Lisa Find Love

Canyon Ranch, The Berkshires, Massachusetts

Known for immersing guests in a health-focused holiday, Canyon Ranch resort offers classes, spa treatments, weight lifting, and calorie-counted meals. Sure, they don’t serve alcohol, but you can bring a bottle to toast to your successes at the end of the day.

If you want to travel cheap, you have to know when to travel, according to Booking.com, an online hotel booking site (as well as smartphone app) that helps connect travelers of every budget to over a million properties worldwide and features over 120 million reviews. Even if you’re not specifically in the market for cheap travel, what could be better than a perfectly priced month-by-month itinerary of exciting global cities to check off your travel bucket-list? Well, we’ve got it in this handy infographic, which tells you the best week of the best month of the year to travel cheap to each of these 12 in-demand international cities.

The featured destinations (Amsterdam! Tokyo! New York City!) may surprise you because they may not fit your idea of cheap places to travel. But that’s the magic of this infographic. With the help of Booking.com, we did the legwork for you, first determining the average price per night at a four-star hotel in the most popular global cities, then following the way those prices fluctuated over the course of the most recent 12-month period for which prices were available for analysis (December 2015 through December 2016) while also factoring in each city’s weather and local events and holidays. The end result: the best cheap weak of the year for each city, including the average per-night price, and how much you’re saving compared with the most expensive week of the year. Bon voyage, and you’re welcome.

January: Melbourne, Australia in the third week of January for 153 Australian Dollars (AUD)

= 33 percent  savings

February: Buenos Aires, Argentina in the last week of February for $69

= 22 percent savings

March: Bangkok, Thailand in the second week of March for 2623 Thai Baht

= 22 percent savings

April: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA in the second week of April for $229

= 39 percent savings

May: San Diego, California, USA in the first week of May for $205

= 37 percent savings

June: New York City, New York, USA in the last week of June for $232 USD

= 35 percent savings

July: Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam in the last week of July for $87 USD

= 15 percent savings

August: Amsterdam, the Netherlands in the last week of August for 150 Euros

= 27 percent savings

September: Tokyo, Japan in the first week of September for 18511 Japanese Yen

= 34 percent savings

October: Beijing, China in the first week of October for 494 Yuan (RMB)

= 17 percent savings

November: Paris, France in the last week of November for 162 EUR

= 30 percent savings

December: Sydney, Australia in the fourth week of December for 179 AUD

= 40 percent savings

Now that you’ve got your itinerary, here are 10 travel tips that are no longer true. And these are the most honest cities, if that’s your priority.

American presidents tend to have a lot in common with each other. On average, they’re more extroverted and disagreeable than the rest of us, as well as less neurotic and, interestingly, less straightforward.

MORE: CIA Psychologists Dig Into the Mysterious Minds of Dictators

So it’s no surprise that when it comes to physical appearance, they’re fairly cookie cutter too. And when you narrow that down to facial hair? Well, the verdict is in—no matter how popular the style is outside the oval office, the president’s face will, more likely than not, be free of scruff.

In fact, no president has sported facial hair in more than a century, when William Howard Taft—and his handlebar mustache—left office in 1913.

MORE: This is What Your Beard Reveals About Your Health

The clean-shaven look for American leaders dates back to the country’s early days. George Washington and the Founding Fathers all had smooth faces, and it wasn’t until 1825 that John Quincy Adams—who had long sideburns—introduced facial hair to the office.

Unfortunately, the whiskered trend didn’t stick until Abraham Lincoln revitalized it during his presidency, starting in 1861. From there, it was mustache mania: Of the 12 presidents in office between Lincoln and Taft, all but two wore either a beard or mustache.

MORE: These are the 13 Things You Never Knew About Mustaches

But after that decade’s long run, it was downhill for facial hair. “Most men at the turn of the century featured stylish beards or mustaches, but showing off a smooth face became a new trend once public health officials maintained that men could transmit dangerous infectious particles through the scruff of their facial hair,” noted PBS in a documentary on tuberculosis. “Ultimately, the clean-shaven look became a symbol of the new middle-class man during the period that Harper’s Weekly labeled ‘the revolt against the whisker.'”

Now, it’s well supported that in order to win an election, a candidate would be wise to shave his face. “In 500 campaigns I’ve almost never had a conversation with a candidate about whether or not to have facial hair,” Democratic media consultant John Rowley told Slate. “It’s almost like conventional wisdom about facial hair has already hit candidates before they even run.”

But are there any instances he might advise a candidate to grow facial hair? “Maybe when people have a lot of scars on their face from an accident,” Rowley said.

We won’t get our hopes up. In the meantime, these are the funniest facial hair styles ever caught on camera.

Even if you’re not above making common first aid mistakes, there’s a super-simple way to prevent scarring from a cut, scratch, gash, or other relatively minor wound.

As a wound heals, a scar may form, and how big it is depends on how well it heals. The good news is that scars from minor injuries can definitely be minimized with proper treatment, according to Rebecca Lee, registered nurse from New York City and founder of the natural health source, RemediesForMe.com.

The first step, advises Lee, is to stop the bleeding and make sure the wound is clean. Running water and mild soap is all you need to clean your cuts and wounds, remove any debris, and minimize bacteria. Make sure your hands are clean before you start. Despite the advice you may have heard growing up, don’t be tempted to clean the wound with hydrogen peroxide. While it’s a great antiseptic and bacteria killer, it should not be used on cuts and wounds because it disrupts tissue growth and delays healing.

The next step is to apply a thin layer of petroleum jelly (or Vaseline) over the wound, to keep it moist and create an occlusive layer—that means it locks moisture in, which prevents the skin from drying out. As a backup you could use Aquaphor, which contains 41 percent petroleum jelly. The benefit of a semi-occlusive barrier over the skin is that it lets water and oxygen get to the wound, which is beneficial for healing and scar prevention. (Here are more great uses for petroleum jelly you might not be aware of.)

“Wet environments greatly support wound healing by encouraging new skin growth—epithelialization—and preventing dehydration and cell death,” explains Lee. “Wounds that are dried out take longer to heal and can get deep and itchy.” This is backed up by a review of clinical findings regarding treatment of wounds in a moist or wet environment, published in the journal Advances in Wound Care.

After applying petroleum jelly to the wound, cover it with a Band-Aid (or gauze and paper tape if you’re allergic to adhesives). It’s important to keep cuts and wounds covered, says Lee, because this keeps them clean, prevents dehydration, and creates a protective barrier between the wound and the external environment, even your clothing. If you don’t cover a wound and it dries out, it can lead to crusting and scab formation, which delays the healing process and is more likely to result in a scar.

To aid the healing process, Lee recommends cleaning the wound daily with soap and water, then reapplying petroleum jelly or Aquaphor, and adding a fresh Band-Aid. And if you’re wondering: Does Neosporin prevent scars? The answer is no, not directly! As long as wounds are cleaned daily, there’s no need for antibacterial ointments or other special creams.

We all know how relaxing it is to kick back and relax with a tall glass of wine at the end of a long day. But did you know that this habit could be putting you at risk for one of the deadliest forms of cancer out there?

Alcohol has been associated with many types of cancer in the past. About 3.6 percent of cancer cases worldwide have been determined to be caused by alcohol consumption. This is due to a carcinogen found in alcohol called acetaldehyde, which damages DNA and prevents it from repairing itself.

However, a recent study done by researchers at Brown University published in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention found a distinct connection between white wine in particular and melanoma—the deadliest type of skin cancer.

Most people know melanoma to be caused by sun exposure, but surprisingly, this study found that subjects developed melanoma primarily on the trunks of their bodies—a part that is usually covered by clothing and not exposed to the sun.

Dr. Eunyoung Cho, a co-author of this study, believes that the DNA damage aspect of the carcinogen is more related to the kind of disease found in this study. “Based on these findings, I might guess that this type of cancer is less related to sun exposure and more related to a biological mechanism of alcohol damaging DNA or preventing DNA repair,” she said.

There has been very little research done on the link between alcohol and skin cancer in the past, so Dr. Cho and her colleagues set out to assess the situation. They collected data from three past inconclusive studies that involved over 200,000 participants total. All subjects provided health information such as their medical history, environment, and typical drinking habits. After 18 years, researchers followed up with them and found 1,374 people were diagnosed with invasive melanoma. This is less than 1 percent of all participants, but within that 1 percent, researchers found some surprising trends.

Each drink that a participant had per day (i.e. one beer, a glass of wine, a shot of hard liquor, or about 12.8 grams of pure alcohol) was associated with a 14 percent higher risk of contracting melanoma. However, each glass of white wine in particular was associated with an additional 13 percent higher risk of melanoma. Other individual drinks did not produce this kind of trend.

“There are many risk factors for melanoma that you cannot change, like family history, hair color, and susceptibility to sunburn,” Cho said. “But drinking alcohol is something you can change, so it’s actually good to know that alcohol is related to melanoma as well as other cancers.”

Treehouse Point, Issaquah, Washington

Just outside of Seattle, you’ll find your tree house hotel alternative to city life with TreeHouse Point. Comprised of six cabins, this adults-only retreat offers simple comforts that will give you that back-to-the-basics feel. Heat, electricity, and a cozy bed all come in each cabin, though all but one are void of a bathroom. To access such luxury, you’ll have to walk the grounds to use the one bathhouse with toilets and showers. Stay in the Burl for two nights (the only one with a bathroom)—and expect to pay around $750. Heads up: You need to book months in advance as well.

Addiction is arguably one of the largest problems we face today, and one that does not discriminate based on class, gender, or socio-economic status. In his new book, The Affliction Of Addiction: It’s Not That Complicated (Science Answers All Questions), clinical therapist Adam McArnold argues that we already have the answers we need to fight the battle against addiction – if we just look in the right places.

McArnold writes that what matters most is not what caused the addiction, but what treatment professionals believe about the causes of addiction.

“Logically speaking, addiction will probably always appear to be a self-induced mental disorder stemming from the willfully excessive use of a psychotropic medication,” writes McArnold.

But this belief also sends addicts into a negative downward spiral where – in the midst of languishing self-esteem and confidence – they reach again for another drug. It also ignores what McArnold says is now undeniable evidence that drugs don’t just affect each person differently, but have very different effects on different brains. Some brains are predisposed to addiction.

Genetic predisposition doesn’t mean that one is impaired, but that they have a biological reaction to drugs that is stronger than the normal population. And simply believing that some are more vulnerable to the effects and adaptations of drug use than others, McArnold argues, makes all the difference.

“It is becoming more and more obvious that some people, if not most, are more resistant to [these types of] neurological changes. Therefore, only those who are more susceptible to neurological changes develop chemical addictions, and the degree to which one is vulnerable to these changes lies in one’s uniquely individual biological reaction to a specific chemical substance,” McArnold writes.

Referencing a powerful statement made by Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) that biological predisposition may account for forty to sixty percent of the reason why some people develop an addiction and others do not, McArnold argues that it’s time to re-think how we treat addiction.

The prevailing thought among those who treat addiction is that in order to be helped, addicts have to “hit their bottom,” and that when they do they will be ready to admit that they have a problem and take meaningful steps to overcome it. Most practitioners feel that the underlying cause of addiction is of little consequence.

However, what is consistently overlooked is that all addicts suffer from a core-driven unease even when they are sober. The suggestion that psychosocial issues such as stress or difficulty in relationships drive addiction undermines the fact that the addiction itself comes with several neurological adaptations that cause changes in the brain. These changes are not only linked to urges and cravings, but cause addicts to feel uneasy, experience low emotional tolerance and high arousal levels – all of which make them want to use.

Further, addiction treatment often centers around drawing the addicts’ attention to the biological adaptations that occur as a consequence of drug use, all the while ignoring the very real and prevailing evidence that some people are more vulnerable to neurological adaptation than others.

“Biological evidence does not equate to bio-vulnerability unless it is used for causal purpose and presented as such – evidence to the fact that some people are more vulnerable to neurological adaptation than others,” McArnold writes.

McArnold argues that what is missing from addiction treatment is a foundation on which to build a long, stable, and lasting sobriety, including knowledge as to why addictions happen and why an addict can never go back to using.

Recovery is often based on maintaining a stable level of psychosocial functioning so as to eliminate any psychological stressors that can lead a person to use. But McArnold writes that this type of recovery is conditional; it hinges upon sidestepping life’s challenges.

“How defeating and hopeless is this?” McArnold asks.

Treatment for addiction should start by realizing that the drug, and not the person, caused the addiction. While they can never use safely again, their addiction was not the result of their lack of mental fortitude, life challenges or a bad hand they were dealt.

What this perspective offers addicts is a way to believe that they can recover.

“Today we know that the brain actually does repair itself. To what extent we do not yet know, but it does explain why some addicts experience physical urges and cravings for years after cessation, which eventually do subside,” McArnold writes.

When addicts understand that safe substance use was never an option for them and never will be in the future, they can build a recovery that is not hinged upon overcoming mental inadequacies. One important differentiation is viewing addiction as a biological condition, as opposed to a behavior. While the influence to use can be biological, psychosocial, or social in nature, McArnold argues that what causes the spiral progression of addictions is the biological vulnerability. The focus of treatment then begins with first recognizing that addictions are biologically-conceived, emotionally-centered, adaptation-driven, and recoverable.

With convincing evidence and powerful insights, McArnold offers a paradigm shift in the world of addictions. He doesn’t simply ask us to rethink how we conceptualize and treat addiction, but to do better to provide treatment that doesn’t ignore the very real biological condition of addiction. It is a book that anyone treating or struggling with an addiction should read.

The Affliction of Addiction: It’s Not That Complicated (Science Answers All Questions)
Adam McArnold
Pen Pal Press (2016)
Softcover
311 Pages