Thanks for selecting my photo, Cancer Research UK (@CR_UK), to illustrate this piece on the health effects of artificial sweeteners (hint, they are not positive, more info below).
I normally wouldn’t write a post about a post showcasing a photo of sugar sweetened beverages that I’ve taken, however in this case, the photo has special meaning:
It was taken at a meeting whose subject was climate change and health. So while the topic was about a healthy planet, the nutritional choices made were less than healthy. It’s healthy planet AND healthy people, not one or the other.
Also in these circles, there’s often a “no meat” policy, despite the fact that there’s very little evidence that a real-food diet containing meat is unhealthier for people than one without meat. What is often substituted for in these meetings are high sugar/processed carbohydrate items. I call this a “meat: no, diabetes, yes” policy.
Here’s another great example:
The science around artificial / non-nutritive sweeteners being less than healthy is mounting. I am doing some testing in my own continuous glucose monitor experiments and will share some literature. In the meantime, here’s a helpful video lecture on the topic.
There’s no convincing evidence that artificial sweeteners increase cancer risk. But can they help weight loss? We take a look at the latest research.
I never envisioned having a recipes section on my blog. However, I keep finding healthy recipe blogs that have recipes that are anything but healthy, and possibly quite harmful to people with insulin resistance (55% of the population of California at this point and getting worse). Like many of the things I do, I do them because it’s the way it has to be.
I’m also practicing my food photography, so a few more images below.
Thank you (again) @DCPolicyCenter for using one of my photographs in your post, linked to below, containing another excellent analysis of the lesser-known economic impact of consumer affairs, specifically licensing. It’s a good read.
Testimony of Executive Director Yesim Sayin Taylor on the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs – D.C. Policy Center
Thank you for publishing my photograph, @ShoutOutJMU, the James Madison University feminist blog. I support voices from the future, especially ones who say:
The wording of the policy is shotty, to say the least. Certain transgender folk are able to serve in the military if they are at least three years “stable” after starting hormones or undergoing surgery (not sure what “stable” means, but go off, I guess), or if their gender dysphoria diagnosis does not require a “change in gender.” Judging by the language, I’m ~pretty~ sure no LGBTQ+ related individuals were involved in the creation of this policy.
With this in mind, I want to offer an amendment to the statement also made in the piece, “We’re living in the future and it sucks.” With future leaders like this, it’s really #ThisCenturyBestCentury. Trust me.
Salutations everyone! Get excited, it’s our first newsroom of the semester! Supreme Court Supports Transgender Military Ban Some not so exciting, fun, or fresh news. On Tuesday, January 22nd, the …