• Cooking thermometers are a necessary kitchen tool–here are some good ones (The Kitchn)

• One expert weighs in on how to help kids love their bodies. Awesome! (YourTango)

• Want to run faster? Of course you do. Try out one of these four tips (Fitbie)

• How to live by the “five second rule” and not, surprising, get sick (The Stir)

Post from: Blisstree

A new study says a 20% ‘fat tax‘—on ‘unhealthy foods’ and sugary drinks—would help curb obesity by substituting for the lack of self control that has clearly led to obesity (wink wink). Published in British Medical Journal, the study aggregated data from several countries measuring the effectiveness of food taxes, and found that they can have a positive impact on public health…if they’re significant enough to really make our wallets hurt. There’s so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just throw out the biggest issues that come to mind:

First, the phrasing: The concept of a “soda tax” isn’t inherently offensive, but calling it a “fat tax” makes it sound a lot like legislated discrimination. I’m all for correcting a food system that makes junk food artificially cheap, but framing it in terms of hitting fat people with financial penalties doesn’t address those problems—it just lends further credence to the myth that fat people are fat because they have an uncontrollable appetite for Twinkies and Coke.

But Twinkies and Coke are only half the problem; making them expensive might deter customers, but it won’t make vegetables cheap. It also won’t make it easier for people in food deserts to access fresh food, and it won’t teach people how to make healthy meals. And what’s really horrifying is that, for people who can literally barely afford to feed their families junk food from the 99-cent store, raising prices on even bad-for-you foods would mean that they basically don’t get to eat enough. So not only would they be malnourished; they’d literally be starving.

There are plenty of other logistical issues, like how we would define “unhealthy” foods, and how difficult it would be to implement. But what’s most frustrating to me about the whole idea of a ‘fat tax’ is that it completely overlooks the fact that those foods are cheap to begin with because of food subsidies.

If you’re not familiar with food subsidies, the basic concept is that the government gives money to certain agricultural industries in order to supplement their income, thereby influencing the cost and supply of certain commodities. In the U.S., the meat and dairy industries get huge boosts from the government, as do corn farmers—which is part of why things like Twinkies, Coke, and cheeseburgers are so damn cheap. Here’s a quick visual, courtesy of Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine:

Lead researcher Oliver Mytton said of the 30 or so international surveys they observed, most situations pointed to the success of taxes on unhealthy food:

Economists generally agree that government intervention, including taxation, is justified when the market fails to provide the optimum amount of a good for society’s well-being. [This] include[s] a failure to appreciate the true association between diet and disease, time inconsistency (preference for short-term gratification over long-term well-being), and not bearing the full health and social costs of consumption.

But, at least in the U.S., the market isn’t “failing’ to provide the optimum amount for society’s good; the government is failing to subsidize the optimum foods for our health. Layering taxes on top of already-dysfunctional production and pricing wouldn’t help make healthy food affordable or accessible; if we can make that happen (and, you know, frame the discussion around real health concerns instead of fat-shaming), I think we won’t even need to debate how to tax junk food.

Related posts:

• Obesity Costs U.S. $190 Billion Per Year—Let The ‘Fat Tax’ Battles Begin
• Soda Tax: Should We Pay the Price for Getting Fat?
• ‘Weight Of The Nation’ Isn’t The Fat-Shaming Debacle You Think It Is

Post from: Blisstree

New York sex therapist Sari Eckler explained it best to Barron’s:

There’s a lack of resistance for the knees and feet. And whoever is on the bottom is sinking into the bed.

Or, as an owner of one of these plush mattresses wrote on an Internet message board:

It’s like trying to do it in quicksand.

Ah, point taken.

The type of mattresses, in particular, that are the culprit for bad sex are memory-foam mattresses. And regardless of what happens–or doesn’t happen on them, they continue to be the fastest-growing segment of mattresses out there. In fact, their market share has gone from 14% to almost 20% in the past eight years.

Meaning, those of us in the market for a new mattress value sleep over sex. Or at least sex under the sheets. But who can blame us? Insomnia sucks, and roughly 60 million Americans suffer from it.

As Gayle Greene, author of Insomniac, explained to NPR, few people realize just how debilitating sleep deprivation can be:

Sleep is the fuel of life. It’s nourishing; it’s restorative. And when you are deprived of it, you are really deprived of a basic kind of sustenance.

She went on to explain that people who suffer from insomnia or any sleep disruptions will do whatever it takes to keep it away:

I don’t manage this beast. I live with it. I live around it. I bed down with it every night, gingerly, cautiously, careful not to provoke it. I do my best to placate it, domesticate it, dull its claws, avoid its fangs, knowing that at any moment it can pounce on me and tear me to bits.

And for many of us, that means choosing a plush mattress. Even if that means sex needs to take place elsewhere. Kitchen table, anyone?

Photo: shutterstock.com

Related posts:

• Insomnia Totally Sucks; 6 Foods To Help You Sleep Better
• Sleep To Get Slim: Obesity Genes Curbed By Nightly Rest, Study Says
• Biking Hurts Our Vaginas–And Our Sex Life; Study Proves We’re Not Just Wimps.

Post from: Blisstree

I get that Weight Watchers is all about helping people lose weight. Really, I do. But I don’t believe in scales. As a matter of fact, when I used to be a personal trainer (who worked with a lot of women trying to lose weight), I always advised them not to weigh themselves. Because, quite simply, weighing yourself is a recipe for disaster.

How many times have we stepped on a scale and actually liked what we saw? Not many. In my experience, getting on a scale is like being in grade school all over again–it’s yet another way of being judged and graded. This can lead to shaming, anxiety and self-loathing for many women whose self-worth is tied to a number. The truth is, our bodies are meant for so much more than that.

Instead of advising my clients to weigh themselves regularly like many weight-loss programs do, including Weight Watchers, I told them to throw out their scales. Get rid of them. Because from now on, we’re going to measure your health–not your weight. And we did that by training for a 5K run, a 10K walk, a triathlon and sometimes even a marathon.

I worked with my clients to focus on what their bodies can do–not how much they weigh. By getting in shape and training for a race or some type of physical accomplishment, the weight naturally took care of itself. People began eating better because they knew they had a long workout the next morning and didn’t want to bonk. They began making better choices at the grocery store because, all of a sudden, their food became a source of energy and fuel–not a source of feeding their emotions. And they began seeing their bodies differently. Instead of focusing on getting “skinny”, they focused on being thankful for a body that was allowing them to be so active and strong. It was a dramatic shift that ultimately led to dramatic weight loss–and self-esteem gain. In some instances, their blood pressure lowered, they came off certain medications and they slept better. In short, their bodies became more of their natural size, shape, ability and health, and they felt proud of themselves. And that forever changed my view of the scale.

I’m happy that everyone at Weight Watchers has a source of encouragement and support for their weight-loss goals. I just wish they weren’t so focused on weight–as ironic as that sounds.

One such member of Weight Watchers, Nancy, told me that she agrees about the weigh-ins being offensive:

I have been a Weight Watcher for more than 40 years and this issue is my pet peeve…there are some employees who still feel compelled to say the numbers out loud. I threatened to have one fired for doing so. I attend a meeting now where computers are not available. One person weighs you in and writes the number in your book. That would be OK, except that you have to THEN show your book to another person who takes your money. Those records are laying there on the counter in front of God and everybody, as I like to say. I avoid it like the plague. If it weren’t for the fact that I really like this particular Weight Watchers leader, I’d find another place to go.

She went on to say:

So, bottom line…they have the technology to do it privately and quietly, and that’s how it should be done. I stayed away for years because of the embarrassment of the public weigh-in. You know, for years, they kept your card in a card file on a counter and you had to pick yours out when you came in…and the WEIGHTS are listed right on the cards! I simply refused to have a card in that file…made them crazy every week.

But not everyone agrees.

Another Weight Watchers member, Leigh, wrote to me and said:

I feel that being weighed in holds me accountable for my behavior and progress. After all, people who have joined all have at least one goal in common—to lose weight. The weigh-ins are not done in front of everyone. They are private and the person recording the weight does not (or at least should not) say anything in terms of loss or gain. They do, however, offer a lot of encouragement.

And another member, Amy, added:

I have been doing Weight Watchers via the At Work program (meetings held at our office) and it’s been wonderful. I’ve lost 62 pounds so far and still going for a few more. The weigh-ins are what makes it successful for me. Knowing I have to face our leader each week, no making excuses – it’s holds me accountable for my food choices I make each day and for my successes or blips. The weighing in process is private, more so at the official Weight Watchers centers, and I personally don’t feel any humiliation at all.

Catharine, a former member and receptionist at Weight Watchers (who left due to a disagreement with them pushing so much artificial, processed food) said the program is all about weight and the weigh-ins are what motivate people:

When it comes to success with Weight Watchers, there are lots of ways to measure the progress toward goals, including multiple “non-scale victories”: feeling better in clothes, having more energy, enjoying social events. Having said that, those NSVs tend to be subjective. Weight is objective. When someone steps on the same scale at the same time every week, it’s a direct measurement of pounds gained or lost. That gives members manageable measurements and can also give leaders and receptionists feedback on how the program is or isn’t working for that individual.

She went on to say that there is “room for improvement” when it comes to the way that Weight Watchers stresses weight over health, the bottom line is that people come there to lose weight:

The overall goal of Weight Watchers is weight loss, like it or not. Additional benefits like better health and self-image are crucial, but people don’t join WW for those.

Nevertheless, I stand by my belief that no one should focus their weight-loss efforts on a scale, including Weight Watchers.

Oh, and that Weight Watchers meeting that I spoke at? When I was introduced, the leader gave everyone my credentials and then said, “Now wouldn’t we all like to look like her?” Yes, I’m naturally thin and a very active athlete, but really? Telling everyone that they should strive to look like someone else? Geez. How about striving to look like your best self? Without weighing yourself to get there.

Photo: losingphatty.blogspot.com

Related posts:

• ‘Weight Of The Nation’ Isn’t The Fat-Shaming Debacle You Think It Is
• It’s Official: Jessica Simpson and Weight Watchers To Make New Moms Feel Fat
• Jessica Simpson’s Weight Watchers Talks Prove America’s Bipolar Approach To Pregnancy
• Want Better Self-Esteem? Don’t Lose Weight.

Post from: Blisstree

• Achieve the perfect lunge with this tutorial (HuffPost Healthy Living)

• What’s the favorite clothing line for athletic celebs? Hint: it’s not lululemon (Well & Good)

• True or false: the best facial cleansers really sold on drugstore shelves (Vital Juice)

• Yes, it’s true–you really do eat more junk food in the wee hours (Grist)

• These common running ailments can sideline your workouts–learn more about them to keep yourself healthy (FitSugar)

Post from: Blisstree

Last summer, the FDA gave sunscreen manufacturers a new set of sunscreen label guidelines—which included updates to better protect consumers—but last week, they announced that they’d pushed back the deadline another six months. So labels should be more accurate by…next winter.

The new label requirements would require a standardized test for products labelled “broad spectrum,” to indicate that they protect against both UVA and UVB rays. They would also bar companies from using the terms “sweat-proof” and “waterproof” (to dispell misconceptions that the products don’t need reapplication to provide proper protection), and require products with SPF 2-14 to include a warning sign explaining the dangers of sun exposure and limited protection offered by such low SPF.

These and other new FDA guidelines were due to be enforced by June 17 of this year, but due to manufacturer complaints about the deadline, they pushed it back another six months. So, consumers can expect better labels just in time for…winter.

The FDA’s official statement about the pushback reads as follows:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is delaying the compliance dates for the final rule for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products that published in the Federal Register of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35620). The final rule establishes labeling and effectiveness testing for certain OTC sunscreen products containing specified active ingredients and marketed without approved applications. It also amends labeling claims that are not currently supported by data and lifts the previously-published delay of implementation of the Drug Facts labeling requirements for OTC sunscreens. The 2011 final rule’s compliance dates are being delayed because information received after publication of the 2011 final rule indicates that full implementation of the 2011 final rule’s requirements for all affected products will require an additional 6 months. This final rule is part of FDA’s ongoing review of OTC drug products.

Which basically sounds to me like sunscreen manufacturers lobbied really hard to save themselves from taking a major loss in profits for 2012.

Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed , who wrote the Sunscreen Labeling Protection (or SUN) Act to prod the FDA to strengthen sunscreen labeling standards, would tend to agree. In a statement he said:

Quality sunscreen offers critical protection, particularly during the summer months when millions of Americans head outdoors and to the beach. The FDA simply isn’t giving consumers the protection they deserve. For too long the FDA has allowed manufacturers to get away with inaccurate claims about sun protection. The FDA has been considering regulations to restrict these claims since 1978. It is time for them to stop dragging their feet and put the new sunscreen safety and labeling standards into effect. This is a public health issue and a situation where consumers deserve to know that the sunscreen products they purchase are safe, effective, and easy to understand so they may better protect themselves and their children from the sun’s harmful rays. The FDA today took a major step backwards and as a result, more consumers will likely get burned this summer. I will continue to monitor this process closely to ensure the FDA and manufacturers are held accountable.

Which pretty much says it all.

Related posts:

• What Is ‘Clean Beauty,’ Anyway?
• Keep It Clean: The Top 7 Ingredients To Avoid In Beauty Products
• Sun Protection Factor: FDA Posts New Sunscreen Rules
• Natural Sunscreens: More Pros Than Cons

Post from: Blisstree

• Looking to cut back on your carb intake? Here are 15 fresh ideas for how to go bread-free (FitSugar)

• Being eaten up by allergies might mean more than sneezing and wheezing–seasonal allergies could lead to weight gain (Women’s Health)

• We know you’re busy, so here are four 4-minute workouts to squeeze in (FitBottomed Girls)

• Do vitamins and supplements actually work? HuffPo is on the case (HuffPost Healthy Living)

• Prepare food like you’re in an infomercial with this cool scrap-catcher (The Frisky)

Post from: Blisstree

European Researchers discovered a new cause of obesity, called “social jet lag” (because eating crappy food and getting next to know physical activity is probably not it). We’re pretty sure it’s just another word for “sleeping in,” based on TIME‘s description:

Social jet lag, a term coined by researchers in Europe, refers to the discrepancy between your natural body clock and your social clock — the schedule you need to keep for your job and other social commitments. If you’re relying an alarm clock to wake up every morning during the week, but sleeping in on weekends, that’s a good sign there’s a mismatch. The end result is that your body’s basically shuttling back and forth between time zones each week while you’re becoming increasingly sleep-deprived.

I’ll be the first to say that sleep plays a huge role in weight loss and, more importantly, overall health and well-being. (I’ll also admit that it sounds kind of amazing to dash out of a boring cocktail party early on account of my “social jet lag.”) But isn’t this pretty much the same thing as sleep deprivation? Maybe something got lost in translation.

The European researchers surveyed 65,000 people, and found that those whose weekend and weekday sleep schedules didn’t match were three times more likely to be overweight, which is fairly persuasive evidence that we should all get consistent and adequate rest, but doesn’t differ all that much from previous research. In fact, it’s fairly well-documented that sleep deprivation and/or disrupted sleep patterns negatively impact our bodies, and in many cases cause excess weight gain, but this study doesn’t really illuminate why or how, so…maybe that’s why they felt like they had to invent a new health term?

Dr. Till Roenneberg of the University of Munich’s Institute of Medical Psychology says:

While during the workweek [people] get too little sleep and are woken by the alarm clock in the middle of their biological night, they sleep in on the weekends in order to fill up their tanks with the sleep they need.

Again; this is pretty intuitive for anyone who just isn’t a morning person, but is forced to be one via work schedule. Or anyone who has busy weeks and craves a little down time on the weekend. Or anyone who’s ever had a hangover on a Sunday… You get the picture.

Call it what you want, but most researchers believe that sleep deprivation/”social jet lag” makes you fat because it makes you hungry; it lowers leptin—the hormone that signals satiety—and increases ghrelin—a hormone that stimulates appetite. Which is probably why it’s so much harder to resist that breakfast bear claw when you’re sleep-deprived.

Related posts:

• Sleep To Get Slim: Obesity Genes Curbed By Nightly Rest, Study Says
• Not Just Beauty Rest: Study Links Lack Of Sleep To Diabetes, Obesity
• All-Natural Ways To Sleep Better

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree