|
|
|
 | Not for Hindus ... just kidding. Random thoughts, comments on anything that takes my fancy. Strictly a my opinion only & if you do not like, don't read, agree to disagree & go away happy. No flames, (flamers OK), request for photo/green card/webcam action etc please. |
|
|
|
|
| Franklin Speaking ... Holy Tata 1! |
Feb 13, 2008 12:13 am
Mood: Awed & Abreast of Things, 230 Views |  | I think Dolly Parton should have consulted Aretha Franklin before she ended up in bed for 6-8 weeks.
The woman has to be twice the size of Miz Parton and she's still mobile.
How this is achieved has been the source of much fervent discussion and study and scholars over at Holy Candy have finally found the mother lode.
It's all in the construction. It has been discovered that the Queen of Soul has devoted herself to the betterment of mankind. Casting aside her own musical career, Ms Franklin has allowed herself to be the cast for a new anti-gravity device. Higgs Bosom, I mean Boson, particle research has benefited from Her Highness' largess in lending her body to science.
I hereby post the results of the research. Please study the structural system carefully as the next post will give you the engineering low-down. |
| |
|
6 Comments | |
| Parton Me While I Lay Down |
Feb 12, 2008 7:46 pm
Mood: Still Hungry, 306 Views |  | Remember when I wrote about Miz Parton and made all those jokes about her headlights in Helloooo Dolly?
Well, I feel kinda bad now as the poor burdened warbler has had to cancel her North American tour and is now condemned to 6-8 weeks' of bed rest.
Reason? Bad back.
Reason for bad back? Blame the tits.
Crushed by this twin set-back, Miz Parton still retains enough humour to announce, "Hey, you try wagging these puppies around a while and see if you don't have back problems." She apparently named each - "shock" and "awe" respectively and has been known to remark, "I don't know if I'm supporting them or they're supporting me."
Gotta love the woman. Brassy balls, good humour, head screwed on the right way and no bs. Hope she gets back to her bouncy self again soon. |
| |
|
12 Comments | |
| Sweet N Low-Down |
Feb 12, 2008 7:17 pm
Mood: Hungry, 346 Views |  | Here's the latest low-down on artificial sweeteners. It's not working.
Two posts in a day about weight-loss. No, I am not obsessed. True, I did put on a little bit of weight in the last two weeks from the non-stop feasting but only in one area, which I will not mention in case it upsets MunchkinMatron.
I actually read about this a couple of days ago but decided to post the article as a continuation on a theme today.
When I was younger, lots of my colleagues were perpetually on a diet or some weight-loss quick scheme. Artificial sweeteners were par for the course for most of them. We had a strict mandate to maintain our weight under a rather stringent limit and everyone was always scrambling for the Sweet N Low at tea time.
I never liked it. The saccharine, bitter-sweet after-taste put me off my food. Which will not do, as I love food. I rather exercise for hours than to be deprived of food.
Also, there was always something about the chemical taste and composition of artificial sweeteners that made me nervous and dubious. I was always convinced that some weird-arse side effect will rear its ugly head somewhere down the line.
Furthermore, I really did not see much difference in weight in the friends who swore by Sweet N Low & Equal.
So this article did not surprise me. The only surprise is that it took so long before they came to this realisation.
Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008
Can Sugar Substitutes Make You Fat?
By Alice Park
Time Inc.
When it comes to dieting, most of us are willing to resort to a trick or two to help us curb our appetite and eat less — drinking water to fill up when we're hungry, for example, or opting for artificial sweeteners instead of sugar to get the same satisfying sweetness without the offending calories. But new research suggests that the body is not so easily fooled, and that sugar substitutes are no key to weight loss — perhaps helping to explain why, despite a plethora of low-calorie food and drink, Americans are heavier than ever.
In a series of experiments, scientists at Purdue University compared weight gain and eating habits in rats whose diets were supplemented with sweetened food containing either zero-calorie saccharin or sugar. The report, published in Behavioral Neuroscience, presents some counterintuitive findings: Animals fed with artificially sweetened yogurt over a two-week period consumed more calories and gained more weight — mostly in the form of fat — than Animals eating yogurt flavored with glucose, a natural, high-calorie sweetener. It's a continuation of work the Purdue group began in 2004, when they reported that Animals consuming saccharin-sweetened liquids and snacks tended to eat more than Animals fed high-calorie, sweetened foods. The new study, say the scientists, offers stronger evidence that how we eat may depend on automatic, conditioned responses to food that are beyond our control.
What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, Animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an Animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the Animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that Animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed Animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The Animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.
Swithers stops short of saying that the Animals in her study were compelled to overeat to compensate for phantom calories. But she says that the study does suggest artificial sweeteners somehow disrupt the body's ability to regulate incoming calories. "It's still a bit of a mystery why they are overeating, but we definitely have evidence that the Animals getting artificially sweetened yogurt end up eating more calories than the ones getting calorically sweetened yogurt."
Though it's premature to generalize based on Animal results that the same phenomena would hold true in people, Swithers says, she notes that other human studies have already shown a similar effect. A University of Texas Health Science Center survey in 2005 found that people who drink diet soft drinks may actually gain weight; in that study, for every can of diet soda people consumed each day, there was a 41% increased risk of being overweight. So even though her findings were in Animals, says Swithers, they could lead to a better understanding of how the human body responds to food, and explain why eating low-calorie foods doesn't always lead to weight loss. "There is lots of evidence that we learn about the consequences about eating food," she says. "And we have physiological responses to food that are conditioned."
So does that mean you should ditch the artificial sweeteners and welcome sugar back into your life? Not exactly. Excess sugar in the diet can lead to diabetes and heart disease, even independent of its effect on weight. But it's worth remembering that when it comes to counting calories, it's not just the ones you eat that you have to worry about. The calories you give up matter too, and they may very well reappear in that extra helping of pasta or dessert that your body demands. Your body may actually be keeping better count than you are.
But you know what I love? People who go to McDonald's and ask for a Diet Coke right after ordering a Big Mac Meal ... upsized. |
| |
|
7 Comments | |
| Glossed Over Truth |
Feb 12, 2008 6:44 pm
Mood: Lippy, 315 Views |  | I love makeup. I am girly enough to gush over a cool lip gloss or a brilliant new shade of eye shadow. So when I received the latest ad for a new lip gloss, I was fairly open minded and interested.
Too Faced Cosmetics (if you still do not get a clue with that name, I have a bridge to sell you) recently launched a new lip gloss entitled Fuze Slenderised Guilt Free lip gloss.
Why slenderised and guilt free?
Because this fruit-flavoured lip gloss professes to suppress your appetite with "the same mix of minerals and ingredients found in Coca-Cola's Fuze energy fruit drinks".
The blend of the minerals chromium and L-carnitine, along a hydroxycitric acide extract called Super Citrimax, in Fuze is touted to enable the size-challenged "to drink a full bottle of the beverage to get the promised hunger-easing metabolism boost".
The rocket scientist founder of Too Faced, Jerrod Blandino, claims that "the skin on the lips is very thin" so you "will ingest some of it" and that this is "playing with nutritional science in a girly way".
Since when is Coke Fuze a nutritional resource?
Nutritionists have, of course, been thin-lipped over this and given Too Faced some lip.
They wag that there's no hard evidence linking these [Coke Fuze & Fuze SGF] products to weight loss. One even expounded that you might lose weight if you kept putting on the flavored lip gloss which would be a distraction from eating, similar to chewing sugar-free gum.
What utter bollocks.
My theory is that lip gloss would only work as a weight-loss tool if it tastes like absolute shite. It tastes so bad, you would rather bite your own tongue off than lick your lips. You will be tight-lipped throughout the day rather than risk the accidental inhalation and tasting of the noxious balm. You will cease to eat. Voila, weight loss.
I can say this with full confidence as I abhor Chanel lip sticks. Not because I am anti-Franco or dislike the shades. But because their lip sticks are tragically vile-tasting.
Every time someone slicked a Chanel on my lips, I would cringe. It was the most torturous (and hungry) experience when Chanel was the official sponsor. The bitter, medicinal chemical taste would put a pained grimace on my face. Now that is a good weight loss tool.
See, Chanel? Never let it be said I did not give you some love ...
|
| |
|
8 Comments | |
| May God Strike Lightning ... |
Feb 12, 2008 6:02 pm
Mood: Awed, 280 Views |  | No, no, I am not being religiously incorrect. Not yet anyway.
Someone wrote to me asking how to add photos in the posts here. Well, it is fairly simple but restrictive and sometimes frustrating.
I don't know about the rest of you but sometimes, the photos just do not "stick" if you know what I mean.
You go to the Photo/Icon option in the middle of your Add A Post frame,
click on the Choose File button,
go browse through your hard disk for the chosen picture,
click OK,
see the image file name appear next to the Choose File button,
click on the Add button at the bottom of the frame ...
And depending on your luck and the FF forces that be, your picture may or may not appear on your post.
Sometimes it may be the picture is deemed "inappropriate" because some FF personnel had a bad day in church that day. Sometimes there is no apparent reason why when you try to post a photo of fluffy little bunny rabbit and it fails to upload.
If you are really persistent and/or pissed-off you keep clicking Add till the bloody image appears.
Or you give up.
Also, you can only include a single photo per blog which annoys me as I like lots of visual candy in my blogs. Hope that answers your question, Multiscan. Thanks for the kind email.
Anyway, today's photo is an amazing one from Rio de Janeiro. Christ the Redeemer had a light-bulb moment. The largest statue in the world was struck by lightning on Sunday during a megastorm that also felled trees in surrounding neighbourhoods.
There was no parting of the seas which is a bit of a disappointment. Christ was not hurt by the bolt from the sky. Maybe Papa decided not to preach and just went Old School on Sunday.
I sure hope I am not gonna be struck by lightning for this post. |
| |
|
6 Comments | |
| Any Wineshouse |
Feb 12, 2008 9:43 am
Mood: Knackered & Annoyed, 312 Views |  | Everyone's talking about Any Winehouse's almost clean sweep at the Grammys. I did not watch it and did not really have the time or inclination to do so.
But I did watch the clip of her performance in London that was broadcast at the Grammys. I liked it. It was classic Wino and I've always enjoyed her singing, songs and voice.
It was probably a good thing she did not attend the awards show as the tart sting of sour grapes would probably have sent her packing to the nearest crack house.
Surprisingly, many older and more established (sometimes also known as has-beens) singers started lambasting Wino's eligibility for the awards given to her at the Grammys.
Foresooth, they decried, she is not worthy! Natalie Cole loudly pronounced,
”I don’t think she should have won. I think it sends a bad message to our young people who are trying to get into this business, the ones who are trying to do it right and really trying to keep themselves together. We have to stop rewarding bad behavior.”
I’m sorry. I think the girl is talented, gifted, but it’s not right for her to be able to have her cake and eat it too. She needs to get herself together.”
I mean, she could die. This isn’t something that’s cute and fun just to throw around in the press. The girl really has a problem, and I think for those of us who have been in the business long enough, we know the sacrifice it takes. This is about discipline and hard work, and you don’t get to just do your drugs and go onstage and get rewarded.”
That Natalie Cole could deride her amused me greatly as the woman used to be an inveterate substance abuser herself. And if I remember correctly the last Grammy she won was in the 90s.
Even seemingly objective reporters spat venom at the substance suffocated singer with comments like,
"I don’t believe that we, as a viewing and purchasing audience, should reward those in positions of fame when they wilfully and knowingly act in ways that are illegal, immoral, and detrimental to themselves and their fans. Too many so-called “stars” are rewarded for acting like jerks when they should be punished for such behavior, whether that be by the law or by our closed wallets."
I think they're all missing the point. Wino won her awards for being an artist, not a human being, flawed or otherwise. She was judged on the merit of her work, not her screw ups.
The Grammy is given out on this criteria -
"Recording Academy members and record companies enter recordings and music videos released during the eligibility year which they consider worthy of recognition in the GRAMMY Awards process."
Whether you approve of Wino's messed up lifestyle or not, it does not change the fact the woman has talent and manifested these in a brilliant album and record. To take that away from her under the guise of concern and poorly-disguised envy and jealousy is more cracked up than her habit.
Does her self-destructive path diminish her talent and the merit of her work? Do we have a right to deny an artist her due as a creative genius just because we do not approve of her lifestyle?
I say No, No, No ... |
| |
|
10 Comments | |
| One For the Road |
Feb 11, 2008 7:17 pm
362 Views | You really have to watch your own back when you're constantly on the road. The usual rules for any traveller applies and it is really a matter of common sense.
Most people assume that female travellers are at greater risk but women, realising that they are prime targets, tend to be more cautious when on their own. Men, however, seem to believe in their own invincibility.
I've seen many male colleagues commit truly stupid mistakes when on the road. One-night stands is the biggest weakness for them and often with a high element of danger thrown in.
It's none of my beeswax and I usually just ignore their shenanigans but this latest article just proves my point that I know a lot of stupid men.
Rolex-wearers targeted by female drink-doctorers
Going to Dallas?
Men might want to leave that Rolex home and be wary of accepting a drink from a flirtatious stranger.
According to a Dallas Morning News story, a group of women has been targeting traveling men. They reportedly flirt in bars, cars and hotel rooms and then flee with the men's belongings. In one case, a 37-year-old Tampa businessman staying at the W Dallas-Victory hotel told police two women accosted him in the lounge and bought him a beer. When he woke up back in his room, he said his $4,000 Rolex watch, wallet, iPod and a laptop were gone.
According to the newspaper, a half-dozen men have reported thefts and many are from out of town. Several of the men sported Rolexes when they were approached.
The story says one victim was robbed while dancing in a hotel elevator. So be careful out there; police think not all victims have reported such crimes. If you have been ripped off by predatory females in Dallas or elsewhere, let authorities know. They think this may be happening in other cities, too.
Er ... no shite. This happens everywhere, mate. | |
|
8 Comments | |
| A Back Holmes |
Feb 11, 2008 6:36 pm
Mood: amused, 284 Views |  | Apparently, some men have decided a Katie back-Holmes is better than a back comb.
Wonder if it is a chick magnet.
Starts humming Watermelon Man ... |
| |
|
0 Comments | |
|
| To link to this blog (Whatsherface) use [blog Whatsherface] in your messages. |
|
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
11
|
2
|
31
|
4
|
52
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
124
|
131
|
14
|
|
151
|
161
|
17
|
182
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
233
|
241
|
251
|
261
|
27
|
281
|
|
293
|
301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
