humane treatment of the animals, clean water and bedding, and access to the out-of-doors for pasture, exercise, and fresh air.
To qualify for organic certification, a dairy farmer must feed 100% certified organic feed produced on land untreated with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides for at least three seasons prior to harvesting the crop.
The farm on which the herd is pastured must be certified organic as well. In addition, organic dairy products must be free of drugs, including growth hormones or antibiotics.
Organic meat and poultry:
Organic provisions require animals to be raised without receiving antibiotics, hormones, or growth stimulants.
Humane treatment and access to the out-of-doors are stipulated, and the animals must be fed 100% certified organic feed and must graze in certified organic pastures.
All meat and poultry processing must be done according to strict USDA standards in a plant certified and regularly inspected for organic production. Animals designated for dairy may not be sold for slaughter.
At the packing plant, animals are isolated from conventional herds and fed organically. Few plants process exclusively organic products, so the entire line is cleaned to organic specifications before any meat or poultry product is run.
Is organic food better-tasting or more nutritious? The USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is better tasting or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, only that it is grown, handled, and processed differently. Many people believe organic produce has an excellent taste; some believe it contains more nutrients. Hundreds of chefs across the country use organic produce because they think it both tastes better and helps create agriculture sustainable for generations to come.
Why does organic food cost more? Organic agriculture is not subsidized to the same extent as conventional agriculture, and organic practices, such as hand weeding, are often labor-intensive, and therefore more expensive. Organic farms and industry are also generally small, so they cannot take advantage of economies of scale. Organic agriculture utilizes conservation practices that protect soil, water, and air; while they do cost more, those who employ and support these practices view the extra cost as an investment in the future.
One way to get the best prices when purchasing organic products is to buy organically grown fruits and vegetables at the peak of the local growing season. In addition, many health food stores, large and small, have bulk sections, particularly for grains; buying products in bulk and dividing among families may also provide a cost savings.
What is organic certification? The certified organic label is the consumer’s guarantee the product has been produced according to the USDA's specific national standards for farmers and food handling organizations.
All these standards must be met for certification:
A public or private certifying organization conducts annual inspections of farms and food handlers and periodic testing of soil and water to verify that a farm meets or exceeds defined standards.
Organic farmers are required to keep detailed records of purchases and practices, which inspection agencies examine systematically. All farmers and handlers are also required to maintain written organic management plans.
Most farms are required to farm organically for at least three years before the food they produce can be labeled certified organic. An exception to this rule are farms that have not been growing organic products for the past three years, but that have not used unapproved chemicals during that time either. All farms, however, must have been under the supervision of a certification agency for the past 12 months before producing food that can be labeled certified organic.
No prohibited substances may be applied to the land during that period.
Not more than 5% of any organic-labeled processed food may contain non-organic ingredients (excluding water and salt).
How can I tell whether food has met the USDA's national standards for organic food? Along with the national organic standards, the USDA has developed strict new labeling rules to help consumers know the exact organic content of the food they buy. The USDA organic seal, increasingly common after October 2002, indicates a product is at least 95% organic.
Use of the seal is voluntary, however, farmers who knowingly sell a product labeled organic that fails to meet USDA standards can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation.
from www.dollarsforum.com
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers, bio-engineering, or ionizing radiation. Organic systems replenish and maintain soil fertility, eliminate the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers, and build biologically diverse agriculture.
As of October 21, 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has put in place a set of national standards that food labeled organic must meet, whether it is grown domestically or imported from other countries. To determine whether a food meets the USDA's standards, a U.S. Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the necessary rules. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets distributed to stores or restaurants must be certified as well.
Organic foods of all kinds have nutritional characteristics similar to their conventionally produced counterparts. Essentially the same amount of protein, fat, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber in a glass of organic milk is found in a glass of milk produced non-organically.
What types of organic products exist? Organic foods are available in all food groups.
Organic vegetables, fruits, and grains:
Any certified organic plant product must come from fields that have remained free of chemical application of fertilizers and pesticides for at least three years, and must follow regulations outlined above.
Foods grown on lands not yet meeting organic standards may receive a "transitional" label if they follow the strict requirements for conversion.
All crops have specific regulations for post-harvest handling; this results in a paper trail that includes the date of sale, purchase, and origin of the commodity.
Organic dairy products:
Milk from all dairy animals, including cows, goats, and sheep, may be certified organic. Certified organic products cover nearly the full dairy spectrum, including milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, cottage cheese, sour cream, ice cream, and more.
At no time may organic milk be blended or otherwise come into contact with non-organic milk.
Standard hygiene and dairy safety procedures are followed, including pasteurization. Certification requires humane treatment of the animals, clean water and bedding, and access to the out-of-doors for pasture, exercise, and fresh air.
To qualify for organic certification, a dairy farmer must feed 100% certified organic feed produced on land untreated with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides for at least three seasons prior to harvesting the crop.
The farm on which the herd is pastured must be certified organic as well. In addition, organic dairy products must be free of drugs, including growth hormones or antibiotics.
Organic meat and poultry:
Organic provisions require animals to be raised without receiving antibiotics, hormones, or growth stimulants.
Humane treatment and access to the out-of-doors are stipulated, and the animals must be fed 100% certified organic feed and must graze in certified organic pastures.
All meat and poultry processing must be done according to strict USDA standards in a plant certified and regularly inspected for organic production. Animals designated for dairy may not be sold for slaughter.
At the packing plant, animals are isolated from conventional herds and fed organically. Few plants process exclusively organic products, so the entire line is cleaned to organic specifications before any meat or poultry product is run.
Is organic food better-tasting or more nutritious? The USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is better tasting or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, only that it is grown, handled, and processed differently. Many people believe organic produce has an excellent taste; some believe it contains more nutrients. Hundreds of chefs across the country use organic produce because they think it both tastes better and helps create agriculture sustainable for generations to come.
Why does organic food cost more? Organic agriculture is not subsidized to the same extent as conventional agriculture, and organic practices, such as hand weeding, are often labor-intensive, and therefore more expensive. Organic farms and industry are also generally small, so they cannot take advantage of economies of scale. Organic agriculture utilizes conservation practices that protect soil, water, and air; while they do cost more, those who employ and support these practices view the extra cost as an investment in the future.
One way to get the best prices when purchasing organic products is to buy organically grown fruits and vegetables at the peak of the local growing season. In addition, many health food stores, large and small, have bulk sections, particularly for grains; buying products in bulk and dividing among families may also provide a cost savings.
What is organic certification? The certified organic label is the consumer’s guarantee the product has been produced according to the USDA's specific national standards for farmers and food handling organizations.
All these standards must be met for certification:
A public or private certifying organization conducts annual inspections of farms and food handlers and periodic testing of soil and water to verify that a farm meets or exceeds defined standards.
Organic farmers are required to keep detailed records of purchases and practices, which inspection agencies examine systematically. All farmers and handlers are also required to maintain written organic management plans.
Most farms are required to farm organically for at least three years before the food they produce can be labeled certified organic. An exception to this rule are farms that have not been growing organic products for the past three years, but that have not used unapproved chemicals during that time either. All farms, however, must have been under the supervision of a certification agency for the past 12 months before producing food that can be labeled certified organic.
No prohibited substances may be applied to the land during that period.
Not more than 5% of any organic-labeled processed food may contain non-organic ingredients (excluding water and salt).
How can I tell whether food has met the USDA's national standards for organic food? Along with the national organic standards, the USDA has developed strict new labeling rules to help consumers know the exact organic content of the food they buy. The USDA organic seal, increasingly common after October 2002, indicates a product is at least 95% organic.
Use of the seal is voluntary, however, farmers who knowingly sell a product labeled organic that fails to meet USDA standards can be fined up to $10,000 for each violation.
from www.dollarsforum.com
Thin babies 'face diabetes risk'
Thin babies 'face diabetes risk'
Low weight babies may be most at riskThin babies may have a higher risk of developing diabetes later in life, according to a study.
Scientists say the problem seems to occur if they gain weight too quickly as they grow older.
Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, they urged doctors to monitor children's weight more carefully.
"It is the thin two-year-old not the fat one who faces the greater risk," said Professor David Barker of Southampton University.
Soaring rates
The number of people being diagnosed with diabetes around the world has rocketed in recent years.
In the UK, an estimated two million people have the disease. Globally, the figure is 150 million. This is expected to rise to 200 million by the end of the decade.
One of the countries with the biggest problems is India. In 2000, almost 25 million Indians had been diagnosed with diabetes. That is predicted to rise to 40 million by 2010.
This knowledge will be useful in fighting the diabetes epidemic worldwide
Professor David Barker Scientists from the UK and India teamed up to carry out this latest study.
They traced nearly 1,500 residents of a community in South Delhi, who as children had taken part in a study looking at childhood growth more than 20 years ago.
The scientists found that more than 15% had high blood sugar levels, a major risk factor for diabetes. A further 4% had diabetes.
The scientists discovered that people with these conditions generally had low birth weights and remained thin during infancy.
However, after the age of two they all started to gain weight rapidly.
None was obese during childhood. However, their weight gain continued into adulthood and many became overweight or obese.
The later in life the child began to gain weight the lower their risk of developing diabetes.
The scientists said the findings may explain why India, in particular, is seeing a sharp rise in the disease.
In the past undernourished babies were born into poor families with limited access to food.
In recent years, the country and its people have become richer and many low weight babies are now born into families with a plentiful supply of food.
This problem is compounded by the fact that youngsters, like those in many other countries, are less active than previous generations causing them to gain weight more quickly.
'Diabetes epidemic'
Professor Barker said the findings may have global implications.
"This knowledge will be useful in fighting the diabetes epidemic worldwide, but it is particularly important in developing countries like India, where although diabetes is rapidly becoming a major health concern, public health messages still focus on reducing childhood 'under nutrition'.
"It should also help the UK understand why British Asians have such poor heart health."
Professor Jeremy Pearson, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, which funded the study, welcomed the research.
"This is a ground-breaking step forward in shackling the rising threat of diabetes in India and the rest of the world."
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3487120.stm
Low weight babies may be most at riskThin babies may have a higher risk of developing diabetes later in life, according to a study.
Scientists say the problem seems to occur if they gain weight too quickly as they grow older.
Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, they urged doctors to monitor children's weight more carefully.
"It is the thin two-year-old not the fat one who faces the greater risk," said Professor David Barker of Southampton University.
Soaring rates
The number of people being diagnosed with diabetes around the world has rocketed in recent years.
In the UK, an estimated two million people have the disease. Globally, the figure is 150 million. This is expected to rise to 200 million by the end of the decade.
One of the countries with the biggest problems is India. In 2000, almost 25 million Indians had been diagnosed with diabetes. That is predicted to rise to 40 million by 2010.
This knowledge will be useful in fighting the diabetes epidemic worldwide
Professor David Barker Scientists from the UK and India teamed up to carry out this latest study.
They traced nearly 1,500 residents of a community in South Delhi, who as children had taken part in a study looking at childhood growth more than 20 years ago.
The scientists found that more than 15% had high blood sugar levels, a major risk factor for diabetes. A further 4% had diabetes.
The scientists discovered that people with these conditions generally had low birth weights and remained thin during infancy.
However, after the age of two they all started to gain weight rapidly.
None was obese during childhood. However, their weight gain continued into adulthood and many became overweight or obese.
The later in life the child began to gain weight the lower their risk of developing diabetes.
The scientists said the findings may explain why India, in particular, is seeing a sharp rise in the disease.
In the past undernourished babies were born into poor families with limited access to food.
In recent years, the country and its people have become richer and many low weight babies are now born into families with a plentiful supply of food.
This problem is compounded by the fact that youngsters, like those in many other countries, are less active than previous generations causing them to gain weight more quickly.
'Diabetes epidemic'
Professor Barker said the findings may have global implications.
"This knowledge will be useful in fighting the diabetes epidemic worldwide, but it is particularly important in developing countries like India, where although diabetes is rapidly becoming a major health concern, public health messages still focus on reducing childhood 'under nutrition'.
"It should also help the UK understand why British Asians have such poor heart health."
Professor Jeremy Pearson, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, which funded the study, welcomed the research.
"This is a ground-breaking step forward in shackling the rising threat of diabetes in India and the rest of the world."
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3487120.stm
Big family a drawback for babies
Big family a drawback for babies
Good early growth is very importantBabies born into larger families are less likely to thrive, research suggests.
A Bristol University team found these babies were more likely to struggle to gain weight in their first nine months.
However, the problem seems to have nothing to do with the prosperity of parents - the effect was found across all social classes.
The findings come from the Children of the 90s project following the progress of 11,700 infants.
Risk of failing to thrive
First born - 3.4%
Second born - 4.6%
Third born - 5.8%
Fourth born - 8.3%
Failure to thrive is defined as being in the bottom 5% of weight gainers Failure to thrive is a medical term used to describe infants and young children whose growth is substantially less than that of their peers.
There is evidence that it is associated with a delay in proper development, and possibly problems in later life, including intellectual deficits.
The babies in the study were weighed at birth, at six to eight weeks and at nine months.
The researchers then focused on the 5% of children who put on least weight over that time.
Tall parents an advantage
It had been suggested that low socio-economic status was associated with poor growth.
But this was not borne out by the study, which found babies born to unskilled, manual parents were no more likely to be adversely affected than babies born to professional people.
However, the study did find evidence that babies born into larger families were more likely to fail to thrive.
Even a mother's second or third baby was more likely to fall into this group, and a fourth child was at twice the average risk of being among the slowest growers.
The research also uncovered a strong correlation between parental height and slow weight gain up to nine months.
Babies of short parents were eight times more likely to grow slowly when compared to babies with tall parents.
Lead researcher Dr Peter Blair the lead author said the reasons why babies in large families grow more slowly were not clear, and more research was required to try to pin down a reason.
However, it is suspected that the problem may be linked to hard-pressed parents finding it impossible to attend carefully to the needs of their younger children when they have a big family.
He added: "While it may not be surprising that babies of short parents are more likely to grow slowly - we are the first study to establish this association.
"Growth standards for future measurement need updating and parental height must be part of this new calculation."
The project is now investigating the growth and development of the children at seven and eight to assess the longer-term consequences of poor growth in the first year of life.
add from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3808623.stm
Good early growth is very importantBabies born into larger families are less likely to thrive, research suggests.
A Bristol University team found these babies were more likely to struggle to gain weight in their first nine months.
However, the problem seems to have nothing to do with the prosperity of parents - the effect was found across all social classes.
The findings come from the Children of the 90s project following the progress of 11,700 infants.
Risk of failing to thrive
First born - 3.4%
Second born - 4.6%
Third born - 5.8%
Fourth born - 8.3%
Failure to thrive is defined as being in the bottom 5% of weight gainers Failure to thrive is a medical term used to describe infants and young children whose growth is substantially less than that of their peers.
There is evidence that it is associated with a delay in proper development, and possibly problems in later life, including intellectual deficits.
The babies in the study were weighed at birth, at six to eight weeks and at nine months.
The researchers then focused on the 5% of children who put on least weight over that time.
Tall parents an advantage
It had been suggested that low socio-economic status was associated with poor growth.
But this was not borne out by the study, which found babies born to unskilled, manual parents were no more likely to be adversely affected than babies born to professional people.
However, the study did find evidence that babies born into larger families were more likely to fail to thrive.
Even a mother's second or third baby was more likely to fall into this group, and a fourth child was at twice the average risk of being among the slowest growers.
The research also uncovered a strong correlation between parental height and slow weight gain up to nine months.
Babies of short parents were eight times more likely to grow slowly when compared to babies with tall parents.
Lead researcher Dr Peter Blair the lead author said the reasons why babies in large families grow more slowly were not clear, and more research was required to try to pin down a reason.
However, it is suspected that the problem may be linked to hard-pressed parents finding it impossible to attend carefully to the needs of their younger children when they have a big family.
He added: "While it may not be surprising that babies of short parents are more likely to grow slowly - we are the first study to establish this association.
"Growth standards for future measurement need updating and parental height must be part of this new calculation."
The project is now investigating the growth and development of the children at seven and eight to assess the longer-term consequences of poor growth in the first year of life.
add from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3808623.stm
Health v Wealth
Health v Wealth
It's a common assumption that if you're middle-class and wealthy you are healthier than your working-class counterparts.
New research, however, suggests that stressful jobs and having the funds to overindulge mean middle-class Brits are actually shortening their lifespan.So, can the vital statistics of your bank account really help you live longer?
New research from Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital suggests being working class could add the equivalent of an extra seven years to a person’s age compared with someone higher up the social ladder. However, another recent survey has suggested that because middle-class people often have a more stressful occupation and can afford to indulge their expensive tastes they may actually be knocking years off their life. So, we asked ourselves, can money be used to lengthen our stay on this earth?Your mind and body don’t ask for much to stay in shape – nutritious food to maintain good health, enough exercise to regulate weight, safe, hygienic housing and social integration for emotional growth. In 1999 studies by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found the minimum cost to achieve this for a single young working man was £131.86 per week.
While this might not sound like an excessive price to pay for a professional, it is if you work for the minimum wage or survive on jobseeker’s allowance. Both of these fell short of the minimum funds required for healthy living. This year the study was repeated on older people and again, the cost of healthy living per week (£122.70, excluding rent, mortgage payments and council tax) was not covered by the state pension. “Eating well is more expensive and the main barrier to nutritious food is access,” says Jacqui Lowdon, a dietician from the British Dietetics Association. “If you don’t have a car or good public transport on-hand then it is difficult to get to and from a supermarket where you can bulk buy for less. Buying fruit and veg from the corner shop is often more expensive and not as fresh either,” she says.This dichotomy is echoed by Tarani Chandola, a senior lecturer in the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London. “It’s not just about money, but the time it takes to source and prepare a nutritious meal. If you don’t have enough time then it’s easy to understand why processed foods are popular, even though they may not be as healthy.”
Every penny countsLikewise, a lack of time and convenience play their part when our fitness needs a push in the right direction. Running and walking outdoors are the obvious budget keep-fit alternatives to a pricey gym membership. But for many people in disadvantaged areas a lack of local open space and safety issues stand in the way of a cheap fitness fix.Poor housing and lifestyle stress also take their toll and add to the vicious circle of personal healthcare suggests Lowdon. “Bad health makes you even poorer,” she says. “If you are too unwell to work then your income will decrease. With failing health and less money to look after yourself and your environment, health can only worsen.”Patchy medical access is another blow to the health of the nation, says Chandola. “It is ironic that the people most in need of healthcare have the least access to it,” he says. “GP practices and healthcare services are more concentrated in wealthy areas. Even where there is a GP in a deprived catchment, they are usually so over-subscribed that they have much less time to spend with each patient.”But this doesn't mean the well off can get complacent. A clean bill of health really depends on wise spending as well. “Obesity used to be isolated to the lower end of the social scale but research now shows that it now spans all social groups,” says Lowdon. “Why? Because you can afford the little luxuries in life – good food and alcohol which are calorific. People also tend to dine out more and eat larger portions than if they were cooking at home.”The spend, spend, spend habits of the well-off aren't only isolated to fine dining. “If you take out a gym membership on a budget then you are more likely to use it because money’s tight and every penny counts. Whereas, people with lots of money might be less careful and take out that gym membership, but never use it because money means less,” Lowdon suggests.
Money talks, knowledge walksReducing Britain’s health inequities is no mean feat, but the government has pledged to reduce the gap by 10% by 2010. Money talks, but knowledge is even more valuable to our health. “The best way out of poor health is through education – especially of young mothers who can learn and pass on the good habits for a healthy life to their children,” says Lowdon. Government campaigns such as Small Change, Big Difference suggest minor changes to diet and exercise which can buy extra years of life. And last year health trainers were rolled out in 12 of Britain’s most disadvantaged areas to help people improve their health and prevent diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease.“Many people have difficulty in changing to a healthier way of life,” says public health minister, Caroline Flint. “There is support for people but it may be available at the wrong time of day or only accessible to people who speak and read English well. Health trainers are designed to address these problems,” she says.“Health trainers support the community and provide the locals with information to help them develop personal health plans and carry them out.” adds Flint. “This might include giving a pregnant woman information about her local ‘stop smoking’ services. Or, it could involve accompanying a woman to a breast screening appointment. Equally, health trainers identify barriers to individuals making healthier choices and find solutions to get over them.”Health is our wealth and these days a long life shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg for anyone. “There are lots of positive changes people can make to help themselves, but in reality they are confined by their life’s circumstances,” says Chandola. “It doesn’t just take money to live a longer life, but it helps.” Search ,For more on weight-loss , For more on giving up smoking
To find a gym near you , For more on eating properly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3808623.stm
It's a common assumption that if you're middle-class and wealthy you are healthier than your working-class counterparts.
New research, however, suggests that stressful jobs and having the funds to overindulge mean middle-class Brits are actually shortening their lifespan.So, can the vital statistics of your bank account really help you live longer?
New research from Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital suggests being working class could add the equivalent of an extra seven years to a person’s age compared with someone higher up the social ladder. However, another recent survey has suggested that because middle-class people often have a more stressful occupation and can afford to indulge their expensive tastes they may actually be knocking years off their life. So, we asked ourselves, can money be used to lengthen our stay on this earth?Your mind and body don’t ask for much to stay in shape – nutritious food to maintain good health, enough exercise to regulate weight, safe, hygienic housing and social integration for emotional growth. In 1999 studies by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found the minimum cost to achieve this for a single young working man was £131.86 per week.
While this might not sound like an excessive price to pay for a professional, it is if you work for the minimum wage or survive on jobseeker’s allowance. Both of these fell short of the minimum funds required for healthy living. This year the study was repeated on older people and again, the cost of healthy living per week (£122.70, excluding rent, mortgage payments and council tax) was not covered by the state pension. “Eating well is more expensive and the main barrier to nutritious food is access,” says Jacqui Lowdon, a dietician from the British Dietetics Association. “If you don’t have a car or good public transport on-hand then it is difficult to get to and from a supermarket where you can bulk buy for less. Buying fruit and veg from the corner shop is often more expensive and not as fresh either,” she says.This dichotomy is echoed by Tarani Chandola, a senior lecturer in the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London. “It’s not just about money, but the time it takes to source and prepare a nutritious meal. If you don’t have enough time then it’s easy to understand why processed foods are popular, even though they may not be as healthy.”
Every penny countsLikewise, a lack of time and convenience play their part when our fitness needs a push in the right direction. Running and walking outdoors are the obvious budget keep-fit alternatives to a pricey gym membership. But for many people in disadvantaged areas a lack of local open space and safety issues stand in the way of a cheap fitness fix.Poor housing and lifestyle stress also take their toll and add to the vicious circle of personal healthcare suggests Lowdon. “Bad health makes you even poorer,” she says. “If you are too unwell to work then your income will decrease. With failing health and less money to look after yourself and your environment, health can only worsen.”Patchy medical access is another blow to the health of the nation, says Chandola. “It is ironic that the people most in need of healthcare have the least access to it,” he says. “GP practices and healthcare services are more concentrated in wealthy areas. Even where there is a GP in a deprived catchment, they are usually so over-subscribed that they have much less time to spend with each patient.”But this doesn't mean the well off can get complacent. A clean bill of health really depends on wise spending as well. “Obesity used to be isolated to the lower end of the social scale but research now shows that it now spans all social groups,” says Lowdon. “Why? Because you can afford the little luxuries in life – good food and alcohol which are calorific. People also tend to dine out more and eat larger portions than if they were cooking at home.”The spend, spend, spend habits of the well-off aren't only isolated to fine dining. “If you take out a gym membership on a budget then you are more likely to use it because money’s tight and every penny counts. Whereas, people with lots of money might be less careful and take out that gym membership, but never use it because money means less,” Lowdon suggests.
Money talks, knowledge walksReducing Britain’s health inequities is no mean feat, but the government has pledged to reduce the gap by 10% by 2010. Money talks, but knowledge is even more valuable to our health. “The best way out of poor health is through education – especially of young mothers who can learn and pass on the good habits for a healthy life to their children,” says Lowdon. Government campaigns such as Small Change, Big Difference suggest minor changes to diet and exercise which can buy extra years of life. And last year health trainers were rolled out in 12 of Britain’s most disadvantaged areas to help people improve their health and prevent diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease.“Many people have difficulty in changing to a healthier way of life,” says public health minister, Caroline Flint. “There is support for people but it may be available at the wrong time of day or only accessible to people who speak and read English well. Health trainers are designed to address these problems,” she says.“Health trainers support the community and provide the locals with information to help them develop personal health plans and carry them out.” adds Flint. “This might include giving a pregnant woman information about her local ‘stop smoking’ services. Or, it could involve accompanying a woman to a breast screening appointment. Equally, health trainers identify barriers to individuals making healthier choices and find solutions to get over them.”Health is our wealth and these days a long life shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg for anyone. “There are lots of positive changes people can make to help themselves, but in reality they are confined by their life’s circumstances,” says Chandola. “It doesn’t just take money to live a longer life, but it helps.” Search ,For more on weight-loss , For more on giving up smoking
To find a gym near you , For more on eating properly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3808623.stm
Wealthy kids not always healthy
Wealthy kids not always healthy
The researchers believe junk food may be to blameChildren from poorer families do not necessarily have worse health than those with more affluent and better educated parents, research shows.
A British Medical Journal study looked at insulin resistance - which ups the risk of diabetes and heart disease - in relation to socioeconomic status.
Among Danish schoolchildren, those with highly educated and big earning parents were the least insulin resistant.
However, the opposite was true for children from Estonia and Portugal.
More research is needed before we can come to any firm conclusions
Diabetes UK
The findings by the international team, from the UK, Estonia, Denmark and Norway, challenge the widely held view that adverse social circumstances in childhood lead to unhealthy lifestyles and poor health.
The study involved 3,189 randomly selected schoolchildren from Denmark - one of the richest countries in Europe - and two poorer countries, Estonia and Portugal.
The researchers decided to look at insulin resistance as a marker of disease.
Insulin is a hormone that the body uses to unlock the energy from the sugar that we eat.
If someone is insulin resistant, their body continues to produce insulin but the insulin does not work effectively. This means that the body cells cannot take up enough glucose.
This results in rising blood sugar levels. If these levels rise too high the patient may develop Type 2 diabetes.
Insulin resistance is also linked to other conditions, such as high blood pressure and cholesterol problems, which can lead to heart and circulation problems.
Affluent disease?
Among the Danish children studied, insulin resistance was 24% lower in those whose fathers had the most education compared with those with the least education.
Yet insulin resistance was 15% higher for children in more educated families in Estonia, and 19% higher for Portugal.
The researchers said the higher levels seen in Estonia and Portugal might be because down to the children adopting unhealthier Western lifestyles - eating lots of junk food and doing less exercise.
These children were more overweight than their less affluent school mates.
However, their parents were more likely to be healthier than less affluent parents, which suggests they themselves might not be following the same unhealthy lifestyle as their children.
The children of better educated parents in Denmark, presumably, might also be leading healthier lifestyles.
Over-simplistic
However, Swedish experts on health patterns across populations warned in an accompanying editorial that the findings could be down to other factors not scrutinised.
Genes, environment while in the womb and early childhood factors other than socioeconomic status all play a role in insulin resistance, they said.
"Anomalies such as those reported for Estonia and Portugal may be of special significance, as they point towards gaps in our understanding and warn against too simplistic a view of health inequalities," they added.
Amanda Vezey, care advisor at Diabetes UK, said: "Insulin resistance, which is often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes, is linked to genetic and lifestyle factors such as being overweight, eating a poor diet and leading a sedentary lifestyle.
"This research is interesting and may help us to target people at higher risk. However, more research is needed before we can come to any firm conclusions."
Steve Shaffelberg of the British Heart Foundation said: "We have to put this study into perspective for kids in the UK. Robust research has clearly demonstrated a solid link between poverty and heart disease in this country.
"It would be misleading to suggest that findings from this study override existing evidence that shows social and economic factors are critical factors for heart health in this country.
"We know that kids from the poorer families have a worse diet and are doing less exercise, which is something we're working hard to combat." from news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
The researchers believe junk food may be to blameChildren from poorer families do not necessarily have worse health than those with more affluent and better educated parents, research shows.
A British Medical Journal study looked at insulin resistance - which ups the risk of diabetes and heart disease - in relation to socioeconomic status.
Among Danish schoolchildren, those with highly educated and big earning parents were the least insulin resistant.
However, the opposite was true for children from Estonia and Portugal.
More research is needed before we can come to any firm conclusions
Diabetes UK
The findings by the international team, from the UK, Estonia, Denmark and Norway, challenge the widely held view that adverse social circumstances in childhood lead to unhealthy lifestyles and poor health.
The study involved 3,189 randomly selected schoolchildren from Denmark - one of the richest countries in Europe - and two poorer countries, Estonia and Portugal.
The researchers decided to look at insulin resistance as a marker of disease.
Insulin is a hormone that the body uses to unlock the energy from the sugar that we eat.
If someone is insulin resistant, their body continues to produce insulin but the insulin does not work effectively. This means that the body cells cannot take up enough glucose.
This results in rising blood sugar levels. If these levels rise too high the patient may develop Type 2 diabetes.
Insulin resistance is also linked to other conditions, such as high blood pressure and cholesterol problems, which can lead to heart and circulation problems.
Affluent disease?
Among the Danish children studied, insulin resistance was 24% lower in those whose fathers had the most education compared with those with the least education.
Yet insulin resistance was 15% higher for children in more educated families in Estonia, and 19% higher for Portugal.
The researchers said the higher levels seen in Estonia and Portugal might be because down to the children adopting unhealthier Western lifestyles - eating lots of junk food and doing less exercise.
These children were more overweight than their less affluent school mates.
However, their parents were more likely to be healthier than less affluent parents, which suggests they themselves might not be following the same unhealthy lifestyle as their children.
The children of better educated parents in Denmark, presumably, might also be leading healthier lifestyles.
Over-simplistic
However, Swedish experts on health patterns across populations warned in an accompanying editorial that the findings could be down to other factors not scrutinised.
Genes, environment while in the womb and early childhood factors other than socioeconomic status all play a role in insulin resistance, they said.
"Anomalies such as those reported for Estonia and Portugal may be of special significance, as they point towards gaps in our understanding and warn against too simplistic a view of health inequalities," they added.
Amanda Vezey, care advisor at Diabetes UK, said: "Insulin resistance, which is often a precursor to Type 2 diabetes, is linked to genetic and lifestyle factors such as being overweight, eating a poor diet and leading a sedentary lifestyle.
"This research is interesting and may help us to target people at higher risk. However, more research is needed before we can come to any firm conclusions."
Steve Shaffelberg of the British Heart Foundation said: "We have to put this study into perspective for kids in the UK. Robust research has clearly demonstrated a solid link between poverty and heart disease in this country.
"It would be misleading to suggest that findings from this study override existing evidence that shows social and economic factors are critical factors for heart health in this country.
"We know that kids from the poorer families have a worse diet and are doing less exercise, which is something we're working hard to combat." from news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
How a healthy person can be wealthy?
Few days a go I was going through this site when I found out that there is importants information to be learn from this site below and I invite you all to view this site and ready their latest information about how healthy person is a wealthy person.
How a healthy person can be wealthy?
When I saw this headline, in my local news paper , thought they are just using it to make their paper sell but as I now saw
Wealthy Health... Promoting Health & Wellness - Wealth & Happiness
Wealthy Health... Helping people live longer-providing the money to still enjoy it! We promote health and wellness - wealth and happiness with products that ...www.wealthyhealth.com/
Health is wealth. Strategic visions for European healthcare at the ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLA key premise is the acceptance of “Health is Wealth” as a key European. objective encompassing the whole spectrum of top quality health care for all ...ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/health_forum/hiw_sum_en.pdf
M1469 Healthy, Wealthy, & Wise; Issue 1 - Health & Wealth
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLLearning to improve financial health, increase wealth, and make wise ... Like a photo, it gives us a clear picture of our financial health and wealth - or ...msucares.com/pubs/misc/m1469.pdf
HSAs: For Health or Wealth?
Health savings accounts are paired with high deductible health plans to put more financial responsibility in the hands of consumers and control rising ...www.healthpolitics.org/archives.asp?previous=hsa - 14k - Cached
Health v Wealth - Advice & Information Hospital guide Health ...
Health is our wealth and these days a long life shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg for anyone. “There are lots of positive changes people can make to help ...health.uk.msn.com/healthencyclopaedia/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2662965
PUBLIC HEALTH:The Health and Wealth of Nations -- Bloom and ...
PUBLIC HEALTH: The Health and Wealth of Nations. David E. Bloom* and David Canning*. The positive correlation between health and income per capita is one of ...www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/287/5456/1207
Global public goods: Health is wealth : Nature
Global public goods: Health is wealth. Richard G. A. Feachem1 and Carol A. Medlin1. Economists have long been in the habit of discussing and analysing ...www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6890/full/417695a.html
Health is Wealth
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLHead, Health Division. For the Policy Project. Health is Wealth. Policy for Health and Development. The aim of this policy framework is to guide future ...www.sida.se/shared/jsp/download.jsp?f=44988+HealthisWealth.pdf&a=2521
Eucomed
Empirical evidence on health = wealth: results from the literature review ... Wealth was proxied by GND data and health was measured through life expectancy ...www.eucomed.be/facts_and_figures/health_is_wealth.aspx - 54k -
Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good Society
Health administration books for hospital managers, health administrators and physician executives with wealth of resources, including books, articles, from www.pohly.com/books/healthywealthy.htm
How a healthy person can be wealthy?
When I saw this headline, in my local news paper , thought they are just using it to make their paper sell but as I now saw
Wealthy Health... Promoting Health & Wellness - Wealth & Happiness
Wealthy Health... Helping people live longer-providing the money to still enjoy it! We promote health and wellness - wealth and happiness with products that ...www.wealthyhealth.com/
Health is wealth. Strategic visions for European healthcare at the ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLA key premise is the acceptance of “Health is Wealth” as a key European. objective encompassing the whole spectrum of top quality health care for all ...ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/health_forum/hiw_sum_en.pdf
M1469 Healthy, Wealthy, & Wise; Issue 1 - Health & Wealth
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLLearning to improve financial health, increase wealth, and make wise ... Like a photo, it gives us a clear picture of our financial health and wealth - or ...msucares.com/pubs/misc/m1469.pdf
HSAs: For Health or Wealth?
Health savings accounts are paired with high deductible health plans to put more financial responsibility in the hands of consumers and control rising ...www.healthpolitics.org/archives.asp?previous=hsa - 14k - Cached
Health v Wealth - Advice & Information Hospital guide Health ...
Health is our wealth and these days a long life shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg for anyone. “There are lots of positive changes people can make to help ...health.uk.msn.com/healthencyclopaedia/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2662965
PUBLIC HEALTH:The Health and Wealth of Nations -- Bloom and ...
PUBLIC HEALTH: The Health and Wealth of Nations. David E. Bloom* and David Canning*. The positive correlation between health and income per capita is one of ...www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/287/5456/1207
Global public goods: Health is wealth : Nature
Global public goods: Health is wealth. Richard G. A. Feachem1 and Carol A. Medlin1. Economists have long been in the habit of discussing and analysing ...www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6890/full/417695a.html
Health is Wealth
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLHead, Health Division. For the Policy Project. Health is Wealth. Policy for Health and Development. The aim of this policy framework is to guide future ...www.sida.se/shared/jsp/download.jsp?f=44988+HealthisWealth.pdf&a=2521
Eucomed
Empirical evidence on health = wealth: results from the literature review ... Wealth was proxied by GND data and health was measured through life expectancy ...www.eucomed.be/facts_and_figures/health_is_wealth.aspx - 54k -
Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good Society
Health administration books for hospital managers, health administrators and physician executives with wealth of resources, including books, articles, from www.pohly.com/books/healthywealthy.htm
Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good for masses
Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair: Health Care and the Good .
Our country may be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but our citizens rank near the bottom in health status. How can this be - when we proudly exclaim that our healthcare is the best in the world?
Americans have lower life expectancy, more infant mortalities and higher adolescent death rates than most other advanced industrial nations - and even some developing countries. Though Americans are famous for tolerating great inequality in wealth, the gross inequities in the health system are less well recognized. The lack of health insurance among one group does negatively impact the health and wealth of everyone else.
In Healthy, Wealthy and Fair, a distinguished group of health policy experts chart the stark disparities in health and wealth in the United States. These authors explain how the inequities arise, why they persist, and what makes them worse. Growing income inequality, high poverty rates, and inadequate health care coverage: all three trends help account for the U.S.'s health troubles.
The corrosive effects of market ideology and government stalemate, the contributors argue, have also proved a powerful obstacle to effective and more egalitarian solutions.
This book not only educates and enlightens, but may serve as a clarion call for involvement and commitment from the informed to end the stalemate over health reform. Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair outlines concrete policy proposals for reform - tapping bold new ideas as well as incremental changes to existing programs. This important work will be indispensable to all those who care about our people's health, inequality, and American democracy.
"Inequalities in wealth, income, knowledge and class cripple democratic citizens; inequalities in health care destroy lives. There is no more important issue for America than health care, and no more pressing need that that of health care reform. In Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair, distinguished health policy experts offer a clear portrait of the impact of market economics on fair health care and make a powerful case for bold health care reform. Vital reading for social scientists, policy makers and citizens alike." - Benjamin R. Barber, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland, and author of Strong Democracy and Jihad vs. McWorld
James A. Morone is Professor of Political Science at Brown University. His most recent book is Hellfire Nation.Lawrence R. Jacobs is McKnight Land-Grant Professor at the University of Minnesota, an adjunct professor at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, and director of the 2004 Elections Project. His most recent book is Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Contributions in this book include:
Health and Wealth in the Good Society, James A. Morone and Lawrence R. Jacobs
Why the USA Is Not Number One in Health, Ichiro Kawachi
Health Disparities in the Land of Equality, Lawrence R. Jacobs
How Market Ideology Guarantees Racial Inequality, Deborah Stone
The Damages of the Market Panacea, Mark Schlesinger
Organized Labor's Incredible, Shrinking Social Vision, Marie Gottschalk
Interest Groups and the Reproduction of Inequality, Connie A. Nathanson
The Congressional Graveyard for Health Care Reform, Mark A. Peterson
Courts, Inequality, and Health Care, Peter D. Jacobson and Elisabeth Selvin
Medicaid at the Crossroads, Colleen Grogan and Erik Patashnik
Kids and Bureaucrats at the Grass Roots, Elizabeth H. Kilbreth and James A. Morone
Incrementalism Adds Up?, Lawrence D. Brown
What Government Can Do, Benjamin I. Page
Prospering in the Age of Global Markets, Lawrence R. Jacobs and James A. Morone
"Americans want everyone to have access to decent health care -- yet in an era of rising economic inequality, our country is moving ever further from that ideal. Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair asks why this has happened, and illuminates the way forward. The arguments assembled here are not timid. Many readers will heartily agree. Others will demur. But all will be enlightened and engaged." - Theda Skocpol, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology, Harvard University, author of The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of American Social Policy
If you are interested in policy or books about health care reform please see our up-to-date collection here: Politics, Policy & Reform. ttp://www.pohly.com/books/healthywealthy.html
(information from the publisher)
Our country may be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but our citizens rank near the bottom in health status. How can this be - when we proudly exclaim that our healthcare is the best in the world?
Americans have lower life expectancy, more infant mortalities and higher adolescent death rates than most other advanced industrial nations - and even some developing countries. Though Americans are famous for tolerating great inequality in wealth, the gross inequities in the health system are less well recognized. The lack of health insurance among one group does negatively impact the health and wealth of everyone else.
In Healthy, Wealthy and Fair, a distinguished group of health policy experts chart the stark disparities in health and wealth in the United States. These authors explain how the inequities arise, why they persist, and what makes them worse. Growing income inequality, high poverty rates, and inadequate health care coverage: all three trends help account for the U.S.'s health troubles.
The corrosive effects of market ideology and government stalemate, the contributors argue, have also proved a powerful obstacle to effective and more egalitarian solutions.
This book not only educates and enlightens, but may serve as a clarion call for involvement and commitment from the informed to end the stalemate over health reform. Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair outlines concrete policy proposals for reform - tapping bold new ideas as well as incremental changes to existing programs. This important work will be indispensable to all those who care about our people's health, inequality, and American democracy.
"Inequalities in wealth, income, knowledge and class cripple democratic citizens; inequalities in health care destroy lives. There is no more important issue for America than health care, and no more pressing need that that of health care reform. In Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair, distinguished health policy experts offer a clear portrait of the impact of market economics on fair health care and make a powerful case for bold health care reform. Vital reading for social scientists, policy makers and citizens alike." - Benjamin R. Barber, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland, and author of Strong Democracy and Jihad vs. McWorld
James A. Morone is Professor of Political Science at Brown University. His most recent book is Hellfire Nation.Lawrence R. Jacobs is McKnight Land-Grant Professor at the University of Minnesota, an adjunct professor at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, and director of the 2004 Elections Project. His most recent book is Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Contributions in this book include:
Health and Wealth in the Good Society, James A. Morone and Lawrence R. Jacobs
Why the USA Is Not Number One in Health, Ichiro Kawachi
Health Disparities in the Land of Equality, Lawrence R. Jacobs
How Market Ideology Guarantees Racial Inequality, Deborah Stone
The Damages of the Market Panacea, Mark Schlesinger
Organized Labor's Incredible, Shrinking Social Vision, Marie Gottschalk
Interest Groups and the Reproduction of Inequality, Connie A. Nathanson
The Congressional Graveyard for Health Care Reform, Mark A. Peterson
Courts, Inequality, and Health Care, Peter D. Jacobson and Elisabeth Selvin
Medicaid at the Crossroads, Colleen Grogan and Erik Patashnik
Kids and Bureaucrats at the Grass Roots, Elizabeth H. Kilbreth and James A. Morone
Incrementalism Adds Up?, Lawrence D. Brown
What Government Can Do, Benjamin I. Page
Prospering in the Age of Global Markets, Lawrence R. Jacobs and James A. Morone
"Americans want everyone to have access to decent health care -- yet in an era of rising economic inequality, our country is moving ever further from that ideal. Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair asks why this has happened, and illuminates the way forward. The arguments assembled here are not timid. Many readers will heartily agree. Others will demur. But all will be enlightened and engaged." - Theda Skocpol, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology, Harvard University, author of The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of American Social Policy
If you are interested in policy or books about health care reform please see our up-to-date collection here: Politics, Policy & Reform. ttp://www.pohly.com/books/healthywealthy.html
(information from the publisher)
Health is wealthy, Start's from God's Creation
Hope You Will Found Health is wealthy which is a TRUE WEALTH through for Life Transfer Factorism
If you're ready to re-train your immune system so it knows how to handle viruses and other nasty invaders, then you'll love the 4Life™ Transfer Factor as much as we do.
Your Thoughts...(Must read this to the end...)If you're ready to re-train your immune system so it knows how to handle viruses and other nasty invaders, then you'll love the 4Life™ Transfer Factor as much as we do.
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth and populated the Earth with broccoli, cauliflower and spinach, green and yellow and vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would live long and healthy lives. Then, using God's great gifts, Satan created Ben and And Man said, "Yes!" And Woman said, "and as long as you're at it, add some sprinkles." And they gained 10 pounds. And Satan smiled. And God created the healthful yogurt that Woman might keep the figure that Man found so fair. And Satan brought forth white flour from the wheat, and sugar from the cane and combined them. And Woman went from size 6 to size 14.
So God said, "Try my fresh green salad." And Satan presented Thousand-Island Dressing, buttery croutons and garlic toast on the side. And Man and Woman unfastened their belts following the repast.
God then said, "I have sent you heart-healthy vegetables and olive oil in which to cook them." And Satan brought forth deep fried fish and chicken-fried steak so big it needed its own platter. And Man gained more weight and his cholesterol went through the roof.
God then created a light, fluffy white cake, named it "Angel Food Cake," and said, "It is good." Satan then created chocolate cake and named it "Devil's Food."
God then brought forth running shoes so that His children might lose those extra pounds. And Satan gave cable TV with a remote control so Man would not have to toil changing the channels. And Man and Woman laughed and cried before the flickering blue light and gained pounds.
Then God brought forth the potato, naturally low in fat and brimming with nutrition. And Satan peeled off the healthful skin and sliced the starchy center into chips and deep-fried them. And Man gained pounds.
God then gave lean beef so that Man might consume fewer calories and still satisfy his appetite. And Satan created McDonald's and its 99-cent double cheeseburger. Then said, "You want fries with that?" And Man replied, "Yes! And super size them!" and Satan said, "It is good." And Man went into cardiac arrest.
God sighed and created quadruple bypass surgery. Then Satan created HMOs.
And God said, "Hit me with your best shot because before your afterlife, there is... 4Life!... Transfer Factor!" Finally, God said, "I'll see you one, and raise you one!" Go to our 4Life website before you become another of Satan's statistics to add to his bragging rights.
Thought to tweak your thoughts... There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
By the way, we also have a product to help you with your mental acuity and overall brain health if you happen to find yourself in that trap... CLICK HERE!
Consider this: Many will complain that healthy, potentially life-saving supplements are too expensive at $49.95 per month ($1.67/day) while at the same time they spend $5/day on a pack of cigarettes or $5 on a Big Mac meal or $3 on a soft drink and a donut. Ask yourself, "where are my real priorities?" And, to quote a famous phrase from the devastating attacks of 911, "where do you draw your line in the sand?" Take action now and regain control of your health and wealth.
From wealthyhealth.com site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)