Safe beauty with natural cosmetics?

Beauty

(Lam dep) - The natural cosmetics contain no additives, preservatives or dyes, aromatic substances - substances that may adversely affect the skin. However, natural cosmetics has its drawbacks.

Come to this forum beauty of Eva.vn to learn the secrets skin care, beautiful skin, Beauty Hair, Hair styles trendy, or know-how makeup... Most effective for all Women.

Come to this forum do beautiful of Eva.vn to learn the secrets skin care, beautiful skin, Beauty Hair, Hair styles trendy, or know-how makeup... Most effective for all Women !

Natural cosmetics can cause allergic

Main lovers of natural cosmetics is that people who regularly go to see the specialist in allergies. Although, these gifts from nature provide nutrients for the skin is useful but sometimes they become the cause of the inflammation, swelling, redness and even rashes, pimples.

Natural cosmetics are not good for everybody

Mask from egg whites to tighten skin and shrink the pores is very effective. However, egg whites only consistent with oily and combination skin, but if not used for dry skin exfoliation and avoid being rash.

If carrots mask "the hand" a little skin is not wet, easily sun burnt that ugly yellow skin clinging very long. Cleanser is composed mainly of salt can cause inflammation and a long out.

If carrots mask "the hand" a little skin is not wet, easily sun burnt that ugly yellow skin clinging very long.

Thin gruel and dry onion juice is useful for people with hair loss, but annoying in that the dry hair, just having a little water, sweat appears as odors.

Honey when used for massage to remove dead cells can cause skin lesions that are small bruise. The reason is that honey is very tight grip on the skin and blood vessels can be absorbed directly through the skin honey. After such process, the skin may appear a few days of bruising.

So, to really benefit from the use of natural cosmetics, should be carefully selected foods, make sure they do not cause allergic skin and actually fit your style and lane your skin.

Refer o the Method do beautiful and style time page work on 24h.com.vn

According to Reuters

Focus On How, Not Why To Increase Physical Activity news

Most people know that exercise is important to maintain and improve health; however, sedentary lifestyles and obesity rates are at all-time highs and have become major national issues. In a new study, University of Missouri researchers found that healthy adults who received interventions focused on behavior-changing strategies significantly increased their physical activity levels. Conversely, interventions based on cognitive approaches, which try to change knowledge and attitudes, did not improve physical activity.

"The focus needs to shift from increasing knowledge about the benefits of exercise to discussing strategies to change behaviors and increase activity levels," said Vicki Conn, associate dean for research and Potter-Brinton professor in the MU Sinclair School of Nursing. "The common approach is to try and change people's attitudes or beliefs about exercise and why it's important, but that information isn't motivating. We can't 'think' ourselves into being more active."

Behavior strategies include feedback, goal setting, self-monitoring, exercise prescription and stimulus or cues. Self-monitoring, any method where participants record and track their activity over time, appears to significantly increase awareness and provide motivation for improvement, Conn said.

"Health care providers should ask patients about their exercise habits and help them set specific, manageable goals," Conn said. "Ask them to try different strategies, such as tracking their progress, scheduling exercise on their phones or calendars, or placing their pedometers by their clothes. Discuss rewards for accomplishing goals."

The study, featured in the American Journal of Public Health, incorporated data from 358 reports and 99,011 participants. The researchers identified behavioral strategies were most effective in increasing physical activity among healthy adults. Successful interventions were delivered face-to-face instead of mediated (i.e. via telephone, mail, etc.) and targeted individuals instead of communities.

"The thought of exercise may be overwhelming, but slowly increasing activity by just 10 minutes a day adds up weekly and is enough to provide health benefits," Conn said. "Even small increases in physical activity will enhance protection against chronic illnesses, including heart disease and diabetes. Preventing or delaying chronic disease will reduce complications, health care costs and overall burden."

Previously, Conn completed a meta-analysis of interventions for chronically ill patients and found similar results. Conn found that interventions were similarly effective regardless of gender, age, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

The study, "Interventions to increase physical activity among healthy adults: Meta-analysis of outcomes," is featured in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Conn's research is funded by a more than $1 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Source: University of Missouri-Columbia

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Energy Drinks May Be Unsafe For Kids, New Report

Energy drinks may be unsafe for some children especially those with diabetes, seizures, heart abnormalities or mood and behavior disorders, according to a report by researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine published in the journal Pediatrics this week; however the beverage industry fiercely disputes this.

Senior author of the report Dr Steven E. Lipshultz, professor and chair of pediatrics, associate executive dean for child health at the Miller School, said until we know more about the effects of energy drinks on the health of children and teenagers, they should be discouraged from drinking them on a routine basis.

"We wanted to raise awareness about the risks. Our systematic review suggests that these drinks have no benefit and should not be a part of the diet of children and teens," he said.

For their report Lipshultz and colleagues reviewed the current published literature on energy drinks and concluded they have no health benefits for children and that many of the ingredients they contain are understudied and not regulated.

They said that both in view of the known and unknown properties of the ingredients, plus reports of toxicity potentially related to energy drink consumption (for instance where poison centers have received calls about caffeine overdose in children), they may even put some children who consume energy drinks at risk of serious adverse health effects.

They called for more research to understand the effect of energy drinks in at-risk groups.

They added that regulation of the marketing and sales of energy drinks should be based on appropriate research, and the surveillance of toxicity related to energy drink consumption should be improved (for instance the current system in the US does not separately record if a caffeine overdose was due to consuming energy drinks).

In the meantime, pediatricians should be aware of the possible effects of energy drinks in children and teenagers, particularly in the more vulnerable groups, and to screen for heavy use both alone and with alcohol, and to educate families and youngsters at risk for energy drink overdose, which can lead to seizures, stroke and even sudden death, advised the authors.

For their systematic review, Lipshultz and colleagues searched PubMed, the online database of biomedical journal citations and abstracts, and Google using key words like "energy drink", "sports drink", "ADHD", "diabetes", "poison control center", "children", "adolescents", "caffeine", "taurine", to find articles related to energy drinks. They also read the product information that energy drink manufacturers put on their websites.

They found that:

• Children, adolescents and young adults account for half the energy drink market.
• According to self-report surveys, between 30% and 50% of teenagers and young adults consume energy drinks.
• Energy drinks frequently contain high levels of stimulants such as caffeine, taurine and guarana, and safe consumption levels have not been established for most adolescents.
• There have been reports of energy drinks linked to serious adverse effects, particularly in children, adolescents and young adults with seizures, heart abnormalities, diabetes, mood and behavioral disorders, or who are on certain medications.
• Of the 5,448 caffeine overdoses reported in 2007 in the US, 46% of them were in young people under the age of 19.
• Several countries and American states have debated whether to restrict the sales and advertising of energy drinks.

The report has infuriated the beverage industry, who have labelled it "bad science" intended "to scare and create buzz".

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the American Beverage Association (ABA) said there is a "lot of misinformation" circulating about energy drinks, especially about the amount of caffeine they contain and whether or not the products are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

They stress that energy drinks and their ingredients "whether categorized as a conventional food or as a dietary supplement", are regulated by the FDA, and that caffeine, the "core ingredient", whose use has been approved both by the FDA and more than 40 countries around the world, is one of the "most thoroughly tested ingredients in the food supply today".

They urge consumers to note that energy drinks contain about half the caffeine in a cup of coffee typically bought at a coffee house, and thus young adults are consuming twice as much caffeine this way as they are from "a similar size energy drink".

They also dispute the point made in the report that children and teens are large consumers of energy drinks, citing data from a well known government survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination (NHANES) Survey, that they say shows:

" ... the caffeine consumed from energy drinks for those under the age of 18 is less than the caffeine derived from all other sources including soft drinks, coffee and teas."

The ABA says that this survey also shows that the caffeine children and teens get from energy drinks is equivalent to drinking less than one can of energy per day, and that "total caffeine consumption from energy drinks among pre-teens is nearly zero".

They advise consumers to "stay informed about the products they consume", to read product labels, and the "voluntary advisory statements" that many companies put on them.

They don't deny that caffeine may have adverse effects, and confirm that energy drinks contain a "good dose" of the stimulant, so anyone who is sensitive to caffeine should apply the same "common sense approach" to consuming energy drinks as they would to drinking coffee.

Lead author of the Pediatrics article, Sara M. Seifert, a third-year medical student at Miller School, explained why they conducted the review and published their report:

"Numerous reports are appearing in the popular media and there are a handful of case reports in the scientific literature that associate energy drinks with serious adverse events."

"Additionally, many schools, states and countries have started regulating or banning energy drink content or sales to children, adolescents and young adults. In the face of such reports, it seemed prudent to investigate the validity of such claims," she added.

Additional sources: University of Miami, American Beverage Association (press releases 14 Feb 2011).

Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Focus On How, Not Why To Increase Physical Activity

Most people know that exercise is important to maintain and improve health; however, sedentary lifestyles and obesity rates are at all-time highs and have become major national issues. In a new study, University of Missouri researchers found that healthy adults who received interventions focused on behavior-changing strategies significantly increased their physical activity levels. Conversely, interventions based on cognitive approaches, which try to change knowledge and attitudes, did not improve physical activity.

"The focus needs to shift from increasing knowledge about the benefits of exercise to discussing strategies to change behaviors and increase activity levels," said Vicki Conn, associate dean for research and Potter-Brinton professor in the MU Sinclair School of Nursing. "The common approach is to try and change people's attitudes or beliefs about exercise and why it's important, but that information isn't motivating. We can't 'think' ourselves into being more active."

Behavior strategies include feedback, goal setting, self-monitoring, exercise prescription and stimulus or cues. Self-monitoring, any method where participants record and track their activity over time, appears to significantly increase awareness and provide motivation for improvement, Conn said.

"Health care providers should ask patients about their exercise habits and help them set specific, manageable goals," Conn said. "Ask them to try different strategies, such as tracking their progress, scheduling exercise on their phones or calendars, or placing their pedometers by their clothes. Discuss rewards for accomplishing goals."

The study, featured in the American Journal of Public Health, incorporated data from 358 reports and 99,011 participants. The researchers identified behavioral strategies were most effective in increasing physical activity among healthy adults. Successful interventions were delivered face-to-face instead of mediated (i.e. via telephone, mail, etc.) and targeted individuals instead of communities.

"The thought of exercise may be overwhelming, but slowly increasing activity by just 10 minutes a day adds up weekly and is enough to provide health benefits," Conn said. "Even small increases in physical activity will enhance protection against chronic illnesses, including heart disease and diabetes. Preventing or delaying chronic disease will reduce complications, health care costs and overall burden."

Previously, Conn completed a meta-analysis of interventions for chronically ill patients and found similar results. Conn found that interventions were similarly effective regardless of gender, age, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

The study, "Interventions to increase physical activity among healthy adults: Meta-analysis of outcomes," is featured in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Conn's research is funded by a more than $1 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Source: University of Missouri-Columbia

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

No Increased Brain Cancer Risk From Cell-Phone Use

Radio frequency exposure from cell phone use does not appear to increase the risk of developing brain cancers by any significant amount, a study by University of Manchester scientists suggests.

The researchers used publically available data from the UK Office of National Statistics to look at trends in rates of newly diagnosed brain cancers in England between 1998 and 2007.

The study, published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, reported no statistically significant change in the incidence of brain cancers in men or women during the nine-year time period under observation.

"Cell phone use in the United Kingdom and other countries has risen steeply since the early 1990s when the first digital cell phones were introduced," said lead researcher Dr Frank de Vocht, an expert in occupational and environmental health in the University of Manchester's School of Community-Based Medicine.

"There is an on-going controversy about whether radio frequency exposure from cell phones increases the risk of brain cancer. Our findings indicate that a causal link between cell phone use and cancer is unlikely because there is no evidence of any significant increase in the disease since their introduction and rapid proliferation"

The authors say that because there is no plausible biological mechanism for radio waves to damage our genes directly, thereby causing cells to become cancerous, radio frequency exposure, they argue, if related to cancer is more likely to promote growth in an existing brain tumour.

As such, the researchers say they would expect an increase in the number of diagnosed cases within five to 10 years of the introduction of cell phones and for this increase to continue as cell phone use became more widespread. The 1998 to 2007 study period would therefore relate to the period 1990 to 2002 when cell phone use in the UK increased from zero to 65% of households.

The team, which included researchers from the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh and Drexel University, Philadelphia, found a small increase in the incidence of cancers in the temporal lobe of 0.6 cases per 100,000 people or 31 extra cases per year in a population of 52 million. Brain cancers of the parietal lobe, cerebrum and cerebellum in men actually fell slightly between 1998 and 2007.

"Our research suggests that the increased and widespread use of cell phones, which in some studies was associated to increased brain cancer risk, has not led to a noticeable increase in the incidence of brain cancer in England between 1998 and 2007," said Dr de Vocht.

"It is very unlikely that we are at the forefront of a brain cancer epidemic related to cell phones, as some have suggested, although we did observe a small increased rate of brain cancers in the temporal lobe corresponding to the time period when cell phone use rose from zero to 65% of households. However, to put this into perspective, if this specific rise in tumour incidence was caused by cell phone use, it would contribute to less than one additional case per 100,000 population in a decade.

"We cannot exclude the possibility that there are people who are susceptible to radio-frequency exposure or that some rare brain cancers are associated with it but we interpret our data as not indicating a pressing need to implement public health measures to reduce radio-frequency exposure from cell phones."

Source: University of Manchester

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Benefits Of Electrical Stimulation Therapy For People Paralyzed By Spinal Cord Injury

A new treatment approach which uses tiny bursts of electricity to reawaken paralyzed muscles "significantly" reduced disability and improved grasping ability in people with incomplete spinal cord injuries, according to results just published.

In a study posted online in the journal Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Toronto researchers report that functional electrical stimulation (FES: First-of-its-kind study shows benefits of electrical stimulation therapy for people paralyzed by spinal cord injury) therapy worked considerably better than conventional occupational therapy alone to increase patients' ability to pick up and hold objects.

Core News Facts

• FES therapy uses low-intensity electrical pulses generated by a pocket-sized electric stimulator.
• Unlike permanent FES systems, the one designed by Dr. Popovic and colleagues is for short-term treatment. The therapist uses the stimulator to make muscles move in a patient's limb. The idea is that after many repetitions, the nervous system can 'relearn' the motion and eventually activate the muscles on its own, without the device.
• The randomized trial, believed to be the first of its kind, involved 21 rehabilitation inpatients who could not grasp objects or perform many activities of daily living. All received conventional occupational therapy five days per week for eight weeks. However, one group (9 people) also received an hour of stimulation therapy daily, while another group (12 people) had an additional hour of conventional occupational therapy only.
• Patients who received only occupational therapy saw a "gentle improvement" in their grasping ability, but the level of improvement achieved with stimulation therapy was at least three times greater using the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, which evaluates degree of disability in patients with spinal cord injury.
• Based on their findings, the study's authors recommend that stimulation therapy should be part of the therapeutic process for people with incomplete spinal cord injuries whose hand function is impaired.
• Dr. Popovic's team has almost completed a prototype of their stimulator, but need financial support to take it forward. Dr. Popovic thinks the device could be available to hospitals within a year of being funded.
• One limitation of the study is that the research team could not get all participants to take part in a six-month follow-up assessment. However, six individuals who received FES therapy were assessed six months after the study. All had better hand function after six months than on the day they were discharged from the study.
• Dr. Popovic stresses that FES therapy should augment, and not replace, existing occupational therapy.
• Another study, now underway, will determine whether stimulation therapy can improve grasping ability in people with chronic (long-term) incomplete spinal cord injuries.

Quotes

"This study proves that by stimulating peripheral nerves and muscles, you can actually 'retrain' the brain," says the study's lead author, Dr. Milos R. Popovic, a Senior Scientist at Toronto Rehab and head of the Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory. "A few years ago, we did not believe this was possible."

"FES (stimulation therapy) has the potential to have a significant and positive impact on the lives of individuals living with the devastating results of spinal cord injury," says Dr. Anthony Burns, Medical Director of Toronto Rehab's spinal cord rehabilitation program.

"The trial is "groundbreaking," says Dr. Burns who will work with Dr. Popovic, "to make this intervention available to our patients, and to answer important questions such as the duration of the effect."

Source: Toronto Rehabilitation Institute

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Smoking Increases Alzheimer's Risk

We all know smoking cigarettes is bad for your health. Now there is an added risk. Smoking may be associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia, such as vascular dementia. Heavy smoking, meaning a pack or more a day, in mid-life may double the risk of Alzheimer's and vascular dementia in late life.

Vascular dementia is an umbrella term that describes cognitive impairments caused by problems in blood vessels that feed the brain. The ailment is one of the most common forms of dementia, ranking only second to Alzheimer's disease. Vascular dementia is caused by chronic, reduced blood flow to the brain, usually as the result of a stroke or series of strokes. In many cases, the strokes are so small that one may not notice any symptoms. These are known as "silent strokes." But over time, the damage adds up, leading to memory loss, confusion, and other signs of dementia.

Vascular dementia represents a challenge for those affected by it and their caretakers. But with an understanding of the condition, and a willingness to make important lifestyle changes, it may be possible to prevent further blockages and compensate for brain damage that has already occurred. Kicking the smoking habit may help.

Dementia in general is a non-specific illness syndrome (set of signs and symptoms) in which affected areas of cognition may be memory, attention, language, and problem solving. It is normally required to be present for at least 6 months to be diagnosed; cognitive dysfunction that has been seen only over shorter times, in particular less than weeks, must be termed delirium. In all types of general cognitive dysfunction, higher mental functions are affected first in the process.

Especially in the later stages of the condition, affected persons may be disoriented in time (not knowing what day of the week, day of the month, or even what year it is), in place (not knowing where they are), and in person (not knowing who they are or others around them). Dementia, though often treatable to some degree, is usually due to causes that are progressive and incurable.

Researchers in Finland, Sweden, and the United States looked at data from a group of 21, 123 people from different ethnic backgrounds. All were members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California and participated in a survey between 1978 and 1985. Of those, 5,367 (25.4%) were diagnosed with dementia over the 23-year follow-up period.

Rachel A. Whitmer, Ph.D., an investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research stated:

"We found a two-fold increase in risk among those who smoked two packs per day, a 44 percent increase in those who smoked one to two packs, and 37% increase in those smoking one-half a pack per day in mid-life. We've probably underestimated the real risk, and we don't know how many of these people quit smoking between the time of the initial survey and being diagnosed with dementia. People need to understand that these are long-term consequences from mid-life smoking."

According to Whitmer, smoking might increase the risk of dementia by narrowing blood vessels in the brain, which leads to increased stroke risk. But even those people who did not have a stroke were at higher risk for dementia.

John C. Morris, M.D., Friedman Distinguished Professor of Neurology at Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, MO adds however:

"We do not know whether it was the heavy smoking in mid-life that caused the later development of dementia. People who smoke heavily may have other attributes, such as socioeconomic background, nutritional preferences, or other factors that end up being the real culprit."

Source: Neurology

Written by Sy Kraft, B.A.
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today