How unplugging can help beat stress and keep people healthy

Stress does not only result from managing difficult situations at home, school, and office. It can also be caused by technology burnout.

Image Source: lessons.tradingacademy.com

Every day, people spend around 11 hours to do many activities online—from following the news to communicating with friends to playing interactive games. These tasks require a vast amount of time and attention, which can drain one’s energy in the long run. Done repetitively on a daily basis, people could become exhausted and unenthusiastic to go outdoors, meet new people, and follow a healthy lifestyle.

Image Source: gadsublilminalhypnosis.blogspot.com

One way to avoid technology burnout is by unplugging or completely turning off the TV, mobile phone, computer, and other digital devices for a couple of hours a day to perform real-world activities.

Unplugging may not be easy but it is possible. Extroverts can start substituting their lost online time by engaging in social activities, like joining a fitness class or dining out with colleagues after work. Introverts, meanwhile, can make themselves busy by jogging or walking out their dogs to a nearby park. Once people are out in the open and become engaged in activities that keep them moving and having fun, they become energized and motivated again.

Image Source: popsugar.com.au

Those who are having a hard time pausing from online activities and following a daily fitness routine can also seek help from a friend, workout buddy, or a personal trainer. Friends and fitness trainers do not just give moral support and a good company, they can also provide genuine advice and fitness plans to follow.  

Kevin R. Foote is a fitness advisor who believes that a physically active lifestyle is important to health and quality of life. Keep updated on the latest fitness news and updates by following him on Twitter.

REPOST: The crucial FDA nutrition label battle you probably don’t know about, but should

Not everyone is convinced on the proposal to tweak the Nutrition Facts label to include the"added sugar" section. Read what other experts say about the changes proposed by the FDA in the article below.

The devil is in the details. (FDA) Image Source: washingtonpost.com

At the beginning of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made an announcement. For the first time in more than a decade, the FDA was mulling over making significant changes to the Nutrition Facts label (pdf) found on just about every food item sitting on grocery store shelves around the nation. More than five months later, the agency is still hearing vehement support from a number of advocacy groups and vicious dissent from several major food associations, and much of it is about one subtle but crucial proposed addition: an "added sugar" label.

The labeling (as pictured and pointed to above), is meant to communicate how much of any given food's sugar content wasn't in the food before it was produced and packaged. The FDA proposed the addition because, simply put, the American diet has become too saturated in sugar, and sugar, as it turns out, is too often added, rather than inherent, in foodstuffs. "On average, Americans eat 16 percent of their daily calories from sugars added during food production," the FDA noted in its news release. That's a sizable chunk we could all do without, or, at least, considerably less of.

Many health experts agree. "Added sugars exert deleterious health effects beyond empty calories," Frank Hu, a nutrition and epidemiology researcher at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at a public meeting held by the FDA last week.

But not everyone is so convinced. Namely, just about any and every industry and association such a label might negatively impact.

In a letter written on behalf of the American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, American Frozen Foods Institute, Corn Refiners Association, International Dairy Foods Association and National Confectioners Association last month, the groups reached out to the FDA in what can only be interpreted as an effort to delay the proposed rule change. At the same public meeting held last week, a representative for the American Frozen Food Institute said he believes "certain aspects of the proposal lack some merit, particularly the addition of added sugar.” Andrew Briscoe, the president of the Sugar Association, expressed reluctance about the additional labeling, too. “There is no preponderance of evidence to justify an added sugar label," he said.

The reality is that Big Sugar is likely reeling in remembrance of what the addition of trans fat to labels in 2006 did to the ingredient (it's now virtually non-existent). Evidence of sugar's adverse effects on health is actually fairly preponderant. Several organizations, including the World Health Organization and American Heart Association, have warned against the harms of excess sugar intake, which has been linked to a number of diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. And Americans, as it happens, have been particularly good about over-consuming the stuff.

Per capita sugar consumption in the U.S. is still more than twice the recommended daily amount.

Image Source: washingtonpost.com

 

Part of that is undoubtedly linked to the country's growing appetite for, well, everything. Americans down almost 500 more calories today than they did 40 years ago.

But part of it is also likely due to the preponderance of extra sugars found in today's food supply, and, perhaps more specifically, the varying and increasing ways in which they're being buried in exhaustive ingredient lists and disguised with technical names like evaporated cane juice, fruit concentrate, glucose, diastatic malt and dextrose. There's sugar in just about everything today, and the vast majority of it is added during food production.

An explicit, quantifiable measure of added sugar would help pack any and all potential for misinformation into a single, easily digestible line on the back of food products. Sure, from an industry perspective, an added sugar by any single, identifiable name might not sell as sweet, but that's for Big Sugar to swallow — not the American populous.

For Kevin Foote, fitness and nutrition specialist, there's no shortcut to a lean and physically fit body. Like this Facebook page for more of his health and fitness advice.

Does keeping fit mean giving up on bacon? Not really

Fats, in the right amount and with the right kind, can fit into a healthy diet. But does that mean bacon doesn't have any place at all in our diet?

Let's tell it like it is: fat makes up a huge part of bacon. Almost half of this processed meat’s fat composition is saturated, and saturated fat has long been known to raise bad cholesterol levels. The American Heart Association thus recommends limiting saturated fat intake to just 13 grams a day on a 2,000-calorie diet.

 

Image Source: wowmuseum.org

Also, bacon, like any other processed meat, can put you at higher risk of certain cancers, especially when it contains large amounts of nitrates.

A wise advice: Try, as much as possible, to eat real fat, the kind that is untransformed by the human hand, like organic butter, extra virgin olive oil, and nut butters; perhaps even bacon straight from the pork belly.

 

Image Source: shockinglydelicious.com

But for the sake of convenience, you can also have bacon straight from the grocery chiller, though in moderation. Three strips, equivalent to nearly 1 ounce of bacon, are enough to tide over a craving. Choose the ones that have less saturated fat and calories per ounce, or try leaner alternatives like turkey bacon. This helpful guide lists the fat and calorie content of some brands.

 

Image Source: todaysparent.com

Also, you might want to rebrand bacon as a condiment instead of your main meal. Bacon lends a strong enough flavor to salads and sautés. Try it with vegetables like asparagus, beet greens, and spinach.

I am Kevin Foote, born and raised in Colorado, and a fan of everything that's good and non-fattening. Subscribe to this blog for more options for healthy eating.