August 13, 2019 // Archive

Date based archive
13 Aug



Two-time CrossFit Games athlete and former gymnast Kelsey Kiel explains how she gave up obsessing over the scale to embrace a performance-based physique. Kiel overcame her doubts about her abilities, her fear of gaining weight, and her expectations of what makes a CrossFitter great. Learn how she trains her brain for the Games, and why focusing on the little things has paid off in big ways.



Source link

13 Aug

Drinking beer… but really wish you had a margarita? Well, the answer is here in the form of Founders’ Mas Agave, a hybrid margarita/beer if ever there was one. Allow them to describe: “We took an imperial gose brewed with agave, lime and sea salt and then aged it in tequila barrels for just the right amount of kick. Consider it a party in a bottle!”

Words almost fail me in trying to describe this beast of a beer. The palate kicks off more like a full-on sour than the typical gose, though the exceptional saltiness serves to cut through some of the heavy lime elements at the start. Developing on the palate, notes of  pungent agave from the tequila barrel emerge alongside more citrus — the lime trading jabs with a more acidic and blunt lemon character later in the game — but a big mouthful of salt is never far away. There’s a malty character on the finish that at least nods toward the fact that there’s a beer in here somewhere.

I love margaritas as much as anyone (no salt, though), but I ultimately found that what Founders has put in the bottle here was just a bit too wild to get my arms around — an over-salted, over-limed monster that simply never refreshed and invigorated the palate the way every great beer ought to.

10% abv.

C+ / $11 per 750ml bottle / foundersbrewing.com

Similar Posts:

Founders Brewing Mas Agave

$11

Credit: Source link

13 Aug

Cows graze on a grass field at a farm in Schaghticoke, N.Y. The grass-fed movement is based on the idea of regenerative agriculture.

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cows graze on a grass field at a farm in Schaghticoke, N.Y. The grass-fed movement is based on the idea of regenerative agriculture.

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

For the environmentally minded carnivore, meat poses a culinary conundrum. Producing it requires a great deal of land and water resources, and ruminants such as cows and sheep are responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with agriculture, according to the World Resources Institute.

That’s why many researchers are now calling for the world to cut back on its meat consumption. But some advocates say there is a way to eat meat that’s better for the planet and better for the animals: grass-fed beef.

But is grass-fed beef really greener than feedlot-finished beef? Let’s parse the science.

What’s the difference between grass-fed and feedlot beef?

Feedlot calves begin their lives on pasture with the cow that produced them. They’re weaned after six to nine months, then grazed a bit more on pasture. They’re then “finished” for about 120 days on high-energy corn and other grains in a feedlot, gaining weight fast and creating that fat-marbled beef that consumers like. At about 14 to 18 months of age, they are sent to slaughter. (One downside of the feedlot system, as we’ve reported, is that a diet of corn can lead to liver abscesses in cattle, which is why animals who eat it receive antibiotics as part of their feed.)

In a grass-fed and finished scenario, cattle spend their entire lives on grass. Since their feed is much lower in energy, they are sent to slaughter later — between 18 to 24 months of age, after a finishing period, still on grass, of 190 days. Their weight at slaughter averages about 1,200 pounds compared with about 1,350 pounds for feedlot animals.

What’s the environmental argument for grass-fed beef?

The grass-fed movement is based on a large idea, one known as regenerative agriculture or holistic management. It holds that grazing ruminant populations are key to a healthy ecosystem.

Think of the hordes of bison that once roamed the prairies. Their manure returned nutrients to the soil. And because these animals grazed on grass, the land didn’t have to be plowed to plant corn for feed, so deep-rooted grasses that prevent erosion flourished. Had those iconic herds still been around in the 1930s, the argument goes, they would have helped prevent the catastrophe of the Dust Bowl.

Fourth-generation Oregon rancher Cory Carman runs a 5,000-acre grass-fed beef cattle operation, where grazing is key to restoring ecosystem balance. “Agricultural livestock are this incredible tool in promoting soil health,” she says. “The longer you can manage cattle on pasture range, the more they can contribute to ecosystem regeneration.”

Returning cattle and other ruminants to the land for their entire lives can result in multiple benefits, according to organizations like the Savory Institute, including restoring soil microbial diversity, and making the land more resilient to flooding and drought. It can boost the nutrient content and flavor of livestock and plants. And because grasses trap atmospheric carbon dioxide, the grass-fed system can also help fight climate change. But it does require more land to produce the same amount of meat.

As Shauna Sadowski, head of sustainability for the natural and organic operating unit at General Mills, puts it, “Our current model is an extractive one that has left our environment in a state of degradation — eroded soil, polluted water. We have to change the entire paradigm to use natural ecological processes to gather nutrients and build the soil.”

Which type of beef has the smaller environmental footprint?

It’s complicated.

To measure the environmental impact of a farming system, scientists rely on studies known as life-cycle assessments (LCAs), which take into account resources and energy use at all stages.

A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans.

Paige Stanley, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, says many of these studies have prioritized efficiency — high-energy feed, smaller land footprint — as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The larger the animal and the shorter its life, the lower its footprint. But she adds, “We’re learning that there are other dimensions: soil health, carbon and landscape health. Separating them is doing us a disservice.” She and other researchers are trying to figure out how to incorporate those factors into an LCA analysis.

Stanley co-authored a recent LCA study, led by Jason Rowntree of Michigan State University, that found carbon-trapping benefits of the grass-fed approach. Another recent LCA study, of Georgia’s holistically managed White Oak Pastures, found that the 3,200-acre farm stored enough carbon in its grasses to offset not only all of the methane emissions from its grass-fed cattle, but also much of the farm’s total emissions. (The latter study was funded by General Mills.)

Linus Blomqvist, director for conservation, food and agriculture for the Oakland, Calif.-based Breakthrough Institute, however, defends feedlot finishing, pointing out that the difference between the two systems is only the last third of the grass-fed cattle’s life. Does the extra amount of pasture time sequester so much carbon that it offsets the advantage of the feedlot? “We don’t actually have very good evidence for that,” he says.

Alison Van Eenennaam, a specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of California, Davis, says grass-fed makes more sense in a country like Australia, which has a temperate climate, large tracts of grassland and no corn belt. But in the U.S., which does have a corn belt that suffers from cold winters, she believes grain finishing is the more efficient way to produce beef.

Which brings us to our next point.

Do you know where your grass-fed beef came from?

About 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in the U.S. is grown abroad, from Australia, New Zealand and parts of South America, according to a 2017 report from the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. Those countries have the advantage of “vast expanses of grassland, low-input beef that is not finished to a high level and is very inexpensive,” says Rowntree — even with the cost of shipping it halfway around the world. Most of what comes from Australia is ground beef, not steaks, because the end result of their finishing process tends to be tough.

Many U.S. customers who want to support local food are likely unaware of the foreign origin of most grass-fed beef. By law, if meat is “processed,” or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.S.

“But does it benefit the American farmer?” Rowntree asks, comparing this market to the sheep industry, “which lost out to imports from Australia and New Zealand.”

The popularity of grass-fed beef is pulling U.S.-based multinational companies into the market as well, which will drive prices down further. Meat processor JBS USA now has a grass-fed line, Tyson Foods is planning a Texas grass-fed program and earlier this year, Perdue announced it was getting into the market.

Which system is better for animal welfare?

To many grass-fed advocates, this is one of the main reasons for switching to grass-fed beef. After all, cows evolved to live this way.

“I’ve been on feedlots farms that have outstanding animal welfare, and I’ve been on small farms that would make you cringe,” Rowntree says. But he adds, “Managing cattle on pasture in a grass-finishing system to me epitomizes animal welfare.”

Nancy Matsumoto is a journalist based in Toronto and New York City who writes about sustainability, food, sake and Japanese American culture. You can read more of her work here.

Credit: Source link

13 Aug
The research, published Tuesday in the journal The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, involved interviews with almost 10,000 children between the ages of 13 and 16 in England. The researchers found that social media may harm girls’ mental health by increasing their exposure to bullying and reducing their sleep and physical exercise.

“Our results suggest that social media itself doesn’t cause harm, but that frequent use may disrupt activities that have a positive impact on mental health such as sleeping and exercising, while increasing exposure of young people to harmful content, particularly the negative experience of cyber-bullying,” study co-author Russell Viner of the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health said in a statement.

In other words: Social media itself might not be to blame for mental health issues; rather, it takes away from girls’ sleep quality and exercise while exposing users to cyberbullying, and that’s what leads to lower well-being and problems with mental health.

Bob Patton, a lecturer in clinical psychology at the University of Surrey, said this means strategies focusing only on reducing social media use as a tool to improve well-being or mental health might not help.

“Building strategies to increase resilience to cyberbullying and that promote better sleep and exercise behaviours may well be what is needed to reduce both physical and psychological harms,” Patton, who was not involved in the research, said in a statement.

For boys, the impact on their mental health seems to be due to other reasons, so further research is needed, the authors said.

The difference between boys and girls

The research was conducted by interviewing teenagers once a year from 2013 to 2015. They would report the frequency that they checked or used social media, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter and Snapchat. More than three times daily was considered “very frequent.”

The researchers noted that they did not capture how much time participants spent on these websites, which is a limitation of the study.

In 2014 and 2015, researchers asked about the teens’ psychological distress and their personal well-being, things like life satisfaction, happiness and anxiety.

The researchers found that, in both sexes, very frequent social media use was associated with greater psychological distress. The effect was especially clear among girls: The more often they checked social media, the greater their psychological distress.

But nearly 60% of the impact on psychological distress in girls could be accounted for by low sleep quality and greater exposure to cyberbullying, with decreased physical activity playing a lesser role. But for boys, those factors explained only 12% of the effects of very frequent social media use on psychological distress.

Shedding light on how to help teens

Social media has been linked to mental health issues. Just last month, research out of Canada showed that higher levels of social media use was linked with increased depressive symptoms in adolescents.
With this study, the problem is put in a better context. It’s not necessarily social media that’s causing these issues, it’s more likely the content that young people are exposed to and its hindrance of healthy sleep and exercise.

It’s an important distinction, says Ann DeSmet, a professor at Ghent University in Belgium who was not involved in the research.

“If the displacement of healthy lifestyles and cyberbullying can be attenuated, the positive effects of social media use, such as encouraging social interactions, can be more endorsed,” she said in a statement.

Credit: Source link

13 Aug

Researchers from Flinders University and the University of Helsinki collaborated with Finnish company, Polar, to compare the sleeping habits of 17,335 people wearing fitness trackers to measure their 14 day sleep patterns.

As published in Sleep Medicine, they looked at sleep duration, sleep midpoint and weekend catch up for participants aged 16 to 30.

Flinders professor Michael Gradisar, PhD,  says the study indicates differences in sleep durations shift dramatically throughout adolescence and stabilize near 30 years of age around the world.

“Sleep duration ranged from 7:53 hrs at age 16 to 7:29 hrs at age 30. There were also clear differences between females and males throughout adolescence and young adulthood, with girls having longer sleep and earlier timed sleep,” says Gradisar in a release.

“In recent decades, there have been reports of delayed sleep in young people, characterized by very late bedtimes, and difficulties waking up in the morning at a socially-appropriate time. As sleep is a central element in functioning, health, and wellbeing, the reliable detection of sleep patterns is a key interest.”

The results also show location matters—with people in the Middle East, Asia and Southern Europe getting significantly less sleep when compared to everyone else.

“Young adults in Asia had the shortest sleep duration (6hr 30min), whereas those in Oceania (7hr 14min) and Europe, (7hr 7min) had the longest. Young adults in Central and Southern America and the Middle East also reported short sleep (6hr 40min).

“Higher work and educational demands in Asian countries compared to the west likely explain the later shorter sleep duration, coupled with similar catch up sleep, seen in those Asian regions.

“For example, when I was in Hong Kong last year speaking to colleagues, they informed me of Typhoon Mangkhut, which was one of the most destructive storms in the city’s history. The very next day, workers were ordered to go back to work by a billionaire tycoon. My colleagues spoke of walking to work, stepping over fallen trees, and broken windows and paper in the streets. This is a city that doesn’t rest—and part of a region that doesn’t sleep much.

“So our findings suggest that cultural factors likely impinge upon the sleep opportunity of young people around the world.”

Credit: Source link

13 Aug

Have extra zucchini? Make zucchini fritters! With freshly grated zucchini, egg, flour, and herbs, they are easy. Serve with a garlicky lemony sour cream dipping sauce.

Photography Credit:
Elise Bauer

When zucchini are in season, we can barely keep up with the bounty! One vigorous zucchini plant can easily supply a family of four. Two or three plants and you are leaving bags of zucchini on your neighbors’ porches.

Here’s a quick and easy zucchini fritter recipe that’s perfect for a side or snack.

How to Make Zucchini Fritters

This recipe uses a simple batter of zucchini, egg, flour, green onions, herbs and lemon. You gently fry the fritters in hot oil until lightly browned on both sides.

We’re making a sour cream dipping sauce with lemon and garlic, or you could skip that and just serve with a dollop of yogurt.

How do you keep fritters from getting soggy?

Fresh garden zucchini is usually heavy with water. If you grate them and use them right away in these fritters it will be hard to crisp them up in a pan.

The trick to keep them from being mushy? Drain the freshly grated zucchini of excess moisture. If you salt the grated zucchini and let it drain in a sieve over a bowl, the salt will help draw out the extra water.

What to serve with zucchini fritters?

Think of these fritters as a vegetable side or a simple appetizer. Serve them alongside meat, a green salad, or even topped with a fried egg!

Make ahead fritters

Have leftovers, or need to make ahead? You can make ahead these fritters and keep them chilled in the refrigerator for up to a week, or frozen for up to 3 months. If frozen, thaw overnight in the fridge. To reheat, spread them out on a lined baking sheet and put them in a 350°F oven until heated through.

ZUCCHINI FOR DAYS? HERE ARE 5 MORE RECIPES

Updated August 13, 2019 : We spiffed up this post to make it sparkle! No changes to the original recipe.

Zucchini Fritters Recipe

You can easily substitute the fresh herbs with 1/2 teaspoon or so of dried herbs such as Italian seasoning.

A variation that several commenters have mentioned is to add a bit of cumin and feta to the mixture. You can also separate the egg and whip up the egg white and fold back in for lighter and fluffier fritters.

Ingredients

For the zucchini:

For the dipping sauce:

For the fritters:

Method

1 Salt and drain zucchini: Sprinkle grated zucchini with about 1 teaspoon of salt. Place in a sieve or colander over a bowl. Let sit for 10 minutes.

Press down with a wooden spoon to push out more of the water. Wrap it in paper towels and try to squeeze out more liquid.

2 Make dipping sauce: Whisk together the sour cream, minced garlic, lemon zest, lemon juice, and a pinch of salt into a medium bowl and set aside.

3 Make the fritter batter: Whisk the egg in a large bowl. Add the grated zucchini, flour, minced green onions, thyme, basil, lemon zest, salt, and pepper. Mix to combine well.

4 Fry zucchini fritters: Heat the oil in a large skillet (we recommend a 10-inch cast iron skillet) over medium high heat until the oil is shimmery and hot. Test the oil by flicking a little flour into it. If the flour sizzles, it’s ready.

Working in batches, drop heaping tablespoons of batter into the skillet. Flatten slightly with the back end of a spoon or spatula. Cook, turning once, until browned, 4-6 minutes on each side.

Transfer to a paper towel-lined plate. Sprinkle with salt. Repeat with remaining batter.

5 Serve the fritters: Serve immediately with sour cream dipping sauce. Fritters can be kept warm by placing on a sheet pan in a warm oven, or reheated under a broiler for a minute or two.

Serve as an appetizer, or as a vegetable side. For extra fun, top with a poached or fried egg.

Hello! All photos and content are copyright protected. Please do not use our photos without prior written permission. Thank you!


This post may contain links to Amazon or other partners; your purchases via these links can benefit Simply Recipes.
Read more about our affiliate linking policy.

Credit: Source link

13 Aug

Bond popularity is at financial crisis levels among professional investors as they brace for slowing growth ahead and interest-rate cuts from central banks.

A net 43% of market pros see lower short-term rates over the next 12 months, compared with just a net 9% that saw higher long-term rates, according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Fund Manager Survey for August.

Taken together, that’s the most bullish outlook on fixed income since November 2008, as lower yields mean higher prices and capital appreciation for bondholders.

“Investors are the most bullish on rates since 2008 as trade war concerns send recession risk to an 8-year high,” Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist, said in a statement.

“With global policy stimuli at a 2.5-year low, the onus is on the Fed, ECB and PBoC to restore animal spirits,” he added, referring to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China.

Even amid $15.9 trillion worth of negative-yielding bonds globally, investors continue to flock to the space as the U.S.-China trade war threatens global growth. A net of just 22% of survey respondents said they are underweight bonds as allocation climbed 12 percent points over the month, the highest level since September 2011.

All of that popularity comes even though 32% of fund managers identified the bet on U.S. Treasurys as the most crowded trade in the market. That was followed by U.S. technology stocks (19%), growth stocks (15%) and investment-grade corporate bonds (12%).

Trade war worries

Bonds come into favor during times of economic stress as investors look for the comparative safety of government fixed income. A recession is likely during the next 12 months, according to 34% of respondents, the highest response since October 2011.

U.S. government bond yields are at multiyear lows, and the spread between the 2- and 10-year notes was just 6 basis points Tuesday morning; an inversion of the two is considered a classic recession signal.

The biggest area of concern is the trade war, which was cited by 51% of respondents. Monetary policy “impotence” was next at 15%, followed by a China slowdown and a bond market bubble, both with 9%. A record net 50% say they are concerned about business leverage, with 33% citing corporate bonds as the most likely bubble, followed by government bonds (30%), U.S. stocks (26%) and gold (8%).

Investors have been plowing money into fixed income funds this year. Global mutual funds and ETFs that focus on the space have taken in $281.9 billion this year, or 3% of total assets, according to BofAML data released last week. Global equities have fallen out of favor, with managers cutting their exposure by 22 percent points to a net 12% overweight. For the year, stock-based funds have seen $177.4 billion in outflows, or 1.2% of total assets.

At the ETF level, the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury fund has seen the biggest inflows year to date, with $5.9 billion in creations, according to FactSet. Fixed income ETFs overall have taken in $83.9 billion this year, compared with inflows of $44.6 billion for equities.

Credit: Source link

13 Aug

Viva Eyes

Colour Pop Viva Eyes Super Shock Shadow Quad ($18.00 for 0.28 oz.) is a new, limited edition foursome that features all shimmers: fuchsia, gold, teal, and orange. They were consistent with past Super Shock Shadows; they were creamy, emollient, fairly pigmented with good wear, but I did have a bit of unevenness during application with Rosa (which looked a bit less impressive in person than in photos) and Cielo (which actually looked better in person than in the close-up).

Rosa

Rosa is a rich, fuchsia pink with cool undertones and faint gold and fuchsia pearl throughout. It had opaque pigmentation that adhered fairly evenly to bare skin, though I felt like it did not apply as evenly to my lid as it did swatched on my arm–there was a bit of sheerness to it after I had blended it out, and I wasn’t able to build it back up with a second layer. The eyeshadow wore well for 10 hours without fading or creasing on me.

Oro

Oro is a bright, medium gold with warm undertones and a metallic finish. It was richly pigmented with a smooth, lightly emollient texture that applied evenly and blended out easily with fingertips but less so with brushes. I found that a brush did not seem to pick up the product as well as expected (as I usually have no trouble using brushes with the formula). This shade lasted well for 10 hours without fading or creasing on me.

Formula Overview

$5.00/0.07 oz. – $71.43 Per Ounce

ColourPop Super Shock Shadow is a cream-based formula that comes in a multitude of shades and finishes. The more metallic shades have the most slip to them (they have a “wetter” feel), while the more matte ones have a firmer, more clay-like consistency. Almost every shade I’ve tried from ColourPop has been exceptionally long-wearing (10+ hours of wear, usually there until I remove, even 14 hours later). The pigmentation can vary from shade to shade, but the average shade is quite pigmented.

From feedback I’ve seen from readers, many love them but some don’t like them at all. They aren’t a traditional cream eyeshadow, as they are denser (more sponge-like), and they apply best with flat, firm, synthetic brushes (I like the MAC 242 and 249) for me. The brand recommends using fingers for the most pigmented application, but I’ve only felt that fingers were necessary on a few shades (usually the super glittery ones).

The more matte shades can be on the drier side and vary from medium to opaque in coverage, though they’re often buildable.  They can be a little hard to diffuse the edges of, though some are lovely to work with.

The more glittery shades have been the weakest to me, as they can be sheerer or harder to apply.  Sometimes, they are more pigmented and work like the other finishes in the formula, but often, they are sheerer and only function well patted on top of more pigmented eyeshadows to add glitter.  They do, however, tend to have little fallout over time with the occasional shade having a more moderate amount of fallout (but still less fallout than most powder eyeshadows with glitter).

Browse all of our Colour Pop Super Shock Shadow swatches.

Cielo

Cielo is a bright, medium blue-teal with warmer, gold and green sparkle throughout. It had a smooth, creamy texture that had moderate slip but was thin and lightweight when applied. The product felt more powder-like as soon as it was applied to my lid, and I didn’t have any issues blending it out. It looked fine to me in person, but the close-up photos revealed a bit of patchiness to the color. This shade stayed on well for 10 hours without fading or creasing on me.

Formula Overview

$5.00/0.07 oz. – $71.43 Per Ounce

ColourPop Super Shock Shadow is a cream-based formula that comes in a multitude of shades and finishes. The more metallic shades have the most slip to them (they have a “wetter” feel), while the more matte ones have a firmer, more clay-like consistency. Almost every shade I’ve tried from ColourPop has been exceptionally long-wearing (10+ hours of wear, usually there until I remove, even 14 hours later). The pigmentation can vary from shade to shade, but the average shade is quite pigmented.

From feedback I’ve seen from readers, many love them but some don’t like them at all. They aren’t a traditional cream eyeshadow, as they are denser (more sponge-like), and they apply best with flat, firm, synthetic brushes (I like the MAC 242 and 249) for me. The brand recommends using fingers for the most pigmented application, but I’ve only felt that fingers were necessary on a few shades (usually the super glittery ones).

The more matte shades can be on the drier side and vary from medium to opaque in coverage, though they’re often buildable.  They can be a little hard to diffuse the edges of, though some are lovely to work with.

The more glittery shades have been the weakest to me, as they can be sheerer or harder to apply.  Sometimes, they are more pigmented and work like the other finishes in the formula, but often, they are sheerer and only function well patted on top of more pigmented eyeshadows to add glitter.  They do, however, tend to have little fallout over time with the occasional shade having a more moderate amount of fallout (but still less fallout than most powder eyeshadows with glitter).

Browse all of our Colour Pop Super Shock Shadow swatches.

Verano

Verano is a bright, medium orange with warm, golden shimmer throughout that gave it a more pearly sheen. The eyeshadow had opaque color coverage that applied evenly to bare skin and blended well along the edges without causing it to lose its opacity. The texture was lightweight, thin, and blendable without being too slippery or too dry in the pot. It wore nicely for 10 hours without fading or creasing on me.

Formula Overview

$5.00/0.07 oz. – $71.43 Per Ounce

ColourPop Super Shock Shadow is a cream-based formula that comes in a multitude of shades and finishes. The more metallic shades have the most slip to them (they have a “wetter” feel), while the more matte ones have a firmer, more clay-like consistency. Almost every shade I’ve tried from ColourPop has been exceptionally long-wearing (10+ hours of wear, usually there until I remove, even 14 hours later). The pigmentation can vary from shade to shade, but the average shade is quite pigmented.

From feedback I’ve seen from readers, many love them but some don’t like them at all. They aren’t a traditional cream eyeshadow, as they are denser (more sponge-like), and they apply best with flat, firm, synthetic brushes (I like the MAC 242 and 249) for me. The brand recommends using fingers for the most pigmented application, but I’ve only felt that fingers were necessary on a few shades (usually the super glittery ones).

The more matte shades can be on the drier side and vary from medium to opaque in coverage, though they’re often buildable.  They can be a little hard to diffuse the edges of, though some are lovely to work with.

The more glittery shades have been the weakest to me, as they can be sheerer or harder to apply.  Sometimes, they are more pigmented and work like the other finishes in the formula, but often, they are sheerer and only function well patted on top of more pigmented eyeshadows to add glitter.  They do, however, tend to have little fallout over time with the occasional shade having a more moderate amount of fallout (but still less fallout than most powder eyeshadows with glitter).

Browse all of our Colour Pop Super Shock Shadow swatches.

Credit: Source link

ads by google