PowerMax Fitness Tracker PowerMax Fitness Tracker

ToneUp Ab Roller ToneUp Ab Roller SootheSonic Facial Cleanser SootheSonic Facial Cleanser

Shop Now
AquaPlay Water Toys AquaPlay Water Toys

ToneUp Ab Roller ToneUp Ab Roller ZenSleep White Noise Machine ZenSleep White Noise Machine




Fiber-rich foods are an important part of a healthy diet. They can help you feel fuller for longer, regulate your digestion, and even lower your risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Here are some things you should know before adding more fiber to your diet:

  1. What is fiber? Fiber is a type of carbohydrate that cannot be digested by the body. It comes in two forms: soluble and insoluble. Soluble fiber dissolves in water and can help lower cholesterol and regulate blood sugar levels, while insoluble fiber adds bulk to your stool and helps keep your digestive system healthy.

  2. How much fiber do you need? The recommended daily intake of fiber is 25-30 grams for adults. Most people in the Western world consume only about half that amount. Increasing your fiber intake too quickly can cause digestive discomfort, so it's best to gradually increase your intake over a few weeks.

  3. What foods are high in fiber? Foods that are high in fiber include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes. Some examples include apples, berries, broccoli, sweet potatoes, quinoa, almonds, chia seeds, and lentils.

  4. What are the benefits of fiber? Eating a fiber-rich diet can have many benefits, including:

  1. What are some tips for increasing your fiber intake? Some tips for increasing your fiber intake include:

Overall, a fiber-rich diet can have numerous health benefits. By gradually incorporating more fiber-rich foods into your diet, you can improve your digestion, reduce your risk of chronic diseases, and feel more satisfied after meals.

How Legalized Online Gambling is Better for Society

Whether gambling is healthy for society or not, should not be the question you are asking yourself. History has proven that people are going to gamble whether it is legal or not.

The question we should be asking is, by banning online gambling are we going to make things better or worse?

The answer to that question is simple, banning legalized and regulated online gambling in any form, just makes another way for organized crime to get a hold of peoples money, and then no one but the criminals wins.

If you want to keep a child from seeing an R rated movie you do not ban the movie from the theaters do you? No that would be silly you just make sure that people are doing there best to check and verify that no one under 18 gets into seeing the movie. By banning the movie chances are greater that someone will get a bootleg copy and show it to every kid in the town.

So if you want to keep a child from gambling online then all the online casinos should be regulated and monitored, not banned.

The same goes for terrorists. If you believe terrorist groups are exploiting an unregulated and unmonitored industry such as the online gambling industry, then by regulating it you can see where the money is going and make sure it is not going to fund international terrorist attacks. All that is accomplished by banning it is that the criminals get a stronger grip on the industry.

The ban on online gambling is much like the war on drugs. If marijuana was legalized in the USA crimes related to it would almost go away completely, because it would be sold in stores and it would be controlled, another advantage would be that people would no longer be going to jail for marijuana-related charges, this means thousands of fewer people getting arrested and going to jail every year, which would save us tax money that could be better spent.

By making online gambling in the USA a legalized form of adult entertainment it would also bring in an estimated 1.2 billion dollars in taxes to the American government. This money could be used for schools, police and universal healthcare for all Americans.

This is how you improve society, not by telling people what to do. It is human nature to want what we can not have so the more laws you put in place to stop people from doing something the better the chances are that people are going to do it.

People are just as likely to become addicted to gambling at a regulated casino as an unregulated one, but the difference is that in a regulated casino they will not extend you the amount of credit that will get you into trouble in an illegal casino.

And in a regulated casino, they will have information on how to get help if you have a gambling problem. In an illegal casino, they will not have this type of information, they want you to continue to gamble till you have nothing left, and then they will let you fall and find someone to take your place.

In the long run, society can only prosper if we educate people on the dangers of gambling both online and in a casino, and not from banning an industry that employs thousands of people in countries all over the world. No one gains anything from just telling people they can not do something that they are going to do anyway.

It is about time the government learned this and stopped making the same mistakes year after year.

Introduction

Nearly 7% of the world population is obese1 and about 66% of the adults in the United States are overweight or obese.2 Obesity is associated with a number of adverse medical conditions including increased risk of gallbladder disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), osteoarthritis, cancer death and reduced life expectancy.3–8 Obesity is also associated with adverse social and psychological consequences, including bias, discrimination and decreased quality of life.9,10

More effective treatment strategies are urgently needed for obesity management. The total caloric intake or energy density of one’s diet appears to be associated with obesity11–14 and a diet that induces a negative energy balance continues to be an important part of obesity management. Strategies to achieve the difficult task of eating less than desired include reduction of the energy density of foods by increasing food volume by the addition of fluids,15,16 bulk17–19 or their combination;20 or by increasing satiety by various anorectic drugs or macronutrient combinations of high satiety value.

Satiety is positively associated with the protein, fiber and water content of foods and negatively with fat and palatability ratings.21,22 However, within food groups, there may be as much as a twofold difference in satiety values, suggesting that certain foods promote greater satiety independent of macronutrient content or energy density. An egg is an example of such a food that has a 50% greater satiety index compared to white bread or ready-to-eat breakfast cereal.21 Compared to an isocaloric bagel breakfast of equal weight, an egg breakfast had a greater satiating effect, which translated into a lower caloric intake at lunch.23 The resulting decrease in energy consumption lasted for at least 24 h after the egg breakfast.

This study was undertaken to exploit the short-term satiating benefits of an egg breakfast23 for weight loss in a longer-term trial. The objectives were to determine if the incorporation of an egg breakfast in the diet by overweight or obese subjects would (1) induce reduced energy intake and unintentional weight loss, even when not attempting weight reduction; or (2) enhance weight loss when following a reduced energy diet. We compared the effects of an egg vs isocaloric bagel breakfast of equal weight on weight loss, indices of body size and composition, dietary compliance, food cravings and health-specific quality of life.Materials and methods

The study was approved by the institutional review boards at Pennington Biomedical Research Center and at Saint Louis University. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants. We certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations regarding the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during this research.

Participants

Of the 160 participants enrolled, 8 did not complete the trial. The final study sample included 152 participants (131 women and 21 men; mean age 45.0±9.4 years; black participants 47.7% and white participants 52.3%). Demographic characteristics of the participants are provided inTable 1