Use the labels in the right column to find what you want. Or you can go thru them one by one, there are only 33,991 posts. Searching is done in the search box in upper left corner. I blog on anything to do with stroke. DO NOT DO ANYTHING SUGGESTED HERE AS I AM NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED, YOUR DOCTOR IS, LISTEN TO THEM. BUT I BET THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET YOU 100% RECOVERED. I DON'T EITHER BUT HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS FOR YOUR DOCTOR TO ANSWER.
Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!trillions and trillions of neuronsthatDIEeach day because there areNOeffective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.
What this blog is for:
My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
It
may not sound like a New Year's resolution, but Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is
serving up some unusual advice as you start out 2026: Eat your ice
cream. "Ice cream will make you happy, and that's very important," he
explained.
I asked, "Why would I live longer eating ice cream?"
"Ice
cream is a good dairy product; it's got protein, its saturated fats are
in a globule, so it doesn't affect you as much as saturated fats in
meats and other things," he said. "Plus, you typically do it socially
with someone else. And you know, being happy is a very important part of
living a long time."
"I feel like your saying 'eat your ice cream' is like 'Don't stress out as much about life. Be more social,'" I said.
"We're here for only 75, 85, 90 years. You've got to make life enjoyable. You've got to make it fulfilling," he said.
The prominent oncologist and health policy expert is taking a different approach in his new wellness book, called, "Eat Your Ice Cream: Six Simple Rules For a Long and Healthy Life"
(to be published Tuesday by W.W. Norton & Co.). He said, "I want
people to stop obsessing. make it part of your life. You should like
exercising, you should like eating well. Otherwise, you're not going to
do it for years and years and decades, which is what's necessary for a
long, healthy life."
The
doctor's health handbook does include the basics of what to eat, how to
exercise, and the all-important reminder that sleep is fundamental to
wellness. But it goes beyond that, with behaviors that include "Don't be
a schmuck."
"One
of the things that is I think core to the book is, stop doing things
that aren't good for your health," Emanuel said. "'Don't be a schmuck'
is my father's reference to us when we were being stupid. And so, there
are lots of things that we do as human beings that can be schmucky:
smoking, vaping, doing drugs, not taking your vaccines. I don't agree
with the current administration, and they're dead wrong on this."
Also on the so-called schmuck list: alcohol.(I completely disagree on this one. My social connections are vastly improved on jazz and trivia nights at local bars, and that is going to prevent dementia! But I'm not medically trained, so don't listen to me. I just read lots of research abstracts.)
I asked, "This is what everybody wants to know about: the right amount of alcohol, or no alcohol?"
Emanuel
said, "There has been a lot of research on alcohol, so here's the way I
distill it: The safest level is probably zero. There are some studies,
and we should be clear, where it's half a cup a day, three cups a week."
"Nobody drinks a half a glass of wine," I said.
"So,
you drink every other day," Emanuel said. "On the other hand, 60, 65%
of the public drinks. You're not going from 65% to zero. So, you have to
give people reasonable advice. And the reasonable advice is, first of
all, no binge drinking, that's really bad for you. Don't drink alone.
That's really bad for you. If you're using alcohol as a lubricant for
social interaction, which many people do, that's probably good; you're
getting some benefit from the social interaction."(THIS!)
Social
interactions – a consistent theme for Emanuel – is something he learned
at a young age, growing up with brother Ari, a super-agent in
Hollywood, and his other brother Rahm, the former mayor of Chicago and
ambassador, who may be running for president of the United States.
I asked, "What is it that your parents taught all of you that has led you, I mean, you're all incredibly successful?"
"Now
you're gonna make me cry," Emanuel said, "because every time I talk
about my parents and our growing up, I tend to cry. They taught us how
to be social and interact with people. They also taught us how to be
responsible. One of the things my mom did in raising us is, you know,
get out of the house and go occupy yourself. Rahm and I went to school, I
was six in first grade, and he was in nursery school. I had to take him
from school, walk two blocks across a busy street, get on a bus, pay
the car fare, get off at the right spot. I learned a huge amount of
responsibility, taking care of my brothers.
"The
other thing I think they did, which was super-important for us, is we
all slept in the same bedroom. We were a unit. Yes, we fought endlessly.
And you know, I like to joke with people, we didn't go to bed until
there was blood, you know, because of all the fights. But we were also
each other's best friends."
His takeaway: relationships matter.
Emanuel
also lists lifestyle choices he considers "anti-wellness," like chronic
stress(Especially the stress of your incompetent? doctor not knowing how to get you 100% recovered!), a fast-food diet, social media, and dining alone.
"I
think people would agree with all of those, with the exception of
dining alone," I said. "A lot of people go to a restaurant or get home
from work, and dine alone."
Emanuel
said that should be an occasional thing: "Don't make it every day. And
you know, if you find yourself dining alone, what you should do is call
up a friend. If you're sitting at a bar, right, and you're dining there,
ask the person next to you, you know, 'Have you been to this restaurant
before? What do you do? Why are you here?' Yeah, strike up a
conversation. We underplay those casual conversations and how important
they are for us."
His
book also discusses retirement: "Retirement leads to more rapid
cognitive decline for people. I say to people, don't retire. And if
you're gonna retire, you have to plan retirement well, so that you stay
engaged, you stay mentally sharp. And that doesn't mean, 'Well, you
know, I'm gonna try to play the saxophone one day.'"
"But Dr. Emanuel, a lot of retired people like to buy books, and watch 'Sunday Morning,'" I said.
"Well,
if they're buying books and staying mentally engaged that way, if
they're going to volunteer, say, or they're talking to friends, or
they're taking up a new hobby seriously, all of that is excellent,
highly endorsed," he replied.
"Meaning don't retire the mind, or retire your social engagement?"
"Yes, and it's very important, you've got to be deliberate about it. You can't let nature take its course."
So,
what is his biggest piece of advice for us in 2026? "Build your social
relationships," he said. "It's definitely the most important thing for
long-lasting health and happiness."
In studies, people who eat ice cream are less prone to type 2 diabetes, but you haven't heard this. Is there a bias against ice cream? Do Nutrition Scientists Have a Bias Against Ice Cream? 4.4- 231 ratings Diabetes Terry Graedon April 18, 2023
What should a healthful diet include? If you had to make a list, you’d probably start with vegetables and fruits. After all, they feature prominently in both the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet and the Mediterranean Diet. We have plenty of evidence that both of those benefit blood pressure and help reduce the risk of diabetes. No doubt you’d mention whole grains like oats or brown rice. If you are not a vegetarian, you might list fish and possibly chicken. Perhaps you’d include low-fat dairy products (part of the DASH diet). But ice cream? We suspect you might have a bias against ice cream. Many nutrition scientists seem to share it.
A fascinating article by David Merritt Johns in the May 2023 issue of The Atlantic highlights this curious proposition. He starts with a doctoral dissertation defended at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Harvard University in 2018. The candidate, Andres Ardisson Korat, had done an extensive analysis of the relationship between dairy food consumption and cardiometabolic health–basically type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The data came from the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All of these carefully conducted long-term cohort studies have collected detailed dietary data from thousands of presumably reliable reporters (health professionals!) over the decades. As far as epidemiology goes, these studies are the cream of the cream.
Or maybe the cream of the ice cream. Because what (now) Dr. Ardisson Korat discovered was unexpected: “Intake of total dairy product or individual dairy products were not associated with CVD risk, with the exception of an inverse association between ice-cream intake and CVD health outcomes.“ To translate, people who ate more ice cream were less likely to have problems like heart attacks, strokes or coronary blockages requiring stents. Is There a Bias Against Ice Cream?
According to Mr. Johns, this result prompted the candidate’s committee to push for further analysis. How could ice cream be linked to a lower heart risk? Nonetheless, despite further careful analysis, the association just wouldn’t go away.
Now, every statistician will tell you that association is not causation. We get that. However, as Mr. Johns describes, this is not the first time that analysis of the Harvard dietary data fingered ice cream as healthy. Twenty years ago, Mark Pereira found that people who reported eating ice cream were less likely to develop type 2 diabetes. When he spoke with Mr. Johns recently, Dr. Pereira admitted he still can’t explain it, but he insisted, “We analyzed the hell out of the data.”
Moreover, his study and the study by Dr. Ardisson Korat are not the only ones. Other analyses of dietary data, especially large data sets over long periods of time, have also found an ice cream signal. Why haven’t you heard about it?
What you have heard instead is that low-fat yogurt is good for you. The analysis showed that people eating yogurt were also less prone to type 2 diabetes. However, the ice cream signal was even stronger. So, why didn’t it make headlines? Alternate Explanations:
One reason might be that the nutrition scientists just didn’t believe it. Consequently, they looked for another way to explain this anomaly. Here it is. They hypothesized that people who had developed health problems like diabetes or heart disease would probably have cleaned up their (dietary) acts and would be no longer eating indulgent desserts like ice cream. Scientists call this “reverse causation.” Of course, it is plausible, although the lack of such a signal for doughnuts or cake undermines it more than a bit. A more plausible explanation is a bias against ice cream.
Dr. Pereira offered Mr. Johns a somewhat different explanation. He pointed out that many of us shade the truth when we are answering questionnaires. In his study, heavier people reported eating fewer dairy-based desserts than people of normal weight. Perhaps they were trying hard not to gain more weight, but he suggested an alternate explanation: “I don’t believe that the heavier people consume less desserts,” he said. “I believe they underreport more.” That in itself might be evidence of a bias against ice cream, as well as a bias against overweight. Nutrition Scientists Have Shown Some Biases Before:
If there were a bias against ice cream among nutrition scientists, it wouldn’t be the first one. We have been writing for years about dietary recommendations based more on dogma than on evidence.
To start with, experts warned us against consuming foods high in cholesterol. Butter and eggs were off the menu. Then salt was sinful. People were told to banish the salt shaker even if they were healthy. More recent research has thrown this advice into question.
It wasn’t enough that people were staying away from cholesterol-containing foods. Next, they were told that all fat was bad. They were encouraged to dramatically cut fat intake. Many people turned to fat-free foods and fake fats to accomplish this goal, even though they didn’t taste as good.
Although consumers were warned away from whole milk (not to mention ice cream), they were urged to get lots of calcium to build strong bones. As a result, millions of women started swallowing calcium supplements to avoid osteoporosis. However, subsequent studies did not provide strong support for this (Climacteric, Oct. 16, 2015).
All these recommendations were presented as if they were chiseled in stone. The health gurus set them forth as facts rather than articles of faith. Little wonder, then, that we might suspect that at least some scientists have a bias against ice cream.
Fresh coffee ice cream close up shoot
What should a
healthful diet include? If you had to make a list, you’d probably start
with vegetables and fruits. After all, they feature prominently in both
the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet and the
Mediterranean Diet. We have plenty of evidence that both of those
benefit blood pressure and help reduce the risk of diabetes. No doubt
you’d mention whole grains like oats or brown rice. If you are not a
vegetarian, you might list fish and possibly chicken. Perhaps you’d
include low-fat dairy products (part of the DASH diet). But ice cream?
We suspect you might have a bias against ice cream. Many nutrition
scientists seem to share it.
A fascinating article by David Merritt Johns in the May 2023 issue of The Atlantic
highlights this curious proposition. He starts with a doctoral
dissertation defended at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health in
Harvard University in 2018. The candidate, Andres Ardisson Korat, had
done an extensive analysis of the relationship between dairy food
consumption and cardiometabolic health–basically type 2 diabetes and
heart disease. The data came from the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’
Health Study II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All of
these carefully conducted long-term cohort studies have collected
detailed dietary data from thousands of presumably reliable reporters
(health professionals!) over the decades. As far as epidemiology goes,
these studies are the cream of the cream.
Or maybe the cream of the ice cream. Because what (now) Dr. Ardisson
Korat discovered was unexpected: “Intake of total dairy product or
individual dairy products were not associated with CVD risk, with the
exception of an inverse association between ice-cream intake and CVD
health outcomes.“ To translate, people who ate more ice cream were less
likely to have problems like heart attacks, strokes or coronary
blockages requiring stents.
Is There a Bias Against Ice Cream?
According to Mr. Johns, this result prompted the candidate’s
committee to push for further analysis. How could ice cream be linked to
a lower heart risk? Nonetheless, despite further careful analysis, the
association just wouldn’t go away.
Now, every statistician will tell you that association is not
causation. We get that. However, as Mr. Johns describes, this is not the
first time that analysis of the Harvard dietary data fingered ice cream
as healthy. Twenty years ago, Mark Pereira found that people who
reported eating ice cream were less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.
When he spoke with Mr. Johns recently, Dr. Pereira admitted he still
can’t explain it, but he insisted, “We analyzed the hell out of the
data.”
Moreover, his study and the study by Dr. Ardisson Korat are not the
only ones. Other analyses of dietary data, especially large data sets
over long periods of time, have also found an ice cream signal. Why
haven’t you heard about it?
What you have heard instead is that low-fat yogurt is good for you.
The analysis showed that people eating yogurt were also less prone to
type 2 diabetes. However, the ice cream signal was even stronger. So,
why didn’t it make headlines?
Alternate Explanations:
One reason might be that the nutrition scientists just didn’t believe
it. Consequently, they looked for another way to explain this anomaly.
Here it is. They hypothesized that people who had developed health
problems like diabetes or heart disease would probably have cleaned up
their (dietary) acts and would be no longer eating indulgent desserts
like ice cream. Scientists call this “reverse causation.” Of course, it
is plausible, although the lack of such a signal for doughnuts or cake
undermines it more than a bit. A more plausible explanation is a bias
against ice cream.
Dr. Pereira offered Mr. Johns a somewhat different explanation. He
pointed out that many of us shade the truth when we are answering
questionnaires. In his study, heavier people reported eating fewer
dairy-based desserts than people of normal weight. Perhaps they were
trying hard not to gain more weight, but he suggested an alternate
explanation: “I don’t believe that the heavier people consume less
desserts,” he said. “I believe they underreport more.” That in itself
might be evidence of a bias against ice cream, as well as a bias against
overweight.
Nutrition Scientists Have Shown Some Biases Before:
If there were a bias against ice cream among nutrition scientists, it
wouldn’t be the first one. We have been writing for years about dietary
recommendations based more on dogma than on evidence.
To start with, experts warned us against consuming foods high in
cholesterol. Butter and eggs were off the menu. Then salt was sinful.
People were told to banish the salt shaker even if they were healthy.
More recent research has thrown this advice into question.
It wasn’t enough that people were staying away from
cholesterol-containing foods. Next, they were told that all fat was bad.
They were encouraged to dramatically cut fat intake. Many people turned
to fat-free foods and fake fats to accomplish this goal, even though
they didn’t taste as good.
Although consumers were warned away from whole milk (not to mention
ice cream), they were urged to get lots of calcium to build strong
bones. As a result, millions of women started swallowing calcium
supplements to avoid osteoporosis. However, subsequent studies did not
provide strong support for this (Climacteric, Oct. 16, 2015).
All these recommendations were presented as if they were chiseled in
stone. The health gurus set them forth as facts rather than articles of
faith. Little wonder, then, that we might suspect that at least some
scientists have a bias against ice cream.
This will never be approved for your use because your doctor doesn't read and translate research findings into stroke protocols. You are completely and totally on your own and should never eat ice cream in the morning because of its' fuckingly dangerous qualities. I would add it to my coffee, I live dangerously so don't follow me. http://cwphilly.cbslocal.com/2016/11/23/study-ice-cream-for-breakfast-boosts-brain-performance/?cid=facebook_CBS_Philly
All the years of your parents saying “NO” to ice cream for breakfast may have actually stunted your brilliance.
According to The Telegraph, a new study performed by Yoshihiko Koga, a
professor at Kyorin University in Tokyo, revealed that eating a certain
amount of ice cream immediately after waking up in the morning can actually make you smarter.
No, you did not misread that!
According to the study, test subjects who indulged in ice cream
immediately upon waking up and right before participating in a series of
computer exercises had an increased reaction rate and were better able
to process information. In order to rule out whether or not the brain
was just shocked to a higher level of performance, the same test was
done with regular ice-cold water, but the results did not compare. According to The Guardian,
a similar test performed back in 2005 by researchers at the Institute
of Psychiatry in London revealed that one spoonful of ice cream gives your brain the same type of pleasure as winning money or listening to your favorite music.
For all you ice cream lovers out there, I’m sure you probably didn’t need science to tell you all of this.
And its even a valid therapy, at least according to me. Its been hot here and I wanted an ice cream treat at home, so I saw Ben & Jerry pints while shopping and impulsively bought several. After getting home I thought some more about it and realized I should have gotten ice cream sandwiches like last time. Recovery is buying normal food and figuring out how to use it, the ice cream sandwiches were compensating(bad idea). But therapy called and I responded. First problem to solve is to get the left hand open enough to grasp the pint, good thing there was a cover and it was still fairly hard. Finally succeeded even though the thumb position was bad. But the cold was great sensation therapy, sending a great amount of cold signals to my sensory cortex. Or in my case, trying to recreate the white matter pathways that underlie the sensory cortex. Then comes the grasping tightly enough to scoop out the ice cream. Success!!!
Cherry Garcia was great and I still have a full pint of Peanut Butter World. Thousands of repetitions of this could put on some serious weight. I'll still do it.
Do not self prescribe this type of therapy without your doctors ok. You know damn well how much I think of stroke doctors.
