Ronda Rousey’s defeat to Amanda Nunes is a cautionary tale for UFC fighters | Josh Gross

The American fighter was once the queen of MMA but after two successive loss she has demonstrated that fame is of little help in the Octagon

Ronda Rouseys head was snapped back enough times in the opening moments of her return to the UFC for the crowd to see what was coming. Defeat and hopelessnes, yes. Victory and redemption , no.

I knew if I had a chance in the beginning of the fight, if she gives me the opportunity, that I would finish her there, said Amanda Nunes, who battered Rousey on Friday at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas to retain the UFC bantamweight title for the first time.

Forty-eight seconds after the opening bell, Rouseys night and perhaps her career had been objective by 27 strikes that contorted the former champions face in nasty routes. This was the worst case scenario for Rousey, whose record now stands at 12 -2. An all-hands-on-deck moment met with a meek reply, the various kinds of performance that we dont see from great competitors.

Many of the 18,533 spectators at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas, a record attendance for an MMA event in Nevada, ran wild when Rousey stepped on to the floor wearing her familiar glare. Opposing is a gritty, emotional exercise in which statistics often mean nothing. But prior to Fridays bout, one premonition figure loomed for the challenger.

Nunes, a boxer/ puncher with a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, had averaged as many ten-strikes per round as any fighter scheduled to compete at UFC 207, while Rousey, the deposed queen of MMA, had been hit the most. Bad numbers for anyone, let alone a fighter inducing her first appearance in the Octagon since Holly Holm crushed her with ten-strikes 13 months ago. The disparity couldnt be ignored, and one of the major topics surrounding Rousey in the lead-up to her return centered on whether or not she could manage being punched again.

She could not.

For months there was speculation that she had been significantly altered by the loss to Holm. The joy of producing dominant fast victories was run, replaced by the harsh reality that comes with experiencing what its like to lose by having a shin slammed into your neck. So Rousey did the only thing she could to deal with what happened. She tried to disappear, a tactic that included sequestering herself from fans and media during fight week.

Rouseys bubble did not serve her well in the end, Nunes said. By skipping the normal traditions of battle week, Rousey created tension and sparked topics where there werent any. She may have sought to alleviate stress by avoiding it, but that rarely runs, especially when the pressure is about to beturned up. And that was exactly what Nunes had in mind as she unloaded heavy punches in Rouseys direction from the start of the fight.

Amanda
Amanda Nunes( left) celebrates her win as Ronda Rousey comes to words with another defeat. Photograph: John Locher/ AP

It seemed only Rouseys controversial and maligned trainer Edmond Tarverdyan remained captivated with the idea that his fighter had the chops to draw out Nunes. From his corner, Tarverdyan wailed in increasingly shrill tones as each punch connected. Just as he had when Rousey went down to Holm in Australia, Tarverdyan raved like a madman who could not comprehend what he was seeing.

I knew shes going to ten-strike with me because her boxing coach told her she has good striking, Nunes said. She supposes shes a boxer. He put this in her head and constructed the girl believe that. She had a great judo and she could go more forward in this division, but he set some crazy thing about his boxing[ in her head] and her career went down.

After referee Herb Dean rescued Rousey from further penalty, Nunes strolled over to an inconsolable Tarverdyan and set a finger to her mouth: shush. Then Nunes went to Rousey and offered a hug. The narrative concentrates on Rousey for a while, but Nunes hopes the world accepts that its time to move on and that some attention is shifted her direction. Rousey, she said, is done. If true that makes Rousey the second female MMA pioneer Nunes will have retired in 2016. Miesha Tate called it discontinues when Nunes hammered her in July to capture the belt at UFC 200.

Now the division is get interesting, Nunes said. New everything. Now people arent merely going to talk about Ronda Rousey or Miesha. Theres a lot of talent in this division. People will see this and make up their intellect. This is MMA. You have to keep moving forward.

The UFC president, Dana White, afterwards said that Rousey was in better spirits than she had been after the Holm defeat, but he is not sure if the former champ would oppose again. I dont know. Ronda obviously needs to go home and take some time, he told ESPN. Shes very rich. She doesnt need to fight anymore. Shes super competitive. Maybe she wants to, I dont know. Well see what happens.

Rousey showed that in the UFC there is no height from which a star cant autumn. No limb he or she cant hit on the way down. And no thud they wont feel. Her stardom reached well beyond the cage, but no sum of fame could save her from a second consecutive drubbing in the Octagon. Rouseys dominance then difficulty should serve as a cautionary narrative to fighters everywhere.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

Bernie Sanders’ Health Plan Is Too Good To Be True, Analyst Says

When Bernie Sanders released his universal health care plan last week, promising that most people would be given more generous insurance coverage while paying less for medical care, most policy experts said it sounded too good to be true.

Now, a veteran health economist has rendered a more serious assessment of Sanders’ proposal and concluded that the critics were right.

According to analysis from Emory University professor Kenneth Thorpe, a former Clinton administration advisor who has also done paid work for health industry clients, Sanders has wildly underestimated the cost of providing such comprehensive benefits to all Americans. Either his plan would blow a giant hole in the deficit, Thorpe predicts, or the new payroll and incomes taxes to finance project proposals would be more than twice as high as the Sanders campaign has projected.

Either way, Thorpe says, the Sanders plan would create both winners and losers, as any health reform proposal would. The winners would include workers for whom the new taxes would still be less than what they pay now, in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses blended. The losers would include some Medicaid recipients with chores, because their employers would pass along the expense of new payroll taxes as lower wages.

Thorpe’s analysis is preliminary, and the exact mix of people better or worse off financially would depend on a bunch of factors , not least among them the still-fuzzy details of how the Sanders plan would pay physicians, hospitals and drugmakers.

But under Thorpe’s hypothesis, which he says take into account the difficulty of imposing the Sanders plan on existing U.S. health care infrastructure, 71 percentage of running households that now have private insurance would end up paying more for their health care if Sanders had his route.

The Sanders campaign, which says that its plan would benefit 95 percent of Americans, is sharply disputing the analysis. Warren Gunnels, a senior policy advisor on the campaign, told The Huffington Post that Thorpe’s estimate was a “complete hatchet job” and said it was “disappointing, but not surprising, ” devoted Thorpe’s past work for industry.

So how did Thorpe get those figures? And why are they so different from the estimates that economist Gerald Friedman, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, produced for the Sanders campaign?

It’s all about the assumptions that each analyst made.

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has proposed to create a single-payer system — that is, he would wipe out current insurance the agreements and put in their place a single federal insurance program that would encompass everybody. The scheme would have automatic enrollment so that it would truly cover just about everybody, even those who haven’t signed up for coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Sanders calls his proposal a “Medicare-for-all” plan, but the insurance he proposes to give all Americans would nearly remove out-of-pocket spending, constructing the benefit package more generous that what most people with either private insurance or Medicare have now.

Covering more people and most of them with more generous benefits plainly requires a lot of money. But single-payer systems abroad manage to provide generous, universal coverage for much less than the U.S. spends — because those foreign systems fritter away less money on administrative waste and profit, and since they are give governments the power to set medical prices and salaries at much lower levels than the U.S. currently pays.

Taking those prospective savings into account, Friedman determined in his analysis, a single-payer system could dramatically reduce health care spending. That, in turn, would make it possible to finance the Sanders plan with payroll taxes of 6.2 percentage plus an “income-related premium”( basically, an income taxation) of 2.2 percent. That’d still be a lot of money, to be sure, but Friedman concluded that it would be less than what most people pay now in blended premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures. The one group consistently paying a lot more “wouldve been” wealthy, since the Sanders plan would jack up their taxes to provide additional financing.

When the Sanders campaign released its plan and the accompanying analysis, Friedman was candid about the limits of his projection, particularly when it came to grappling with political and policy-related complications. “The pleasure of being an academic is I can just spell things out and leave the details to others, ” Friedman told reporters at the time. “The details very quickly get very messy.”

Thorpe attempted to adjust for that messiness — and found that, in order to pay for itself, Sanders would have to set the payroll taxation at 14.3 percent and the income-related premium at 5.7 percentage. Both taxation hikes would be more than double what the Sanders campaign has said it would impose.

A big reason for the inequality, Thorpe said, would be that upgrade in benefits, since it would entail the government was paying for expenditures that individuals with private insurance and Medicare currently pay out of their own pockets. The benefits upgrade would also boost spending indirectly, since people with lower out-of-pocket spending tend to ingests more medical services. According to Thorpe, the Sanders analysis didn’t fully take into account these costs.

Thorpe also assumed that the new government insurance plan Sanders foresees would pay for medical services at approximately 105 percent of cost — in other words, at 5 percent above what providers like hospitals need simply to cover their expenses. That’s less than private insurance now pays, but more than Medicare and a lot more than Medicaid. Again, Thorpe said, Friedman’s analysis doesn’t adjust appropriately for that likely expense.

In theory, an insurance program like the one Sanders has sketched out could hold down costs by putting a lot more pressure on physicians, hospitals and drugmakers to deliver lower prices — and, perhaps, by limiting access to services and drugs.

In practice, Thorpe says, doing so in the U.S. would require dramatic changes that neither the health care industry nor the public would tolerate, at least in one fell swoop. And that, Thorpe told HuffPost, makes the Sanders plan “completely implausible” without major changes.

Thorpe has been rendering estimates like these since the 1990 s, when he worked with then-first lady Hillary Clinton on crafting the reform bill that the administration tried and failed to get through Congress.

But Thorpe told HuffPost that he conducted his analysis on his own initiative. And his assumptions about the difficulties of imposing a single-payer system in the U.S. — particularly the challenges of wringing huge efficiencies out of providers — are broadly consistent with what most health policy experts believe. “Under a single-payer scheme, the government would define prices get paid to doctor, hospitals and narcotic companies, ” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “Whether or not that would create huge savings in overall health care spending is more a matter of faith than economic analysis.”

Of course, Thorpe’s analysis is as subject to scrutiny and second-guessing as anybody’s. Friedman told HuffPost that, based on a cursory inspection of research reports, he guesses Thorpe built several too pessimistic assumptions — underestimating the savings from reduced by billing transactions and insurance overhead, for example, and slightly overestimating the generosity of benefits that Sanders has in mind. Friedman also thinks Thorpe didn’t sufficiently account for savings from the cheaper drug prices a single-payer plan could achieve.

Still, Friedman noted, “Kenneth Thorpe is a serious intellectual and his contribution to this dialogue is most welcome.”

Read more: www.huffingtonpost.com

How to Ease Withdrawal Symptoms When You Quit Sugar, According to a Nutritionist – Health.com


Health.com

Poor nutrition, poverty continue to drive health problems here – Yakima Herald-Republic


Yakima Herald-Republic

Republican push ahead with plans to hinder insurance coverage for abortions

A proposed bill would impose a far-reaching ban on private insurance coverage for abortions under Obamacare, and could see tens of thousands lose out

Republicans in Congress are advancing a bill that imposes a far-reaching prohibit on private insurance coverage for abortion services for as long as the Affordable Care Act remains in effect and would build permanent a longtime banning on the use of Medicaid to cover abortions.

The bill, H R7, would be facilitated Donald Trump to fulfill a promise that helped his volatile presidential campaign procure the purposes of major anti-abortion rights activists. In an open letter published in September, he vowed to sign the Hyde amendment, a perennial budget rider that Congress has approved every year for 40 years, into permanent law. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prevented millions of women who rely on Medicaid, the government-funded insurance for low-income individuals, from utilizing it to cover their abortions.

But if the bill passes, the most immediate changes will be felt on insurance policies exchanges where millions of women buy healthcare coverage.

HR7 prohibits insurance carriers from offering policies that contain abortion coverage on the exchanges set up under Obamacare to sell insurance coverage to individuals. It proscribes low-income women who qualify for a healthcare subsidy from receiving it if they buy a healthcare plan that covers abortion. And it would withhold the small business taxation credit from employers who offer policies with abortion coverage.

Critics of HR7 fear it could impose a widespread ban on private insurance coverage of abortion by banning abortion coverage in the smaller subset of private insurance policies that are sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

Because many insurance carriers offer policies to individuals on the exchanges that are similar to the group policies they sell to companies, covering abortion in one case but not the other requires an extra layer of administration.

Health experts said they could not be certain that would be the outcome.

What that would do to other plans, we dont genuinely know, said Laurie Sobel, the associate director for womens health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare think tank. But she noted that after Obamacare began necessitating health care policies to offer contraceptive coverage, insurance carriers enforced the coverage in the same route across the market for group and individual policies alike.

With very limited exceptions, health insurance companies basically did the same thing with everybody, Sobel said. That is worrisome in terms of, if abortion coverage was restricted in the marketplace, insurance companies might just adopt that policy across the board.

The ban on using subsidies or taxation credits toward policies with abortion coverage has the potential to impact significant changes, because carriers could be reluctant to design plans that so many women or small business owners would be ineligible to buy. In 2016, there were 871,000 uninsured females eligible to buy policies containing abortion coverage utilizing subsidies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Under the bill, tens of thousands more who have already used their subsidies to purchase insurance would lose abortion coverage.

The bills restrictions on the health insurance exchanges would cease to apply if and when legislation passed by Republican in Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act. But the bill is almost certainly a preview of the length to which Republicans will go to restrict abortion when they come to replace Obamacare.

Its a pretty sweeping bill, said Destiny Lopez, a director of All Above All, a coalition of abortion rights groups that opposes the Hyde amendment. Its an attempt to withhold abortion from nearly all women in the US through burdensome regulation intended to stop insurers from encompassing abortions. It could curtail abortion for nearly every woman in this country in some manner, and do significant damage including with regard to to low-income women.

Insurance coverage for abortion is already limited in a way that forces thousands of women to pay for abortions out of pocket. Twenty-five states restrict the sale of insurance policies encompassing abortion on their nation exchanges. And exchanges in six other countries dont offer any schemes that cover abortions, possibly because Congress enforced extra administrative obstacles under the ACA for providing abortion coverage.

A 2013 study found that merely about a quarter of abortion patients who had insurance used it to cover their procedure. Those who didnt use their insurance overwhelmingly said their insurance did not cover abortion or they werent sure.

The bill would also convert a slew of existing, provisional bannings on abortion coverage into permanent statute. These include outlaws on abortion coverage for women on federal insurance, such as many Native American girls, women in the Peace Corps, in federal prisons, or those enrolled in Medicare or the Youngster Health Insurance Program, and prohibit the city of Washington DC fromusing its own local funds to subsidize abortion services.

The House of Representatives approved a version of the bill on Tuesday, and the Senate will consider similar legislation next week. But Republican in that chamber may be required to peel off eight Democratic or independent votes for the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Unless Republican leaders change the Senates regulations to remove the filibuster, the fate of the bill may lie with Democrat facing re-election in 2018 in states that voted for Trump.

Were confident that the Senate will continue to be a firewall on this issue, said Lopez.

Also on Tuesday, Republican introduced a federal heartbeat bill that they say would effectively eliminate abortion, but is less likely to pass even the House.

Despite Hydes longevity, progressive lawmakers in recent years have adopted efforts to see it overturned. Even Hillary Clinton, in her 2016 bid for the presidency, promised to attempt to remove Hyde from future budget bills. HR7, although it does not change the fact that women on Medicaid have long been forced to pay for any abortion services out of pocket, would make it harder for a future Democratic Congress or chairman to do so.

HR7 is titled the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017. Republican congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey introduced the bill in early January, as he has for several years running.

At an event to announce the bill, Smith said he supports repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, but that it is necessary to restrict the ways in which the law facilitates abortion coverage until that time.

No one knows how quickly the replace portion will actually occur, Smith said. In the meantime, the unborn child is about to be killed with public fund. We need to enact a statute that takes abortion out of[ Obamacare ].

This article has been amended on 25 January, 2017, to correct an assertion that the contraception mandate did not apply, initially, to all insurance plans.

9 Insane Celebrity Diets That Will Make You Glad You Aren’t Famous

People tend to follow celebrity diet fads based on the heart-stopping beauty of famous folk.

Unfortunately, celebrities live on the cusp of reality. Their diets are difficult for people living in the real world to implement. Still, there’s no damage( yes, there is) in trying( do not try these ).

1. Elvis Presley: Sleeping Beauty Diet

Introduced to the world by Jacqueline Susanns novel Valley of the Dolls in 1966, the Sleeping Beauty Diet allowed Elvis to pound peanut butter, bacon and banana sandwiches during his waking hours and burn off the calories in his sleep.

The logic of the SB Diet is pretty straightforward: If you arent conscious, you cant feed, and if you cant feed, you cant gain weight. The King of Rock’ n’ Roll would sedate himself for days at a time in an effort to stay svelte.

On a massively related note, Elvis was as insane in the head as he was gorgeous in the face. Do not try this diet at home or anywhere.


2. Beyonc: Veganism

In 2013, diva supreme Beyonc and her hubby Jay Z abided by a vegan meal planfor 22 days.After the challenge, the 7/11 singer sparingly reintroduced meat to her diet.

When asked about her foray into veganism, Yonc reportedlytold Good Morning America,

I am not naturally the thinnest woman. I have curves I have fought since a young age with diets.

Dont worry, Bey, a vegan diet is just as miserable.


3. Gwyneth Paltrow: Elimination Diet

Gwyneth touts the Elimination Diet on her lifestyle blog, Goop.

In a detailed overview of the process, the actress explained,

This is a dietary program based on removing all the foods from our diet that are known to cause food allergies, food sensitivities, and cause interruptions in the digestive process Choose your meals form the listing of foods that are allowed. Combine them any style you want use common sense. Leave the table ’8 0[ percentage] full.’

Gwyns concept of almost-fullness appears to be a recurring theme in celebrity diets. If youre not hungry, youre not losing weight.

Her list excludes some meat, dairy, alcohol, refined sugar and coffee in favor of cold-water fish, legumes, select nuts, filtered water and Stevia.

OMG. YUM, GIRL!


4. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, aka Kate Middleton: The Dukan Diet

To lose weight for what was, quite literally, her fairytale bridal, Kate Middleton followed a four-phase process called The Dukan Diet.

Step one, aka The Attack Phase, limits the dieter to only devours protein for two to seven days. For the better part of a week, the Duchess of Cambridge ate only lean meats, fish, egg whites and nonfat dairy products.

Step two, aka The Cruise Phase, asks dieters to switch daily between proteins and green or cooked veggies, dedicating about five days to each pound he or she wishes to lose. What a treat!

Step three, aka The Consolation Phase, allows the dieter to add two slice of bread and aportion of fruit and cheese daily, plus two weekly portions of carbs and two weekly gala meals.

Step four, aka The Permanent Stabilization Phase, lets dieters return to a laid-back, less-than-vigilant way of feeing while devoting one day a week tostep one.

Its the diet that never ends!


5. Reese Witherspoon: Baby Food Diet

The Hot Pursuit star was rumored to have eaten a diet of almost entirely jarred baby food in an effort to keep her calorie counting down and avoid harmful additives.

While the diet is simple and cost-effective, its also straight-up nasty for any adult who doesnt excavate pureed carrots.

Plus, it remains unclear whether or not theres a sexy style to spoon baby mush into ones mouth in front of a run crush.


6. Anne Hathaway 😀 ried Oatmeal Squares

To lose weight for her role as tuberculosis-ridden prostitute Fantine in Les Misrables, Anne Hathaway’s usual vegan diet did not make the cut.

Instead, the actress feed two squares of dried oatmeal paste each day and snagged an Academy Award for her work in the film.

The diet undoubtedly worked, but since none of us are angling for an Oscarthis year, lets try something less extreme.


7. Angelina Jolie Pitt: The Ancient Grains Diet

The notoriously skinny actress and mother of five, 000( ish ?) children reportedly keeps her figure radio-antenna thin with the help of ancient grains.

A spoonful of coconut oil and a handful of cerealmake for the perfect Angelina breakfast. Later, the By the Sea star will cook up some quinoa or buckwheat and pig out.

Mmmm, grainyyyy.


8. Victoria Beckham: Alkaline Diet

The fashion icon swears by the Alkaline Diet, which eliminates acid-forming foods like dairy, meat, sugar and coffee and replaces them with veggies and whole grains in an effort to keep the dieters body’s pH between 7.35 and 7.45.

Wait, a diet blending the thrill of limited with the fun of recreational math and science ?! SIGN ME UP!


9. Katy Perry: The M-Plan

The M-Plan or The Mushroom Diet keeps the highest paid female in music thin by replacing one meal daily with a( preferably raw) mushroom-based dinner for 14 days.

Though mushrooms are rich in vitamins and minerals, replacing meals with a low-calorie, low-fat, low-everything raw vegetable replace is plainly going to promote weight loss.

It will also promote monotony and, in extreme cases, fury blackouts, but its your life and your body.


Yummm! Mushroom snacks, grain bowl, a coma — with so many options, it’s difficult to know where to start.

You know what? Forget it. This isexhausting. It’s snap( snack+ sleep) hour. Good luck, hotties!

Are in favour of Elite Dailys official newsletter, The Edge, for more stories you don’t want to miss .

Read more:

Merely 22 Percent Of Common Traditional Chinese Medicine Found To Include Ingredients Listed

Regardless of what kind of substance you are imbibing whether its food, medicine, narcotics, or drink if youre buying it from an outlet, youd expect there to be ingredients on the bottle. It goes without saying that youd expect those listed ingredients to be accurate.

A new analyze in Scientific Reports has highlighted that, when it comes to traditional Chinese medication, the ingredients listed are often erroneous or false.

Specifically, medications which claimed they contained honeysuckle ( Lonicera ) a very fragrant flowering garden plants, and one used in a huge scope of Chinese remedies for at least 3,000 years were only truthful 22 percent of the time in a study of 47 known-brand samples. In some cases, what was said to be honeysuckle was a substitute or an adulterant, one that wasnt listed on the bottle.

The team, led by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College in Beijing, developed a brand-new, hyper-accurate genetic barcode that is able to quickly identify the various botanical extracts contained in various Chinese medications. Concerned about drug safety and franknes, their study sadly confirmed their fears that plenty of medical suppliers in this sense are apparently lying to people.

Traditional Chinese medicine has a controversial reputation. Much of it is feasible to harmless, but this isnt always the case. It isnt often put through stringent scientific testing, and it surely isnt regulated in the way modern medicine is. In short, people should be wary of it until the facts emerge and these are often obfuscated behind enthusiastic proponents of the practice.

Either way, the fact that nearly four-fifths of common Chinese medicine in this sense is not what it claimed responsibility for is deeply troubling. Its hoax if the working group intent behind the mislabeling.

Imagine if just one in five of these jars contained what they claimed. Elena Elisseeva/ Shutterstock

The team explain that adulterants or substitutes are utilized because theyre less costly and easier to obtain and this practice is unbelievably widespread.

Adulteration and counterfeiting of medicinal plant products is a global problem, especially in developing areas such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia, they write in their study.

The WHO( World Health Organization) estimated that as many as 30 percentage of medications sold in some Asian regions are adulterated, and the occurrence of incorrect species as medicinal herb substitutes in Brazilian markets may be as high as 71 percent.

China is one of the worlds best places for biomedical research; its set to usurp America in this regard by the end of the decade. For decades, traditional Chinese medication wasnt actually assessed in this way, but this new study is part of a drive to change that and few would disagree with any mission to uncover counterfeiting at this scale.

Read more: