Gadget: Glass Cooking Pot

Set of glass cooking pots made from borosilicate glass inspired by functionalist and minimalist principles.

The properties of borosilicate glass allow it to withstand high temperatures while keeping the handles cool enough to use without cooking gloves.

The material is ideal for healthy cooking and storing, since the surface doesn’t react with food in any way.

The product is currently looking for a manufacturer.

Read more . . . . .

Advertisements

Baked Veal with Crispy Garlic and Herbs

Ingredients

750 g veal fillet
extra virgin olive oil, for brushing
sea salt and cracked black pepper
1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil, extra
3 cloves garlic, thinly sliced
2 cups basil leaves
1 cup tarragon leaves
arugula leaves, to serve

Anchovy Mayonnaise

300 g silken tofu
1 clove garlic, crushed
2 anchovy fillets
1/4 cup lernonjuice
1/3 cup finely grated parmesan

Method

  1. To make the anchovy mayonnaise, place the tofu, garlic, anchovies. lemon juice and parmesan in a food processor and process until smooth. Refrigerate until ready to use.
  2. Preheat oven to 180ºC (350ºF).
  3. Brush the veal with oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper.
  4. Heat a large non-stick frying pan over medium heat and cook the veal, turning, for 12 minutes or until browned on all sides.
  5. Transfer to a baking tray lined with non-stick baking paper and roast for 10 minutes.
  6. Allow to cool to room temperature.
  7. Heat the extra oil in a clean large non-stick frying pan over medium heat. Add the garlic and cook for 1 minute.
  8. Add the basil and tarragon and cook for 2-3 minutes or until the garlic is golden and the herbs are crisp. Remove with a slotted spoon and set aside on paper towel to drain.
  9. Slice the veal and top with the crispy garlic and herbs. Serve with the anchovy mayonnaise and arugula.

Makes 4 servings.

Source: Donna Hay

Character Food of Pop-up Gudetama Cafe in Osaka, Japan

吉本新喜劇女性座長・酒井藍さん and ぐでたま

New Medical Advances Marking the End of A Long Reign for Diet Wizards

David Prologo wrote . . . . . . .

For many years, the long-term success rates for those who attempt to lose excess body weight have hovered around 5-10 percent.

In what other disease condition would we accept these numbers and continue on with the same approach? How does this situation sustain itself?

It goes on because the diet industry has generated marketing fodder that obscures scientific evidence, much as the Wizard of Oz hid the truth from Dorothy and her pals. There is a gap between what is true and what sells (remember the chocolate diet?). And, what sells more often dominates the message for consumers, much as the wizard’s sound and light production succeeded in misleading the truth-seekers in the Emerald City.

As a result, the public is often directed to attractive, short-cut weight loss options created for the purposes of making money, while scientists and doctors document facts that are steamrolled into the shadows.

We are living in a special time, though – the era of metabolic surgeries and bariatric procedures. As a result of these weight loss procedures, doctors have a much better understanding of the biological underpinnings responsible for the failure to lose weight. These discoveries will upend the current paradigms around weight loss, as soon as we figure out how to pull back the curtain.

As a dual board-certified, interventional obesity medicine specialist, I have witnessed the experience of successful weight loss over and over again – clinically, as part of interventional trials and in my personal life. The road to sustained transformation is not the same in 2018 as it was in 2008, 1998 or 1970. The medical community has identified the barriers to successful weight loss, and we can now address them.

The body fights back

For many years, the diet and fitness industry has supplied folks with an unlimited number of different weight loss programs – seemingly a new solution every month. Most of these programs, on paper, should indeed lead to weight loss. At the same time, the incidence of obesity continues to rise at alarming rates. Why? Because people cannot do the programs.

First, overweight and obese patients do not have the calorie-burning capacity to exercise their way to sustainable weight loss. What’s more, the same amount of exercise for an overweight patient is much harder than for those who do not have excess body weight. An obese patient simply cannot exercise enough to lose weight by burning calories.

Second, the body will not let us restrict calories to such a degree that long-term weight loss is realized. The body fights back with survival-based biological responses. When a person limits calories, the body slows baseline metabolism to offset the calorie restriction, because it interprets this situation as a threat to survival. If there is less to eat, we’d better conserve our fat and energy stores so we don’t die. At the same time, also in the name of survival, the body sends out surges of hunger hormones that induce food-seeking behavior – creating a real, measurable resistance to this perceived threat of starvation.

Third, the microbiota in our guts are different, such that “a calorie is a calorie” no longer holds true. Different gut microbiota pull different amounts of calories from the same food in different people. So, when our overweight or obese colleague claims that she is sure she could eat the same amount of food as her lean counterpart, and still gain weight – we should believe her.

Lots of shame, little understanding

Importantly, the lean population does not feel the same overwhelming urge to eat and quit exercising as obese patients do when exposed to the same weight loss programs, because they start at a different point.

Over time, this situation has led to stigmatizing and prejudicial fat-shaming, based on lack of knowledge. Those who fat-shame most often have never felt the biological backlash present in overweight and obese folks, and so conclude that those who are unable to follow their programs fail because of some inherent weakness or difference, a classic setup for discrimination.

The truth is, the people failing these weight loss attempts fail because they face a formidable entry barrier related to their disadvantaged starting point. The only way an overweight or obese person can be successful with regard to sustainable weight loss, is to directly address the biological entry barrier which has turned so many back.

Removing the barrier

There are three ways to minimize the barrier. The objective is to attenuate the body’s response to new calorie restriction and/or exercise, and thereby even up the starting points.

First, surgeries and interventional procedures work for many obese patients. They help by minimizing the biological barrier that would otherwise obstruct patients who try to lose weight. These procedures alter the hormone levels and metabolism changes that make up the entry barrier. They lead to weight loss by directly addressing and changing the biological response responsible for historical failures. This is critical because it allows us to dispense with the antiquated “mind over matter” approach. These are not “willpower implantation” surgeries, they are metabolic surgeries.

Second, medications play a role. The FDA has approved five new drugs that target the body’s hormonal resistance. These medications work by directly attenuating the body’s survival response. Also, stopping medications often works to minimize the weight loss barrier. Common medications like antihistamines and antidepressants are often significant contributors to weight gain. Obesity medicine physicians can best advise you on which medications or combinations are contributing to weight gain, or inability to lose weight.

Third, increasing exercise capacity, or the maximum amount of exercise a person can sustain, works. Specifically, it changes the body so that the survival response is lessened. A person can increase capacity by attending to recovery, the time in between exercise bouts. Recovery interventions, such as food supplements and sleep, lead to increasing capacity and decreasing resistance from the body by reorganizing the biological signaling mechanisms – a process known as retrograde neuroplasticity.

Lee Kaplan, director of the Harvard Medical School’s Massachusetts Weight Center, captured this last point during a recent lecture by saying, “We need to stop thinking about the Twinkie diet and start thinking about physiology. Exercise alters food preferences toward healthy foods … and healthy muscle trains the fat to burn more calories.”

The bottom line is, obese and overweight patients are exceedingly unlikely to be successful with weight loss attempts that utilize mainstream diet and exercise products. These products are generated with the intent to sell, and the marketing efforts behind them are comparable to the well-known distractions generated by the Wizard of Oz. The reality is, the body fights against calorie restriction and new exercise. This resistance from the body can be lessened using medical procedures, by new medications or by increasing one’s exercise capacity to a critical point.

Remember, do not start or stop medications on your own. Consult with your doctor first.

Source: The Conversation

Female Night Shift Workers May Have Increased Risk of Common Cancers

Night shift work was associated with women having an increased risk of breast, skin, and gastrointestinal cancer, according to a meta-analysis published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“By systematically integrating a multitude of previous data, we found that night shift work was positively associated with several common cancers in women,” said Xuelei Ma, PhD, oncologist at State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Medical Center of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. “The results of this research suggest the need for health protection programs for long-term female night shift workers.”

Ma explained that because breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer among women worldwide, most previous meta-analyses have focused on understanding the association between female night shift workers and breast cancer risk, but the conclusions have been inconsistent. To build upon previous studies, Ma and colleagues analyzed whether long-term night shift work in women was associated with risk for nearly a dozen types of cancer.

Ma and colleagues performed a meta-analysis using data from 61 articles comprising 114,628 cancer cases and 3,909,152 participants from North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. The articles consisted of 26 cohort studies, 24 case-control studies, and 11 nested case-control studies. These studies were analyzed for an association between long-term night shift work and risk of 11 types of cancer. A further analysis was conducted, which looked specifically at long-term night shift work and risk of six types of cancer among female nurses.

Overall, long-term night shift work among women increased the risk of cancer by 19 percent. When analyzing specific cancers, the researchers found that this population had an increased risk of skin (41 percent), breast (32 percent), and gastrointestinal cancer (18 percent) compared with women who did not perform long-term night shift work. After stratifying the participants by location, Ma found that an increased risk of breast cancer was only found among female night shift workers in North America and Europe.

“We were surprised to see the association between night shift work and breast cancer risk only among women in North America and Europe,” said Ma. “It is possible that women in these locations have higher sex hormone levels, which have been positively associated with hormone-related cancers such as breast cancer.”

Among female nurses alone, those who worked the night shift had an increased risk of breast (58 percent), gastrointestinal (35 percent), and lung cancer (28 percent) compared with those that did not work night shifts. Of all the occupations analyzed, nurses had the highest risk of developing breast cancer if they worked the night shift.

“Nurses that worked the night shift were of a medical background and may have been more likely to undergo screening examinations,” noted Ma. “Another possible explanation for the increased cancer risk in this population may relate to the job requirements of night shift nursing, such as more intensive shifts.”

The researchers also performed a dose-response meta-analysis among breast cancer studies that involved three or more levels of exposure. They found that the risk of breast cancer increased by 3.3 percent for every five years of night shift work.

“Our study indicates that night shift work serves as a risk factor for common cancers in women,” said Ma. “These results might help establish and implement effective measures to protect female night shifters. Long-term night shift workers should have regular physical examinations and cancer screenings.

“Given the expanding prevalence of shift work worldwide and the heavy public burden of cancers, we initiated this study to draw public attention to this issue so that more large cohort studies will be conducted to confirm these associations,” he added.

A limitation of this work is a lack of consistency between studies regarding the definition of “long-term” night shift work, with definitions including “working during the night” and “working at least three nights per month.” Additional limitations include significant between-study heterogeneity and publication bias.

Source: American Association for Cancer Research


Today’s Comic