Saturday, 30 November 2013

Caution!!! Sugary drinks linked to increased endometrial cancer risk

Diet Soda

Sugar-sweetened beverages have long been associated with a number of health risks – including diabetes, obesity, dysentery and heart disease.  And now, a new study reveals that sugary drinks may also be associated with a significantly increased risk of a common type of endometrial cancer.
In a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, researchers analyzed data collected from 23,039 postmenopausal women as part of the Iowa Women’s Health Study. The data included information on the women’s dietary intake and medical history.
As part of the study, participants were asked to report their typical consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages – including Coke, Pepsi and other carbonated beverages with sugar – in addition to their consumption of noncarbonated fruit drinks, like Hawaiian Punch or lemonade.
Overall, the researchers discovered that the women who reported the highest intake of sugary drinks had a 78 percent increased risk of developing estrogen-dependent type 1 endometrial cancer – the most common type of endometrial cancer. The more sugary drinks the women consumed, the worse their risk for developing the cancer.
According to the researchers, type 1 endometrial cancer is an estrogen-dependent cancer, which may explain why sugary beverages are linked to an increased risk for the disease.
“High consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may increase body fat, and higher body fat may increase estrogen levels,” study author Maki Inoue-Choi, a research associate at the University Of Minnesota School Of Public Health in Minneapolis, told
Interestingly, the study didn’t find any correlation between increased intake of other criticized foods, such as sugar-free sodas, sweets or baked goods and starches.
While this study is the first to link sugar-sweetened beverages to endometrial cancer, Inoue-Choi emphasizes that more research is still needed to confirm the connection. But everyone should follow the current guidelines to avoid sugar-sweetened beverage intake, because it may increase the risk of other health conditions like obesity, diabetes heart disease and cancer.
Stay alive!

Friday, 11 October 2013

The effects of vitamin D medications’ on healthy bones is questionable

Adult in good physical shape (Healthy) do not need to take vitamin D supplements, suggests a study in The Lancet which found they had no beneficial effect on bone density, a sign of osteoporosis. But experts say many other factors could be at play and people should not stop taking supplements.
Supplementation to prevent osteoporosis in healthy adults is not necessary. However, maintenance of vitamin D stores in the elderly combined with sufficient dietary calcium intake remains an effective approach for prevention of hip fractures.
Bone mineral density is a measure of bone strength and measures the amount of bone mineral present at different sites in the body. It is often seen as an indicator for the risk of osteoporosis, which can lead to an increased risk of fracture.
The Department of Health currently recommends that a daily supplement of vitamin D of 10 micrograms (0.01mg) should be taken by pregnant and breastfeeding women and people over 65, while babies aged six months to five years should take vitamin drops containing 7 to 8.5 micrograms (0.007-0.0085mg) per day.
We get most of our vitamin D from sunlight on our skin, but it is also found in certain foods like oily fish, eggs and breakfast cereals. It was no good taking vitamin D supplements if people didn't also maintain a healthy, balanced diet containing calcium and take plenty of exercise. Most healthy people should be able to absorb enough vitamin D naturally, through sunshine and diet.
However, taking too much vitamin D in the form of supplements can be harmful because calcium can build up and damage the kidneys.

Monday, 30 September 2013

Video: My Philosophy on Globalization of Marketing by Theodore Levitt (Standardization)

It seem to me that the author is extremely bias in favour of standardization, and goes to any length to prove that it is the only way forward for companies wishing to sell goods globally. This might be because 1/3 of businesses used national standard in support of international trade and support economic integration of region.

The fact that he is for standardization allows him to overlook valid disadvantages and issues such as:
- Although there may be standardized products which are sold successfully globally, companies will still need to examine how well these products sell as demand and profit levels will differ depending on the country in which the item is being sold, thus where the demand is less there may be certain features in a product that consumers would like to alter in order for them to purchase.
- Selling a standard product means that the price of the product will be similar in each country, although depending on the country, disposable income levels will differ, thus a standardized product could limit the number of sales and therefore profits where consumers are unable to purchase a product that has not been adopted to suit income levels, they may not be able to afford it.
- Religion and deeply rooted culture will not change, bearing this in mind there will always be need for adaptation. For example, many cultures have traditional dress and foods which have been worn and eaten for decades.
Things learnt from the paper
He does open up a new argument and i have learnt some valid points which could open avenues for marketers, as he states that marketers should not sell what they think the customer wants, but instead should sell what they think they would like. If marketers were to instead sell what they thought consumers would like it would indeed be cheaper for them as they would not need to alter products to suit different tastes.
This paper allows one to question… is the world being homogenized a good state? or should we globally like the same things and should we retain our culture and different identity?
Deeper reality of this paper highlights the fact that for the sole purpose of profit, multinational companies are willing to prompt nations to sacrifice their national identity, culture and beliefs. Or is it the reverse that for the sake of purchasing the latest technology nations are willing to loose their cultural identity.
Theodore also highlights the fact that there may now be less need for marketing departments as Japanese companies operate almost entirely without marketing departments or research of the kind in the western worlds and simply produce things that the western world purchase. He highlights the fact that there may not be a need to research.
Author agrees that it would be silly to agree totally to standardization
In the mist of the paper the author confesses in the financial times article that when implementing his ideas he assures that this would be done with common sense. At this point it highlights that indeed the author is aware that as personally earlier stated, his comments are bias in favour of standardization, and have not fully accommodated the disadvantages of such an approach.

With the authors confession in mind the article should be read as he intends, and be used as a tool for the multinational company in highlighting the possible benefits of selling standardized product in some international countries although not taken literally as there are many disadvantages of solely adopting this approach for international markets.
At the point that the author confessed that the paper should not be read literally it highlights he is trying to show a different angle of production for multinational corporations, being standardization and illustrate that it may be the way forward in some markets and cheaper where it can be utilised.
 Business and Management Student, what do you think about this article? A penny for your opinion.