Geoengineering and global warming

Geoengineering schemes to reduce global warming turn out to be vaporware
(NaturalNews) Researchers in the "global warming" community once posited that, if they could find a way to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface through geoengineering, they could reverse the allegedly damaging effects of climate change.



Turns out, that's not helpful.

A pair of German researchers used a simple energy balance analysis to describe how Earth's water cycle responds differently to heating by sunlight than it does to warming from a strong greenhouse gas effect.

What's more, they went on to show that this difference implies that reflecting sunlight to reduce Earth temperatures may even have unwanted effects on the planet's rainfall patterns, Science Daily reports.

The results of their research have been published in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal published by the European Geosciences Union, or EGU.

Reponses are easy to explain, say the researchers

As reported by Science Daily:

Global warming alters Earth's water cycle since more water evaporates to the air as temperatures increase. Increased evaporation can dry out some regions while, at the same time, result in more rain falling in other areas due to the excess moisture in the atmosphere. The more water evaporates per degree of warming, the stronger the influence of increasing temperature on the water cycle. But the new study shows the water cycle does not react the same way to different types of warming.

Researchers Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner, of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, employed a basic energy balance model to see how sensitive the water cycle is to increases in surface temperature due to a stronger greenhouse effect, as well as an increase in solar radiation.

In predicting the water cycle response for the two cases, the researchers found that, in the former, evaporation increases by 2 percent per degree of warming, while, in the latter, the figure was 3 percent.

The prediction confirmed results of far more complex climate models.

"These different responses to surface heating are easy to explain," Kleidon, who uses a pot on the kitchen stove as an analogy, said.

"The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid or by turning up the heat -- but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot," he said.

A stronger greenhouse effect would, in essence, put a thicker "lid" over Earth's surface, the researchers argued, but - if there is no additional sunlight, extra evaporation occurs "solely due to the increase in temperature."

More from Science Daily:

Turning up the heat by increasing solar radiation, on the other hand, enhances the energy flow through Earth's surface because of the need to balance the greater energy input with stronger cooling fluxes from the surface. As a result, there is more evaporation and a stronger effect on the water cycle.

'Like putting a lid on the pot and turning down the heat'

In the new study for Earth System Dynamics, the authors also demonstrate how their findings can have great consequences for geoengineering. Many geoengineering approaches seek to curb global warming by reducing the level of sunlight reaching Earth's surface. But when Kleidon and Renner applied their results to such a geoengineering scenario, they found that changes in the water cycle and atmosphere occurring at the same time cannot be compensated for simultaneously.

So, reflecting sunlight via geoengineering is really not likely to restore the planet to its original climate - whatever that means.

"It's like putting a lid on the pot and turning down the heat at the same time," Kleidon said. "While in the kitchen you can reduce your energy bill by doing so, in the Earth system this slows down the water cycle with wide-ranging potential consequences."

Evaluators of the study were stunned by its simplicity in producing results. One noted: "It is a stunning result that such a simple analysis yields the same results as the climate models."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043278_geoengineering_global_warming_climate_change.html#ixzz2npIS7LWj

More cancer, fewer deaths?

Study: more cancer, fewer deaths

Australians are now developing cancer at slightly higher rates but dying of the disease less often, according to University of Sydney research published in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA).

Professor Bruce Armstrong wrote the most notable trends in the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) statistics were annual five to six percent rises in the incidence of hepatic and prostatic cancers and four to five percent falls in mortality from Hodgkin lymphoma and cervical and testicular cancers.

While the research shows we're doing well at preventing cancer deaths, we need to do more to prevent the disease in the first place.

Image: Lightspring/Shutterstock

"These examples reflect the annual trends in the rates of all cancers: increasing incidence of 0.7 percent and falling mortality of 1.4 percent," Professor Armstrong wrote.

Three factors drive trends in cancer incidence and mortality, he wrote.

"Changes in population exposure to cancer risk factors can increase or decrease cancer incidence and, after a delay, produce a parallel change in mortality. Liver cancer, which has shown an increasing annual incidence of 4.8 percent and increasing mortality of 3.0 percent, was an example of this."

Population screening that detects precancerous lesions can cause drops in both incidence and mortality.

"Cervical cancer shows this pattern, however, population screening that detects invasive cancer tends to increase incidence and decrease mortality," he said.

"The national prostate cancer screening program with PSA was an example of this pattern.

"Finally, in the absence of both incidence downtrend and any material effort at early diagnosis, treatment advances were the most likely contributor to mortality downtrend."

Professor Armstrong wrote that while Australia had done very well in preventing cancer deaths, the story was not so good in terms of primary prevention.

"Given that the data show 19 favourable and two adverse mortality trends, six favourable and 17 adverse incidence trends, this was an inescapable conclusion," Professor Armstrong wrote.

"This should come as no surprise: the AIHW estimated that in the 2004-05 financial year, Australia spent $3.19 billion on medical and hospital care and pharmaceuticals for cancer and $0.22 billion on community and public health programs — mostly for screening programs, not primary prevention. The imbalance is unlikely to be less now."

The Medical Journal of Australia is a publication of the Australian Medical Association.

Read full here... http://mail.sciencealert.com.au/news/20131011-24998.html

Behavioral neuroscience

Behavioral neuroscience, also known as biological psychology, biopsychology, or psychobiology is the application of the principles of biology (in particular neurobiology), to the study of physiological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms of behavior in human and non-human animals. It typically investigates at the level of nerves, neurotransmitters, brain circuitry and the basic biological processes that underlie normal and abnormal behavior. Most typically, experiments in behavioral neuroscience involve non-human animal models (such as rats and mice, and non-human primates) which have implications for better understanding of human pathology and therefore contribute to evidence-based practice.

History

Behavioral neuroscience as a scientific discipline emerged from a variety of scientific and philosophical traditions in the 18th and 19th centuries. In philosophy, people like René Descartes proposed physical models to explain animal and human behavior. Descartes, for example, suggested that the pineal gland, a midline unpaired structure in the brain of many organisms, was the point of contact between mind and body. Descartes also elaborated on a theory in which the pneumatics of bodily fluids could explain reflexes and other motor behavior. This theory was inspired by moving statues in a garden in Paris.

Other philosophers also helped give birth to psychology. One of the earliest textbooks in the new field, The Principles of Psychology by William James (1890), argues that the scientific study of psychology should be grounded in an understanding of biology:

“

Bodily experiences, therefore, and more particularly brain-experiences, must take a place amongst those conditions of the mental life of which Psychology need take account. The spiritualist and the associationist must both be 'cerebralists,' to the extent at least of admitting that certain peculiarities in the way of working of their own favorite principles are explicable only by the fact that the brain laws are a codeterminant of their result. Our first conclusion, then, is that a certain amount of brain-physiology must be presupposed or included in Psychology.

”

James, like many early psychologists, had considerable training in physiology. The emergence of both psychology and behavioral neuroscience as legitimate sciences can be traced from the emergence of physiology from anatomy, particularly neuroanatomy. Physiologists conducted experiments on living organisms, a practice that was distrusted by the dominant anatomists of the 18th and 19th centuries. The influential work of Claude Bernard, Charles Bell, and William Harvey helped to convince the scientific community that reliable data could be obtained from living subjects.

The term "psychobiology" has been used in a variety of contexts,emphasizing the importance of biology, which is the discipline that studies organic, neural and cellular modifications in behavior, plasticity in neuroscience, and biological deceases in all aspects, in addition, biology focuses and analyzes behavior and all the subjects it is concerned about, from a scientific point of view. In this context, psychology helps as a complementary, but important discipline in the neurobiological sciences. The role of psychology in this questions is that of a social tool that backs up the main or strongest biological science. The term "psychobiology" was first used in its modern sense by Knight Dunlap in his book An Outline of Psychobiology (1914). Dunlap also was the founder and editor-in-chief of the journal Psychobiology. In the announcement of that journal, Dunlap writes that the journal will publish research "...bearing on the interconnection of mental and physiological functions", which describes the field of behavioral neuroscience even in its modern sense.

Relationship to other fields of psychology and biology

In many cases, humans may serve as experimental subjects in behavioral neuroscience experiments; however, a great deal of the experimental literature in behavioral neuroscience comes from the study of non-human species, most frequently rats, mice, and monkeys. As a result, a critical assumption in behavioral neuroscience is that organisms share biological and behavioral similarities, enough to permit extrapolations across species. This allies behavioral neuroscience closely with comparative psychology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, andneurobiology. Behavioral neuroscience also has paradigmatic and methodological similarities to neuropsychology, which relies heavily on the study of the behavior of humans with nervous system dysfunction (i.e., a non-experimentally based biological manipulation).

Synonyms for behavioral neuroscience include biopsychology and psychobiology. Physiological psychology is another term often used synonymously with behavioral neuroscience, though authors would make physiological psychology a subfield of behavioral neuroscience, with an appropriately narrow definition.

Read full here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_neuroscience

Abnormal Psychology

Do you think you're abnormal? Moreover is it positive or negative to become or stay abnormal

Abnormal essentially implies outside the normal - that today mean individuals who have a behaviour that most other individuals do not.

It will all hang on how abnormal psychology addresses or analyses the facts though, and just how society places values on attributes. There was a time in Britain when to be left handed wasn't just abnormal - you could have been burnt at the stake for being a witch!

Having a significantly low IQ is abnormal. So is having a considerably high IQ but it is usually just the former that is thought of as abnormal because children with high IQs are considered as having desirable attributes - highly gifted springs to mind even if they display unusual behaviour

Approximately a quarter of older people suffer from depression; does that render depression abnormal? It's definitely not rare, but it will probably be unusual behaviour and it could be a problem.

Abnormal psychology only tends to come to the fore if the attributes of a person's behaviour or thinking become problematic. When someone's behaviour makes people feel threatened. Not that the threat is required to be real, it is a perception.

Social standards seem to have more effect on abnormality, than someone being different does. if it's not socially acceptable then it is perceived as abnormal. As mentioned earlier abnormality doesn't stand the test of time. Being a homosexual was thought of as a psychological indeed psychiatric disorder once whilst it isn't today and drink drivers, once an accepted normal behaviour is now not seen in that light. Ditto smokers.

Abnormal psychology comes to the fore when individuals behave in a manner that disrupts their day-to-day functional ability

Rosenhan & Seligman (1989) noted the following indicators of abnormality

• Maladaptiveness - being a danger to oneself

• Vividness & unconventionality - an individual who stands out significantly from the crowd

• Unpredictably & loss of control - someone who may explode with rage or tears

• Irrationality/incomprehensibility - the inability to think in a traditional way or to make themselves understood by the mainstream

• Causes observer discomfort - those whose behaviour disconcerts those around them

• Violates moral/social standards - individuals that go against generally accepted standards

Strangely enough even these traits are open to question

If the behaviour ensures they are happy who's to suggest it is not acceptable when it does no physical harm?

And aren't boxer, smokers, drinkers all self harmers?

Abnormal psychology is not easily defined

It looks to be less about "abnormal "but more about " less than the ideal"

So what is the ideal?

Well again ideas vary but generally speaking it's individuals who have a positive view of themselves and others, who have the capability to grow and develop. They have the ability to function independently of others and can also think for themselves. They understand what is real and what isn't - worrying considering the number of individuals who think the characters in Eastenders are real! Furthermore they can function on a daily basis and find it not too difficult to form good relationships and maintain them.

Oh and if you pile on social class into that little box of tricks you will notice that when it comes to abnormality the working class suffer more than their higher class counterparts.

An Abnormal Psychology Course will help you understand this fascinating subject

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7077455

Psychology

Psychology - The Study of the Human Mind

Why are children stubborn? Why do some people become addicted to alcohol or gambling? How do you help an abused child? All of these are difficult and challenging questions that the field of psychology is trying to answer.

So, then what exactly is psychology? There are many misperceptions created by television and movies today, but the basic answer is that psychology is both an applied and academic science that studies the human mind and behavior. Research in psychology seeks to understand and explain thought, emotion, and behavior. Psychology is applied to individuals via mental health treatment, performance enhancement, self-help, ergonomics, and many other areas affecting health and daily life.

Psychology History and Schools of Thought

While people have always been fascinated by human behavior, it wasn't until the late 19th century that psychology began to be considered an actual science. Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychology lab in Germany. He believed in a school of thought called structuralism-believing that certain structures in the mind caused behavior. Over the course of psychology's history, different schools of thought have competed for prominence. Here are the major schools of thought in psychology:

oStructuralism. The belief that there is a connection between sensation and emotion and behavior.

oFunctionalism. The idea that the human brain is much like a computer, designed to carry out specific functions.

oPsychoanalysis. Created by Sigmund Freud, this school of thought believes in the rigorous probing of an individual's personal problems, motives, goals and attitudes as a way to heal the mind.

oBehaviorism. Proponents of this theory essentially hold that all human behavior is learned from one's surrounding context and environment.

oHumanism. This much more recent school of thought came as a reaction to behaviorism and Psychoanalysis, and emphasizes the importance of values, intentions, and meaning in the individual. The concept of the "self" is a central focus for most humanistic psychologists.

oCognitivism. This branch of psychology believes that psychology should be concerned with a person's internal representations of the world and with the internal or functional organization of the mind.

As psychology moved away from its philosophical roots, psychologists began to employ more and more scientific methods to study human behavior. Today, researchers employ a variety of scientific methods, including experiments, correlational studies, longitudinal studies, and others to test, explain, and predict behavior.

Areas of Psychology

Students of psychology soon realize that the subject covers a huge range of material. The diverse topics students might study include social behavior, personality, research methods, therapeutic techniques, and much more. Because it's such a broad and diverse field, a number of different subfields and specialty areas have emerged. The following are some of the major areas of research and application within psychology:

oAbnormal Psychology is the study of abnormal behavior. This specialty area is focused on research and treatment of a variety of mental disorders and is linked to psychotherapy and clinical psychology.

oBiological Psychology studies how biological processes influence the mind and behavior. This area is closely linked to neuroscience and utilizes tools such as MRI and PET scans to look at brain injury or brain abnormalities.

oClinical Psychology is focused on the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders.

oCognitive Psychology is the study of human thought processes and cognitions. Cognitive psychologists study topics such as attention, memory, perception, decision-making, problem solving, and language acquisition.

oComparative Psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the study of animal behavior.

oDevelopmental Psychology is the branch of psychology that looks at human growth and development over the lifespan.

oForensic Psychology is an applied field focused on using psychological research and principles in the legal and criminal justice system.

oIndustrial-Organizational Psychology is the area of psychology that uses psychological research to enhance work performance, select employee, improve product design, and enhance usability.

oPersonality Psychology looks at the various elements that make up individual personalities.

oSchool Psychology is the branch of psychology that works within the educational system to help children with emotional, social, and academic issues.

oSocial Psychology is a discipline that uses scientific methods to study social influence, social perception, and social interaction. Social psychology studies diverse subjects including group behavior, social perception, leadership, nonverbal behavior, conformity, aggression, and prejudice.

Today, psychologists prefer to use more objective scientific methods to understand, explain, and predict human behavior. Psychological studies are highly structured, beginning with a hypothesis that is then empirically tested. Academic psychologists focus on the study of different sub-topics within psychology including personality psychology, social psychology, and developmental psychology. These psychologists conduct basic research that seeks to expand our theoretical knowledge, while other researchers conduct applied research that seeks to solve everyday problems. Applied psychology focuses on the use of different psychological principles to solve real world problems. Examples of applied areas of psychology include forensic psychology, ergonomics, and industrial-organizational psychology. Many other psychologists work as therapists, helping people overcome mental, behavioral, and emotional disorders.

Psychology is a broad and diverse field with a variety of related professions. If you are considering studying psychology, you are pursuing one of the most important and basic of the human sciences. You can expect to have a long, satisfying, and fascinating career if psychology is your field.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/815596

Diets

All Diets Types and Their Explanations - How to Navigate and Choose the Best One For You

Atkins Diet

"The Atkins Diet is a high-protein, low-carbohydrate weight loss diet developed by Robert Atkins, M.D., during the 1960s. In the early 1990s, Dr. Atkins brought his diet back into the nutrition spotlight with the publication of his best-selling book "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution".

The Atkins Diet severely restricts the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods and encourages the consumption of protein and fat. The diet is divided into four phases: Induction, Ongoing Weight Loss, Pre-maintenance, and Maintenance. During the Induction phase (the first 14 days of the diet), carbohydrate intake is limited to no more than 20 grams per day. No fruit, bread, grains, starchy vegetables, or dairy products (except cheese, cream, and butter) are allowed during this phase. During the Ongoing Weight Loss phase, dieters experiment with various levels of carbohydrate consumption until they determine the most liberal level of carbohydrate intake that allows them to continue to lose weight. Dieters are encouraged to maintain this level of carbohydrate intake until their weight loss goals are met. During the Pre-maintenance and Maintenance phases, dieters determine the level of carbohydrate consumption that allows them to maintain their weight. To prevent weight regain, dieters are told to maintain this level of carbohydrate consumption, perhaps for the rest of their lives. According to Dr. Atkins, most people must limit their carbohydrate intake to no more than 60 grams per day to keep lost weight off. In addition to the dietary restrictions discussed above, Dr. Atkins recommends regular exercise and nutritional supplementation as part of his weight loss program.

Note: The dietary recommendations issued by various organizations, including the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association, encourage a daily carbohydrate intake of approximately 300 grams. To stay healthy, you will need to consume five times more what Atkins prescribes in his diets. Can a human being last long enough on this diet without experiencing any side effects? If the dieter dares to cheat on this program, the result can be detrimental and the weight can be regained easily, twice as much as what has been lost during the diet. The quick weight gain brings about eventual depression and the dieter will eventually reach his original weight before the weight loss.

What is so attractive about the diet that so many individuals have taken the time and effort to apply?

High-protein diets are the fad regimens of the moment. Their theory for weight loss consists of eating lots of animal proteins and skipping carbohydrates such as breads, rice and pasta. The theory behind these diets is that if you load up on animal proteins, you will feel fuller faster, so you'll end up eating less.

The Atkins Diet is attractive to dieters who have tried unsuccessfully to lose weight on low-fat, low-calorie diets. Atkins dieters can eat as many calories as desired from protein and fat, as long as carbohydrate consumption is restricted. Consequently, many Atkins dieters are spared the feelings of hunger and deprivation that accompany other weight loss regimens.

The underlying premise of the Atkins Diet is that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates cause weight gain, and ultimately lead to obesity. Such diets increase the production of insulin (a hormone secreted by the pancreas). When insulin levels are high, the food we eat is quickly and easily converted into fat, and stored in our cells. By restricting the consumption of carbohydrates, the production of insulin is moderated. In addition, the lack of available carbohydrate (the body's preferred fuel source) forces the body to burn stored fat as energy.

What do the critics say?

Many nutrition experts disagree with the basic premise of the Atkins Diet - the notion that high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets cause obesity. For evidence of the implausibility of the Atkins Diet, some nutritionists point out that the traditional Japanese diet is very high in carbohydrates, low in protein, and very low in fat; however, before the introduction of high-fat and high-protein Western foods, being overweight was rare in Japan. Such findings make sense because ounce for ounce, carbohydrates contain far fewer calories than fats (4 calories from carbohydrates versus 9 calories from fat). These critics blame the over-consumption of calories (from any source) and lack of physical activity as the primary causes of obesity.

One concern about a high-protein diet stems from all the saturated fats one eats - those fats that we're told cause high cholesterol, clogged arteries and, eventually, heart disease. Critics also express concern about the impact of the Atkins Diet on the overall health of the dieter. Depending on the foods chosen by the dieter, the diet may contain a large amount of saturated fat and trans fat, putting those at risk for heart disease in danger. Recent research has found that high-protein diets speed up the progression of arteriosclerosis, the main cause of heart attacks. Moreover, contrary to Atkins' claims, extremely low-fat diets have been found to reverse heart disease. In addition, the lack of grains, fruits, and vegetables in the Atkins Diet may lead to deficiencies of key nutrients, including dietary fiber, vitamin C, folic acid, and several minerals. Finally, high protein diets may increase the risk of osteoporosis and accelerate the rate of deterioration in kidney function associated with aging.

Critics concede that Atkins dieters often experience significant weight loss during the initial stages of the diet. However, these critics argue that the diet has a diuretic effect and that the initial weight loss is due to water loss, not fat loss. Eventually the body restores its water and sodium balance, and the rate of weight loss declines. Critics also note that there is no evidence showing that the Atkins diet leads to greater weight loss than do other diets that provide more carbohydrates, yet the same number of calories.Critics also note high-protein diets can lead to dangerous imbalances - bone loss and kidney problems - because too much protein can overwork the kidneys.

Dr. Atkins was the first person who brought a low-carbohydrates diet to major prominence in the U.S. and I credit him for defying "the system" and offering a weight loss plan that works for some people. He presents scientific fact, but for the most part his recent book provides anecdotal information from many of his patients.

Dr. Atkins claims that some people have a condition of "hyper-insulinism", in which they produce excess amounts of insulin when they eat carbohydrates, which in turn causes fat storage, diabetes, and a craving for more carbohydrates. This theory is scientifically logical but has not been accepted as proven by the medical community.

In Dr. Atkins' "maintenance phase", he advises that persons increase their carbohydrate intake to the point where they do not gain or lose weight.

All that is great, however, how can we understand the whole concept behind his diets and why do people truly believe in it? How does it actually work?

Insulin is a hormone, which is a substance that travels through the body and stimulates chemical reactions. The human body has mechanisms to regulate how much of each hormone is produced, so that their effects can be controlled. With insulin, however, there is no "shut-off" switch as there is with other hormones. The digestion of carbohydrates produces insulin, and there is no way to stop its activity once it is present in the bloodstream. There is also no way to prevent it from being produced when carbohydrates are consumed, even if these are in excess of what the body needs for fuel.

So, the more carbohydrates you consume, the more insulin the pancreas will produce to help digest the sugars of the carbohydrates. The more insulin that is being produced, the more stored fat will be sent to the cells, especially to those around your waist.
I believe Dr. Atkins' diet may be useful for persons who are very sensitive to carbohydrates and have extremely slow metabolic rates.

Dr. Atkins' diet does not restrict protein intake, which is the correct approach. However, his advice to add carbohydrate grams for the maintenance phase so that continued weight loss does not occur is not scientifically sound. There is no indication that a person will continue to lose weight below his ideal bodyweight, taking in consideration his body type and metabolism. Your body is predisposed to a certain weight, even though you interrupt carbohydrates consumption from your diet, the body will still maintain the same weight. After that phase, you will simply need to maintain it and be happy with it.

Extreme dieters will need to understand that all the information mentioned above and below these lines is to make you realize some facts that you've never taken the time to research. When a diet becomes popular, people jump on it without researching in more detail what it can do for their bodies or if the diet fits their standard. It is not because "John Doe has lost some weight on this specific diet" that you will have a similar result. The same goes for diet pills: be careful with them. If they work temporarily for some people, it doesn't necessarily mean they will have the same effect on you.

As for me, experiencing my own programs enabled me to lose weight, maintain it and still eat as much as I want of the right foods. I eat and exercise plenty.

Remember that moderation is important. If you want to eat something that is not healthy, go ahead and eat it. However, make sure to moderate the rest of the day with the right food. The following information should be helpful when it comes to moderation regarding a well-balanced diet.

Here are some good reasons to avoid high-protein diets:

1. They violate almost every known fact about nutritionally balanced eating. For some dieters, these diets can even be life threatening.
2. Popular high protein diet foods are high in cholesterol and saturated fat, which are now established as major culprits in heart attacks and strokes.
3. They overload you with protein, which results in loss of calcium from your bones, which may lead to osteoporosis. Protein overload also pressurizes your kidneys as they try to eliminate large amounts of urea, a by-product of protein metabolism.
4. They forbid foods known to lower the risk of heart disease and many cancers.
5. They deprive you of carbohydrates, the nutrient group most readily converted to energy. Even moderately active people will notice this lack during exercise.
6. They deprive your brain of glucose, which it needs for normal functioning. The result is a slowdown in thinking and reaction time.
7. They deprive you of the enormous benefits of fiber, which is a form of carbohydrate (cellulose).
8. They are deficient in essential vitamins. Indeed, some high protein diets even require you to take vitamin supplements for the sake of your health.
9. They cause potentially dangerous changes in your body chemistry.

10. They deliver temporary weight loss. However, a large part of it is water weight and lean muscle mass - not fat. (You lose water because your kidneys try to get rid of the excess waste products of protein and fat, called ketones, that your body makes.)

Note: Weight gain is usually rapid when you go off the diet.

11. Finally, it's worth knowing that while your body burns up 23 calories for every 10o carbohydrate calories it digests, it only burns up 3 calories for every 100 "fat" calories it digests. Therefore, a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet makes it easier for you to stay fat!

FYI (For Your Information):
The average Western diet contains TOO MUCH FAT.
That's why an estimated 1 in 3 American children are overweight!
That's why heart disease is the No. 1 killer in America and Europe.
We should be eating less fat, not more.

High protein diets encourage high-fat eating and - for this reason alone - should be avoided.
What are those medical miracles that are being publicized to consumers for their rapid weight loss programs? The magazine Self, in March of 2002 investigated some of the programs that are simply bogus.

"Healthy weight loss" is not a particularly sexy marketing slogan. It is quite impossible to sell these types of slogans to Americans: "Drop pounds by eating fewer calories and increasing physical activity!" Instead, manufacturers of weight loss concoctions resort to selling their products with dubious promises of magically speedy results. Thankfully, separating fact from fiction is easy.

Read full here

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1516090

Diet plan

Getting Started With a Low Carb Diet Plan

Once you've finally made the decision to lose weight, and you've decided you want to try a low carb diet plan, the hard part is practically over. All you need to do now is simply get started. So let's look at what your first several days of a low carb diet plan might be like.

Day one of your low carb diet plan should really start with some firm decisions. First you decide you will lose weight of course, and second you decide to go with a low carb diet plan to accomplish that weight loss. Next though, you need to choose which low carb diet plan you intend to follow. Three popular ones include the Atkins low carb diet plan, The South Beach low carb diet plan, and The Glycemic Index low carb diet plan.

Regardless of which plan you choose, the goal is to lower your daily intake of carbs, and start really losing some of the extra weight and fat your body has been holding on to. So on day one, decide which low carb diet plan you will be following and familiarize yourself with how that low carb diet plan works specifically.

Day two of your low carb diet plan will involve planning and preparation. First you need to clear out your cabinets, pantry, fridge and freezer. Toss out or give away any high carb, high sugar content foods that you won't be eating with your low carb diet plan.

Most low carb diet plans don't allow you to have certain foods in the first week or two on the plan, but you can gradually add those foods in later. So you may find yourself getting rid of foods you have right now that aren't overly high in carbs, but aren't yet allowed for the start of your low carb diet plan. Don't despair though... many of these foods will be added back in over the next few weeks.

Next you will want to make a list of what you will be eating for at least the next week. Include meals, snacks and liquids, then create a shopping list for all of those items. Last but not least, you will go to the store and buy all of the foods on your list.

Taking these steps will help you get started right with the low carb diet plan of your choosing, and it will help you stick to the proper guidelines and instructions for that plan as well.

Day three of your low carb diet plan is when you will actually change the way you eat. You don't have to wait until this day to get started with your new low carb diet plan, but it can be helpful to start fresh at the beginning of a new day, instead of starting in the middle of a day. Starting your new low carb diet plan at the beginning of a brand new day will make you feel more committed to the plan instead of feeling like it was an impulsive decision on the spur of the moment.

Day three is a good day to do a bit of cooking too. By preparing foods that are allowed during this beginning stage of your low carb diet plan, you're making sure you will always have something good to eat that's easy to just grab and go. One of the biggest pitfalls of most low carb diet plans is that you need to cook the proper foods for your particular plan. And if you don't have something cooked and ready when you want it, you're more likely to fall off the plan and sabotage your weight loss efforts.

The next several days of your low carb diet plan might not be the best. You will experience sugar and starch cravings, you may be tired and lethargic, and you may have headaches or mild dizziness. These are all standard symptoms of starting a low carb diet plan, because your body is cleaning out all the extra starches, sugars and junk that's been stored up for awhile. You body is going through withdrawal from the lack of sugar that it's used to, and these early days on your low carb diet plan are when having pre-cooked foods is most important, because you're at a higher risk of quitting when you're not feeling well.

Once those few days of withdrawal are over though, you will very likely be thrilled with the results of choosing a low carb diet plan. You'll have more energy, you won't feel as bloated, and you might even notice clothes are already started to fit more loosely too!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/458642

Diet plans

A Healthy Diet Plan

Introduction

Free diet plan is based on balanced intake of fats, proteins and carbohydrates in different calorie count. Free diet plan stimulates your body burn the fat much easier, only by changing your daily calorie intake. Free diet plans are so common in society that many people have very restrictive ideas about what is healthy and natural in free diet plans eating. The best thing about free diet plan is that you burn the fat only.

Diet

Studies show that a lifestyle approach to nutrition, not a short term crash diet, is most likely to lead to permanent weight loss. You should consult with a health care professional before starting any diet, exercise or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem. Monitor your weight or the way your clothing fits on a weekly basis and add or take away calories from your current diet according to what has been happening with your body.

Plan

The Diet Planner is merely a pattern to show individuals an example of what can be eaten for a certain number of calories while dieting. Be sure and follow the information outlined in the Planner Information. The first rule when formulating a diet plan should be to count calories. Don't pay attention to any free diet meal plans, grapefruit diet plan or loss weight fast anorexia tips you've read in the newspapers.

Health

Health & Fitness - Choosing a free diet program is a very difficult task. Healthy eating varies in response to your free diet plans hunger, emotions, schedule, and accessibility to free diet plans food. Healthy eating means leaving half your free diet plans dessert on your plate because you have recognized you are full and satisfied. Healthy eating means being able to eat when free diet plans and to continue eating until you are both physically and psychologically satisfied.

Calories

Try adding or subtracting 100-200 calories per day, and test that level for about a week before you make a decision. The rest of your daily calories can come from carbs. If you are willing to track calories, use a maintenance figure you know is accurate as a starting point, or multiply your body weight by 15 to get an approximation of your maintenance calorie level. *If you have 150-200 pounds to lose, you will need to add an additional 400 calories per day to your diet plan. Do NOT go below 1,200 calories per day or you may lose your hair, your muscles, and any chance of winning the Lotto. If you require a 1,500 calorie diet, simply add 150 more calories to your daily diet. The above calculations are based on average calorie intake of 2250 calories.

Conclusion

Highly effective people and free diet plans achievers always double up and do two things at once whenever possible. We're all in the same boat in the free diet plans beginning and free diet plans intermediate learning stages. So far, the best free diet plans book I've ever read on free diet plans for fat loss is Chris Aceto's "Everything You Need to Know About free diet plans. In addition, free diet plans also contain antioxidants and phytochemicals which have been shown to prevent cancer, heart disease, strokes, and other diseases. A recent study of 23 lean men and 23 obese men found little difference in the total number of free diet plans calories each group consumed. No more than 25 percent of your total free diet plans calories should come from fat, fewer than 10 percent from saturated fat, the most damaging form discussed in detail in the GHF free diet plans component.

This article can be published as long as the resource box including the backlink is included.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/585234

Probiotics and Prebiotics

The Complete Guide to Understanding Probiotics and Prebiotics

The human gut contains a myriad of microorganisms which form a well-orchestrated ecosystem known as microbiota.

Human microbiota plays a vital role in the human body via regulation of immune and inflammatory responses, production of certain vitamins and biologically active substances, scavenging of non-digested food components and human body metabolites (for example, uric acid causing gout) and feeding the intestinal lining.

Disturbances in the human microbiota caused by antibiotics, excessive carbohydrate consumption, prolonged use of birth control pills, immunosuppression and anti-inflammatory drugs can result in colon inflammation, yeast overgrowth, leaky gut syndrome and eventually trigger chronic fatigue, brain fog, insomnia and headaches.

Probiotics are live microorganisms that improve intestinal microbial balance and suppress pathogenic microorganisms. They can be consumed in the form of food supplements or as a part of live fermented foods such as pickled vegetables, sauerkraut, live yogurt, buttermilk, kefir, kimchi and gluten-free soy sauce.

Clinical and research data demonstrate that probiotics benefit people with chronic diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Certain probiotic strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactococcus lactis) may help with the digestion of lactose, soy and animal proteins (Lactobacillus plantarum). Probiotics (Lactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium bifidus,  Bifidobacterium lactis) can be used for prophylaxis of colon cancer  and to lower cholesterol and blood pressure (Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei).

Another important aspect of probiotics (Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus) is their ability to eradicate Helicobacter pylori – a microorganism causing gastric and duodenal ulcers and to reduce symptoms of antibiotic-associated diarrhea due to Clostridium difficile.

Recently, a particular probiotic, Bacillus coagulans, was shown to possess strong anti-inflammatory activity and benefit people with rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis. Finally, probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus) can be used to treat various skin diseases like eczema.

Selecting probiotics for individual use may be tough to navigate due to the broad variety of strains, strengths and brands available in the market.

Commercially available probiotics come in the form of single-strain or multiple strain preparations. For general purposes, it is preferred to use multiple strain products to imitate the diverse environment of the human gut.

The amount of consumed probiotics is counted in Colony Forming Units (CFUs).  In general, if you take probiotics just for maintenance of intestinal health, you should take 20-25 billion CFUs a day.  During antibiotic therapy, increase consumption to 100 billion CFUs a day. Treatment of chronic yeast (Candida) infection, leaky gut syndrome and colitis quite often requires the daily dose of probiotics in the range of 100-500 billion CFUs a day.

The use of probiotics is not recommended in individuals with acute and chronic pancreatitis, in individuals undergoing stem cells and organ transplantation, as well as in individuals with a severely compromised immune system.
What are prebiotics and why are they important?

Prebiotics are non-digestible carbohydrate-based food ingredients that stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria (bifidobacteria and lactic acid bacteria) in the gastrointestinal tract. In contrast to probiotics, prebiotics are not live microorganisms but rather heat-resistant fiber like substances.

The health effects of prebiotics are mediated via increased production of short-chain fatty acids by the stimulated bacteria, which feed normal gut microbiota and provides the energy supply to the epithelial cells that form the intestinal lining.

Natural products rich in prebiotics include various vegetables including asparagus, garlic, leek, onion, and artichoke. Another valuable source of prebiotics is brewer’s yeast.

My preferred prebiotic is mannan-oligosaccharides or MOS, a product derived from the cell wall of the brewer’s yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. MOS is not only a prebiotic but also an immune polysaccharide—a molecule possessing one of the strongest stimulatory effects on mucosal immune responses. Another unique property of MOS includes its inhibitory effects on the attachment of pathogenic bacteria to the intestinal lining, restoration of intestinal villi and stimulation of digestive enzymes.

Other helpful tips:

Initial consumption of pre- and probiotics, especially at high doses and high CFUs, result in excessive gas formation, bloating and associated abdominal discomfort. Be patient– these problems typically disappear in 3-4 days.

In general, we recommend taking probiotics on an empty stomach. If you take probiotics at a dose equal to or above 100 billion CFUs, divide their consumption between AM and PM.

You do not need to take pre- and probiotics together. Prebiotics can be taken with meals.

Try to use non-refrigeratable probiotics, such as Bacillus coagulans, when you travel.

If you take antibiotics, separate the consumption of prebiotics from the antibiotics by at least 2 hours.

More read at... http://blogs.naturalnews.com/the-complete-guide-to-understanding-probiotics-and-prebiotics/

CO2 levels

Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels
(NaturalNews) Thank goodness carbon dioxide levels are finally rising ever so slightly in our atmosphere, bringing much-needed carbon dioxide to the plants and forests of the world which have been starving for CO2. The lack of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most devastating limiting factors for plant growth and reforestation of the planet, and at just 400ppm -- that's just 400 micrograms per kilogram -- carbon dioxide is so low that Earth's plant life can barely breathe.

Editor's note: I have added substantially to this story since it was first published in order to attempt to educate what appear to be a mass of brainwashed, mathematically illiterate commenters on Facebook who demonstrate a wholesale inability to process information with anything resembling rationality on this subject.

Let me clarify three things before we even get into the story:

#1 - NO, I do not support the coal and oil industry, and in fact I think they are terrible polluters of our planet for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with CO2. As it turns out, all the coal and oil being burned across our world right now only slightly impacts CO2 levels, especially when compared with CO2 emissions by ocean life. So my support of CO2 as an essential plant nutrient in no way is any kind of endorsement of the oil and coal industries. My long track record of activism against corporate monopolists is irrefutably solid.

#2 - YES, CO2 is an essential plant nutrient. Despite all the idiotic beliefs of people who have been brainwashed by Al Gore into believing scientific mythologies, higher CO2 levels support faster plant growth and the re-greening of our planet, period! Anyone who disagrees with this is flatly uninformed, brainwashed or just plain ignorant of plant biology (and that's a lot of people). Recent science is proving that rising CO2 levels are, in fact, expanding plant growth and reforestation around the world. Read Increase in Carbon Dioxide Levels "Greening" the Deserts at NatureWorldNews.com or read the press release from the original researchers out of Australia who documented this correlation. And everybody needs to read www.PlantsNeedCO2.org

#3 - The current level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 400ppm. By comparison, Oxygen exists in the atmosphere at 210,000ppm. When you exhale, your own breath contains 40,000ppm of CO2, and if you know anything about emergency first aid, then you know that breathing this 40,000ppm of CO2 into another person's body (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) is a lifesaving action. It's not uncommon for CO2 to reach levels of 3000ppm in homes, schools and offices. OSHA allows workers to work in environments with up to 5000ppm of CO2. (Because, again, oxygen is present at 210,000ppm, vastly out-weighing the CO2.)

So all this talk of carbon dioxide threatening the entire planet at just 400ppm -- less than one-half of 1/1000th of the air -- is pure nonsense. Total quack science fearmongering.

In fact, most of what we've all been told about CO2 over the pat few years is a complete lie. It's time to stop believing these lies and wake up to reality. Most importantly, stop defending the CO2 / global warming hoax. Yes, CO2 is rising, but it's mostly from non-human activity, and rising levels actually support forests and plants everywhere.

How did I "wake up" to this information? It's simple: I used to be a believer in the CO2 hoax until I really began to study plant physiology and aquaponics production. Only then did I discover that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth and that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were radically deficient for optimal reforestation and plant biology. My awakening to this in no way means I endorse coal or oil industries, both of which are dirty polluters of the planet. But I am no longer allowing myself to be conned by the likes of Al Gore who has successfully convinced far too many people that their own breath is a global pollutant that needs to be regulated and taxed.

The CO2 scam is nothing more than a global tax moneymaking scheme being pushed by people who hope to get rich off our collective guilt for a problem that's entirely fabricated and fictional.

My original story continues here:

Throughout the history of our planet, atmospheric CO2 was much, much higher, and it supported eras of lush rainforests, rapid plant growth and far greater biodiversity than what we see today. In fact, 525 million years ago, Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels were as high at 7,000 ppm -- and far from the planet "dying" as global warming hoax pushers try to claim, it was one of the most lush and biodiverse times in our planet's history.

As the following chart clearly shows, CO2 levels are at one of their lowest levels in the history of our planet:

Carbon dioxide is greening the planet

Global warming alarmists and hoaxers, of course, have warned that CO2 levels crossing the threshold of 400ppm will spell certain doom for the human race. What they don't mention is that rising CO2 levels actually set off a "global greening," complete with forests re-growing at an accelerated rate, gardens producing more food and arid regions seeing a restoration of green plants.

In fact, a study just published in Geophysical Research Letters has documented that a 14% increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere gave rise to a 5% - 10% increase in green foliage, with a total increase in plant "cover" of 11%. That study is entitled, CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments.

That study refers to CO2 as a "fertilizer" that causes a "fertilization effect." As the study authors explain:

Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

CO2, you see, isn't a "pollutant." It's a nutrient!

By the way, your body is 18% carbon and 65% oxygen. (I'm going to pre-empt some stupid Facebook trolls who will say, "Not true! Your body is 75% water!" by answering in advance that H2O is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has such a low atomic weight, however, that it doesn't contribute more than about 10% to your total body mass. Then again, trying to teach science to Facebook trolls is a lot like trying to teach pigs to write javascript.)

In total, you are 83% made of the same stuff as CO2, just in a different molecular arrangement. CO2 is, of course, constantly reformed and recycled throughout the planetary ecosystem. Ocean biological activity alone produces 90 billion tons of CO2 each year -- many multiples of the far smaller amount produced by human activity (about 6 billion tons). If CO2 alone caused global warming and global death, we'd all be dead by now. It turns out that CO2 actually helps fertilize the growth and restoration of plants and forests!

Ocean plants love carbon dioxide, too!

By the way, it's not just land plants that are starving for CO2. Marine plants also need more CO2, and most marine biology came into being in a time when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.

The higher CO2 levels are in the atmosphere, the more CO2 gets absorbed into ocean water, making it available to help marine plants thrive. This CO2, importantly, is also used to build coral reefs.

Wait a second! Haven't we all been told that CO2 is destroying coral reefs? I used to think so, too, because I hadn't scrutinized the science closely enough. But if you really dig into this issue, it turns out that coral reefs are largely being destroyed by toxic chemical runoff from human activity, not from CO2.

If you love plants and forests and gardens, you gotta love CO2

The bottom line in all this is that if you love plant life on planet Earth, you've gotta love carbon dioxide. CO2 is the key nutrient that's needed to bolster the rapid growth of nearly all plants, and right now Earth's atmosphere is in a state of carbon dioxide deficiency.

That's why professional greenhouse owners actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.

Rising CO2 levels are a huge benefit to plant life across the planet. Hare-brained plans to "sequester" CO2 will cause an artificial reduction in this crucial plant nutrient, resulting in the mass global die-off of plants and the thinning of forests. Carbon sequestration is, quite literally, plant starvation and an attack against Mother Nature.

So don't buy into the disinfo hawked by CO2 alarmists like Al Gore. They are pushing an utterly fictional story about how "CO2 will destroy the world" and end human civilization if we don't stop its rise. I welcome rising CO2 levels and being scientifically trained, I know that carbon dioxide only exists at less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere. In fact, it's currently at less than half of 1/1000th of the atmosphere. That's an extremely small amount of CO2 -- just 400ppm. And it's just barely enough to keep Earth's plants from dying en masse.

Conclusion:

• CO2 is an essential plant nutrient that accelerates the growth of plants, gardens and forests.

• CO2 is present in the atmosphere at just 400 ppm. By comparison, oxygen is present at 210,000 ppm. There is barely any CO2 in the atmosphere at all.

• Higher CO2 levels means better reforestation and "greening" of the planet. As CO2 levels rise, barren regions are able to "re-green" with trees that couldn't grow there before.

• CO2 is chronically deficient in the atmosphere today; many plants are "starving" for carbon dioxide.

• NO, I do not support the oil and gas industries. In fact, there is hardly any link between energy usage and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. The vast majority of CO2 emissions come from biology, not burning fossil fuels.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.html#ixzz2VGyCMEXp