New york times

Every few weeks I'm hit with a bad case of insomnia, and it's beyond frustrating. I've tried every trick in the book to deal with it, but I usually end up lying in bed for an hour before giving up and getting up again. One thing I've tried to lull me to sleep is the old wives tale of counting sheep. I haven't had much success with it and it looks like I am not alone. According to a sleep study, counting livestock is not an insomnia cure and it may even be keeping you up longer.

To see what methods were best when it came to falling asleep, researchers in Oxford monitored the sleep habits of insomniacs. On the nights the participants were told to count sheep (or do nothing at all), it actually took them longer to fall asleep in comparison to other methods. What did help the insomniacs was to visualize a relaxing scene. On average, the participants fell asleep 20 minutes sooner when they used this visualization technique. Researchers believe that counting sheep is ineffective because it's too boring and participants stop counting. In comparison, imagining yourself on a tropical island is engaging enough to concentrate on until we tire ourselves out.

The reason positive visualization may work on insomniacs is related to another Oxford sleep study that compared the pre-sleep thoughts of insomniacs and sound sleepers. Researchers found that insomniacs don't usually picture relaxing images before bed and instead focus on worries, things they did during the day, and environmental noises. It looks like having less stress is the key to a good night's sleep — unfortunately, the stress of not sleeping is enough to keep anyone up! Next time I have this problem, I'll be taking a few minutes to meditate all the day's worries away.

In the recent New York Times article "When Moths Make a Home in Yours," writer Arianne Cohen asked the experts about ways to banish the bothersome bugs from your closet — and prevent them from returning.

Of course, it's always best to stop moths' progress before it starts. However, if it's too late for that, there are some steps you can take to keep the winged invaders at bay. Check out some of the methods for keeping moths out of your closet when you read more

• Will Bing replace Google as default search engine on the iPhone? — MacRumors
• Guess what? Ereader owners buy more books — GigaOm
• And Amazon is upping the royalties for ereader publishers — Newsvine
• New York Times will start charging for content in 2011 — The Wire
• T-Mobile rolls out lower prices for the BlackBerry Bold 9700 and Curve 8520 — BGR
• Submit your Cool Captures for your chance to win a CanvasPop print — GeekSugar

It used to be that when I got sick, a temperature reading of 98.6°F was enough to persuade me that I didn't have anything serious. But a recent article in the New York Times says that 98.6 isn't so average after all. Suddenly what I thought was my safe zone is just slightly off.

Although resting body temperatures vary between individuals, a study found that on average it's 98.2°F — not 98.6 as once believed. The results of the study also show that body temperatures increase over the course of the day.

This seems pretty minor, I mean what's a few tenths of a degree? Not much, until you consider that with every decade our body temperature declines, as well. This becomes even more of an issue among the elderly. A study confirms that many nursing-home patients with serious infections had temperatures below 101°F, which is usually where concern comes in relation to temperature reading. And their temperatures remained below 101°F even though they had an increase of 2.4 degrees or more, which can be indicative of a serious fever.

In light of these new findings it seems like a good idea to check your temperature on a series of "well" days. That way, you have a sense of what your average body temperature, which can be used as a gauge to measure yourself against when you're sick. I know I will definitely be doing this.

Beyond that, I think this article is also a good example that regardless of what a measuring instrument may say or not say about your health, it's good to listen to your body. If you feel like there's something serious going on, never hesitate to call your doctor.

Is there anything better than waking up to find the New York Times delivered?  We love to uncover the latest in fashion, accessories, social trends, and beauty advice while still in our pajamas. The renowned T Style Magazine on Sundays and the Thursday Styles section bring us dazzling inspiration in the form of extensive and essential coverage on fashion and style. To be in the know, this is required reading!

And now signing up for the New York Times is even sweeter!  You can get 50 percent off when you order home delivery, so click here to subscribe and let all of that great fashion and style come to you.

There have been a lot of reports in the last year confirming that contrary to popular belief, not all exercise leads to significant weight loss. If you want to shed pounds, it mostly comes down to diet. It’s no surprise that changing your diet can help you lose weight, but for decades, many people believed that exercise was the best pathway to a slimmer, fitter you.

Today the New York Times added to the news that exercise doesn’t significantly aid in weight loss by reporting the results of an exercise and obesity study. The study followed a group of 58 obese individual who underwent three months of supervised aerobic activity but didn’t change their diets at all. And while the group lost an average of seven pounds, many participants barely lost three.

I admit that when all of these studies started coming up I was a little shocked, but it turns out that high intensity workouts mainly burn carbs, not just fat.

To hear what type of exercise may maximize fat loss, read more

There's been a lot of talk in the media about E. coli contamination in ground meat lately, hamburgers specifically. First, The New York Times profiled Stephanie Smith, a young woman who was paralyzed after eating a contaminated hamburger. A week later, Larry King and CNN posed the question "Should Americans banish the burger"? The media is always reporting beef recall stories, which leave me a little freaked out about indulging in the occasional cheeseburger. How about you?

The argument against ground meat goes something like this: in slaughterhouses all sorts of things are flying around, including cow guts, which contain E. coli. Because slaughterhouse practices can be a little iffy, the E. coli can come into contact with the meat to be sold for consumption. Cooking a piece of contaminated steak usually kills the bacteria because the E. coli has only touched the surface, not actually penetrated the meat. The problem with ground meat is that E. coli can easily get onto every small bit of meat, making it harder to eliminate.

I'm not sure if I'm ready to completely banish the burger from my diet, but I do eat less meat these days. Besides being healthier for my heart, the sanitary conditions of large slaughterhouses worry me a bit. When it comes to eating meat I definitely try to follow certain guidelines. To learn them, continue reading.