小眼睛的健康世界

On the hook

Mentorship works for two reasons. Certainly, the person being mentored gains from advice and counsel and even access to others via introductions, etc.

But mostly, it works because the person with a mentor has a responsibility to stand up and actually get moving. The only way to repay your mentor is by showing the guts it takes to grow and to matter.

Interesting to note, then, that the primary driver of mentor benefit has nothing to do with the mentor herself, nothing beyond the feeling of obligation the student feels to the teacher. Whether or not the mentor does anything, this obligation delivers benefits.

We can simulate this by living up to our heroes and those living by example, even if we never meet them, even if they've passed away, leaving us nothing but a legacy to honor and live up to.

貧血和營養不良不是一個概念

　　鐵是造血原料，大多貧血的人都缺鐵

　　每百克大棗含鐵僅為2.1毫克，遠遠低於蟶子、鴨血等

　　張倩：中國疾病預防控制中心營養與食品安全所副研究員，悉尼大學營養學博士。

　　如果一個人臉色蒼白，身體瘦弱，或者女性月經過多，那多半是貧血。說起貧血，大家自然會說要補血，而說到補血，大家的第一反應往往是大棗。那大棗究竟能不能補血呢？

　　讓我們暫時拋開中醫理論，就從營養學的角度說一說這個問題吧。鐵是造血的原料，大多數貧血的人都缺鐵，所以可以說，補血就是要補鐵。那大棗能不能補鐵呢？

　　100克大棗中含有2.1毫克鐵，這在植物性食物中是很高的。但是與動物性食物相比，就要遜色很多了。比如我們常吃的牛裡脊，每100克中就含有4.4毫克鐵，是大棗的一倍還多。而且，與其他植物性食物一樣，大棗中的鐵也是非血紅素鐵，不利於人體吸收。另外，大棗屬於乾果，每天的食用量有限，一天也就能吃十幾克，能攝入的鐵就更加有限了。

　　但是，大棗中含有一定量的有機酸，可以在一定程度上促進鐵的吸收，而且大棗中不含妨礙鐵吸收的草酸，這又使得大棗與菠菜等其他含鐵較多的植物性食物相比，具有了很大的優勢。總之，與鐵含量高又好吸收的肉蛋類食物相比，大棗補鐵的效果要差很多。不過，在蔬菜、水果裡，大棗的補鐵效果還是不錯的。

　　還有一點，補血這個詞古已有之，古代人民生活水平低，營養不良的現象很多。對於面色蒼白、身體瘦弱的人，古人很難區分是由於貧血還是營養不良，只是覺得這些人都面無血色，需要補血。而大棗中含有豐富的糖類，可以補充能量，增強體質，這對於營養不良的人是十分有幫助的，常食可以使人面色紅潤，氣色變好。

　　鏈接

　　鐵具有很多重要的生理功能，最重要的，就是構成血紅蛋白。缺鐵的人會貧血，我們常常說要補血，其實，很大程度上就是要補鐵。紅肉、動物內髒、蛋黃和水產品都是鐵的優質來源。動物性食物中的鐵是血紅素鐵，易於被人體吸收利用，無論是鐵的質還是量，動物性食物都優於植物性食物。正常成年男性每日鐵需要量是15毫克，女性是20毫克。

　　常見含鐵豐富的動物性食物

　　(毫克/100克可食部分)

　　同樣，圖中也給出了鐵含量前10位的動物性食物100克可食部中含有的鐵所能滿足正常成年男性每日參考攝入量的百分比。需要注意的是，蛋黃中的鐵含量雖然不少，但是吸收率卻不高，而且，每天也就吃一個蛋黃，大概只有25克，對滿足人體對鐵的需要貢獻並不大。制表/張倩

Understanding sponsorship

The answer to the question, "how are you going to pay for this project?" is turning out to be sponsorship more and more often. If you don't know why organizations want to sponsor things, though, it's likely a long, hard road to find the sponsorship you seek.

As the number of media options continue to explode (blogs, books, conferences, tattoos, speaking engagements, film festivals, stadiums, entire websites...) it's worth thinking a little bit about why organizations buy sponsorships.

1. It might be a substitute for advertising. How many people see it? How much does it cost per person? (this is the cpm, but instead of cost per thousand page views or magazine readers, it's cost per thousand impressions, which come in a myriad of ways). I think this is the film festival/book fair model. It's a reasonable way to reach a hard to reach, high value group.

2. It might be a bragging rights thing. This means that the sponsor isn't focused on tonnage, but instead wants the affiliation that they can mention to others. Sort of a reverse endorsement. The thing being sponsored isn't a media outlet, then, but a license by affiliation. An example of this might be sponsoring a speaker coming to town. Clearly, the 500 people in the audience don't constitute a useful CPM, but the fact that you did it gains you authority with those that notice what you did.

3. It might be a chance to influence the organization being sponsored. This would explain why big corporations are willing to sponsor political conventions.

4. It might be a useful way to inspire and focus your internal organization. When the people who work for you see you sponsoring a worthy charity or a thoughtful opinion leader, it changes how they do their job or how they focus their efforts.

5. It makes the CEO happy and earns the organization a seat at certain sorts of tables. I think this is the model for sponsoring a sports stadium, an act that has never been shown to have any value at all as a mass media choice.

Because there are so many ways to come at this, valuing a sponsorship is difficult indeed. If you're a bank sponsoring a bike sharing service, how do you compare that to five-hundred full page newspaper ads (about the same price over a certain period of time). Of course, you don't. You can't. Instead, you must be really clear internally about what it's for.

In general, if you're clear about which of these five things you're shooting for, most sponsorships are a screaming bargain compared to traditional media buys, particularly if you're trying to reach an elite or elusive demographic.

Coming to Australia, Denver, Turkey and Oslo...

I've promised so many people that I'd come to Australia one day that it gives me jet-lag-overcoming joy to let you know that I'll be there in early September 2014.

You can see the list of four public Australian Business Chicks seminars here.

Or, if you're up for it Down Under, consider joining me at an intimate full-day Q&A seminar, the only one I've scheduled anywhere so far next year. It won't overlap with the Business Chicks events, so maybe you could come to both...

Closer to home, I'll be in Denver with Brian at the Copyblogger event in May. And in Phoenix in April.

Also! I'm going to be speaking at the World Creativity Forum in Finland in late January, and at the Turkcell Academy in Istanbul the day before that.

Wrapping up the list, I'll be in Oslo in April at the Gulltaggen conference.

Hope to meet you in person after all these years of bouncing off satellites.

Less vs. more, give vs. take
You could build a company dedicated to paying your employees ever more. Or you could build a company based on the strategy of paying them ever less.
You could create a business based on the idea of charging your customers the lowest possible prices, or you could set out to figure out how to charge them as much as possible.
Your organization could depend on ever increasing the amount of choice and privacy you give your users--or you could work daily to reduce them.
You could protect your users from interruption or you could decide to profit from interruption.
You could fight daily to tell those that are listening the truth, or you could fight daily to spin your story to have it seen as the truth.
It's tempting to view each of these extremes as merely an alternative to compromise, but compromise isn't a goal, it's a temporary tactic. Where are you headed?
We move the center when we become extremists in our goals.
Every day, we push against the status quo and make difficult choices. Every day, we seek to increase one metric at the expense of the other. The architecture of the successful organization depends on choosing and embracing these extremes.