News on Youtube May 26 2018

It's not uncommon for many, myself included, to drink 1, 2, or even 5 cups of coffee daily

to keep us half-way functional.

Of course, our interest is not so much the coffee, per se, but more so on its caffeine

content.

And sometimes it gets us wondering, how much caffeine is too much?

Before getting to the big answer, let's first get the "it depends" out of the

way.

The effects of caffeine are different for each person.

Some might feel jolted and jittery from a single cup of coffee while others will feel

nothing from drinking three cups.

It's no shocker then, that caffeine intake should first depend on your personal tolerance

levels to it.

That being said, no doubt there is a general daily maximum that you want to avoid surpassing

regularly.

Sure, some people might still get away with consuming more, but in most cases, the research

has associated adverse effects like general toxicity, CVD risks, diuresis, bone calcium

imbalances, and behavioral effects when passing this maximum on a regular basis.

Fortunately, this maximum does seem to be well below the estimated average adult caffeine

intake.

It's estimated that caffeine users on average consume 180 milligrams of caffeine per day,

or about two cups of coffee.

The purported maximum where there are no associated adverse effects sits at 400 milligrams, or

a little more than 4 cups.

Now, not all coffees are created equal.

Some might have less caffeine while others might have more.

So, to make sure that you stay under 400 milligrams, you first have to figure out the caffeine

content of the coffee you regularly drink.

Or you can also rely on caffeine pills for tighter management or any other caffeine sources.

Bear in mind, though, there are two potentially at-risk populations that should consume less:

One is reproductive-aged women, where increases of miscarriage incidence and abnormal fetal

development have been associated with caffeine consumption.

Based on the data, less than 300 milligrams of caffeine per day is generally safe for

this population.

The other at-risk population is children, which means your mom was right for not letting

you drink coffee until you're older.

Now the research is a bit shaky here since the research methodologies itself were shaky.

There have been SOME consistent data of aversive behavioral effects in children associated

with high caffeine consumption.

To be cautious, a generally safe maximum for children is about 2.5 milligrams per kilogram

of bodyweight per day but more research is needed to be sure.

As for single-dose toxicity, 15 milligrams of caffeine per kilogram of bodyweight is

considered toxic, or roughly 1200 milligrams for the average, 180-pound male.

Lethality is rated at 150 milligrams per kilogram, or 12 grams for the average male.

There has been, however, one death case reported after ingesting only 6.5 grams of caffeine,

but also another case where a patient survived after consuming 24 grams.

And for you bros or broettes wondering, according to the ISSN position stand, 3 to 6 milligrams

of caffeine per kilogram of bodyweight, or about 250 to 500 milligrams, is the range

where performance enhancing effects are observed.

Although the upper range is higher than the recommended 400 milligrams, do note that you

can occasionally go past the max without any undue effects.

Just don't do it all the time.

That about wraps it up!

End of the day, moderation is the name of the game.

If you're on your fourth Starbucks run at 2pm, you might want to reconsider it… along

with the last 2 trips.

Thank you once again to Examine.com for their recent article on this very topic.

I also want to point out their awesome infographic showcasing the amount of caffeine in different

popular caffeine drinks and how much of it you need to reach the 400-milligram max.

Check out the link to the graphic and their article in the description.

Let me know your experiences with caffeine and how much is too much for you!

Please thumbs up the video if you enjoyed and share it to your coffee-loving friends.

Click to subscribe for more future videos!

As always, thank you for watching and GET YOUR PROTEIN.

For more infomation >> How Much Caffeine is TOO MUCH? - Duration: 3:58.

-------------------------------------------

How Much Is Your Body Worth? - Duration: 3:55.

This episode is supported by Hims

Your body is cool and all, but have you ever wondered how much

is it all worth? Let's start with selling your body

one piece at a time. Sperm? You can make $35

to $135 a shot, with some banks paying donors

$1500 for a one-year commitment,

the criteria being you are healthy, tall, young, and educated.

The price for an egg, however, is much

greater at $10 000 and is likely

due to the more invasive 20-minute procedure

to retrieve eggs that can put you at a risk of infection or even

endometriosis. The protein rich part of your blood

aka plasma can be worth $50

However some of the wealthy and aging among us are paying

$8 000 a session to be infused with young blood.

Though evidence is in its early stages, the "fountain

of youth"/"young blood" hypothesis

comes from research at Stanford University where old mice

injected with plasma from umbilical cords of newborn

human babies improved the old mice's performance

on memory tests. Weird. The price of

an organ transplant can be extremely expensive with more than

116 000 Americans waiting to receive

a transplant. A kidney transplant is over $400 000

while a heart can be $1.4M.

That is, however, the cost of the transplant surgery

and not how much you would make selling your organs.

Though illegal in the US and most other nations, the organ

black market does exist. Based on reports by the World Health Organization,

a kidney in India can go for

$20 000; in China, $40 000;

but in Israel, you can make as much as $160 000

Not willing to part with,

well, a part of you? Try selling your hair! A real

wig can cost $800 to $3 000

It's clear that some body parts are worth a lot, but some people

have really put a price tag on their parts

Sources state that Rihanna's legs are insured for

$1 000 000, but that's nothing compared to Cristiano

Ronaldo, whose legs are $144 million.

Then there are the services your body provides. Right now,

you're breathing. You exhale 11 000L a day

and that means you can blow up the tires for about

275 cars. Your sneeze

has a wind speed of 4.5 meters per second

which is enough wind to power a small electric wind turbine.

Your cough is even more powerful at 22.4 meters per second

and could power a utility scale windmill.

Your farts? If your diet is rich in beans, you can

produce 68 mL of carbon dioxide in a single day.

If you store these (we won't ask you why)

but if you did, in 40 years you would have an approximate

metric ton of CO2. That's a lot

of gas, but it would only be worth $220.

Meanwhile, your brain can store 100 tb

of information. The retail value of a hard drive that big

is upwards to $2 500.

Then, there are elements that make up you. Though we're made

mostly of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, there are some

very valuable trace elements that contribute to your design like

copper, gold, and even uranium. However,

if you added this all up, your elemental dollar amount

is close to... one dollar.

A huge thank you to "hims" for sponsoring today's video and giving all

of our viewers a month's trial to their comprehensive hair kit for only $5.

Hims is a brand that offers men high quality medical products

for the things that we sometimes don't talk about

like sexual well-being, hair loss or acne

But actually 26% of people who experience erectile dysfunction are

under the age of 40

Your privacy is taken completely seriously and they have really

affordable deals on medical great products, because they use the

generic equivalent instead of the name brand.

They use personalized recommendations for prescription and

non-prescription products with advice from real doctors.

All you have to do is head to forhims.com/asaphair to get a virtual

visit with a doctor and a month trial of the comprehensive hair kit for just $5

So just visit forhims.com/asaphair, the website is super sleek

We'll see you next week for a new science video

For more infomation >> How Much Is Your Body Worth? - Duration: 3:55.

-------------------------------------------

How Much Risk Should You Take? - Duration: 6:24.

Risk is more than an important part of investing.

The whole concept of a financial market exists on the basis that taking risk can result in

financial gain.

If you do not take risk in financial markets, you expect very low returns.

Of course, with risk also comes the potential for loss.

Elroy Dimson of the London School of Economics said "Risk means more things can happen

than will happen".

In other words, risk means that there is a distribution of outcomes, and you will not

know which outcome you actually get until it happens.

As much as we like to think that we can understand risk, the possible distribution of outcomes

is beyond our ability to comprehend.

While we are not able to control or predict the distribution of outcomes, we are able

to choose the type and amount of risk that we take with our investments.

I'm Ben Felix, Associate Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital.

In this episode of Common Sense Investing, I'm going to tell you about risk.

To start this discussion, I need to introduce two types of risk.

The first type of risk is called idiosyncratic risk, which may also be referred to as company

specific risk, or diversifiable risk.

Idiosyncratic risk is not directly related to the market as a whole.

Individual stocks will typically move to some extent with the market, but they may also

fluctuate due to their own specific circumstances.

Think about Volkswagen's share price plummeting after their emissions scandal.

There is no reason to expect a positive long-term outcome for taking on idiosyncratic risk.

It may work out in your favour, but it may result in substantial and unrecoverable losses.

Idiosyncratic risk can be diversified away.

Owning all of the stocks in the market eliminates the specific risks of each company.

What is left is market risk.

Market risk is the risk of the market as a whole.

It cannot be diversified away.

For taking on the risk of the market, investors do expect a positive long-term return.

When you invest in one stock, or one sector, you are getting exposure to both market risk

and idiosyncratic risk, but the idiosyncratic risk can easily dominate the outcome.

The most reliable long-term outcome would be expected when idiosyncratic is diversified away.

Practically, this simply means owning a globally diversified portfolio of index funds, an idea

that is not new to anyone who has been watching my videos.

Most investors do not own a 100% equity portfolio.

Portfolios will typically consist of some mix between equity index funds and bond index funds.

Long-term outcomes are uncertain, but we know that over the past 116 years stocks have outperformed

bonds globally, while bonds have been less volatile.

A portfolio becomes less risky and has a lower expected return as the allocation to bonds increases.

The decision about how much risk to take is driven by the ability, willingness, and need

to take risk.

Equity market risk has tended to pay off over long periods of time, and the distribution

of outcomes also tends to narrow.

For example, over the 877 overlapping 15 year periods from 1928 to 2015, the US market outperformed

risk-free t-bills 96% of the time.

The ability to take risk is primarily driven by time horizon and human capital.

We have been talking about risk as an unpredictable distribution of outcomes.

A more tangible definition might be the probability of not meeting your goals.

For a young person with lots of remaining earning capacity, the market underperforming

t-bills hardly affects their ability to meet their goals - in fact, it would be a good

opportunity for them to buy cheap stocks.

On the other hand, a near-retiree taking substantial losses in the years leading up to retirement

would be devastating to their ability to meet their spending goals.

In general, it is sensible to take less risk for goals with short time horizons and more

risk for goals with long time horizons.

Even with an unlimited ability to take risk, most investors are constrained by their own

willingness to take risk.

An investor may look at the history of market risk and decide that it is too volatile for their preferences.

The MSCI All Country World Index was down 33% in Canadian dollars between March 2008

and February 2009.

That's a pretty big drop.

In his book Antfragile, Nassim Taleb introduced what he calls the Lucretius Problem:

we tend to view the worst historical outcome as the worst possible outcome, but that is nowhere

near the truth.

If a 33% drop scares you, you would need to be comfortable with the potential for a far

greater decline to be confident investing in a 100% equity portfolio.

Finally, the need to take risk brings us back to goals.

If someone wants to spend $5,000 per month adjusted for inflation at 2% for a 30-year retirement,

they would need about $2.5 million dollars to be able to afford to take no risk.

They could hold cash in a savings deposit and deplete their assets over time without any volatility

Most people do not accumulate enough to fund a risk-free retirement, so they must introduce

some level of risk.

The right amount of market risk in a portfolio is sufficient to hopefully meet the goal for

the assets without introducing the potential for catastrophic failure due to large declines

at the wrong time.

There are rules of thumb out there, like having 100 minus your age in stocks, but they have

little basis.

Truly there is no optimal answer, but there is little debate that expected returns are

highest with a 100% equity portfolio, and investors will add in bonds to match their

ability, willingness, and need to take risk.

How do you handle risk in your portfolio?

Tell me about it in the comments.

Thanks for watching.

My name is Ben Felix of PWL Capital and this is Common Sense Investing.

I'll be talking about a lot more common sense investing topics in this series, so

subscribe, and click the bell for updates.

For more infomation >> How Much Risk Should You Take? - Duration: 6:24.

-------------------------------------------

How to stream like a pro: Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku - Duration: 6:05.

- So, I've never paid for cable but I'm still

able to watch everything that I want to.

A bunch of TV shows, movies.

I'm watching Westworld on HBO right now.

You probably already know this,

but you save a ton of money by

streaming everything you want

instead of paying for cable.

And I'm not talking about pirating things either.

Going the streaming route,

lets you be a lot more selective

about what you get, and what you don't.

And that can save you a bunch of money.

The average cable bill is over $100 a month,

but there are some decisions to make,

especially if you get a lot of channels.

It's not as easy as just calling up Comcast

and Verizon and asking them to turn your service.

But if you're thinking of going

the streaming route, the fact is that

you don't have to miss out on a lot,

and you can save a lot of money.

Okay, so first, we need to talk about hardware.

But before we even get to streaming,

one thing you should know is that you

can still get a number of channels

for free using a digital antennae.

Seriously, it's legal and it's like 20 bucks.

But, this is old school TV.

It's in order, with ads.

There's no DVR, no on demand.

So, that's really helpful because

it's free and always available,

but it's not going to be as

convenient as streaming.

Alright, so what do you need to stream?

You already know how to do it

on your phone or your computer,

but the real goal is to get these shows on your TV.

And, if you already have a smart TV,

then you're basically set.

If you have something that can

play Netflix or Hulu, or has an

app store that lets you download those apps,

then you're good to go.

And if your smart TV is really confusing,

then don't worry about it.

Everybody who doesn't have a smart TV,

like myself, you're just going to have

to buy a streaming box.

And, that box will probably have

a better, easier interface.

I've got a Samsung TV from 2012

with absolutely no smart features.

And so to get streaming, I have

two boxes hooked up to it.

I have an Apple TV, and a Chromecast.

You don't need both, I'm just a nerd.

The Chromecast is super cheap.

It's like $35, but it doesn't have an interface.

Seriously, you turn it on and

there' just nothing.

You control it all through your phone.

So, it's a little confusing and I

really wouldn't recommend it for most people.

My favorite is the Apple TV.

I don't even have the newest one.

My model is from 2012, and it still works fine.

If you have a 4K TV though,

make sure you get the newest model.

And if you're not a big Apple fan,

Roku also makes some really nice streaming boxes.

All of these devices will let you

stream whatever service you want,

you'll just have to go and look for it.

You'll usually have to browse app by app

to see what's available, which can be

a little slow and frustrating if

you're used to live channel surfing.

But I definitely prefer it.

It's certainly quieter.

And that's pretty much it.

The next step is to pick which

services you want to pay for.

But, before we get into that,

let's talk for second about why

streaming services are so complicated.

Because, they're supposed to be a dream.

Where you pay for just what you wanted

and nothing you didn't.

It's really not that at all.

Sure, you can subscribe to Netflix and Hulu

on their own, but that's just like HBO and Starz.

They're basically premium cable channels,

that stand on their own.

And, yeah, you can rent anything

you want from iTunes, but that's basically

just a modern DVD store.

If you actually want to stream traditional,

live TV, then you're still

going to be stuck with a bundle.

Why is that?

The problem is TV is expensive,

and TV networks know they can

make more money by selling channels together.

So, Viacom might require your cable

provider to offer MTV, BET, and VH1 together.

Even if it just wants MTV.

Do that over and over and over again,

and suddenly, you're at the 200 some

channel cable package you have today.

Streaming TV isn't that bad.

It still has bundles, but streaming services

know that consumers are looking for smaller packages,

and so they don't get too out of hand.

But it gets tricky when you bring in sports.

Sports are really popular, and really expensive,

and rights for them usually end up

spread across a bunch of different networks.

That means streaming services have to out of

their way to get certain games, and you'll have

to go out of your way to make sure you

pick the services that have what you want.

Alright.

So what services should you actually subscribe to?

What's too much, and what's too little?

Right now, I'm subscribed to Amazon, Hulu,

and HBO and I'm mooching off of Netflix account.

Between those, I have access to most of the TV

shows people are talking about,

and some huge back catalogs to watch.

I actually don't think any one service

is amazing for movies, so I like

to rent them off of iTunes.

They're like three to five bucks a piece,

and just doing that once a week,

is still going to be cheaper than

subscribing to another service.

OK, so that works for me, but what about you?

What if you're watching a ton TV shows

on a bunch of different channels?

Are you still gonna be able to

go the streaming route and save money?

The answer is, probably, as long as

you're watching stuff on major networks.

Hulu has a live TV service with 50 some

channels for $40 a month.

Sling TV offers even smaller packages.

One starts at $20 and comes with a bunch

major channels you might not be missing

out on a lot, including AMC, ESPN, and CNN.

AT&T says it's going to start an even

cheaper service at $15 a month.

Being able to choose from smaller plans

is a really great opportunity to

figure out which channels actually need,

and pare down on the ones that you don't.

All of these streaming services

are available on the streaming boxes

I was talking about earlier.

They're going to be more expensive

than just paying for Netflix or Hulu,

but the point is that you don't have

to limit yourself to just these newer streaming services.

You can still get old fashioned TV,

and you can do that while spending

less than you would on cable.

OK, but the big question is sports,

and yeah, with steaming services,

that can get complicated.

It's going to depend on what sports

you care about, which teams you're following,

and where you live.

If you're fine with just watching

some primetime and playoff games

then any streaming service that just

provides the major broadcast networks

and ESPN will probably get the job done.

Most sports leagues offer their own

streaming services, so if you're really

serious about catching everything,

you should check those out.

But, just keep in mind, they're pretty

expensive and they have a lot of

restrictions on them, like game blackouts.

So, be sure to read up on that before you sign up.

And keep in mind, if you get a digital antennae,

like I mentioned earlier, you'll probably have

the network that's broadcasting your local team.

So, that covers TV, movies, sports,

and the streaming boxes to watch it all on.

There might be a little bit of

a learning curve at first, but it's really not that hard.

And in the long run, you're going to be saving money.

You won't miss out on any of the seasons biggest shows.

Hey, thanks for watching, this part of

our new series, Workflow.

Let us know what you thought in the comments,

and be sure to check out our new channel, Verge Science.

For more infomation >> How to stream like a pro: Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku - Duration: 6:05.

-------------------------------------------

How much extra you can you save with an app - Duration: 3:33.

For more infomation >> How much extra you can you save with an app - Duration: 3:33.

-------------------------------------------

Unai Emery net worth: How much is new Arsenal manager replacing Arsene Wenger worth? - Duration: 4:18.

Unai Emery net worth: How much is new Arsenal manager replacing Arsene Wenger worth?

Unai Emery, 46, will have big shoes to fill when he replaces Arsene Wenger.

The Gunners boss held the reins for 22 years, and was the longest serving Premier League manager before leaving earlier this month.

He led the North London club to three Premier League titles, and seven FA Cups.

However, Unai is no stranger to pressure.

He won the Europa League three times with Sevilla and led his PSG side to the Ligue 1 title last season.

"I'm very excited to be given the responsibility to start this important new chapter in Arsenal's history" Unai Emery How much is Unai Emery worth? Emery is worth an eye-watering $13million (£9.7million), according to entertainment website COED.

However, his wealth comes nowhere close to Arsene Wengers net worth, which is a whopping £26million.

In 2017, Business Insider put Emery as the 14th highest paid managers in the world.

His average wage was £4.3million per year at PSG.

  No doubt Emery's salary will surge now he has been confirmed as the Arsenal manager.

He said: "I'm very excited to be given the responsibility to start this important new chapter in Arsenal's history.

"I am thrilled to be joining one of the great clubs in the game.

Arsenal is known and loved throughout the world for its style of play, its commitment to young players.

the fantastic stadium, the way the club is run.".

  His father was a professional goalkeeper while his uncle was a midfielder.

The PSG manager debuted his career as a youth player for the Spanish side Real Sociedad.

He spent time with various clubs including Toledo and Lorca Deportiva, before turning to managing in 2004 at the age of 32.

  Emery helped the club surge to success, being promoted to the second division for the first time in history.

In 2007 he helped Almeria to get promoted, followed by a move to Valencia in 2008.

He would stay with the club until 2012 before taking a manager position at Spartak Moscow, but was given the boot the first season due to poor performance.

Since then it was a straight road to success, winning the Europa League Final in 2014 with Sevilla.

After winning three finals on the run, he decided to leave and take over the position as Paris Saint-Germain in 2016.

After expressing the desire to leave the French club in April 2018, it opened up the chance to take the role of Gunners boss.