I'm feeling some winter blues already, so no plethora of commentary this week, here's the results:
> 0 people (0%) chose "drink early and drink often".
> 1 people (8%) chose "eat early and eat often".
> 1 people (8%) chose "exercise early and exercise often".
> 2 people (16%) chose "all of the above".
> 4 people (33%) chose "they don't really bother me" - i don't like you.
> 4 people (33%) chose "i wish i had a good method" - c'mon people! the person that suggested tanning up to twice a week, who I call 'Miss Melanoma Head', isn't that much help.
Pretty dull, right? Only 12 voters too... even more depressing. New poll up now, if you care.
October 5, 2008
October 4, 2008
October 2, 2008
One of my favorite topics...
DA BEARS!!!! .jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
[the other side]
.jpg)
.jpg)
[getting it started]
In case you didn't watch NBC on Sunday night, the Chicago Bears played the Philadelphia Eagles. Now, don't get me wrong, I've had fun in Philly, they have some great bike shops... but their fans are known the world over for being some of the most caustic in the league. One year, in their own stadium, they threw snowballs at Santa Claus. This game had the most fan fights I'd ever seen at a NFL game. You can also now call or text a special Bears Task Force and report rowdy fans during the game - kinda cool.
.jpg)
This guy will be the rest of the pics. He was two rows in front of us the whole game. I know you want to get a better look at his face paint, don't you?
.jpg)
[the other side]
I think he was older than my dad, had his own custom jersey (last name 'Knell') and brought his son along for the fun (or some young guy that wore another custom jersey with the same last name). He wasn't a mean drunk or anything and was actually pretty friendly to the row right in front of us. Their interactions gave me the best chance for a good head-on shot.
.jpg)
Ta-Da!
Oh, the Bears won this one in a nail-biter... once again on the strength to their defense with almost no help from their offense. Go, Orton. It was a great game/evening and I was glad I got lucky enough to go.
The China Study, Part IV, Breast Cancer.
Does anyone reading this NOT know someone who has dealt with breast cancer? Sure, this is an odd topic for a male to pick, but there's a lot of women in my life I'd like to keep around for a good long time. Don't you have some too?
"[Quote] There are at least four important breast cancer risk factors that are affected by nutrition, as shown in Chart 8.1. Many of these relationships were confirmed in the China Study after being well established in other research."[End quote]
Obviously, you can't see the chart, but I can write down the risk factors, they are:
1. early age of menarche (look it up)
2. late age of menopause
3. high levels of female hormones in blood
4. high blood cholesterol
"[Quote] With the exception of blood cholesterol, these risk factors are variations on the same theme: exposure to excess amounts of female hormones, including estrogen and progesterone, leads to an increased risk of breast cancer. Women who consume a diet rich in animal-based foods, with a reduced amount of whole, plant-based food, reach puberty earlier and menopause later, thus extending their reproductive lives. They also have higher levels of female hormones throughout their lifespan, as shown in chart 8.2.
According to our China Study data, lifetime exposure to estrogen is at least 2.5-3.0 times higher among Western women when compared with rural Chinese women. This is a huge difference for such a critically important hormone. To use the words of one of the leading breast cancer research groups in the world, "there is overwhelming evidence that estrogen levels are a critical determinant of breast cancer risk." Estrogen directly participates in the cancer process. It also tends to indicate the presence of other female hormones that play a role in breast cancer risk. Increased levels of estrogen and related hormones are a result of the consumption of typical Western diets, high in fats and animal protein and low in dietary fiber.
The difference in estrogen levels between rural Chinese women and Western women is all the more remarkable because a previous report found that a mere 17% decrease in estrogen levels could account for a huge difference in breast cancer rates when comparing different countries. Imagine, then, what 26-63% lower blood estrogen levels and eight to nine fewer reproductive years of blood estrogen exposure could mean, as we found in the China Study.
This idea that breast cancer is centered on estrogen exposure is profound because diet plays a major role in establishing estrogen exposure. This suggests that the risk of breast cancer is preventable if we eat foods that will keep estrogen levels under control. The sad truth is that most women simply are not aware of this evidence. If this information were properly reported by responsible and credible public health agencies, I suspect that many more young women might be taking very real, very effective steps to avoid this awful disease."[End quote]
If you want more on this topic from the book, and there's plenty more, please grab it from somewhere. Much of the book hits home after reading the whole thing, not just bits here and there. I'm just trying to get people interested.
"[Quote] There are at least four important breast cancer risk factors that are affected by nutrition, as shown in Chart 8.1. Many of these relationships were confirmed in the China Study after being well established in other research."[End quote]
Obviously, you can't see the chart, but I can write down the risk factors, they are:
1. early age of menarche (look it up)
2. late age of menopause
3. high levels of female hormones in blood
4. high blood cholesterol
"[Quote] With the exception of blood cholesterol, these risk factors are variations on the same theme: exposure to excess amounts of female hormones, including estrogen and progesterone, leads to an increased risk of breast cancer. Women who consume a diet rich in animal-based foods, with a reduced amount of whole, plant-based food, reach puberty earlier and menopause later, thus extending their reproductive lives. They also have higher levels of female hormones throughout their lifespan, as shown in chart 8.2.
According to our China Study data, lifetime exposure to estrogen is at least 2.5-3.0 times higher among Western women when compared with rural Chinese women. This is a huge difference for such a critically important hormone. To use the words of one of the leading breast cancer research groups in the world, "there is overwhelming evidence that estrogen levels are a critical determinant of breast cancer risk." Estrogen directly participates in the cancer process. It also tends to indicate the presence of other female hormones that play a role in breast cancer risk. Increased levels of estrogen and related hormones are a result of the consumption of typical Western diets, high in fats and animal protein and low in dietary fiber.
The difference in estrogen levels between rural Chinese women and Western women is all the more remarkable because a previous report found that a mere 17% decrease in estrogen levels could account for a huge difference in breast cancer rates when comparing different countries. Imagine, then, what 26-63% lower blood estrogen levels and eight to nine fewer reproductive years of blood estrogen exposure could mean, as we found in the China Study.
This idea that breast cancer is centered on estrogen exposure is profound because diet plays a major role in establishing estrogen exposure. This suggests that the risk of breast cancer is preventable if we eat foods that will keep estrogen levels under control. The sad truth is that most women simply are not aware of this evidence. If this information were properly reported by responsible and credible public health agencies, I suspect that many more young women might be taking very real, very effective steps to avoid this awful disease."[End quote]
If you want more on this topic from the book, and there's plenty more, please grab it from somewhere. Much of the book hits home after reading the whole thing, not just bits here and there. I'm just trying to get people interested.
September 30, 2008
Brain Teaser, #5.
Suppose we have a sequence:
(1), (2, 3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9,10), (11,12,13,14,15),...
where (1) is the first part of the sequence, (2,3) the second part, etc.
What is the first number of the 100th part of the sequence?
(1), (2, 3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9,10), (11,12,13,14,15),...
where (1) is the first part of the sequence, (2,3) the second part, etc.
What is the first number of the 100th part of the sequence?
September 29, 2008
Discuss, Poll #37, Winter Blues.
As I sit here in the beginning of Autumn and continue my string of blog polls, I look outside to a sunless, dark, and rainy day. It's only a short time before the days are quite short and the darkness & cold of winter takes hold. [did I just depress you a little?]
If anyone has good tips for staving off cabin fever and S.A.D., I'd like to hear them.
If anyone has good tips for staving off cabin fever and S.A.D., I'd like to hear them.
Results, Poll #36, BMI.
I want to thank everyone from the outset this time for filling out the poll. I can only assume that everyone found their correct BMI figure and chose appropriately. Of course, this is one case where a little "fudging" could come into play... but I trust not much, if any, occured here.
The results were pretty interesting for me - it appears that not only are readers of this blog very well-read and fans of live sports, but are also pretty darn healthy, at least when using the BMI as a gauge.
> 2 people (13%) chose "13-18" (Underweight) - Wow, I often get remarks from people about me not eating enough or looking thin... but you two take the cake, or perhaps leave the cake in this instance. I don't know what you're doing, but maybe some more plant-based protein would be a good thing.
> 10 people (66%) chose "19-24" (Healthy Weight) - Again, wow. This is a large majority of readers in the "healthy" section. I'm a bit surprised, but very happy that most of my readers are keeping an eye on their waist and portion sizes. Or just eating once a week, like a snake.
> 2 people (13%) chose "25-29" (Overweight) - I'm sure with some new healthy steps and increased activity, you can get this into the "healthy" area - if you so choose.
> 1 person (6%) chose "30-60" (Obese) - I poked fun at the underweight twins, but I don't know what to say here. I'm sure nothing I say will be funny.
These are interesting results to me because one-third of the US is considered "overweight" and many of those folks are in the "obese" category. I guess reading my blog keeps you fit?
The results were pretty interesting for me - it appears that not only are readers of this blog very well-read and fans of live sports, but are also pretty darn healthy, at least when using the BMI as a gauge.
> 2 people (13%) chose "13-18" (Underweight) - Wow, I often get remarks from people about me not eating enough or looking thin... but you two take the cake, or perhaps leave the cake in this instance. I don't know what you're doing, but maybe some more plant-based protein would be a good thing.
> 10 people (66%) chose "19-24" (Healthy Weight) - Again, wow. This is a large majority of readers in the "healthy" section. I'm a bit surprised, but very happy that most of my readers are keeping an eye on their waist and portion sizes. Or just eating once a week, like a snake.
> 2 people (13%) chose "25-29" (Overweight) - I'm sure with some new healthy steps and increased activity, you can get this into the "healthy" area - if you so choose.
> 1 person (6%) chose "30-60" (Obese) - I poked fun at the underweight twins, but I don't know what to say here. I'm sure nothing I say will be funny.
These are interesting results to me because one-third of the US is considered "overweight" and many of those folks are in the "obese" category. I guess reading my blog keeps you fit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)