Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
-
Blogs & Forums
-
Forums
-
Blogs
-
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Noel
Hope you are having a lovely day today!
Somebody mentioned pets - One time, quite a few years ago, I was on ebay looking at stuff for the bird and I found this lady who was selling these really lovely little towels with the species of parrot and your bird's name embroidered on.
I thought that was a great idea and they looked so nice. I wanted one for him, so I got one made from her.
O-MG! When I got that I could not believe that this brand new towel was SOOOOOOOOO (even more than that!) saturated in smoke. It was truly sickening. It took me two weeks to wash and soak the smoke out of that thing.
Found out this woman has birds and smokes! That is just unbelievable. One has every right to destroy their own body but to do that to those poor birdies just - dam! I can't even think about it because it's upsetting me. I've seen birds that were taken out of homes of smokers. It's horrible what it does to them. Dogs, cats, other pets too. :'(
Good point, CB! The dangers of second hand smoke not only to friends and family, but to pets.
BWT, I wanted to tell you that I sent the low pressure cooker back. I really wanted to try it but it's huge! It looked smaller on TV, I assumed maybe it was the same size as a crock pot but it was big and heavy.
Hope you are well, my friend
Aw, I'm sorry the low pressure cooker didn't work out for you. Oh well, if you have any enameled cast iron, that's great for getting the same type of results, just not as fast. 
I do a lot of oven simmering. Well, not a lot as I don't like to be wasteful of the utilities. But that's what I like for that sort of thing. Le Creuset pots are so very worth it!
I'm doing ok. You know how it is with auto-immune stuff - each day is a whole new adventure. I've been able to get a large supply of Tramadol. While it's not a narcotic (so it's not good for days of extreme pain) it really helps me with minor to moderate pain, but mostly with my fatigue. I can take that and have a few productive, almost feeling like a normal person, hours. OF course, I don't abuse it because I cannot become dependent. I'm way to much of a boring, responsible, practical, person for that. But on the days I need to be productive it has helped me a lot. I don't know what it is about it that cuts the fatigue, but it's been invaluable.
Cheers to ya!
For anyone interested, <em>Live Science</em> has a good summary on addiction (including gambling and sugar) and the difference between those and drug addiction.
The article doesn't exactly make a good case for sugar not being addictive. It basically states that a few people are addicted to sugar--but we shouldn't call them addicted, we should call them something else--and that those "few" people are the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country.
It makes a better case than that, explaining that activating a pleasure region in the brain is not the same thing as a drug addiction.
And, "But just because junk foods and drugs may activate the same area of the brain does not mean they are addicting, experts say."
"Anything that stimulates the reward pathway is going to be interpreted as something that’s necessary for life and needs to be repeated," Lander said. But many things that are not, in fact, necessary for life can stimulate this reward circuitry, including drugs, sugar, fatty foods, and even behaviors such as gambling and exercise..."
"Although many people like sweets, and would likely choose chocolate cake over fruit for dessert, this does not mean they're addicted to sugar, Frascella said."
Then what does it mean? They are choosing something unhealthy to activate a pleasure center in their brain, just as smokers, drinkers and drug-addicts do. If they are doing it to excess, they are probably addicted. Since more than half of the people in this country are considered obese, what does that say? It says a lot more to me than some b.s. article that relies on semantics in an attempt to make some sort of point.
For anyone interested, <em>Live Science</em> has a good summary on addiction (including gambling and sugar) and the difference between those and drug addiction.
The article doesn't exactly make a good case for sugar not being addictive. It basically states that a few people are addicted to sugar--but we shouldn't call them addicted, we should call them something else--and that those "few" people are the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country.
It makes a better case than that, explaining that activating a pleasure region in the brain is not the same thing as a drug addiction.
And, "But just because junk foods and drugs may activate the same area of the brain does not mean they are addicting, experts say."
"Anything that stimulates the reward pathway is going to be interpreted as something that’s necessary for life and needs to be repeated," Lander said. But many things that are not, in fact, necessary for life can stimulate this reward circuitry, including drugs, sugar, fatty foods, and even behaviors such as gambling and exercise..."
"Although many people like sweets, and would likely choose chocolate cake over fruit for dessert, this does not mean they're addicted to sugar, Frascella said."
Do they ignore what insulin does to your body?
And choosing fruit over chocolate cake is still choosing sugar.
For anyone interested, <em>Live Science</em> has a good summary on addiction (including gambling and sugar) and the difference between those and drug addiction.
The article doesn't exactly make a good case for sugar not being addictive. It basically states that a few people are addicted to sugar--but we shouldn't call them addicted, we should call them something else--and that those "few" people are the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country.
It makes a better case than that, explaining that activating a pleasure region in the brain is not the same thing as a drug addiction.
And, "But just because junk foods and drugs may activate the same area of the brain does not mean they are addicting, experts say."
"Anything that stimulates the reward pathway is going to be interpreted as something that’s necessary for life and needs to be repeated," Lander said. But many things that are not, in fact, necessary for life can stimulate this reward circuitry, including drugs, sugar, fatty foods, and even behaviors such as gambling and exercise..."
"Although many people like sweets, and would likely choose chocolate cake over fruit for dessert, this does not mean they're addicted to sugar, Frascella said."
Then what does it mean? They are choosing something unhealthy to activate a pleasure center in their brain, just as smokers, drinkers and drug-addicts do. If they are doing it to excess, they are probably addicted. Since more than half of the people in this country are considered obese, what does that say? It says a lot more to me than some b.s. article that relies on semantics in an attempt to make some sort of point.
It's not the article, it's the research reported.
But if you want to think Christmas cookies are as addicting and as big a killer as cigarettes, that's your right. It could be a good subject for discussion, but right now I'm more interested in the report on cigarettes.
For anyone interested, <em>Live Science</em> has a good summary on addiction (including gambling and sugar) and the difference between those and drug addiction.
The article doesn't exactly make a good case for sugar not being addictive. It basically states that a few people are addicted to sugar--but we shouldn't call them addicted, we should call them something else--and that those "few" people are the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country.
It makes a better case than that, explaining that activating a pleasure region in the brain is not the same thing as a drug addiction.
And, "But just because junk foods and drugs may activate the same area of the brain does not mean they are addicting, experts say."
"Anything that stimulates the reward pathway is going to be interpreted as something that’s necessary for life and needs to be repeated," Lander said. But many things that are not, in fact, necessary for life can stimulate this reward circuitry, including drugs, sugar, fatty foods, and even behaviors such as gambling and exercise..."
"Although many people like sweets, and would likely choose chocolate cake over fruit for dessert, this does not mean they're addicted to sugar, Frascella said."
Then what does it mean? They are choosing something unhealthy to activate a pleasure center in their brain, just as smokers, drinkers and drug-addicts do. If they are doing it to excess, they are probably addicted. Since more than half of the people in this country are considered obese, what does that say? It says a lot more to me than some b.s. article that relies on semantics in an attempt to make some sort of point.
It's not the article, it's the research reported.
But if you want to think Christmas cookies are as addicting and as big a killer as cigarettes, that's your right. It could be a good subject for discussion, but right now I'm more interested in the report on cigarettes.
I agree Noel.
For anyone interested, <em>Live Science</em> has a good summary on addiction (including gambling and sugar) and the difference between those and drug addiction.
The article doesn't exactly make a good case for sugar not being addictive. It basically states that a few people are addicted to sugar--but we shouldn't call them addicted, we should call them something else--and that those "few" people are the reason for the obesity epidemic in this country.
It makes a better case than that, explaining that activating a pleasure region in the brain is not the same thing as a drug addiction.
And, "But just because junk foods and drugs may activate the same area of the brain does not mean they are addicting, experts say."
"Anything that stimulates the reward pathway is going to be interpreted as something that’s necessary for life and needs to be repeated," Lander said. But many things that are not, in fact, necessary for life can stimulate this reward circuitry, including drugs, sugar, fatty foods, and even behaviors such as gambling and exercise..."
"Although many people like sweets, and would likely choose chocolate cake over fruit for dessert, this does not mean they're addicted to sugar, Frascella said."
Then what does it mean? They are choosing something unhealthy to activate a pleasure center in their brain, just as smokers, drinkers and drug-addicts do. If they are doing it to excess, they are probably addicted. Since more than half of the people in this country are considered obese, what does that say? It says a lot more to me than some b.s. article that relies on semantics in an attempt to make some sort of point.
It's not the article, it's the research reported.
But if you want to think Christmas cookies are as addicting and as big a killer as cigarettes, that's your right. It could be a good subject for discussion, but right now I'm more interested in the report on cigarettes.
I'm interested in the hypocrisy and ignorance of demonizing one thing over another.
I've known a few people who have died in their 20s because of "harmless" things like Christmas cookies. I don't know anyone who has developed lung cancer in their 20s.
Anyway, if it isn't the article you are talking about, why did you post a link to the article in the first place? If you wanted to discuss research findings, post a link to the actual research findings, not some sloppy, illogical article.
Footer Navigation and Information
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Manage Your Account
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Get More with QCard®
Enjoy 12+ VIP Savings Events a year (& more!).
Work with Us
Stay Connected
Download Our QVC Apps
This is Shopping Brought to Life.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2025 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788