WHITE HOUSE A debate over patriotism and the right of free expression is continuing in the United States with President Donald Trump extending his criticism of professional athletes who decline to stand for the national anthem. The controversy was on display Tuesday afternoon on the White House South Lawn, where Trump briefly presided over a quickly reformatted celebration after his administration accused America's champion professional football team of attempting to turn the event into a "political stunt." Trump the previous day had disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles from what was to be a celebration of their Super Bowl victory. Many of the Eagles' players had indicated they would not attend in response to Trump's harsh criticism of athletes who have refused to stand during pregame performances of the national anthem even though all the Eagles stood for the anthem last season. Trump relabeled Tuesday's gathering as a "celebration of the American flag." Speaking for 3 minutes, he told flag-waving invited fans of the team that he wanted to explain why "young Americans stand for a national anthem. Maybe it's about time we understood." One attendee shouted at the president to "stop hiding behind the armed services and the national anthem." That prompted booing and the man was escorted from the event. Trump concluded by saying that the celebration turned out to be "even bigger than we anticipated" had the football players attended. Media reports said as few as five to 10 players had planned to attend Tuesday's event. "The vast majority of the Eagles team decided to abandon their fans," the White House said in a statement Tuesday. "The Eagles are the ones who tried to change their commitment at the 11th hour," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters just prior to the event. "If this wasn't a political stunt by the Eagles franchise, then they wouldn't have planned to attend the event and then backed out at the last minute." A White House statement said Trump withdrew the invitation "after... Question: How long did Trump take to discuss the party with the Eagles? Options: - not enough information - a few minutes - a few days - a few months === The correct answer is
a few days

Regular readers of Beauty Best Friend blog will know that I suffer from an extremely sensitive scalp which can be really itchy, and I have to be very careful what shampoo I use. I know that I'm sensitive to shampoos containing sodium laureth sulfate (also known as SLS, it's the ingredient that makes shampoos, shower gels and soaps lather) but I'm also sensitive to some other ingredients in shampoos too mainly fragrances. I had previously been using Rainforest Balance Shampoo and Conditioner from The Body Shop®️, but I found the conditioner a bit too rich and my hair didn't always feel totally clean after using it. So I started doing a bit of research into recommended natural shampoos and this Sensitive Shampoo from Lavera kept coming up again and again! Several of the reviews I read said that this was the best shampoo for sensitive scalps and that it left hair feeling really clean and soft, so I decided to try it. The shampoo is a translucent peach-coloured gel that contains organic witch hazel and organic almond milk. It has quite a strong scent, but it's a nice one so it doesn't put me off. The shampoo feels creamy when you rub it together in your hands, but I did need quite a lot of it to get a good lather on my first application the second application lathers a lot more easily. I definitely agree that this makes hair feel a lot cleaner than a lot of the other SLS-free shampoos that I've tried, my hair feels clean and full and soft when I've used it the same way it would do if I were using a regular shampoo. I think it also helps my hair to dry more quickly and makes it easier to straighten too. But where this shampoo is outstanding is the way it makes my scalp feel my scalp feels soothed and calm and there's no hint of itching. I've been using Lavera Sensitive Shampoo for over a year now and I wouldn't change it for the world, it's definitely one of the best shampoos for a sensitive itchy scalp. Question: Why did the author change shampoo? Options: - not enough information - the shampoo contained SLS - the Rainforest Balance Conditioner was too rich - the shampoo contained witch hazel === The correct answer is
the Rainforest Balance Conditioner was too rich

*Question*
Eating less food at night time is sensible advice for someone trying to lose weight. The reason often given is that if eat you too much food at night, the body will store all those excess kilojoules as fat because we're inactive until the next day. The reason sounds plausible, but if it was one hundred percent true then world hunger could be solved by just feeding people one meal at night time. What really matters is how much is eaten over days and weeks for weight gain or weight loss, not so much when it is eaten. There is merit though in advice to eat less at night time as it can help a person to cut back on the total quantity of food eaten. Eating lots of food in the evening can also be a marker for unhealthy dietary habits, especially if much of that extra food is going to fuel couch surfing exploits. So even though advice to eat less at night time seems logical, it hasn't actually been well tested by science to see how effective it can be for losing weight. Filling this gap, a short-term study involving 29 healthy men looked at how 2 weeks of restricted night time eating fared against 2 weeks of 'normal' evening eating. Advice on restricting night eating was very clear: avoid any food or drink containing kilojoules between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am the next morning. No other changes to the participants' diet or lifestyle was required so each person was free to eat whatever they wished during the day time hours until early evening. Twenty seven of the twenty nine people complied with following this advice for 2 weeks as well as the 2 week control period. Eating at night a waistline hazard So did people eat less when restricting night time eating? Yes, equal to 1000 kilojoules (about 250 Calories) per day less than during their normal eating pattern. This small energy difference was enough to see the men lose 0.4 kg over the 2 week restriction period, and gain 0.6 kg over the 2 week control period. Question: What is the most probable reason why the participants decided to join the trails? Options: - not enough information - to stop eating at night - to attempt to lose weight - to be able to eat more during the day === The correct answer is
**Answer**
to attempt to lose weight