Based on the science appendix it seems like the inclusion of a "low carb diet" is more toward disease treatment and not health promotion. This would be antithetical to the DGA in years past and is kind of useless. The appendix itself acknowledges that the long term effects of a "low carb diet" are muted in the long term, which is probably why you would never hear it hawked by a nutrition professional as a healthy eating pattern.
The restrictions on SNAP are insidious because SNAP is supposed to enable one to live a normal life -- and that includes occasionally buying things that are not "healthy" in a bubble. The mantra that many health professionals will use is "there are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets". Combine all that background with traditional stigma associated with SNAP/food stamp benefits and a picture starts to emerge of why policy was to embrace more foods and how this administration is often called the "administration of harm".
The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce harvested but the knowledge sowed. Many are federally funded at schools, community centers, or local libraries to serve as outdoor classrooms.
> The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce harvested but the knowledge sowed
No, it should be measured in terms of amount of input relative to the amount of output. It’s almost never the case that small farms is going to be more efficient—not only cost wise, but for the environment—than large scale farming.
> It’s almost never the case that small farms is going to be more efficient—not only cost wise, but for the environment—than large scale farming.
I can relate: Our SIL gave my wife a countertop gadget that holds six little cups into which you drop pre-packaged paper cups of seeds and soil. (You order them online.) The gadget has a grow light. You have to water the cups periodically My ux uses the gadget to grow basil and parsley, and snips off bits of leaves as needed for cooking. All-in, the crops cost probably 5-10X what we'd pay for fresh herbs at a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, let alone at an Aldi's or H-E-B. Ah, well: Signaling love and appreciation is important ....
They can help educate a nation on which are the healthiest foods to eat, how to prepare them, what they taste like, etc. That may allow us to more healthily feed a nation 100%, while also using fewer resources.
Traditionally, the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is actually a policy guidance document and not a marketing or handout document.
Nine pages is laughable and sad. There are entire missing sections on different life stages and transition foods. (edit: I see it now, I scrolled by it because it's way shorter than it usually is) That kind of sensitive guidance on nutrition is supposed to come from this document - which is usually 150+ pages and includes input from committees of registered dietitians.
I'm glad some people are enthusiastic to find nutritional clarity in their lives but I can't imagine this is going to be helpful for the institutions or people that usually rely on it.
Also, please remember this secretary is actively ignoring a measles outbreak, has an obsession with instagram health fads, and is a disgrace to the global scientific community.
This is for children and adolescents, which have different needs than the average adult. It's also just a meta analysis of literature with zero RCTs and a suggestive correlation. Unfortunately, these new guidelines don't seem even nearly detailed enough to cover these kinds of differences. The usual guidelines are well over 150 pages.
I am confused by this line from this article (which seems ABC-specific):
>The reality is, it's the Democrats who are voting no to reopening the government as they try to reverse cuts to health care made by Republicans.
1) Republicans control both house and Senate, so why is this an issue with Democrats voting with their views?
2) Healthcare funding is the least controversial thing to shut down the government for. This very article cites sick call-outs as a large contributing factor for the lack of tower personnel to begin with.
> 2) Healthcare funding is the least controversial thing to shut down the government for. This very article cites sick call-outs as a large contributing factor for the lack of tower personnel to begin with.
This isn't really the argument you think it is. The sick call-outs are not because they're actually sick (mostly, some may be). The sick call-outs are because:
1. Their annual leave requests are going to get denied.
2. Sick leave can't be denied for the first 3 days. In practice, self-certified "cough, cough, I'm sick" is accepted for the first few days. Past that, they could be required to produce medical forms certifying that they are, in fact, sick or injured.
3. Sick call-outs are a kind of strike, because federal employees will be fired if they go on an actual strike. So this is the only way they have to strike that doesn't guarantee they will be fired.
That said, I agree. Healthcare funding should be one of the least controversial things to shutdown a government over. But on your (1), the Republicans absolutely can open the government today. They can vote (so-called nuclear option) to change the rules and pass the bill with a simple majority instead of needing 60 votes.
I don't think it's entirely inaccurate to call out sick here. If you're having issues compartmentalizing the fact you are not getting paid it can impair your ability to effectively control the airspace.
Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers on a whim himself.
Regardless, it's too late now, you just can't deny that the threat of permanent discharge is now so moronic that nothing has come close in the entire history of aviation. I would imagine that many of those worried about their career have to put income above fealty to a ship being scuttled.
It was a very sound ship a year ago, completely solid for decades by comparison, now it's more full of holes than anybody could have imagined.
That was quick.
The smart move might just be to start delivering packages for Amazon on the first sick day, so you can get a head start without all the competition if everybody gets kicked out at once.
But my point was about GP's comment, they were relating the sick call-outs to healthcare in the US. These folks are not sick in a way that any of the current healthcare debate (what's involved in this shutdown at least) would help them with at all.
What has them sick is a president who insults them, and a legislative branch that can't do its job.
1) basically it'll take 60% of senators to reopen the government OR a majority of senators being willing to go nuclear and rewrite the Senate's rules
2) Healthcare has been incredibly controversial in America for the last 15 years or so. Current Republicans are not a fan of Obamacare (honestly I'd suspect the name is at least half the reason) and want to shut down or expire as much of it as possible.
Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.
But don't forget the emergency narrative: "We're being invaded!" and "Governors (bureaucrats, etc.) aren't doing what I want them to do it's now an emergency!". This is not only how our dictatorial executive overreaches, but also how its supporters justify the means in their minds.
Venue shopping should be illegal. Musk, and many other SLAAP plantiffs, routinely choose this judge because they know it's one of the few districts these cases won't be dismissed outright because of judge O’Connor.
