<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		
		<title>Aetna Latest Healthy Living News</title>
		<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/</link>
		<description>Latest Healthy Living News from Aetna</description>
		<language>en</language>
		
		<generator>TYPO3 - get.content.right</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		
		
		
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:55:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Processed, Restaurant Foods Still High-Sodium</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/processed-restaurant-foods-still-high-sodium/</link>
			<description>The high sodium level of processed and restaurant foods is not  getting much better, two new...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The high sodium level of processed and restaurant foods is not  getting much better, two new studies find. One study analyzed 685 meals  from 19 sit-down, chain restaurants. The average meal had 2,269  milligrams (mg) of sodium. Most adults shouldn't have any more than that  in an entire day, U.S. government guidelines say. The guidelines  recommend 2,300 mg a day or less for most people. Some groups are urged  to stay under 1,500 mg a day. They include people over 50 and African  Americans. People with high blood pressure, diabetes or kidney disease  also are advised to stick to the lower level. The average American now  consumes about 3,300 mg a day. Another new study found that recent  efforts to reduce sodium in processed and restaurant foods have been  &quot;inconsistent and slow.&quot; Researchers compared sodium levels in 402  processed foods from 2005 and 2011. The amounts fell by only about 3.5%.  In foods from 78 fast-food restaurants, average sodium rose by 2.6%.  Sodium levels in some foods dropped 30%. In other foods, levels rose  that much or more. The journal JAMA Internal Medicine published the  studies online. HealthDay News wrote about them May 13.  

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
 Eat less sodium. Eat less sodium. Eat less sodium. The message is loud and clear. 
  You do need some sodium for your body to work properly. But Americans,  on average, eat about 3,400 milligrams (mg) of sodium per day. That's  more than double the recommended amounts for some adults. 
 For  most adults, the recommended daily sodium intake is less than 2,300 mg  per day (about 1 teaspoon of salt). The U.S. government recommends less  than 1,500 mg per day for adults over age 50 or those with certain  medical problems. The problems include high blood pressure and diabetes.  
 Why does sodium matter? There is a clear link between too much  sodium intake and high blood pressure. And high blood pressure greatly  increases the risk of heart disease and stroke. Nearly 75 million  Americans have high blood pressure. Many more are at risk of developing  it. 
 People develop high blood pressure for many reasons. But  eating too much sodium is a major contributor. Some of that sodium comes  from the salt we add to our foods. But by far the greater problem is  the amount of sodium already in the processed foods we commonly eat. We  do have control over the foods we choose to eat. However, we do not have  control over the amount of sodium in processed foods. 
 Companies and restaurants have been urged to reduce the sodium in their foods. But how good a job have they done? 
  It appears that not much has changed. A pair of research studies, out  this week, remind us just how much sodium is in processed foods and  restaurant meals. One study showed that the average single meal at a  sit-down restaurant contains 2,269 mg of sodium. That's almost as much  as the recommended sodium limit <em>for an entire day</em> for an average adult. 
  A second study looked at whether there have been any changes in how  much sodium is in processed foods we buy or in the restaurant foods we  order. The study looked at 402 processed foods and 78 fast-food  restaurant items. Some foods had lower sodium content. But overall there  had been no significant change when comparing average sodium content in  foods in 2005 to foods in 2011. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  The first step is to try to limit how much sodium you are eating. You  have the power to choose what you eat. Here are some tips: 
<ol><li><strong>Pay attention to how much sodium is in the food you buy. </strong>  Check the labels. Make note of how many servings are in the package.  Most labels indicate how much sodium is in one serving. If you eat the  whole package, you need to multiply the amount of sodium by the number  of servings you have. It's much harder to know how much sodium is in a  restaurant meal. But many chain restaurants are now making the nutrition  information for their foods available. Take a look. You might be  shocked at what you find. </li><br /><li><strong>Cook your own food. </strong>  Much of the sodium in our diets comes from processed and pre-prepared  foods. If you make your food yourself, from fresh ingredients, you will  automatically cut down your sodium intake. Of course, this is hard,  especially in our fast-paced lives, but it's well worth the effort. </li><br /><li><strong>Don't be fooled by &quot;low fat&quot; or &quot;low cholesterol&quot; on the labels. </strong>  Some packages say &quot;low fat,&quot; some say &quot;low cholesterol&quot; and some say  &quot;low salt.&quot; But most foods don't have all of these in one. Remember that  a food that's good for you in one way may not be good for you in  another. Even those foods that are labeled as &quot;low salt&quot; may still have  more sodium than you need. Read the labels carefully. </li></ol>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  There is no debate that Americans have too much sodium in their diets.  It is well-recognized that higher levels of dietary sodium intake are  linked to higher rates of heart disease and stroke. Yes, people do need  to take responsibility for the foods they eat. But the food industry  also needs to take responsibility by reducing the sodium in processed  foods. 
 It seems that allowing food manufacturers and restaurants  to voluntarily reduce sodium has not been successful. In the future,  the government may require companies and restaurants to lower sodium  levels in foods. 
 In the meantime, there is much we can do to  reduce the sodium we consume. We can pay attention to labels, focus on  eating fresh fruits and vegetables, and cook our own food. Otherwise, we  will see the consequences of our high-sodium diets in the next decades  with an increase in the rates of high blood pressure, heart disease and  stroke.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 14:09:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Doctors Urged to Screen for Alcohol Problems</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/doctors-urged-to-screen-for-alcohol-problems/</link>
			<description> An influential group of experts is recommending that primary care  doctors screen all adults for...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ An influential group of experts is recommending that primary care  doctors screen all adults for alcohol problems. The advice comes from  the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This independent group reviews  medical evidence and offers advice to doctors on preventive care. The  new report says there's enough evidence to show that asking one question  can help show which patients may have &quot;risky&quot; drinking patterns. The  question is: &quot;How many times in the past year have you had five or more  drinks in a day (if you're a man), or four or more drinks (if you're a  woman or older than 65)?&quot; If the person says this has happened at least  once, the doctor can ask more questions to assess the degree of risk.  Risky drinking may be causing current problems or may just increase the  risk of problems later. The journal Annals of Internal Medicine  published the study. HealthDay News wrote about it May 13. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  There's so much to accomplish during a routine visit to your primary  care doctor. So having a simple screening tool to determine if a person  is misusing alcohol is terrific. 
 The one question: &quot;How many times in the past year have you had X or more drinks in a day?&quot; 
  X is 5 for men and 4 for women and all adults older than 65. If the  answer is at least once, then the doctor should do further questioning.  The person may be misusing alcohol. 
 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force identifies the following levels of misuse: 
<ul><li>Risky  alcohol use: For men, more than 14 drinks per week or more than 4  drinks in one day. For women, more than 7 drinks per week or more than 3  drinks in one day. Risky means you are more likely to develop social or  medical problems related to alcohol. </li><li>Harmful alcohol use: Alcohol misuse has already impacted your physical or mental health or harmed your social relationships. </li><li>Alcohol abuse includes one or more of the following:<br /><ul><li>Multiple times you have not met your responsibilities at home, work or school</li><li>Excessive  alcohol use, followed by droving a vehicle, operating machinery or  doing something else that put you or others in harm's way</li><li>Legal problems related to alcohol use</li></ul></li><li>Alcohol dependence: Physical craving for alcohol and/or symptoms of alcohol withdrawal if you try to stop drinking</li></ul>
  Similar to all screening tests, this one-question test is not perfect.  It can identify about 85% of adults who misuse alcohol. So it is a  sensitive test. But about 30% of people who say that they have had more  than 4 or 5 drinks at least once in the last year do not have a problem  with alcohol. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force wants primary care doctors to screen patients for alcohol misuse. Here's why: 
<ul><li>The question appears to do no harm. It might make someone feel uncomfortable, but not much else. </li><li>Screening might identify a much more serious problem than the doctor has recognized or the patient has mentioned. </li><li>Early, simple interventions may prevent risky alcohol use from becoming harmful use or abuse. </li></ul>
  A little advice and encouragement may help you figure out if your  drinking follows a risky pattern and what to do about it. The source of  advice could be your primary care doctor. Or the doctor might refer you  to an alcoholism counselor. Often a non-professional person who is  knowledgeable about alcohol or had an alcohol problem can be very  effective. 
 This is not long-term therapy. It's perhaps two or  three discussions. The helper can ask you how much you are drinking and  let you know how it compares with the norm. He or she might: 
<ul><li>Talk briefly about the consequences of more serious alcohol use</li><li>Provide a self-help manual or workbook</li><li>Suggest that you keep records of your drinking and choose a goal of cutting back or stopping completely</li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  You may see increased publicity about risky alcohol use. This has been  shown to be effective. In one study, people misusing alcohol were helped  by little more than responding to a public appeal. The advertisement  was placed in newspapers, on television, on radio and in leaflets and  posters distributed in Toronto, Canada. 
 The ad contained a  telephone number, along with the following message: &quot;Thinking of a  change in your drinking? Do you know that 75% of people change their  drinking on their own? Call us for materials that can be completed at  home.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:10:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Survey: Many Teens Text While Driving</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/survey-many-teens-text-while-driving/</link>
			<description> Almost half of older U.S. teens text while driving, a new survey  shows. And those who text while...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Almost half of older U.S. teens text while driving, a new survey  shows. And those who text while driving are also more likely to do other  dangerous things. Researchers used results from a national survey on  youth behavior. They focused on answers given by 8,500 teens who were  age 16 or older. Nearly 45% said they had texted or e-mailed while  driving during the last 30 days. They were 5 times as likely to drive  after drinking alcohol as teens who didn't text while driving. About 25%  of the teens texted while driving every day. Teens in this group were  40% less likely to wear seat belts than teens who just texted while  driving once or twice in the last month. Older students and males were  the most likely to text while driving. The journal Pediatrics published  the study online. USA Today and HealthDay News wrote about it April 13.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
 OMG! LOL! G2G! TTYL! 
 Look familiar? 
  If you have a teenage son or daughter, you've probably seen this  texting shorthand before. Sometimes it seems as if teens have their very  own texting language. Texting can be a fun way for teens to keep in  touch with their friends. But they should never be texting while  driving! 
 Car crashes are the No. 1 killer of teenagers in the  United States. About 3,000 young lives are lost every year because of  car accidents. Most of these crashes are caused by driver inexperience.  When you add in distractions (such as texting), the result can be  especially deadly. 
 A new study published in the journal  Pediatrics looked at the rates of texting and driving among teens aged  16 years and older. The researchers used results from the Youth Risk  Behavior Survey. High school students across the country take this  survey. It asks them questions about their lifestyle, such as whether or  not they smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or use drugs. 
 As part  of the survey, teens were also asked whether they had sent a text or  e-mail while driving during the last 30 days. In all, 8,505 students  answered this question. <em>Almost half</em> (45%) reported texting while driving in the last month. That is a lot of distracted drivers on the road! 
 The students who had sent texts while driving were also more likely to: 
<ul><li>Not always wear a seatbelt</li><li>Ride with a driver who had been drinking alcohol</li><li>Drink alcohol and drive</li></ul>
  These findings suggest that a large group of teens may act in unsafe  ways while driving. This is putting the teens themselves, their  passengers and other drivers at risk for crash-related injuries or even  death. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 Experts  are brainstorming ways to decrease the number of teens who are texting  and driving. Here are some of their proposed strategies: 
<ul><li><strong>Bans on cell phone use (including texting) for new drivers</strong>.  Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia have laws making it  illegal for new drivers to use their cell phones while behind the wheel.  Forty-five states, and Washington, D.C., have specifically banned  texting while driving for new drivers. Find out more about the <link http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html _blank first>laws in your state.</link> </li><br /><br /><li><strong>New technology</strong>.  Some experts have recommended installing devices that block cell phone  use in teens' cars. Others have recommended devices that monitor the  teen's driving behaviors (such as cell phone use). These devices provide  feedback to parents. </li><br /><br /><li><strong>Parental supervision</strong>.  Setting rules against cell phone use for your child is critically  important. Make sure they are following these rules, too. This may be  the best way to decrease texting and driving. </li></ul>
 Teen car  crashes can be prevented. Proven strategies can improve the safety of  young drivers on the road. Here are more things you can do to keep your  teen driver safe: 
<ul><li><strong>Practice driving with your teen</strong> as much as you can. The more experience he has behind the wheel, the safer he'll drive. </li><br /><br /><li><strong>Set rules for the road</strong>.  Make sure that your new driver (and her passengers) always wear seat  belts. Limit the hours when she is allowed to drive. Don't allow driving  at night or with teen passengers. Crashes are more likely to occur in  these situations. </li><br /><br /><li><strong>Limit distractions</strong>. Sending  texts, making phone calls, using a GPS or MP3 player all take a driver's  focus off the road. Instead, suggest other options to these bad habits.  For example, encourage your teen to pull into a parking lot to answer  or make phone calls. </li><br /><br /><li><strong>Write a parent-teen driving agreement</strong>. Work with your teen to write the agreement. Have him or her sign it!<br /><ul><li>Discuss your rules of the road with your teen. </li><li>Talk about why the rules must be followed. </li><li>Explain what the consequences are for breaking them. </li></ul></li><br /><li><strong>Lead by example</strong>.  Be a role model of good driving behaviors. Always do this, even when  your children are too young to drive. Young children can pick up on your  dangerous behaviors. If you talk on the phone, text, speed or drive  without your seat belt, teens will do what they see you do. </li></ul>
 The government's &quot;Parents are the Key&quot; campaign offers parents <link http://www.cdc.gov/ParentsAreTheKey/about/index.html _blank first>tools and proven steps</link> for reducing teen driving injuries and deaths. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  You can expect serious efforts to keep young drivers safe on the road.  Laws against cell phone use and texting will be strictly enforced.  States that do not have such laws may begin to pass them. 
 You  also can expect your child's pediatrician to stress the importance of  practicing safe driving behaviors. The doctor is very likely to  encourage you to set road safety rules for your teen. This should  include no cell phone use at all while driving.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 13:07:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Study Finds No Benefit from Fish Oil Pills</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/study-finds-no-benefit-from-fish-oil-pills/</link>
			<description> Fish oil pills don't reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in  people at high risk of heart...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Fish oil pills don't reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in  people at high risk of heart disease, a new study suggests. Earlier  studies concluded that eating fatty fish, such as salmon and tuna, could  lower risk in people with heart failure or a previous heart attack. The  new study focused on about 12,500 people who never had a heart attack  or stroke. But they had high blood pressure, a family history of heart  disease or several other factors that increased their risk. They already  were taking medicines to address those risks. People were randomly  divided into 2 groups. One group took a daily capsule containing omega-3  fatty acids found in fish. The other group took placebo pills that  contained olive oil. In the next 5 years, about 12% of each group died  or spent time in a hospital because of a heart attack, stroke or other  heart-related problem. People who got the real fish oil did not have  better results. The New England Journal of Medicine published the study.  The Associated Press wrote about it May 9.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Fish oil has been flying high as a health-boosting supplement. It has  garnered a reputation as an easy way to protect the heart, improve brain  function and lengthen life. 
 Such claims are one reason that  Americans spend more than $1 billion a year on over-the-counter fish  oil. Food companies also are adding it to milk, yogurt, cereal,  chocolate, cookies, juice and many other foods. 
 Fish oil is loaded with omega-3 (or n-3) fatty acids. There are three main types: 
<ul><li>Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) </li><li>Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) </li><li>Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) </li></ul>
  EPA and DHA are found mainly in fish. For that reason, they are  sometimes called marine omega-3s. ALA is found in plant-based foods,  such as flaxseed, walnuts, and canola and soybean oils. 
 It's  true that healthy people tend to have high levels of EPA and DHA in  their blood. People with heart failure, stroke and heart attack often  have lower levels of these omega-3 fatty acids. However, this does not  necessarily mean that taking fish oil pills will prevent heart disease. 
 In fact, there is now good evidence that you do <em>not</em>  decrease your chance of heart attack, stroke or death by taking fish  oil pills. Based on the results of a new study, even people at high risk  of heart attack, stroke or premature death showed no benefit. Study  results appear in today's New England Journal of Medicine. 
 All  of the people enrolled in the study had known blood vessel disease or  had multiple factors that put them at high risk. They had at least four  of the following risk factors, or they had diabetes and at least one of  these factors: 
<ul><li>Age 65 or older</li><li>Male sex</li><li>High blood pressure</li><li>High cholesterol</li><li>Current smoker</li><li>Obesity</li><li>A  family history of coronary artery disease at a younger age (father or  brother younger than 55, mother or sister younger than 65) </li></ul>
  People in the study were randomly assigned to take capsules containing  either olive oil or omega-3 fatty acids. Results for the two groups were  the same. The omega-3 capsules did not prevent death or hospital stays  for heart attack or stroke. 
 Side effects were also measured  during the study. Minor side effects were similar in both groups. People  reported no major side effects. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  To help prevent heart disease and lower your risk of heart attack and  stroke, don't rely on omega-3 fatty acid pills. But do keep eating fish,  especially fatty fish that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Examples of  fatty fish include salmon, sardines, mackerel, char and halibut. 
  Why the fish but not fish oil pills? Multiple well-done studies have  shown that fish eaters have lower rates of heart disease and stroke.  True, that doesn't prove that the fish directly causes the lower risk.  But fish is one of the healthiest sources of protein. 
 Also, stick to the proven ways to lower your chance of heart attack and stroke: 
<ul><li>Quit smoking. </li><li>Exercise more. </li><li>Eat smaller portions of food and decrease saturated fat. </li><li>Keep your blood pressure in the normal range, with medicines if needed. </li><li>Know your LDL cholesterol level. Lower it with a statin or other medicine if needed. </li><li>Talk with your doctor about whether you should take a baby aspirin. </li></ul>
  You might still decide to take fish oil pills or another type of  omega-3 supplement. At low to moderate doses, this appears to be quite  safe. I suggest taking no more than 1,000 milligrams (one gram) of  fish-oil based omega-3s per day. 
 For people with very high blood  triglyceride levels, high-dose omega-3 pills are an effective  treatment. These pills (known as Lovaza) are available by prescription.  The usual dose is 4 grams per day. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  As we have seen with other supplements, such as vitamin E, the  scientific evidence supporting health benefits from fish oil does not  live up to the hype. Is this the final word on omega-3s? Probably not.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 14:12:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Christie Gets Surgery to Aid Weight Loss</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/diet-fitness/diet-fitness-details/newsarticle/christie-gets-surgery-to-aid-weight-loss/</link>
			<description> New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has endured both jokes and  doubts about his political future...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has endured both jokes and  doubts about his political future because of obesity, says that he has  had weight-loss surgery. Christie told the New York Post that he had a  gastric banding procedure February 16. This surgery involves placing an  adjustable band around the stomach to make it smaller. It makes people  feel full faster. This and related procedures are the favored option for  very obese people who have not lost weight in other ways. Christie, 50,  did not announce that he had the procedure. He answered questions  raised by the newspaper. Some commentators have said that health  concerns could limit Christie's political future. He has been mentioned  often as a potential Republican candidate for president. But Christie  told the Post that he got the procedure for the sake of his family, not  politics. Christie has never revealed his weight. But he has said that  he tried several programs for weight loss. Each time, he gained the  weight back. Christie would not say how much he has lost since the  procedure. The Associated Press, the New York Times and others reported  on the story May 7. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
 Weight-loss surgery has been hailed as a potential lifesaver for people who are severely overweight. It can dramatically: 
<ul><li>Reduce blood sugar levels</li><li>Lower blood pressure and cholesterol</li><li>Improve sleep apnea (a dangerous pattern of breath holding during sleep) </li><li>Improve heart function</li></ul>
  In general, weight-loss surgery is intended for people with a body mass  index (BMI) of 40 or higher. They are considered to be very obese.  People with a BMI of 35 to 39.9 also may qualify for surgery. They must  also have a severe, treatment-resistant medical condition. Such  conditions include diabetes, heart problems and sleep apnea. 
  Some experts suggest that some people with type 2 diabetes and even  lower BMI levels (between 30 and 34.9) be considered for surgery. 
  Whether Governor Christie had weight loss surgery for political reasons  or for concerns about his future health, he clearly fits the profile of  a good candidate. We don't know his exact weight before surgery.  However, the estimate is 300 pounds plus. He is just under 6 feet tall.  This gives him a body mass index of at least 41. 
 Christie also  admits to multiple trials in weight-loss programs. He has lost and  regained substantial amounts of weight at least a couple of times. But,  like more than 95% of obese people, he has regained all the lost pounds  and more. 
 The governor has said he was otherwise in good health.  Even if that was correct, his risk of developing problems directly  related to obesity was high. At a BMI of greater than 40 and knowing  that the surgery appeared uncomplicated for him, Christie surely chose  the best and perhaps only treatment option for obesity. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 Today, surgeons generally suggest one of three weight-loss procedures: 
<ul><li><strong>Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding</strong>  -- This is the simplest of the three procedures. It is done through  small holes in the abdomen. The surgeon wraps an adjustable band around  the upper stomach. This creates a small pouch with a narrow opening that  empties into the rest of the stomach. The person feels full much sooner  than before. </li><li><strong>Open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass</strong> -- The  surgeon cuts into the abdomen and creates a small pouch in the stomach.  This bypasses the rest of the stomach. The pouch is hooked to a loop of  small intestine beyond the first section of intestine. </li><li><strong>Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass</strong>  -- There's no large surgical cut. Small holes are made in the abdomen.  Cameras are used to guide the instruments. The technique is otherwise  similar to the open Roux-en-Y. </li></ul>
 Governor Christie opted for  the simplest procedure, the stomach banding. For most, this is same-day  surgery. Christie's surgery was reported to take only 40 minutes, and  he was home later the same day. Recovery moves along quickly. 
  Christie will check in with his weight-loss surgeon regularly to see if  the stomach band needs adjusting. The band can be easily tightened or  loosened as needed depending on his rate of desired weight loss and how  he feels. Usually weight loss should be slow and steady. He must be sure  to get enough vitamins and minerals through diet, supplements or both. 
  Roux-en-Y surgery leads to greater average weight loss than gastric  banding. However, it is a more complicated operation. It also has  greater short-term and long-term risks. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  If you are considering weight-loss surgery, realize that you must  commit to a lifelong change in the way you eat. Without lifestyle  change, surgery will either make you miserable or not result in weight  loss. And likely both. This is why people are required to go through at  least one structured weight-loss program before they are eligible for  surgery.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 14:23:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Seeking a Better Way to Fight Eye Disease</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/conditions/health-conditions-details/newsarticle/seeking-a-better-way-to-fight-eye-disease/</link>
			<description> Adding components found in fish oil doesn't improve a pill that may  help to slow down a blinding...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Adding components found in fish oil doesn't improve a pill that may  help to slow down a blinding eye disease. But a new study found  potential benefit in tweaking the pills' contents in other ways. The  study included about 1,600 people. All had macular degeneration in at  least one eye. A supplement containing vitamins C and E, beta-carotene,  copper and zinc has been shown to slow how rapidly the disease gets  worse. The new study assigned people to receive those pills plus one of  four other pills. They contained the vegetable pigments lutein and  zeaxanthin, the omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA, all four, or none of  the four (placebo). Overall, none of these extra pills helped to slow  the disease. But some people received the original formula pill in a  version that left out beta-carotene. People who got this version of the  original formula seemed to gain benefit from taking lutein and  zeaxanthin. Leaving out beta-carotene did not reduce the benefit of the  original pills for anyone. Beta-carotene may increase lung cancer risk  in smokers. The authors said more research is needed. The Journal of the  American Medical Association published the study online. USA Today  wrote about it May 6. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Macular degeneration runs in my family. One of my elderly aunts was  blind before she died. My grandfather struggled with his vision. It was  harder for him to be unable to see well than it was for him to be  terribly limited by a heart condition. He couldn't move easily, and his  vision restricted him further from exploring the world through reading,  watching TV or driving. 
 Macular degeneration is an eye condition  that affects our central visual area, called the macula. It's also  called age-related macular degeneration or AMD. People with macular  degeneration gradually lose their vision right in the middle of their  eyes. They find that they cannot see well straight ahead and cannot see  fine details. 
 Severely affected people can't drive, read or do  crafts. AMD is the cause of half of the blindness in the United States.  It is the leading cause of blindness in the developed world. 
 Wet  and dry macular degeneration are the two types of this disease. The wet  kind gets worse faster than the dry kind does. The dry kind is more  common. There are some experimental treatments for wet AMD, but no good  treatments for dry AMD. However, a specific combination of vitamins,  discussed below, may help to slow down the disease. 
 This latest  news relates to a study called the Age Related Eye Disease Study, or  AREDS. Previous research based on this study has found that certain  vitamins and minerals may help prevent macular degeneration from  developing or getting worse. They include vitamins C and E,  beta-carotene, zinc and copper. 
 The new study added different  combinations of supplements to the original formula of proven vitamins.  Researchers wanted to see if other supplements would be of further  benefit. They tested four groups. All four received the original  formula. 
<ul><li>One group also got lutein and zeaxanthin. These  are plant-derived antioxidants. Lutein is found in leafy green  vegetables like kale and spinach. Zeaxanthin is related to vitamin A. It  is responsible for the colors of paprika, corn and saffron. </li><li>A second group also got DHA and EPA, omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oils. </li><li>A third group also got lutein, zeaxanthin, DHA and EPA. </li><li>People in the fourth group got no extra supplements. They took placebo (fake) pills. </li></ul>
 The study, unfortunately, found that none of the extra supplements further delayed or decreased vision loss. 
  Some people received the original formula without beta-carotene, which  has been linked with higher lung cancer risk in smokers. The formula  appeared to be just as effective without it. 
 Based on their  analysis, the authors hope that looking further at the lutein and  zeaxanthin groups will lead to a role for these supplements. In these  small groups, people who received the original formula without  beta-carotene did better than those whose pills included it. People who  had very low levels of lutein and zeaxanthin in their diets also did  better with these supplements than those who got more from their diets. 
 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Macular degeneration is more common in smokers, whites and people who  have a family history of the condition. If you are over 50 and in a  high-risk group, it's reasonable to see an eye doctor for an exam. At  this age, it is also a good idea to be checked for other eye diseases,  such as glaucoma or cataracts. If you have diabetes, you should see an  eye doctor every year. 
 Don't wait until you have trouble with  your vision. At this point, we cannot restore vision, so preventing any  loss is key to maintaining your eyesight. 
 If your doctor  recommends it, you might consider taking the AREDS vitamin preparation.  It works best for certain groups of people, so definitely talk to a  doctor before deciding to take these supplements. Also, be sure to eat  your leafy green veggies. 
 If you are already having problems  with your vision, don't despair and don't delay. Your eye doctor can  help you find a low-vision specialist and some visual rehabilitation.  These steps can help you make the best of what you have and continue to  enjoy a rich, full life. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  This work really shows the benefit of large research studies. These  studies are able to answer complicated questions and point us in good  directions for future learning. Great strides have been made in macular  degeneration during the last several years. I hope they will continue in  both treatment and prevention.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Most Parents Report Distracted Driving</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/most-parents-report-distracted-driving/</link>
			<description> In a new survey, nearly 90% of parents admitted to being distracted  by technology in the last...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ In a new survey, nearly 90% of parents admitted to being distracted  by technology in the last month while driving with their kids. The  activities ranged from talking on the phone or texting to fiddling with  the GPS or DVD player. And there were old-style distractions, too, such  as eating or picking up a toy. The top distraction was phone calls.  Nearly 75% of parents talked on the phone while driving. About 600  parents took part in the survey. They answered questions while their  children were being treated for a variety of reasons in an emergency  room. The children's ages ranged from 1 through 12. About 70% said they  did something related to child care while driving. Examples included  feeding the child or picking up a toy. Nearly as many reported  self-care, such as eating or grooming. About half were distracted by  seeking directions on a GPS or map. Similar numbers did something  related to entertainment, such as changing a DVD. About 15% reported  texting while driving. Parents who reported distractions were also more  likely to have been in a car accident at some point. The study was  presented at a conference. HealthDay News wrote about it May 6.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  When we think of distracted drivers, we tend to think about teenagers,  or those erratic drivers in front of us who don't use their turn signals  because they are holding their phones. We don't necessarily think about  … parents. 
 But, it turns out, parents can be very distracted  drivers. In a study just released, researchers from Michigan did a  survey of more than 600 adults. All were parents and caregivers of  children ages 1 through 12 who were seen in an emergency room for any  reason. 
 Researchers asked the parents how often in the last  month they had performed certain distracting activities while driving  with their child in the car. Here are the rough percentages that  reported doing each of these activities: 
<ul><li>Phone calls (handheld or hands-free): 75% </li><li>Child care (feeding, picking up a dropped toy): 70%</li><li>Self-care (grooming, eating): 70%</li><li>Directions (checking navigation system or map): 50%</li><li>Entertainment (changing CD or DVD): 50%</li><li>Texting: 15%</li></ul>
 Almost 90% said they had engaged in at least one technology-based distraction in the last month. 
  These activities are not all equally dangerous. Munching on a pretzel  or listening to your GPS system tell you to turn right is absolutely not  as dangerous as texting or leaning back to grab a dropped toy. 
  But we know that distractions can lead to accidents. Among these  parents, people who used a phone or did self-care while driving were  more than twice as likely to have ever been in a motor vehicle crash.  Those who did child care or got directions were just under twice as  likely. Drivers who had ever been in a crash were more likely to report  some sort of distracted driving than drivers never involved in a crash. 
  Another interesting finding was that parents whose children were not  restrained in the car properly (according to Michigan law) more often  reported child care distractions or texting. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  All passengers are precious cargo, but children are especially  precious. They count on parents and caregivers to keep them safe. 
  Distractions cause accidents. We talk a lot about cell phones, but  anything can do it. You could be changing a radio station, or just  turning to talk to the person next to you. Anything that takes your eyes  and concentration off the road can lead to a crash. It's crucial that  parents and caregivers understand this. 
 It's hard not to have any distractions. But you can limit them. Here are a few things you can do: 
<ul><li>It's best to pull over to make a phone call. If you have to make a call while driving, use a hands-free device. </li><li>If snacks or toys are needed for a ride, do some planning to make sure they are within your children's reach. </li><li>Make  rules for the car. Let your kids know that you simply aren't going to  fix the DVD or change the music or reach back to get something while you  are driving. Then they'll be less likely to get upset and you'll be  less likely to be tempted to break your rules. Don't try to explain it  to them while you're in the car. Talk about it ahead of time. </li><li>Whenever possible, have another adult (or at least an older child) with you when taking long car trips with children. </li><li>Resist  the temptation to do a drive-thru for meals. Stop and eat. Between  eating yourself and reaching back to grab or give food, you are putting  everyone at risk. </li><li>Know where you are going ahead of time. This  helps avoid the distraction of figuring it out on a map or your smart  phone while driving. If you need to use a GPS system, use one that tells  you what to do, as opposed to one that you need to look at. If you do  need to look at it, mount it on the dashboard to minimize the amount of  time your eyes are off the road. </li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  If we don't work to limit distractions, what we can expect is more  motor vehicle accidents. I hope that this study will be a wake-up call  -- and will help save lives.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>FDA Probes Wider Caffeine Use in Food</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/fda-probes-wider-caffeine-use-in-food/</link>
			<description> Caffeine has been showing up recently in snack foods, candy and gum.  Now U.S. food regulators are...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Caffeine has been showing up recently in snack foods, candy and gum.  Now U.S. food regulators are taking an interest. The Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) says it will look at the effects of caffeinated  foods on children's health and take action if necessary. The Associated  Press wrote about it April 30. The announcement came in response to a  new product that went on the market this week, Wrigley's Alert Energy  Gum. The agency already is investigating the use of caffeine in energy  drinks and energy shots. The FDA has given specific approval to the use  of caffeine in a food or drink only once, for colas. That decision was  in the 1950s. An official said the recent expansion of caffeine use in  foods is &quot;disturbing&quot; and &quot;beyond anything FDA envisioned.&quot; Other recent  products that contain caffeine include Jelly Belly Extreme Sport Beans,  snacks from ARMA Energy and Frito-Lay's Cracker Jack'd Power Bites.  Labels say the products are for adult use only. But critics say they  could be attractive to children as well.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
 <em>Hi doctor, <br /><br />  I'll make it short. Could you please let me know if anything in this  supplement might be harmful to me? I don't use it for weight loss but  just something to help me with more energy. <br /><br /> Thanks for your advice in this matter. </em>
  I am a primary care doctor. I get questions from patients all the time  about supplements, energy drinks, diet pills and herbal mixtures that  have been advertised. This was a message I got last week. 
 Many  of these &quot;energy boosters&quot; have caffeine as their active ingredient.  That was true for the supplement my patient was asking me about in this  message. Each pill had the amount of caffeine that you would get from  two cups of coffee. 
 Caffeine boosters and snacks are in the news  right now. This week, Wrigley started selling a caffeinated gum,  calling it &quot;the right energy, right now.&quot; 
 Food manufacturers  have also recently put caffeine into candy, chocolates, jelly beans,  trail mix, chips and other snack foods. 
 Some people are getting  more caffeine through these energy snacks than they ever got from  coffee. They are being marketed as a wellness product -- for more  energy, better athletic performance. So are caffeinated snacks safe? 
 In moderation, they are probably not going to do harm. 
  However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 92 reports in 4  years about illnesses, hospital stays and deaths that came after people  drank an energy drink named 5-Hour Energy. The FDA has also received  reports of several deaths possibly linked to Monster Energy Drink. These  reports do not prove that the caffeinated drinks actually caused the  deaths. 
 Caffeine has its effect in the body by triggering the  brain to make extra adrenaline-type hormones. This can stress the heart  and raise blood pressure. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Caffeine is not a problem in the early part of the day, and in small  amounts. But it is good for you to know the side effects of regular,  heavy use of caffeine. If you want more energy, the healthiest way to  get that is by exercising and by getting enough sleep, not by using  caffeine: 
<ul><li>Caffeine may be linked to an increased heart  attack risk. Researchers focused on people with slow caffeine  metabolism. This means that caffeine stays in their bodies for a long  time. Among this subgroup, heart attacks were more likely to occur in  heavy coffee drinkers. Drinking 2 to 3 cups of coffee each day seemed to  be linked with a 36% increase in heart attack risk. With 4 or more cups  each day, the increase appeared to be 64%. This study was not designed  in a way that would tell us for sure that there is risk from caffeine. </li><br /><br /><li>Unfiltered  coffee might ever-so-slightly increase your total cholesterol levels.  Drinking 6 cups of unfiltered coffee (such as espresso) daily appears to  increase total cholesterol by about 12 milligrams per deciliter. This  small change is not much to be concerned about. </li><br /><br /><li>Heavy  coffee intake might change your blood level of homocysteine. This is a  substance that has been linked with heart risk. In one study, people who  drank 6 cups of coffee daily had a higher level of homocysteine than  people who drank no coffee. </li><br /><br /><li>Drinking 3 or more cups per day is linked with a higher risk of miscarriage in early pregnancy. </li><br /><br /><li>Caffeine can thin your bones. It causes some calcium to filter out of the body through your kidneys. </li><br /><br /><li>For  some people, caffeine causes headaches. This is a common symptom of  caffeine withdrawal. Other withdrawal symptoms are fatigue, foggy  thinking and an irritated mood. </li><br /><br /><li>Caffeine reliably causes insomnia. This is true for caffeine consumed as early in the day as noon. </li><br /><br /><li>Coffee or tea with meals can make you absorb less iron from the foods you eat. </li><br /><br /><li>Caffeine can cause anxiety symptoms. </li></ul>
 But there is good news, too. 
<ul><li>Some cancers seem to grow less if you consume caffeine. </li><li>Caffeine can stimulate a bowel movement. Morning coffee helps people to stay &quot;regular.&quot; </li><li>Sometimes, caffeine can take away a migraine headache. </li><li>Caffeine is linked with a slightly lower diabetes risk. </li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  The Nurses' Health Study and the Physicians' Health Study each included  tens of thousands of people. These studies showed no difference in  diabetes or heart risk even for people drinking five cups of coffee per  day. That is very reassuring about caffeine as a safe product. 
  But now caffeine is being packaged in a way it can be just popped into  your mouth. So it is possible to get a much bigger dose of caffeine at  one time. The FDA is talking about restricting whether ads for  caffeinated products may target children. 
 Mostly, caffeine seems  safe in moderate quantities. But we don't yet understand a &quot;latte&quot;  about the full spectrum of risks or hazards of caffeine. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Study: No Z-Pak Heart Risk for Most Adults</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/study-no-z-pak-heart-risk-for-most-adults/</link>
			<description> A common antibiotic does not increase the risk of  heart-related death for young and middle-aged...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="body"> A common antibiotic does not increase the risk of  heart-related death for young and middle-aged adults without heart  problems, a new study finds. Earlier research found an increased risk  among people with heart disease who took azithromycin. This drug is also  known by the brand names Zithromax or Z-Pak. The new study looked at  1.1 million people who took azithromycin for infections. They were  compared with 1.1 million who did not take antibiotics and 7 million who  took penicillin V. Patients were ages 18 through 64. People were 3  times as likely to die of heart disease or stroke while taking either  antibiotic. Death rates were similar for both drugs. Researchers said  the higher risk appeared to be related to the infection rather than to  the treatment. The U.S. label for azithromycin and antibiotics similar  to it carries a warning. It says they could increase the risk of a heart  rhythm problem that can lead to death. The warning says this is more  likely in people with existing heart problems. The New England Journal  of Medicine published the study. HealthDay News wrote about it May 1. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Did you ever take a &quot;Z-Pak&quot;? It's a common and convenient antibiotic  treatment. The drug is most commonly prescribed for respiratory  infections. 
 Z-Paks contain azithromycin. The brand name is  Zithromax, which is where the &quot;Z&quot; comes from. This is an antibiotic in  the same family as erythromycin. In recent years, you may have seen news  stories suggesting that taking azithromycin comes with a serious risk:  sudden cardiac (heart-related) death. 
 It's true. A study  published last year found a small but real increased risk of sudden  cardiac death among those taking azithromycin. They were compared with  people taking a penicillin-type antibiotic. 
 But before you swear  off azithromycin forever, consider this: The study analyzed adults  insured by Medicaid. That's important because this population includes  people who tend to have multiple medical problems (including heart  disease) and a high death rate in the first place. 
 What about  people whose hearts are healthy? Does the risk of sudden death after  taking azithromycin apply to them as well? That's where a new study  comes in. 
 The New England Journal of Medicine published the new  study. Researchers looked at the rate of heart- and stroke-related death  among more than a million people from the general population who took  azithromycin. Their ages were 18 through 64. They were compared with a  similar number who took no antibiotic. Azithromycin users also were  compared with more than 7 million people who took penicillin. 
 The results were reassuring: 
<ul><li>The  risk of heart- and stroke-related death among people taking  azithromycin was similar to that among people taking penicillin. </li><li>Compared  with people taking no antibiotic, the risk of heart- and stroke-related  death was nearly 3 times higher among people taking azithromycin.  However, after statistical analysis, this increase appeared to be  related to the infection or other health problems. It was not linked  with the antibiotic. </li><li>The number of heart- and stroke-related  deaths occurring during azithromycin use in this study was quite low.  The researchers estimate that, at most, 11 extra deaths might occur for  every 1 million courses of treatment. </li></ul>
 This study should provide a measure of comfort to the average person who gets a prescription for azithromycin. 
  Of course, no medicine is completely risk-free. Allergic reactions and  side effects (such as diarrhea) are relatively common with azithromycin  use. People with heart problems might be better off taking a different  antibiotic, if they need one. Still, this new study suggests that  azithromycin seems to be safe for the heart for most people. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Azithromycin can cause serious side effects. That risk is quite small,  but it serves as yet another reminder that we should take antibiotics  only when we truly need them. Remember that respiratory infections are  often caused by viruses, not bacteria. This is especially likely for  infections that cause sore throats, runny nose or cough. Antibiotics  don't kill viruses. 
 If you have heart disease, think twice  before taking azithromycin. If your doctor prescribes it, ask whether  you're at increased risk for heart rhythm problems. The doctor may  decide to prescribe a different antibiotic. 
 But, if you don't have heart problems, azithromycin is probably as safe as (or even safer than) other antibiotics. 
  Perhaps the most important changes to make are those that lower your  risk of respiratory infection. That means there's less chance you would  even need azithromycin in the first place. For example: 
<ul><li>Avoid contact with people who are sick. </li><li>Wash  your hands often, especially if you're around someone with an  infection. Remind infected people to wash their hands as well and to  cover the nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing. </li><li>Don't smoke. </li><li>Get  the flu shot each year. You'll be less likely to get the flu. That also  means you'll reduce your chances of receiving an antibiotic. Sometimes  that happens if there's concern that a bacterial infection might be  causing your flu symptoms. </li><li>Get the pneumococcus vaccination (often called &quot;the pneumonia vaccine&quot;). </li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  In the future, we are likely to have new antibiotics. Then we won't  need to rely on azithromycin as much as we do now. New antibiotics are  likely to have side effects of their own. But I hope that sudden cardiac  death won't be among them! 
 More research should provide a  better understanding of who is at risk of heart and blood vessel  problems while taking azithromycin. Fortunately, it appears the average  young or middle-aged adult is not among them. </div>]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 14:05:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Not Calling 911 Slows Stroke Treatment</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/not-calling-911-slows-stroke-treatment/</link>
			<description> More than one-third of people having a stroke in the United States  don't call 911, a study shows....</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ More than one-third of people having a stroke in the United States  don't call 911, a study shows. And that can make a big difference in  their treatment. The most effective treatment for ischemic stroke, the  most common type, is use of clot-busting drugs. But they work best when  given within 3 hours of the start of symptoms. In the new study, people  who called 911 arrived faster than those who got to the hospital on  their own. They also got treatment faster. The study looked at treatment  of about 200,000 stroke patients from 2003 to 2010. Not everyone is  eligible to get clot-busting drugs. Among those who were, 67% of those  who came by ambulance got the drugs within 3 hours of when their  symptoms started. Only 44% of those who got to the hospital on their own  met that timetable. About 79% of those who got to the hospital within 2  hours of the start of symptoms came by ambulance. So did 61% of those  who arrived within 3 hours. The journal Circulation: Cardiovascular  Quality and Outcomes published the study. HealthDay News wrote about it  April 30.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Many people don't realize that stroke is the fourth largest cause of  death in the United States. A stroke occurs when a part of the brain  does not receive enough oxygen or nutrients. The cause is either a  blocked blood vessel or a burst blood vessel in the brain. 
  People who survive a stroke can be left with major physical and mental  limitations that can be life-changing. Early treatment of stroke can be  life-saving and can limit the chance of having long-term disability.  Unfortunately, many people do not get to the hospital quickly. 
  Calling an ambulance is the first step to getting the fastest treatment.  A new research study reminds us that too few people having a stroke  call an ambulance. 
 Researchers studied more than 200,000 stroke  patients from more than 1,500 U.S. hospitals. These hospitals were  evaluating a program called &quot;Get With The Guidelines.&quot; This is an effort  by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association  to improve stroke and heart attack care. The program promotes use of set  treatment plans that are based on the latest research. 
 Hospitals record certain measurements of care. For stroke care, they include: 
<ul><li>Time it takes from the start of stroke symptoms to hospital arrival and the start of treatment </li><li>Number of people treated with clot-busting medicines </li><li>The severity of stroke</li><li>Number of patients who get education about stopping smoking and controlling blood pressure and cholesterol levels</li></ul>
  These are just a few examples of the many measures that are included.  The researchers in this study found that one measure in particular was  worrisome. Too few people called an ambulance when they were having a  stroke. 
 In fact, one-third of those who had stroke symptoms did  not call emergency medical services. Instead, they got to the hospital  on their own. This was more likely in rural areas and for minorities. 
  Here's why this matters. Clot-busting medicines can save lives and  reduce disability. But they can only be given within a three-hour window  from the start of symptoms. The longer it takes to get to the hospital,  the less likely you are to get these life-saving medicines. 
  Taking an ambulance gets your treatment started much faster. Why?  Emergency medical teams can give you medicines you need right away in  the ambulance. They also know which hospitals are set up to take care of  people who are having a stroke. This means you will get to the right  hospital right away. You'll also be more likely to get the most  appropriate treatments. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  First, you have to know the symptoms of a stroke and remember to get  help fast. A good way to remember these tips is the mnemonic F-A-S-T. 
 <strong> F -- Face drooping or face numbness</strong>. If your smile is not equal on both sides, that may be a sign of a problem. 
 <strong> A -- Arm or leg weakness</strong>. Does one arm not work as well as the other? 
 <strong> S -- Speech problems</strong>. Are you having trouble speaking, or finding the right words, or even speaking gibberish? 
 <strong> T -- Time is of the essence. Call 9-1-1</strong>. As mentioned above, an ambulance can get someone to hospital and to life-saving treatments fast. 
 Other symptoms might signal a stroke as well. They include: 
<ul><li>Sudden confusion</li><li>Sudden vision loss</li><li>Sudden balance troubles</li></ul>
 It's also important to remember the factors that increase your risk of stroke. They include: 
<ul><li>High blood pressure</li><li>Atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm) </li><li>Diabetes</li><li>Smoking</li><li>High cholesterol</li><li>Obesity</li><li>Lack of exercise</li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  About 800,000 people have strokes each year in the United States. It is  clear that the faster you get the treated for stroke, the better off  you will be. I hope that better awareness about stroke symptoms of  stroke and the need to get treated quickly will reduce the number of  people with major limitations after having a stroke. 
 Programs  like &quot;Get With The Guidelines&quot; will continue to help us understand the  things we do well and the things we could do better with stroke care.  Picking up the phone and calling 9-1-1 with any possible stroke symptoms  is one way that we could all do better.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 14:09:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Antidepressants and Surgical Bleeding</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/antidepressants-and-surgical-bleeding/</link>
			<description> People who take medicines for depression may have an increased risk  of bleeding with major...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ People who take medicines for depression may have an increased risk  of bleeding with major surgery, a new study suggests. Researchers looked  at medical records for about 500,000 Americans who had surgery in a  2-year period. People who took drugs known as SSRIs were 10% more likely  to have excess bleeding after surgery than other patients. SSRI stands  for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. These drugs are  antidepressants. They include fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil)  and many others. People who took SSRIs also had a higher risk of dying  in the hospital or being admitted again in the next month. This study  does not show that the drugs caused the problems. Researchers said that  people taking drugs for depression might have a higher risk of problems  with surgery for other reasons, too. The journal JAMA Internal Medicine  published the study. HealthDay News wrote about it April 29. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  About 10% of Americans take an antidepressant drug. For the great  majority of them, that drug is an SSRI. SSRI stands for selective  serotonin reuptake inhibitor. These drugs act by increasing brain levels  of serotonin. 
 Serotonin affects more than just our mood. It  also plays a role in how we react to stress and anxiety. More recently,  serotonin action in the brain has gained attention related to how we  perceive pain. Some SSRIs are prescribed to treat chronic (long-lasting)  pain. 
 SSRIs are generally safe drugs. Like all medicines, they  can produce side effects in some people. Nausea, loose stools and  headaches are most common. They also can reduce sexual interest, desire,  performance, satisfaction or all four. 
 One of the more  worrisome side effects of SSRIs is an increased risk of bleeding. The  drugs affect serotonin levels in platelets as well as in the brain.  Platelets are the sticky cell fragments that play a crucial role in  blood clotting. 
 Doctors routinely consider bleeding risk when  people are scheduled for major surgery. The goal of this study was to  find out if SSRI use around the time of surgery might cause more  unwanted bleeding. The researchers also looked at the number of SSRI  users having major surgery who died in the hospital or were admitted  again within 30 days. 
 These outcomes of surgery were worse in  SSRI users. However, this type of study can only show a link between  outcomes and SSRI use. It does not prove that taking an SSRI before or  right after surgery was the reason for excess bleeding or directly  increased risk of death. People who take an SSRI are more likely to have  other medical problems than non-users. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 If you do need major surgery and take an SSRI, talk with your doctor about the best approach for you. 
  Even if there is a risk of excess bleeding from an SSRI, that extra  risk is extremely small. However, if you also take a drug to prevent  blood clots, such as aspirin or warfarin (Coumadin), the bleeding risk  could be significant. 
 Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs  (NSAIDs) on their own can cause internal bleeding. These types of drugs  include ibuprofen, naproxen and many others. NSAIDs make platelets less  sticky and irritate the lining of the stomach and upper intestine. So,  if you combine an NSAID with an SSRI, the bleeding risk during and after  surgery likely increases even more. 
 In these circumstances,  your doctor will advise you about reducing doses and/or not taking some  of your medicines in the weeks before surgery. 
 You should not  stop taking an SSRI without getting advice from your doctor first. If  you take it for depression, your symptoms could return. And untreated  depression increases your risk of a poor outcome from surgery. Stopping  an SSRI also means you might have more pain after surgery. 
 Most importantly, suddenly stopping some SSRIs can cause &quot;SSRI discontinuation syndrome.&quot; Symptoms include: 
<ul><li>Dizziness</li><li>Nausea</li><li>Insomnia</li><li>Anxiety</li><li>Irritability</li><li>Aches and pains</li></ul>
  This problem occurs most often when people taking high doses of a  short-acting SSRI stop without slowly lowering the dose. Paroxetine  (Paxil) is an example. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  Based on this study and other evidence we have so far, no broad  guidelines regarding SSRIs and major surgery will be available any time  soon. As with all your medicines, you and your doctor will decide what  medicines to take and how to take them based on your own situation.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:05:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Survey: Most Don't Plan for Long-Term Care</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/survey-most-dont-plan-for-long-term-care/</link>
			<description> About 2 out of 3 Americans over age 40 have done little or no  planning for long-term care, a new...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ About 2 out of 3 Americans over age 40 have done little or no  planning for long-term care, a new survey finds. Only one-quarter even  believe they'll need help, although about half have cared for an older  friend or relative themselves. The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs  Research did the survey. Most people polled said family or friends would  help them if needed. But 6 out of 10 have not talked with them about  it. About 7 out of 10 U.S. adults need some sort of long-term care after  age 65. This may be given by a relative or in assisted living or a  nursing home. On average, the care lasts about 3 years. More than  one-third of those surveyed said, mistakenly, that Medicare pays for  nursing home care. Medicare pays only for a short time, after a hospital  stay. Medicaid, the government health insurance for the poor, pays for  most long-term care in the United States. But people must &quot;spend down&quot;  most of their assets before they qualify. Nursing homes cost an average  of $6,700 a month. Most of those surveyed gave much lower estimates. The  Associated Press wrote about the survey April 24.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
 <em>When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple.</em>
  I have always loved the poem by Jenny Joseph that starts with those  words. I love that the woman in this poem is unafraid to grow old, and I  love her plans: 
<em>I shall … go out in my slippers in the rain, <br /> And pick the flowers in other people’s gardens, <br /> And learn to spit.</em>
 Despite being so full of plans, nowhere does she anticipate how she might pay for long-term care. 
  A survey released this week found that two-thirds of Americans over age  40 have done &quot;little or no planning&quot; for how they might pay for  long-term care as an older adult. 
 As a primary care doctor, I  see my patients struggle with the major impact of age-related care needs  on their lives and their financial realities. Long-term care costs are  huge. Really, we can't afford not to think about it. 
 The U.S.  Census Bureau estimates that $217 billion will be spent in 2015 on  nursing home and residential care. This includes assisted living  facilities and board and care homes. Currently, about 25% of these costs  are paid out-of-pocket by older adults and their families. Almost  two-thirds of the cost is paid by Medicaid and Medicare combined. 
  Medicare pays for only a short term when illness causes disability --  20 days in a nursing home. After that, patients must meet these costs  out-of-pocket. Most older adults with chronic needs then &quot;spend down&quot;  their funds to pay for long-term care until the money runs out. At that  point, at poverty level, Medicaid support may be available. 
 The  vast majority of older adults live in their own home or apartment, or  with family. This includes more than 3 out of 4 people ages 85 and  older. But most people will need help, at least for a short time, as  they age. They may need help with personal care, such as bathing and  dressing, or more intense support in a nursing home. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  There is no perfect way to plan for long-term care, in the event you  will need it. But you can begin to make a plan, even if it's not  perfect. 
 <strong>1. Talk with your family. </strong> Nearly 60% of elderly  people who need help with personal care rely fully on unpaid  caregivers, usually their children or spouses. Sometimes this is an  obvious arrangement. But your family must be flexible and committed. If a  caregiver must stay at home, some family income will be lost. This is  rarely a comfortable situation if everyone did not agree ahead of time. 
 <strong>2. Consider long-term-care insurance. </strong>  Fewer than 3% of American adults have purchased a long-term care  insurance policy. The average cost is high. A typical plan might cost  $3,300 a year for a healthy 60-year-old husband and wife. And it might  pay only a $150 a day for up to 3 years. For a person who buys this  insurance at age 65, there is a 45% chance of making a claim. If you  never need long-term care, the payments you made to the plan are lost. 
 <strong>3. An &quot;age in place&quot; retirement arrangement might be right for you. </strong>  Some campus-like retirement communities are designed to permit an older  adult to &quot;age in place.&quot; This means you can go from a relatively  independent life to a more dependent life while staying in the same  community. Services often include recreation for the active elderly and  24-hour skilled nursing or rehabilitation services for the frail  elderly. These organizations are called continuing care retirement  communities. They are always expensive. Usually, they charge an up-front  fee of $25,000 to $500,000. Then you pay a membership fee or rent each  month. 
 <strong>4. Build up your savings. </strong> Making ends meet is a  challenge. But in your working years, don't underestimate how much you  need to save. &quot;After we no longer have our mortgage, we should be able  to live on that,&quot; we all think. But plan for some money to stay in your  savings. If disability strikes, you will need it. 
 <strong>5. Write an advance directive (&quot;living will&quot;).</strong>  Some people receive intensive medical care after they become profoundly  disabled. By then, they are no longer able to let their family and  doctor know what care they want. If you know that you would not want  life-sustaining treatments in this condition, it is wise to record your  wishes in a legal &quot;advance directive.&quot; 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  By 2030, 20% of the U.S. population is predicted to be over the age of  65. It is not clear that Medicare and Medicaid will be able to sustain  the contributions that they make now toward long-term care. This is a  good reason for Americans to plan ahead. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:54:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Beta-Blockers May Trim Deaths after Surgery</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/conditions/health-conditions-details/newsarticle/beta-blockers-may-trim-deaths-after-surgery/</link>
			<description> Taking a common heart drug before surgery may reduce death rates for  some patients, a new study...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Taking a common heart drug before surgery may reduce death rates for  some patients, a new study suggests. Researchers looked at non-heart  surgeries involving almost 137,000 people. About 40% of the patients  took a type of drug called a beta-blocker before surgery and for 30 days  afterward. People with a high risk of heart or blood vessel problems  were more likely to take these drugs. They slow the heart rate and are  used to reduce blood pressure and treat heart rhythm problems. People  who took beta-blockers were less likely to die in the 30 days after  surgery than similar patients who did not take them. The drugs reduced  the risk of death and problems such as heart attack most for higher-risk  surgery patients. People with higher risk included those with prior  heart disease, stroke, heart failure, diabetes and kidney disease. The  Journal of the American Medical Association published the study.  HealthDay News wrote about it April 23. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Protecting the heart has always been a big concern for anyone having  major surgery. But better techniques for surgery and anesthesia have  improved results. The risk of a heart attack and heart-related death has  greatly decreased during the last few decades. 
 Taking a  beta-blocker before and after major surgery may be another way to help  protect the heart. Examples of commonly prescribed beta-blockers include  atenolol, metoprolol and carvedilol. 
 Early studies suggested  that anyone at risk of heart trouble could benefit from taking a  beta-blocker before and after major surgery. These drugs slow the heart  rate and decrease the heart's work load. But results of later studies  were less clear for people having non-vascular surgery. Usually doctors  advise a beta-blocker for patients having vascular surgery. (Vascular  surgery is surgery on blood vessels. Examples include as fixing an  abdominal aortic aneurysm or a bypassing blockage in a leg artery). 
  Now doctors have a little more guidance from the results of a study  published today. The study focused on six factors to find out who is  most likely to benefit from taking a beta-blocker before major surgery  and at least 30 days afterward. The factors were: 
<ul><li>High-risk surgery, such as surgery on blood vessels or an operation that typically involves a lot of bleeding</li><li>History of stroke or narrow arteries in the neck that increase stroke risk</li><li>Known coronary artery disease</li><li>Heart failure</li><li>Diabetes</li><li>Kidney disease with decreased kidney function</li></ul>
  For people with two or more of these risk factors, taking a  beta-blocker before surgery and during the next month improved outcomes.  They had a significant decrease in their risk of heart attack, cardiac  arrest (heart stopping) and death during that time period. 
 The results of the study were published in the April 24 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Are you scheduled for surgery? If you have even one of the risk factors  mentioned in the study, ask your doctor whether you should start a  beta-blocker. 
 Anyone over age 50 with multiple heart-disease  risk factors might also benefit from treatment with a beta-blocker  before surgery. It depends on how many risk factors you have and the  type of surgery. 
 As a reminder, those heart-disease risk factors include: 
<ul><li>Smoking or other regular tobacco use</li><li>Family history of coronary artery disease under age 60</li><li>High LDL cholesterol</li><li>High blood pressure</li></ul>
  Ideally, people who are not already taking a beta-blocker but need one  should start taking it at least one week before surgery. I prefer to  start it two or more weeks before surgery when possible. I start at a  low dose and increase the dose gradually. Beta-blockers slow the heart  rate. So this can guide the dosing. The heart-rate goal depends on the  individual patient. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  During the last few years, doctors have become less likely to prescribe  beta-blockers before surgery for people not already taking them. The  evidence was not conclusive. But this new study helps define which  patients are likely to get the most benefit. Beta-blocker therapy for  this purpose will almost surely increase.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:32:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Some Alternatives May Cut Blood Pressure</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/some-alternatives-may-cut-blood-pressure/</link>
			<description> Some alternative treatments may slightly lower blood pressure, a new  report says. But the only...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Some alternative treatments may slightly lower blood pressure, a new  report says. But the only non-drug treatment with strong, proven  benefit is aerobic exercise. Those are the conclusions of an American  Heart Association (AHA) review of research. It found that transcendental  meditation (TM), biofeedback and guided breathing may help some people.  But the effects on blood pressure were small. Other types of meditation  did not lower blood pressure. Neither did yoga or acupuncture. Aerobic  exercise had the strongest research support. It also lowered blood  pressure more than any treatment other than medicine. The AHA recommends  aerobic exercise for most people with pre-hypertension or high blood  pressure. Resistance exercise that involves movement also may lower  blood pressure, the report says. People should follow their doctors'  advice about whether to take medicine for blood pressure. Alternative  treatments can be a supplement, not a substitute. The journal  Hypertension published the report. HealthDay News wrote about it April  22.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Sixty million Americans know they have high blood pressure  (hypertension). But fewer than half have it under control. Why is that?  High blood pressure alone rarely causes symptoms. And taking pills for  something that doesn't make you feel bad can be hard to swallow. 
  So many people with high blood pressure seek alternative means to help  lower their blood pressure. Methods include relaxation exercises,  meditation, biofeedback, yoga and acupuncture. How much can any of these  lower your blood pressure readings? 
 A large group of  researchers has tried to answer that question. They did an exhaustive  review of studies that looked at alternative therapies. They also  included studies that looked at the impact of regular exercise on blood  pressure. 
 Many studies have looked at exercise and high blood  pressure. Of the different types of exercise, the researchers found that  regular aerobic exercise lowered blood pressure the most. And aerobic  exercise was better than any of the alternative therapies. 
  Interestingly, dynamic resistance training also helped lower blood  pressure. You can do dynamic resistance exercises with free weights or  resistance machines. Your muscles and joints are moving during these  exercises. On the other hand, isometric exercises do not appear to  improve blood pressure. These exercises put stress on your muscles  without any movement. Using a hand grip is one example. 
 The  authors found fewer well-done studies on alternative therapies. Their  analysis suggests that deep meditation, biofeedback and some relaxation  techniques lowered blood pressure a little. The few studies available on  yoga and acupuncture suggested no benefit. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Most importantly, get your blood pressure checked. Normal blood  pressure is a reading of no higher than 120/80. Readings between 120/80  and 139/89 show pre-hypertension. And high blood pressure is defined as  multiple readings of 140/90 and higher. 
 Lifestyle changes might  help prevent you from needing medicines. And even if you need to take  drugs to lower blood pressure, you likely will need fewer pills and  lower doses. 
 Regular aerobic exercise has been a standard  recommendation to help lower blood pressure. Your goal is to work up to  moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week. Ideally, strive for  45 to 60 minutes at each session. But even 20 to 30 minutes makes a  difference. 
 In addition: 
<ul><li>Maintain a healthy weight. </li><li>Eat more fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Choose low-fat dairy foods. </li><li>Eat less salt. </li><li>Include foods rich in potassium in your diet, unless you have kidney disease. </li><li>If you are a man who drinks alcohol, have no more than two drinks per day. Women should have no more than one drink per day. </li><li>Don't smoke. </li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  Similar to most medical studies, this one looked at average benefits  for each alternative therapy. Many people did not see lower blood  pressures from one or more of these methods. But some did. So you might  find that stress reduction, meditation or some other technique works for  you. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:23:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Physical Work May Raise Heart, Stroke Risk</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/physical-work-may-raise-heart-stroke-risk/</link>
			<description> Exercise is known to reduce the risk of heart disease. But a  physically demanding job may...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Exercise is known to reduce the risk of heart disease. But a  physically demanding job may increase risk, two new studies suggest. One  study looked at 500 adults who had a first stroke, heart attack or  other heart-related event. They were more likely to have physically  demanding jobs than a comparison group of 500 healthy adults. This was  true even after researchers adjusted the numbers for age, smoking and  other factors that affect heart attack and stroke risk. A second study  included 14,000 middle-aged men who did not have heart disease. But  those with physically demanding jobs were more likely to develop it  during 3 years of follow-up. And that risk increased almost 5-fold if  they also exercised during their leisure time. For people with less  active jobs, on the other hand, heart disease risk dropped 60% if they  exercised during leisure time. Some of these results surprised  researchers. They said the higher risk for those with physically active  jobs may be related to stress or less access to health care. Both  studies were presented at a conference. HealthDay News wrote about them  April 18. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  The advice to get regular exercise is nearly universal. And that makes  sense. Study after study has shown health benefits related to exercise.  The list is getting longer all the time. Exercise may reduce your risk  of: 
<ul><li>Heart and blood vessel disease (including heart attack and stroke) </li><li>Certain types of cancer</li><li>Osteoporosis</li><li>Depression</li><li>Alzheimer's disease</li></ul>
  So if you're physically active at your job, your risk of stroke and  heart disease should be lower, right? Not so fast. Two new studies  suggest that just the opposite may be true. 
 The first study  looked at people who had a heart attack, stroke or other heart-related  event. They were compared with otherwise similar people who did not have  these problems. The researchers found that: 
<ul><li>Those who had problems were more likely to work at a job that was physically demanding than those who were healthy. </li><li>The less physically demanding the job, the lower the risk of heart disease or stroke. </li><li>The  results were confirmed even after accounting for factors known to  increase the risk of heart and blood vessel disease. These factors  include smoking, high blood pressure, family history, high cholesterol  and diabetes. </li><li>The results held up even after accounting for  whether a person maintained a Mediterranean diet. This diet includes  mostly fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts, olive oil  and wine (in moderation). It has been linked with a reduced risk of  heart disease. </li></ul>
 The second study looked at physical demands  on the job and also the effect of leisure-time exercise. More than  14,000 middle-aged men who did not have heart disease filled out  questionnaires about both kinds of activities. Researchers kept track of  people for more than 3 years. After accounting for standard risk  factors, they found that: 
<ul><li>As with the first study, heart and blood vessel disease was more common among men with physically demanding jobs. </li><li>Among men with less active jobs, moderate- to high-intensity leisure-time exercise was linked with a 60% lower risk. </li><li>Leisure-time  exercise did not have this protective effect for men whose jobs were  physically demanding. In fact, it appeared to increase their risk by  nearly 5 times. </li></ul>
 These results surprised me. How can  regular exercise reduce your risk of heart disease while a physically  demanding job increases risk? There are several possibilities: 
<ul><li>Physically demanding jobs may come with psychological stress that could increase risk. </li><li>Perhaps  &quot;physical activity&quot; at work is quite different from that during  leisure-time exercise. Lifting boxes into a truck every few minutes  might not provide the same benefits as sustained aerobic exercise from  jogging or cycling. </li><li>Physically demanding jobs tend to be at  the lower end of the pay scale. It's possible that people with these  jobs do not have access to high-quality health care. Or they may have  other disadvantages that impair health. </li></ul>
 In any case, these  studies suggest that people with physically demanding jobs should pay  close attention to any risk factors for heart and blood vessel disease.  The harder question is whether they should scale back their exercise  routines. In my view, we need more research to answer that question. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  Whether your job is physically demanding or not, talk to your doctor  about your risk factors for heart and blood vessel disease and what to  do about them. For example: 
<ul><li>For high blood pressure or high cholesterol, do your best to lose excess weight and improve your diet. (See <link http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/325/28940/363770.html?d=dmtContent - first>DASH diet</link> for high blood pressure and a <link http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8059/8053/152208.html?d=dmtContent - first>'heart-smart' diet</link> for high cholesterol). Medicines may be necessary. </li><li>If  you have diabetes, losing excess weight and changing your diet are the  first steps. However, medicines also may be recommended. They may  include aspirin and drugs to lower blood sugar and cholesterol. </li><li>Don't smoke. If you have not managed to quit, talk to your doctor about smoking-cessation programs. </li><li>If you have an irregular heart rhythm called atrial fibrillation, ask your doctor whether you should take a blood thinner. </li></ul>
  The results of these new studies question the notion that all physical  activity comes with the same health benefits. Still, I think it would be  a mistake to use these studies as a reason to avoid exercise! This is  especially true for those whose jobs are mostly done while sitting. 
  If your job is physically demanding, you may be getting more than  enough exercise at work. Lower-intensity exercise, such as walking, may  be better for you than higher-intensity activities. Talk to your doctor  about your current fitness level and an exercise program that meets your  needs. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  Current advice suggests moderate-intensity exercise (such as brisk  walking) for at least 45 minutes most days of the week. I think this is a  good idea for most people. But we need to find out when more exercise  may cause more harm than good. These two new studies are a good start.  In the future, I hope we'll have more nuanced advice about exercise that  takes into account the exercise people get at work.]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:36:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Western Diets Linked with Less-Healthy Aging</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/western-diets-linked-with-less-healthy-aging/</link>
			<description> A Western-style diet can undermine healthy aging, a new study finds.  A Western diet includes...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ A Western-style diet can undermine healthy aging, a new study finds.  A Western diet includes fried foods, sweets, processed and red meats,  refined grains and high-fat dairy products. The study included 5,350  middle-aged adults who provided information about their diets.  Researchers kept track of their health for the next 16 years. About 4%  went through &quot;ideal aging.&quot; They had no long-term (chronic) conditions,  such as diabetes or heart disease. They also had high scores for  physical and mental functioning. About 3% of the total group died of a  heart attack or stroke during the study. Another 13% had nonfatal  events. About 7% died from other causes. The other 73% survived and had  &quot;normal aging,&quot; researchers said. People who followed a Western-style  diet were less likely to have ideal aging than those with healthier  diets. They were more likely to die of a heart attack, stroke or other  causes. The American Journal of Medicine published the study. HealthDay  News wrote about it April 17.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  It's hardly news that changing from a Western-style diet to one that is  more Mediterranean is good for you. A Western-style diet contains large  amounts of sugary foods and drinks, fried foods, processed and red  meats, refined grains and high-fat dairy products. A Mediterranean-style  diet is loaded with vegetables, whole grains, healthy oils such as  olive oil, fish and fruits. 
 We already know that eating a  Mediterranean diet helps you keep a healthier weight and decreases your  risk of diabetes and heart disease. 
 What makes this study  different is the focus. The researchers took a more holistic approach  rather than looking just at the risk of specific diseases related to  what we eat. They wanted to see if your diet in middle age affected your  overall health as you get older. 
 The researchers had access to  detailed information about the diets of 5,350 adults. Their average age  was 51 when the study started. Using a tool called the Alternative  Healthy Eating Index, the researchers rated their diets. A high score  meant that what people ate was closer to a Mediterranean-style diet than  to a Western-style diet. 
 The researchers also had information  on what happened to people during an average of 16 years after the start  of the study. They divided people into 5 groups based on their health  outcomes as they got older: 
<ul><li>Ideal aging, defined as having no chronic conditions AND high performance in physical and mental abilities</li><li>Non-fatal heart attack or stroke</li><li>Death related to heart or blood vessel disease</li><li>Death from any other problem</li><li>&quot;Normal&quot; aging</li></ul>
  Most people (73%) remained alive and fell into the &quot;normal&quot; aging  category. This outcome is vague and a bit hard to accept as meaningful.  But what is impressive is that many more of the people in the  ideal-aging group followed the healthier diet. And more of those who had  a heart attack, stroke or died stuck to a Western-style diet. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 Here's a guide to a very healthy eating pattern: 
<ul><li>Four  or more servings of vegetables a day. A serving is ½ cup of raw or  cooked vegetables, 1 cup of raw leafy greens or ½ cup of vegetable  juice. </li><li>Four or more servings of fruit a day. A serving is ½  cup of fresh, frozen or canned fruit; ¼ cup of dried fruit; one  medium-sized piece of fruit; or ½ cup of fruit juice. </li><li>At least 4 tablespoons of olive oil a day. </li><li>One handful (about 1½ ounces) of nuts, 3 or more times per week. </li><li>Three or more servings of legumes (beans, peas and lentils) per week. A serving is ½ cup. </li><li>Six  or more servings of whole grains a day. A serving is 1 cup of dry  breakfast cereal; ½ cup of cooked cereal, brown rice or whole-grain  pasta; or one slice of whole-grain or multi-grain bread. </li><li>Three or more servings of fish (especially fatty fish) a week. A serving is 4 ounces. </li><li>One serving of yogurt or cheese a day. </li><li>If  you enjoy alcohol, limit yourself to 1 (for women) or 2 (for men)  drinks a day. One drink is 5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer or 1½  ounces of liquor. </li></ul>
 Specifically avoid: 
<ul><li>Soda and sugary drinks</li><li>Sweets, pastries and commercial bakery goods</li><li>Red and processed meats</li><li>Margarines and most tub spreads</li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  The evidence for a Mediterranean-style diet over a Western-style diet  as a path to a healthier life is overwhelming. Food companies have  already gotten the message. We will continue to see more products on  grocery shelves reflecting these changes. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:12:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Faster Resting Heart Risky Even for the Fit</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/faster-resting-heart-risky-even-for-the-fit/</link>
			<description> Even fit men with higher resting heart rates may have a higher risk  of early death, a new study...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Even fit men with higher resting heart rates may have a higher risk  of early death, a new study finds. The study included nearly 2,800 men  who were middle-aged when they joined a health study in 1970.  Researchers kept track of them for 16 years. The new study focused on  resting heart rate. That's how fast your heart beats when you are  relaxed and sitting still. Men whose resting heart rate was at least 80  beats per minute died earlier, on average, than men with a heart rate of  65 beats per minute. This was true even for men who exercised  regularly. Researchers also adjusted the numbers to account for age,  health habits and other factors. A higher heart rate was still linked  with earlier death. The risk of death increased 16% for each 10 beats  per minute in the resting heart rate. The journal Heart published the  study online. HealthDay News wrote about it April 16.

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Most visits to the doctor include a check of your heart rate. It's such  a simple measurement. The nurse or doctor feels your pulse near the  wrist, counts the beats for 15 seconds and multiplies the number by 4.  That measures the number of beats per minute. 
 Today in most  doctors' offices, heart rate measurement has become even easier. It's  now usually done electronically with a blood pressure machine or with a  sensor clipped at the end of your finger. 
 Your heart rate  changes from minute to minute. It depends on whether you are standing up  or lying down, moving around or sitting still, stressed or relaxed.  When you have been at rest for a bit, the heartbeat settles down to a  stable clip. This is your resting heart rate. 
 Traditionally,  doctors have been taught that a normal resting heart rate is 60 to 100  beats per minute. Ideally, before a reading in the doctor's exam room,  you have had time to sit for a while and relax (as relaxed as you can be  in a doctor's exam room). If your heart rate is higher than 100 or  lower than 60, your doctor will take notice and may want an EKG.  Anything in between doesn't get much attention. But maybe it should. 
  During the last few years, experts have begun to recognize that faster  resting heart rates are linked to the development of heart disease and  shorter lives. The leading theory has been that resting heart rates in  the 60 to 70 range most often reflect better fitness. And with better  fitness you are less likely to develop heart problems and more likely to  live longer. 
 This study found that people with higher resting  heart rates (80 beats per minute or higher) had a shorter life  expectancy than those with rates around 65 beats per minute. Previous  studies have had similar findings. But what's new is that in this study  higher resting heart rates meant shorter life expectancy even in fit  people. 
 So what else causes a higher resting heart rate besides  not being fit? Genes play a role. Aging tends to speed up the heart  rate. People who smoke or drink too much alcohol generally have higher  resting heart rates. Stress, medicines and medical conditions also  influence the heart rate. These are all important factors that can  shorten life expectancy. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  You don't need to go to your doctor to check your heart rate. It's easy  to do at home the same way the nurse or doctor does it in the office.  And your reading at home, in a relaxed atmosphere, probably gives a more  accurate picture of your heart health. 
 The best time to measure  your resting heart rate is before you get out of bed. Find the pulse in  your wrist or neck, count the number of beats in 15 seconds, and  multiply by four. 
 If your heart rate is greater than 100 and you  have any symptoms, give your doctor a call. Such symptoms might be  fatigue, lightheadedness, shortness of breath and/or chest pain. 
  A heart rate under 60 is common and could be a sign of being very fit.  For example, when the tennis star Bjorn Borg was in his prime, his  resting heart rate was 35! Many medicines also lower heart rate,  especially beta blockers and other heart and blood pressure drugs. But  again, if you are not extremely fit and are having any symptoms plus a  very low heart rate, contact your doctor. 
 If you are otherwise  healthy but have a resting heart rate of 80 beats per minute or higher,  discuss this with your doctor at your next visit. You and your doctor  can review any factors that may increase your risk of heart disease.  It's always good to look at ways to reduce your risk of the No. 1 killer  in the United States. 
 But you don't need to wait for your  doctor's appointment. You can start to lower your heart rate today.  Here's what you can do: 
<ul><li><strong>Exercise more</strong>. When you take  a brisk walk, swim or bicycle, your heart beats faster during the  activity and for a short time afterward. But exercising every day  gradually slows the resting heart rate.</li><li><strong>Reduce stress</strong>. The relaxation response, meditation, tai chi and other stress-busting techniques can lower heart rate over time. </li></ul>
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  Along with body weight and waist size, your resting heart rate is  another way you can easily assess your health at home. How important to  your health is lowering your heart rate? We don't know the answer to  that yet. But you can expect more studies on this important question in  the future. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Exercise Slows Physical Decline of Alzheimer's</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/conditions/health-conditions-details/newsarticle/exercise-slows-physical-decline-of-alzheimers/</link>
			<description> A guided home exercise program can help slow physical decline and  reduce falls in people with...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ A guided home exercise program can help slow physical decline and  reduce falls in people with Alzheimer's disease, a new study suggests.  The study included 210 people. All were living at home with a spouse who  took care of them. They were randomly divided into 3 groups. One group  did exercises at home twice a week with a physical therapist. Another  group exercised in a group setting at a gym. The third group just  received usual care and information about exercise. After a year, people  in all 3 groups had declines in physical function. But people in the  home-exercise group had only half the decline of those who got usual  care. They also had only half as many falls. The gym group got stronger  but had less benefit than the home-exercise group. Annual health care  costs were about $34,000 for the usual-care group, $25,000 for the  home-exercise group and $22,000 for the gym group. A decline in hospital  trips offset the costs of the exercise programs. The journal JAMA  Internal Medicine published the study online. HealthDay News wrote about  it April 15. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  Dementia is best known for its effects on memory and thinking. But  people also lose much of their muscle strength, balance and endurance.  These losses make it even more difficult for them to care for themselves  and greatly increase their risk of falls. 
 Getting regular  exercise helps prevent memory loss and decreases your risk of developing  dementia. But what about people who already have dementia? Can they  still derive some benefit? 
 A study called the Finnish Alzheimer  Disease Exercise Trial gives a &quot;thumbs up&quot; to working out. The study  included 210 men and women with Alzheimer's disease. All of them were  still living at home with a caregiver wife or husband. Researchers  divided people into three groups. They received different therapies: 
<ol><li>Personalized training by a physical therapist twice a week in the home for one year</li><li>Group exercise classes outside the home twice a week for one year</li><li>Usual care without specific hands-on exercise coaching </li></ol>
  All three groups showed declines in physical function during the year.  But people who got the in-home physical therapy had about half the  decline of those in usual care. They also fell less often. 
  People who went to group exercise classes improved their strength. And  they had a bit less decline than people who were assigned to usual care.  
 The researchers suggest the following reasons that home-based physical therapy patients did the best: 
<ul><li>The exercises were designed and modified based on each person's needs. </li><li>People didn't need to leave home, so they were more comfortable. </li><li>They couldn't miss any sessions, since the therapists came to them. </li><li>One-on-one  coaching leads to a more intense workout. The therapists can give  breaks as needed to allow the person to finish the hour of exercise. </li><li>The physical therapists had special skills to instruct and coach people with dementia. </li></ul>
  Less functional decline in the home exercisers led to lower health care  costs. These savings offset the expense of personalized physical  therapy. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 Too  often older people (and many who are really not that old) have the wrong  impression that they are past the point where exercise can do them any  good. They also might be concerned that exercise will make them worse.  That is almost never true with a well-designed exercise program. Such a  program is, first of all, safe. It's easy at first, and the challenge  increases at a reasonable pace. 
 For more ideas, check out my column: <link http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35322/467011.html?d=dmtHMSContent - first>You're Never Too Old or Too Frail to Exercise.</link> 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  The main focus of research on Alzheimer's disease has, of course, been  the brain. But meanwhile, this study shows that regular exercise may  help many people with the disease slow their functional decline. And  this can mean a longer time to remain safely in their own homes. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Antibiotic Prescriptions Add Up to Overuse</title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/conditions/health-conditions-details/newsarticle/antibiotic-prescriptions-add-up-to-overuse/</link>
			<description> U.S. doctors write enough prescriptions each year to provide  antibiotics to 4 out of 5 Americans,...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ U.S. doctors write enough prescriptions each year to provide  antibiotics to 4 out of 5 Americans, a new study shows. That's so many  that the drugs probably are being overused, experts told the Associated  Press (AP). Excess use helps bacteria to become resistant to the drugs.  The new study used a national drug database. Numbers come from 2010. In  that year, health care professionals wrote 258 million prescriptions for  antibiotics. The population was about 309 million. That's about 833  prescriptions for every 1,000 people. But the numbers varied greatly  from state to state. West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee had the  highest rates. About 1,200 prescriptions were written for every 1,000  people in those states. In Alaska, Oregon and California, the numbers  were 600 or below. Experts said Southern states may have more infections  than other states. They do have the highest rates of diabetes.  Diabetics tend to have more infections than others. The New England  Journal of Medicine published the study. AP wrote about it April 10. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  How many antibiotic prescriptions does a typical family practice doctor  write in a day? Two or three, according to data from the National  Prescription Drug Database. This count leaves out IV antibiotics that  are used for severe infections. It also leaves out skin ointments and  creams. 
 Family practice doctors, pediatricians, internal  medicine doctors and dentists combined hand out two-thirds of the oral  antibiotic prescriptions in America. In total, doctors are prescribing  enough antibiotics to give them to 4 out of 5 Americans each year. 
  This is too much. Antibiotics are wonderful friends when we need them.  But we don't always need them. The problem with prescriptions we don't  need is that antibiotics can do harm. 
 I don't think most of my  patients believe this about the harm. &quot;Doc,&quot; they ask me time and again,  &quot;do you think I should take an antibiotic -- you know, to be on the  safe side?&quot; 
 I do my best to help my patients know when <em>taking</em> an antibiotic is less safe than <em>not taking</em>  one. But truly, I don't have time to go through all of the details.  Some of my patients are frustrated when I choose not to use one of these  drugs. 
 Antibiotics can harm us in three ways: 
<ol><li><strong>Drug reactions</strong> -- These include side effects, allergies or bad reactions. In unlucky patients, some antibiotics can cause:<br /><ul><li type="disc">Kidney damage</li><li type="disc">Permanent hearing loss</li><li type="disc">Very bad rashes</li></ul></li><br /><li><strong>Resistant bacteria</strong>  -- Widespread use of antibiotics is to blame for &quot;super-bugs.&quot; When you  take antibiotics, you kill the easy targets. A small fraction of  bacteria may be protected by a special gene, and these remain. Even if  you recover from the active infection, your next infection might be  &quot;resistant.&quot; </li><br /><br /><li><strong>Lost &quot;normal flora&quot;</strong> -- Many kinds  of bacteria live on your skin and in your mouth, gut and respiratory  tract. They are your normal flora or &quot;microbiome.&quot; Here are some  problems that happen when normal flora are lost or changed by  antibiotics: <br /><ul><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Poor digestion</strong> --  Bacteria in your intestine help you to break down carbohydrates. After  antibiotics, some carbohydrates stay undigested. This results in  diarrhea. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Nutrition issues</strong> -- Bacteria produce vitamin K in your body. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Colitis</strong> -- It is common to have spores from the bacteria <em>Clostridium difficile</em>  in the intestine. The death of normal flora can allow C. diff to change  from spores into more active bacteria. During this change, it makes a  toxin that can cause life-threatening inflammation of the colon. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Vaginitis (yeast infection) </strong>  -- It is normal for women to have yeast spores in the vagina. Bacteria  determine the chemistry of the mucus in the vagina. After subtle  adjustments in this chemistry, yeast multiply and change shape. They  make glue-like proteins that allow them to attach to the vagina surface  and form clumps. Yeast in this changed form are very irritating. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Allergic asthma</strong>  -- If babies get antibiotics, they are more likely to develop asthma as  kids. Exposure to harmless bacteria and proteins in your early life  allows your immune system to recognize them as harmless. Without this  exposure, your immune system is more likely to react later against  harmless proteins and create allergy symptoms. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Inflammatory bowel disease and other autoimmune problems</strong>  -- Mice that are raised &quot;germ free&quot; have unusual immune-system  activity. Similar activity is seen in autoimmune diseases such as  inflammatory bowel disease. Some of these diseases are more likely to  occur in people who have had many courses of antibiotics. </li><br /><br /><li type="disc"><strong>Upper respiratory infections</strong>  -- Pills and creams used for acne have been linked to more frequent  head colds. Changes in normal flora of the nose, throat and mouth  apparently can make it easier for a virus to begin an infection. </li></ul></li></ol>
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that up to half of antibiotic prescriptions may not be needed. 
 Guidelines advise doctors to avoid antibiotics for the following: 
<ul><li>Acute (short-term) bronchitis</li><li>Sinusitis that has lasted for less than a week</li><li>Ear infections without fever in children over age 2</li></ul>
  These infections can clear themselves without antibiotics. Viruses  cause about 90% of respiratory and cold symptoms, such as runny nose and  sore throat. They do not require (or benefit from) treatment with  antibiotics. 
 We are learning about ways to help normal flora to  come back after antibiotic treatment. &quot;Probiotics&quot; help only a little.  The best thing you can do is to take antibiotics only when you need  them. 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
  Some doctors are not wary enough of antibiotics. Even when they are,  doctors don't have enough appointment time to explain all the risks of  unneeded antibiotics. 
 What we need for this problem is a public  information campaign. You are being asked to choose wisely in all sorts  of ways as customers of the health care system. Choosing wisely is also  important when you talk with your doctor about whether to start  antibiotics for any illness, particularly when you have sinus and  respiratory tract symptoms. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Study: Brain Scans Can 'See' Pain </title>
			<link>http://www.planforyourhealth.com/living-healthy/health-news/healthy-living/healthy-living-details/newsarticle/study-brain-scans-can-see-pain/</link>
			<description> Researchers say they have found a way to &quot;see&quot; one type of pain on a  brain scan. In the...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[ Researchers say they have found a way to &quot;see&quot; one type of pain on a  brain scan. In the future, such an approach may help to tell whether  babies or others who can't communicate well are feeling pain. The study  included 114 healthy volunteers. They were hooked up to a functional MRI  (fMRI) machine to show activity in different parts of the brain. First,  people were tested using a heating element applied to the forearm.  Sometimes the heat was painful but not burning (116 degrees Fahrenheit).  Other times it was just warm. Researchers saw a &quot;pain signature&quot; in the  fMRI pattern for painful heat, compared with warmth. More than 90% of  the time, these patterns matched what people said about whether they  felt pain. Researchers also looked at &quot;social pain.&quot; Of those in the  study, 40 recently had a romantic breakup. They were shown photographs  of the partners who had dumped them. The fMRI results were similar to  the pattern for physical pain. However, researchers were able to tell  them apart. Scans also showed a reduction in physical pain after people  were treated with a pain reliever. The New England Journal of Medicine  published the study. The Associated Press wrote about it April 11. 

<strong>What Is the Doctor's Reaction?</strong>
  &quot;Is this pain all in my head?&quot; I hear this question a lot. It comes up  because frequently no cause can be found for the pain patients describe.  
 I also have patients who express relief when a test result (such as an X-ray or MRI) <em>does</em> reveal a clear cause of pain: &quot;Well, at least we know now I'm not just imagining it.&quot; 
  These situations reflect an assumption of doctors and patients that  &quot;real&quot; pain should have a reason that can be proven. Yet that's  frequently not the case. The physical examination and even extensive  testing may be normal. Inevitably, this leads to speculation. Could the  pain be somehow &quot;imagined&quot; or caused by psychological distress (such as  anxiety or depression)? 
 Pain whose cause can't be found affects  millions of people. Examples include migraines, fibromyalgia and many  cases of back pain. These diagnoses rely mainly on symptoms reported by  the patient. Tests can rule out other causes. However, they cannot  confirm the cause or even the existence of pain. 
 But this may  soon change. New research explores the idea that because certain parts  of the brain are active when we feel pain, it may be possible to &quot;see&quot;  pain with a brain scan. The New England Journal of Medicine published  the study results today. 
 Researchers performed a special type of  brain MRI on 114 people while a warm or uncomfortably hot (116 degrees  Fahrenheit) object was applied to the forearm. This functional MRI  (fMRI) showed which areas of the brain were most active when people felt  the painful heat. 
 Other scans showed &quot;social pain.&quot; People in  this part of the study had recently been through a romantic breakup.  Scans measured their reactions when they were shown pictures of the  former partner who had rejected them. 
 The researchers found that: 
<ul><li>Several  areas of the brain became active in a particular pattern during  heat-induced pain. The authors called this the &quot;pain signature.&quot;</li><li>The pattern of brain activity correctly identified more than 90% of people who had painful heat applied to their forearms. </li><li>The absence of this pattern of brain activity correctly identified more than 90% of people who were not feeling pain. </li><li>The  pain pattern seen in the scans was similar for physical and social  pain. But there were enough differences to distinguish between the two  types of pain. </li><li>When people were treated with a pain reliever, the scans showed a reduction in the pain pattern. </li></ul>
  You may wonder, as I did, so what? If two people report severe back  pain and no cause can be found, should their fMRI results help determine  treatment? Or, if the fMRI does <em>not</em> show the &quot;pain signature,&quot;  should that patient's pain be taken less seriously? In my view, we're a  long way from knowing what to do with the results reported today! 
 And even if we did know what to do, remember that the scans were not perfect in identifying pain. 
  On the other hand, this study is among the first to show that pain can  be reflected in a particular pattern of brain activity. This could  advance our understanding of how people feel pain and eventually lead to  better treatments. 
 <strong>What Changes Can I Make Now?</strong>
  If you have pain you can't explain, and it isn't getting better, see  your doctor. Don't assume it's because you're getting older or something  you just have to tolerate. If a cause can be found, there may be a  specific treatment. And even if a cause cannot be found, effective  treatment may still be available. 
 Pain can be treated in several ways. They included: 
<ul><li>Drugs that mainly reduce pain (analgesics) </li><li>Drugs that reduce inflammation</li><li>Medicines for nerve pain</li><li>Antidepressants</li><li>Muscle relaxants</li><li>Physical or occupational therapy</li><li>Exercise</li><li>Electrical stimulation</li><li>Meditation or biofeedback</li><li>Acupuncture</li><li>Massage</li><li>Surgery</li></ul>
  If you aren't getting better, ask your doctor whether you should be  referred to a specialist in pain management. These are doctors trained  in the treatment of pain, regardless of its cause. 
 If your  doctor talks with you about psychological sources of pain, that doesn't  mean he or she doubts that you have pain. In fact, there is currently no  reliable way to distinguish between psychological and physical causes  of pain. 
 In my experience, it's rarely helpful to question  whether a person is actually feeling pain. An editorial published with  this new research made a similar point: &quot;We may ultimately have to  acknowledge that 'pain is pain' and can be reported only by the  patient.&quot; 
 <strong>What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?</strong>
 More study will be needed to determine how the findings of this study may lead to better assessment of pain or its treatment. 
  You can expect researchers to confirm and extend the findings of this  new study. For example, the current study analyzed heat-induced pain.  What about other types of pain? Can these scans be used to assess pain  in people who cannot communicate well? Only time will tell. ]]></content:encoded>
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:12:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>