I found yet another article about someone who used poor judgment when posting pictures on Facebook and is now upset over the consequences.
Natalie Blanchard was on sick leave from work for depression. She was receiving insurance benefits while on leave. She now plans to fight her insurance company's decision to cut those benefits after viewing pictures Natalie posted on Facebook.
Natalie had been diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick leave benefits until they stopped coming last fall. When she tried to find out why, she was told that Facebook photos showed she was able to work.
The pictures in question show Natalie having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a holiday. Manulife, her insurance company, says these photos are evidence that she is no longer depressed.
Natalie's lawyer says that she was wrongfully dismissed from her benefits and that she had the right to take a sunny vacation. He says that the real issue is that her benefits were stopped without proper medical recommendation and that her doctor had suggested she take a vacation.
Blanchard took three four-day trip when she was feeling especially down, on the advice of her psychiatrist.
Manulife didn't offer comment on the case but says that the company would not terminate benefits solely based on information published on websites like Facebook.
I am getting a little tired of all of these people who post pictures and info on sites like Facebook- for all the world to see, it's the internet- and then get upset when there are repercussions.
I don't think it was wise for Natalie to post those pictures. She's on sick leave and receiving monetary benefits for it. Probably not the best idea to post vacation pictures that show her having the time of her life.
The pictures described would make me question how sick she truly is too. Yes, her doctor recommended a vacation but something tells me he might not have had a strip club in mind. I'll bet he was thinking more along the lines of a spa weekend.
I'm not saying she can't fight her depression in whatever way works for her. If it's male dancers, then so be it. Just don't be so surprised when someone sees the pictures and questions your judgment.
I will say that I think the insurance company was a little hasty in terminating benefits, although there could be extenuating circumstances since they declined to comment.
I think the better course of action would have been to contact Natalie and require an updated evaluation from her doctor to determine if she was ready for work yet. Then, if she refused for some reason, they would have better grounds for stopping payment of benefits.
That being said, I still think that this woman used extremely bad judgment in posting these pictures. If you want everyone to know what a good time you're having call them. Don't post photo evidence on the internet for anyone to see.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fat Fees and Smoker Surcharges
This article, found at Time.com, starts out describing the deal Psychology Professor Anita Blanchard has with her employer for insurance. She works for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. They guarantee her premium-free health insurance that will cover 80% of her health care costs for life. Sounds great, but there's a catch.
She can't gain too much weight or start smoking, or she could be resposible for an extra 10% of the cost.
Insurance companies have been promoting healthier living for a long time now. Many offer incentives for having a gym membership or not smoking.
Many now are increasing costs for customers who are overwieght or smoke. On the other hand some are keeping costs low when customers enroll in weight loss programs or smiking cessation programs.
Alabama was the first state to pass what critics are calling a "fat fee," in 2008 and several state insurance plans have started charging a $25 monthly fee for smokers.
There are many critics of these plans. Some are taking aim at North Carolina in particualr. Starting in July, state employees who smoke will be moved from a plan that covers 80% of health care costs to a plan that only covers 70%. This amounts to an out-of-pocket difference of about $480.00 per year, unless they agree to enroll in a smiking-cessation program.
In 2011 NC will address the issue of obese state workers. Someone with a body mass index (BMI) below 4o (basically someone who is 5'6" and weighs 250 pounds) can remain on the 80% plan for the first year. After that, they have to have either a BMI of 35 (5'6" and 217 pounds) or enroll in a weight loss program to qualify for the less expensive insurance plan.
Other states, such as Alabama, are offering discounts rather than imposing penalties. Alabama state workers willl get a $30 discount on their monthly premium for not using tobacco products. They have to sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Since the plan was implemented in 2005, there has been a 4% decline in the number of smokers.
There are many other programs like these being offered by various states and insurance companies in an effort to lessen the amount being paid out for claims.
There are also a lot of differing opinions about whether these restrictions are fair to customers.
I know this might not be the popular opinion, but I actually agree with what these states and companies are doing. It makes sense to me that health care costs should be based on what it costs to take care of your health problems. I don't think it's entirely fair for someone who is very fit, in shape, eats healthy and doesn't smoke to have to pay as much as someone who is obese and smokes like a chimney.
People make certain choices about the lifestyle they choose to live and should deal with everything that comes with those choices, good and bad.
I don't want to sound totally heartless about this. I don't think that any of these programs should apply to people with other heath problems or if their weight is caused by a legitimate medical problem. I just think it should apply to those whose problems are caused soley by food choices or the choice to smoke.
I think some of these programs are just the incentive for some people to finally make the choice to live a healthier lifestyle. If nothing else will do the trick, maybe taking their money will.
She can't gain too much weight or start smoking, or she could be resposible for an extra 10% of the cost.
Insurance companies have been promoting healthier living for a long time now. Many offer incentives for having a gym membership or not smoking.
Many now are increasing costs for customers who are overwieght or smoke. On the other hand some are keeping costs low when customers enroll in weight loss programs or smiking cessation programs.
Alabama was the first state to pass what critics are calling a "fat fee," in 2008 and several state insurance plans have started charging a $25 monthly fee for smokers.
There are many critics of these plans. Some are taking aim at North Carolina in particualr. Starting in July, state employees who smoke will be moved from a plan that covers 80% of health care costs to a plan that only covers 70%. This amounts to an out-of-pocket difference of about $480.00 per year, unless they agree to enroll in a smiking-cessation program.
In 2011 NC will address the issue of obese state workers. Someone with a body mass index (BMI) below 4o (basically someone who is 5'6" and weighs 250 pounds) can remain on the 80% plan for the first year. After that, they have to have either a BMI of 35 (5'6" and 217 pounds) or enroll in a weight loss program to qualify for the less expensive insurance plan.
Other states, such as Alabama, are offering discounts rather than imposing penalties. Alabama state workers willl get a $30 discount on their monthly premium for not using tobacco products. They have to sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Since the plan was implemented in 2005, there has been a 4% decline in the number of smokers.
There are many other programs like these being offered by various states and insurance companies in an effort to lessen the amount being paid out for claims.
There are also a lot of differing opinions about whether these restrictions are fair to customers.
I know this might not be the popular opinion, but I actually agree with what these states and companies are doing. It makes sense to me that health care costs should be based on what it costs to take care of your health problems. I don't think it's entirely fair for someone who is very fit, in shape, eats healthy and doesn't smoke to have to pay as much as someone who is obese and smokes like a chimney.
People make certain choices about the lifestyle they choose to live and should deal with everything that comes with those choices, good and bad.
I don't want to sound totally heartless about this. I don't think that any of these programs should apply to people with other heath problems or if their weight is caused by a legitimate medical problem. I just think it should apply to those whose problems are caused soley by food choices or the choice to smoke.
I think some of these programs are just the incentive for some people to finally make the choice to live a healthier lifestyle. If nothing else will do the trick, maybe taking their money will.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Evangelist sentenced to 175 years for sex crimes
Evangelist Tony Alamo was just sentenced to 175 years in prison for taking little girls as young as 9 across state lines for sex. He took these girls as "brides" in his ministry, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.
Alamo, 75, claimed the charges were fabricated by a Vatican-led conspiracy against Alamo's church.
Alamo was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes. Barnes said that Alamo used his status as a father figure and pastor and threatened the girls with the loss of their salvation if they refused. Just before being sentenced, Alamo was allowed to give a statement to the court. He praised God and said, "I'm glad I'm me and not the deceived people in the world."
Alamo's lawyers plan to appeal the ruling, citing the opinion of a doctor who said that Alamo suffers from hardening arteries, diabetes, glaucoma and other health problems.
While being cross-examined, this doctor admitted that he only saw Alamo once in 2004. The purpose of that visit was an eye lift to make Alamo appear younger.
Alamo will stay in prison in Texarkana (where he was sentenced) until a hearing on January 13 that will determine if his victims get restitution from him. From Texarkana, he will be moved to a federal prison with hospital facilities.
I have to say I'm pretty happy with the verdict in this case. I remember hearing a little about this when the trial was going on and it was sickening. It's repulsive to me that someone would use their authority and position to do things like this.
I hate when people use religion to justify acts like the ones committed by Alamo. There is absolutely nothing biblical to say that he had any right to take these children as his brides. NOTHING.
It is appalling to me when people use religion like this. It's frustrating because the crazies, like Alamo, are always the ones in the media. They make for a great story and no one gets to hear stories of real Christians who actually live the life they should.
I feel awful for the victims of his crimes. How horrible would it be to lose your innocence in that way? I can't even imagine what they would have been thinking. They trusted this man, looked up to him. Their parents trusted him. They were told that these things were right. That monster told them they'd lose their salvation if they didn't follow along!
I'm normally pretty good about empathizing with people and trying to see everyone's side. I try to look at situations from every point of view and can usually understand the reasons people do things, even if I don't agree with the action.
In this case it makes me sick to even try. I don't want to know his reasons. I just want him to stay locked up and miserable for the rest of his pathetic life. That's not the right way to feel about him I know, but crimes against children always make me so angry.
I pray that the victims are able to heal and get past all of this. It will never go away but I hope that they have a good support system and people that truly do care for them and that they will be able to deal with everything.
Alamo, 75, claimed the charges were fabricated by a Vatican-led conspiracy against Alamo's church.
Alamo was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes. Barnes said that Alamo used his status as a father figure and pastor and threatened the girls with the loss of their salvation if they refused. Just before being sentenced, Alamo was allowed to give a statement to the court. He praised God and said, "I'm glad I'm me and not the deceived people in the world."
Alamo's lawyers plan to appeal the ruling, citing the opinion of a doctor who said that Alamo suffers from hardening arteries, diabetes, glaucoma and other health problems.
While being cross-examined, this doctor admitted that he only saw Alamo once in 2004. The purpose of that visit was an eye lift to make Alamo appear younger.
Alamo will stay in prison in Texarkana (where he was sentenced) until a hearing on January 13 that will determine if his victims get restitution from him. From Texarkana, he will be moved to a federal prison with hospital facilities.
I have to say I'm pretty happy with the verdict in this case. I remember hearing a little about this when the trial was going on and it was sickening. It's repulsive to me that someone would use their authority and position to do things like this.
I hate when people use religion to justify acts like the ones committed by Alamo. There is absolutely nothing biblical to say that he had any right to take these children as his brides. NOTHING.
It is appalling to me when people use religion like this. It's frustrating because the crazies, like Alamo, are always the ones in the media. They make for a great story and no one gets to hear stories of real Christians who actually live the life they should.
I feel awful for the victims of his crimes. How horrible would it be to lose your innocence in that way? I can't even imagine what they would have been thinking. They trusted this man, looked up to him. Their parents trusted him. They were told that these things were right. That monster told them they'd lose their salvation if they didn't follow along!
I'm normally pretty good about empathizing with people and trying to see everyone's side. I try to look at situations from every point of view and can usually understand the reasons people do things, even if I don't agree with the action.
In this case it makes me sick to even try. I don't want to know his reasons. I just want him to stay locked up and miserable for the rest of his pathetic life. That's not the right way to feel about him I know, but crimes against children always make me so angry.
I pray that the victims are able to heal and get past all of this. It will never go away but I hope that they have a good support system and people that truly do care for them and that they will be able to deal with everything.
How a Bank Robber Became an Anti-Hero in France
A couple of weeks ago, 39 year old Tony Musulin was a nobody. He drove an armored bank security van in Lyon, France.
According to an article from Time.com, all of that changed on November 5. Two coworkers briefly left Musulin alone to run an arrand and he allegedly vanished with over $17.2 million in unmarked bills. On Monday, police recovered about $14 million that was stashed in a storage unit in Lyon, but Musulin is still on the run with the rest of the money.
All of this sudden noteriety has obviously placed Musulin at the top of French law enforcement's most wanted list. What's a little different about this story is that Musulin is also quickly becoming one of France's most popular anti-heros.
Within hours of news of the heist, many envious French citizens were Twittering about Musulin and praising the theft on internet blogs. More than 100 Facebook groups have been created with names like "Run Tony Musulin Run" and "Tony Musulin for President." The web domain name www.tonymusulin.fr was quickly bought by a web designer who is selling bumper stickers and t-shirts, some that feature Musulin's mugshot under palm trees or catchphrases like "I'm your girl, Tony."
Many say that the reason behind the unlikely support for Musulin is the economic and financial crisis in France. Many citizens are angry at the banking system for being partly to blame. Some are calling Musulin a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (the banks) and giving to the poor (everyone else).
I just had to laugh when I read this story. I could totally see the same scenario playing out in the United States, given the current condition of the economy. Who doesn't love the story of an underdog who fought authority and (so far) won? It sounds like a great plot for a movie. I'm pretty sure if I saw the movie, I'd be rooting for Musulin's character along with most of the audience.
The thing is, this is the real world. Not a movie where everyone has a happy ending and Musulin gets to live the rest of his life out on a sandy beach somewhere.
I absolutely understand why he has so many supporters. I get the idealistic, "Robin Hood" aspect to the story. But he's not Robin Hood. Far from it. Robin Hood took from the greedy, tyrannical, undeserving rich to give to the desolate, unfairly-treated, deserving poor. Not to mention Robin Hood is fictional.
Musulin is not a modern-day Robin Hood. He stole money from depositors of the bank, not from the rich of the Robin Hood story. He hasn't given anything to the poor. The authorities tracked down part of the money and he still has the rest. What about this story smacks of Robin Hood exactly?
Musulin would be more of a hero to me if he had continued to work and earn money, rather than stealing money just because he feels entitled to it.
I really have no sympathy for the guy at all. He was wrong and I hope he gets caught.
It's scary to me that people are idolizing this guy. There is evidence to show that he planned the heist well in advance. How many stories have we heard of people who are unhappy with their jobs and lives who do far worse? What if he had decided to shoot instead of steal?
According to an article from Time.com, all of that changed on November 5. Two coworkers briefly left Musulin alone to run an arrand and he allegedly vanished with over $17.2 million in unmarked bills. On Monday, police recovered about $14 million that was stashed in a storage unit in Lyon, but Musulin is still on the run with the rest of the money.
All of this sudden noteriety has obviously placed Musulin at the top of French law enforcement's most wanted list. What's a little different about this story is that Musulin is also quickly becoming one of France's most popular anti-heros.
Within hours of news of the heist, many envious French citizens were Twittering about Musulin and praising the theft on internet blogs. More than 100 Facebook groups have been created with names like "Run Tony Musulin Run" and "Tony Musulin for President." The web domain name www.tonymusulin.fr was quickly bought by a web designer who is selling bumper stickers and t-shirts, some that feature Musulin's mugshot under palm trees or catchphrases like "I'm your girl, Tony."
Many say that the reason behind the unlikely support for Musulin is the economic and financial crisis in France. Many citizens are angry at the banking system for being partly to blame. Some are calling Musulin a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (the banks) and giving to the poor (everyone else).
I just had to laugh when I read this story. I could totally see the same scenario playing out in the United States, given the current condition of the economy. Who doesn't love the story of an underdog who fought authority and (so far) won? It sounds like a great plot for a movie. I'm pretty sure if I saw the movie, I'd be rooting for Musulin's character along with most of the audience.
The thing is, this is the real world. Not a movie where everyone has a happy ending and Musulin gets to live the rest of his life out on a sandy beach somewhere.
I absolutely understand why he has so many supporters. I get the idealistic, "Robin Hood" aspect to the story. But he's not Robin Hood. Far from it. Robin Hood took from the greedy, tyrannical, undeserving rich to give to the desolate, unfairly-treated, deserving poor. Not to mention Robin Hood is fictional.
Musulin is not a modern-day Robin Hood. He stole money from depositors of the bank, not from the rich of the Robin Hood story. He hasn't given anything to the poor. The authorities tracked down part of the money and he still has the rest. What about this story smacks of Robin Hood exactly?
Musulin would be more of a hero to me if he had continued to work and earn money, rather than stealing money just because he feels entitled to it.
I really have no sympathy for the guy at all. He was wrong and I hope he gets caught.
It's scary to me that people are idolizing this guy. There is evidence to show that he planned the heist well in advance. How many stories have we heard of people who are unhappy with their jobs and lives who do far worse? What if he had decided to shoot instead of steal?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Halloween-Themed Wedding Not Allowed
I found this article about the famous church in Sleepy Hollow, New York. Apparently the church refused to allow a Halloween-themed wedding to take place on October 31.
Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky signed a contract 13 months ago to use the Sleepy Hollow church for their Halloween wedding. The church says they were unaware of the couple's plans for a themed wedding.
The couple planned to use traditional music along with themes from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters." The church said no to the "fun gothic" tunes.
The couple had planned to wear non-traditional outfits also. Lisa would wear a black cocktai dress with a black veil and carry a bouquet adorned with miniature skulls. Jim would wear dark slacks, a pirate shirt and top hat. The church said no to that as well, saying that no costumes were permitted.
Guests were to be in casual dress, with children in costume. They planned to let the kids trick-or-treat after the ceremony.
It was the weekend before the ceremony was to take place that the church backed out. They said they didn't know of the couple's plans until Lisa emailed a song list to them that included the theme songs from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters."
The church offered to refund the deposit and to marry the couple outside in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, but they declined.
The reason the church gave for not accomidating the couple's theme wedding? The church is a holy place, a "grand historic place" that should not be used for a costume party.
I have never understood people who want to have these Halloween-themed weddings. The history of Halloween is not something I would want to associate with the day I commit myself before God to one person for the rest of my life. It's just not my thing.
But that doesn't diminish the love that this couple shares. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the wedding that they want. Especially when they arranged to use the church more than a year in advance and paid a deposit.
The way I see it, it should have been the church's responsibility to tell the couple what was and wasn't acceptible for an event taking place in the building.
They wanted to book the place for a Halloween wedding. That should have raised some common sense quesions, right? I mean, if it were me, I'd certainly ask just what they planned to do at this wedding. The church should have made it clear from the beginning that theme weddings are not permitted.
I do understand the point of view of the church. However, it's a little too late for that now. This should have been discussed a year ago to allow the couple ample time to find a new venue. I think the church is at fault here and should have allowed the wedding to take place. The couple signed a contract and the church should have honored that instead of backing out at the last minute.
Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky signed a contract 13 months ago to use the Sleepy Hollow church for their Halloween wedding. The church says they were unaware of the couple's plans for a themed wedding.
The couple planned to use traditional music along with themes from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters." The church said no to the "fun gothic" tunes.
The couple had planned to wear non-traditional outfits also. Lisa would wear a black cocktai dress with a black veil and carry a bouquet adorned with miniature skulls. Jim would wear dark slacks, a pirate shirt and top hat. The church said no to that as well, saying that no costumes were permitted.
Guests were to be in casual dress, with children in costume. They planned to let the kids trick-or-treat after the ceremony.
It was the weekend before the ceremony was to take place that the church backed out. They said they didn't know of the couple's plans until Lisa emailed a song list to them that included the theme songs from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters."
The church offered to refund the deposit and to marry the couple outside in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, but they declined.
The reason the church gave for not accomidating the couple's theme wedding? The church is a holy place, a "grand historic place" that should not be used for a costume party.
I have never understood people who want to have these Halloween-themed weddings. The history of Halloween is not something I would want to associate with the day I commit myself before God to one person for the rest of my life. It's just not my thing.
But that doesn't diminish the love that this couple shares. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the wedding that they want. Especially when they arranged to use the church more than a year in advance and paid a deposit.
The way I see it, it should have been the church's responsibility to tell the couple what was and wasn't acceptible for an event taking place in the building.
They wanted to book the place for a Halloween wedding. That should have raised some common sense quesions, right? I mean, if it were me, I'd certainly ask just what they planned to do at this wedding. The church should have made it clear from the beginning that theme weddings are not permitted.
I do understand the point of view of the church. However, it's a little too late for that now. This should have been discussed a year ago to allow the couple ample time to find a new venue. I think the church is at fault here and should have allowed the wedding to take place. The couple signed a contract and the church should have honored that instead of backing out at the last minute.
Dad lost his job, so this family takes to the road
I found this article about a man named Dave Dudley and his wife and three kids who took to the road after Dave was laid off.
Dave used to be the vice president of a software company and he and his wife, Joleen, and children- Justice, Adraine and Jayden- lived a pretty comfortable life in a sprawling house in Washington state. When Dave lost his job, he and Joleen knew it was only a matter of months before the mortgage and household expenses became unmanageable. So they made a decision. The family sold the house and hit the road in a 41-foot Heartland Cyclone Trailer towed by a GMC Topkick truck.
The Dudleys have been on the road for about a year. The original plan was to travel for about two years, scoping out possible locations to settle later. They say that they haven't made those plans solid yet, considering the ever-changing economy.
While on the road, Dave landed a job that allows him to work from their home on the road and the kids are keeping up with school by doing their assignments online. As for any possible problems with the close quarters, the kids say it's great. They like the togetherness that was sometimes absent in their large former home along with all of the outside activities that kept the family separated for much of the time.
While I don't know if I could handle this lifestyle, it sure seems to work for the Dudleys. I think it's commendable that they took charge of the situation when Dave lost his job. They knew what they could handle financially and made a decision rather than waiting around to eventually be foreclosed on and have to possibly depend on the help of others to turn things around.
The only thing I wish the article had gone into more detail about is the kids' schooling. It just says that they are doing their assignments online. I don't mean to say that homeschooling is not good. I've known plenty of people who were homeschooled and are very intelligent, educated people. I just hope that these kids are in a good program as well. It would definitely be an advantage to have to whole continent as your classroom anyway!
I was glad to read the quotes from the kids. It's good that they're enjoying the togetherness. I think we sometimes lose that in all of our extra activities and things that we find "necessary" to do instead of just spending time together.
I hope this lifestyle continues to work out for the Dudleys as long as they choose to continue on the road. Good luck to them!
Dave used to be the vice president of a software company and he and his wife, Joleen, and children- Justice, Adraine and Jayden- lived a pretty comfortable life in a sprawling house in Washington state. When Dave lost his job, he and Joleen knew it was only a matter of months before the mortgage and household expenses became unmanageable. So they made a decision. The family sold the house and hit the road in a 41-foot Heartland Cyclone Trailer towed by a GMC Topkick truck.
The Dudleys have been on the road for about a year. The original plan was to travel for about two years, scoping out possible locations to settle later. They say that they haven't made those plans solid yet, considering the ever-changing economy.
While on the road, Dave landed a job that allows him to work from their home on the road and the kids are keeping up with school by doing their assignments online. As for any possible problems with the close quarters, the kids say it's great. They like the togetherness that was sometimes absent in their large former home along with all of the outside activities that kept the family separated for much of the time.
While I don't know if I could handle this lifestyle, it sure seems to work for the Dudleys. I think it's commendable that they took charge of the situation when Dave lost his job. They knew what they could handle financially and made a decision rather than waiting around to eventually be foreclosed on and have to possibly depend on the help of others to turn things around.
The only thing I wish the article had gone into more detail about is the kids' schooling. It just says that they are doing their assignments online. I don't mean to say that homeschooling is not good. I've known plenty of people who were homeschooled and are very intelligent, educated people. I just hope that these kids are in a good program as well. It would definitely be an advantage to have to whole continent as your classroom anyway!
I was glad to read the quotes from the kids. It's good that they're enjoying the togetherness. I think we sometimes lose that in all of our extra activities and things that we find "necessary" to do instead of just spending time together.
I hope this lifestyle continues to work out for the Dudleys as long as they choose to continue on the road. Good luck to them!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
What Soft Drinks Are Doing To Your Body
I found this article at Yahoo Health. It's about the negative effects that soft drinks, both diet and regular, have on our bodies.
The article states that soda is one of the worst beverages that we can be drinking for our health. One problem is that soft drinks contain little to no vitamins and other nutrients. Another problem, though, is what they do contain, ingredients like carbonation, caffeine, simple sugars, sugar substitutes, artificial coloring, flavoring and preservatives.
Many soft drinks contain a high amount of sugars. The daily allotment of sugar for a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet is 10 teaspoons. Many soft drinks contain more than that in a single serving and many people drink more than one soft drink daily.
All of this excess sugar can lead to elevated blood insulin levels. This, in turn, leads to depression of the immune system which weakens the body's ability to fight disease.
Also, excess sugars are stored as fat in the body. This leads to weight gain, which is a contributing factor to the possibility of heart disease and cancer.
The article says that diet soda can be just as bad for us, for different reasons. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas can pose a health risk. There is research to show that certain types can possibly cause cancer. Other types of sweeteners use a chemical reaction to stimulate the brain, causing the body to think that a beverage is sweet. This chemical can also cause cravings for other sweet foods and drinks, leading to weight gain.
Another ingredient found in both diet and regular soda that can be detrimental to our health, is carbonation. Drinks with bubbles contain phosphoric acid which can severely deplete blood calcium levels. Calcium is a key component in bone health, meaning that excessive soda consumption can increase your risk of osteoporosis later in life.
Caffeine, which is present in many soft drinks, can also deplete the calcium levels in our bodies. It also stimulates your central nervous system, and can contribute to stress, a racing mind and insomnia.
This article grabbed my interest because I've recently decided to stop drinking soda. I don't drink a lot as it is, maybe one soda a day, but after reading this article I've decided that even one a day is too much. Some of the effects of soft drinks really surprised me.
We've always heard about how bad the sugars and sweeteners are for our bodies. I was surprised that the article also went into detail about the carbonation and caffeine too. We don't hear as much about those ingredients.
I had no idea that the ingredients used to create carbonation also deplete our blood calcium levels. As a female, I hear all the time about the importance of calcium to prevent osteoporosis. It's important for everyone else too.
I've always heard about the negative effects of caffeine on the body, as far as insomnia, increased stress and a racing mind. I didn't know that caffeine can also contribute to calcium loss in the body.
Knowing all of these facts will definitely help me stick to my new no soda rule. It will be hard. I usually take advantage of Sonic's Happy Hour whenever I can and we're provided with free soda at work. I might just have to print this story and keep it in a place where I can see it often. I have done the no soda thing in the past and I know it really does make me feel better and I have more energy. I'll just have to keep that in mind the next time I get a craving for a Diet Dr. Pepper.
The article states that soda is one of the worst beverages that we can be drinking for our health. One problem is that soft drinks contain little to no vitamins and other nutrients. Another problem, though, is what they do contain, ingredients like carbonation, caffeine, simple sugars, sugar substitutes, artificial coloring, flavoring and preservatives.
Many soft drinks contain a high amount of sugars. The daily allotment of sugar for a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet is 10 teaspoons. Many soft drinks contain more than that in a single serving and many people drink more than one soft drink daily.
All of this excess sugar can lead to elevated blood insulin levels. This, in turn, leads to depression of the immune system which weakens the body's ability to fight disease.
Also, excess sugars are stored as fat in the body. This leads to weight gain, which is a contributing factor to the possibility of heart disease and cancer.
The article says that diet soda can be just as bad for us, for different reasons. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas can pose a health risk. There is research to show that certain types can possibly cause cancer. Other types of sweeteners use a chemical reaction to stimulate the brain, causing the body to think that a beverage is sweet. This chemical can also cause cravings for other sweet foods and drinks, leading to weight gain.
Another ingredient found in both diet and regular soda that can be detrimental to our health, is carbonation. Drinks with bubbles contain phosphoric acid which can severely deplete blood calcium levels. Calcium is a key component in bone health, meaning that excessive soda consumption can increase your risk of osteoporosis later in life.
Caffeine, which is present in many soft drinks, can also deplete the calcium levels in our bodies. It also stimulates your central nervous system, and can contribute to stress, a racing mind and insomnia.
This article grabbed my interest because I've recently decided to stop drinking soda. I don't drink a lot as it is, maybe one soda a day, but after reading this article I've decided that even one a day is too much. Some of the effects of soft drinks really surprised me.
We've always heard about how bad the sugars and sweeteners are for our bodies. I was surprised that the article also went into detail about the carbonation and caffeine too. We don't hear as much about those ingredients.
I had no idea that the ingredients used to create carbonation also deplete our blood calcium levels. As a female, I hear all the time about the importance of calcium to prevent osteoporosis. It's important for everyone else too.
I've always heard about the negative effects of caffeine on the body, as far as insomnia, increased stress and a racing mind. I didn't know that caffeine can also contribute to calcium loss in the body.
Knowing all of these facts will definitely help me stick to my new no soda rule. It will be hard. I usually take advantage of Sonic's Happy Hour whenever I can and we're provided with free soda at work. I might just have to print this story and keep it in a place where I can see it often. I have done the no soda thing in the past and I know it really does make me feel better and I have more energy. I'll just have to keep that in mind the next time I get a craving for a Diet Dr. Pepper.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
