Is Cholesterol Bad?

?Bad? Cholesterol Not As Bad As People Think, Shows Texas A&M Study

COLLEGE STATION, May 4, 2011 – The so-called “bad cholesterol” – low-density lipoprotein commonly called LDL – may not be so bad after all, shows a Texas A&M University study that casts new light on the cholesterol debate, particularly among adults who exercise.

Steve Riechman, a researcher in the Department of Health and Kinesiology, says the study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance. His work, with help from colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh, Kent State University, the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, is published in the Journal of Gerontology.

Riechman and colleagues examined 52 adults from ages to 60 to 69 who were in generally good health but not physically active, and none of them were participating in atraining program. The study showed that after fairly vigorous workouts, participants who had gained the most muscle mass also had the highest levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, “a very unexpected result and one that surprised us.

“It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There’s no doubt you need both – the LDL and the HDL — and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can’t remove all the ‘bad’ cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring.

cholesterol plaque in an artery

Cholesterol is found in all humans and is a type of fat around the body. A person’s total cholesterol level is comprised of LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol.

LDL is almost always referred to as the “bad” cholesterol because it tends to build up in the walls of arteries, causing a slowing of the blood flow which often leads to heart disease and heart attacks.

HDL, usually called the “good cholesterol,” often helps remove cholesterol from arteries.

“But here is where people tend to get things wrong,” Riechman says.

“LDL serves a very useful purpose. It acts as a warning sign that something is wrong and it signals the body to these warning signs. It does its job the way it is supposed to.

“People often say, ‘I want to get rid of all my bad (LDL) cholesterol,’ but the fact is, if you did so, you would die,” the Texas A&M professor adds. “Everyone needs a certain amount of both LDL and HDL in their bodies. We need to change this idea of LDL always being the evil thing – we all need it, and we need it to do its job.”

According to the American Heart Association, about 36 million American adults have high cholesterol levels.

“Our tissues need cholesterol, and LDL delivers it,” he notes. “HDL, the good cholesterol, cleans up after the repair is done. And the more LDL you have in your blood, the better you are able to build muscle during resistance training.”

Riechman says the study could be helpful in looking at a condition called sarcopenia, which is muscle loss due to aging. Previous studies show muscle is usually lost at a rate of 5 percent per decade after the age of 40, a huge concern since muscle mass is the major determinant of physical strength. After the age of 60, the prevalence of moderate to severe sarcopenia is found in about 65 percent of all men and about 30 percent of all women, and it accounts for more than $18 billion of health care costs in the United States.

“The bottom line is that LDL – the bad cholesterol – serves as a reminder that something is wrong and we need to find out what it is,” Riechman says.

“It gives us warning signs. Is smoking the problem, is it diet, is it lack of exercise that a person’s cholesterol is too high? It plays a very useful role, does the job it was intended to do, and we need to back off by always calling it ‘bad’ cholesterol because it is not totally bad.”

Contact: Steve Riechman at (979) 862-3213 or or Keith Randall, News & Information Services, at (979) 845-4644 or

Posted: May 2011


Duke Says “Climate Models Wrong”

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed – and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

  • Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
  • It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
  • Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
  • These ‘climate wiggles’ were not properly accounted for in IPCC report


PUBLISHED: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | UPDATED: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015

Global warming hasn’t happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called ‘climate wiggles’ could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

Scroll down for video

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Projected temperature change from 2081-2100 by the IPCC are pictured here. The latest study, however, says this climate model may be wrong

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Projected temperature change from 2081-2100 by the IPCC are pictured here. The latest study, however, says this climate model may be wrong

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,’ said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. ‘But this could change.’

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

They claim these ‘wiggles’ can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

Summary of projected changes in crop yields in a previous IPCC report. Because 'climate wiggles' were not accounted for, the Duke University researchers say the report may have been an over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends

Summary of projected changes in crop yields in a previous IPCC report. Because ‘climate wiggles’ were not accounted for, the Duke University researchers say the report may have been an over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends

The research, uses observed data, rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability.

‘At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,’ said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the study with Brown.


Infectious diseases, such as Ebola and West Nile virus, will rapidly spread to new areas as a result of global warming.

This is according to zoologist, Professor Daniel Brooks, who warns humans can expect to face new illnesses as climate change brings crops, livestock, and humans into contact with pathogens.

Professor Brooks says it will be ‘the death of a thousand cuts’ with society unable to keep up with the speed of disease as it spreads around the world.

‘It’s not that there’s going to be one “Andromeda Strain” that will wipe everybody out on the planet,’ Professor Brooks said, referring to the 1971 science fiction film about a deadly pathogen.

‘There are going to be a lot of localised outbreaks that put a lot of pressure on our medical and veterinary health systems.’

In his research, Professor Brooks has focused primarily on parasites in the tropics, while his colleague, Professor Eric Hoberg, has worked in Arctic regions.

Each has observed the arrival of species that hadn’t previously lived in that area and the departure of others, said Professor Brooks, who is affiliated with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.

To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

‘By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,’ Brown said.

‘Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.’

‘Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,’ Brown said.

‘Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.’

Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

‘That matches up well with what we’re seeing.’

There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

‘Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.’

The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting 'all continents and across the oceans'. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place

The IPCC has previously warmed that global warming is impacting ‘all continents and across the oceans’. This map details some of the predicted affects of climate change in different continents. However the latest study claims that the worst-case scenario is unlikely to take place

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Cause of the Great Depression


Blogger Ben’s Basically Full Of It

by  • May 4, 2015

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Ben Bernanke’s skin is as thin, apparently, as is his comprehension of honest economics. The emphasis is on the “honest” part because he is a fount of the kind of Keynesian drivel that passes for economics in the financially deformed world that the Bernank did so much to bring about.

Just recall that he first joined the Fed way back on 2002 after an academic career of scribbling historically superficial and blatantly misleading monographs about the 1930s. These were essentially zeroxed from Milton Friedman’s monumental error about the cause of the Great Depression. In a word, Friedman and Bernanke pilloried the Fed for not going on a bond buying spree during 1930-1932 and thereby stopping the shrinkage of money and credit.

In fact, excess reserves in the banking system soared by 12X during those four years, interest rates were at rock bottom and the US economy was saturated with idle cash. So there was no financial stringency——not the remotest aspect of a great monetary policy error.

Instead, what actually happened was that the US banking system was massively insolvent after a 12-year credit boom fueled by the Fed’s printing presses. This first great credit bubble arose initially from the Fed’s maneuvers to fund the massive war production surge of 1915-1919 and then from its fostering of a vast domestic and international credit bubble during the Roaring Twenties.

Alas, none of the Fed governors during the 1930-1932 credit contraction had graced the lecture halls of Princeton. But to nearly a man they knew you can’t push on a string, and that a healthy economy requires that busted loans and soured speculations must be purged from the financial system in order for sustainable growth to resume.

Bernanke has never had a clue about this truth. As I showed in The Great Deformation, what he got wrong about the early 1930’s—– he replicated in spades after the September 2008 financial crisis:


Upon becoming chairman of the Fed, Bernanke then foisted the Fisher-Thomas-Friedman deflation theory upon the nation’s economy in a panicked response to the Wall Street meltdown of September 2008. Yet monetary deflation was no more the cause of the 2008 crisis than it had been the cause of the Great Depression.

The monetary populists of the 1920s and 1930s, including Professor Fisher, had “cause and effect” backward. The sharp reduction after 1929 in the money supply was an inexorable consequence of the liquidation of bad debt, not an avoidable cause of the depression. The measured money supply (M1) even in those times consisted mostly of bank deposit money rather than hand-to-hand currency. And checking account money had declined sharply as an arithmetic consequence of the collapse of what had previously been a fifteen-year buildup of bad loans and speculative credit. During 1929–1933 commercial bank loans outstanding declined from $36 billion to $16 billion. Not surprisingly, as customer loan balances fell sharply, so did checking accounts or what can be termed “bank deposit money” as opposed to currency in circulation. The latter actually grew by $1.1 billion during the four years after 1929, to about $5.5 billion.

By contrast, it was the loan-driven checking account portion of M1 which dried up, declining from $25 billion to $17 billion over the same period. And the reason was no mystery: the way banks create demand deposits is to first issue loan credits to their customers. Indeed, in the modern world money supply follows credit, and rarely do central bankers inordinately restrict the growth of the latter.

In truth, loan balances and checking account money rose to inordinate heights during the financial bubble preceding the 1929 crash and unavoidably declined thereafter. This had nothing to do with causing the depression. The real reason the American economy was stalled in the early 1930s is that it had lost its foreign customers.

The reduction of M1 owing to the liquidation of bad credit, by contrast, was a sign of returning financial health. Indeed, the major component of bank credit shrinkage had been the virtual evaporation of the $9 billion of margin loans against stock prices that had reached lunatic levels before the crash. In blaming the Fed for the Great Depression, therefore, Professors Friedman and Bernanke implicitly held that the Fed should have underwritten the margin-loan-based speculative mania of 1926–1929 in order to keep M1 from shrinking!

That’s the essence of the matter. Bernanke thought the 2008 crisis was a replay of the fictional world of his so-called Great Depression scholarship. Given half the chance by the clueless White House pols—-so-called conservatives who appointed a thorough-going Keynesian to the most powerful economic job in the world——-this time he did underwrite the speculative mania that preceded the crash. So doing, he took the Fed balance sheet into the netherworld of monetary crankdom.

Had the 1930 Fed actually followed Bernanke’s spurious advice, the experiment back then would have been short-lived. There was only about $17 billion of public debt outstanding in 1929 or about 18% of that year’s GDP. In no time, the Fed would have owned 100% of the public debt, the chastened survivors of the crash would have been petrified by the central banks repudiation of all known rules of sound finance, and the economy would have remained mired in depression. The problem back then, like in 2008, was mountains of bad credit and massive over-investment, not a deficiency of that after-the-fact Keynesian chimera called “aggregate demand”.

Unfortunately, three decades of free lunch fiscal policy had left Uncle Sam with plenty of debt to monetize by September 2008, and Bernanke’s specious alarmism about an imminent Great Depression 2.0 resulted in a $1.5 trillion fiscal eruption within the space of 5 months (TARP and the Obama Stimulus). So there was nothing to stop the money printing experiment this time around, thereby enabling an academic scribbler to act out the Friedmanite fantasy.

The extent of the calamity will be evident soon enough. Bernanke’s monetary snake oil has been embraced by nearly every central bank in the world, meaning that the global financial system is flying blind on a perilous diet of massive liquidity, rampant speculation and a nearly obscene inflation of financial asset valuations that has showered the 0.1% with a stupendous windfall of unearned riches.

It is only a matter of time, of course, before Bernanke’s  monumentally misbegotten experiment in defying the laws of sound finance and common sense alike comes crashing down. In the meanwhile, he appears to be taking every possible opportunity to insult our intelligence by using his new blog to proclaim prophylactically that the next crash is none of his doing; and, in fact, that the $3.5 trillion of fraudulent central bank credit conjured from thin air which the Fed has injected into the financial system is actually working.

Thus, in response to the Wall Street Journal’s devastating critique of his money printing mayhem at the Fed, the Bernank had the gall to argue that QE and ZIRP have been a roaring success for the working people of America. Indeed, according to the Bernank, the nirvana of full employment is nearly at hand:

 The unemployment rate is a better indicator of cyclical conditions than the economic growth rate, and the relatively rapid decline in unemployment in recent years shows that the critical objective of putting people back to work is being met. Growth in output has been slow, despite solid job creation, because productivity gains have been slow—perhaps as the result of the financial crisis, which hammered new business formation and investment in research and development, perhaps for other reasons. But nobody claims that monetary policy can do much about productivity growth. Where it can be helpful is in supporting the return to full employment, and there the record has been reasonably good. Indeed, it seems clear that the Fed’s aggressive actions are an important reason that job creation in the United States has outstripped that of other industrial countries by a wide margin.

There is no point in mentioning that there are 102 million American adults who are not employed compared to about 75 million before Bernanke joined the Fed; that only about 43 million of them are retired on OASI benefits; that on a constant labor force participation basis the unemployment rate is still in the double digits; and that the median real household income at $53k is still barely at the level it attained in 1989—-not long after Bernanke got his PhD and began publishing spurious scholarship about the Great Depression and the wonders of central bank printing presses.

Here’s the thing. The Bernank thinks the Great Recession happened because teenage girls piled to the rafters in export company dormitories in China went on a savings binge. Purportedly, the Fed had nothing to do with expanding credit market debt outstanding by $20 trillion or nearly 4X the growth of nominal GDP during the short interval between the time he joined the Fed in 2002 and the massive Wall Street meltdown of 2008.

Accordingly, his madcap money printing spree after the Lehman bankruptcy—-during which the Fed balance sheet of $900 billion accumulated over its first 94 years was nearly tripled in the span of 13 weeks—-is held to represent some kind of Great Reset. That is, whatever happened before September 2008 is to be ignored because the crisis was caused by some kind of global “savings glut”, and that he single handedly had the “courage” to run the printing presses white hot to save the world.

Well, that’s self-serving poppycock. There was no Great Reset on his watch—-just a plunge into monetary madness. And contrary to his Keynesian palaver, the US is not remotely approaching full employment, nor can any serious adult accept the idea that the one-job-one-vote statistics published by the BLS are a valid metric of economic success. For crying out loud, the BLS counts a 10 hour per week lawn mowing gig and a $100,000 per year roughneck job in the shale patch as the same thing.

Well, here’s the real truth of the matter, and it comes from the government’s own statistics mill. During the entire time since the turn of the century——the era during which Bernanke was on the Fed—-there has been hardly a single net labor hour added to the nonfarm business economy.

You can look it up——even if you are the former Chairmen of the Fed.

That’s right.  When it comes to an honest measure of employment gains, there are been none for 15 years. Zero. Nichts. Nada. Yet Bernanke has the gall to claim that his monetary policy disaster has given rise to nigh onto “full employment”?

In fact, there are fewer breadwinner jobs in the US economy today than there were in the year 2000 when the Fed’s balance sheet stood at a mere $500 billion. That is, a 9X expansion of the Fed’s money printing fraud has accomplished nothing for main street’s standard of living; it’s just fostered serial financial bubbles on Wall Street.

Breadwinner Economy Jobs - Click to enlargeBreadwinner Economy Jobs – Click to enlarge

So Blogger Ben has produced something that is “full”. Namely, a full load of self-serving economic BS.​

Trader’s Brain Study

Study Explores ‘Good Trading Brain / Bad Trading Brain’

Study Explores ‘Good Trading Brain / Bad Trading Brain’

Original Cal Tech & Virginia Tech 40 page study is here.

It’s long been known that the typical human brain did not evolve perfectly for success in stock trading and investing.  There are probably many reasons, and many mechanisms contributing to this observation.  Using fMRI imaging, researchers at the CalTech, the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute and the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London studied the brains of good traders and bad traders and found several differences.

According to a new study by Caltech and Virginia Tech behavioral economists, only certain people’s brains are capable of acting on [Warren Buffett’s advice to be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful].

The researchers looked at the brain activity and behavior of people trading in experimental markets where price bubbles formed, using an fMRI scanner to track responses.

They found that only “wise” traders received an early “warning signal” from their brains, causing them to feel uncomfortable and urging them to sell. 

The wiser traders had more intense activity in the insular cortex, which is associated with risk aversion – it’s often activated when a person smells something rank. The much more common brain pattern the researchers found was one that made traders behave in a greedy way, buying aggressively during a bubble and even after its peak. These traders had much greater activity in the nucleus accumbens, or NAcc, which is associated with reward processing.

Here’s the brain activity chart: The high earners, in green, saw significantly more insula activity as a peak approached. Meanwhile, the poorly performing traders’ brains’ regulation areas basically shut down.

Neural Activity Around Market Peak Chart

screen shot 2014-07-07 at 4.18.20 pm

And here’s the trading activity chart. The high earners, in green, curbed their trading activity significantly as they sensed peak pricing approach, then bought into the dip once it passed. The bad traders kept buying throughout the peak.  

Trading Activity Around Market Peak Chart

screen shot 2014-07-07 at 4.18.44 pm

Brain Research Suggests an Early Warning Signal Tips Off Smart Traders

[A]ccording to the results of a new study by researchers at Caltech and Virginia Tech that looked at the brain activity and behavior of people trading in experimental markets where price bubbles formed. In such markets, where price far outpaces actual value, it appears that wise traders receive an early warning signal from their brains-a warning that makes them feel uncomfortable and urges them to sell, sell, sell.

“Seeing what’s going on in people’s brains when they are trading suggests that Buffett was right on target,” says Colin Camerer, the Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Economics at Caltech.

That is because in their experimental markets, Camerer and his colleagues found two distinct types of activity in the brains of participants-one that made a small fraction of participants nervous and prompted them to sell their experimental shares even as prices were on the rise, and another that was much more common and made traders behave in a greedy way, buying aggressively during the bubble and even after the peak. The lucky few who received the early warning signal got out of the market early, ultimately causing the bubble to burst, and earned the most money. The others displayed what former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called “irrational exuberance” and lost their proverbial shirts.

The researchers set up a simple experimental market in which they were able to control the fundamental, or actual, value of a traded risky asset. In each of 16 sessions, about 20 participants were told how an on-screen trading market worked and were given 100 units of experimental currency and six shares of the risky asset. Then, over the course of 50 trading periods, the traders indicated by pressing keyboard buttons whether they wanted to buy, sell, or hold shares at various prices.

Are Two Drinks OK?

The latest health research offers good reasons to raise a glass to toast your health: Drinking alcohol in moderation has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and even kidney stones.

But there is a “Goldilocks Effect” when it comes to drinking. Knowing how much is too much is the key to maximizing the health benefits of alcohol. Research suggests, for most men, that just-right sweet spot is two drinks per day; for women, it’s one.

Experts note, however, that even these one-size-fits-all guidelines aren’t appropriate for everyone and that other individual factors must also be taken into account.

For instance, a new study published last month in the American Journal of Public Healthfound that the heart-healthy benefits of moderate drinking are not the same for whites as blacks and vary by sex.

The findings, based on the long-running National Health Interview Survey run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, indicate that black men who drink no alcohol have a lower death risk than those who consume alcohol in moderation, while white men who imbibe up to two drinks a day have a lower heart-disease risk than teetotalers. For black and white women, the variation is even greater.

Chandra Jackson, a Harvard School of Public Health epidemiologist, says the new research should prompt a new review of federal recommendations regarding alcohol consumption.

“Current dietary guidelines recommend moderate consumption for adult Americans who consume alcoholic beverages,” notes Jackson. “Our study suggests that additional refinements based on race/ethnicity may be necessary.”

For the new study, the researchers analyzed the medical records and drinking habits of more than 25,800 black adults and more than 126,300 whites from 1997 to 2006. Thirteen percent of white men and 24 percent of black men said they never drank. The researchers also found that 23 percent of white women and 42 percent of black women were teetotalers.

The results showed:

  • Among white men, the lowest risk of death was among whites who had one to two drinks a day, three to seven days a week.
  • For black men, the lowest risk of death was among those who didn’t drink at all.
  • White women who consumed one drink a day, three to seven days a week, had the lowest risk of death.
  • For black women, the lowest risk of death was among those who had one to two drinks, but only twice a week or less.

The researchers noted the results held true regardless of the type of alcohol participants consumed. For the study, one standard-sized drink was defined as 12-ounce bottle or can of beer, a five-ounce glass of wine, or a liquor drink including a 1.5-ounce shot of 80-proof spirits.

“Among white men and women, moderate alcohol consumption on most days of the week was associated with lowest mortality risk, but black men and women with similar drinking patterns did not have the same risk reduction compared with those who abstained or drank infrequently,” the researchers concluded.

Addressing differences that might explain the results, the researchers said: “The rapid metabolism of alcohol among blacks resulting from potential genetic differences could reduce cardiovascular benefits, yet we found a suggestion of benefit for light consumption among black women, but not among black men.

“It would be particularly interesting to investigate racial/ethnic differences in reasons for consuming alcohol.”

The findings add to the large body of scientific evidence that indicates a variety of genetic, biological, and lifestyle factors play a role in the connection between alcohol and death risk. These include diet, physical activity levels, sleep, income, genetics, and gender.

For example, past studies have shown that women with increased risks of developing cardiovascular problems — because of genetics, family background, or lifestyle factors — may benefit from a daily glass of wine, beer, or liquor. But for those at risk for breast cancer, having more than an occasional alcoholic drink may raise their risks.

In addition, many studies show that alcoholism runs in families and may exacerbate some mental-health issues, such as depression, so individuals who may be prone to such problems would do well to steer clear of alcohol altogether.

While Jackson said the findings help qualify and quantify the health benefits of alcohol, the research raises new questions worth exploring.

“The divergent findings between white and black men and women in this and other [studies] raise the unresolved question of whether the apparent cardio-protective effect of alcohol is real, differs for people of African ancestry, or is confounded by the varying lifestyle characteristics of drinkers versus nondrinkers,” the researchers said.

They added that more research is needed to compile and evaluate factors that vary across different groups of people to explain direct and indirect links between health and alcohol consumption. Among them:

• How alcohol interacts with lifestyle factors — such as diet, physical activity, and sleep — so the benefits of drinking can be assessed in connection with those aspects.
• If the downsides of consuming alcohol as a result of “youthful experimentation” or to “cope with hardships” outweigh the potential benefits.
• Whether differences in physical, chemical, and social exposures to alcohol — in occupational and residential environments — are a factor.
• How variations in body composition and gastric absorption of alcohol affect its potential benefits.

© 2015 NewsmaxHealth. All rights reserved.

Apple Cider Vinegar

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, used this amazing elixir as a natural antibiotic and antiseptic to heal patients as far back as 400 B.C.!

In a Japanese study, participants who drank more ACV than their counterparts during a 12 week period hadlower BMI, waist circumference and visceral fat than the control group who drank none!

According to one study, consuming ACV decreased the risk of esophageal cancer.

And the Gerson Institute – a leader in cancer research and treatment – fights cancer with a therapy that alkalizes the body to inhibit the growth of cancer because cancer can’t survive in an alkaline environment.  ACV naturally alkalizes your body!

Stunningly Cogent Analysis Of Everything