Welcome to //ETI-BABA INFO// (EBI)
Our mission is to provide information and make it universally accessible and useful.
WELCOME TO EBI

LIFE IS A JOURNEY


E24




Dark spots on the skin are not a cause for concern and do not need treatment, though people may choose to remove them for cosmetic reasons. Depending on the cause, people may call some types of dark spots on the skin age spots or sunspots.
In this article, we look at what causes dark spots on the skin and how people can remove them using dermatological treatments and home remedies.

Dark spots are common on the face, shoulders, and back of the hands.
Dark spots on the skin can range from light brown to dark brown. The color of dark spots may depend on the tone of a person’s skin. The spots are the same texture as the skin and are not painful.
Dark spots also vary in size and can develop on any part of the body but are most common in areas often exposed to the sun.
Dark spots are common in the following areas:
In people with darker skin, a spot that is a few shades darker than the skin usually fades away within 6 to 12 months. Deeper coloration can take years to fade. Deep color changes often appear blue or gray, though a spot may also be a much darker brown than a person’s natural skin color.
There are several different causes of dark spots, as we describe here:
Also called sunspots, solar lentigines, or liver spots, people can develop dark spots on their skin after being exposed to the sun or tanning beds.
Areas of the body that receive the most sun exposure, such as the face, hands, or arms, are most likely to develop sun spots.
Melasma is a skin condition that leads to small patches of skin discoloration. The condition is more common in women, especially during pregnancy.
According to the American Academy of Dermatology, hormones may trigger melasma.
Certain medications can increase skin pigmentation and lead to dark spots. The most common culprits are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tetracyclines, and psychotropic drugs.
Dark spots can develop after a bout of inflammation on the skin. Inflammation may occur for various reasons that include eczema, psoriasis, injury to the skin, and acne.
Dark spots may remain after an insect bite, burn, or cut heals. These may fade with time.
Cosmetic skin or hair products can irritate the skin, causing dark patches to form.
Diabetes can cause areas of the skin to become darker.
Conditions associated with diabetes include acanthosis nigricans, which causes darkened, velvety skin, and shin spots or diabetic dermopathy, which people may confuse with age spots.

Sometimes you find yourselves in odd situations, even when trying several diet and exercise still you can’t lose weight. If you are worried about those extra pounds you have piled on, here are some tips that may aid to your get rid of that extra kilos.
Apart from exercise and healthy diet here are natural remedies that will help you to reach your ultimate goal.

There are only 2 things that every diet expert in the world seems to agree on (and we
know everyone is a diet expert these days).
1. Vegetables are good.
2. Sugar is bad.
But things aren’t so black and white if we let the light of science shine on sugar. Will
sugar make you fat? It depends on your diet.
Specifically, sugar’s effect on your body composition depends on if your diet has
a predefined set of macros that you stick to every day or if you just eat until you’re full.

All-you-can-eat sugar
If you eat until you’re full (ad libitum, as researchers call it), and you start adding sugar
to your coffee, your oatmeal, and your protein shakes, you are most likely going to gain
weight (or lose less weight, if you’re in an energy deficit).
The reason is simple. Sugar scores very low on the satiety index. This means it doesn’t
fill you up much relative to how much energy you consume. So if you add sugar to a
meal, you won’t eat much less of it. In fact, you may eat more of it because it’s tastier
(higher palatability, as lab coats say). Adding sugar to your meals will thus generally
increase your energy intake.
And since your body follows the laws of physics, specifically the laws of
thermodynamics, what happens to your weight depends on your body’s energy balance.
You gain weight in an energy surplus because energy will be stored. You lose weight in
an energy deficit, because your body will have to oxidize AKA burn bodily tissue to get
enough energy.
Sugar tracking
Ok, so far so obvious. But what we really want to know is this. Is table sugar AKA
sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) more fattening than starches like rice or oatmeal
when you consume the same number of calories?
In a 6-month study of 390 participants, one group ate a diet high in complex carbs and
another group ate a diet high in simple carbs. Both diets had the same total
carbohydrate and energy intake. There were no differences in fat loss or muscle
retention. The diets were also identical in their effects on blood lipids, an important
marker of your cardiovascular (heart) health.
While it is easy to classify simple carbs as bad and complex carbs as good, the
distinction between simple and complex carbs is in fact completely arbitrary. It is merely
a medical tradition that we call carbohydrates with 3 or more sugars ‘complex carbs’
and we call carbohydrates with 1 or 2 sugars ‘simple carbs’.
In support of these findings, other studies have found that diets containing different
amounts of sugar resulted in the same body composition changes [2].
A recent meta-review of the literature on the effects of fructose, ‘fruit sugar’, on body
weight concluded that substituting fructose for other iso-caloric carbs does not cause
weight gain. That’s right: it’s a myth that fructose is more fattening, calorie per calorie,
than other carbs, at least within practical settings when you’re not consuming well over
a hundred grams of pure fructose.
So as long as you track your macros, having sugar in your diet is in itself not bad for
your physique.
What about blood sugar?
It is a myth that table sugar causes a massive blood sugar spike followed by a complete
crash. The effect of food on your blood sugar is measured by the glycemic index (GI).
Table sugar, due to its 50% fructose content, has a GI of ~68, which is a ‘medium’ effect
on blood sugar. Table sugar actually has a lower GI than whole-wheat bread, which has
a GI of ~71.
Table sugar also has a lower insulin index than bread. (The exact values differ per
publication, but the trend is consistent.)
What about health?
Before you go tell everyone it’s ok to stuff yourself with candy, sugar does contain
empty calories. Vegetables have more fiber, micronutrients, and phytochemicals. So
your health certainly won’t thrive on a diet of nothing but processed crap.
However, in the context of an overall healthy diet, some sugar consumption won’t have
much of an effect on your health as a lean strength trainee, because your blood sugar
control and health, in general, should already be excellent. A meta-analysis and
systematic review found that the effects of the glycemic index on health markers are
dependent on the health markers’ initial values.
Low glycemic load diets are good for your health if you’re initially unhealthy, notably obese or diabetic, but in healthy populations, there was no effect. This is an example of a ceiling effect. You can’t fix what isn’t broken, so if you’re already healthy, eating ‘healthy’ foods at some point stops making you even healthier. If you’re lean, watch your diet and are physically active, it’s safe to say you belong in the healthy category and the glycemic load of your diet has no considerable effect on your health.
Case in point, there are many cultures in tropical climates thriving on diets of up to 90%
carbohydrates [2, 3]. And we’re not talking oatmeal and broccoli here. These cultures
rely on sugary fruits. For example, honey is the favorite food of the Hadza from
Tanzania.
Evolution has made sure our bodies can deal with sugar because it is found in many of
the world’s most nutritious foods: fruits. Fruit is, in fact, one of the foods humans have
consumed for the longest period of our genetic existence. Fruit has been stapled in
human diet ever since we were still monkeys living in the jungle [2]. And glucose is
literally in our blood.
Conclusion
In the context of an overall healthy diet with calorie-restriction, sugar won’t make you fat
or unhealthy. This may sound too good to be true, but sometimes you can literally have
your cake and eat it too. You can get shredded without limiting yourself to rice as your
only carb source. Eating sugar won’t make your six-pack fade away into a tumorous gut
if you watch your calories. And you certainly shouldn’t avoid eating fruit or dairy
because too much fructose or lactose will make you fat. That’s exactly the kind of
prescience that drives people into following obsessive and monotone diets that aren’t
healthy in psychological or nutritional terms.

A: The best time of day to exercise is the time that works best for you. Studies go back and forth on this topic and there are benefits in exercising in the morning and later in the day. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and lifestyle. Choose a time that helps you make exercise a regular and consistent part of your routine. Here’s why:
It’s all about finding your rhythm.
Ever wonder why some of us are morning people while others are not? This has quite a bit to do with your body’s internal clock or your circadian rhythms. Circadian rhythms are a daily cycle of sleep and wake cycles. It’s this cycle that regulates physical, mental, and behavioral changes within a 24-hour period. Body temperature, blood pressure, and metabolism are some of the physiological processes that can be affected by your body’s internal clock. These rhythms respond to changes in the environment and can be set and reset. The changes in the environment that can have an effect on circadian rhythms include lightness and darkness, temperatures within the environment, artificial light, the use of an alarm clock to wake, the timing of meals, and time of day you exercise. Your personal clock can affect what time of day you prefer to exercise. So, are you a morning person or a night owl?
If you’re a morning person…
It’s a no brainer: You should workout in the AM. Research suggests that those who exercise in the morning tend to be more consistent with their exercise routine. The idea is you’ll get your workout in before any other events or distractions of the day interfere, thus setting yourself up for success. People who exercise earlier in the day generally find they can manage their time better and they feel more energized throughout the day. If you do exercise in the morning, make sure to give yourself a little extra warm-up time to get your body temperature elevated and your muscles warm. Some people have trouble exercising in the morning because of dizziness, fatigue, or lightheadedness experienced when working out on an empty stomach. If that happens to you, try having a small snack, such as a banana or a serving of low-fat yogurt, prior to exercise.
If you’re a night owl…
Afternoon or evening exercise can be the perfect way to unwind. Some people find that afternoon or evening workouts are more productive and help relieve some of the stresses of the day. For others, an exercise in the morning doesn’t feel good because, when you wake up, your muscles may feel tight and your blood sugars may be low. Afternoon or evening workouts may just seem that much better because you are more alert, your body temperature is naturally elevated, and your muscles are warm and flexible. You also have the added benefit of having had the opportunity to get some food in your system which can help you feel more energized during your workout.
Whether you exercise for weight loss, stress relief, or one of the many other health benefits, it is important to be consistent. Schedule that time for exercise based on what works best for you — morning, noon, or afternoon. Your body’s internal clock will reset itself and your sleep habits and changes to meal times will either fall into place or can be adjusted based on when you decide to work up a sweat!

What can you achieve as a female lifter? There seem to be only 2 camps. The general public thinks a woman that touches a loaded barbell will wake up the next day as the SheHulk.

People with a bit more understanding of exercise physiology realize that this is obviously nonsense. One look around you in the average gym makes it clear that getting seriously big is difficult even for men. The statistic that women have ~15 times less testosterone than men is often quoted to explain that as a woman, you can’t grow much muscle anyway. So the common recommendation in today’s fitness circles is that women should train like men and should expect not to see much muscle growth.
There is truth to this, but the causality runs in the opposite direction. Before I explain this, let’s first look at how the natural muscular potential of women compares to that of men. Percentage-wise, how much muscle can a woman build compared to a man? Does it scale with testosterone so that women can build only ~7% as much muscle as men? Is it about half?
It’s 100%. Women gain the same percentage of muscle mass as men during strength training. In fact, women gain as much size and sometimes more strength than men [2]. The only difference is the starting point. Men start off with more muscle mass and more strength, but the relative increase in muscle size is the same between men and women.
Research on protein metabolism comes to the same conclusion. Women build just as much muscle protein after training and after meals as men. In fact, one study found that given the same level of muscle mass, women have a higher rate of muscle protein synthesis than men.
I worked with Hayley Hirshland (now Hayley Yamanaka) for over 2 years. During this time, she won her pro card in Fit Body and Figure (yes, 2 pro cards) and took first place in her first pro show, the WNBF Pro-Am Central USA Natural Championships.

If you think this is all just silly theory from labcoats studying beginners, consider this. Elite, natural female athletes have 85% as much muscle as elite male athletes. The studied sports included Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting. The 15% difference can easily be explained by 3 factors.
During our coaching, Lonnie Boe Pederson became Danish national champion in her 40s. I’m particularly confident Lonnie is drug-free, as she had to stop the coaching due to getting pregnant.
Within an individual, more testosterone means more muscle mass. There is little doubt about that. Between genders, however, the relation becomes much weaker. In their study of elite athletes, Healy et al. concluded that “The difference in lean body mass is sufficient to account for the observed differences in strength and aerobic performance seen between the sexes without the need to hypothesize that performance is in any way determined by the differences in testosterone levels.”
How can this be? Testosterone functions differently in men and women, as I explained in my BioSignature review. In animals, we have a good understanding of why testosterone is not needed for muscle development in women. It seems growth factors like IGF-1 and growth hormone take over the anabolic role that testosterone has in men. Growth factors are more important for strength and muscle mass in women than in men. Since women have just as much IGF-1 as men and women produce ~3 times as much growth hormone as men, this explains in part why having less testosterone does not limit how much muscle they can build. To make matters more complex, the sex hormones and growth factors interact and all these hormones also interact with your genes.
In short, saying women have less potential to build muscle mass because they don’t have as much testosterone as men are shortsighted.
I’m confident my former client Nancy Keizer is drug-free. She looks like this simply because she wants to and is very casual about her physique.

Not only is testosterone not the great savior, but estrogen is also not the bad guy. Most people, even women, shun estrogen as the evil hormone that makes you bloated and does all sorts of negative things. Although it’s rarely described what exactly the negative effects of estrogen are, most people agree nonetheless that’s it’s bad for your body composition. This is complete nonsense. In my article on hormones and fat loss, I explained the positive effects estrogen has on abdominal fat storage, but estrogen does many more awesome things.
These aren’t a few obscure and irrelevant findings I’m dragging up to support my point. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated the anabolic effects of estrogen. Estrogen is also crucial for your health, but that’s another topic. In short, estrogen’s bad reputation is based on nothing more than the poor intuition that if testosterone is anabolic, estrogen must be catabolic.
During our coaching period, Nina Ross earned her IFBB Pro Card, became Swedish National Champion and got 2nd at the European Championships. I’m damn confident she’s natural, as she actually got too big for Bikini and we had to actively work on reducing the size of her arms, back, and quads. She also refused to eat the breakfast recipe I sent her in her meal plan because it contained artificial sweeteners.
Women have the same relative natural muscular potential as men. They even have several advantages over men. So why don’t we see more muscular women?
Lastly, the women that do actually train seriously in spite of the stigma often train like men, which doesn’t align with their physiological strengths. Since women produce much more estrogen than men, this gives them several advantages over men in the gym. Women don’t fatigue as much as men and women recover faster after training. There are many more important gender differences in metabolism, anatomy, neurology, and physiology: see this article a full review of why and how women should not train like men. (If I just offended any feminists, get real.)