Things that are going on that you might want to know. 

10

Never skip breakfast.

Never leave the house without a care package of healthy snacks.

Eat a good mix of carbohydrates and protein with each meal.

Such suggestions sound like good tips for slimming down -- but are they also an action plan for fending off depression, stress, anxiety and mood swings?

Absolutely, say some dietitians and researchers. "The link between food and mood is becoming much more known in a lot of ways," says Lynn Smith, a dietitian who helps patients use dietary changes to wean themselves off anti-depressants or avoid going on them.

The body of clinical research on the relationship between what we eat and how we feel has grown substantially in the past decade but is still fairly small. Nutritionists caution that not all mental illness can be tackled with changes in diet.

But as prescriptions for anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications skyrocket, an array of books, lectures and clinics around the country are beginning to emphasize the notion that the food we eat can have a profound effect on our emotional state.

"I don't think it is being given anywhere near enough attention," says Elizabeth Somer, author of "Food and Mood Cookbook." (2004; Henry Holt) "Many doctors don't even ask pregnant women what they are eating, much less people who come in with depression."

Somer and Smith say there are two main factors in diet-related mood problems.

First, people are not eating enough of the right building blocks for neurotransmitters, the chemical messengers that help nerve cells communicate.

Second, they are eating too many refined sugars, which cause blood sugar to spike fast and high, then plunge below a healthy level.

At least five critical neurotransmitters are directly related to the foods we eat, writes Somer.

For instance, low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter built from the amino acids found in vitamins B6, B12, folic acid and other nutrients, may result in insomnia, depression, increased sensitivity to pain and aggressive behavior.

Low levels of dopamine and norepinephrine -- built up with the help of magnesium, B12 and folic acid -- leave people feeling irritable and moody. Fatty acids Omega 3 (fish oil) and Omega 6 (certain vegetable oils) also have been shown in some clinical studies to be associated with mood stabilization.

Unfortunately, says Smith, highly processed food loses many of these micro-nutrients in the manufacturing process.

Then there is the sugar roller-coaster.

"If we just got people off the massive quantities of sugar that we do, we would take care of a lot of the depression in this country," says Smith.

We tend to reach for sugar because it quickly spikes levels of feel-good serotonin, dietitians say. But it also spikes blood sugar levels dramatically within 10 or 15 minutes. When the body tries to stabilize itself, it overcompensates, dragging the level exceedingly low within 25 to 40 minutes. Low blood sugar is associated with depression, fatigue and anxiety.

Caffeine tends to make the crash even harder.

Nutritionists say a diet high in complex carbohydrates, such as fruits and whole grains, with a good balance of protein and minimal caffeine and sugar is the best bet.

Source:  Cincinnati Post
 

11

BBC News Online  July 19, 2005

The sight of the sea is the quickest and most effective way to reduce high stress levels for many people, a survey has found.

A poll of 2,000 adults by Hoegaarden found daily stress is a problem for 30% of the population.

However, 84% said being in contact with the natural elements made them feel more relaxed instantly.

Other popular stress busters included a walk in the park, the smell of cut grass and the sound of birds singing.

The most often cited causes of stress included the morning commute (13%), work itself (32%) and simply getting up (14%).

Just 19% of those who live or work in rural locations say they feel stressed on a daily basis.

On average city dwellers can expect to spend 73 days without more than five minutes of silence at a time, whilst those who live in rural areas go only 14-21 days.

Almost a quarter (22%) of all Londoners have not experienced silence for over six months.

And they are almost as likely to have seen a mouse or rat in the last month (22%) as they are a sheep (28%) or cow (28%).

Christine Webber, who worked on the report, said the fact that people in urban areas seldom interacted with the natural environment had led to rising stress levels.

She said that with little time off people were missing out on both the physical benefits and psychological benefits of the great outdoors.

Lots of overtime

TUC figures published earlier this year showed that the average UK employee does almost an extra day's work a week in overtime.

Dr George Fieldman, a cognitive therapist and evolutionary psychologist based in High Wycombe, told the BBC News website it was possible that communing with nature helped to relieve stress by repeating the long-engrained behaviours of our distant ancestors.

"I have a theory that people derive comfort from staring endlessly at the television because there is a parallel to the way our ancestors used to stare at a flickering flame, and get confidence from the fact that it might repel potential predators," he said.

However, Dr Fieldman said it was diffcult to separate out the psychological benefits of taking a walk in the park or by the sea from the well known physiological benefits derived from taking exercise.

 POPULAR STRESS BUSTERS
A sea view: 42%
A walk in the park: 33%
Hearing bird song: 14%
The smell of cut grass: 10%

Source:  BBC News Online

 

12

ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts 

"Out of the Mainstream" Nominee Poses Threat to Americans with Disabilities

Statement of Jim Ward, Founder and President of ADA Watch/NCDR:

(Washington, DC) ADA Watch/NCDR is opposed to the nomination of Judge John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
At a time when our Nation could have greatly benefited from the selection of a mainstream consensus nominee, people with disabilities --indeed all Americans -- should be saddened and disturbed by President Bush's choice of Judge John Roberts to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
While Justice O'Connor did not take the side of people with disabilities in all cases, she was the swing vote on important 5-4 rulings involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including historic cases such as Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) and Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
 
With the selection of John Roberts, President Bush is making good on his stated intention to fill a Court vacancy with a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas -- Justices who have consistently ruled against people with disabilities in these and other landmark cases. If confirmed, such 5-4 votes would surely go in the other direction and reverse the historic gains of people with disabilities.

ADA Watch/NCDR is a coalition of hundreds of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to defend and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical, mental, cognitive and developmental disabilities. 

Why we are opposed to Judge John Roberts:

Narrow Interpretation of the ADA:
After the Sixth Circuit ruled that a woman with serious manual impairments was substantially limited in one or more of her life activities, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224 F.3d 840 [2000]), and Judge Roberts argued and briefed the case on behalf of Toyota. His briefs and oral argument distorted the facts of the case and minimized the extent of Ella Williams' disability.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed Judge Robertss misrepresentations and decided in favor of Toyota. It also came down with a new and very strict test for disability. This test has made it much more difficult for ADA plaintiffs to prove that they are disabled with devastating impact on people with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness and workplace injuries.
 
The impact of Robert's distortions is evident in subsequent decisions including Three Rivers Center for Independent Living v. Pittsburgh Public Housing Authority, which barred a Center for Independent Living (CIL) from filing suit to hold a Public Housing Authority accountable for violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
 
Thus the consequences of Judge Robertss distortions of the record have been wide-ranging: they helped to create yet another unfortunate Supreme Court precedent that has further impeded the goals of the ADA.

Judicial Activism:
Roberts record demonstrates his inclination to strike down federal anti-discrimination statues and to further limit congressional power, narrowly construe the ADA, and restrict the ability of plaintiffs to get into federal court.

Extremist Ideology:
Roberts declared that the current Supreme Court is not conservative enough specifically in response to the October 1999 term during which the conservative majority judicial activism included the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act and throwing out an age discrimination suit on federalism grounds. 

Mr. Roberts is a member of two right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council. 

The Federalist Societys overarching goal is to roll back domestic policy to before FDRs New Deal and its members (including Jeffrey Sutton, William Pryor, and others) have specifically targeted the ADA. The National Legal Center For The Public Interest has attacked ADA civil rights protections in numerous forums including its publication of a document entitled "Civil Rights and the Disabled: The Legislative Twilight Zone."  
 
Narrowing of Civil Rights Protections:
After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act (City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 [1980]), Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action. The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

As expressed in one case where he would have invalidated a provision of the Endangered Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority, more restrictive than the current Supreme Court's, could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections. 

In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans.  
 

13

14

Page

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31]