Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer' - BBC

Fried breakfast
Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?




A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.
They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.
But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.
The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.
Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.
Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".
She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."
The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.
Hazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk
It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.
Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."
She recommended that people eat less red meat.

Pancreatic cancer symptoms

  • Unexplained weight loss
  • Abdominal pain (often described as a dull, gnawing ache that spreads to the back, which may becomes worse if the patient eats)
  • Jaundice
  • Weight loss and weakness
  • Nausea and loss of appetite
  • Back pain
  • Itching of the skin
  • Diabetes
  • Fever and shivering
Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.
Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."
However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.
Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.
"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.
"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."

Monday, 16 January 2012

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free - Washington Post


Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obamaextended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use“national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security systemon the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the lawover that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.





Saturday, 14 January 2012

Web addicts have brain changes similar to alcoholics/drug abusers, research suggests


Brain scans of white matterBrain scans of white matter in the brain
Web addicts have brain changes similar to those hooked on drugs or alcohol, preliminary research suggests.
Experts in China scanned the brains of 17 young web addicts and found disruption in the way their brains were wired up.
They say the discovery, published in Plos One, could lead to new treatments for addictive behaviour.
Internet addiction is a clinical disorder marked by out-of-control internet use.
A research team led by Hao Lei of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Wuhan carried out brain scans of 35 men and women aged between 14 and 21.
Seventeen of them were classed as having internet addiction disorder (IAD) on the basis of answering yes to questions such as, "Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop Internet use?"
Specialised MRI brain scans showed changes in the white matter of the brain - the part that contains nerve fibres - in those classed as being web addicts, compared with non-addicts.

Diagnostic criteria for internet addiction

  • Do you feel preoccupied with the internet?
  • Do you feel the need to use the internet with increasing amounts of time in order to achieve satisfaction?
  • Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop internet use?
  • Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop internet use?
  • Do you stay online longer than intended?
  • Have you jeopardized or risked the loss of a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of the internet?
  • Have you lied to family members, a therapist or others to conceal the extent of involvement with the internet?
  • Do you use the internet as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a distressed mood (eg feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety and depression)?
Participants answering yes to questions 1 to 5 and at least one more answer were classed as suffering from Internet Addiction Disorder
Source: Young's Diagnostic Questionnaire for Internet Addiction adapted by Beard and Wolf
There was evidence of disruption to connections in nerve fibres linking brain areas involved in emotions, decision making, and self-control.
Dr Hao Lei and colleagues write in Plos One: "Overall, our findings indicate that IAD has abnormal white matter integrity in brain regions involving emotional generation and processing, executive attention, decision making and cognitive control.
"The results also suggest that IAD may share psychological and neural mechanisms with other types of substance addiction and impulse control disorders."
Prof Gunter Schumann, chair in biological psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, said similar findings have been found in video game addicts.
He told the BBC: "For the first time two studies show changes in the neuronal connections between brain areas as well as changes in brain function in people who are frequently using the internet or video games."
Commenting on the Chinese study, Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones, consultant psychiatrist and honorary senior lecturer at Imperial College London, said the research was "groundbreaking".
She added: "We are finally being told what clinicians suspected for some time now, that white matter abnormalities in the orbito-frontal cortex and other truly significant brain areas are present not only in addictions where substances are involved but also in behavioural ones such as internet addiction."
She said further studies with larger numbers of subjects were needed to confirm the findings.

Afghanistan soldier photos 'show effect of war'

Private Jo Yavala, 28Private Jo Yavala, 28: The photos were taken in the UK and Helmand province
The heavy toll of fighting in Afghanistan can be seen in a set of photos showing UK soldiers before, during and after their tour of duty.
They were taken by photographer Lalage Snow who first met the soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland during their training.
She says the time she spent with them helped win their trust and get them comfortable in front of the camera.
Three months later Lalage travelled to meet the group in Helmand province.
She said: "I was really shocked at how different they looked: Red-rimmed eyes, beards, really gaunt and thin, brown, and full of sand.
"It really shocked me," she admits.
Second Lieutenant Adam Petzsch, 25Second Lieutenant Adam Petzsch, 25
The photographer says she realised there were lots of good images of soldiers in Afghanistan, but they didn't show how a person could change through combat.
"That's the external manifestation of the scars they bear - it's written in their faces," she says.
As well as the physical change, she also witnessed a shift in the personality of some of the soldiers, particularly the younger ones.
"They had grown up a lot," says Lalage.
"Instead of on training - where they might have been mucking around a bit more - out there it seemed to make them wake up a bit more.
"They were thinking: 'This is real, this is what I'm doing. This is my job - okay get on with it.'"
Private Becky Hitchcock, 23Private Becky Hitchcock, 23
The realities faced by troops in Afghanistan were also violently reflected in some of the group she photographed.
One of them was injured in an IED explosion, one had to be resuscitated, and another was shot in the leg.
Adjusting to life back in the UK is especially hard for many of soldiers, says Lalage: "Their families for the past six months have been soldiers, guns and sand, rations, living in rough conditions.
"It takes a long time to get used to it."
Private Matthew Hodgson, 18Private Matthew Hodgson, 18
The main aim of the photos is to shed extra light on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a subject that's been covered by Newsbeat.
None of those photographed is suffering from the condition. Lalage Snow says she wanted to highlight how PTSD can emerge years after combat.
It occurs when troops are exposed to the death of colleagues and other serious battlefield experiences. The mental health problems can have a dramatic effect on wives, children and other relatives.
"The thing that is most important from the project is the PTSD thing, which I don't think many people are aware of," says Lalage.
"Boys in the Balkans are now getting PTSD, wars from 10-15 years ago."

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Elderly Experts Share Life Advice - New York Times

At 17, I wrote a speech titled, “When You Come to the End of Your Days, Will You Be Able to Write Your Own Epitaph?” It reflected the approach to life I adopted after my mother’s untimely death fromcancer at age 49. I chose to live each day as if it could be my last — but with a watchful eye on the future in case it wasn’t.

My goal was, and still is, to die without regrets.
For more than 50 years, this course has served me well, including my decision to become a science journalist instead of pursuing what had promised to be a more lucrative and prestigious, but probably less enjoyable, career as a biochemist. I find joy each day in mundane things too often overlooked: sunrises and sunsets, an insect on a flower, crows chasing a hawk, a majestic tree, a child at play, an act of kindness toward a stranger.
Eventually, most of us learn valuable lessons about how to conduct a successful and satisfying life. But for far too many people, the learning comes too late to help them avoid painful mistakes and decades of wasted time and effort.
In recent years, for example, many talented young people have denied their true passions, choosing instead to pursue careers that promise fast and big monetary gains. High rates of divorce speak to an impulsiveness to marry and a tenuous commitment to vows of “till death do us part.”
Parents undermine children’s self-confidence and self-esteem by punishing them physically or pushing them down paths, both academic and athletic, that they are ill equipped to follow. And myriad prescriptions forantidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs reflect a widespread tendency to sweat the small stuff, a failure to recognize time-honored sources of happiness, and a reliance on material acquisitions that provide only temporary pleasure.
Enter an invaluable source of help, if anyone is willing to listen while there is still time to take corrective action. It is a new book called “30 Lessons for Living” (Hudson Street Press) that offers practical advice from more than 1,000 older Americans from different economic, educational and occupational strata who were interviewed as part of the ongoing Cornell Legacy Project.
Its author, Karl Pillemer, a professor of human development at the College of Human Ecology at Cornell and a gerontologist at the Weill Cornell Medical College, calls his subjects “the experts,” and their advice is based on what they did right and wrong in their long lives. Many of the interviews can be viewed at legacyproject.human.cornell.edu.
Here is a summary of their most salient thoughts.
ON MARRIAGE A satisfying marriage that lasts a lifetime is more likely to result when partners are fundamentally similar and share the same basic values and goals. Although romantic love initially brings most couples together, what keeps them together is an abiding friendship, an ability to communicate, a willingness to give and take, and a commitment to the institution of marriage as well as to each other.
An 89-year-old woman who was glad she stayed in her marriage even though her young husband’s behavior was adversely affected by his military service said, “Too many young people now are giving up too early, too soon.”
ON CAREERS Not one person in a thousand said that happiness accrued from working as hard as you can to make money to buy whatever you want. Rather, the near-universal view was summed up by an 83-year-old former athlete who worked for decades as an athletic coach and recruiter: “The most important thing is to be involved in a profession that you absolutely love, and that you look forward to going to work to every day.”
Although it can take a while to land that ideal job, you should not give up looking for one that makes you happy. Meanwhile, if you’re stuck in a bad job, try to make the most of it until you can move on. And keep in mind that a promotion may be flattering and lucrative but not worth it if it takes you away from what you most enjoy doing.
ON PARENTING The demands of modern life often have a negative effect on family life, especially when economic pursuits limit the time parents spend with their children. Most important, the elders said, is to spend more time with your children, even if you must sacrifice to do so.
Share in their activities, and do things with them that interest them. Time spent together enables parents to detect budding problems and instill important values.
While it’s normal to prefer one child over others, it is critical not to make comparisons and show favoritism. Discipline is important when needed, but physical punishment is rarely effective and can result in children who are aggressive and antisocial.
ON AGING “Embrace it. Don’t fight it. Growing older is both an attitude and a process,” an 80-year-old man said. The experts’ advice to the young: “Don’t waste your time worrying about getting old.”
Most found that old age vastly exceeded their expectations. Even those with serious chronic illnesses enjoyed a sense of calm and contentment. A 92-year-old who can no longer do many of the things she once enjoyed said: “I think I’m happier now than I’ve ever been in my life. Things that were important to me are no longer important, or not as important.”
Another said, “Each decade, each age, has opportunities that weren’t actually there in the previous time.”
Maintain social contacts. Avoid becoming isolated. When an invitation is issued, say yes. Take steps to stay engaged, and take advantage of opportunities to learn new things. Although many were initially reluctant, those who moved to a senior living community found more freedom to enjoy activities and relationships than they had before.
To those who worry about dying, these men and women said the best antidote is to plan for it: Get things organized, let others know your wishes, tidy up to minimize the burden on your heirs.
ON REGRETS “Always be honest” was the elders’ advice to avoid late-in-life remorse. Take advantage of opportunities and embrace new challenges. And travel more when you’re young rather than wait until the children are grown or you are retired.
As Dr. Pillemer summarized the elders’ view, “Travel is so rewarding that it should take precedence over other things younger people spend money on.” Create a bucket list now and start whittling it down.
ON HAPPINESS Almost to a person, the elders viewed happiness as a choice, not the result of how life treats you.
A 75-year-old man said, “You are not responsible for all the things that happen to you, but you are completely in control of your attitude and your reactions to them.” An 84-year-old said, “Adopt a policy of being joyful.”
The 90-year-old daughter of divorced parents who had lived a hardscrabble life said, “I learned to be grateful for what I have, and no longer bemoan what I don’t have or can’t do.”
Even if their lives were nine decades long, the elders saw life as too short to waste on pessimism, boredom and disillusionment.

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

Nurse reveals the top 5 regrets people make on their deathbed


For many years I worked in palliative care. My patients were those who had gone home to die. Some incredibly special times were shared. I was with them for the last three to twelve weeks of their lives. People grow a lot when they are faced with their own mortality.

I learnt never to underestimate someone’s capacity for growth. Some changes were phenomenal. Each experienced a variety of emotions, as expected, denial, fear, anger, remorse, more denial and eventually acceptance. Every single patient found their peace before they departed though, every one of them.
When questioned about any regrets they had or anything they would do differently, common themes surfaced again and again. Here are the most common five:
1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
This was the most common regret of all. When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made.
It is very important to try and honour at least some of your dreams along the way. From the moment that you lose your health, it is too late. Health brings a freedom very few realise, until they no longer have it.
2. I wish I didn’t work so hard.
This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret. But as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.
By simplifying your lifestyle and making conscious choices along the way, it is possible to not need the income that you think you do. And by creating more space in your life, you become happier and more open to new opportunities, ones more suited to your new lifestyle.
3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.
Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never
became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a
result.
We cannot control the reactions of others. However, although people may initially react when you change the way you are by speaking honestly, in the end it raises the relationship to a whole new and healthier level. Either that or it releases the unhealthy relationship from your life. Either way, you win.
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.
It is common for anyone in a busy lifestyle to let friendships slip. But when you are faced with your approaching death, the physical
details of life fall away. People do want to get their financial affairs in order if possible. But it is not money or status that holds the true importance for them. They want to get things in order more for the benefit of those they love. Usually though, they are too ill and weary to ever manage this task. It is all comes down to love and relationships in the end.
That is all that remains in the final weeks, love and relationships.
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.
This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content. When deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again. When you are on your deathbed, what  others think of you is a long way from your mind. How wonderful to be able to let go and smile again, long before you are dying.
Life is a choice. It is YOUR life. Choose consciously, choose wisely, choose honestly. Choose happiness.

'I don't want men to look at me like a piece of meat': Why the UK's most modest woman insists on covering up... and says British schoolgirls dress 'like prostitutes' - Daily Mail


Last updated at 8:16 AM on 11th January 2012

Could this be the most modest woman in Britain? Lillian La Mantia is so cautious about flashing the flesh she even wears a full-body bathing suit to the beach. 
As well as covering her hair, Lillian likes her outfits to reach from ankle and wrist right up to her collarbone. And she's on a one-woman mission to get the other women in Britain to stay - at least a bit more - covered up. 
The 34-year-old, from near Farnham, Surrey, who only wears flat shoes and never uses make up, says women in the UK could learn from her example.
Too risqué: Lillian La Matia says she despairs of the amount of flesh revealed by British women
Too risqué: Lillian La Matia says she despairs of the amount of flesh revealed by British women. 'Some of the girls look like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. It wasn't that long ago that's what a prostitute wore,' she says
But she is at her wits end trying to find clothing that doesn't bare some part of her body. And she is frequently stunned by how little some women wear on the streets. 
Lillian said: 'It saddens me how women feel like they have to show off their breasts and, in some cases, bottoms, to feel like they look good.
'You see women wearing very short skirts, sandals and tops that only just cover their breasts and earrings and nothing else.  
'Sometimes you see girls who are maybe 12 and they are wearing make up and high heels and clothing that is just not appropriate for a child.

'It should shock you when you see a child dressed as a prostitute.
'Some of the girls going to school look like they are Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. It wasn't that long ago that's what a prostitute wore.' 
Part of Lillian's unconventional dress code is because she is a Seventh Day Adventist, a church which encourages but does not demand modesty.
Her views on baring flesh have some similarities to those commonly associated with the Amish community.
Adventist Lillian, who is forced to shop on Mormon websites for her clothes, models the conservative clothes she prefers to wear
Adventist Lillian La Mantia, who is forced to shop on Mormon websites for her clothes, models the conservative swimsuit she wears to the beach
Covered up: Adventist Lillian, who is forced to shop on Mormon websites for her clothes, models the conservative clothes she favours, left, and right, the full-body swimsuit she wears to the beach
But more specifically, the former PA at a pharmaceuticals company simply believes modesty is best - because it means she'll get more respect when she is out in the streets.
She said: 'I was with some friends who were visiting from outside the UK recently and they couldn't understand why some women were undressed in the cold.
'For me, dressing modestly is about respect - for myself, my husband, the other people around me. I don't want men to look at me like a piece of meat. I'm not out to seduce people when I go to the shops.  
'Some people might say I dress like I'm Amish, but I always aim to be fashionable. I just don't need to show off my chest to do that.  
'I wear dresses because I want to be feminine. I expect that some people probably see my views as old fashioned or strange, but it's something I've decided for myself - and it works well.
'My clothes have a function - they cover me and keep me warm.'
Demure: Lillian says she struggled to find a wedding dress with sleeves when she married husband, Italian chef Gabriele, in 2007. 'I was offered one with inch-wide straps when I asked for sleeves,' she says
Demure: Lillian says she struggled to find a wedding dress with sleeves when she married husband, Italian chef Gabriele, in 2007. 'I was offered one with inch-wide straps when I asked for sleeves,' she says
Her husband Gabriele, an Italian chef, also shares her views on modesty and prefers that she doesn't wear make-up or dye her hair.
Even on the beach Lillian covers up with a specially designed suit that meet her needs - covering her down to her mid-calves and up to the neck.
The mother to two-year-old Joshua says her quest for modesty has left her frustrated at the clothes on offer for women in the UK.
And she has been left on the verge of tears after shopping all day and not finding a single thing to wear.
She said: 'When I was looking for a wedding dress I asked the shop assistant if they had one with sleeves, and she brought me one with inch-wide straps.
'I just walked out of the shop. Sometimes I'm so frustrated I could cry. I don't think I've seen a neckline in the recent years that I'm comfortable with, and you are lucky to even get sleeves.
'I have had to order things from Mormon websites in the US, and I've even thought about opening my own shop for modest women in the UK.
'Many of my clothes come from charity shops, because some 'older' fashions tend to be more modest. But these days even that is becoming more of struggle.'
So limited are Lillian's choices that she has even resorted to making her own clothes.
About 50 per cent of the clothes in her wardrobe are made from modest patterns she has found online.
But Lillian says the clothes she wears make people treat her better than women who subscribe to the latest immodest fashions.
She said: 'Men will open doors for me and won't swear in front of me, and they talk differently to me than they do to the other women.
'I tend to get treated with more respect because of what I wear.
'I dress like a lady and I think people respond to that - they treat me like a lady.
'I've got respect for my body and I don't want anyone other than my husband seeing it.' 
But the upside to thrifty Lillian's dilemma is that she spent just £40 on clothes last year - mostly on thick wool tights for winter.