Sharon Stone turned 57 on tuesday the 10th 2015 and couldnt be happier of being another year older. She suffered in 2001 of brain hemorrhage, she faced the real possibility of not getting old. Getting older is her new goal. Of course if you look like that you would probavly feel better about aging. My feeling is spot on, our culture doesnt value age , knowledge and wisdom. ( this post is another proof) It's not physical beauty that counts it's attitude. The funny thing about getting old is you can't stop it, so go with it. you don't need botox, Enjoy the chance to grow older.
1. The latest Harvard study on coffee and health seems to offer good news for coffee drinkers. What did the research find?
Looking at the relationship between coffee consumption and overall mortality in the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which together included about 130,000 study volunteers. At the start of the study, these healthy men and women were in their 40s and 50s. they followed them for 18 to 24 years, to see who died during that period, and to track their diet and lifestyle habits, including coffee consumption. they did not find any relationship between coffee consumption and increased risk of death from any cause, death from cancer, or death from cardiovascular disease. Even people who drank up to six cups of coffee per day were at no higher risk of death. This finding fits into the research picture that has been emerging over the past few years. For the general population, the evidence suggests that coffee drinking doesn’t have any serious detrimental health effects.
2. So for coffee drinkers, no news is good news? Why is this finding so important?
It’s an important message because people have seen coffee drinking as an unhealthy habit, along the lines of smoking and excessive drinking, and they may make a lot of effort to reduce their coffee consumption or quit drinking it altogether, even if they really enjoy it. There findings suggest that if you want to improve your health, it’s better to focus on other lifestyle factors, such as increasing your physical activity, quitting smoking, or eating more whole grains.
3. Is there an upper limit for the amount of coffee that is healthy to drink each day?
If you’re drinking so much coffee that you get tremors, have sleeping problems, or feel stressed and uncomfortable, then obviously you’re drinking too much coffee. But in terms of effects on mortality or other health factors, for example, they don’t see any negative effects of consuming up to six cups of coffee a day. Keep in mind that our study and in most studies of coffee, a “cup” of coffee is an 8-ounce cup with 100 mg of caffeine, not the 16 ounces you would get in a grande coffee at a Starbucks, which has about 330 mg of caffeine.
Also keep in mind that the research is typically based on coffee that’s black or with a little milk or sugar, but not with the kind of high-calorie coffeehouse beverages that have become popular over the past few years. A 24-ounce mocha Frappachino at Starbucks with whipped cream has almost 500 calories—that’s 25 percent of the daily calorie intake for someone who requires 2,000 calories a day. People may not realize that having a beverage like that adds so much to their energy intake, and they may not compensate adequately by eating less over the course of the day. This could lead to weight gain over time, which could in turn increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, and that’s a major concern.
4. Is there any research that suggests coffee may have some beneficial health effects?
Yes, research over the past few years suggests that coffee consumption may protect against type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, liver cancer, and liver cirrhosis. And there latest study on coffee and mortality found that people who regularly drank coffee actually had a somewhat lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease than those who rarely drank coffee; this result needs to be confirmed in further studies, however. This is a pretty active area of research right now, and it’s not at the stage where they would say, “Start drinking coffee to increase your health even if you don’t like it.” But I think the evidence is good that for people in general—outside of a few populations, such as pregnant women, or people who have trouble controlling their blood pressure or blood sugar—coffee is one of the good, healthy beverage choices.
5. Why does it seem like scientists keep flip-flopping on whether coffee is bad for you or good for you?
Often people think of coffee just as a vehicle for caffeine. But it’s actually a very complex beverage with hundreds and hundreds of different compounds in it. Since coffee contains so many different compounds, drinking coffee can lead to very diverse health outcomes. It can be good for some things and bad for some things, and that’s not necessarily flip-flopping or inconsistent. Few foods are good for everything. That’s why they do studies on very specific health effects—for example, studies of how coffee affects the risk of diabetes—but they also conduct studies such as this most recent one looking at coffee consumption and mortality over a long period of time, which better reflects the overall health effect.
Coffee is also a bit more complex to study than some other food items. Drinking coffee often goes along together with cigarette smoking, and with a lifestyle that’s not very health conscious. For example, people who drink lots of coffee tend to exercise less. They are less likely to use dietary supplements, and they tend to have a less healthful diet. So in the early studies on coffee and health, it was hard to separate the effects of coffee from the effects of smoking or other lifestyle choices.
Over the several decades that coffee has been studied, there have been some reports that coffee may increase the risk of certain cancers or the risk of heart disease. But in better conducted studies, such as the one they just published—larger studies that have a lot of information about all other lifestyle factors and make a real effort to control for these lifestyle factors—we do not find many of these health effects that people were afraid of.
6. What is the latest research on the risks of coffee or caffeine during pregnancy?
For pregnant women, there has been quite a bit of controversy over whether high intake of coffee or caffeine may increase the risk of miscarriage. The jury is still out. But we know that the caffeine goes through the placenta and reaches the fetus, and that the fetus is very sensitive to caffeine; it metabolizes it very slowly. So for pregnant women it seems prudent to reduce coffee consumption to a low level, for example one cup a day.
7. Should people with high blood pressure consider reducing their coffee or caffeine intake? What about people with diabetes?
They know that if people are not used to using any caffeine, and they start to use caffeine, their blood pressure goes up substantially. Within a week of caffeine consumption, however, they see that the effect is less pronounced—there is less of an increase in blood pressure. After several weeks of continued caffeine consumption, however, a little bit of increase in blood pressure remains. In studies that look at the incidence of hypertension in the general population, drinking caffeinated coffee is not associated with a substantial increase in risk. But if people have hypertension, and are having a hard time controlling their hypertension, they could try switching from caffeinated coffee to decaffeinated coffee, to see if it has a beneficial effect.
With diabetes, it’s a bit of a paradox. Studies around the world consistently show that high consumption of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee is associated with low risk of type 2 diabetes. But if you look at acute studies that just give people caffeine or caffeinated coffee, and then have them eat something rich in glucose, their sensitivity to insulin drops and their blood glucose levels are higher than expected. There isn’t any long-term data on coffee consumption and glucose control. But if people have diabetes and have trouble controlling their blood glucose, it may be beneficial for them to try switching from caffeinated to decaffeinated coffee. Making the switch from caffeinated to decaf may be better than quitting coffee altogether, because some research suggests that decaffeinated coffee actually reduces the glucose response.
8. How do you explain the paradoxical findings on coffee and caffeine consumption and diabetes?
It’s possible that there are simply different effects for short-term and long-term intake of coffee and caffeine. And, as I mentioned before, it’s becoming increasingly clear that coffee is much more than caffeine, and the health effects that you see for caffeinated coffee are often different than what you would expect based on its caffeine content.
For example, if you look at exercise performance, it seems that caffeine can be somewhat beneficial, but caffeinated coffee is not. Or if you look at blood pressure and compare the effects of caffeinated coffee to the effects of caffeine, you’ll find that caffeinated coffee causes blood pressure increases that are substantially weaker than what one would expect for the amount of caffeine it contains. The same is true for the relationship between coffee, caffeine, and blood glucose after a meal. It’s possible that there are compounds in coffee that may counteract the effect of caffeine, but more research needs to be done.
9. Is drinking coffee made with a paper filter healthier than drinking boiled coffee or other types of coffee?
Coffee contains a substance called cafestol that is a potent stimulator of LDL cholesterol levels. Cafestol is found in the oily fraction of coffee, and when you brew coffee with a paper filter, the cafestol gets left behind in the filter. Other methods of coffee preparation, such as the boiled coffee common in Scandinavian countries, French press coffee, or Turkish coffee, are much higher in cafestol. So for people who have high cholesterol levels or who want to prevent having high cholesterol levels, it is better to choose paper filtered coffee or instant coffee, since they have much lower levels of cafestol than boiled or French press coffee. Espresso is somewhere in the middle; it has less cafestol than boiled or French press coffee, but more than paper filtered coffee.
10. Do tea and coffee have similar beneficial effects?
One could expect some of the beneficial effects of coffee to be similar for tea, since some of the compounds are similar. A study in China has found that drinking large quantities of Oolongtea—a liter a day—is beneficial for glycemic control in people with diabetes. But research on tea in the U.S. has not shown the type of beneficial effect we see for coffee, probably because people in the U.S. tend to drink tea that is weaker in strength and tend to drink less of it.
. Lopez-Garcia E, van Dam RM, Li TY,Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Hu FB. The Relationship of Coffee Consumption with Mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:904-914. Summary for patients.
The most effective way to increase your body's efficiency when briefly starved of oxygen is lung training (hereon known as hypoxic training).
And yes, you guessed it, this involves lots of swimming underwater. Particularly exercising in short bursts while holding your breath.
One of the best forms of hypoxic training is underwater rock-running. This is where you dive down, pick up a massive rock and run along the bottom holding onto it. This is great because it forces your body to perform better at a strenous cardio activity without a consistent supply of oxygen,
and as you get deeper you're body gets more accustomed to working at depth.
You know how when you dive down deep it hurts your ears?
That is because of the increase in pressure due to the volume and weight of the water combined with the force of gravity.
What this means is that as you get deeper the air in your lungs becomes compressed.
So a full lungful of air at the surface will always be less underwater.
An example : on picture haiwaiian surfer Ha'a Keaulana runs accross ocean floor with a 50 pounds boulder, as training to survive to the massive surf waves.
Large waves can pin a surfer underwater for a long time. The ability to relax and not panic while waiting for the water to settle is critical to survival. This exercise is used to strengthen the endurance and resolve of being held underwater for an extended period of time.
It is not uncommon to see runners in "auto" mode, at the end of the race, being irreparably overtaken by inherently much less efficient runners and physically much worse then them ...... but they are still able to walk by opening both eyes !!!
In conditions of extreme sport, the whole body is stressed, including the brain, says Prof. Dr. François Duforez, sports doctor, sleep expert and founder of the European Sleep Center that followed the successful challenge Barbara Buatois, French cyclist who won in 2010 one of the toughest foot races in the world: the Race Across America.
In the absence of serious preparation, tired body will show its suffering and limits muscle tears or tendonitis.
The brain will you play the "tendinitis but so far he also needs to recover !!
He will manifest the way: lack of alertness, loss of lucidity, to dramatic events such as hallucinations.
Beyond 36h: do not sleep: a strategic mistake !!!
I read on a forum as an effort as UTMB see like on the Tor Giant, arriving very rested it goes in one go without getting asleep standing up.
Beyond the 36 hours it is pure nonsense to say that ... unless the idea is to spend hours reeling, staring into space and see beautiful blondes spend or beautiful brown before his eyes under the effect of very real hallucinations ...
If I have seen in several trailers some can manage the total lack of sleep below the 36 hours without major cost fatigue to lack of sleep, this case becomes almost nonexistent beyond 36h ...
From this course drowsiness to sleep deprivation happens very often with considerable loss of time and a drop in often very important performance.
So I think a mistake to think that after 36 hours of effort, it is best to completely remove the sleep time to "roast some competitors' rather than agreeing sleep breaks.
When rookie mistake happens at high level ....
I allow myself to remind you what happened to Marco Gazzola disqualified at the arrival of the Tor in 2011 while crossing the banner at the top ... once he "lost" on the end of the course 10 km the arrival ....
= >> from his testimony:
"I left with no roadmap," blind ", my only plan was for the first night to continue at least until Cogne, where I intend to sleep for at least 30 minutes but not after a quarter of an hour, I woke up and I left. for the second night, I tried 2 times to sleep, but I could not, so I continued my progress up at the moment I set myself 15 minutes of sleep. "
Yes .... a little too sure of himself, the man, for lack of lucidity, lost the victory ... even though his lead would have allowed him to largely back on track once known error. ..
To win certainly do not do the bear in winter but caution is otherwise collapse at the end of course cause you to lose hours !!!!
On the Tor 2013 Karrera which sprays the test has almost lost the benefit to Oscar Perez with a freshness to the amazing finish compared to the state of Karrera ....
See Oscar winner to give his number is the testimony of this great lucidity with a gesture of fair play and sportsmanship unusual ...
For Karrera it is on a cumulative 1h 30 (Niel) + 15 min (Oyace) sleep.
The opinions are not unanimous on a micro phase of sleep the first night with alarm to the watch (but these micro naps opinions differ)
At PEREZ sleep management was carried out by more marked stops .... see PEREZ finish with a bang we perceive the value of this second strategy .... Out PEREZ stop was much faster than Karrera
Recall that in 2012 we were at 7am to Grégoire Millet and 4h Oscar PEREZ
STAY LUCID like sailors !!
extreme ultra trailers Elite on sleep ...
Sailors out at sea as well and are longer !!!
Yep solo sailors often take more than 70 hours with less than 3 hours of sleep in the aggregate.
On the Figaro race (stage race) routes last roughly 72 hours and most runners do not sleep at all.
Gabart on round the world solo and nonstop at 78 days past several 3 sleepless nights more than 5-10 'every time
Hold an old tub out on a sea forcefully 9 requires a bit of lucidity.
LEARNING TO SLEEP
Some trailers spend a fortune on energy products that nobody has shown me so far beyond most value compared to home recipe I think the passage by somnologist other hand is an interesting move?
This one will make a actimetry with a sleep diary.
This will release the moments conducive to falling asleep with the so-called "input areas" of polyphonic deep sleep.
DECIDE TO KNOW
In terms of sleep more difficult in an ultra test is decision making can be learned !!
Exploiting its entry into the room of your sleep you will return soon in the famous micro naps ....
This is learned, working (holiday period, on WE shock for example) and you can improve your recovery and gradually as a sailor "mechanize" falling asleep in order to decide the timing of naps.
This requires lucidity to keep listening to you ... we are not going to force himself to sleep hopefully the pretext of being the basis for life !!
SLEEP "POLY" 15 '
Drawing on marine and some experiments on the subject including the team of Dr. Eric MULLENS I suggest you start your ultra immediately with POLY sleep by cutting your sleep per 15 '
Dr. Eric Mullens is recognized as a leading expert in sleep pathology and vigilance.
(Please note this is not my guru, I always try to cross my information to give them credibility)
Training to SLEEP DEPRIVED ???
This seems to me the worst solution !!!!!
This is not about deprivation that reflection should be conducted but restorative sleep strategies .... the shade size !!
Depriving yourself of sleep in the weeks before the race is to overwork the autonomic nervous system that will eventually disconnect with the real risk of overtraining without even cause more than usual ....
Also on last week it would be totally against productive to sleep deprivation. However, it is possible to store sleep
The team of Professor Cheri D. Stanford University (California) conducted a study on the effect of "sleep storage."
This was set up with basketball players who have been imposed a minimum of 10h per night lying, and that for 7 weeks.
The results show an improvement in performance (sprint speed, accuracy to shoot 9% and reduced reaction time.)
MIRACLE RECIPE DOES NOT EXIST !!!!!
It would be dishonest to make you believe that this sleep preprogramming proposed methodology is infallible to avoid "soft strokes" on a highly
That is why I am not one rule of use ... no irrefutable scientific data coming to date support this process ... the caution is ...
Sources and Bibliography
learn to sleep (2005)
Edition: Editions Josette Lyon
Cheri D. Kenneth E, Eric J. Kezirian, William C. Dement
"The Effects of Sleep Extension on the Athletic Performance of Collegiate Basketball Players"
Damien DAVENNE -
Top sport and Recovery
UFR STAPS of Caen. Notebooks INSEP No 27
Damien Léger and Duforez Francis (2012)
Sport and Sleep,
Edition: coll. "Sport and Health", Chiron, Paris, 2012.
Sleep and exercise: A reciprocal outcome?
Edition: Medicine Reviews, 30 June 2014.
Dr. François Duforez
Translated and adapted from Alain Roche.
I fall on an article on talent and training.
Genes and talent over-rated? great performers, whether they are sportsmen, doctors, musicians or businessmen, achieve expert performance not because of genetic factors or “talent”, but because they accumulate enormous volumes of deliberate practice? It has a few examples of this, and makes a compelling case, at least on the surface. The debate is big !
In order to succeed at something at the highest level, to become an expert performer, you need to "practice 10 000 hours ". OK then… nobody should be surprised at this, and nor would they be. The problem is It seems to exist outside of a world where genetic factors also have an influence, and it’s this exclusivity in this thinking that forces a closer look.
So the issue is not that they advocate hard work and a lot of training, it is that they downplay the importance of talent or innate ability. I emphasized this in my own talk, but it bears repeating – the secret to success is training and accumulating many years and hours of practice, then Talent ID is a waste of time and money. We should rather spend that money on getting 100 more children to train, because they should all (or most) become champions, provided they get through the required hours.
Note that this also completely overlooks the fact that children tend to do what they are good at, and that simply running a child through a “10,000 hour factory” is an imagined concept only. I guess the real question is why are some children good at something almost within the first moments that they start it, thereby encouraging them to do it more? It seems to me that this could be an innate difference too…
In a competitive sport, training is obviously a crucial determinant of success. But the theory that practice is important is so obvious it doesn’t need emphasis. As soon as you have competition, then within a narrow range of individuals (the top 10 tennis players, or the Olympic finalists, for example), training will become a crucial determinant of who wins and loses.
where there is no competition, it’s possible to succeed with talent alone. Just think back to school level athletics, when there’s no competition, a young athlete can show up on the day and dominate to win. But the higher the level, the better the competition, the more important training becomes. And those individuals who get attempt to by on talent alone are washed away in this more competitive landscape. Of course It's correct. But the key is that the athlete who succeeds all the way to the Olympic podium is the one who dominated without training (that is, he’s talented or genetically gifted), but then also trained incredibly hard to stay a champion as the competition intensified. In otherwords, he has BOTH talent and training.
In fact, I challenged on this after many talks, and basically made the point that if I had walked into a venue today, with 200 people in the audience, and asked them to please raise their hands if they thought that sporting success was ENTIRELY genetic, Everyone knows that it is not.
Yet it seems to arrive at this belief that someone out there believe that expert performance is achieved solely on the basis of genes and natural talent. Now, maybe I missed this, but I have not once heard this theory. The established theory in sports science is that many, many years of training are required to refine skills and physiology in order to become a world or Olympic champion. The reality is that sports science does NOT believe that it’s ALL in the genes, and nor do they believe that it’s ALL about training.
To polarize the debate on detection, they have emphasized how important it is that we recognize that not all young aspirant athletes develop equally, and that we may need to consider how coaching is provided to more children to prevent some from falling through the cracks. But sports science already knew this, I experienced it too in my career.
The work of Elferink-Gemser confirmed this, because she has been studying the progress of young sports people for 10 years, and has found large differences between children in terms of how they respond to training sessions and coaching. But more important, she finds that it is possible to predict which children will become professional within the first few years of them entering the sports academy. In other words, by the time children are 15 or 16, there are already differences between those who will become “great” and those who are merely “good”.
And the truth is that both of these cases exist, everywhere. football, wrestling, hockey, basketball. Every single sport has examples of athletes who have shot to the top within a few years of starting the sport, and it is littered with athletes who fail despite doing 20,000 hours. I spoke with a woman whose husband taught music for a school , and they discover children who within months of starting are playing at near-professional expert levels. Now, unless those children have managed to get 10,000 hours of training in in one hour (by discovering how to slow down time), they have achieved expertise well before the theoretical minimum.
There’s no question that talent, or innate ability, or genetics, play a role.
my point is that there is no good evidence at all to suggest that 10,000 hours is required for expert performance. The study that is always cited is a violin study, which found that expert violinists had accumulated an AVERAGE of 10,000 hours by the time they went to music school, whereas those who were merely good had done 8,000 hours. Two problems. First, you can’t infer cause from this kind of retrospective study. Who is to say that the talented, genetically gifted violinists didn’t train more BECAUSE they had more talent from the age of 8? Perhaps their innate ability was the catalyst to get them more practice (mom sends them for lessons, and they enjoy it).
And just to dispel the idea that skill-based activities benefit more from training, when you look at studies in chess, you find that there is a massive difference in the time taken to reach Master level – some do it in 3,000 hours, some have been at it for 25,000 hours and counting. In darts, 15 years of practice (almost 15,000 hours) only accounts for 28% of the variability in performance. In otherwords, 72% of the difference in performance between two players cannot be explained by the hours spent training. In darts…
In sport, countless studies show that elite athletes get to the top within 6,000 hours of starting their sport, and the success of Talent ID programmes proves that talent transfer (something that is impossible if the 10,000 hour theory is correct) exists.
Conclusion – training is the realization of genetic potential
The bottom line is that a theory of deliberate practice gives us one important message – if you want to succeed, practice. Coaches around the world breathe a sigh of relief, you’re not redundant. But this is so obvious, I guess the reminder is always good though.
But the application of this theory, and the dismissal of genes that it somehow seems associated with, is a huge oversimplication and wrong, at least for sports. how teachers should downplay the idea that some children are more “talented” with numbers or better at mathematics than others. And that’s fine, because whatever helps people improve is great. But if we’re in the business of finding Olympic champions, then this theory has no place in its polarized form.
Not only this, but it could be extremely damaging. If you take it literally, and you buy into a 10,000 hour concept, then you’ll be obliged to start training a child at the age of about 10, because you need them to become world-class in their early-20s. All good and well, except the evidence shows quite clearly that the earlier you start intensive training, the LESS likely you are to succeed. And so there are all kinds of implications for how we manage children’s sport participation.
The ultimate conclusion is that training is nothing more than the realization of genetic potential. Without both, you will not become an Olympic champion (in a competitive sport, that is). Training will improve everyone, and so everyone should be encouraged to train. But genetic factors determine where we start, how we respond to training (trainability), how much training we can tolerate before burnout or injury (because let’s face it, chess players rarely get injuries that force 6-week layoffs, like stress fractures), and finally, where the “performance ceiling” exists.
Training will get you to your ceiling, you’ll realize your genetic potential. But will it win you a medal? Only if you chose your parents right!
Elite Fitness Personal Trainer in Cannes & Monaco on the French Riviera.