FAST WEIGHT LOSS WITHOUT EXERCISE! INDULGENCEDIET.COM

Day 1 weigh in video. The beginning of my final weight loss journey.

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Without health care reform, 20-somethings out of luck

Before the Affordable Care Act young adults had the highest uninsured rate of any age group for health care in the country.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- When you're young, health insurance is hardly a priority. But for Sarah Adkins, 25, it was a lifesaver.

Because of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that enables young adults to remain on their parents' insurance plans until age 26, Adkins received health coverage just as her kidney was shutting down from an untreated kidney stone.

She hadn't been able to find a full-time job with benefits after graduating from college nearly two years earlier. Without health insurance, the freelance graphic designer had avoided treatment for her chronic kidney stones -- even painfully trying to pass a stone herself in a moment of desperation.

After the Affordable Care Act took effect in September 2010, Adkins was able to go on her father's plan and have emergency kidney surgery. "The doctor told me my kidney was shutting down and if I continued to avoid treatment, I could have died. I was only 24," she said.

About 2.5 million young adults from age 19 to 25 attained health coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to the law's approval, some 13.7 million young adults were uninsured, nearly one-third of the nation's total uninsured population, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

But in a matter of months, the millions of 20-somethings that have enjoyed health insurance through this provision of the health reform law, may abruptly lose it. The Affordable Care Act, which is slated to be fully implemented by 2014, is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court and could be stuck down.

At issue is whether a provision called the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to buy some form of health insurance, is constitutional. While the mandate is separate from the provision allowing young adults up to the age of 26 to be covered under their parents' policies, the court could decide to scrap the entire law -- instead of just the mandate -- leaving millions of young adults in the lurch.

"You would revert back to where we were before," said Kathleen Stoll, deputy executive director of health policy for the advocacy group Families USA. That means only in certain states would some young adults be able to get coverage through their parents' insurance plans.

For many young adults, affording health insurance on their own will be particularly difficult.

The unemployment rate for young adults age 16 to 24 was 16.4% in March, twice the national average for the population as a whole.

And many of those who do find jobs, often aren't being offered health benefits.

Less than a quarter, or 24%, of workers between the ages of 19 and 25 were offered health insurance by their employers in 2010, down from 34% in 2000, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, an independent public policy organization. Meanwhile, nearly 57% of the rest of the working population between the ages of 26 and 64 were covered.

"While [the percentage] has dropped, it's always been low," said Paul Fronstin, the director of health research at EBRI who compiled the data. "This is not a population that ever had a high likelihood of having health benefits through their job."

They also earn less overall, which makes it difficult to cough up the cash for a pricey individual policy.

Nationwide, the average premium per person for an individual policy was $2,580 a year in 2010, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Of course, that number jumps significantly if you have any kind of health problem, like asthma or diabetes, Stoll said.

"They can try to buy insurance on their own but many don't or can't afford it," said Gary Claxton, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

As a result, many young adults opt to go without health coverage. And since most 20-somethings are relatively healthy, it becomes less of a financial priority, Fronstin said.

But young adults do want health insurance, said Stoll. "There's this myth out there that young people would rather buy surfboards than health insurance. Young adults want the financial protection -- they just can't afford it."  

First Published: April 16, 2012: 5:46 AM ET

View the original article here

Can the health care reform law survive without the individual mandate?

Two health care reform protesters on the first day of oral arguments. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Could President Obama's sweeping health care reform law survive if the court strikes down the requirement that all Americans buy insurance?

The short answer is yes -- but insurance companies certainly won't be happy about it.

Both Justice Department lawyers and their challengers agree that the individual mandate is not "separable" from the rest of the law, which means the rest of the law can't survive if the individual mandate is surgically removed by the court.

[Complete coverage of the Supreme Court health care case]

The lower courts have been split on the question, but one of them, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in August that only the mandate should be struck down, leaving the rest of the law's provisions -- including an expansion of Medicaid to cover all low-income people and federal subsidies for lower-income and middle-class people to buy insurance -- in place.

That decision no doubt sent shivers down the spines of some insurance executives. Striking down the mandate could be a nightmare scenario for the health insurance industry, since the rest of the law compels them to accept sick customers and to not charge higher premiums based on a customer's health, age or gender. Sick customers would flood the insurance market and drive up costs, while young, healthy uninsured people would take their chances and not buy coverage, in what insurers worry would be a "death spiral" of rising costs.

[Related: Monday's audio of the Supreme Court health care law oral arguments]

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that premiums in the individual market would increase 15 to 20 percent if just the mandate is struck down, since millions of healthier Americans would could forgo buying insurance and thus not offset the costs of new sick customers. But a study by the Rand Corporation estimated a more modest premium increase of less than 3 percent. MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber wrote in an analysis for The Center for American Progress that 50 to 75 percent fewer uninsured people would be covered by 2019 under the law if there was no mandate, but that the government would only save 25 to 30 percent on the lower numbers.

Starting in 2014, the mandate will levy a penalty of 1 percent of a person's income on those who don't buy health insurance, with exceptions for religious objections and financial hardship. The fee would eventually increase to 2.5 percent of annual income or $695, whichever is higher.

Maura Carley, president of the patient advocacy firm Healthcare Navigation, tells Yahoo News that New York state provides a case study for what could happen if the mandate is struck down, but insurers are still required to take every patient and charge them equally.

"We go back to 1993," she said, referring to when the state passed a law requiring insurance companies to cover everyone. "Every New Yorker can get individual coverage, they just can't afford it." (Unlike in New York, the health care law will offer subsidies to people to purchase health insurance.)

To avoid this outcome, Justice Department attorneys are asking the court to strike down the regulation requiring insurers to take all customers if they decide to kill the individual mandate. In this, they partially agree with the 26 states that are suing the government over the law. The states' attorney, Paul Clement, will argue that the entire law needs to be struck down, echoing Florida-based Federal Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that Congress would not have passed the law without the individual mandate, and thus the entire thing should fall.

[Related: Santorum uses Supreme Court health care hearing to knock Romney]

If the Court does only strike down the mandate, the death spiral could be averted, argues Aaron E. Carroll, an associate professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine. He writes that the government could give big tax breaks to people who buy insurance as one way to prevent "adverse selection." Princeton sociologist Paul Starr writes that Congress could replace the mandate's monetary penalty with an opt-out system, where people who choose not to purchase insurance must sign a form saying they won't buy insurance for a period of five years. This would prevent some people from waiting until they get sick to buy insurance, which drives up costs.

But any of those changes would actually require Congress to pass new laws, which seems highly unlikely given that Republicans control the House and are pushing for a full repeal of the law. Individual states could take up the cause, by passing their own mandates or other measures to encourage people to buy insurance.

Other popular Yahoo News stories:

• The Supreme Court's health care reform case: What to expect

• Poll shows steep drop in support for war in Afghanistan

• New Orleans police officer suspended over Trayvon Martin comments

View the original article here

Court: What's left of health law without mandate?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The heart of the Obama administration's health care overhaul hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court is turning to whether the rest of the law can survive if the crucial individual insurance requirement is struck down.

The justices also will spend part of Wednesday, the last of three days of arguments over the health law, considering a challenge by 26 states to the expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income Americans, an important feature toward the overall goal of extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people.

As the arguments resumed Wednesday morning, a small group of demonstrators gathered outside. Supporters of the law held a morning news conference where speakers talked about the importance of Medicaid. And, marching on the sidewalk outside the court, supporters repeated chants they've used the past two days including "Ho, ho, hey, hey, Obamacare is here to stay." ''Protect our care. Protect the law," supporters chanted as several played instruments including a trumpet and drum.

Opponents of the law, including Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., also stood outside the court. Clark, who was wearing a three-cornered colonial-style hat, carried a sign that read "Obamacare a disaster in every way!"

"Freedom, yes. Obamacare, no," other opponents chanted.

The first two days of fast-paced and extended arguments have shown that the conservative justices have serious questions about Congress' authority to require virtually every American to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

The outcome of the case will affect nearly all Americans and the ruling, expected in June, also could play a role in the presidential election campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats pushed for the law's passage two years ago, while Republicans, including all the GOP presidential candidates, are strongly opposed.

But the topic the justices take up Wednesday only comes into play if they first find that the insurance mandate violates the Constitution. If they do, then they will have to decide if the rest of the law stands or falls.

The states and the small business group opposing the law say the insurance requirement is central to the whole undertaking and should take the rest of the law down with it.

The administration argues that the only other provisions the court should kill in the event the mandate is stricken are insurance revisions that require insurers to cover people regardless of existing medical problems and limit how much they can charge in premiums based on a person's age or health.

The federal appeals court in Atlanta that struck down the insurance requirement said the rest of the law can remain in place, a position that will be argued by a private lawyer appointed by the justices, H. Bartow Farr III.

On Tuesday, the conservative justices sharply and repeatedly questioned the validity of the insurance mandate.

If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli?

Audio for Tuesday's court argument can be found at: http://apne.ws/Hft6z3.

The court focused on whether the mandate for Americans to have insurance "is a step beyond what our cases allow," in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"Purchase insurance in this case, something else in the next case," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

But Kennedy, who is often the swing vote on cases that divide the justices along ideological lines, also said he recognized the magnitude of the nation's health care problems and seemed to suggest they would require a comprehensive solution.

And Roberts also spoke about the uniqueness of health care, which almost everyone uses at some point.

"Everybody is in this market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they're regulating is how you pay for it," Roberts said, paraphrasing the government's argument.

Kennedy and Roberts emerged as the apparent pivotal votes in the court's decision.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because the insurance requirement will provide insurance companies with more premiums from healthy people to cover the increased costs of care.

"If the government can do this, what else can it not do?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked. He and Justice Samuel Alito appeared likely to join with Justice Clarence Thomas, the only justice to ask no questions, to vote to strike down the key provision of the overhaul. The four Democratic appointees seemed ready to vote to uphold it.

Kennedy at one point said that allowing the government mandate would "change the relationship" between the government and U.S. citizens.

"Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution" for the individual mandate? asked Kennedy.

At another point, however, he also acknowledged the complexity of resolving the issue of paying for America's health care needs.

"I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree ... the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case," Kennedy said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she found the debate over health care similar to an earlier era's argument about the Social Security retirement system. How could Congress be able to compel younger workers to contribute to Social Security but be limited in its ability to address health care? she wondered.

"There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, Oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to preserve private insurers, it can't do that," she said.

___

Associated Press writers Jesse J. Holland and Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.

View the original article here

The 'Heart' of Health Care Reform: Can the Law Stand Without a Mandate?

During the summer of 2009, when the health care reform debate was dividing the country and the "public option" seemed like the most important policy issue in a generation, the proposal to require all Americans to have health insurance was hardly ever mentioned. The individual mandate, now the focus of a historic Supreme Court review, was just one part of a complex and broad overhaul of the nation's health care system. Medicare cuts, end-of-life counseling and a tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans were a few of the provisions that attracted far more attention -- and criticism.

Despite flying under the radar for so long, the individual mandate is now being described by critics as the foundation on which the entire new health care law rests. Thanks to a constitutional challenge, the mandate's future is in peril. Although the High Court won't rule until June and predicting its decision is impossible for even the most seasoned experts, a Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday over the requirement's constitutionality left many health reform supporters worried it might not survive. If it falls and the rest of the law remains, however, chaos could follow, along with a host of unintended consequences like skyrocketing health insurance costs and even less access to coverage than exists today.

(PHOTOS: Supreme Court Health Care Protests in Pictures)

Paul Clement, a lawyer representing 26 states and a small business trade association, argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the entire law, which reorganizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy, must fall if the individual mandate can't pass constitutional muster. Taking the opposite stance, a court-appointment attorney, H. Bartow Farr, argued the Affordable Care Act should be left to stand as is, even without the mandate. Meanwhile, the federal government's lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, argued that two major insurance reforms -- to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and premium pricing based on health -- are too closely linked to the mandate to exist without it. Those must go if the mandate falls, Kneedler said, but the rest of the law should live on.

So what's likely to happen? One possible outcome is that the individual mandate is upheld as constitutional, which would make Wednesday's debate moot. If the Court comes down against the mandate, however, it must then grapple with the interdependency of the law's parts and Congress's intentions when it crafted the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, of the court's liberal wing, began the questioning during Wednesday's session by suggesting that even if nixing the individual mandate would cause collateral damage, it is a problem for Congress to solve, not one for the High Court to head off. "Why don't we let Congress fix it?" she asked.

Clement, arguing for the states, said federal lawmakers surely would not have wanted the Affordable Care Act to continue in dysfunction without an individual mandate, operating in a way at odds with the goals of the original law. Therefore, he said, it should be wholly struck down, leaving a "blank slate" for Congress to start over again to better address the crisis of rising health care costs. But the health care law is filled with a myriad of measures, some of which have nothing to do with the individual mandate or even health insurance. In what he called a "total off-the-cuff impression," Justice Stephen Breyer, of the court's liberal bloc, pointed out that provisions encouraging breastfeeding, aiding coal miners with black lung, placing doctors in under-served areas and requiring restaurants to publish calorie counts on menus are all elements of the Affordable Care Act unrelated to the individual mandate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also left-leaning, pointed to a reauthorization of funding for the Indian Health Services as one such element of the law. Should these just be discarded, Breyer asked.

(MORE: Why Obamacare Supporters Are Getting So Nervous)

Clement responded that if the mandate and provisions "tied at the hip" to the mandate are struck from the bill, all that remains is "a hollow shell" or items "on the periphery" of substantive health care reform. Justice Antonin Scalia, of the court's conservative wing, appeared to agree. "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone," he said.

The justices also engaged in a line of questioning about how the court could decipher which pieces of the health care law Congress would have wanted to pass, with or without the individual mandate. This is a fraught exercise, as Chief Justice John Roberts noted:

This was a piece of legislation, which, there was -- had to be a concerted effort to gather enough votes so that it could be passed. And I suspect with a lot of these miscellaneous provisions that Justice Breyer was talking about, that was the price of the vote. Put in the Indian health care provision and I will vote for the other 2,700 pages. Put in the Black Lung provision, and I'll go along with it. That's why all -- many of these provisions, I think, were put in, not because they were unobjectionable. So presumably what Congress would have done is they wouldn't have been able to put together, cobble together the votes to get it through.

Justice Elena Kagan said there was no use trying "to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street," referring to Capitol Hill. "Instead, we look at the text that's actually given to us."

This is easier said than done. Drawing hearty laughter from those in the court room, Scalia cited the Eighth Amendment, which bans "cruel and unusual punishment," and said it was ridiculous to expect the justices to go through the Affordable Care Act line by line, determining which provisions might be related to the individual mandate.

You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?...Do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?... Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Justice Samuel Alito, also a conservative justice, said it may be impossible to figure out which Affordable Care Act provisions could remain if the mandate is struck. "Once you've cut the guts out of it, who knows, who knows which of them were really desired by Congress on their own and which ones weren't?"

(VIEWPOINT: Why The Supreme Court Should Uphold the Health Care Law 9-0)

The government's lawyer, Kneedler, argued that the text of the Affordable Care Act draws a bright line between the individual mandate, insurance reforms and the rest of the law despite its complexity. That led Roberts to ask, "How do you know that? Where is this line?" Kneedler contended that the authors of the health care law explicitly said the mandate was "essential" to the health insurance reforms, but did not make this distinction for any other provisions.

Determining what -- if anything -- Congress might have done differently on health reform if the individual mandate had not been under consideration is very close to impossible. This predicament could ultimately limit the justices' options. If the mandate falls, the court may decide it has no choice but to leave the rest of the law intact or strike it altogether.

The possibility of the Affordable Care Act's total demise seems real after this week's arguments, a scenario that has left supporters of health reform befuddled and nervous. A fatal blow removing the legitimacy of President Obama's signature legislative achievement just months before Election Day could damage his political fortunes. On the other hand, if the court upholds the law, either mostly or entirely, accusations that Obama has undertaken an unprecedented expansion of federal government could be deflated.

The justices will soon likely take a preliminary secret vote on where they stand on these issues. Debate among them will continue over the next several months and a final decision is expected in June.

MORE: High Noon for Health Care

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

Health care without bureaucrats’ assistance

For all the debate over health care in this country – how much it costs, who pays for it – there’s remarkably little change. The debate never ceases, and the costs keep going up.

But poke around behind the scenes a bit and what you’ll notice is considerable restructuring of the health care industry – how and where it’s delivered and how it’s priced.

It’s not one thing that’s going on, it’s multiple and separate efforts, ideas, ventures and experiments, some by established players in the health care industry, others by new entrants, still others by combinations of the two.

Taken as a whole, though, they represent a trend that could provide some answers to the vexing questions of health care – or else collide with accepted notions in such as a way as to make the current arguments over health care seem subdued by comparison.

One such idea is the freestanding urgent-care clinic for routine procedures and minor illnesses and injuries, the stuff that needs more immediate attention than a scheduled visit to a doctor’s office but doesn’t need to clog up a trauma-level emergency room.

What were once colloquially referred to as “docs in a box” aren’t a new concept. They’ve been around for several decades, in fact, but growth has been slow in coming.

They are catching on with established health care providers and newcomers alike. MultiCare operates eight urgent-care clinics in the region (its website will even tell you how many minutes the wait is at its locations), as well as two Express clinics. Franciscan Health System has two urgent care clinics, branded as PromptCare, and is planning a third.

Others see potential in the market. Towson, Md.-based Doctors Express has two locations in Washington, including one recently opened in Kent, and is looking to open more franchised locations.

Retailers too have been interested in the possibilities of adding health care services, in the form of walk-in clinics. Walmart has a clinic in a Federal Way store, while Walgreens, Target and Rite Aid, among others, have opened clinics in stores.

That’s one approach, oriented at consumers. Employers are trying out affiliations with clinics that, for a monthly fee, provide primary care (individuals also are eligible to join). The employer can then back that up with insurance coverage for major stuff such as surgeries.

Denver-based Paladina Health, a subsidiary of DaVita Inc., has a clinic in Tacoma and plans to open more in the region. Another company pursuing much the same model, Seattle-based Qliance, also has a Tacoma clinic.

For higher-end medicine, a Bellevue company, MD2, promises concierge medicine with doctors who care for just 50 families each.

How much these ventures grow and influence the health care debate depends on how well they deliver on their promises to deliver faster, more convenient, more personalized care, and potentially at a lower cost. They will require consumers to make some changes too, giving up established relationships, doing more research, rethinking how they access medical care, even paying more out of their own pocket. They’ll also have to deal with knowing exactly what health care costs, an issue that often gets obscured with third-party payers and the industry’s complex pricing systems.

Employers, too, will need to consider whether these new options are preferable to absorbing ever greater benefit costs, trying to shove some of those increases off on employees or ditching health care coverage entirely. But the potential in those promises is huge. If this stuff works as hoped and the employer and consumer markets like what they’re getting and ask for more, it could well turn out that the politicians will one day look up from their wrangling over health care, only to find that while they were fighting, consumers and providers went ahead and solved the problems on their own.

Bill Virgin can be reached at bill.virgin@yahoo.com.

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

Health Law Would Not Implode Without Mandate, RAND Study Finds

If the Supreme Court knocked out the health care reform law’s individual mandate, but preserved everything else, the sky would not fall, according to a new analysis from RAND Health.

The study, published on Thursday, looked at the effects of enrollment and premium increases in a universe in which health care reform stayed on the books without the controversial requirement that everyone have health insurance or pay a fine. In briefs before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration is arguing that the mandate is the key piece of a larger regulatory structure that  expands coverage without causing premiums to skyrocket.

The experiences of states that have tried insurance reforms without a mandate bear out this argument, and two prior studies of the federal law concluded that prices would go way up and enrollment way down without a requirement to buy insurance.

The argument for the mandate--originally made by conservatives during 1990s-era efforts at health care reform--is that without it, too many younger, healthier people will gamble on going without health insurance, driving up costs as only those with a greater immediate need for insurance buy it.

The RAND report agrees with those other analyses that fewer people would have health insurance without the mandate—87 percent of the non-elderly population versus 91 percent with a requirement. And it also concludes that insurance premiums would increase.

But by looking at the actual premiums new enrollees would pay, RAND finds that prices for most individuals would rise by only 2.4 percent, compared to the 10 percent or higher average premiums calculated by the prior studies. That could be a difference between what some critics have called a “death spiral” of adverse selection and the sort of change that would keep insurance relatively affordable for those who choose to buy it.

The RAND report did not, however, conclude that health care reform without a mandate would be a big bargain for the government. Because more people who bought insurance without a mandate would be old and sick, the government’s bill for tax credits to help middle-income Americans afford their premiums would not go down by very much. If Congress made no other policy changes, the cost would be $109 billion with a mandate versus $99 billion without—a difference in per-person cost of $7,468 versus $3,659.

According to RAND’s Christine Eibner, the report shows that the mandate could probably be severed from the rest of the law without causing calamitous results. But that doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea.

“That depends on your policy goals,” she said.

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here

How to Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind

Presentation by Doug Lisle, Ph.D. on January 8, 2012 at the South Bay Adventist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. Dr. Lisle, who appeared in Forks Over Knives, is a psychologist, director of research at TrueNorth Health, and co-author of "The Pleasure Trap."

View the original article here