Can diet beat depression?

Jan. 3, 2012 ? Research into diet and depression should follow the model of studies into diet and cardiovascular risk. So argue Almudena Sanchez-Villegas and Miguel A Mart?nez-Gonz?lez in an opinion piece, in BioMed Central?s open access journal BMC Medicine this week.

The authors, from the universities of Las Palmas and Navarra, assess the evidence into links between diet and depression and find it lacking. ?Depression is similar in many aspects to heart disease? they explained. ?Both are associated with low-grade inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and worse lipid profiles. This tends to suggest that the underlying causes, such as a diet high in trans fats, are also the same.?

Though there is plenty of evidence that there is an association, and that fast food increases risk of depression (while the Mediterranean diet decreases it), most of these studies do not show causality. Almudena Sanchez-Villegas continued, ?It is difficult to be sure that the diet is responsible for depression ? it could be that depressed people make bad food choices. Other study problems include ?confounders? which may influence dietary habits, such as marital status, exercise, alcohol (or smoking), medical conditions and social networks. Or simply genetics.?

Miguel A Mart?nez-Gonz?lez concluded, ?To address these issues we need long term, randomised clinical studies similar to ones successfully conducted for diet and cardiovascular disease risk. Only then will we really understand the impact of diet of depression.?

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by BioMed Central Limited.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Almudena Sanchez-Villegas and Miguel A Mart?nez-Gonz?lez. Diet, a new target to prevent depression? BMC Medicine, 2013 [link]

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_health/~3/exPKqfIN6NE/130102205517.htm

hatchet leah messer freedom riders 9th circuit court of appeals gisele bundchen tom brady randy travis arrested dickens

House finally ready to vote on fiscal deal

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Maneuvered into a political corner, House Republicans abandoned demands for changes in emergency legislation to prevent widespread tax increases and painful across-the-board spending cuts and cleared the way for a final, climactic New Year's night vote.

The decision capped a day of intense political calculations for conservatives who control the House. They had to weigh their desire to cut spending against the fear that the Senate would refuse to consider any changes they made in the "fiscal cliff" bill, sending it into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase.

Adding to the GOP discomfort, one Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.

The legislation cleared the Senate hours earlier on a lopsided pre-dawn vote of 89-8. Administration officials met at the White House to monitor its progress.

"I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declared after one meeting of the party's rank-and-file.

Despite Cantor's remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.

It wasn't the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions.

After intensive deliberations ? a pair of rank-and-file meetings sandwiched around a leadership session, the GOP high command had not yet settled on a course of action by early evening.

Instead, they canvassed Republicans to see if they wanted simply to vote on the Senate measure, or whether they wanted first to try and add spending cuts totaling about $300 billion over a decade. The cuts had passed the House twice earlier in the year but are opposed by most if not all Senate Democrats.

"We've gone as far as we can go," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "I think people are ready to bring this to a conclusion, and know we have a whole year ahead of us" for additional fights over spending.

The economic as well as political stakes were considerable.

Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the turn of the new year at midnight could send the economy into recession.

Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.

A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans have made a significant effort to extend it.

The Senate-passed bill was designed to prevent that while providing for tax increases at upper incomes, as Obama campaigned for in his successful bid for a second term.

It would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated two million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.

At the same time, it would stop $24 billion in spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.

The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere.

"I personally hate it," said Rep. John Campbell of California. "The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on."

Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets will plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hasn't been averted.

"There's a concern about the markets, but there's a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven't been very good at over the past two years," said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio.

House Democrats met privately with Biden for their review of the measure, and the party's leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said afterward that Boehner should permit a vote.

"That is what we expect. That is what the American people deserve," she said.

For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage would merely clear the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.

With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.

McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate ? two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline.

"We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."

The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided.

Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure.

Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.

It marked the first time in two decades that Republicans willingly supported higher taxes, in this case on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. Taxes also would rise on estates greater than $5 million in size, and on capital gains and dividend income made by the wealthy.

___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Larry Margasak and Julie Pace contributed to this story.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/house-vote-years-night-cliff-012539090--finance.html

pro bowl 2012 rick santorum daughter gainesville 2012 royal rumble the grey machine gun kelly saul alinsky

North Korean leader seeks end to confrontation with South

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-un called for an end to confrontation between the two Koreas, technically still at war in the absence of a peace treaty to end their 1950-53 conflict, in a surprise New Year speech broadcast on state media.

The address by Kim, who took over power in the reclusive state after his father, Kim Jong-il, died in 2011, appeared to take the place of the policy-setting New Year editorial published in leading state newspapers.

But North Korea has offered olive branches before and Kim's speech does not necessarily signify a change in tack from a country which vilifies the United States and U.S. ally South Korea at every chance it gets.

Impoverished North Korea raised tensions in the region by launching a long-range rocket in December that it said was aimed at putting a scientific satellite in orbit, drawing international condemnation.

North Korea, which considers North and South as one country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is banned from testing missile or nuclear technology under U.N. sanctions imposed after its 2006 and 2009 nuclear weapons tests.

"An important issue in putting an end to the division of the country and achieving its reunification is to remove confrontation between the north and the south," Kim said in the address that appeared to be pre-recorded and was made at an undisclosed location.

"The past records of inter-Korean relations show that confrontation between fellow countrymen leads to nothing but war."

The New Year address was the first in 19 years by a North Korean leader after the death of Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-un's grandfather. Kim Jong-il rarely spoke in public and disclosed his national policy agenda in editorials in state newspapers.

"(Kim's statement) apparently contains a message that he has an intention to dispel the current face-off (between the two Koreas), which could eventually be linked with the North's call for aid (from the South)," said Kim Tae-woo, a North Korea expert at the state-funded Korea Institute for National Unification.

"But such a move does not necessarily mean any substantive change in the North Korean regime's policy towards the South."

The two Koreas have seen tensions rise to the highest level in decades after the North bombed a Southern island in 2010 killing two civilians and two soldiers.

The sinking of a South Korean navy ship earlier that year was blamed on the North but Pyongyang has denied it and accused Seoul of waging a smear campaign against its leadership.

Last month, South Korea elected as president Park Geun-hye, a conservative daughter of assassinated military ruler Park Chung-hee whom Kim Il-sung had tried to kill at the height of their Cold War confrontation.

Park has vowed to pursue engagement with the North and called for dialogue to build confidence but has demanded that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, something it is unlikely to do.

Conspicuously absent from Kim's speech was any mention of the nuclear arms program.

(Additional reporting by Sung-Won Shim; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/north-korean-leader-rare-address-seeks-end-confrontation-024100592.html

natalee holloway scotty mccreery megan fox pregnant metta world peace suspension apple earnings report john l smith apple earnings

Dividend Taxes - Business Insider

Most of the attention around the Fiscal Cliff has been focused on income taxes.

The way the deal went down, a tiny portion of American taxpayers ? households that earn more than $450,000 per year ? will see their income taxes rise modestly, from 35% to 39.6%.

Everyone else's income taxes will stay the same.

But that's not the whole story.

By not addressing the payroll tax, the Fiscal Cliff deal will also result in a tax hike for all working Americans, including those in the middle and poor classes. All income up to $110,000 will now be socked with a 2 point increase in the payroll tax, from 4.2% to 6.2%, which will pluck $2,000 out of the pockets of families making $100,000 a year.

Meanwhile, thanks to a deal on dividend taxes, the highest earning Americans have gotten a massive tax cut over the taxes that would have taken effect had a Fiscal Cliff deal not been agreed to.

Dividend taxes for households making more than $450,000 per year will rise from 15% to 20% (plus an additional 3.8% surcharge for Obamacare, to a total of 23.8%). But they won't rise all the way to 39.6%, which they were scheduled to rise to without a Fiscal Cliff deal. Meanwhile, dividend taxes for those earning less than $450,000 a year will remain at 15% (18.8% with the surcharge, for those with income between $250,000 and $450,000). So the richest Americans have dodged a big tax bullet.

Importantly, the dividend tax deal will disproportionately help the richest Americans:

  • 47% of all dividend income is earned by the 3.8% of American households that make more than $200,000 per year (2009 tax data).
  • Households that make more than $200,000 collect a total of $70 billion of qualified dividends per year (2009). This tax change will save these households about $14 billion a year vs. the pre-deal tax rates.
  • The top 400 highest earning taxpayers collect about $10 billion a year in dividends, or $25 million apiece. This tax change will save these folks a BOAT LOAD of money: About $2 billion in total, or an average of about $5 million apiece (2009 data).

In other words, the tax deal that Congress just agreed to will raise $125 billion from increased payroll taxes from all working Americans (poor and middle class alike), while saving the richest Americans at least $20 billion in dividend taxes.

Some of the folks who will save money on dividend taxes will obviously pay more on wage income, so there will be some balancing. But some won't.

So, be happy this morning, rich Americans!

This is a great deal for you!

SEE ALSO: DEAR AMERICA: Here Are Your New Tax Rates

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/dividend-taxes-2013-1

pac 12 tournament sun storm tri international criminal court ios 5.1 apple tv update new ipad release

Samsung Galaxy Note II purportedly reaching South Korea in brown and red

Samsung Galaxy Note II purportedly reaching South Korea in brown and red

Yes, the black Galaxy Note II may have been more wishful thinking than reality, but that doesn't mean Samsung is sticking to a narrow palette for its extra-large flagship. A supposed magazine page in South Korea shows both a brown Note II (already available in Japan) and a previously unseen red model headed to the country at an unspecified point in the future. The claim sounds promising for those who've wanted more options than gray and white. All the same, we'll remain skeptical unless the new colors are made official -- Samsung hasn't commented on the authenticity of the page, and the original Korean forum post has disappeared without a trace. We can't help but hope it's real, though, if just for the chance of another smartphone designed for vampires.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Via: Unwired View

Source: Blog of Mobile (translated)

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/01/samsung-galaxy-note-ii-purportedly-reaching-south-korea-in-brown-and-red/

fab melo google glasses kim kardashian and kanye west henrik stenson jobs act greg mortenson jim marshall died

My personal finance goals for 2013 | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Happy New Year! ?Tonight we say goodbye to 2012 and tomorrow we welcome the year 2013. ?New Year?s Resolutions will be made by the millions but I?m more of a goals gal; I prefer to set goals rather than make resolutions and every year I sit down and make a list of personal finance goals for the New Year.

?

The first step in this process is to look back at my personal finance goals for 2012. ?I had three main goals: ?increase retirement savings to 15 percent of our gross household income, create a nine-month emergency savings account and pay off my student loans. ?

?

Unfortunately, I didn?t complete all of these goals. I?m only human and I?m not afraid to share my failure because I did make progress and in hindsight, I?ve realized that perhaps I was a bit aggressive with my goal setting. ?Paying off my student loans didn?t happen ? that was a very aggressive goal and while it would have been nice, it just wasn?t very realistic.

?

Nine months of savings also proved to be just beyond our reach. ?Our savings did grow throughout the year, though, and so this is still a work-in-progress. ?We did boost our retirement savings, not quite to the 15 percent level but pretty close. ?Last year we managed to save about 12 percent of our household income for retirement. ?

?

Now that I?ve reflected, its time to look to the future and share a few of my personal finance goals for 2013

?

  • Continue increasing retirement savings until we reach the 15 percent mark
  • Have a will drawn up
  • Reduce my energy costs by 10 percent
  • Reduce my food and grocery budget by 10 percent

?

These goals certainly look achievable; notice I didn?t set a goal of paying off my student loans this year? ?That?s not going to happen for a few more years. ?See, I learned from last year?s financial goal faux pas.

?

What are your personal finance goals for 2013?

Source: http://www.mnn.com/money/personal-finance/blogs/my-personal-finance-goals-for-2013

crimson tide crimson tide 2013 ford fusion bcs jay z glory alabama crimson tide barry larkin