Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the 'worried well' is certainly alive and kicking. Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices. Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don't take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables. While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn't been well studied in large population groups. Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn't take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men. The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium. Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium. For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement 'just in case' offers little to no benefit. What supplements are readers likely to buy after reading this post? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - calcium and magnesium - none - a multi-vitamin
none

Young undocumented immigrants seeking permanent status in the United States received an unexpected boost Thursday on Capitol Hill as a small group of House Republicans mounted a last-minute effort to bring up an immigration vote in Congress. The group of eight Republicans some freed from political considerations by upcoming retirements and others facing tough re-elections races defied their own party leadership, quickly persuading 10 more Republicans to sign on to a petition that would force debate on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. With all 193 Democrats expected to sign on, Republicans will have to persuade just seven more members of their own party to join the petition to trigger a vote on several immigration bills on the House floor. But Republican leadership said the effort would be wasted if the end result is a presidential veto. "I think it's important for us to come up with a solution that the president can support," House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday. These types of petitions are rare and seen as a threat to leadership's ability to direct legislative action. "It's better to use the legislative process," Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters Wednesday. But that argument appears to be losing sway with House members who see an opportunity for legislative action in a mid-term election year. The growing group of House Republicans are joining Democratic colleagues who have long criticized Ryan for not bringing immigration bills up for a vote. "This is about making sure we're not consolidating power in the White House," said Representative Mia Love, a Republican from Utah and one of the first lawmakers to sign petition. The immigration issue had all but died after an effort to pass a DACA fix collapsed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. The program has been the focus of fierce negotiations on Capitol Hill since last September, when President Donald Trump announced he was ending the 2012 Obama-era program and called for a legislative fix. Who originated the DACA program? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - Clinton - Obama - not enough information - Bush
Obama

Q: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Who is the author? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - a blog reader - not enough information - a critic - a blog writer
A: not enough information

(Q).
This is part two of a four part series on Inner Wisdom Eating (IWE) The 4 steps of Inner Wisdom Eating (or eating like a thin person) are exactly the same as those promoted by Intuitive Eating. Eat when you're hungry Eat what you want Eat consciously Stop when you are full The difference lies in the approach and the detail. I will discuss each step in this four part series. EAT WHAT YOU WANT DOES YOUR FOOD SING TO YOU? Have a look in your fridge and cupboards. Does the food in there sing to you, does it call your name, and are you looking forward to eating it? Do you eat it because you enjoy it or because you think you should? By choosing only to eat what sings to me, I have discovered (again!) that I am not a big fan of meat and would rather eat a predominantly vegetarian diet. Occasionally I'll eat chicken leg and I love bacon but beyond that I'm not fussed. FOOD DOES NOT HAVE A VALUE There are no good and bad foods. There are no trigger foods or forbidden foods. There is nosuch thing as junk. There is a place in your diet for your favourite indulgences in moderation. Believe me that when you let yourself eat cheesecake, chocolate and hot chips, the novelty soon wears off. I mostly eat unprocessed food, not because it's "good" but because I love the taste and prefer how it makes me feel. YOU CAN STILL EAT DIET FOOD Low fat ice-cream, Diet Coke and protein powder are still in my diet but I eat them because I prefer the taste over their 'real' counterparts. I can still ask for dressing on the side and no butter on my sandwich not because I'm counting calories but because I can't see the point in eating food I don't actually want. What would the author think is a good meal? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - unprocessed food - cheesecake - not enough information - meat
(A).
unprocessed food