7 Benefits and Uses of CBD Oil (Plus Side Effects)

Tina Jones, M.D.

The Truth About Hormones in Milk
Phytochemicals such as polyphenols are compounds produced naturally in plants phyto means "plant" in Greek. On becoming an evil thing: Although the association between overweight and insulin resistance is clear, the exact likely multifarious causes of insulin resistance remain less clear. For more details on the weight loss effects of a ketogenic diet, read this article. Is cannabis an answer to entering the land of sleep? ULs are part of Dietary Reference Intakes. The Journal of Nutrition.


The Ketogenic Diet: A Detailed Beginner's Guide to Keto

But we do have alternatives. Figuring out of there is a connection between a specific food and cancer is much harder than many people assume. Even if we observe an association, it is not safe to assume that the one thing causes the other — it might as well be the other way around this is called reverse causality — which probably explains why artificially sweetened beverages and obesity are correlated [19] or it could be something else entirely that causes both the exposure and the outcome this is called a confounder.

Observe that an exposure and an outcome that seems connected, does not mean that one thing caused the other. When it comes to research into what raises the risk of cancer, we usually have nothing else than observations like these to go on. We cannot make longitudinal controlled studies because it would be utterly unethical to try to actively provoke cancer in a group of people and if we did and saw even a small rise in cancer incidence, we would have to end the study immediately.

So how can we know whether something causes cancer or not? In Sir Austin Bradford Hill developed a set of criteria [20] that needs to be fulfilled for a causality between an assumed cause and effect to be established. The Bradford Hill-criteria in summary looks like this:.

A good example of an association that fulfills the Bradford Hill-criteria is smoking and lung cancer. The observed period of time between first exposure and the appearance of diagnosable cancer is congruent with what we would expect.

There is a clear dose-response relationship more cigarettes lead to higher risk and there is a good explanation to what we observe, since cigarette smoke contains a long range of strong mutagens that is carcinogenic in both animal and cell studies. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single food that fulfills the Bradford Hill-criteria for causality.

To be able to claim that milk increases the risk of cancer, it would take among other things that milk consumption was consistently correlated with a marked increased risk of cancer and that this effect was dose dependent.

Different studies point in different directions and with some types of cancers it seems like it is protecting against that specific type of cancer but seems to promote other types of cancer.

At least that is the focal point of the articles that through blatantly selective presentation of the literature reveals themselves as anti-milk ideologues. Maybe the observed correlations are causal. Maybe milk plays a small part in both protecting against some cancers, and promoting others. But it is factually wrong to hardheadedly claim that milk causes cancer. The criteria to claim causality simply are not there.

A current systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on milk consumption and mortality showed, that milk neither lowers or raises the overall risk of death neither before time or by cardiovascular disease or cancer [25]. So milk in all likelihood is not relevant to worry about when it comes to cancer in humans.

And that is perfectly fine because we have other things to worry about — such as smoking, alcohol and obesity — if we really are interested in lowering our risk of getting cancer.

First of all, it is inflamed because there exists a plethora of truly horrifying untruths n articles, magazines and books. These untruths about milk, hormones and cancer is convincing enough to fool even reasonable and rational people.

I was myself once fooled by them. Therefore I would never dream of judging others for believing the same untruths nor for sharing them. Because if it was indeed true that milk was chock-full of hormones that gave us cancer it would be amoral to not shout this information from the rooftops and demand that health professionals took action.

It is perfectly fine to think that the production of milk is unethical or that the people responsible for the production of milk or the dairy lobbyists are exaggerating the health benefits of milk consumption. It is also perfectly fine to question the necessity of milk consumption and whether milk consumption is bad for the environment. As long as you remember to separate the different issues, because none of these attitudes changes what science tells us about milk, hormones or cancer.

Keep up the good work! You missed the most important and dangerous hormone, estrogen. Certain studies have shown a clear increase in estrogen in males after consuming milk. I especially like the last paragraphs in your usual aplomb. What a relaxed and still utmost precise piece of work! Have you done an article on Calcium or Vitamin E? Especially the latter puzzles me in its glaring gap between ofiicial ingestions recommendations and actual ingestions: The ketogenic diet is a very low-carb, high-fat diet that shares many similarities with the Atkins and low-carb diets.

It involves drastically reducing carbohydrate intake and replacing it with fat. This reduction in carbs puts your body into a metabolic state called ketosis.

When this happens, your body becomes incredibly efficient at burning fat for energy. It also turns fat into ketones in the liver, which can supply energy for the brain 6 , 7. Ketogenic diets can cause massive reductions in blood sugar and insulin levels. This, along with the increased ketones, has numerous health benefits 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , However, only the standard and high-protein ketogenic diets have been studied extensively. Cyclical or targeted ketogenic diets are more advanced methods and primarily used by bodybuilders or athletes.

The information in this article mostly applies to the standard ketogenic diet SKD , although many of the same principles also apply to the other versions.

A ketogenic diet is an effective way to lose weight and lower risk factors for disease 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , In fact, research shows that the ketogenic diet is far superior to the often recommended low-fat diet 2 , 14 , 15 , What's more, the diet is so filling that you can lose weight without counting calories or tracking your food intake One study found that people on a ketogenic diet lost 2.

Triglyceride and HDL cholesterol levels also improved Another study found that people on the ketogenic diet lost 3 times more weight than those on the diet recommended by Diabetes UK There are several reasons why a ketogenic diet is superior to a low-fat diet, including the increased protein intake, which provides numerous benefits 14 , 19 , The increased ketones, lower blood sugar levels and improved insulin sensitivity may also play a key role 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , For more details on the weight loss effects of a ketogenic diet, read this article.

Diabetes is characterized by changes in metabolism, high blood sugar and impaired insulin function The ketogenic diet can help you lose excess fat, which is closely linked to type 2 diabetes, prediabetes and metabolic syndrome 28 , 29 , Another study in people with type 2 diabetes found that 7 of the 21 participants were able to stop using all diabetes medications In yet another study, the ketogenic group lost This is an important benefit when considering the link between weight and type 2 diabetes 2 , For more information, check out this article on the benefits of low-carb diets for people with diabetes.

The ketogenic diet actually originated as a tool for treating neurological diseases such as epilepsy. Studies have now shown that the diet can have benefits for a wide variety of different health conditions:. You should base the majority of your meals around these foods:.

It is best to base your diet mostly on whole, single-ingredient foods. Here is a list of 44 healthy low-carb foods. Always try to rotate the vegetables and meat over the long term, as each type provides different nutrients and health benefits. The necessity of an invitation does not hold for frat houses Angel in Reptile Boy , dorm rooms Sunday's gang , or hotel rooms , e. This might have something to do with the occupants' privacy and proprietary rights relative to these different kinds of residences.

In The Trial, Angel explains that hotels are not invite-protected because they are public accommodations. It also does not hold for private clubs e. The necessity of an invitation also does not hold for the Turok-han or "ubervamp". Invitations only seem to work with living humans. In Lonely Hearts, Doyle says that vampires can enter the private residence of someone who's died , e.

Angel tells Wesley entering into residences belonging to another vampire isn't a problem in Somnambulist. Likewise, " Demon lairs. No invitation necessary ," he tells Merle in Blood Money other examples: Spike in Doc's apartment in Forever , Billy's home in Billy. Why would a woman I've never met even talk to me? Have you looked in the mirror lately? Oh, I guess you really haven't, no. Vampires cannot be seen on reflective surfaces: Buffy can see Lyle Gorch on the escalator, but not in the mirror Bad Eggs.

The vamps in the Initiative's demon zoo cast no reflection on the glass of their cells, but the walls behind them do. The origin of the lack of image in mirrors is traced back to the legendary ability of silver to combat evil.

Way back when, mirrors were backed with silver to provide the reflection. Nowadays, I'm pretty certain they come backed with aluminium or something So, it's not the fact that vampires wouldn't show up due to some strange light-trick, it's the fact that mirrors contained silver, their most feared and hated element Kenickie.

I've always thought that mirrors didn't reflect vamps because they had no soul I prefer the Jossian philosophy to these questions involving divergent theories and mythologies on such vampire lore: It's not physics, it's metaphysics Joss, March 15, We're just trying to figure out the metaphysics. They can be seen in photographs Drusilla in LTM?

Video recorders don't rely on mirrors like standard cameras do. They utilize rapid line-by-line scanning on the field of view, convert that into an electromagnetic signal, and record it on whatever media you're using. Basically, it works for the same reason you can see a vampire directly with your eyes, but not a reflection of it Shalazar, Oct 6 If a vampire's mind casts no reflection, then there is nothing to read, not by humans, not by demons, not by anybody Earshot.

Whereas the church in WML may well have been deconsecrated, the church in Becoming certainly wasn't. Are vampires free to enter places of worship in Joss's version of vampire lore? He seems nervous, but unless he touches a sacred object like a cross or holy water , he won't be harmed the vampires in "WSWB" got ouchies on consecrated ground because the Anointed One forced them to dig up the Master's grave with their bare hands. Angel has on clothes and shoes.

The vampires in "Who Are You" are likewise impressed with the lack of consequences when they take a church full of parishioners hostage. God does not smite them down, but a vampire slayer does. Vampires are vulnerable to magic spells , e. The dialogue on the show confuses this issue. Vampires are called " dead ", but they must also be " killed ". We are obviously dealing with two different definitions of the word "dead" here. Xander makes this distinction in the Zeppo: Vampires may be "dead" if one's definition is "without living human physiological function".

But vampires walk, talk, think, and feel, no matter what's going on in the bodies they inhabit. What is going on in vamp bodies? When someone in the Buffyverse is vamped , they die of blood loss and their human soul leaves the body. So in that sense, the person is dead. However, since they drank from the blood of the attacking vampire before their death, the body develops a demon physiology shortly after death Becoming, pt.

With this new physiology, the body is essentially alive again--it doesn't rot like a dead body does; it takes on most of the normal physiological characteristics of a human, with some differences: Vampires obviously have some kind of blood flow This explains why the blood [they consume] must be whole and fresh sigiil, 29 Feb Anyone who is looking for a completely physical explanation of vampires is slipping out of the Buffyverse.

Vampires, like slayers and witches are partly physical and partly supernatural creatures. Many aspects of their undead physiology are explained by the laws of the mystical , not the laws of the physical. Vampire bodies aren't dead, their physiology has been altered. That is no doubt why they are called "the undead". Vox on Are vampires dead?

related stories