suheribagaskara

Dash Diet

2011-11-03T19:19:00.000-07:00

The DASH diet is based on NIH studies thatexamined three dietary plans and their results. The diet reduced systolic bloodpressure by 6 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by 3 mm Hg in patients withnormal blood pressure. Two experimental diets were selected for the DASH studyand compared with each other, and with a third: the control diet. The controldiet was characteristically low in potassium, calcium, magnesium and fiber. Thesecond experimental diet combined elements of the previous two (control andfruits-and-vegetables)—this diet has been called “the DASH Diet” [5]. The DASHdiet was also high in fruits, vegetables & low fat dairy foods, and alsorich in fiber and protein (18%). The DASH diet was designed to be a whole-fooddiet, low in processed or refined sugars and high in complex carbohydrates. StudyResults

The DASH study showed that dietary patternscan and do affect blood pressure in the normal to moderately hypertensive adultpopulation (systolic < 180 mm Hg & diastolic of 80 to 95 mm Hg). . Respectively,the DASH or “combination” diet lowered blood pressures by an average of 5.5 and3.0 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic, compared to the control diet. Theminority portion of the study sample and the hypertensive portion, frombaseline, both showed the largest reductions in blood pressure from thecombination diet against the control diet. [2]. The fruits-and-vegetables dietwas also successful, although it produced more modest reductions over thecontrol diet (2.8 mm Hg systolic and 1.1 mm Hg diastolic) [6]. In the subjectswith and without hypertension, the combination diet effectively reduced bloodpressure more than the fruits-and-vegetables diet or the control diet did. TheDASH-Sodium study was conducted following the end of the original DASH study todetermine whether the DASH diet could produce even better results if it werelow in salt. [6]. The two randomized diet groups were the DASH diet and acontrol diet that mirrored an “average American diet”, and which was somewhatlow in key nutrients such as potassium, magnesium and calcium. [6]. During thetwo week run-in phase, all participants ate the high sodium control diet. Theprimary outcome of the DASH-Sodium study was systolic blood pressure at the endof the 30 day dietary intervention periods. The secondary outcome was diastolicblood pressure. The DASH-Sodium study confirmed that reductions in sodiumintake correlated with significantly lower systolic and diastolic bloodpressures in both control and DASH diets. Study results indicate that thequantity of dietary sodium in the control diet was twice as powerful in itseffect on blood pressure as it was in the DASH diet. The DASH diet and thecontrol diet at low salt levels were both successful in lowering bloodpressure, but the largest reductions in blood pressure were obtained by eatinga combination of these two (i.e., a low-salt version of the DASH diet). TheDASH-sodium results indicate that low sodium levels correlated with the largestreductions in blood pressure for participants at both normative andhypertensive levels with the hypertensive participants showing the greatestreductions in blood pressure overall. Moreover, the African-American studyparticipants showed particularly significant reductions in blood pressure.[1].

What does the Bible say about self-defense?

2011-10-25T07:51:00.000-07:00

Is God for violence or not? Under whatcircumstances is self-defense appropriate?

Jesus knew that now was the time when Jesus would be threatened (and laterkilled) and His followers would be threatened as well. Jesus was givingapproval of the fact that one has the right to self-defense. Jesus rebukesPeter for that act. Why? Exodus 22 does show quite a bit about God’s attitude towardsself-defense. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that hedies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise,he is guilty of bloodshed. So if the thief were to attack the defender evenduring the day, self-defense would be justified.

The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact.

"Discover A New And Brutally Effective SelfDefense System To Protect Yourself And The OnesYou Love, From Any Kind Of Violent Encounter, WithOut Spending Years And Years In A Martial ArtsSchool!"Uncover The Self Defense Skills You Need Below..!

A victory of hope over experience?

2011-10-25T07:44:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan's new militias

Self-defence

Apr 8th 2009 | JalrezDistrict, Wardak Province | from the print edition

THE commanderof NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, offered a bristlingsalute and plenty of encouragement as the first 240 volunteers for the AfghanPublic Protection Programme (AP3) graduated from training in late March. Localcouncils of tribal elders, established last year and paid by the government,have been asked to provide young men to undertake “static defence tasks” intheir district.

Such militiasare meant to provide a layer of local security alongside a sharp increase inWestern (mainly American) forces and a near-doubling of the Afghan army. Americais adding 21,000 troops.

Haji MahmoodAaka, an elder from Narkh district in Wardak, says the Soviet Union realisedits own forces could not defeat the mujahideen and so tried similar militias. Thistime vetting is more thorough, training lasts three weeks instead of one, payis higher, and AP3 units are promised mentoring and close support by Americanforces. Their role is local defence, not law enforcement.

This week, indriving sleet, the first force on the ground, 183 men deployed in thepicturesque district of Jalrez, were occupying a series of checkpoints. Theforce commander, Sayed Abbas, said local villagers were supportive, but USforces were less so.

Self Defence Force

2011-10-25T07:12:00.000-07:00

The Self Defense Force is divided intothree branches:

Ground Self Defense Force

Maritime Self Defense Force

Air Self Defense Force

About 6% of the national budget is spent onnational defense (2005).

Source: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2138.html

Defense Of Life And Person

2011-10-22T18:12:00.000-07:00

Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. Defense of life and person
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Defense of property
It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the agressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Honor
Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

Legal status of self-defense

2011-10-21T12:06:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia

In most jurisdictions, defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. "Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all. The defense of justification (NY Penal Law art. 35) affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances. Defense [was] deemed a natural, inalienable right at common law." People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 496 N.E.2d 202, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1986)The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person.
a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." Justification for self-defense usually cannot be applied to actions committed after a criminal act has taken place, but the laws of many states authorize the use of force, sometimes even deadly force, to effect the citizen-arrest of a fleeing offender. A rape victim who, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, subsequently finds and shoots the rapist, is not entitled to claim self-defense. In many U.S. jurisdictions, using deadly force against a burglar/thief who is attempting to escape with stolen property is likewise not justifiable. Many states apply the Common Law's "fleeing felon" rule as a justification for private persons to use deadly force necessary to "arrest" violent criminals.
Although the Law of Justification has heretofore been considered a matter of state law, the recent Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago may have constitutionalized some of the Common Law rules of "self-defense" as fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that each of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments "protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense." And, "stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was 'the central component of the right itself.'”; The Constitution, they wrote, secured "the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." Prior to these decisions, other Constitution provisions were recognized as securing a right of self-defense. [Otis argued: "This Writ is against the fundamental Principles of Law." ]

RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE

2011-10-21T11:59:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia
Theory

The early theories make no distinction between defense of the person and defense of property. [1] In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes proposed the foundation political theory that distinguishes between a state of nature where there is no authority and a modern state. This linkage between a personal attack and property weakened as societies developed but the threat of violence remains a key factor. The fact that states no longer claim a monopoly to police within their borders, enhances the argument that individuals may exercise a right or privilege to use violence in their own defense. Indeed, modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right, and in all cases, with no exceptions, justifies all uses of violence stemming from this right, regardless whether in defense of the person or property. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The inclusion of defense of one's family and home recognizes the universal benefit claimed to stem from the family's peaceable possession of private property. As a resolution of this apparent paradox and in defiance of Hohfeld, Robert Nozick asserted that there are no positive civil rights, only rights to property and the right of autonomy.

Rules For Self-Defense

2011-10-20T17:20:00.000-07:00

Rules For Self-Defense
Cristopher Benson

The following guidelines provide insight into the mind and attitude of the successful fighter. They are an excellent conceptual framework to fight by:

    Never assume anything. Let nothing surprise you.
    Never play fair. Maximize any advantage.
    Do whatever it takes to win.
    Turn your killer-instinct on and be ferocious.
    Use all of your attributes effectively.
    Be explosively mobile while maintaining stability.
    Use range and angle to your best advantage.
    Control the fight.
    There are no points for second place. You win or lose.
    There are no rules, only self-imposed limitations.

The Myth Of Self Defence

The term self-defense generates a certain image: Under attack by an assailant, you use a few martial arts techniques to counter his physical aggression, thus insuring your personal safety.

Those of you with fighting experience know that this is an unlikely scenario, and a very naive way of looking at violence. The phrase self-defense itself tends to perpetuate this false sense of security. I strongly suggest the use of a more proactive description. Instead of calling it self-defense, I recommend a more proactive phrase such as "fighting". It identifies the same process of violence from a completely different perspective. It infers an aggressive, proactive attitude that is not what one expects from a potential victim. The term self-defense implies that you will react to an assailant who has taken the initiative in attacking you. This perspective will contaminate your own self-image when you imagine yourself fighting against another person. It will reduce your ability to fight successfully.

Unless the aggressor is not very serious about hurting you, "canned" self-defense techniques, as well as many classical martial arts methods alone won't provide you with the tools necessary to survive and win a serious street confrontation. Technique alone is only a part of the solution. Successful fighting requires that you have good personal fighting attributes and a personal fighting methodology which is efficient, realistic and aggressive. Only then will you be able to apply the appropriate techniques effectively. This is where most martial artists fail. They get caught up in technique, ranking systems and the hype that pervades the martial arts.

Self Defense

2011-10-20T16:01:00.000-07:00

Self Defense – From Wikipedia

Self-defense, self-defence (see spelling differences) or private defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.[2] To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. Physical

Physical self defense is the use of physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence. Many styles of martial arts are practiced for self-defense or include self-defense techniques. Some styles train primarily for self-defense, while other martial/Combat sports can be effectively applied for self-defense.[citation needed] To provide more practical self-defense, many modern day martial arts schools now use a combination of martial arts styles and techniques, and will often customize self-defense training to suit the participants' lifestyles, occupations, age groups and gender, and physical and mental capabilities.
Armed
In some countries, it is legal to use or carry weapons (for example knives, firearms or batons) for purposes of self-defense. Limitations on the use of weapons for personal defense are a source of controversy in some countries, pitting self-defense rights against efforts to combat violent crime via restricting access to common weapons.[citation needed]

Pepper spray and personal stun guns are non-lethal self defense alternatives, which are legal in some countries.       Suzette Haden Elgin the author of The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense states that verbal self-defense defends against the eight most common types of verbal violence, and redirects and defuses potential verbal confrontations.[6]

Being aware of and avoiding potentially dangerous situations is an emphasis of self defense. Personal alarms

Personal alarms are a way to practice passive self defense. Self-defense education

Self-defense techniques and recommended behavior under the threat of violence is systematically taught in self-defense classes. Commercial self-defense education is part of the martial arts industry in the wider sense, and many martial arts instructors also give self-defense classes. While all martial arts training can be argued to have some self-defense applications, self-defense courses are marketed explicitly as being oriented towards effectiveness and optimized towards situations as they occur in the real world.     self-defense oriented forms of jujitsu, such as Bartitsu, Goshin Jujitsu, Ketsugo jujutsu, Kodokan Goshin Jutsu, Yawara-Jitsu, etc.
    rape prevention, including Rape Aggression Defense System (RAD),[10] AWARE,[11] etc.
    Reality-Based Self-Defense (RBSD)[12]
Legal aspects
Main article: Rights of self-defense
Further information: Justifiable homicide, Self-defense (United States), Self-defence in English law, Self-defence (Australia), and Self-defense (Sweden)

The most crucial difference between self-defense training for civilian application in a society under rule of law to military combatives is the necessity to consider the extent of force permitted in a given situation under the self-defense laws of the applicable jurisdiction.

Modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right. The right to self-defense granted by law to the private citizen is strictly limited. Use of force that goes beyond what is necessary to dispel the immediate threat of violence is known as excessive self-defense (also self-defense with excessive force, excessive self-defense). In practice, self-defense laws still do make this distinction. German criminal law (§ 33) distinguishes "asthenic affect" (fear) from "sthenic affect" (anger). Excessive self-defense out of asthenic affect is not punishable.

Self Defense & Street Fighting Secrets