M.A. Drake's Blog

Manfaat lemak jenuh

Beberapa orang tidak paham faedah dari nutrisi ini, hingga berupaya untuk membatasi konsumsinya seperti kurangi mengkonsumsi daging berlemak, susu dengan lemak, mentega, kelapa, kuning telur dsb. Walau sebenarnya nutrisi ini adalah salah satu sisi utama dari diet sehat. 
Ada beragam faedah dari lemak seperti umpamanya menaruh atau melepas daya, sekresi adipokine, membuat perlindungan organ serta membuat membran
Lemak jemu sendiri yaitu suatu lemak yang terbagi dalam rantai hidrokarbon, tak mempunyai ikatan ganda serta adalah lemak non essensial. 
Asam lemak jemu sendiri terdiri jadi tiga grup yakni rantai pendek, rantai tengah serta rantai panjang. Asam lemak jemu yang mempunyai rantai pendek serta tengah bakal lebih gampang diolah dibanding yang mempunyai asam lemak jemu yang mempunyai rantai panjang. Perihal ini pula sebagai argumen kenapa mentega bakal terus membeku pada suhu ruangan, yakni lantaran titik lelehnya yang tinggi. 
Saat Anda konsumsi asam lemak yang rendah serta tengah, system pencernaan badan bakal memprosesnya serta mengubahnya jadi tenaga. Sedang asam lemak yang panjang bakal alami sistem yang lebih panjang, baru lalu dapat diserap oleh dinding usus, lantas lalu dirubah jadi tenaga, cholesterol serta lemak. 
Lantaran mempunyai metabolisme yang lebih simpel, asam lemak yang pendek serta tengah bakal berperan juga sebagai sumber tenaga yang tambah baik. Anda dapat memperoleh asam lemak rantai pendek dengan konsumsi susu domba, sapi serta kambing. Sedang untuk memperoleh asam lemak rantai tengah, Anda dapat konsumsi kelapa. 
Pada intinya keperluan lemak serta kalori tiap-tiap orang tidak sama lantaran kegiatan serta maksudnya juga tidak sama. Umpamanya, untuk seorang yang aktif bergerak, dia mesti memperoleh konsumsi lemak jemu 25% dari nilai konsumsi lemak yang dianjurkan. 
Tetapi untuk orang yang tengah lakukan diet karbohidrat, mereka tak mesti ikuti ketentuan itu. Hal semacam ini lantaran mereka mesti memperoleh konsumsi lemak yang lebih tinggi dari angka itu. 
Untuk orang yang tengah lakukan diet rendah lemak, mereka mesti memperoleh konsumsi lemak jemu seputar 30 sampai 40 persen dari nilai konsumsi lemak yang dianjurkan. 
Tak ada kelirunya konsumsi lemak jemu. Tetapi Anda mesti mengonsumsinya dengan seimbang serta sesuai sama keperluan. Diluar itu, Anda juga mesti menyeimbanginya dengan olahraga.

BELLA THE BRAVE and RAYNA THE WONDERFUL are ready to ship!!!

Can't wait for them to get their books!

Finished and sending off as soon as Rayna's is ready.

Happy to announce the completion of Bella the Brave. Printed and ready to ship off to Bella. I'm so excited right now!!

Helping Kids Love Life After Cancer

Verna Mitchell has an unusual window on the world of childhood cancer. She's the nurse practitioner who works with cancer survivors at the Health After Therapy clinic at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.Mitchell's patients are children, teens and young adults who are at least five years past a cancer diagnosis. As I describe in a new  Stanford Medicine  magazine story about pediatric cancer survivorship, the HAT clinic helps these young patients grapple with the challenges of survival. The fallout from their cancer treatments can include a variety of physical, emotional and cognitive difficulties. But there's more, too:

"We tell them that the clinic's purpose is not just to point out potential late effects," Mitchell says. "It's to say, you have your life, your health. Make the best of it that you can."After years of being in battle mode against cancer, this is a significant shift of view for many patients.

Mitchell provides lots of practical support – referrals to specialists who assess cognitive performance or provide psychotherapy, for instance. And yet how does she handle the more nebulous part of her job, fostering hope and helping patients make the shift to valuing their survivorship? At the end of my conversation with her, I asked."I tell them that they survived a very catastrophic illness at a young age; they fought for their lives during that time," Mitchell said. She worked on the front lines of pediatric oncology for 10 years before she began treating survivors, so she has had an up-close view of the fight. As she puts it, "I don't have to give chemo anymore, but I know what the patients have been through."After they win the battle, Mitchell said, she tells her patients, "They are true survivors. And when it comes to facing the challenges that life brings them, they are, in general, more mature. They've been taught about life, about adversity. They may not have realized at the time that adversity came in a tube and went into their arm, but it's something these families have learned: that they can survive adversities. It makes them stronger individuals with a lot of character."

A look at how best to care for America's growing population of cancer survivors

Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the population of cancer survivors in the United States had increased to nearly 12 million and that 40 percent of patients had outlived their diagnoses by 10 years or more.While the continued growth in the number of patients surviving cancer is great news, some have expressed concerns that poor communication and coordination between oncologists and primary care physicians could compromise the care of survivors.Research recently published in the  Journal of General Internal Medicine highlights how differences between oncologists and primary care physicians regarding knowledge, attitudes and practices could present challenges to ensuring a smooth transition for survivors as they move from initial acute care to post-treatment care.In the study, researchers conducted a nationally representative survey consisting of 1,072 primary cancer physicians and 1,130 oncologists practicing in the U.S. during 2009. Doctors were questioned about providing cancer survivorship care, including the doctors' confidence in their knowledge about such care and cancer surveillance practices. Lead author Arnold L. Potosky, PhD, explained the findings in a release:

The survey tells us is that many doctors, particularly primary care doctors don't have a high level of confidence in their own knowledge of some aspects of survivorship care, and many oncologists believe that primary care doctors are not adequately prepared to provide such care. We also see some evidence of knowledge deficits in both physician groups in terms of guideline-based care for survivors.

Among Potosky and study authors' recommendations for overcoming these barriers were for cancer survivors, upon finishing treatment, to meet with their oncologist to summarize the care received and outline appropriate follow-up care based on personal treatment history. Another suggestion was for patients to use summary forms, such as those provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and to find out what aspects of care to expect from the oncologist and the primary care physician respectively.While the study focused on follow-up care cancer survivors, specifically individuals diagnosed with breast and colon cancer, the topic of how to best treat patients who have overcome a severe illness is a particularly important issue. As reported in the latest issue of Stanford Medicine, we're a nation of survivors, and the health-care system will need to address the long-term physical and psychological consequences associated with surviving a serious health crisis.

Excluding Children From Discussions About Their Hospital Care Causes Unnecessary Distress

Children who are excluded from discussions about their hospital care often feel scared and angry that no-one is listening to them or telling them what is going on. That's why health professionals and parents need to do more to consult them and include them in decisions, according to research published in the August issue of the Journal of Clinical Nursing. 

Irish researchers spoke to 55 children and teenagers, aged from seven to 18, from three hospitals, individually or in focus groups. The feedback they received has led the Dublin-based team to call for guidelines to ensure that children's voices are heard when it comes to matters that directly affect their health. 

"Healthcare professionals and parents appear to play a significant role in whether children are encouraged and able to take part in decisions about their health" says Professor Imelda Coyne from the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Trinity College Dublin. "Clearly some may have reservations or concerns about children's participation and this suggests the need for clear guidelines/policies that reflect the views of all stakeholders." 

There were equal numbers of children with acute and chronic illnesses in the study, from wards and clinics in both general and children's hospitals. Most had been hospitalised before (71 per cent) stayed less than seven days (85 per cent) and lived with two parents (80 per cent). 

Key findings of the study included: 

- The children wanted to take part in discussions and have their views and concerns taken seriously. They also felt that they had a right to participate in matters that affected them and their bodies. Some felt included in discussions, but most reported difficulties. 

- Significant factors that enhanced participation were familiarity with the hospital and procedures, the child's age, their relationship with health professionals and how long they were in hospital. For example, knowing the health professionals made children feel able to ask questions freely and express their concerns. 

- Many children relied on their parents to act as advocates and explain what was happening, an important finding that has received little attention in previous research. Some younger children also used their parents as 'buffers' to filter out potentially worrying information. But most relied on their parents out of necessity because they had problems communicating with health professionals. 

- The way that health professionals communicated and behaved was a key barrier to children getting involved. Most of the children reported that health professionals tended to 'do things' to them with very brief explanations or none at all. Many also reported being unable to ask questions or volunteer information, because consultations were rushed. Health professionals also excluded them, by directing information at their parents, and used language they struggled to understand. 

- Parents also played a significant role in supporting or hindering children's participation. Children valued their parents' role as mediators when it came to information, but parents could stop them playing an active role in discussions by answering questions for them and not supporting their attempts to participate. 

- Children's views on decision-making varied. The fact that they regarded them as either 'small' or 'serious' decisions is a new finding. They all wanted to take 'small' decisions related to everyday care, diet and medication, but nearly half preferred to leave 'serious' decisions about issues like surgery to their parents and health professionals. Others wanted to make those decisions or preferred them to be shared. 

The children's comments included: 

- "He kept having to talk to Mam on her own and I was getting really worried...I need to know because otherwise I'm going to be sitting there panicking going all paranoid about the worst scenario." 13-year-old girl. 

- "They'd use big words and I wouldn't be able to understand them and then I'd ask my father what did they mean and he wouldn't really tell me." 11-year-old boy. 

- "They just tell you, they don't explain everything...I wouldn't have the guts to say anything, he comes across as a very intimidating man." 17-year-old girl. 

- "I think children should get the opportunity to tell what they think it is and not just what their parents or the doctors think it is." 13-year-old boy. 

- "I never heard anyone saying do you want me to do this or not and it's not their decision, it's not their bodies." Nine-year-old girl. 

- "My Mam was talking to the doctor and I said what's this all about and she just kept talking and nobody listened to me." 13-year-old boy. 

"Despite the large number of reports and publications supporting children's right to participate, the actual implementation of the principle in healthcare is questionable" says Professor Coyne. 

"Healthcare organisations need to develop cultures where participation is firmly embedded, not just a desirable add-on. Communicating with children, and including them in decisions about their care, conveys respect, enhances and develops their decision-making capabilities and contributes to psychosocial well-being. Adopting a child-centered approach is an important investment." 

Notes 

Participation in communication and decision-making: children and young people's experience in a hospital setting. Coyne I and Gallagher P. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 20, pp 2334-2343. (August 2011). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03582.x 

Source: 
Wiley-Blackwell 

Press ReleaseEvery Child is Entitled to Innocence will be...

Press Release

Every Child is Entitled to Innocence will be the first publication of the newly- formed Orangeberry Publishing Group. Due to release on February 14th, profits from the sales of this e-book will be donated to Child Helpline International. 


Says initiator of the project, Dr. Niamh Clune, "I met many writers through the Internet that experienced difficult childhoods yet have overcome their brutal beginnings. I wanted to make the first Orangeberry publication a celebration of creative imagination. This powerful friend of damaged children plays an essential role in an abused child's recovery. Gathering this series of stories was a joy. Orangeberry Books has developed special, vibrant relationships with contributors and has forged many lasting friendships.


We encouraged happy stories that reflected the innocence of childhood when infants feel wrapped in the warmth of loving arms. We wanted to contrast these with the sad ones, making them stand out in relief against a bright backdrop. We felt this comparison would demonstrate, without explanation, what happens when innocence is stolen.


In this book, the reader will find many wonderful, heart-warming stories; whilst the sad ones demonstrate the magnificence of the human spirit as it triumphs against all the odds."


Executive Editor, Karen S. Elliott stated, "While I looked at all the stories in the Every Child anthology, I edited only a few. I thought it was important, for this tome, that the writers be able to express the heartbreak and joy of childhoods past without censorship."


Spokesperson for Orangeberry Books, Niamh Clune, explained how The Orangeberry Group is at the vanguard of a new wave of Internet publishing companies. Orangeberry aims to put quality first and bring exciting, exceptionally talented authors to the reader's attention. Its focus is not on commercialism, but on quality, beautifully written, well-told stories. Orangeberry will also publish poetry. A further aim of the publishing company is to bring a collection of exceptional artists from across many different art disciplines to collaborate on projects in a personal, hands-on, mutually supportive manner.


The motto of the company is, 'Paying it Forward.' The company relies on a well-developed social network, the dedication of the core team members, their talent and enthusiasm coupled with a socially entrepreneurial spirit. Supporters and members of this group will also benefit from on-line mentoring, a book-club, the Youth Tube Channel, and the OBBlog.



For further information visit www.orangeberrybooks.com or www.theobblog.com
Join the FB group @ http://www.facebook.com/groups/orangeberrygroup/

@CHIamsterdam http://www.childhelplineinternational.org

Pro-life vs Pro-choice... lets hear some opinions.

Pro-lifers go about making their argument as if people that support pro-choice are gleefully murdering people left and right and laughing all the way home about it. They hand you pamphlets with cute babies with wild, curious eyes that say some enormous amount of human babies are "slaughtered" every year, as if somewhere there was a prison of babies, and they were all taken, lined up against a wall, and shot at by firing squad while some cackling liberal Nazi wiped his brow with the flesh of a baby butt.

Of course, pro-choicers know it's not that easy, while pro-lifers never seem to see the opposition's side, as the law in South Dakota that eliminates all abortions where the birth would not be deadly to the mother, even in the case of rape and incest, demonstrates. I don't think there's a single pro-choicer that doesn't also see the view of a pro-lifer. The key points of both sides of the argument are exactly when life begins, and whether it begins when sperm meets egg, or whether it begins at the point of birth; it's not as if pro-choicers are saying the decision is easy. Nobody is arguing that human life isn't precious, and I think that everybody, no matter how feminist or pro-choice, would argue that in a perfect world there would still be abortions. Most pro-choicers know that despite any ridiculous argument of people using it as birth control (the number of people which in reality is such a vanishingly small number it becomes a moot point), for most people, going through an abortion is one of the hardest choices a woman can make-- certainly harder than any choice a man would have to make-- and abortions often leave women emotionally, as well as physically, a wreck. The idea of a woman doing such a thing without any sort of emotional ramification is a myth. But this is why the term is pro-choice, as opposed to pro baby murder.

When I was a teenager I considered myself pro-choice, but this decision had more to do with my feeling that I didn't have any right to tell a woman what she could or could not do with her body. But as I got older and started to pay attention to politics, certain patterns started to come up. A woman saying, "I could never personally abort my own child," is one thing, and I completely and utterly respect that. But in terms of political motivation, pro-life is distinctly a Republican "family values" stance. Republicans tend to also be very unsupportive of welfare and government funded childcare ("We think God helps those who help themselves," one Republican I knew, told me). They tend to object to gun control. They also tend to support military force just about any time it comes up.

When you put all these pieces together you realize that they go on and on and on about right to live, then once the child is born, want them to have as little government funded living money as possible. So we've got children who weren't wanted in the first place growing up in poor conditions with uncaring parents in shithole houses going to terrible inner-city schools, mad at the world for their terrible lives, with access to as many guns of as many varieties as possible with which to take out their pent up aggression. If they manage to make it to 18 without getting killed or winding up in jail, and find themselves with no ambition for life (and if conservatives had their way with things, there would be no affirmative action for them to go to school or get a real job), they can always join the military to be shipped off to blow up innocent civilians and beat up detainees while forcing them to listen to gangsta rap. And the ones that get thrown in jail can be given the death sentence, which they also tend to support, to answer for their sins.

If pro-lifers could find a consistent, non-hypocritical stance on life-- no abortions, better welfare to help those less fortunate than us, no killing people with guns, no blowing up other countries, no death sentence-- then maybe they could make me reconsider my stance on whether a woman has the right to control her own body or not. But when I went down the list of things pro-lifers also tend to support or not support, as a young man, I began to realize, wait, you people are full of shit, aren't you? You pretend to care about families, but all you really care about is your own shitty, counter-productive opinions, don't you?

Masturbating: Single vs. Married

After reading a friends post, I have come to the conclusion that masturbating gets better when you're married. When you're single masturbating is filled with self-loathing and shame. "Jesus Christ", you say to yourself when wiping yourself with a nearby Kleenex. "When the fuck am I going to get a woman? Why am I such a loser?" And you sniffle to yourself, lay in your empty bed, then masturbate one more time just for good measure.

Worse, when you're single, you start to treat masturbating as if it's a thing you actively have to make time for, or else you're cheating yourself. If you go three or four days without masturbating you'll say to yourself, "Shit, I'm going to need to go to bed 20 minutes early so I can masturbate tonight. Man, it's going to be great." Or you'll have a list of chores to do, and you'll say to yourself, "I am not masturbating until I get that kitchen done," like you would give yourself a delicious desert after being diligent about a diet.

Then when you realize this is what you're doing, that you're treating your masturbating like a girl you're dating that you have to make time for or else your relationship with it will wither up like a dead plant, and you feel pathetic, and even more so because you can't actually stop.

When you're married it's more like, your wife is heading to bed early because she's so tired, you ask if she's feeling randy, she says no, you wish her a good sleep and go off and masturbate, the way you would stay up and watch a movie when she doesn't care to watch it with you. It's care-free, it's matter-of-fact, it's getting the job done because you want to, not because of some weird compulsion you feel ashamed of but can't stop yourself from doing.

Worst conversation ever

Once a friend of mine and I were at Del Taco, and I grabbed her cup to fill it up when I went to fill mine. I asked her what she wanted and she said "Pepsi". "Coke okay for your?" I asked. She groaned and said yes, it was fine. "What's wrong?" I asked. "You don't like Coke?"

"It's too sweet," she said. "But it's a fountain drink so it probably won't make much of a difference."

I told her I also preferred Pepsi. I didn't used to, though. I used to prefer Coke. However, the grocery store that we started shopping at must have had a deal with Pepsi, because they'd go long periods of time with Pepsi on sale, so we started buying it frequently. At one point in time I'd gone months with no Coke. Then finally, Coke was on sale, and we bought it, and it was so sweet it felt like my teeth were falling out.

And then I realized, this was positively the lamest excuse for a conversation I'd had in my entire adult life. Believe me, I've had trivial conversations, but this was trivial and lame, which is a terrible combination. I tell you this story as a warning: if you ever catch yourself comparing your relative preference of Pepsi vs. Coke, discontinue the conversation immediately!