Happy Valentine's Day - Eat Dark Chocolate

Ladies, read this article from Fit Sugar.com called 5 Healthy Reasons to Eat Valentine's Day Chocolate on the benefits of dark chocolate.

1.  It helps you exercise longer: A recent study found that eating a tiny amount of dark chocolate before a workout helps fight fatigue, which means you can go that much further during your workout. The amount that worked in the study was tiny — just half a square — but if it's good quality chocolate, a small square will go a long way.

2.  It's stress relieving: And not just when you're PMSing. A study found that when highly stressed participants ate an ounce and a half of dark chocolate (the equivalent of a Hershey's bar) a day for two weeks, the level of stress hormones in their bodies dropped significantly. While eating a candy bar a day can contribute to a whole new set of stresses if you're watching your weight, it's nice to know that dark chocolate has a measurable effect on stress levels.

3.  It's heart-healthy: A study found that dark chocolate increases blood flow, which helps keep your ticker in top shape. Those who ate a small amount of chocolate a day had increased blood flow due to more-dilated blood vessels as well as better heart function.

4.  It's good when you're sick: If you can't get the rest you need because of a nagging cough, try dark chocolate. The theobromine, an ingredient in dark chocolate, has been proven to suppress a cough, but just be careful — if you're trying to go to sleep, remember that a dark chocolate Hershey's bar has 30 milligrams of caffeine, which is the equivalent to a cup of tea.

5.  It lowers blood pressure: Increasing blood flow also helps your heart in another way. A study found that eating a small square of dark chocolate a day helps regulate your blood pressure by increasing blood flow as well as dilating blood vessels and releasing nitric oxide. If you're managing your blood pressure levels, a daily, small dose of dark chocolate may help.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

FDA Proposes Sweeping New Food Safety Rules

This article was published by Yahoo!, by Mary Clare Jalonick of the Associated Press, but most of us knew this was coming.

The Food and Drug Administration proposed the most sweeping food safety rules in decades, requiring farmers and food companies to be more vigilant in the wake of deadly outbreaks in peanuts, cantaloupe and leafy greens.

The long-overdue regulations could cost businesses close to half a billion dollars a year to implement, but are expected to reduce the estimated 3,000 deaths a year from foodborne illness. Just since last summer, outbreaks of listeria in cheese and salmonella in peanut butter, mangoes and cantaloupe have been linked to more than 400 illnesses and as many as seven deaths, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The actual number of those sickened is likely much higher.

The FDA's proposed rules would require farmers to take new precautions against contamination, to include making sure workers' hands are washed, irrigation water is clean, and that animals stay out of fields. Food manufacturers will have to submit food safety plans to the government to show they are keeping their operations clean.

Many responsible food companies and farmers are already following the steps that the FDA would now require them to take. But officials say the requirements could have saved lives and prevented illnesses in several of the large-scale outbreaks that have hit the country in recent years.

In a 2011 outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe that claimed 33 lives, for example, FDA inspectors found pools of dirty water on the floor and old, dirty processing equipment at Jensen Farms in Colorado where the cantaloupes were grown. In a peanut butter outbreak this year linked to 42 salmonella illnesses, inspectors found samples of salmonella throughout Sunland Inc.'s peanut processing plant in New Mexico and multiple obvious safety problems, such as birds flying over uncovered trailers of peanuts and employees not washing their hands.

Under the new rules, companies would have to lay out plans for preventing those sorts of problems, monitor their own progress and explain to the FDA how they would correct them.

"The rules go very directly to preventing the types of outbreaks we have seen," said Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods.

The FDA estimates the new rules could prevent almost 2 million illnesses annually, but it could be several years before the rules are actually preventing outbreaks. Taylor said it could take the agency another year to craft the rules after a four-month comment period, and farms would have at least two years to comply — meaning the farm rules are at least three years away from taking effect. Smaller farms would have even longer to comply.

The new rules, which come exactly two years to the day President Barack Obama's signed food safety legislation passed by Congress, were already delayed. The 2011 law required the agency to propose a first installment of the rules a year ago, but the Obama administration held them until after the election. Food safety advocates sued the administration to win their release.

The produce rule would mark the first time the FDA has had real authority to regulate food on farms. In an effort to stave off protests from farmers, the farm rules are tailored to apply only to certain fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest risk, like berries, melons, leafy greens and other foods that are usually eaten raw. A farm that produces green beans that will be canned and cooked, for example, would not be regulated.

Such flexibility, along with the growing realization that outbreaks are bad for business, has brought the produce industry and much of the rest of the food industry on board as Congress and FDA has worked to make food safer.

In a statement Friday, Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the country's biggest food companies, said the food safety law "can serve as a role model for what can be achieved when the private and public sectors work together to achieve a common goal."

The new rules could cost large farms $30,000 a year, according to the FDA. The agency did not break down the costs for individual processing plants, but said the rules could cost manufacturers up to $475 million annually.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the success of the rules will also depend on how much money Congress gives the chronically underfunded agency to put them in place. "Resources remain an ongoing concern," she said.

The farm and manufacturing rules are only one part of the food safety law. The bill also authorized more surprise inspections by the FDA and gave the agency additional powers to shut down food facilities. In addition, the law required stricter standards on imported foods. The agency said it will soon propose other overdue rules to ensure that importers verify overseas food is safe and to improve food safety audits overseas.

Food safety advocates frustrated over the last year as the rules stalled praised the proposed action.

"The new law should transform the FDA from an agency that tracks down outbreaks after the fact, to an agency focused on preventing food contamination in the first place," said Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

MyAchingKnees comment: I am fairly undecided about these new FDA proposals. As usual it will come down to the actual law and application,....and the people enforcing these laws.

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Health Signs You Should NOT Ignore

From Katie's Take by Katie Couric. Pretty good advice. We always advocate people taking charge of their health, and we all know people who only had problems diagnosed after they continued to demand that something was wrong. Use your own intuition.

When the typical cough or cold strikes, the average person can recognize how to ease the pain, but what about when it comes to more serious health issues? Not everyone can think like a doctor, which is why a checkup is necessary every now and then.

Dr. Jennifer Ashton, Senior Medical Contributor at the ABC New Medical Unit focuses on what to pay attention to, how to analyze it and when to worry. Dr. Ashton highlights the importance of the patient’s own intuition so that the physician can follow their own medical instincts.

A feeling of knowing when something’s just not right can help both the patient and the doctor in determining the diagnosis. Symptoms can occur in circles, such as depression and fatigue. A person that experiences one of these symptoms is more likely to experience both, knowing how to treat just one of these symptoms can solve both problems.

Dr. Ashton mentions the internet as an endless stream of explanations for symptoms, doctors know how to properly apply patient information in order to provide proper treatment and she tries to teach this skill to people also.

The severity or time period of certain symptoms can determine when to bring a doctor’s opinion into the mix. If the pain doesn’t go away on its own there is a chance it will get worse after a certain period of time, the different between casual and chronic pain is described by Dr. Ashton’s two week rule, more than two weeks of pain should be the signal to alert someone of the problem.

When pain and suffering is interfering with the quality of life a doctor’s analysis and advice is crucial in order to prevent the possible condition from getting worse.

Keeping up with your health is important so that common symptoms like fatigue, abdominal pain, and headaches do not occur often. Hydration, getting enough sleep and lowering your stress level are all essential to a healthy lifestyle.

Watch the video here.

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Go Red For Women

Today, the first of February, is National Wear Red Day. This is to bring awareness to the fact that Heart Disease kills more women than all cancers combined.

The American Heart Association is asking that today, and every 1st of February, people wear Red. Here is information about the movement from the Go Red For Women Organization's site:

In 2003, the American Heart Association (AHA) faced a challenge;Cardiovascular disease claimed the lives of nearly 500,000 American women each year, yet women were not paying attention. In fact, many even dismissed it as an “older man's disease.” To dispel these myths of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women, the American Heart Association, along with the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute created National Wear Red Day® to raise awareness of this critical issue. Each year, on the first Friday in February, millions of women and men come together to wear red, take action and commit to fighting this deadly disease.

One year later, in 2004, the AHA also created Go Red For Women - a passionate, emotional, social initiative designed to empower women to take charge of their heart health as well as band together and collectively wipe out heart disease. It challenges women to know their risk for heart disease and use the tools that that Go Red For Women provides to take action to reduce their personal risk.

Funds raised by Go Red For Women allow the American Heart Association to help women by offering educational programs, increase women's understanding about their risk for heart disease and support research to discover scientific knowledge about heart health. We turn science into materials and tools that healthcare providers and decision-makers can use to help women. Scientific guidelines on women and healthcare providers receive the most up-to-date strategies and treatments tailored to a woman's individual risk.

Since the first National Wear Red Day 10 years ago, tremendous strides have been made in the fight against heart disease in women, including:

•21% fewer women dying from heart disease

•23% more women aware that it's their No. 1 health threat

•Publishing of gender-specific results, established differences in symptoms and responses to medications and women-specific guidelines for prevention and treatment

•Legislation to help end gender disparities

But the fight is far from over as still hundreds of thousands of women still die each year. It's time to stand stronger, speak louder and join us in the fight this National Wear Red Day.

It's time to Go Red. Join us.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Do Health Insurance Penalties for Smokers and the Obese Make Sense?

It is a pretty well accepted fact that people with health problems, whether they are largely self inflicted or not, drive up health care costs. However, I am still undecided about if and how these higher costs should be passed to those in those higher risk groups, primarily the obese and smoker groups.

This article written by Mike Stobbe of the Associated Press brings some valid points. One of these points about whether or not to let obese people and smokers die prematurely certainly goes against our value on life in my mind. Anyway, everyone will decide for themselves.

NEW YORK (AP) — Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die prematurely from their unhealthy habits?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates.

And attempts to curb smoking and unhealthy eating frequently lead to backlash: Witness the current legal tussle over New York City's first-of-its-kind limits on the size of sugary beverages and the vicious fight last year in California over a ballot proposal to add a $1-per-pack cigarette tax, which was ultimately defeated.

"This is my life. I should be able to do what I want," said Sebastian Lopez, a college student from Queens, speaking last September when the New York City Board of Health approved the soda size rules.

Critics also contend that tobacco- and calorie-control measures place a disproportionately heavy burden on poor people. That's because they:

—Smoke more than the rich, and have higher obesity rates.

—Have less money so sales taxes hit them harder. One study last year found poor, nicotine-dependent smokers in New York — a state with very high cigarette taxes — spent as much as a quarter of their entire income on smokes.

—Are less likely to have a car to shop elsewhere if the corner bodega or convenience store stops stocking their vices.

Critics call these approaches unfair, and believe they have only a marginal effect. "Ultimately these things are weak tea," said Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and fellow at the right-of-center think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

Gottlieb's view is debatable. There are plenty of public health researchers that can show smoking control measures have brought down smoking rates and who will argue that smoking taxes are not regressive so long as money is earmarked for programs that help poor people quit smoking.

And debate they will. There always seems to be a fight whenever this kind of public health legislation comes up. And it's a fight that can go in all sorts of directions. For example, some studies even suggest that because smokers and obese people die sooner, they may actually cost society less than healthy people who live much longer and develop chronic conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

So let's return to the original question: Why provoke a backlash? If 1 in 5 U.S. adults smoke, and 1 in 3 are obese, why not just get off their backs and let them go on with their (probably shortened) lives?

Because it's not just about them, say some health economists, bioethicists and public health researchers.

"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center.

Smoking has the most obvious impact. Studies have increasingly shown harm to nonsmokers who are unlucky enough to work or live around heavy smokers. And several studies have shown heart attacks and asthma attack rates fell in counties or cities that adopted big smoking bans.

"When you ban smoking in public places, you're protecting everyone's health, including and especially the nonsmoker," said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago's School of Public Health.

It can be harder to make the same argument about soda-size restrictions or other legislative attempts to discourage excessive calorie consumption, Olshansky added.

"When you eat yourself to death, you're pretty much just harming yourself," he said.

But that viewpoint doesn't factor in the burden to everyone else of paying for the diabetes care, heart surgeries and other medical expenses incurred by obese people, noted John Cawley, a health economist at Cornell University.

"If I'm obese, the health care costs are not totally borne by me. They're borne by other people in my health insurance plan and — when I'm older — by Medicare," Cawley said.

From an economist's perspective, there would be less reason to grouse about unhealthy behaviors by smokers, obese people, motorcycle riders who eschew helmets and other health sinners if they agreed to pay the financial price for their choices.

That's the rationale for a provision in the Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — that starting next year allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

The new law doesn't allow insurers to charge more for people who are overweight, however.

It's tricky to play the insurance game with overweight people, because science is still sorting things out. While obesity is clearly linked with serious health problems and early death, the evidence is not as clear about people who are just overweight.

That said, public health officials shouldn't shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers.

National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren't working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.

"Emotions are what really count in this world," he said.


For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

12 Things You Need to Toss and Replace

I ran across this good article on Yahoo! Financially Fit about throwing out old, useless things and I thought I would share it.

As Savvy Spender says: "Now that the holidays are over and the tree’s long gone, are you taking a look around the house looking for new ways to spruce things up a bit?"

"Just tossing out dated products that have lost their overall effectiveness is liberating. Here are some items to consider replacing, per our partnering with the experts at Better Homes & Gardens:"

Pillows
Worn out pillows can mess with your neck, spine, and deprive you of sleep every night. Replace good, quality pillows every 2-3 years, and less expensive synthetic pillows once a year. Want to make them last longer? Buy a pillow protector, says Amy Panos, Senior Editor, Better Homes & Gardens. “For $5 to $20, you can find a great, quality pillow protector at the Company Store.”

Mattress
Your mattress needs to be replaced every 5-10 years. If it’s visibly saggy or lumpy, consider replacing it sooner!

Apparel
When it’s time to clean out your closet, it’s too easy to be conservative and shy away from tossing stuff you haven’t worn in a while. Just do it! Adhere to the two-year rule by getting rid of anything you have not worn in two years.

Bras
Toss bras that are more than a year old because they lose elasticity and support. While bras can be pricey, take advantage of the deals this month: Hanes has a sale that runs through the end of January (bras are under $8-$9) as does Maidenform (It’s running a $15 bra sale.).

Running shoes
Replace them every 300-500 miles. When the back of the sole is noticeably uneven and you can easily bend the sneakers in half, that means they’ve lost the proper support you need. Don’t even walk in them, say the experts.

Makeup brushes
Good, quality makeup brushes need to be replaced every three years. To maintain them, wash them - weekly - with mild dishwasher soap, and lay flat to dry. The best, affordable makeup brushes can be picked up at Target. A Sonia Kashuk set is about $11.

Beauty Products
Mascara needs to be replaced every 3 months; every 6 months, replace lipsticks and cream or liquid foundations; every year, replace powder foundations and sunscreens.

Bath loofahs
Do away with bath loofahs altogether! They’re especially prone to bacterial growth and you have to replace them every 1-2 months. Consider an alternative like light nylon washcloths, which easily lather up and dry - fully - within hours. You can get them on Amazon for about $5.

Spices
Spices, which need to be kept away from your oven and stored in a cool, dry place like your pantry, need to be replaced every year. Just do the sniff test: if there is no aroma, there is no taste.

Cookie sheets and baking pans
Are your cookie sheets and baking pans no longer shiny? Say goodbye! Old pans don’t cook as evenly.

Home Safety Items
Smoke detector batteries and HVAC filters. Replace them every 6 months.

My Aching Knees comment: If you have been counting, there is only 11 items listed above. So I include my own recommendation,.....Cats. It's time to throw out those mangy good for nothing cats. All they do it eat and lay around. Meow, meow, meow,....I can't stand it.  Throw those cats out.

For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.

Living to 100 years old

What baby boomers need to live to 100 by Glenn Ruffenach of MarketWatch published June 23rd of last year.  Yahoo! editors have selected this article as a favorite of 2012. It first appeared on Yahoo! Finance and was one of the most popular stories of the month. Readers pointed out that living a long life can be a mixed blessing if you outlive all your loved ones. "My Dad lived to 103," said user Don C. "When asked what he attributed his long life to, he replied 'Just bad luck.'"

Your chances of reaching age 100 could be better than you think — especially if you get some additional sleep and improve your diet.

U.S. seniors who make it to their 100th birthdays tend to credit social connections, exercise and spiritual activity as keys to successful aging.

Research from UnitedHealthcare looks at centenarians and baby boomers, asking the former about the “secrets of aging success” and evaluating whether the latter are taking the necessary steps to celebrate a 100th birthday.

The primary findings: Many boomers are embracing lifestyles that could lead to a long and rewarding life — with two exceptions. More than seven in 10 centenarians — 71% — say they get eight hours or more of sleep each night. By contrast, only 38% of boomers say they get the same amount of rest. And when it comes to eating right, more than eight in 10 centenarians say they regularly consume a balanced meal, compared with just over two-thirds (68%) of baby boomers.

The report — “100@100 Survey” (view PDF at UnitedHealthGroup.com) — begins with some startling numbers. As of late 2010, the U.S. had an estimated 72,000 centenarians, according to the Census Bureau. By the year 2050, that number — with the aging of the baby-boom generation — is expected to reach more than 600,000. Meanwhile, an estimated 10,000 boomers each and every day — for the next decade — will turn 65.

How to reach 100? Centenarians point to social connections, exercise and spiritual activity as some of the keys to successful aging. Among surveyed centenarians, almost nine in 10 — fully 89% — say they communicate with a family member or friend every day; about two-thirds (67%) pray, meditate or engage in some form of spiritual activity; and just over half (51%) say they exercise almost daily.

In each of these areas, baby boomers, as it turns out, match up fairly well. The same percentage of boomers as centenarians — 89% — say they’re in touch with friends or family members on a regular basis. Sixty percent of surveyed baby boomers say spiritual activity is an important part of their lives, and almost six in 10 boomers (59%) exercise regularly.

Again, sleep and diet are the two areas where baby boomers come up short. Not surprisingly, the one area where boomers are more active is the workplace. Three-quarters (76%) of surveyed baby boomers say they work at a job or hobby almost every day; that compares with 16% of centenarians.

Finally, researchers turned to cultural affairs and asked centenarians and boomers to identify — from a list of 14 notable people (including President Obama, singer Paul McCartney and actors Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts) — their preferred dinner guest. The top choice among centenarians and boomers alike: actress and comedienne Betty White.



For Information on the Products I recommend, click here, to contact me.