How Much Sugar Is In Your Food And Drink?

In our modern and fast-paced lives, it can be difficult to keep a healthy balance of nutrients in our food. Sugar is one of these nutrients, and the cells in our body would die without it.
Consuming too much sugar, however, raises the risk of several problems, including poor dental health, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.
To keep control of sugar levels, it helps to know just how much sugar there is in the food we eat. Here, we list the sugar content of numerous everyday foods, both processed and natural.

Contents of this article:

1. What is sugar?
2. Sugar content in common foods and drinks
3. Why should I monitor my sugar intake?
4. Video - Sugar: The bitter truth
5. Video - Sugar: What are added sugars?

What is sugar?

Sugar is a simple carbohydrate that belongs to a class of chemically-related sweet-flavored substances. It comes in many different forms. The three main types of sugar are sucrose, lactose, and fructose.
Even though our cells need sugar (glucose) to survive, consuming too much of it can cause numerous health problems. Added sugar contains no beneficial nutrients and, in excess, only contributes to tooth decay, diabetes, and obesity.
The American Heart Association (AHA) say that added sugars "contribute zero nutrients" and are just empty calories "that can lead to extra pounds, or even obesity, thereby reducing heart health."
Being aware of the existing and added sugar contents of the foods and drinks we consume is vital to our health - even more so today because so many products have sugar added to them.
In March 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) published new guidelines recommending that adults and children alike reduce their consumption of free sugars to less than 10 percent of their total energy intake, with a further reduction to below 5 percent associated with additional health benefits.
The term "free sugars" refers to glucose, fructose, and sucrose added to foods and drinks, as well as sugars naturally present in syrups, honey, and fruit juice. The term does not apply to sugars found naturally in fresh fruit, vegetables or milk because there is no evidence associating the consumption of these sugars with adverse effects.
A single teaspoon of sugar is around 4 grams. The WHO recommend that we should reduce daily sugar consumption to 5 percent of daily energy intake; that would equate to 6 teaspoons of sugar.

Sugar content in common foods and drinks

Below we have listed some common everyday foods and drinks, together with their sugar content. This is designed to give a little guidance when making dietary choices. Some of the following items' sugar content may come as a surprise:

How much sugar is in a chocolate bar?

With high sugar content, chocolate should always be viewed as an occasional treat.

• Snickers bar (52.7 grams) - 6.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Milk chocolate bar (44 grams) - 5.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Milky Way bar (58 grams) - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• 3 Musketeers bar (60 grams) - 10 teaspoons of sugar
• Butterfinger bar (60 grams) - 7 teaspoons of sugar
• Dove chocolate bar (40.8 grams) - 5.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Hershey's Milk Chocolate bar (43 grams) - 6 teaspoons of sugar
• Twix bar (50.7 grams) - 6 teaspoons of sugar
• Milk chocolate M&M's packet (47.9 grams) - 7.5 teaspoons of sugar

How much sugar do soft drinks contain?

Soft drinks often contain a high amount of sugar.

• Coca-Cola (one can) - 8.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Pepsi cola (one can) - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Red Bull (one can) - 6.9 teaspoons of sugar
• Sprite (one can) - 8.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Mountain Dew (one can) - 11.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Old Jamaica Ginger Beer (one can) - 13 teaspoons of sugar

A study published in Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association, identified a link between drinking more than one soft drink a day and increased risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.

How much sugar is in your breakfast cereal?

*(per 100 grams)

Froot Loops are said to contain 105 times more sugar than Shredded Wheat.

• Alpen - 5.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Cheerios - 1 teaspoon of sugar
• Corn Flakes - 2.4 teaspoons of sugar
• Cocoa Krispies - 9.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Froot Loops - 10.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Raisin Bran - 7.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Frosted Flakes - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Honey Smacks - 14 teaspoons of sugar
• Rice Krispies - 2.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Special K - 3 teaspoons of sugar
• Wheaties - 3.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Trix - 8 teaspoons of sugar
• Lucky Charms - 9 teaspoons of sugar
• Rice Chex - 2 teaspoons of sugar
• Wheat Chex - 2.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Corn Chex - 2.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Honey Nut Cheerios - 8.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Reese's Puffs - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Golden Grahams - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Cocoa Puffs - 9.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Cookie Crisp - 8.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Shredded Wheat - 0.1 teaspoons of sugar
• Cocoa Pebbles - 9 teaspoons of sugar
• Banana Nut Crunch - 4.5 teaspoons of sugar.

In June 2012, researchers from Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity revealed that even though cereals aimed at kids had become more nutritious, cereal companies (such as Kellogg, General Mills, and Post) had increased their advertising spending considerably. Cereal advertising aimed at children increased by 34 percent between 2008 and 2011.
Marlene Schwartz, deputy director of the Rudd Center, said:

"While cereal companies have made small improvements to the nutrition of their child-targeted cereals, these cereals are still far worse than the products they market to adults. They have 56 percent more sugar, half as much fiber, and 50 percent more sodium.
The companies know how to make a range of good-tasting cereals that aren't loaded with sugar and salt. Why can't they help parents out and market these directly to children instead?"

How much sugar does fruit contain?

Fruits contain a type of sugar called fructose. Fresh fruit has no "added sugar," but as you can see below, their levels of sugar range from 1 teaspoon per 100 grams in cranberries to 4 teaspoons in grapes.
*per 100 grams

Bananas contain approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar (fructose).

• Mangos - 3.2 teaspoons of sugar
• Bananas - 3 teaspoons of sugar
• Apples - 2.6 teaspoons of sugar
• Pineapples - 2.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Grapes - 4 teaspoons of sugar
• Lemons - 0.6 teaspoons of sugar
• Kiwi fruit - 2.3 teaspoons of sugar
• Apricots - 2.3 teaspoons of sugar
• Strawberries - 1.3 teaspoons of sugar
• Raspberries - 1 teaspoon of sugar
• Blueberries - 1.7 teaspoons of sugar
• Cranberries - 1 teaspoons of sugar
• Tomatoes - 0.7 teaspoons of sugar.

How much sugar do cakes and desserts contain?

A medium slice of carrot cake contains approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar.

• Banoffee pie (1 medium portion) - 4.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Carrot cake (1 medium slice) - 3 teaspoons of sugar
• Custard (1 medium portion) - 3.25 teaspoons of sugar
• Chocolate mousse (1 medium portion) - 3 teaspoons of sugar
• Donut (1 jam doughnut) - 3.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Fruit pie (1 medium portion) - 3.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Fruitcake (1 medium slice) - 5 teaspoons of sugar
• Muffin (one chocolate chip muffin) - 4.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Ice cream (1 scoop) - 3 teaspoons of sugar
• Rice pudding (1 portion) - 3.75 teaspoons of sugar
• Sponge cake (1 medium slice) - 5.5 teaspoons of sugar
• Swiss roll (1 roll) - 2.5 teaspoons of sugar.

Why should I monitor my sugar intake?

The American Heart Association has urged people to cut their added sugar intake because of evidence that it can cause the following health conditions:

• Obesity - scientists at the Medical Research Council found that eating more sugar is associated with obesity.
• Heart disease - research published in JAMA Internal Medicine investigated sugar intake and cardiovascular disease related deaths. They concluded that: "Most U.S. adults consume more added sugar than is recommended for a healthy diet. We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality."
• Type 2 diabetes - although sugar does not directly cause diabetes, individuals who consume more sugar than average are more likely to be overweight, which is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

Added sugar consumption far too high

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that far too many Americans are consuming too many calories from added sugars. A report published in 2013 revealed that nearly 13 percent of adults' total caloric intake is coming from sources such as sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

Vitamin C can target and kill cancer stem cells, study shows

Cancer is currently one of the top killers worldwide, and the number of cancer cases is only expected to rise. Although there are a number of therapies available, most of them are toxic and cause serious side effects. New research examines the impact of the natural vitamin C on cancer cell growth.  

Cancer is the second leading cause of death and disease worldwide, accounting for almost 9 million deaths in 2015, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
The global number of new cases of cancer are expected to grow by around 70 percent in the next 20 years.

In the United States, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimate that almost 40 percent of U.S. men and women will have developed cancer at one point during their lives.
There are various treatment options available for cancer, but they are not always effective; most of them are toxic, and they tend to have a variety of side effects.

In some more aggressive cases, the cancer does not respond to treatment, and it is believed that cancer stem-like cells are the reason why the cancer comes back and metastasizes.
New research, published in the journal Oncotarget, examines the effectiveness of three natural substances, three experimental drugs, and one clinical drug in stopping the growth of these cancer stem cells (CSCs.)

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Salford in Manchester in the United Kingdom, and was led by Dr. Gloria Bonuccelli.

Vitamin C up to 10 times more effective than experimental drugs

In total, the researchers measured the impact of seven substances: the clinical drug stiripentol, three experimental drugs (actinonin, FK866, and 2-DG), and three natural substances (caffeic acid phenyl ester (CAPE), silibinin, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C).)
The research focused on the bioenergetic processes of CSCs, which enable the cells to live and multiply. The study aimed to disrupt the CSCs' metabolism and ultimately prevent their growth.
Of all the substances tested, the team found that actinonin and FK866 were the most effective. However, the natural products were also found to prevent the formation of CSCs, and vitamin C was 10 times more effective than the experimental drug 2-DG.
Additionally, the study revealed that ascorbic acid works by inhibiting glycolysis - the process by which glucose is broken down within the cell's mitochondria and turned into energy for the cell's proliferation.

Dr. Michael P. Lisanti, professor of translational medicine at the University of Salford, comments on the findings:

"We have been looking at how to target cancer stem cells with a range of natural substances including silibinin (milk thistle) and CAPE, a honey-bee derivative, but by far the most exciting are the results with vitamin C. Vitamin C is cheap, natural, nontoxic and readily available so to have it as a potential weapon in the fight against cancer would be a significant step."

"This is further evidence that vitamin C and other nontoxic compounds may have a role to play in the fight against cancer," says the study's lead author.

"Our results indicate it is a promising agent for clinical trials, and as an add-on to more conventional therapies, to prevent tumor recurrence, further disease progression, and metastasis," Bonuccelli adds. 
 
Vitamin C has been shown to be a potent, nontoxic, anticancer agent by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. However, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first study providing evidence that ascorbic acid can specifically target and neutralize CSCs.

Here’s how air pollution kills 3,450,000 people a year

Air Pollution kills. A study released yesterday in the journal Nature found that in 2007, air pollution lead to the premature deaths of 3.45 million people worldwide—a number equivalent to the population of the state of Connecticut. And to add insult to injury, air pollution doesn’t respect borders.

Twenty-two percent of the deaths were linked to pollution created by products consumed elsewhere. For example, a significant percentage of the deaths in China were caused by air pollution released while creating baubles later bought and sold in the West.

“Air pollution can travel long distances and cause health impacts in downwind regions," said study co-author Qiang Zhang, a researcher at Tsinghua University, Beijing. “Our study revealed that international trade has greatly extended the distance of such impacts by separating the locations of consumption and production.”

Being located outside of the most heavily polluted regions offers no respite, because pollution migrates. The study found that roughly 12 percent of premature deaths were caused by pollution released somewhere else in the world. Similarly, a 2014 study found that China's pollution contributes to California's smog.

“Previous research believed that pollution was a local issue and did not require global efforts,” said Dabo Guan, a researcher at Tsinghua University and a co-author on the study. “My point here is that we're a globally connected, intensively connected world. No one has a way out of the impact, because we are either producers or consumers. Sometimes we are both.”

What makes pollution so harmful is something called PM 2.5. PM stands for particulate matter, a complex mix of liquid droplets and small particles created when we burn gasoline in cars, or when we fire up a coal power plant to make electricity. The notation 2.5 is a reference to the size of the particles—2.5 microns.

Roughly 40 times smaller than the smallest grain of beach sand, PM 2.5 are small enough to slip inside our airways as we inhale, lodge in our lungs, and take a ride on our cardiovascular system. As a result, they can cause a host of health issues, including the deaths tracked in the study. In fact, although much of the conversation around the Clean Power Plan—which President Trump rescinded on Tuesday by executive order—has focused on greenhouse gas emissions, the plan would have also significantly reduced PM 2.5 pollution, saving as many as 3,600 lives by 2030 and reducing childhood asthma attacks by 90,000.

You may not want to take a deep breath after reading this.

Since 2013, China has been working to clean up its act and has reduced pollution emissions by six or seven percent according to Guan. But even as one emissions giant is reducing, another is increasing. India is burning more coal than ever. Unless we can come to a global consensus about pollution, there will always be someone leading the race to the bottom.

“If you're somewhere in Asia, where your economy has developed by making a lot of goods for developed countries elsewhere, and you're thinking that the health impacts of the pollution are a negative impact on your society, which of course they are, cleaning up is not just a simple matter,” said Steven Davis a researcher at the University of California, Irvine and a co-author on the study. “Because they're obviously concerned about potential impacts on their economy. If they decided to drastically clean up their economy, some other country would step up and say, we're willing to have our people die to have that business.”

“This is why it's a complex issue where we need to have some global governance,” added Davis. “This is how you solve the tragedy of the commons—you have someone actually minding the store.”

How many hours of sleep do you actually need?

Sleep is a time suck. If you multiplied the average recommended number of hours we should sleep in a day—eight for a typical adult—by the number of days in an average lifespan (78.8 years in the United States), that would amount to about 9,587.3 days. That’s one third of your life spent unconscious. From an evolutionary standpoint, sleep is quite literally a waste of your time, yet it’s fought its way through countless years of adaptation in nearly every living animal on Earth. So it must be important, right?

In fact, researchers have found that sleep plays a vital role in the functioning of nearly every organ system in the body. At the same time, medical conditions, a busy schedule, and even the simple unavoidable act of aging constantly challenge the number of hours we allow ourselves. But that begs the question: how much sleep do we actually need? And can we train ourselves to need less?

First, let's talk about that eight hour figure that gets tossed around. It’s far from some arbitrary number. It's truly the number of hours we naturally crave, and there are two pretty strong pieces of evidence for it. In a series of experiments, researchers took study participants into a laboratory with no sunlight or other visual cues and, at night, gave them a non-negotiable, nine-hour-long opportunity to sleep. They did this each night for a number of weeks, and the results were always the same: even when provided with more time, humans will typically spend an average of eight hours catching up on their Zzz.

And that wasn't the only study to support the eight-hour sleep schedule. Back in 1938, a sleep researcher named Nathaniel Kleitman and one of his students spent 32 days living in Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, one of the longest and deepest caves in the world—an environment completely void of sunlight. When they analyzed their sleep patterns, they found that they, too, slept about eight to eight and a half hours per night.

But what happens when we deprive ourselves, as many Americans do, of all or some of these recommended hours? It turns out, a lot. In 2003, David Dinges and Gregory Belenky, both sleep researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Walter Reed Army Research Institute, performed some of the most pivotal studies on the consequences of sleep deprivation thus far. Their goal was to figure out how little sleep a person could get away with, without having it affect their cognitive performance.

The two studies involved two-week-long experiments where researchers deprived participants of varying hours of sleep. Before they did so, they first allowed subjects to receive eight hours of sleep, followed by a series of cognitive tests the next day—which measured things like someone’s speed of response, how well they could interpret a written passage, and the number of times they dozed off for a second or two (what science calls a microsleep). All of this gave them a baseline for each subject's normal cognitive performance.

The researchers on Dinges’ team then assigned the participants to one of four groups: one group was allowed eight hours of sleep for the following two weeks, the next six, then four, and the last group received zero hours of sleep for up to three days straight.
That last group, says Matthew Walker, the director of the sleep and neuroimaging lab at the University of California, Berkeley, showed just how much your cognitive performance suffers after just one night of total sleep deprivation. What Dinges and colleagues found (and what subsequent studies have confirmed) is that to your brain, one sleepless night is the cognitive equivalent of being legally drunk, says Walker.

The rest of the groups weren't so far behind. While the group that received eight hours of sleep saw virtually no change to their cognitive performance throughout the two-week study, after just 10 days the participants that slept six hours each night were as cognitively impaired as those suffering from a night of total sleep deprivation. And the group that got four hours? It only took them three days before they reached that same level of impairment. By 10 days in, they were as cognitively impaired as if they had gone two days with no sleep. As the days went by, these detriments didn't slow down. “If you looked at the data graphs, there’s no end in sight. That was the frightening thing,” says Walker.

When Dinges compared his results to his colleague’s at Walter Reed—who had done the same exact study but with odd hours (meaning seven, five, and zero hours of sleep), their findings were basically identical. Even the group that slept seven hours a night—which some people think of as a luxury, says Walker—were dozing off at a rate three times greater than the group sleeping eight hours a night just five days into the experiment. So, how much sleep can you take away before someone becomes cognitively impaired? Sorry, but the answer is less than one hour.

Okay, so that’s sadly settled: we should all be getting no less than eight hours of sleep per night. No exceptions. But we all lead extremely busy lives, especially during the workweek. Can we make up any of those hours lost during the week on the weekends (similar to those weekend warrior who still receive health benefits from only exercising on twice a week) so that you average eight hours a night? The researchers asked the same question.

After the sleep deprivation part of the study was done, the researchers then gave the participants three nights of “recovery sleep” where they were allowed as much as they wanted (unsurprisingly, most slept way more than eight hours). After those three days, they took the same cognitive screening tests. But the participants hadn't returned to the baseline levels they had at the beginning of the study. In other words, if you are sleep deprived—meaning you are sleeping seven hours or less each night—then it takes you longer than a weekend to get back to baseline. And no one's figured out how long it actually takes.

“People think that sleep is like the bank. That you can accumulate a debt and then hope to pay it off at a later point in time,” says Walker. “And we now know that sleep is not like that.”
The brain has no capacity to get back all that it has lost, Walker explains. Why is this? Why haven’t we evolved a way to make up for lost sleep the same way we can make up for days of starvation by storing calories as fat? The answer, Walker says, is simple: “Human beings are the only animal species that deliberately deprive themselves of sleep.” There is no storage system for sleep in the brain because life never needed to create one.

Undoubtedly, many of you are reading this and scoffing. If you regularly get six hours of sleep and feel just fine, why should you waste your time trying to squeeze in more?

Consider this: after the first night of reduced sleep, researchers in Dinges’ study asked the participants in the six-hour-a-night group how well they thought they did on the day’s cognitive tests. They replied that they did well—great, even. However, when the study researchers actually compared the two performances, the tests completed after six hours of sleep were significantly worse than the ones done after eight hours of sleep.

“You don’t know you are sleep deprived when you are sleep deprived,” says Walker, “That’s why so many people fool themselves into thinking they are one of those people who can get away with six hours of sleep or less.” Walker argues that there’s no way you can effectively train yourself to need less sleep. You may get used to feeling tired all the time, he says, but that does not mean you can suppress that tiredness and perform as well on cognitive tests as you would if you received eight hours.

But perhaps there is a positive twist—in the form of a mid-afternoon nap backed by science. Researchers who have looked at cultures that remain completely untouched by electricity, such as the Hadza of Tanzania, found that, especially in the summer, these groups tend to sleep biphasically: packing in six hours a night, and then a few hours again in the afternoon. This begs the question, Walker says, of whether human beings should stay awake for sixteen hours straight. In fact, everyone goes through an afternoon lull. Biologists have actually been able to measure this physiological dip in our alertness—what science calls a postprandial dip—through changes in our metabolic system, as well as adjustments in our brain waves, and in our cognitive reaction times. The universal cognitive pause means we might benefit from a nap around this time. “Perhaps human beings need to sleep biphasically for truly optimal performance, though that’s still unclear,” Walker says.

One thing science knows for sure, however, is that the less sleep you get each night, the less cognitively aware you are the next day, the day after, and every day after that. Simple.

In fact, Walker says, if you ever want proof of how much of an effect just one hour less sleep can have on human beings, just remember how you feel the days after daylight savings begins every March, when nearly the entire country has intentionally deprived themselves of an hour of sleep.

But perhaps the most relevant thing to remember, Walker says, is this: When someone tells you the reason they can only get five hours of sleep is that they simply have too much to do, “I tell them, I’m sorry, but there’s an irony in your statement. The reason you are left with so much to do could likely be because you are only getting five hours of sleep and your cognitive functioning is deficient, so it's taking you forever to do everything."

Have a science question you want answered? Email us at ask@popsci.com, tweet at us with #AskPopSci, or tell us on Facebook. And we'll look into it.

People who sleep longer twice as likely to develop dementia

Alzheimer's disease affects millions of Americans, and the numbers are expected to grow. New research suggests there may be a link between prolonged sleep and the risk of dementia.

New research suggests those who sleep for more than 9 hours each night are at a higher risk of developing dementia.

Over 46 million people are living with dementia worldwide, and the number is expected to almost triple by 2050.
In the United States, over 5 million people are currently estimated to have Alzheimer's disease. The disease risk increases with age, as 1 in 3 seniors die with Alzheimer's or another form of dementia.
The financial burden of the disease is also great. American families are believed to spend over $5,000 yearly on caring for someone with Alzheimer's, and the national economic burden is estimated at $236 billion.
A new, large-scale study suggests people with prolonged sleeping patterns may have an increased risk of developing dementia.
The research was led by Dr. Sudha Seshadri, professor of neurology at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM), and the findings were published in the journal Neurology.
Researchers examined data from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS). FHS is a large cohort study that started in 1948 by enrolling 5,209 men and women aged between 30 and 62 living in the town of Framingham, MA. The original purpose of the study was to identify risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Sleeping 9 hours or more linked to greater dementia risk

For this study, a large number of adults enrolled in the FHS were asked to report how long they usually slept per night. The researchers then clinically followed the participants for 10 years to see who developed Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.
BUSM researchers then examined the data collected on sleep duration and calculated the risk of developing dementia.
The team found that people who sleep regularly for 9 hours or more were twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's within 10 years, compared with those who consistently slept less than 9 hours.
Additionally, as the study's lead author explains, education seems to be playing a role in staving off the risk of dementia.

"Participants without a high school degree who sleep for more than 9 hours each night had six times the risk of developing dementia in 10 years as compared [with] participants who slept for less. These results suggest that being highly educated may protect against dementia in the presence of long sleep duration."

Dr. Sudha Seshadri

The study also found that people who slept longer seemed to have smaller brain volumes. Being observational, the study cannot establish causality, but the researchers suspect excessive sleep is probably a symptom rather than a cause of the neuronal changes that come with dementia. As a consequence, they speculate, reducing sleep duration is not likely to lower the risk of dementia.
The authors believe the findings may inform future dementia and cognitive impairment detection practices. Co-corresponding author Matthew Pase, Ph.D., who is a fellow in the department of neurology at BUSM and investigator at the FHS, weighs in on the significance of the findings.
"Self-reported sleep duration may be a useful clinical tool to help predict persons at risk of progressing to clinical dementia within 10 years," he says. "Persons reporting long sleep time may warrant assessment and monitoring for problems with thinking and memory."
The sooner a patient is diagnosed with dementia, the more time they and their families have to plan ahead and make crucial healthcare decisions.

Eating more fruits, vegetables boosts psychological well-being in just 2 weeks

Fruits and vegetables are a pivotal part of a healthful diet, but their benefits are not limited to physical health. New research finds that increasing fruit and vegetable consumption may improve psychological well-being in as little as 2 weeks.

 

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake may benefit psychological well-being.

Study leader Dr. Tamlin Conner, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago in New Zealand, and colleagues found that young adults who were given extra fruits and vegetables each day for 14 days ate more of the produce and experienced a boost in motivation and vitality.
The researchers recently reported their findings in the journal PLOS One.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, adults should aim to consume around two cups of fruits and around two to three cups of vegetables daily.
One cup of fruits is the equivalent to half a grapefruit or a large orange, and one cup of vegetables is proportionate to one large red pepper or a large, baked sweet potato.
As part of a healthful diet, fruits and vegetables can help reduce the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some types of cancer.
In recent years, studies have suggested that fruit and vegetable intake may also improve mental health. For their study, Dr. Conner and team set out to investigate this association further.

Increased motivation, vitality with higher intake of fruits and vegetables

The researchers enrolled 171 students aged between 18 and 25 to their study, and they were divided into three groups for 2 weeks.
One group continued with their normal eating pattern, one group was personally handed two additional servings of fresh fruits and vegetables (including carrots, kiwi fruit, apples, and oranges) each day, while the remaining group was given prepaid produce vouchers and received text reminders to consume more fruits and vegetables.
At the beginning and end of the study, participants were subjected to psychological assessments that evaluated mood, vitality, motivation, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and other determinants of mental health and well-being.
The researchers found that participants who personally received extra fruits and vegetables consumed the most of these products over the 2 weeks, at 3.7 servings daily, and it was this group that experienced improvements in psychological well-being. In particular, these participants demonstrated improvements in vitality, motivation, and flourishing.
The other two groups showed no improvements in psychological well-being over the 2-week period.
Furthermore, no improvements were seen in symptoms of depression and anxiety in any of the groups. "The majority of research linking depression to dietary patterns has been longitudinal, meaning that possible differences in ill-being may be established over a much longer period of time rather than our brief 2-week period," note the authors.
Still, the researchers say that their findings indicate that increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables through personal delivery may lead to rapid benefits for psychological well-being.
The team concludes that:

"Providing young adults with high-quality FV [fruits and vegetables], not texting them reminders to eat more FV and giving them a voucher, resulted in improvements to their psychological well-being over a 2-week period.
This is the first study to show that providing high-quality FV to young adults can result in short-term improvements in vitality, flourishing, and motivation. Findings provide initial validation of a causal relationship between FV and well-being, suggesting that large-scale intervention studies are warranted."

5+ Harmful foods for Joint Pain

Joint pain can be characterized from mild to severe, acute or chronic. It can cause discomfort, pain or inflammation from any part of a joint. The most common causes of joint pain include gout, arthritis, injuries, broken or dislocated bones, fibromyalgia, and lupus. If you suffer from joint pain, the foods you eat may be aggravating your inflammation. Here are eight foods you should avoid to help keep joint pain at bay:
1. Sugar
As good as those donuts, chocolate bars and other desserts look, you’ll want to resist if you suffer from joint pain. Processed sugars trigger the release of inflammatory messengers known as cytokines. This includes sugar in candy, sodas and cereals and other snacks. Excess sugar in the body also puts pressure on the joints and can lead to weight gain.

2. Monosodium glutamate
Monosodium glutamate or MSG is a flavor-enhancing additive that is most commonly found in soy sauce and Asian foods. But it can also be found in fast food meals, prepared soups and soup mixes, salad dressings and deli meats. MSG can trigger inflammation in the body and worsen joint pain.

3. Alcohol
Alcohol isn’t just hard on your liver.

Excessive alcohol consumption also has a negative effect on joint pain. Beer contains purines. These are converted into uric acid in the body, which is extremely detrimental to joint pain. Beer also contains gluten, which can be harmful to fragile joints.
4. Refined Carbohydrates
White flour products such as breads and crackers, white rice, white potatoes and many cereals are refined carbohydrates. Studies have shown that processed carbs may be one of the main causes of obesity and other chronic conditions. These foods have a high glycemic index. They fuel the production of AGE, which stimulates inflammation.

5. Red and Processed Meats
Both red and processed meats contain purine and nitrate. These chemicals aggravate pain and inflammation in the body. Studies have shown that red and processed meats not only trigger inflammation, they also support cancer growth.

6. Dairy Products
For most people, dairy is a highly inflammatory food. Studies have shown that the majority of adults have at least some difficulty digesting milk, whether they know it or not. Making dairy a large part of your diet can trigger an inflammatory response. If you suffer from joint pain, it’s best to keep dairy products out of your diet.

7. Salt
Many packaged and pre-made foods contain excessive amounts of salt and other preservatives in order to promote longer shelf lives. Refined salt is high in additives and chemicals that disrupt the fluid balance in the body. Pay attention to what’s in your food. Avoid junk food and microwaveable meals. If you want to use salt when cooking, replace your table salt with Pink Himalayan sea salt.

8. Corn Oil
Many snacks and baked goods contain corn oil or other oils that are high in omega-6 fatty acids. Studies have shown that these oils can lead to inflammation. Avoid soy, peanuts, salad dressings and grape seed oil. Replace foods containing omega-6 fatty acids with anti-inflammatory omega-3 alternatives such as olive oil, nuts, pumpkin seeds and flax seeds.

5+ Things That Stop Children from Being Successful

1. Parents mistakes that make children unsuccessful

Parenting. What does it mean? To teach your little ones how to grow up quickly? Make sure they know right from wrong? Become good citizens? Not such a good idea.. Lots of jobs are hard. But parenting might just be the hardest.

2 Major parenting mistakes

Despite all of the books, pamphlets and research that parents can delve into before their child is born, parenting often ends up being a "learn as you go" process. It has been discovered that several major mistakes which parents often make when raising their children, can reduce their self-confidence from an early age and limit their chances of becoming successful in their careers and personal lives.

3. Committing the same errors

To help you avoid making the committing the same errors, we’ve reproduced them below. Take a look.

4.1. We don’t let our children experience risk

We live in a world that warns us of danger at every turn. The "safety first" preoccupation enforces our fear of losing our kids, so we do everything we can to protect them. It’s our job after all, but we have insulated them from healthy risk-taking behavior and it’s had an adverse effect. Psychologists have discovered that if a child doesn’t play outside and is never allowed to experience a skinned knee, they frequently have phobias as adults.

Kids need to fall a few times to learn it’s normal; teens likely need to break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend to appreciate the emotional maturity that lasting relationships require. If parents remove risk from children’s lives, we will likely experience high arrogance and low self-esteem in our growing leaders.

4.2. We rescue too quickly

Today’s generation of young people has not developed some of the life skills kids did 30 years ago because adults swoop in and take care of problems for them. When we rescue too quickly and over-indulge our children with “assistance, “we remove the need for them to navigate hardships and solve problems on their own.

It’s parenting for the short-term and it sorely misses the point of leadership—to equip our young people to do it without help. Sooner or later, kids get used to someone rescuing them: ”If I fail or fall short, an adult will smooth things over and remove any consequences for my misconduct." When in reality, this isn’t even remotely close to how the world works, and therefore it disables our kids from becoming competent adults.
 
4.3. We rave too easily

The self-esteem movement has been around since Baby Boomers were kids, but it took root in our school systems in the 1980s. Attend a little league baseball game and you’ll see that everyone is a winner. This "everyone gets a trophy" mentality might make our kids feel special, but research is now indicating this method has unintended consequences. Kids eventually observe that Mom and Dad are the only ones who think they’re awesome when no one else is saying it.


They begin to doubt the objectivity of their parents; it feels good in the moment, but it’s not connected to reality. When we rave too easily and disregard poor behavior, children eventually learn to cheat, exaggerate and lie and to avoid difficult reality. They have not been conditioned to face it.

4.4. We let guilt get in the way of leading well

Your child does not have to love you every minute. Your kids will get over the disappointment, but they won’t get over the effects of being spoiled. So tell them “no“ or ”not now," and let them fight for what they really value and need. As parents, we tend to give them what they want when rewarding our children, especially with multiple kids. When one does well in something, we feel it’s unfair to praise and reward that one and not the other.

This is unrealistic and misses an opportunity to enforce the point to our kids that success is dependent upon our own actions and good deeds. Be careful not to teach them a good grade is rewarded by a trip to the mall. If your relationship is based on material rewards, kids will experience neither intrinsic motivation nor unconditional love.

4.5. We don’t share our past mistakes

Healthy teens are going to want to spread their wings and they’ll need to try things on their own. We as adults must let them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t help them navigate these waters. Share with them the relevant mistakes you made when you were their age in a way that helps them learn to make good choices. (Avoid negative "lessons learned" having to do with smoking, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc.)

Also, kids must prepare to encounter slip-ups and face the consequences of their decisions. Share how you felt when you faced a similar experience, what drove your actions, and the resulting lessons learned. Because we’re not the only influence on our kids, we must be the best influence.

4.6. We mistake intelligence, giftedness and influence for maturity

Intelligence is often used as a measurement of a child’s maturity, and as a result parents assume an intelligent child is ready for the world. That’s not the case. Some professional athletes and Hollywood starlets, for example, possess unimaginable talent, but still get caught in a public scandal. Just because giftedness is present in one aspect of a child’s life, don’t assume it pervades all areas.


There is no magic "age of responsibility" or a proven guide as to when a child should be given specific freedoms, but a good rule of thumb is to observe other children the same age as yours. If you notice that they are doing more themselves than your child does, you may be delaying your child’s independence.

4.7. We don’t practice what we preach

As parents, it is our responsibility to model the life we want our children to live. To help them lead a life of character and become dependable and accountable for their words and actions. As the leaders of our homes, we can start by only speaking honest words — white lies will surface and slowly erode character. Watch yourself in the little ethical choices that others might notice, because your kids will notice too.


If you don’t cut corners, for example, they will know it’s not acceptable for them to either. Show your kids what it means to give selflessly and joyfully by volunteering for a service project or with a community group. Leave people and places better than you found them, and your kids will take note and do the same.

The secret of Draupadi and her relationship with the Pandavas

1

A Timeless Story

Whilst polygamy is no more in practice, India sure has a record breaking history in this department. I am not even talking about the Kings back in their days marrying more than one woman, rather, it is about an unsung war hero who was married to five men, not by choice. Yes, Draupadi it is. I would rather love to call her Panchali. So much has been written and talked about Mahabharata, not much is known about her relationship with her 5 husbands, though.

2

Cont.

Panchali was a woman of great character and was a brave heart, however, she was hit by the patriarchal norms of the society like any other woman. Whilst the Kings had freedom to spend their time and night with their most beloved wife or whoever they wished to spend time with, same was not the case with her.

3

A little background

Draupadi was the daughter of King of Panchal, King Drupad. She was born from the fire along with her brother and she was a beauty to behold. Arjuna had won her hand in the Swayamwar, however, upon his return with his newlywed, his mother Kunti without knowing what he had got for her as a surprise asked all five brothers to share. Much to Draupadi’s shock even after knowing she was a living being in bones and flesh, she did not take her word back.

4

She was Indispensable

Draupadi was truly a woman of fire. She knew how to keep all her husbands happy and meeting their needs too. She made herself indispensable and the most loved. However, there is more to her story than meets the eye. Here are certain secrets about Draupadi and her relationship with her husbands.

5

Yudhishthira’s Rule

It was immaterial what others felt and if there was any way to rectify the situation, Yudhishthira, the eldest of all had his say in all matters. It did not matter if Draupadi was Arjuna’s wife, he was the one to lay the foundation. Yudhishthira decided that all the brothers will have exclusive rights to her chamber for one year and no brother could break this rule, else there will be consequences. He wanted peace between the brothers while sharing Draupadi.

6

The Consequence

As per Yudhishthira’s rule whoever failed to keep up with the rule must bear the consequences in face of 12 years of exile. The same rule would imply if any brother would be disturbed amid being sexually engaged with her. Arjuna had to face 12 years of exile. Jump to the next slide to know why?

7

Arjuna’s Exile

It is not what you think. Arjuna did not mean to do it on purpose to Yudhishthira and Draupadi, however, the circumstances were such he had to break the rule. He had to retrieve his weapons to help a poor Brahmin whose cows have been stolen. The way to armoury’s way was linked to Draupadi and Yudhishthira’s chambers. He had to bear the Punishment and was banished to 12 years of exile.

8

What followed

In his exile, he learnt how to use the Brhmastra, met many teachers who imparted him with precious and exclusive knowledge. He met Indra Deva and was cursed by a celestial nymph Urvashi. He married Subhadra, Krishna’s half-sister and deeply fell in love with her, later he also married Chitrangada.

9

Draupadi and the Pandavas

The Pandava brothers were in love with Draupadi, however, Arjuna had no such feelings for her. Majorly, because he never approved of what his mother decided for them and his brother agreed too. Draupadi was always into Arjuna more than any other brother. One Pandava brother who truly loved Draupadi was Bheem. She had one child each from 

10

Draupadi and Arjuna

Arjuna had married Draupadi by rightfully winning her hand in the Swayamwar. He was an obedient son and a great brother, but the truth was he never liked sharing Draupadi with his brothers. For him, his wife was exclusively his – but, unfortunately, he had no say in this matter. However, Draupadi always favoured Arjuna over others, secretly she always had feelings for him in her heart and was devastated when he married Subhadra.

11

Draupadi and Bheem

Bheem loved Draupadi the most of all the Pandava brother. He fulfilled all her wishes and could never see her sad. He was of a huge built and people practically shivered in his proximity, however, he was quite a teenager around Draupadi and treated her wit utmost gentleness. In fact, it was Bheem who took down most of the

12

Draupadi and Nakul-Sahadev

Nakul and Sahadev were ardent followers of Yudhishthira and they did exactly what he told them to do. It is funny that even their relationship with Draupadi was dictated by Yudhishthira. Honest or not, in the end, he was

13

Draupadi’s Condition

Amid this chaos of being a wife to five brothers, she had just one condition that she will never share her household with anyone and no brother will bring another woman to share her household while she was in Indraprastha. In spite of her condition, Arjuna married Subhadra and Chitrangada. Bheem had to marry Hidimba and Valandhara. Yudhishthira married Devika. Nakul married Karenumati and Sahadev married Vijaya.

14

Draupadi’s Secret

This one truth might shock you out of your wits. Draupadi was secretly and always in love with Kunti’s eldest son Karna. Not much is known about Karna’s feelings but he was deeply hurt when Draupadi had denied to marry him because he was a Sutta king. It is said, that Krishna told Draupadi that Karna and she were a part of one whole before she closed her eyes forever.

Karna the unsung hero of Mahabharta and secret about his only surviving son

1

Who was Karna

Whilst most of us see Karna as a tragic hero, he was sure beyond any such tags. Karna was Kunti’s eldest son who was born with the blessing of Lord Sun before her marriage. He later came to be known as Surya Putra Karna. He was born with golden earrings and a body armour as a symbol that he was born to be undefeated.

2

Story of Karna’s Birth

Kuntibhoja was Kunti’s father. One fine day as Sage Durvasa graced their palace with his presence, Kuntibhoj knew better to appoint Kunti as his maiden, for Durvasa was known for his rampant temper. Durvasa stayed in their palace for some days and was touched by Kunti’s hospitality, who was just a little girl at that time.

3

Cont.

At last, it was time for Durvasa to bid adieu. He was immensely happy with Kunti’s hospitality and regards for him. Before his departure, he called for Kunti and bestowed upon her a life changing Mantra. The Mantra was to manifest sons from whoever she wished to, even the God Deities. Durvasa left happily, thereafter, but Kunti was left perplexed.

Cont.

Kunti had hatched a plan and gave it a serious thought to test if Durvasa was not joking and was serious about the Mantra. Kunti chanted the Mantra in her mind and thought about Surya Dev. Lord Sun appeared moments after she had manifested him through her chant.

5

Karna was born

Kunti was clueless as Lord of the Sun appeared before her and she feared to have a baby before marriage, however, Surya Deva was helpless and he was bound to bestow her a baby – Kunti accepted her fate and gave birth to Karna at a very young age. He was born with a divine ‘Kavach’ and ‘kundals’ (body armour and earrings).

6

Kunti abandons Karna

Kunti was not ready for a child before her marriage, thus, she decided to abandon Karna and with a heavy heart she left Karna in a basket and left him on the river 'Ashwa'. As destiny played its part the Kaurava Charioteer, Adiratha and his wife Radha were bathing in the river. They happily adopted the baby as a blessing, for they were childless.

7

Karna got to know about his from three people

Throughout his life, Karna held unhealed wounds of humiliation for being a 'low-born'. His birth was a great secret as it played a major role in the Epic War of Kurukshetra. Mahabharata would have turned out different had not been for Karna’s unperturbed support to Duryodhan. He got to know about his birth from three people

8

First Person

The very first person to reveal the truth to Karna was his father himself; Lord of the Sun. Surya Deva blessed him and told him how Kunti had conceived him because Durvasa had bestowed upon her a gift to manifest a child with whoever she wished. He also warned him to be wary of any man who would come asking for his ‘kavach and kundals’.

9

Second Person

The second person to reveal the truth to Karna was Krishna. However, Karna stood in front of him not flinching, for he already knew what was to come. However, Krishna told him the entire story of his birth and enlightened him how future was about to unfold for them all.

10

Third Person

The third person was Kunti, his own mother who decided to finally break her silence and tell her eldest son the truth. However, where she was expecting a warm and teary acceptance, she only saw Karna’s steely eyes and accusation of her abandoning him. He told her he was not disappointed in her because she abandoned him, rather, she never stood up for him, while Pitamah Bheeshm insulted in the royal court.

11

Karna’s Marriage

Karna was married to Supriya and Vrusahli. Vrushali was Karna’s first wife, who was a charioteer’s daughter whilst Supriya was a friend to Duryodhana’s wife Bhanumati. It is said, Karna fathered 10 children with both his wives and nine of them saw all the horrors of the war and were killed except for one.

12

Karna’s Sons

Karna had eight sons with Vrushali, all of whom participated in the epic war of Kurukshetra and they were killed by the Pandavas. His youngest son, Vrishaketu was the only one who survived the horrors of the war and later became an ally to Arjuna.

13

Cont.

Vrishasena the eldest, was killed by Arjuna in front of Karna’s eyes, while Prasena, the youngest was slain by Satyaki. The second, Chritasena, third, Satyasena and fourth son, Sushena were killed by Nakula. Arjuna also killed Karna’s fifth and sixth born – Shatrunjaya and Dvipata. And the seventh born Banasena was slain by Bhima in the Kurukshetra war.

14

Cont.

They were all born to Karna and Vrushali. The pain was deeply inflicted on both the Parents. As Karna was killed by Arjuna, Vrushali opted for Sati, as she was much in love with her husband. She sat on the pyre.

15

Vrishaketu; Last mortal on earth to know how to use a Brhmastra

Vrishaketu is believed to be the last mortal on earth to understand and know the use of Brahmastra, Varunastra, Agni and Vaayuastra. Krishna has enlightened him to not share this valuable yet, destruction worthy information with anyone. He fought many battles with Arjuna. In the end, he was killed by Arjuna’s son Babruvahana, with his death, died the knowledge of using the weapons too.

16

It is unclear who was the mother of Vrishaketu

When Vrushali sat on the pyre for Sati, Vrishaketu ran towards his parents, it was only for his grandmother Radha, he was saved. However, it is unclear if Supriya or Vrushali was his mother. Karna was also married to a Kshatriya woman, Uruvi, the princess of Pukeya. She is believed to be the actual second wife of Karna, Vrishaketu could very well be her son, too.17

Vrishaketu was Arjuna’s greatest ally

Vrishaketu had lost all after the war of Kurukshetra, Arjuna knowing that Karna was his elder brother opened his heart for last living prodigy of his brother and Vrishaketu became his greatest ally, protecting Arjuna like a shadow in other epic wars. He was very dear to both, Krishna and Arjuna.