text:
Going gluten-free is tough. REAL tough. Even though you know it's the right thing to do, whether due to a Gluten-Sensitivity or Celiac Disease, cutting out gluten-filled food is extremely difficult. It's also difficult to simply know WHAT IS gluten-free. There are A LOT of things one needs to wrap their head around when transitioning to a gluten-free diet, and the below five steps will aid them in the process.
1. Know what a gluten-free diet will do for you.
There are a variety of reasons one may go on a gluten-free diet, but the end result is all the same. Whether you go gluten-free because of a diagnosis or because you have simply found that gluten doesn't agree with you, the steps to success are similar.
You will be asked my many people what the point of a gluten-free diet is. They might label you as a Celiac, hipster, or a picky-eater. Sometimes you might feel like an outcast. Don't.
Know the benefits a gluten-free diet brings to your health. Remind yourself of that whenever you feel resistance from others. Be confident in your decision to be healthy.
2. Know the basics.
Many will say, "You can't have gluten? That's in everything, isn't it?!"
There is a misconception that gluten equates to tasty, and without it our taste-buds are doomed. The thing that others don't realize is that we have a wide variety of foods we still CAN eat. I still throw down at a barbecue. I can eat a platter of nachos like nobody's business. I love a big, juicy steak. Do those things sound like they don't taste good? They are ALL gluten-free, and definitely don't lack in the taste department.
When people tell you that your life sucks (because let's be honest, that's what theyou can't eat anything remark does), fire back at them. Rattle off the food that is naturally gluten-free. Inform them that gluten-free substitutes are available for just about every product imaginable.
When people tell me I can't have bread or pasta, I tell them that I actually eat bread every morning, and I make a mean pasta dish with gluten-free noodles.
Gluten-free does not mean doomed for life.
3. Focus on the positives.
One of the most difficult things in the beginning of the gluten-free diet is missing the convenience that gluten-filled food provides.
Traveling seems like a chore. Late night food runs may no longer be feasible. Dinners out with friends turn into a question of where can I eat?
The beginning of my gluten-free diet was filled with the above complaints. I missed being able to enjoy all of the simple things that others took for granted. But, after I would throw my taste-buds a pity party, I would remember the aftermath of eating the above foods. It was comparable to H-E-double hockey sticks. Why would anyone complain about NOT having to experience that pain anymore?
When I would think about the positives of a gluten-free diet and not focus on the negatives, it didn't seem that hard anymore.
4. Prepare for success.
When you prepare for success, you achieve it. This applies to anything you wish to accomplish, whether it is passing a test, nailing a presentation, or eating a healthy diet. Things take time. You get out what you put in.
So, what's more important than your health? Prepare for success. If you know you're going to have a long day, pack extra gluten-free snacks to help you get through. If you are traveling, pack your go-to snacks to last throughout the trip. We fall into temptation when we feel weak. Don't let yourself feel weak.
I've been there. You think to yourself Will I really get THAT sick? What's one little piece of pizza going to do? Man, oh man, you don't want to know what one piece of pizza can do. Bad things. VERY bad things.
So how do I no longer fall into temptation, get depressed, or even have the slightest urge to eat gluten in times of desperation? I plan ahead. Prepare. Know what my day ahead will bring and pack accordingly. I remind myself the risk vs. reward. It just ISN'T worth it.
5. Value your health.
Above all, you have to believe in yourself and what you are doing. You have to value your health more than convenience. Don't that a second of satisfaction cause you to fall into temptation.
Remind yourself of the benefits that a gluten-free diet provides, and how you are a stronger person because of it.
Author Information:
Laura Hanley, known as G-Free Laura, has been gluten-free since 2009. She reviews gluten-free products, restaurants, posts simple recipes, and writes about gluten-free experiences onwww.gfreelaura.com. Laura also blogs for the National Foundation for Celiac Awareness and Rudi's Gluten-Free Bakery. You can follow Laura's young, wild, and [gluten] free updates by finding her on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Google+.
[amzn_multi_product_inline keyword='gluten free, diet' count='5′ page=" sort=" category="]


text:
Anna Sui: Spring 2012
Anna Sui Spring 2012
Anna Sui Spring 2012
An all-star model cast including Karen Elson, Jess Stam, Arizona Muse, Karlie Kloss, and Lindsey Wixson hit the runway for Anna Sui's '40s-inspired Spring 2012 collection. With ladylike silhouettes, sweet, full-bodied prints, an electric palette — and turbans to top every look — Sui's Spring looks bright, polished, and marked with feminine charm in every detail. Nods to the womanly, the glamorous — and the very Parisian — were made throughout, in everything from the bold red lips to the lace veils, and the music transporting the crowd — including front-rower Sofia Coppola — to a bouncy dance scene in retro Paris. Indeed, the models themselves seemed to bounce along the runway in a peppy celebration of womanly clothes and colorful accents. Lindsey Wixson smiled flirtatiously, Karlie Kloss perfected her sultry half-smile, and the parade of beauties all done up in a mix of prints, socks, and sequins played perfectly to Sui's witty recreation of vintage style.
- Trends: Ladylike, sheer, lace, florals, prints, sequins, turbans.
- Colors: Purple, black, white, red, yellow florals.
- Key Piece: Karlie in the electric purple floral print frock and matching turban.
- Accessories: Cat-eye sunglasses, floppy hats, turbans, crisscross sandals, embellished tights, socks, and Sui's luggage for Tumi.
- Who Would Wear It: Witty, whimsical types who favor femme silhouettes and a taste for the retro; Kirsten Dunst.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Part of the Eco Group
Home / Blog / Fabric Chair
Hello my name is Robert Phillips and I own The Liverpool Carpet Cleaner, part of the Eco Group. I am passionate about carpet cleaning in Liverpool and the local areas and welcome any feedback, good or bad about my company. Please do not hesitate to call or email me should you have any feedback about our website or my company.
All quotes are free and there is no-obligation. If you are in Liverpool and want someone trustworthy, reliable and affordable to clean your carpets, I'm your guy.
Hi there, this website is owned by Eco-Steam Clean Ltd. We are a team of professional carpet cleaners and upholstery cleaners based in Liverpool. Our website says that we are the best and cheapest carpet and upholstery cleaning company in Liverpool, and while this is our opinion and our customers, of course in life there is always someone better and cheaper.
If you would like a quote for our services prior to booking please call on the number listed, or watch one of our videos for a customer reference. #happycarpetcleaning
Yes folks, we'll clean 4 carpets for only £89.99.
Call us now 0151 601 5270
Hall stairs and landing now only £39.99 folks! Get in quick.
3 Rooms + Stairs + Landing £99


text:
B.J. Hoeptner Evans, Manager, Communications, Phone: 719-228-6800, Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
USAV Facebook - @USA_Volleyball
DataVolley Statistics - Saturday morning * Saturday afternoon
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (May 19, 2013) – The U.S .Women's Sitting Volleyball Team closed out its series of exhibition matches against Russia with two victories on Saturday and one more on Sunday at the Wellness Center at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond.
| Kari Miller receives the ball as Heather Erickson watches during
a March match at the Colorado Crossroads tournament.
On Saturday morning, the U.S. Women defeated Russia, 25-14, 25-23, 23-25, 20-25, 15-11. On Saturday evening, the U.S. won 25-13, 25-16, 25-23. On Sunday morning, the U.S. won the final match, 16-25, 25-21, 25-23, 25-15.
In August, the U.S. Women's Sitting Team will visit the Russian team in Moscow.
In the first match on Saturday, the United States led in attacks (43-36) and blocks (16-13) while Russia led in aces (15-8). Russia also led in receptions with 94, 59 percent positive while the U.S. had 84, 46 percent positive.
The U.S. women had a 38.7 kill percent and a .243 hitting efficiency. Russia had a 29.5 kill percent and a .180 hitting efficiency.
Heather Erickson (Fayetteville, N.C.) led the U.S. with 15 points on a team-high 11 attacks and four blocks. Katie Holloway (Lake Stevens, Wash.) added 13 points on seven kills, a team-high five blocks and one ace. Allison Aldrich (Schuyler, Neb.) scored 12 points on eight attacks, two blocks and two aces.
Nicole Nieves (Kissimmee, Fla.) totaled seven points on six attacks and one ace. Nichole Millage (Champaign, Ill.) scored seven points on four kills, one block and two aces. Monique Burkland (Ardmore, Okla.) added six points on three attacks and three blocks. Angela DeHaan (Yuba City, Calif.) scored two points on one attack and one ace. Abby Mueller (Houston, Texas) scored one point with an ace.
Libero Kari Miller (Washington, D.C.) started three sets and was credited with 24 receptions, 58 percent positive. Libero Bethany Zummo (Dublin, Calif.) started two sets and was credited with 18 receptions, 33 percent excellent.
In the second match, the U.S. led in attacks (24-16) and blocks (13-9) while Russia again led in aces (8-7). The United States was credited with 42 receptions, 57 percent positive while Russia was credited with 61 receptions, 49 percent positive.
The U.S. Women's Sitting Team had a 45.3 kill percent and a .396 hitting efficiency. Russia had a 26.7 kill percent and a .050 hitting efficiency.
Erickson led all scorers with 15 points on a match-high 11 kills and four blocks. Aldrich added 10 points on four attacks, a match-high five blocks and one ace. Holloway totaled seven points on four attacks, two blocks and one ace.
Nieves scored five points on two kills and a team-high three aces. Burkland added two points on one kill and one ace. DeHaan totaled two points on two blocks. Kaleo Kanahele (Oklahoma City, Okla.) added two points on one attack and one ace. Kendra Lancaster (Westfield, Ind.) had one point with a kill.
Miller started all three sets and was credited with 11 receptions, 73 percent excellent.
In August, the U.S. Women's Sitting Team will visit the Russian team in Moscow.


text:
Supernatural healings are rare events. I believe in miracles. My wife and I both believe that God has directly healed us of some things. I pray for them. I also believe that God has the final say as to whether they occur, not us. In the meantime, God has given medical professionals the wisdom to effect natural cures in many if not most cases. The end result is the same: whether it comes about through natural or supernatural means.
We all die at some point. Whenever someone dies, then that is an instance where they were not healed. It's not always God's will to heal. Paul had a thorn in the flesh (many Bible scholars believe it was an eye disease). He asked God to take it away. God said no. I think we'd all agree that Paul had tremendous faith. It didn't matter. God said no to his request because it wasn't His will. He said His grace was sufficient, minus the healing.
There are many other similar examples. The physical suffering of the saints alone massively demonstrates this. Job was the most righteous man on the earth. He went through tremendous physical and emotional suffering, and God didn't take that away, despite his righteousness.
I just want to make clear what the biblical and Catholic position on healing is. We are to pray for it. Miracles are always rare and extraordinary by definition. Sometimes God will say no, because He knows all things, and His plans for our lives don't usually line up with what we think will or should happen. He uses suffering in His overall purpose as well, which is why we had the passion and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, martyrs, and the suffering (and often, early deaths) of virtually all saints all through history.
Lots of folks out there are pushing false teachings about healing (and "prosperity") and it has caused great suffering and disenchantment for many thousands when they discover that the false teachings do not work in real life.
We mustn't reject miracles and healing (we are to pray for them) or, on the other hand, think they are ours to command. A happy medium or golden mean, exists, as in most matters in Christianity.
The next life is the key to the whole thing, which is why Paul said the sufferings of the present time can't be compared to what awaits us. But he doesn't deny that we suffer here, which is the thing to note there. God does answer all our prayers: with a yes or a no (as in Paul's case).
Obviously, if we ask something clearly against His will (such as a person to be murdered or some terrible thing), He won't answer. It has to be in His will. I'm saying that it is not always His will to heal, and I'll be happy to back that up with many biblical examples.
God's sovereignty goes far beyond our "positivity" and "negativity" (which is not biblical terminology but that of pop psychology). The primary factor in any miracle is God's will and what He wants to accomplish, not our lack of faith or "positivity." That places man far too high in the scheme of things.
Jesus raised Lazarus not because his sister was "positive" and giddy with faith (she was upset, and Jesus Himself wept: John 11:33-35), but because it was His will.
* * *
Faith is not unrelated to healing, but neither is not the direct one-on-one relationship: as if it is some kind of magical power that we have. Not so! We can or may have all the faith in the world (as Paul did with his "thorn") but if it it isn't God's will to heal in the particular case, He won't, because He's in control, not us and can see the whole picture (being omniscient and sovereign) in a way that we never could. St. Paul couldn't get healed in his case, and couldn't heal others (Trophimus) when it wasn't God's will.
As for this business about someone having faith as a "stand-in", okay, let's test that. Someone says they have a lot of faith? Cool! Why don't they spend all day, then, going to hospitals and clearing all the floors of sick people with their extraordinary faith? If a stand-in is all we need, then there should be no hospital in the world with sick people in it. For certainly, we can find some saintly person somewhere who has the faith to heal all of them, if this indeed were true. If I had that power I'd spend all of my time visiting hospital after hospital.
But it's not true. It's a distortion of biblical and Catholic teaching: not taught anywhere in the magisterial documents. The Church believes in miracles and healings, and we can and should pray for them (I did myself in this thread): just not in this manner that the "hyper-faith" / "name-it-claim-it" outlook does. That is an extreme view: influenced by occultic and New Age notions that come from outside of Christianity, as many books on the topic have documented.
I defend, by the way, the Catholic charismatic movement on my blog, in three papers, so no one can make the accusation that I believe this way because I am "anti-charismatic." I am pro-Catholic and pro-Bible, and neither teaches the distorted notions of healing described.
I was told that Jesus didn't do any miracles in his hometown, Nazareth, because of the general lack of faith.
Matthew 13:58 (RSV) And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
It was not no miracles, but rather, not "many." When people didn't have faith, Jesus didn't do miracles to "dazzle them" and make them believe. That wasn't what He was about.
It doesn't follow, however (either logically or in practice), that miracles are inevitably or always brought about just because a human being can muster up enough faith and "positivity." That is a pernicious error, and those who have believed it have often been brought to despair because of their false expectations from a false teaching.
Faith is an important consideration in miracles, but it is also true that there is not an absolute equation of more faith = more miracles, or faith required in each and every case. If someone is so convinced that the hyper-faith conception of healing and ministries is correct, they ought to produce magisterial documents to back it up. They can't find anything in official Catholic documents that would teach that God always heals, or that He will always heal provided only that someone has enough faith for Him to do so, or that faith alone automatically brings it about as if by magic or rote. Show us these documents! I follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church, and will be happily corrected by her if anyone shows me documents that prove I am wrong in what I am asserting.
It was stated that Jesus healed everyone who came to Him in faith and asked for healing. That may indeed be the case (I believe it is), yet after He ascended to heaven it has not remained true that all who go to God and ask for healing are healed. Jesus is God, and God turned Paul down when he wanted to be healed. Why couldn't Paul be healed? Why couldn't he always heal others? Is his example not relevant to us today?
Even if it were true that Jesus healed everyone within His eyesight or those who specifically came up to Him, it wouldn't follow that this is an ironclad principle for all-time: that God now heals all who come to Him in faith. Paul's example alone is enough to disprove that. Trophimus apparently sought him out for healing, but Paul couldn't do it. Paul recommended to Timothy, wine for his stomach, rather than healing the stomach. Yet in another place Paul's handkerchiefs healed people.
From the entire biblical data, then, we conclude that God desires to heal some, even many, but not all, and we can make no rule by which God will "always" heal based on someone's faith or anything else. That's the gist of what I'm saying. It's the extreme that I oppose, not healing itself, which I have always accepted, and have experienced myself (so has my wife).
St. Paul:
2 Corinthians 12:7-9 (RSV) And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. [8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; [9] but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Paul also refers to his bodily illness:
Galatians 4:13-14 you know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; [14] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches exactly as I did above, using the same example of Paul's thorn:
1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that "my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness," and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church."
Paul had a disease. He refers to being chronically ill in another place:
2 Corinthians 1:8-10 (NASB) . . . our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life, indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a peril of death.
If it is argued that he was a special case, and had to undergo sufferings we are not intended to experience, that doesn't work, because he calls us to imitate him, and says he is our model (therefore, we should all pray to suffer as he did with illness, rather than be healed of all of them):
Philippians 3:17 (NASB) Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.
2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 . . . you ought to follow our example . . . [we] offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word with much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:12, James 5:10-11).
Galatians 4:12 I beg of you brethren, become as I am.
And again, Paul teaches that what he went through, we should also, if we truly want to follow Jesus and to be more and more like Him:
2 Corinthians 1:5-7 (RSV) . . . the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance . . . if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . . patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer . . . as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.