Tahini (also known as sesame butter is a pretty calorically dense food. While it's full of healthy ingredients like B vitamins and even rich in calcium, it's also super easy to go overboard. Stick to a ping pong ball-sized serving (about 2 tablespoons to keep your calories in check.
quinoa as a tasty and versatile protein source, many dieters mistakenly believe it's a
much
lower-calorie alternative to rice. In reality, one cup of cooked quinoa has 222 calories, putting it on par with brown rice (which has around 218 calories per cup . Enjoy it in your favorite healthy dish, just be sure to portion it out like you would rice or pasta (1/2 cup or about the size of your fist .
raisins are considered a 'calorically dense' food, meaning that you can consume a lot of calories by ingesting only a small amount. For example, one small 1.5-ounce box contains 129 calories. You can eat two full cups of grapes for the same amount, making this one snack you're better off substituting (if you are really hungry in order to maximize your calories.
sound
lighter, don't they? Well, don't let their name distract you from their calorie count—most brands have as many calories per serving as their regular cracker counterparts. While they can have a place in your healthy diet, you're much better off snacking on something that fills you with nutrients too, not just empty calories.
Grape-Nuts cereal can pack in 416 calories (per cup, without milk . What is even more surprising is its sodium content. With 580 mg of sodium per cup (and it's not exactly packed with fiber either , there are much
better breakfast options out there.
recipes like these (and then put away the jar! .
chia seeds on with abandon—a single tablespoon still contains 70 calories, meaning you can easily add an extra 200 calories to that smoothie without even realizing it.
huge
fans of flavonoid-rich dark chocolate, it's just easy to get carried away with this delicious treat. Some bars can contain as much as 600 calories. The lesson? Just because it's dark doesn't mean you can eat more of it. Snap off a one-inch square to enjoy each night after dinner. "Too much [dark chocolate] may constipate you or leave you wired before bedtime," says Amie Valpone, Nutrition expert and author of
The Healthy Apple blog.
Greek yogurt is an excellent food to include in your diet, especially if you're trying to lose weight. A ?-cup serving has about 150 calories. Not bad at all. The problem is most of us can't handle the taste of plain Greek yogurt, and we may end up smothering it in honey or other toppings to help sweeten the flavor—and rack up the total calorie count.
We don't suggest denying yourself Greek yogurt, just stick to plain, lower fat brands and keep your portions and toppings in check.
pecans are a great source of protein, heart-healthy fat, and tons of vitamins and minerals, they are also rich in calories. A 1-ounce serving of pecan halves contains 196 calories. Stick to a single handful of the healthy snack to reap the benefits without packing on pounds.
olive oil add 238 calories to your meal—likely without you even realizing it. And when was the last time you stuck with a 2-tablespoon serving while cooking? Olive oil is full of healthy fat (the kind that may even help you drop pounds , just remember that it's also full of calories so use it sparingly.
Coconut Milk may have the potential to speed up your metabolism and help boost your weight-loss efforts, but that doesn't make it calorie-free. One cup of coconut milk has a hefty 552 calories and an astounding 57 grams of fat! Be sure to check your favorite brand's label and try to find one with 100 calories or less per serving.
Trail mix can include a wide range of ingredients, but you're almost always better off skipping store-bought brands and making your own at home. Our suggestion: Mix 1 ounce of walnuts and about a teaspoon each of raisins and chocolate chips. The result is satisfying snack for about 250 calories.
dates are still calorie dense (with 23 calories each and can have you racking up your daily intake fast if you eat them mindlessly.
Chickpeas are a great way to add fiber and protein to salads and soups, or even to enjoy as a standalone snack. Just keep your serving size in check—one cup of canned chickpeas (a standard amount for side dishes has 286 calories.
quick and delish dinner idea.
recipe idea.
soup recipes instead.
salmon
is
is a very healthy protein source, it's not as light on calories as you might think. One salmon fillet serving has 734 calories. If it's cooked in butter, your fish entree could easily set you back more than 1,00 calories (not including any side dishes . Keep your serving size in check (3 ounces or about the size of your checkbook and prepare yours at home (we love this recipe for
Roasted Herb Salmon to avoid access calories while still reaping the health benefits of this delish fish.
guacamole is packed with heart-healthy and potassium-rich
avocados, but don't forget it's also packed with calories. One cup (which sounds like a lot but is easy to eat during a party, especially when you add calories from chips for dipping contains about 360 calories. Enjoy guac in moderation, and trade your chips for veggies to keep it waistline friendly.
Granola is often portrayed as a health food, but did you know that one cup of homemade granola can serve up a full dinner's worth of calories? At 597 calories and a whopping 29.4 grams of fat per cup (exact totals may differ based on ingredients , this is one of those 'health' foods you should skip if you want to lose weight.
Wild Mushroom Risotto instead.
and
fried.
"pepperoni" to your pizza order is an easy way to add a ton of extra calories (to an already high-calorie meal . Top your pie with veggies instead to save more than 100 calories per slice.
popcorncan be a great low-calorie snack, but not all kernels are created equal. One small bag of popcorn at the movie theater could be loaded with up to 630 calories and 50 grams of fat! Your best bet is to pop your own at home and sneak it into the theater or buy a kid's size from the concession stand (and still share it .
Smoothies can make the perfect healthy meal or snack—when you mix them at home. Ordering on the go is when you get into trouble, as some smoothie chains blend in 400 calories (or more per 20-ounce cup, turning this healthy treat into a dessert!
liver is packed with protein and zinc, it's also full of calories and cholesterol. The average single serving has 516 calories and a whopping 1,124 mg of cholesterol. If you can't live without liver, enjoy this meal in moderation to keep dinner calories in check. Otherwise, choose lean protein sources such as salmon, trout, or turkey breast that have less than half as many calories.
Chicken Caesar Salad . Or play it safe away from home with balsamic vinegar and olive oil to keep your salad light and healthy.
condensed milk, try using the fat-free version instead to save on calories and fat but still get plenty of flavor.
this quick and easy recipe.
chicken curry recipe at home instead .
All calorie totals courtesy of
Calorie Count.com
“Parents who frequently move house put children’s health at risk,” according to the Daily Mail. The newspaper said that research found moving several times can affect children’s health and psychological state, and also increases the likelihood that a child may use illegal drugs.
This Scottish research, which looked at potential links between moving house in childhood and adult health, produced far more mixed results than the Mail implied. However, the press release accompanying the research did not always clearly reflect the findings of the study, which found very few significant links between moving frequently and poor health.
In fact, once the researchers accounted for factors such as social deprivation and moving schools, moving house was only significantly linked to a higher chance of using drugs in later life. Adults who had moved frequently showed no greater risk of being overweight, having high blood pressure, long-term illness, psychological distress, drinking or smoking later in life.
While researchers say the risk of having certain measures of poor health was “elevated” in people who moved house more frequently as a child, the increase in risk was not statistically significant, which means it could have happened by chance.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Medical Research Council, the University of Stirling, Queen’s University and Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office. It was funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
The study’s findings were overstated by the Daily Mail. The newspaper reported that there were “negative health effects” from frequent moves, whereas the study found that frequent moving was only significantly linked to an increased chance of drug use. This finding on drug use was independent of other variables.
Moving during childhood was not significantly associated with adult measures of physical health, such as weight and blood pressure. The Mail only touched on these elements towards the end of its report.
It’s worth noting that in the press release that accompanied publication of the study, only the penultimate paragraph stated that only illegal drug use was independently associated with frequent moves.
What kind of research was this?
This research was part of a large cohort study from the west of Scotland, which has taken place over 20 years. It compared the health of people who had been “residentially stable” during childhood with those who had moved house, using a range of health measures.
The authors say previous research suggests that frequent childhood moves may be associated with poorer health outcomes and behaviour in adolescence. The researchers say their present study brings together a wider range of health outcomes than has previously been considered, and also looked at the extent to which associations between childhood mobility and health in adolescence last into adulthood.
What did the research involve?
The study was based on a cohort of 1,515 participants who were 15 when it started in 1987 and who were followed up for 20 years. Data from this cohort were collected at five points in time, the final time when the participants were 36. The final sample analysed in the study was 850 participants, so 665 original participants (44% were not included in the final analysis because they had left the study.
Researchers collected their data through face-to-face interviews conducted by nurses. A parental questionnaire was completed at the start of the study.
The researchers got information about moving house from the number of addresses people had lived at between birth and 18 (they excluded recent moves out of the family home . They collected information on a range of health measures including:
- Physical health measures - these were all taken by nurses and included body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, lung function and blood pressure.
- Overall health - people were asked to report whether they had limiting long-term illness (answering yes or no and to give their own assessment of their general health, as rated on a four-point scale.
- Psychological distress - this was assessed using a standard 12-item questionnaire (with a cut-off score of 3 points taken to indicate psychological distress . Whether people had thought about suicide was also examined, with people asked at certain points whether they had thought about taking a drug overdose or deliberate self-injury. The third measure of psychological distress was anxiety, as measured on a standard scale.
- Health behaviours - the behaviours examined were heavy drinking (defined as exceeding maximum weekly safe limits , illegal drug use and smoking.
Importantly, the researchers also looked at participants’ family and household circumstances based on information provided by the children’s parents at the start. They also looked at other factors such as social deprivation (calculated by postcode and using recognised deprivation categories , housing status (home-owner or not , social class, family structure (intact or not and number of siblings. Also included were data on school mobility, derived from the number of primary and secondary schools attended. The researchers also looked at participants’ social class, education and marital status in adulthood.
The researchers then analysed the relationship between number of house moves in childhood and health at the ages of 18 and 36. They adjusted their findings for possible confounders, such as social class, deprivation and family circumstances.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that approximately one in five people did not move address throughout childhood. Three in ten moved once or twice, and a further one in five had moved at least three times. They also found that children in single-parent households and those with two or three siblings were significantly more likely to have moved home (while those with at least four siblings were more likely to have stayed put .
After they adjusted their findings for both socioeconomic circumstances and the number of school moves, the researchers found that, when the participants were 18:
- People who had moved at least three times were significantly more likely to have used illegal drugs than those who had never moved ( odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45 to 4.10 .
- Those who moved at least once had a significantly higher chance of scoring 3 or more (indicating distress on the questionnaire for psychological distress than those who had not moved at all (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35 .
- The risk of several outcomes (having a long-term illness, having suicidal thoughts for those who had moved at least once, and heavy drinking and smoking for those who had moved at least three times were “elevated” compared to those who had not moved at all, but the increased risks were not significant.
- There was no association between childhood mobility and physical health measures such as blood pressure and weight.
When the participants were aged 36, the researchers found that:
- Frequent moving in childhood was independently associated with illegal drug use (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.69 .
- The odds of poor health across other measures remained “elevated” but not statistically significant.
- There was no association between moving address during childhood and physical health measures such as blood pressure and weight.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that increased residential mobility in childhood is associated with an elevated risk of poor health in adulthood, across a range of measures. This is explained in part, they say, by both social and economic circumstances and the frequency of school moves.
The relationship between childhood residential mobility and poorer health appeared to be stronger in adolescence than adulthood, possibly because people’s own socioeconomic circumstances lessened the effects over time.
Conclusion
This study looked at the effect of multiple address moves during childhood on people’s physical and psychological health at the ages of 18 and 36.
The way the authors interpreted the results of their study is confusing. They say that a higher risk of poor health outcomes is associated with frequent moves of home in childhood. However, the only significantly higher risk, once the results were adjusted for various confounders, was illegal drug use. This is important because it means that the other increases in risk identified are more likely to have occurred by chance.
The study examined an important issue, and one strength is the length of time of it covered. Another is its detailed collection of data, which might help explain why frequent moves of house could have an association with poorer health outcomes. For example, this could be because of frequent school moves, family break-up and deprivation.
However, the study has a number of limitations. Its high drop-out rate (around 43% raises the question of reliability and it is possible that those who dropped out or were lost to follow-up also had the most mobile childhoods. The study’s reliance on the parents to report outcomes, such as overall health, is another limitation as their reports may be subjective or difficult to appraise.
Families move home for a range of different reasons, including improved schooling and employment opportunities, change in financial circumstances or family break-up, and the study did not assess the reasons for the family moves. It seems obvious that children are more likely to be negatively affected when disruption or financial problems cause a family to move, rather than when the motive is to seek better schools or a better job.
The way children’s wellbeing is affected by frequent moving is an important issue, but it is also a complex one which needs to be examined further.
Links To The Headlines
Parents who frequently move house 'put children's health at risk'. Daily Mail, February 9 2012
Links To Science
Brown D, Benzeval M, Gayle V et al. Childhood residential mobility and health in late adolescence and adulthood: findings from the West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 6 February 2012 (published online first
By Rebecca Silverstein. How's that New Year's resolution to be healthier coming along? Yeah, we thought so. Fortunately, you can look to the stars for examples of how to lead a better lifestyle. Sure, there are some crazy notions of what's "healthy" floating around in Hollywood, but there are actually some good ideas out there too. Keep clicking to see what Reese Witherspoon, Halle Berry and more celebs do to maintain their best selves.Reese Witherspoon Reese is one runnin' fool! The actress reportedly hits the pavement every day for a three-mile run. "I try to exercise every day. I like to run for about an hour, and I'm big into working out with girlfriends," she tells InStyle. "It's an acquired skill, being able to discuss your love life, children and friends, all while you're running! But we have mastered it." Even getting hit by an SUV while jogging late September hasn't deterred Reese from her daily dashes.
Halle Berry . Halle's healthy habit comes from a medical necessity: The actress, who suffers from diabetes, needs to eat five times a day to keep her blood sugar up. But the practice also helps to keep her metabolism going, which in turn helps her keep those amazing abs. Bonus!RELATED: Check out the best beach bodies of summer 2011
Olivia Wilde . Weight loss is hard work, but Olivia says it shouldn't be. "Anytime I've tried to diet or get in shape for something, it usually doesn't work," she tells Us Weekly. So how does she do it? Moderation allows the willowy actress to maintain her sexy bod while not depriving her foodie palate of any of life's yummy treats. "It's a lot about portion size," she says. "Just don't have a bucket of pasta!"RELATED: Olivia and more celebs chat about their healthy habits
Katy Perry . Katy always looks like she's having fun, even when she's in the midst of her rigorous workout routine. That's because the singer opts for interesting ways to get her heart pumping, like jumping rope, rather than just walking on a snooze-worthy treadmill. RELATED: Weird but true facts about Hollywood's health nuts
Adam Levine. He may have "Moves Like Jagger," but Adam has yoga to thank for his enviable physique. "Yoga takes what you have and molds and sculpts it, which is a much more natural way to look and feel," he tells Details magazine. But the Maroon 5 singer practices yoga for both body and spirit. There's even a room backstage at every Maroon 5 concert specifically reserved for yoga! "Playing a show before thousands of people is a highly unnatural state," he says, "and when I get on the mat to do an hour of yoga before the show, I come out physically relaxed."RELATED: Christina Aguilera talks about loving her body and more
Kim Kardashian. Even with the world's top trainers at hand, Kim wasn't 100 percent satisfied with her bod. "I need to start eating responsibly. It's time to eat right," she told People back in 2007. "I get enough exercise. My problem is that I eat like crap. It's just a matter of making the right choices." That meant the sweets lover had to cut out one of her favorite treats: deep-fried Oreos. Then, when she was prepping for her wedding last year, Kim cut out all refined sugars from her diet to get her body even leaner. "Changing my eating habits makes a big difference," she recently told Us Weekly. RELATED: Guess the celeb bikini bod
Gwyneth Paltrow. While their efficiency is questioned in the medical community, Gwyneth has long touted the benefits of cleanses. "I've used Clean in the past with great results, losing a few pounds and kick-starting a healthier and more energetic New Year," she writes on Goop. In fact, Gwyneth even sells her own cleanse on the site -- for $425!RELATED: Beach body face-off
Ryan Reynolds . Even guys are subject to fears of bread-induced weight gain. But Ryan says not to be. "Never do any of that carve-starve crap," he tells Men's Health. But while the six-packed star eats carbs after his workout to replace the glycogen lost during exercise, he doesn't eat them after 8 p.m., because less energy is used at night to burn them off.RELATED: See celebs who have made drastic body changes for onscreen roles
Eva Longoria . While it's recommended that women drink two liters of water a day, Eva goes the extra mile, er, liter and drinks a third, according to her trainer. Water increases metabolism, builds muscle tone, flushes toxins and helps maintain healthy, glowing skin. We just hope her "Desperate Housewives" trailer has a bathroom! RELATED: Celebs who have slimmed down
Oprah Winfrey . As soon as Oprah wakes up in the morning, she puts on her workout gear and heads straight to the gym at her office. That way, she's more likely to stick to her fitness plan. Think you'll be tired if you wake up early to hit the gym in the morning? Think again. Exercise energizes you and jumpstarts your metabolism, making the a.m. the optimal time to get fit. RELATED: Helen Mirren tops best body poll
Kendra Wilkinson . Don't want to give up baked goods, but still want a great bod? You don't have to. This reality star simply swaps oil with applesauce in baking recipes to axe the calories and fat. It's just as delicious and much healthier!RELATED: Most buzzed-about celeb bodies
Watch Video |
Listen to the Audio
JEFFREY BROWN: President Obama backtracked some today on a birth control insurance mandate. His new plan sought to satisfy critics of the plan, while maintaining support from women's health advocates.
The president entered the White House Briefing Room bent on calming a political storm.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women.
JEFFREY BROWN: Just three weeks ago, the administration announced that religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and other institutions had to cover birth control free of cost. Roman Catholic officials, in particular, charged the mandate would force them to violate their own teachings.
Today, the president said the revised plan would address that objection.
BARACK OBAMA: Under the rule women will still have access to free, preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. So that core principle remains.
But if a woman's employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge without co-pays and without hassles.
JEFFREY BROWN: The president of the Catholic Health Association, representing Catholic hospitals, welcomed the decision.
Sister Carol Keehan said in a statement, "The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed."
The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was more restrained. Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan said, "Today's decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction."
Groups that supported the birth control mandate, from Planned Parenthood to the National Organization for Women, backed the compromise.
Louise Melling is deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
LOUISE MELLING, American Civil Liberties Union: We were pleased that, today, the Obama administration made perfectly clear its longstanding commitment to contraceptive coverage, that it made clear, again, and reaffirmed its commitment to ensure that women across the country, no matter where they work, will be able to have coverage for contraception.
JEFFREY BROWN: For their part, Republican presidential candidates kept up their criticism of the original mandate.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke at a gathering of conservative activists in Washington.
NEWT GINGRICH (R : Our core document says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And Barack Obama seeks to cut across those.
And I, frankly, don't care what deal he tries to cut, this is a man who is deeply committed -- if he wins reelection, he will wage war on the Catholic Church the morning after he's reelected. We cannot trust him, we should -- we know who he really is, and we should make sure the country knows who he really is.
(APPLAUSE
JEFFREY BROWN: At that same conference, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum accused the administration of overreach. He spoke shortly before the president's remarks.
RICK SANTORUM (R : This is the kind of coercion that we can expect. It's not about contraception. It's about economic liberty. It's about freedom of speech. It's about freedom of religion. It's about government control of your lives. And it's got to stop.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE
JEFFREY BROWN: Mitt Romney didn't directly respond to the Obama announcement, but he vowed that his would be a pro-life presidency.
MITT ROMNEY (R : And I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life in this country.
JEFFREY BROWN: The president today suggested the political uproar should die down now that the policy has changed.
BARACK OBAMA: I understand some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue, but it shouldn't be. I certainly never saw it that way.
This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone. With today's announcement, we've done that.
JEFFREY BROWN: With the president hoping to put the birth control furor behind him, aides will be watching to see if Republicans in Congress push ahead with emergency legislation on the issue.
RAY SUAREZ: This afternoon, I spoke about the president's decision with Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services. She spoke from the front lawn of the White House, where construction has been under way for more than a year, work that resumed during our interview.
Secretary Sebelius, welcome back to the NewsHour.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Thank you. Nice to be with you, Ray.
RAY SUAREZ: Could the administration have avoided a damaging fight over contraception coverage by announcing this policy in the first place?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I think what people missed is that the announcement that I made two weeks ago suggested that we were moving ahead with the exemption that had been originally drafted, but, also, we would spend time reaching out to stakeholders, to religious employers who objected to offering this coverage, and we would spend a year finding arrangements that both respected their religious liberty, but made sure at the end of the day that women employees of these institutions, whether she was a university professor or a nurse or a janitor, could make their own determination about very important preventive health care.
RAY SUAREZ: Did you have any idea what was coming? Were you warned by administration colleagues about possible backlash?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, there were certainly people who felt we should broaden the exemption greatly.
I think the president from the outset determined that he was not willing to have millions of American women bear the financial burden of their employer deciding they should not access contraception, a drug that is the most frequently used prescription drug of women 14 to 40, and that often has a serious financial cost, up to $600 if a woman is paying out of pocket for it.
So, on one hand, we wanted to make sure that the preventive health benefits, no co-pays, no co-insurance applied to the whole range of IOM recommendations, so keep the exemption narrow, for churches and church affiliates, but also use the time to look at the 28 states which have mandatory contraceptive coverage, see what arrangements were satisfactory to the various Catholic institutions who right now offer that coverage, universities and hospitals, and deem that to be effective going forward.
When the firestorm broke out, the president basically said, we have got to speed up this process. Let's find a solution respecting religious liberty and guaranteeing that millions of women in America, and really all women in America now, have insurance policies that will have a range of health services needed by them and their families without co-pays and co-insurance to make sure they can access them.
RAY SUAREZ: So, you mentioned the administration spoke to religious institutions beforehand. Have you spoken to them about this latest adjustment, this latest change of policy?
It's reported that President Obama has already spoken to Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, one of the senior leaders of the Catholic Church.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I don't -- I know he has reached out to Archbishop Dolan. I know he has spoken to Sister Carol Keehan from the Catholic Health Association, who has issued a statement very supportive of this rule that we're going to publish in the federal register today.
I know he has spoken to Cecile Richards from Planned Parenthood, who was also very supportive of the rules we put out today. We are going to be -- again, as we develop the specifics around this regulation, work with insurance companies, work with institutions.
But I think this does exactly what the president asked us to do, which is make sure that millions of women, regardless of who their employer is, can make their own health decisions, have access to this full range of very important preventive health services, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine, and at the same time respect the religious liberty of their employers who may object to either paying for or directly offering this coverage.
RAY SUAREZ: Secretary, can we talk about mechanics? If you've just taken a new job at a religiously based hospital or university, your employee paperwork is silent on reproductive health care, what happens next?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, typically, if you are a new employee and in an insured plan, the insurance company or the variety of insurance companies are the ones who actually publish the benefit package.
So, in this case, again, the insurance company would be reaching out to employees, making it clear that it is their choice whether to access contraceptive benefits. And what we know, Ray, is that actually this is a no-cost benefit, that the National Business Council on Health, that our actuaries, a variety of people in group plans say having contraception as part of a group insurance plan actually lowers the overall cost, doesn't increase it, because, on balance, preventive services around family planning, avoiding what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer.
So we have a situation where the insurance companies directly offer this benefit to the women employees, and the religious employer doesn't pay for it, doesn't refer to it, and doesn't have to offer it.
RAY SUAREZ: You say money from the religious institutions doesn't pay for this, but isn't money fungible?
If a Catholic nonprofit is paying for your insurance coverage, isn't it paying for contraception if you are getting the coverage through that same insurer?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, again, Ray, in this case, actuaries have looked at this benefit.
The federal employees health plan, when contraception was added to federal employees' benefit, which is the largest employee group in the country, costed this as no cost, free, no cost, because adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that coverage lowers the overall cost of the health plan.
So we have that in place around the country. We have actuaries that have inserted that, and so we're not -- this isn't a shell game of passing the costs along. This is a real no-cost option that is, according to the National Business Council on Health, could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent. We're not counting on that.
But I think we can say very safely that this doesn't add to the cost of either the employer's plan -- and we know that women, if they have to purchase this coverage outside of a health plan, could spend up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier to access a very important health benefit and a benefit used by 99 percent of women across this country at some point in their lives.
RAY SUAREZ: Well, you've transferred the administrative burden to insurance companies. Are insurers ready to pay? Have they signed on?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: We will be doing just that.
But as part of the Affordable Care Act, our department will define the rules under which we offer these benefits. And we're confident that this works and that insurers are prepared to step up and do this. Again, this is in place in many states in the country right now, where there is an insurance company providing benefits to employees, and the employer not directly offering those benefits.
RAY SUAREZ: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Madam Secretary, thanks for joining us.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Great to be with you, Ray.
-Jennifer Purdie, 34-year-old Ironman athlete and marathon runner
My chilly-weather breakfast is a formula that can be mixed and matched according to taste. The basic components include a grain, a fruit, and a nut. Most often, I choose oatmeal as my grain, banana as my fruit, and walnuts as my nut. However, this basic structure can be adjusted by substituting farina (ground wheat or grits (ground cornmeal in place of the oatmeal, apples or pears in place of bananas, and almonds or pecans for the nut. Any combination works well and does the trick.
My favorite warm-weather breakfast is plain yogurt, sliced fruit, a splash of agave or maple syrup, and a slice of whole grain bread. Again, the combination of yogurt, fruit, and bread provides the protein, complex carbohydrates, and fat needed to jumpstart the day and stay fueled through the morning.
-Elizabeth Robinson, athlete, personal trainer, and creator of online fitness program
VitFit
-Erin Aquino, fitness fiend
-JL Fields, founder/editor/writer of
JL Goes Vegan and
Stop Chasing Skinny
The balance of fruit, fat, and oats makes it filling and energy-packed.
-Stephen Cooper, personal trainer and founder of
Boot Camp Pasadena
-Jason Fitzgerald is a 2:39 marathoner and founder of
StrengthRunning.com
PJ's Organics' Breakfast Burrito is the perfect breakfast after exercising since it offers sustenance and fills you up for hours. As the perfect healthy authentic Mexican breakfast at home, this item contains no pesticides, preservatives, or GMO's, and is one of the only nourishing organic frozen burritos on the market.
-Rachel Dubin, fitness fiend
-Gillian Barrett, runner and exerciser who lost 80 pounds the right way
-
Len Saunders, author of
Keeping Kids Fit
I also like banana smoothies. I freeze banana chunks and pop them in my Vitamix with almond milk, a little Sun Warrior protein powder, and a small spoon of peanut butter. Banana is high in sugar so I only do this when I'm off to a high-intensity workout. It tastes like a milkshake!
-Gillian Casten of
RateYourBurn.com
You don't need us to remind you that eating a
healthy breakfast is a good idea. But since the same bowl of oatmeal every day can get boring, you might need a few new ideas for
what
to eat in the morning.
"Whether you are headed to the gym or on your way out the door to work, make sure your breakfast is going to keep you going for the next few hours," says Ed Olko, personal trainer at Equinox in Palos Verdes, CA. "Your breakfast is the beginning of your day, so make it count."
That became clear earlier this week when a top military health official and First Lady Michelle Obama teamed up during a visit to the Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas to announce that healthy changes will be coming to the menus of the 1,100 dining halls at military bases across the nation.
The good news is that thanks to these changes, which will be put into place in the coming months, service members, their families, and military retirees will see more fruits, vegetables, lean meats, whole grains and lower-fat entree choices in the dining halls.
Healthier choices will also be available at vending machines, restaurants and snack bars at bases and posts. In addition, the campaign will include a program to teach military children how to make better food choices and maintain fitness.
For the military, it's an all-out battle against a formidable enemy: obesity. And winning it is a top priority because service members need to be in good shape to defend their country.
During the unveiling of the new anti-obesity campaign, Dr. Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, put the spotlight on the problem of the increasing rates of obesity in the military population, coupled with a history of poor nutritional choices in both the military and civilian populations.
He didn't waffle when he said that this unhealthy combination "is affecting readiness."
He called up some numbers to bolster the reasons the campaign is so important: nearly 30 percent of potential military recruits, ages 17 to 24, weigh too much to meet military weight standards. In addition, the services have to discharge about 1,200 entry-level candidates each year because they can't meet fitness standards.
Added to that, 20 percent of active-duty and National Guard military health-system beneficiaries between the ages of 40 and 49 are obese, according to an
article in Navy Times. To make matters worse, more than 40 percent of military retirees in that same age group have been diagnosed as obese, according to the same article.
On the financial ledgers, that adds up to a lot of money. The Defense Department estimates that the department spends $1.4 billion on medical care for weight-related problems and conditions among its beneficiaries.
Woodson wants to see that turned around.
"We are intent on focusing on preventable illnesses to help our people stay out of our clinics and hospitals by improving their physical condition," he said in a
news release about the campaign to improve nutrition standards across the armed services for the first time in 20 years.
First Lady Michelle Obama also took the opportunity to point out the importance of better nutritional choices and healthier eating habits.
"There are big national security and budget implications," she said during her visit to the Little Rock Air Force Base, which was chosen for the unveiling of the campaign because it has been experimenting with healthful food choices.
In the news release about the campaign, First Lady Obama said that whenever "our men and women in uniform step forward, Americans take notice."
"When our service members make healthy eating a priority in their lives, the rest of us are more likely to make it a priority in our lives," she said. "Simply put, this is America's entire military once again stepping forward to lead by example.
In an email to Food Safety News, Department of Defense spokesperson Cynthia O. Smith said that the department is shifting its focus from "health care" to "health." In other words, from simply delivering healthcare services to fostering health in the nation's military family population.
As such, the department is tackling obesity not only as a health issue but also as a military readiness issue.
The campaign will feature cooperative efforts with each of the armed services, as well as partners in the Military Community and Family Policy. The goal is to encourage service members, retired beneficiaries and dependents to make better nutritional choices and to take a more active role in their personal health.
In other words, each and every service member, as well as their family members, and military retirees, is being asked to join in the battle against obesity.
This is not the first time the military has stepped forward to improve the nutrition of service members. In fact, the free school-lunch program had its roots in national defense.
With so many World War II recruits coming into the service malnourished, the school-lunch program was seen as one way to remedy that.
Since then, the size of some of the recruits has changed, going from skinny to fat. With that in mind, the military supported the Child Nutrition Act, which among other things provides more money for healthy school lunches.
The message from the military to Congress was that too many of the young soldiers are overweight and out of shape -- and that one of the best ways to solve that problem was through healthy school lunches.
Boulder-based
Vermilion has launched
Beforeplay — a state-wide public education campaign aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy and normalizing the conversation about sexual health and well being. Targeted at 18 to 29 year olds, the campaign uses billboards, TV spots, transit, print and online ads — along with a robust interactive website,
www.beforeplay.org, featuring a health center finder and videos of peers speaking about how they make sexual health choices. The campaign was developed for the Colorado Initiative to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy and is supported by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. All photography was shot by Bryce Boyer. Nice work, all.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Watch Video |
Listen to the Audio
RAY SUAREZ: And to the battle over contraception coverage.
It's been nearly three weeks since the Obama administration announced new regulations, but the stakes are higher, as both sides harden their positions.
From the Capitol to the White House, the political heat has been rising all week over a new federal mandate on birth control. Under the rule, religious schools and hospitals will have to offer insurance policies that include contraceptive services for employees free of charge. Roman Catholic officials in particular say the rule would force them to violate church teachings.
And Republicans in Congress, like New Hampshire Sen, Kelly Ayotte, have raised their voices.
SEN. KELLY AYOTTE, R-N.H.: This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue. And it can apply to all faiths.
RAY SUAREZ: In a floor speech Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner threatened legislative action, but it was unclear today what form that would take.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER, R-Ohio: I think the House is going to work, again, through the regular order with real deliberations, about how we protect the religious freedom of the American people. That's the issue. And we're -- and we're keenly focused on it.
RAY SUAREZ: Women rights groups and many Democrats, like California Senator Barbara Boxer, are now coming to the administration's defense.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-Calif.: Women in this country are tired of being treated like a political football by Republicans in Congress, who have tried continually and are continuing to try to take away their benefits, to take away their rights.
RAY SUAREZ: White House officials, seeking to defuse the issue, suggest a still-undefined compromise is possible.
Tuesday, on the NewsHour, the president's senior campaign strategist, David Axelrod, pointed out that 28 states already have similar rules.
DAVID AXELROD, senior Obama campaign strategist: We're going to have a year's period of time in which to transition to this. And that will give us a chance to look at what these others -- how this is implemented elsewhere, how we can implement it here in the best and fairest way, but certainly advancing the principle that women deserve access to contraception.
RAY SUAREZ: The mandate is based on recommendations from the U.S. Institute of Medicine study that showed reproductive health services without co-pays leads to better women's health.
It was the second major birth control decision in recent weeks. In December, the administration barred selling the Plan B contraceptive to girls 16 and younger without a prescription.
We debate the Department of Health and Human Services decision now with Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Jill Warren, executive director of the Methodist Federation for Social Action. It's not an official United Methodist Church body.
Guests, just a short time before tonight's program, the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, said the White House is trying hard to address the concerns of the church -- quote -- "I'm determined to see that this gets worked out, and I believe we can work it out."
Given the position of the church, Anthony Picarello, and the current state of the ruling from the Obama administration, is there a middle ground? Can a compromise position be found that leaves both sides getting most, but not all of what they want?
ANTHONY PICARELLO, general counsel, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Well, the president and vice president, the executive branch, is entirely within -- has this decision entirely within their control.
So they can do what it is that we have been urging them to do from the outset, which is to remove these items from the mandate, so that people are not forced against their consciences to subsidize them, to sponsor them in health plans.
They could also dramatically increase the breadth of what is an extremely narrow religious exemption that they proposed in the first instance, which covers really only individual churches and basically a very small perimeter around that. So it leaves out charities. It leaves out hospitals. It leaves out schools.
So they have the power entirely within their hands to expand that. We have been hearing lots of talk for a long time about a desire to accommodate, but we haven't seen any action. And so I think we're going to wait until we see action before we . . .
RAY SUAREZ: But I'm trying to figure out what a broadened -- to use your term . . .
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Sure.
RAY SUAREZ: . . . a broadened ruling might look like . . .
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Sure.
RAY SUAREZ: . . . since the two positions are mutually contradictory.
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Well, I don't know that there's so much of a contradiction.
I think, again, what we're looking for in terms of breadth is to protect the religious liberty interests and consciences of all of those who would be affected by the mandate. So that means employers -- religious employers, yes, but also employers with religious people running them or other people of conviction who are running them.
It means religious insurers. And they do exist. Under this mandate, they're required to include in their policies that they write things that they don't agree with as a matter of religious conviction, and individuals as well who have to pay for it through their premiums.
So all of those entities are the folks whose conscience rights are affected. And the bishops are concerned with all of them, and they have advocated for all of them.
RAY SUAREZ: It sounds like you want something even broader, not just for the colleges and universities and hospitals, but even Catholic employers.
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Well, yes, because the principle here is that of religious liberty. And it's not only religious employers that are entitled to religious liberty under the Constitution.
So all of those should be protected. They should not be put in this situation in the first place. They shouldn't be required by the government to provide, through sponsorship and subsidy, benefits that are offensive to their moral beliefs.
RAY SUAREZ: Jill Warren, is there a middle ground? Is there a position that you can contemplate that gets Mr. Picarello more of what he wants, without giving away something that you view as essential?
JILL WARREN, executive director, Methodist Federation for Social Action: Well, first let me say how much I appreciate being able to be here on the show with you, Ray, and with Anthony.
The issue for me is that it's not about a religious exemption or creating some sort of compromise position. It's a position of health care and health care policy. And that is different than religion.
And even though I am part of a religious nonprofit, the United Methodist Church and the Methodist Federation for Social Action, we don't see this in any way as a religious issue. So, for me, in answer to your question, the compromise that might be sought by the Roman Catholic tradition isn't one that is of the best public good for all of us that would be covered by this policy.
RAY SUAREZ: Where does -- when you hear Mr. Picarello talk about conscience . . .
JILL WARREN: Yes.
RAY SUAREZ: . . . where does conscience attach at the nexus of three different entities, insurers, employers and the ensured, who all may want different things?
JILL WARREN: That's right. Yes, that's right.
I think that one of the points that I would like to make in our conversation is that we have a choice about what insurance we choose, whether we choose a sectarian plan or we choose a public plan, or whether we choose no plan at all, or even have access to health care as an insurance option in the first place.
So, as an individual, I can choose what health plan I might most benefit from. I think, in this case, there are insurers, as Anthony has mentioned, and there are hospitals, but they are -- there are already exemptions for conscience clauses. And there are sectarian organizations who don't have to provide these services in the first place.
RAY SUAREZ: So, Catholic insured could invoke different options when given a list of possible insurers?
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Well, I wish that were so. I mean, that's precisely the problem, is that what we have is a situation where the federal government has come in and mandated that certain things be included in all health insurance plans nationwide.
This is private plans offered by religious institutions. This isn't governments-only plan. This isn't plans that are offered by people who happen to be government-funded. It's everybody. And so that freedom to which she was referring is exactly the freedom that we're urging. It's not something that's extreme.
It's only what we have currently, which is, when a religious entity wants to purchase a health insurance policy, it goes to an insurance company. It says, I want these things and not these things. And, you know, the heavens have not fallen in the situation where we provide that.
For example, right now, even under the current pre-mandate environment, nine out of 10 employer-sponsored health insurance plans include contraception. So, there's no scarcity of this coverage available. People can simply -- they're not forced to work for the church.
If they value that benefit so much, they can just choose a different employer. And if they work for the church . . .
RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me jump in there . . .
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Sure.
RAY SUAREZ: . . . because you noted that the heavens haven't fallen.
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Right.
RAY SUAREZ: And I don't know if they've fallen in the more than two dozen states where these mandates already exist.
What have Catholic institutions done to comply in places that already have similar strictures to the one just announced by the Obama administration?
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Ray, I'm glad you asked that question because it's coming up a lot.
There are 28 states that have some kind of contraceptive mandate. None of them are as broad as the one that the federal government has imposed. For example, all but -- the federal government mandate includes a mandate to provide sterilization. Only Vermont does that among those 28 states.
On top of that, most of those states have religious exemptions. And of those, all but three are broader than the one that HHS has chosen. So, basically, there's a lot more accommodation for religious exercise at the state level. And on top of that, states don't even -- you don't even need to take advantage of the religious exemption in order to avoid it in other ways, for example, by self-insurance.
Even in the restrictive states, many Catholic entities are able to avoid this by self-insurance.
RAY SUAREZ: Jill Warren, you heard Sen. Kelly Ayotte say that this is not a women's rights issue, not a health issue. This is a religious liberty issue.
What about the health interests that a lot of people on your side of the argument are talking about?
JILL WARREN: Well, it's -- obviously, I have a difference of opinion, because it is a health issue. It's a basic health issue.
Contraception, controlling whether you can plan your family, whether you can space your children, whether you want to have children, is a basic health issue. It's a biological fact that women can be impregnated, and against our will, I might add. So it absolutely is a health issue.
Barriers to education, barriers to the work force all center around whether you can control your own reproductive health. And in this case, I don't see it at all as a religious issue because there are already religious exemptions and people who can follow their conscience in making their choices.
So, for me, the policy is just good public policy for the common good.
RAY SUAREZ: Jill Warren and Anthony Picarello, thanks for joining me.
ANTHONY PICARELLO: Thank you.
JILL WARREN: My pleasure. Thank you.
John Cassidy, who holds Guinness World Records for several balloon-related tricks, performs a balloon act for first lady Michelle Obama in the Diplomatic Reception Room. White House photo by Chuck Kennedy.
Michelle Obama may be spending her time these days
dancing with Ellen and racing
Jimmy Fallon through the White House, but all the fun began with a much more serious moment: "My pediatrician pointed out some changes in my kids' body mass index that he just sort of checked us on."
As the first lady told Jim Lehrer two years ago when her signature
"Let's Move!" campaign launched, the typical American lifestyle got the best of the Obama family in their pre-White House days. "It was a life that most working parents are dealing with, where you're juggling jobs and trying to get kids to and from and you're trying to make life easier."
That's why the mother who once allowed her family to indulge in too much television and junk food became the national spokeswoman for nutrition and exercise: She knows how easy it is to lose control and what it takes for an entire family to get back on track. Two years after she launched a campaign against childhood obesity, it's time to take stock of the progress in implementing those same principles on a national scale.
But first, it's worth a look back to the very beginning. Watch Jim Lehrer's full interview here:
By many markers, Mrs. Obama's simple goal "to shine a spotlight on this issue in a way that I couldn't do as a regular mom on the South Side of Chicago" has far exceeded expectations.
National legislation has changed the face of school lunches for 32 million children. Walgreens, Wal-Mart and a number of other chains have agreed to build 1,500 stores in food deserts in the coming years, bringing 9.5 million more Americans better access to fresh and healthy foods. More than 5,700 groups have partnered with the USDA to spread the word about
the new MyPlate food-selection diagram and get simple nutritional information to families across the country.
In a recent
survey by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than eight out of 10 Americans say they have heard of "Let's Move!" Thirty five percent say they've heard a lot about it.
But the backlash has been plentiful, too. Some say "Let's Move!" is just another excuse for the Obama administration to meddle in the everyday decisions of Americans. Others criticize the links to Wal-Mart or worry that the emphasis on obesity could damage the self-esteem of American youth.
But some of the strongest resistance is coming from American children and adolescents themselves. When Brandi Thompson's Mississippi high school removed the deep-fried chicken and pork chops from the lunch menu and replaced them with potatoes that are baked instead of cooked in fat, the move didn't sit well.
"I understand the part about us being healthy, but the food they cook, we don't eat, because everybody can't cooked baked food the same. And it just don't taste right," she told health correspondent Betty Ann Bowser shortly after the initiative started.
Blogger Eddie Gehman Kohan has covered every twist, turn and shake of Let's Move! for the past two years on her
Obama Foodorama blog. She's currently traveling with the first lady on a national tour to celebrate the anniversary. But she separated from the press pack for a few moments to answer our top questions on this massive program and its efforts to slim down America's youth.
What have been some of the major milestones in the past two years -- the indications that this thing is making a difference?
Gehman Kohan: Well broadly, for any first lady who has had a "first lady campaign," she is the only one to have such huge private-sector commitments. It's really an astonishing series of commitments that she's gotten from the private sector, where they're really serious and largely scaled and can impact millions of people. There's a commitment from Darden Restaurants -- which owns chains like Olive Garden and Red Lobster -- to revamp their children's menus and some other menu items for the campaign. Of course, there are large-scale commitments from Wal-Mart and Walgreens, which have both agreed to build or revamp stores in what USDA identifies as "food deserts" -- places where fresh and healthy foods, primarily produce, are not necessarily available.
And there are a huge number of other private-sector commitments, like from childcare facilities, including YMCA and Bright Horizons. These facilities can help implement early childhood interventions that will help prevent obesity right at the get-go. Mrs. Obama has also made progress with "
Let's Move Faith and Communities," a subcomponent that brings in religious groups and community groups to participate in "Let's Move! activities. And the
Healthier U.S. Schools Challenge, which is a USDA program that rewards schools for best-case scenarios in nutrition and fitness activities.
How much actual progress has been made so far? Are kids actually getting healthier?
Gehman Kohan: After two years, it's too early to point to any kind of statistical analysis in a childhood obesity reduction. Kids who are running around and moving and eating better can't help but be healthier. But most of what has been accomplished is a huge paradigm shift in the public's awareness of the relationship between food and health. And the coordination has been significant: All of these groups that existed before are now coordinated and mobilized and led by the White House while still operating independently. Clearly, there were plenty of food, gardening, health and physical fitness activities in the U.S. before this. But Mrs. Obama's efforts with the "Let's Move!" campaign has really given these groups a focal point while also bringing high-profile attention to the subject as crucially important.
You've written in your blog that "observers seem to misunderstand the scope and focus of Let's Move!" What exactly do you mean by that?
Gehman Kohan: This initiative is generational. It was designed with the intent that children who born in 2010 -- when this was launched -- will grow up in a very different food culture and a very different physical fitness culture. Take for example one of the long-term components -- the school lunch legislation. It is taking a couple of years to roll out, but when children born in 2010 are in kindergarten five years from now, the theory is they'll be walking into a school fitness and food environment that is profoundly different than the environment experienced by kindergartners today. They will have completely different school lunch standards and hopefully their schools will be focusing on more physical activity. And so the crucial importance of starting children out young is they won't grow up already suffering from obesity and all the related diseases.
Let's talk more about school lunches. How is this initiative actually changing policy?
Gehman Kohan: Federal law requires that certain things need to be served or cannot be served in the cafeterias. That's through the National School Lunch Program and the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Every few years, Congress has to pass what's called "child nutrition reauthorization," and so the version that came along during the Let's Move! campaign, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, is what changed school lunches in the U.S. It's the first significant change to menus in 15 years, and it's the first time in about 30 years the government is giving more for the federal reimbursement rate -- the amount they pay schools to serve the lunches. It also doubles the amount of fruits and vegetables that will be served on a weekly basis, it requires that water be served, that all milk be low- or nonfat, and that all grains are whole grain. And it sets high and low limits for calories, so portion sizes are controlled, depending on the age of the students being served. These changes impact 32 million children.
Are we seeing that kind of change in terms of school gym programs, in getting kids to actually move in school?
Gehman Kohan: Well the schools that participate in the Healthier U.S. Schools Challenge have improved gym components and physical activity. But generally, physical activity in schools has fallen a lot to the wayside for multiple reasons. Many don't have the staff to watch the kids on the playground, some have needed to reduce or eliminate PE because they've needed the students to study for standardized tests tied to state funding. So this recently passed legislation has a wellness policy but it doesn't mandate physical activity. More generally, every major sports association has joined in some high-profile way. They're working in their communities, encouraging after-school programs.
Let's turn to some of the criticism. Not everyone's completely happy with the campaign, right?
Gehman Kohan: By far, the Wal-Mart partnership has caused the most criticism. Wal-Mart is a flashpoint for controversy. It has this reputation for putting local businesses out of business when it moves into communities. Some people say Wal-Mart is using the first lady, that the company isn't serious about its commitment and is just aligning with the first lady because they're trying to build more stores. Labor didn't like the Wal-Mart partnership either because it's a non-union company. Even when Michael Pollan named Mrs. Obama the "Most Powerful Foodie in the World" in Forbes magazine, he said he was worried she was being duped by Wal-Mart and that the company's pledge to focus on "better-for-you processed foods" was really not what should be going on within the rubric of the campaign - that it should be a total focus on fresh, unprocessed foods.
Has there been much criticism of the broader message?
Gehman Kohan: Let's Move! has been pointed to by a lot of critics as an example of big government intervening and the Obama administration wanting to expand the role of government to the point that it controls what American citizens eat. For its part, the campaign says it's about giving people choice and educating them about food and nutrition and physical activity and allowing them to have access to a wide range of choices. There's also been the concern from a lot of people that focusing on childhood obesity would make children hyper-conscious of their body weight. Mrs. Obama always says, "It's not about how you look, it's about how you feel," which is the ultimate message. But that brings up a tricky subject -- there's no way to end an obesity epidemic if people aren't losing weight. So this is one of those murky areas of the campaign that is not much discussed.
If the president isn't re-elected in the fall and this all ends within a year, what's the implication for that?
Gehman Kohan: Well this three-day trip will actually be the last grand tour if the president doesn't get re-elected. But Partnership for a Healthier America - a separate nonprofit that was launched in conjunction with the campaign - was founded to ensure that "Let's Move!" continues on long after Mrs. Obama is not in the White House, whether it's next year or five years from now. Regardless, she's so passionate about this subject that I think she'll continue to work on this issue in some capacity for the rest of her life.
(Larry Downing/Reuters
Rep. Alan Grayson's characterization of the Republicans' health care plan?
The Republican health care plan for America: “don’t get sick.” If you have insurance don’t get sick, if you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick; if you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick. … If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: “die quickly.”He was attacked for his hyperbole, but even he couldn't have foreseen just how spot-on his description was. Enter Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO and his
new amendment to the Affordable Care Act which would allow any employer or insurance company to "exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it."
Igor Volsky explains:
Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.Individuals can also opt out of any of that coverage they find morally objectionable. The National Women’s Law Center explains how dangerously limited this could be to everyone's health insurance: "Blunt’s language is vague enough that 'insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.'”
Apparently Blunt figures he can't be called out for specifically for trying to limit women's health care options if he attacks everybody. So if you're one of those people who lost at genetic Russian Roulette and end up susceptible to Type 2 diabetes, or if you're on of the 10 to 15 percent of
lung cancer victims who isn't a smoker, or are among the 50 percent of victims who is a former smoker, you're shit out of luck. Sexually active? You won't even be able to be screened for HIV/AIDS (really smart disease control, there .
Is this insane and extreme? Of course. Would it be a public health disaster? Absolutely. Do Republicans care? Absolutely not.
“Children born to women undergoing cancer drug treatment show normal results in physical and mental development tests” The Guardian has reported.
The news is based on research that examined the health of 70 children who were exposed to chemotherapy in the womb during the final two-thirds of pregnancy. Between the ages of 18 months and 18 years of age the children were given examinations of their general health, brain and heart function and hearing. Their cognitive function, hearing, heart function, growth and development were all comparable with the general population. However, being born prematurely was associated with lower cognitive scores, leading the researchers to recommend against doctors inducing early delivery in women requiring chemotherapy. The researchers also say their results do not support delaying chemotherapy in pregnant women.
During pregnancy treatment decisions have to be made that are in the best interest of the mother’s health, while trying to avoid the risk of harm to the fetus. Unfortunately though, this relatively small dataset cannot provide conclusive proof that chemotherapy poses no risk at all to the unborn child. The researchers say that their study is currently gathering longer-term data on wider numbers of children to help explore the issue further.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Leuven Cancer Institute and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, and other institutions in Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Canada. The study was funded by a number of European medical research and technology funds and the Belgian Ministry of Health. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.
In general the news provided balanced coverage of this study. The Daily Mail’s headline declared that pregnant women with breast cancer can have chemotherapy and surgery and “still give birth safely”. However, this is slightly confusing as the focus of this study was not women with breast cancer, and the study looked at children’s long-term development rather than the safety of their delivery. The researchers’ main finding was actually that premaurity was associated with lower IQ scores, meaning that planned premature delivery may not be the best option.
What kind of research was this?
This was a cohort study looking at how foetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment, including chemotherapy, affected the physical and cognitive development of child at various points through their childhood.
While it is known that exposure to chemotherapy during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy can increase the risk of congenital defects in the baby, there is uncertainty over whether exposure during later stages of pregnancy can also affect heart and brain development. The researchers say that up until now, limited data has been available on the longer-term outcomes of children exposed to chemotherapy in the uterus. With this in mind they intended to record the general health, cardiac function, and brain development in children who were exposed to chemotherapy in the uterus.
Cohort studies such as this are the best way of assessing harms from chemotherapy in pregnancy, as it is generally believed to be potentially harmful to the baby, but is sometimes unavoidable in clinical practice. Setting up a trial randomising pregnant women with cancer to receive cancer treatment or not in order to assess developmental effects on the offspring would be unethical, both for the mother (who may be denied the treatment she needs and baby (who may put at unnecessary risk of harm . Therefore a cohort study is likely to be the most appropriate way of exploring the issue.
What did the research involve?
From 2005 onwards researchers began gathering study subjects from cancer referral centres in Belgium, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. This included both pregnant women receiving chemotherapy at the time, and children and mothers who had been exposed to chemotherapy several years prior to the study. Dependent on the age of the child the researchers carried out assessments at ages of 18 months, 5–6 years, 8–9 years, 11–12 years, 14–15 years, or 18 years. The study is ongoing, and in time these children will be given further examinations.
The researchers carried out neurological examinations, tests of cognitive function (using recognised child development tests or IQ tests , heart examinations (electrocardiography and echocardiography , and administered a questionnaire on general health and development. Children who were over five years of age also received hearing tests in addition the Child Behavior Checklist, a questionnaire that screens for behavioural and emotional problems.
The researchers compared their findings with available norms such as national data for height, weight, head circumference, as well as national and international reference data for neurodevelopmental tests, and heart examination tests.
What were the basic results?
The current analysis of this ongoing study looked at the participating children’s development until March 2011. The researchers assessed 70 children (27 born between 1991 and 2004, and 43 born after 2004 from 68 pregnancies (two of the women had given birth to twins . All women had received chemotherapy; some were also given radiotherapy, surgery or both. Across the group, 19 different chemotherapy regimens had been given, in which 236 cycles of chemotherapy were administered.
On average the babies were born at a pregnancy duration of 35.7 weeks (i.e. most were premature ; only 23 babies (33% of the cohort were born at full term (37 weeks or over . The average period of follow-up for each child was 22.3 months.
The children’s behavior, general health, hearing, growth, and heart function were comparable to the general population. Most children were recorded as having normal cognitive development, with most children with scores below the normal range having been born prematurely. After the researchers adjusted for age, sex, and country, they found an 11.6 point increase in IQ score for each additional month of pregnancy that the baby was carried for. The researchers found that both members of one of the twin pregnancies had severe neurodevelopmental delay, and could not be assessed with the complete set of cognitive tests.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers conclude that children exposed to chemotherapy in the uterus do not have increased likelihood of neurological, cardiac, hearing or general health and growth impairments compared with the general population.
However, prematurity was common and was associated with impaired cognitive development; therefore, planned premature delivery should be avoided where possible.
Conclusion
During pregnancy difficult treatment decisions have to be made bearing in mind the best interests of both a mother and her unborn child. This valuable cohort study provides follow-up data on children who were exposed to chemotherapy while in the uterus, from young childhood through to adolescence and beyond.
Its findings are reassuring and suggest that a child’s exposure to chemotherapy during later stage pregnancy (beyond the first 12 weeks is not associated with brain, heart or other developmental complications in the child. As the researchers note, their findings do not support the practice of delaying chemotherapy or performing planned premature delivery in order to administer chemotherapy to the mother after birth (the study suggests that premature birth may carry greater risk of adverse cognitive outcome than chemotherapy exposure itself .
However, though it does provide some reassurance, unfortunately this relatively small dataset cannot provide conclusive proof that chemotherapy poses no risk at all to the unborn child:
- As the researchers acknowledge, two children born to a twin pregnancy had important neurodevelopmental delay and they cannot exclude the possibility that exposure to chemotherapy during a critical time of brain development was the cause. However, the researchers considered that the broad nature of the problems in one of the twins suggested that chemotherapy was less likely to be the cause.
- Also, though the general neurodevelopmental assessments for the cohort were within the normal range expected among the general population, the researchers noted that a sample of children had some discrepancy between verbal performance and IQ values on intelligence tests, while a sample of others had raised problem scores on a child behavior checklist. The researchers say that these findings show that it is possible that chemotherapy has more subtle effects on neurodevelopment.
- Additionally, other longer-term effects that this study has not looked at need to be assessed, including risks of cancer in the offspring themselves or fertility effects.
- It is important to note that all chemotherapy in this study was given after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy: chemotherapy in the first trimester is associated with increased risk of congenital malformations, and this study does not assess or refute this.
- The study lacked a direct comparison group of children not exposed to chemotherapy in the uterus. Though the researchers did compare to national averages, the ideal comparison method would have been performing the same range of tests in children who were born at the same pregnancy gestation but who had not been exposed to chemotherapy.
- The researchers say that their Cancer in Pregnancy initiative will need to continue to gather longer-term follow-up on much wider numbers of children exposed to chemotherapy in pregnancy.
Links To The Headlines
Chemo in pregnancy does not necessarily harm baby, says study. The Guardian, February 10 2012
Pregnant women with breast cancer can have chemotherapy and surgery and still give birth safely. Daily Mail, February 10 2012
Chemotherapy is 'safe during pregnancy'. The Independent, February 10 2012
Pregnant women can be treated for cancer 'without harming baby'. Daily Telegraph, February 10 2012
I wanted to live but I also wanted to keep my baby: mother Caroline Swain. The Daily Telegraph, February 10 2012
Links To Science
Amant F, Van Calsteren F, Halaska MJ et al. Long-term cognitive and cardiac outcomes after prenatal exposure to chemotherapy in children aged 18 months or older: an observational study. The Lancet Oncology, Published Online February 10 2012
ABC News. “The vast majority of measles cases we see are in people who are unvaccinated.” Despite being “eliminated” in 2000 as a widespread threat, measles still infects a number of people each year in the US. The CDC has seen an uptick in cases in recent years. There were 220 reported measles infections in 2011, the highest number of cases since 1996. And so far this year, there have been 156 confirmed cases reported to the CDC, according to Ryan Jaslow of
CBS News. While those who are immunized will most likely not contract the disease, there are some who forego vaccinations and should take precautionary measures. Experts say that babies younger than 1, pregnant women and anyone with a compromised immune system who attended the event last week should also seek medical care as a precaution. Dr. John Christenson of Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis told
The Indianapolis Star by email that although measles can be fatal, it is also preventable. Parents should take this opportunity to make sure their children are up to date on their vaccines. “While some parents may have concerns about the MMR vaccine, there is no evidence that this vaccine causes autism or other chronic adverse conditions,” said Christenson, referring to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine that is a recommended childhood vaccination and usually needed to attend school. Measles spreads easily through coughing and sneezing. There is no treatment once measles is contracted, but the vaccine is 95 to 99 percent effective in preventing the illness, said Wallace. While being unvaccinated poses a high risk for developing the disease, any Americans born before 1957 are often considered immune because it once was so rampant in the country that most are likely to have already had the disease once and are now immune to it, according to the CDC. The CDC also states that if one person has the measles, 90 percent of those close to that person who aren’t immunized will likely catch it. It is impossible to “track down and contact everybody who may have been at a big public event like this, so we’re hoping media alerts will heighten awareness,” said Wallace. “Even if you don't have symptoms, it’s a reminder to make sure all your immunizations are up to date,” Larkin told the
Associated Press, and reprinted by the Wall Street Journal. “And, it’s a reminder to wash your hands and stay home from work if you’re feeling sick.” --- On the Net:
Camden County College’s Center for Civic Leadership and Responsibility is committed to providing support to families and educators of children with ASDs. Each semester, the Center presents a variety of autism-related talks at its three campus locations. All are free and open to the public, and professional development credit is available to certified New Jersey educators.????
Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disabilities that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that an average of one in 110 children in the United States has an ASD.
Camden County College’s Center for Civic Leadership and Responsibility is committed to providing support to families and educators of children with ASDs. Each semester, the Center presents a variety of autism-related talks at its three campus locations. All are free and open to the public, and professional development credit is available to certified New Jersey educators.????
Talks scheduled during the Spring 2012 semester include:
· 6:30 p.m. Feb. 27: “Understanding and Managing Epilepsy at School” with Mark Mintz, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Neurological and Neurodevelopmental Health. Civic Hall, Blackwood Campus, College Drive and Peter Cheeseman Road, Gloucester Township.
· 6:30 p.m. March 26: “Living, Surviving and Thriving with Autism” with Jennifer Hoheisel, Camden County College professor and parent of a son with autism, moderating a panel of parents and individuals of different ages and with different degrees of ASD. Civic Hall, Blackwood Campus, College Drive and Peter Cheeseman Road, Gloucester Township.
· 6:30 p.m. April 3: “Educating First Responders about Autism” with Tia Dix of the Durand Academy & Community Services. William G. Rohrer Center, Route 70 and Springdale Road, Cherry Hill.
· 6:30 p.m. April 23: “A Basic Introduction to Autism Spectrum Disorders” with Jennifer Hoheisel, Camden County College professor and parent of a son with autism. Camden Conference Center, Camden Technology Center, Camden City Campus, Broadway and Cooper Street, Camden.
· 6:30 p.m. April 30: “Relationship Development Intervention Therapy: Before and After” with certified RDI consultant Kathy Darrow. Forum, Blackwood Campus, College Drive and Peter Cheeseman Road, Gloucester Township.
Detailed descriptions of each of the talks can be accessed online at www.camdencc.edu/civiccenter. Additional information also is available or by calling 856-227-7200, ext. 4333.
With Valentine’s Day around the corner and love in the air, USU Student Health Services wants to encourage students to participate in Healthy Relationships and Sexual Responsibility Week, including activities Feb. 15 that promote a wholesome and responsible style of dating.
“This time of year, most people reflect on the relationships they have or want to have,” said Ryan Barfuss, USU prevention specialist. “We want students to have the information they need to be safe and help them discover and create those lifetime relationships that last forever.”
The Feb. 15 events begin with an healthy relationship expert panel at 11:30 a.m. in the TSC International Lounge. The panelists will answer relationship-related questions. Valentine cookies will be provided. The True Aggie Dating Game begins at 12:30 p.m. One participant will ask questions directed toward three anonymous contestants and choose one to be his or her date based solely upon their answers. The winners will receive a date night package. Booths will also be accessible throughout the day, providing ideas for creative dates, information about sexual health and advice on how to maintain a healthy relationship. Tables with this information will also be available Feb. 13 and 14 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the TSC basement.
According to Barfuss, the foundations of a healthy relationship are respect, honesty, communication and patience. He said that relationships are an important part of a student’s life.
“Whether you are dealing with a roommate, boyfriend, girlfriend or spouse, relationships cause stress,” he said. “The effect of stress can be unhealthy to students, and have an impact on their studies and additional aspects of their lives.”
USU Student Health Services presents Healthy Relationships and Sexual Responsibility Week. The week was created by the Bacchus and Gamma Peer Education Network, a university and community based network focusing on comprehensive health and safety initiatives. The event has taken place at Utah State University for 14 years.
Contact: Ryan V. Barfuss, prevention specialist, 435-797-1540,
Ryan.barfuss@usu.edu
Writer: Erika Rasmussen, 801-349-7719,
erika.ras@aggiemail.usu.edu
Researchers at Duke University Medical Center used new tools they developed to analyze knees and hips and discovered that osteoarthritic knee joints are in a constant state of repair, while hip joints are not.
"This suggests the knee has capacity for repair we didn't know about and the main treatment strategy probably would need to focus on turning off the breakdown of knee tissue," said
Virginia Kraus, MD, PhD, professor of
Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke. "I was hugely surprised to find this."
This suggests that knee and hip osteoarthritis may need different treatment approaches, Kraus said.
Perhaps the natural repair response would be sufficient to lead to a reversal or halting of the disease process in the knee if the joint breakdown could be halted, Kraus said.
"At least with the knee you've got an ongoing repair response that we didn't appreciate until now," Kraus said. "If you could capitalize on that and turn off the degradative (breakdown processing you might have some good effects."
The findings, published in the
Journal of Biological Chemistry on Friday, Feb. 10, suggest that for hips, however, halting the degenerative process might not be enough. The hips would need a treatment to both stop degeneration as well as stimulate factors that could help to begin repair.
The knee is very accessible for injections, so it would make sense to inject the knee with agents that could turn off the degradative processes, and these could be delivered periodically with close monitoring, Kraus said. "That seems like a very viable strategy."
A number of treatment strategies are being tested in clinical trials to switch off the joint breakdown processes, and Kraus is hopeful that this approach will lead to treatment breakthroughs for osteoarthritis.
A cocktail of drugs might be needed for the hip, however, both to halt the degradation and to stimulate the right type of reparative elements.
"I am speculating that a single agent would work for the knee," Kraus said.
The findings about the knee were shocking to her, because the literature for years had compared the knee and ankle. Scientists knew the ankle was resistant to osteoarthritis, but the knee was very susceptible.
The thinking was that the ankle joint bones fit together well, like a ball in a socket, so the joint cartilage is less likely to degrade, while the knee joint bones fit less well together and require tissue, like the meniscus, to create a better fit -- so knee cartilage is more likely to degrade.
"What we found is startling, because the hip joint also has a ball-in-socket structure yet it degrades and fails to mount a strong repair response," Kraus said. "We think this means that joint congruency alone cannot explain the difference in the repair response of joints, so there is more to learn."
Kraus and her team discovered a biomarker that is a measure of an altered (deaminated protein, called D-COMP. In the circulation it signals hip degeneration and in cartilage it provides insight into the repair response of joint tissues. Kraus said this is the first biomarker specific to a particular joint site, and may be developed into a monitoring tool for hip-joint breakdown.
The next step is to understand the reasons for the difference between knees and hips and also to use the new tools to analyze the ankle for its level of repair response.
"Why is the ankle less susceptible than the knee to osteoarthritis?" Kraus asked. "Can we develop other tools to be specific indicators of joint health for other joints in the body?"
Other authors include Duke University Medical Center researchers Jonathan B. Catterall, Ming F. Hsueh, Thomas V. Stabler, Christopher R. McCudden, Michael Bolognesi, Robert Zura, and Sheng Feng. Joanne M. Jordan and Jordan B. Renner are from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Association of Schools of Public Health.
“Men can inherit heart disease from their father,” BBC News has reported. The broadcaster said that a specific version of the Y chromosome, a genetic structure passed from father to son, can raise a man’s heart disease risk by 50%.
This story is based on research that examined variation in the Y chromosome, a Y-shaped bundle of genetic material that makes a foetus develop into a male. Only men have a Y chromosome, and researchers thought that it may account for some of the variation in rates of heart disease between men and women. The researchers looked at the genetic variation in this chromosome in over 3,000 unrelated men, grouped them based on common variations, and then looked at associations between genetic type and risk of coronary artery disease. They found that in men with one particular variation, the odds of developing heart disease were 56% higher than in men from the other main genetic groups identified. This increase was independent of known risk factors for heart disease, including lifestyle and economic factors.
The results suggest that the genetics of the Y chromosome may contribute to a man’s heart disease risk. However, this does not diminish the role of lifestyle and socioeconomic factors, many of which can be modified. The lifestyle changes required to reduce heart disease risk, such as not smoking, are well known and apply to everyone regardless of their genetic make-up.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Universities of Leicester, Glasgow, Leeds and Cambridge, King’s College London and other universities and institutes in Australia, France and Germany. The research was funded by the British Heart Foundation.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.
This research was covered appropriately by the media. The Independent, for example, emphasised that the results do not mean that men should ignore heart-healthy lifestyle advice based on their genetic risk factors. Genetics only contributes to part of a man’s risk of developing heart disease, and adopting a healthier lifestyle can play a key part in preventing major cardiovascular problems.
What kind of research was this?
Human cells carry 23 pairs of chromosomes. These bundles of DNA together contain a person’s full genetic code. Among them is one pair of chromosomes that determines gender, known as the sex chromosomes. We all carry at least one X-shaped sex chromosome. Women carry a second X chromosome and men instead have a shorter Y chromosome. So women have an XX combination, and men carry an XY combination.
As well as determining sex, the Y chromosome has also been linked to the cardiovascular system. In this study, researchers used a variety of techniques to look at the role of the Y chromosome in cardiovascular health. The research was performed as a series of case-control studies that used data from three separate studies:
- a cross-sectional study - a type of study that looks at various factors at a single point in time
- a prospective clinical trial – a type of study where participants are assigned a treatment or medication and then followed over time to see how they compare to participants using no treatment or an alternative treatment (in this case the trial involved people using statins, a type of cholesterol-lowering medication
- a genome-wide association study – a type of study that looks for patterns linking people’s genetic make-up to their risk of a particular disease (in this case it aimed to identify genetic variations that lead to developing coronary artery disease, or CAD
What did the research involve?
The researchers examined the association between variation in the Y chromosome and risk of CAD. The study included 3,233 unrelated British men who were enrolled in one of three ongoing studies. Participants were either:
- cases - those who had a validated history of CAD or who developed CAD during the course of the original studies, or
- controls - participants who were matched to the cases based on age group and other factors
Both cases and controls had their genetic information mapped.
The researchers sorted the men into subgroups, called “haplogroups”, according to genetic variation on their Y chromosomes. There are 13 major European haplogroups, each descended from different common genetic ancestors. The participants in these studies were found to belong to nine of these 13 major groups. The researchers then determined how the odds of having or developing heart disease varied across these main haplogroups.
The researchers adjusted their analysis to account for factors associated with heart disease, including age, blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels, a history of diabetes, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and socioeconomic, education and employment status.
What were the basic results?
The study showed that:
- 17% of the men (both cases and controls in the first study belonged to an ancestral group called haplogroup I. In the second study, 14.5% of the men belonged to this group.
- Men in haplogroup I had a 56% increased odds of developing coronary artery disease compared to men in any other genetic group ( odds ratio [OR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 1.97, p=0.0002 .
- Further analysis revealed that this increased risk was independent of other known risk factors. After calculations were carried out to account for these established factors, being in haplogroup I was the most significant predictor of heart disease.
- When analysing data from the genome-wide association study, the researchers found that, compared to the other haplogroups, men in haplogroup I had genetic differences in genes involved in immunity and inflammation responses.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers said that of all the main European Y chromosome lineages, “haplogroup I is associated with significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease compared to other ancient lineages”, and that this may be due to a difference in genes related to immunity and the inflammation response.
Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that a specific genetic variation on the Y chromosome is associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD . However, heart disease is a complicated condition with a wide variety of risk factors, including some that can be modified.
While genetic variation on the Y chromosome has been identified as a risk factor in this study, it is unlikely to be a predictor of heart disease on its own. The researchers themselves highlight that single risk factors are common in people with and without CAD, and that any single factor (either genetic or non-genetic is unlikely to predict an individual’s risk of developing the disease. In a positive step, many news sources prominently stated that the Y chromosome is likely to account for only part of a man’s risk.
The researchers also say that their results need to be validated by further prospective studies, which would presumably examine participants’ Y chromosome status and lifestyle factors and then follow them over time to see whether they developed CAD. According to the researchers, future research could help explain how genetic variation puts groups at risk by examining the role of differences in the immune and inflammatory responses. They also say that this finding may lead to the identification of targets for future CAD treatments. However, this would be a long way off.
While this research gives an insight into genetic variation and its role in CAD, it is unlikely to play an immediate part in addressing CAD in the UK. First, men are unlikely to know their specific haplogroup, so are unlikely to know whether they may be at increased risk of CAD. Second, there are many risk factors for CAD, and individuals cannot alter genetic factors. On the other hand, several lifestyle factors can be modified to try to reduce the risk of heart disease.
While no single factor can predict whether a person will develop CAD, people can reduce their risk by not smoking, eating healthy food, exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight.
Links To The Headlines
Male gene increases risk of hereditary heart disease for one in five. The Independent, February 9 2012
One in five men have DNA that puts them at greater risk of a heart attack: research. The Daily Telegraph, February 9 2012
Men can inherit higher risk of heart attack from father - and can pass danger on to their sons. Daily Mail, February 9 2012
Men can inherit a form of heart disease from father via Y chromosome. BBC News, February 9 2012
Close to men's hearts: Y chromosome link to coronary risk. Daily Mirror, February 9 2012
Links To Science
Charchar FJ, Bloomer LDS, Barnes TA et al. Inheritance of coronary artery disease in men: an analysis of the role of the Y chromosome. The Lancet, February 9 2012 (early online publication
Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since 98 percent of Catholic women use birth control, many Catholic institutions offer the benefit to their employees. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees “have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control.”How fake?
Similarly, an informal survey conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits [...]
Pretty darn fake:
“The employee health insurance plans include a prescription contraceptive benefit, in compliance with state and federal law,” DePaul University spokesperson Robin Florzak confirmed to ThinkProgress.No, really.
Really, really damn fake:
Yes, the [Georgia] law was originally passed back in 1999, four years before Republicans gained control of Georgia’s government. But Republicans have had ten years in which to change the law if they thought there was a problem with it; yet, it has remained intact through ten Republican-controlled legislative sessions.But you see, everyone just
And with no stated exceptions, this law applies to mega-employer Saint Joseph’s Hospital, a 410-bed acute care facility in Atlanta with several subsidiaries including an employed physician’s group and research facilities, with a total of 3,000 employees. And the law also applies to Saint Mary’s Hospital, a 196-bed acute care hospital in Athens, GA.
Both hospitals are members of the Catholic Health East system.
noticed that
right now. Or rather, it suddenly became untenable just now.
So some Catholic bishops and assorted other anti-healthcare and anti-letting-women-have-birth-control hangers-on have got their knickers in a double bowline over something that
has already been the law for many years, that Catholic institutions have been complying with without difficulty for years, and which only just now, for some inexplicable reason that nobody can quite explain, is suddenly an epic threat to Whatever. Because if we don't allow large American employers "exemptions" from national laws in accordance with their every possible religious prejudice,
no matter how fringe, then the government is oppressing people.
This can only mean that once again, we have solved all of America's other problems and are at a loss for other things to complain about.
Again, since it is apparently difficult for some people to understand: We are not talking about going into churches and demanding people take birth control when they don't want to. We're not talking about going into churches at
all
, for that matter. We're talking about large employers, colleges and hospitals, and stating that their
religious
beliefs do not trump employment laws or the rights of their employees,
many of whom are not even of the religion in question.
Want to form a church? You can believe whatever you want, and act however you want. Oppress women, be bigoted against brown people, whatever floats your ark. Want to be an
employer
? Then certain rules apply. You have to provide a minimum wage, you can't chain people to their workstations, you have to have sufficient bathrooms, and if you provide them healthcare you have to provide it in a non-discriminatory fashion to both men and women, and without religious dogma attached. It's a simple concept. A college is not a church. A hospital is not a church. Putting a big cross outside doesn't allow you to treat your employees however you want regardless of the law, and America is very roundly screwed if that ever becomes the case.
This is a non-issue being pushed into the spotlight because one side desperately needs to convince people they're being oppressed and needs preferential treatment. In this particular case, the bishops
don't even have the respect of their own flock, and the conservatives using it as yet another bludgeon against healthcare reform
doesn't have the public on their side. Yes, yes, it's a "wedge issue." But it's an embarrassingly phony one. The White House has done themselves no favors by continually "negotiating" the non-issue, either. Show some spine, and stick up for employees. It shouldn't be up to your damn employer whether you're "allowed" to use birth control or not.
The non-partisan, non-profit National Center for Policy Analysis joined medical device makers in panning the med-tech tax set to go into effect in 2013.
The National Center for Policy Analysis took up the cause of promoting the repeal of the 2.3% medical device tax, calling it a "a blow to an industry that provides goods essential to the health of Americans."
The NCPA, which considers itself a nonpartisan think tank promoting free-market alternatives to government regulation, published its opinion on the levy this week, finding it bad for business, for patients and for workers.
Under mounting pressure, the Obama administration today proposed an "accommodation" to a mandate that religious groups cover birth control free-of-charge.
President Obama made the announcement this afternoon in the White House Press room.
The new plan allows employers with religious objections to offering contraceptive coverage to turn the responsibility over to their health insurance company. Those insurers will be able to offer contraceptive coverage directly to employees without co-pays or other charges.
The original mandate issued
last month drew sharp criticism from many Catholics, conservatives and even some Democrats, who argued that it was a violation of religious freedom. Churches, mosques and synagogues were exempt -- but other religious institutions that serve and employ people of other faiths were not eligible for exemption.
The new rule grew out of a
report by the Institute of Medicine last year that recommended an expansion of birth control services to women as part of the health reform law. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a ruling that contraception should be provided free-of-charge as an "essential health benefit" in their insurance coverage.
The initial reaction to today's changes seemed to satisfy some key players on both sides on the debate.
Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the
Catholic Health Association of the United States, which represents Catholic hospitals, said they are "pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions."
Keehan was a
vocal critic of the Jan. 20 mandate.
Louise Melling,
ACLU deputy legal director for the ACLU, also backed the decision, saying the group's main concern was that women had access to contraceptive coverage -- and that the president's announcement today ensured religious institutions have the ability to opt out and still let women retain coverage.
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the
National Womens Law Center in Washington, said her organization is "very hopeful that this goal will be met without burdensome obstacles for women, no matter where they work." She added that they will "closely monitor the implementation of this new rule" to make sure that all women have access to contraception coverage.
Watch PBS NewsHour tonight for more on the changes, including an interview with Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. You can watch live online from 6 to 7 p.m. ET
here.
Controversial plans to build a US-style mega farm pose serious health risks to those living and working nearby, campaigners say
Controversial plans to build a US-style mega pig-farm in South Derbyshire close to a prison and residential housing pose serious health risks to those living and working there and could breach their legal rights to protection of their private and family life, the local council is being warned.
In the light of fresh legal advice, the organic farmers' group, the Soil Association and Friends of the Earth have joined forces with local group Foston Community Forum and
Pig Business, film-makers and campaigners, to urge Derbyshire county council to refuse planning permission for the proposed development at Foston.
Their challenge – the first against the scheme under the Human Rights Act – is
set out in a joint letter to the county council, stating that "planning authorities … have an obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to consider the effects of their decision on the human rights of affected third parties. The right to private and family life prevents not just physical incursions into the home or residence, but also interference from things such as noise, smell, emissions."
It goes on to say that the prison staff cannot avoid working close to the proposed development unless they resign from the jobs. The inmates of Foston Hall prison are not living in the area by choice, and clearly do not have the option of moving away if the development goes ahead. They will not be able to escape the risk to their health posed by the development, and the letter warns that allowing the pig factory to go ahead could also breach the inmates' right to be protected from inhumane treatment.
Midland Pig Producers (MPP has applied for permission to build the farm – which could house up to 25,000 animals – on a greenfield site west of the historic village of Foston and adjoining a women's closed prison which houses up to 290 prisoners. If approved, it would become the third largest factory farm in the UK, sending more than 1,000 pigs to slaughter every week.
The legal letter also cites new research which shows that intensive pig factories of this kind can adversely affect the health of nearby residents. This has been confirmed by the government's
Health Protection Agency (HPA , which says that those living within 150 metres of intensive pig farms "could be exposed to mutli-drug resistant organisms". The proposed development will be built within 150m of HMP Foston Hall - as well as within 75m of the nearest properties being planned for workers at the development site.
In November last year the project
was dealt a major blow when Derbyshire district council refused to back it. The final decision – already delayed – will be taken at county council level although no date has yet been set for a meeting.
After an application for a mega-dairy in Lincolnshire by Nocton Dairies,
which was later shelved, Foston has become the focus of a fierce fight over opposing visions for British farming. The Soil Association's concerns have been mainly about disease, antibiotic resistance and animal welfare in large pig herds.
But at an early stage the Foston battle took an unprecented twist involving libel law, when the Soil Assocation
received a threatening letter from solicitors Carter-Ruck - acting for MPP – saying its objection was defamatory and should be withdrawn.
Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: "The objections to the pig factory at Foston are mounting all the time, because of the growing weight of new scientific evidence of real risks to the health of local people, and to the staff and inmates of the prison right next door to the proposed site. Now it seems that the legal rights of local people may also be infringed by the proposed development."
Victoria Martindale, representative of the Foston community forum, said: "As a medical professional I am concerned about the health risks that this proposal will bring to local residents. Those living in the closest vicinity to the proposed site include the most susceptible and at risk groups such as children, the elderly and individuals already with known respiratory and other diseases. It is not fair to expect the residents of Foston to go about their everyday lives while being forced to continuously breathe in air that will put their and their families' health at risk."
A Derbyshire county council spokesperson said: "We have had thousands of views during the consultation and have had to look at and consider them. Following this, we have sent out for additional information from some agencies and are awaiting that. When this comes in we shall have to consider this and ensure we have all the information we need before compiling the report for the committee to consider."
MPP was contacted by the Guardian but has not issued a response to the letter.
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
At the end of January, Google's social network Google Plus quietly opened the doors to minors ages 13 and over. This is something that anyone managing a Google+ Page already suspected, based on the choices when creating the page to make it 18 and over. What users didn't expect was that Google+ would open its gates so soon, with so many issues still left to address.
Google+ moved fast before the announcement to implement a variety of
security features to protect the new demographic. This post will go over these features, then list some of the outstanding issues that the network has yet to address.
Protections for Minors
Anyone using Google+ has the ability to select with whom each individual post they create will be shared. When choosing a post to go Public, however, underage users are prompted to remember that this means the post will be shared with the entire internet and that strangers may be able to comment (if they have changed their settings to allow this .
Prompt minors see when posting Public.
Changing settings can enable any user to specify who can see their profile, what specific parts of their profile are visible to whom, and who can contact them through the network. The profiles of minors are defaulted to allow only notifications and comments from people in their immediate circles.
The options given to users in Google+ settings.
In Hangouts, Google+ enables users to have live video chat sessions with a maximum of 10 other users at a time. Hangouts can be shared publicly or limited to Circles (pre-selected groups of people . Like certain house parties, Hangouts do not necessarily belong to the user who created them, so even if someone shares a Hangout with only a limited group, if someone in that group shares the Hangout publicly, anyone who sees it in their stream can join in.
To lend a hand with the issues that may result from a stranger crashing a Hangout where a minor is present, Google+ has added a feature that immediately stops minors' video and audio, so they can't be seen or heard. Immediately, a prompt pops up notifying minors about the newcomer and asks them whether they'd like to continue video chatting or exit the Hangout.
Prompt minors see when a stranger joins their Hangout.
Despite these strides in protection, several issues remain in need of address, both to protect the new demographic and to ensure that the adults already using the network can continue to share as they have thus far enjoyed.
Control
There currently exists no way for users posting about adult topics to do so in a way that prevents the underage crowd (or someone at work from seeing these updates. Posting to a specific Circle can be useful in this regard, but that requires a user to Circle all the people that they think are interested in receiving this sort of content. That can work if one only engages with people whose content they enjoy equally, but presents a problem when people who are interested in this type of content add no value to a user's stream. Google+, it might also be mentioned, only allows people to Circle 5,000 other people, and for active users who have more followers than that, explaining that you can't add someone back because you're capped -- or having to remove someone because you need to add people whose content is more relevant to your online experience can be quite uncomfortable.
The solution I found was to create an 18 and over Google+ Page to share the content I think is unsuitable for minors. However, not all users are going to see the management of yet another digital space as convenient, raising concerns about a response from the network that promotes censorship over freedom of expression. To date, there is no word on whether Google will be developing this function, though when I
posted asking for this capability, Yonatan Zunger, Chief Architect at Google+, responded in agreement that this would be a useful feature.
Notifications
While Google+ enables users to select who can send them notifications, the network does not distinguish among the types of notifications. As a result, if you want to allow the public or even Extended Circles (which works like Facebook's Friends of Friends to send you private messages, strangers end up with both the ability to send you private messages and to tag you in photographs.
Because I write about relationships, I understand that some people may not feel comfortable talking about their partners in a public comment thread, so I allow private messages from Extended Circles. The downside is that anyone who is in a circle of someone I have circled can tag me in a photo. This seemed harmless enough until I woke up one morning, flooded with notifications from Google+ asking whether I wanted to accept the tags in photos of various men.
"Look at me!" photo tags.
It's an effective way to make someone stop what they're doing and look at you. But it's very inconvenient. And while Google+ has features in place to enable users to quickly flag inappropriate content, users are sometimes too fast for the network, enabling one to see herself tagged in sexually suggestive photos. I take it as a reassuring sign that despite 500,000 followers this has only occurred to me three times. Usually, by the time I get there, the image has been removed. I still would like the ability to change my settings so that while I receive private messages from Extended Circles, only people in my Circles (or even one specific Circle can tag me in photos.
Pseudonyms
In the beginning, Google+ made it clear that it would be a place where everyone used their real names, the logic being that people are more civil when their real life reputation is attached to their comments. Problems quickly arose, however, as the algorithms and people involved in policing this "real name" rule began suspending profiles of not only pseudonymous users, but anyone with an "unreal"-looking name, such as tech commentator Violet Blue (whose legal name, in case you don't know, really is Violet Blue .
When my account was suspended for using a psuedonym, I lobbied that the policy was depriving the network of the voices of people who, for a variety of valid reasons (such as political dissenters who must protect themselves against retaliation, scientists whose lives are threatened by extremists who believe for whatever reason that their work is unethical, victims of domestic violence and hate crimes,
etc. , choose not to use their real names.
My situation received enough media attention that my profile was quickly reinstated, but unfortunately, this was not
the experience of a lot of other users. Eventually, in the face of mounting evidence, Zunger
conceded:
We thought this was going to be a huge deal: that people would behave very differently when they were and weren't going by their real names. After watching the system for a while, we realized that this was not, in fact, the case. (And in particular, bastards are still bastards under their own names. We're focusing right now on identifying bad behaviors themselves, rather than on using names as a proxy for behavior.
In an effort to address the backlash, Bradley Horowitz, Vice President of Product at Google+
stated last week that Google+ was planning to move toward a more inclusive naming policy on the network, adding support for nicknames, maiden names, and names in scripts other than the Roman alphabet -- all of which will now appear alongside already established "common" names. The message also stated the network would be allowing "established" pseudonyms.
There is no way to establish a pseudonym at registration. Usually, a user must wait until a profile is flagged before they can appeal to establish themselves. Horowitz also wrote that users who had started out using the network with their real names could apply to change their names to pseudonyms. He said:
If we flag the name you intend to use, you can provide us with information to help confirm your established identity. This might include:
- References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc
- Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license
- Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following
We'll review the information and typically get back to you within a few days. We may also ask for further information, such as proof that you control a website you reference. While a name change is under review, your old name will continue to be displayed. For new accounts without an old name, your profile will be in a non-public, read-only state during the review. Either way, you'll be able to see the status of your review by going to your profile.
The
Google+ Profiles name policy elaborates on the things users can bring to the attention of the network to prove the name or pseudonym given merits acceptance:
If we challenge the name you intend to use, you will be asked to submit proof that this is an established identity with a meaningful following. You can do so by providing links to other social networking sites, news articles, or official documents in which you are referred to by this name. Note that this name and your profile must represent you, and not an avatar or other secondary online identity. Profane or offensive names are not allowed.
The policy remains confusing, however. While Horowitz told users to apply for a name change in his post, a Google spokeperson
told Violet Blue that users who wanted to employ a pseudonym needed to apply for a new Google+ account altogether. This makes sense, as changing one's name to a pseudonym as Horowitz suggests will not change the name that appears on your previous posts. According to the spokeperson with whom Blue spoke (emphasis mine :
The original name tied to their Google+ profile will still be visibly retained. When you change your name, old posts and comments that were made with the old name continue to use that name.
Pseudonymous users who have repeatedly pointed out that other users with pseudonymous but "real"-looking names were still being allowed to exist on the network were unsurprised when
further discussion with members of the Google+ team revealed that pseudonyms are acceptable if they
look "real." While grossly unfair to brilliant commentators who operate under "unreal"-looking pseudonyms (especially those deemed to not have a “meaningful” following , this is good news for newcomers and minors, who may want to share somewhat publicly, but who don't want to be immediately identifiable.
Censorship
Google+ has always been very hard on nudity. Due to the lack of features that enable a user to mark a post NSFW (not safe for work , the fact that minors were poised to eventually be allowed, and possibly the way Google Search would eventually begin
integrating Google+ updates in their results, the social network adopted a draconian position on content early on.
When Google+ censored the work of
Paul Roustan, whose marvelous, intricate paintings use the human body as a canvas, many users joined together
in protest against censorship. Eventually, Roustan's images were
reinstated and Google+ changed its
content policy to allow for posts and images that are "artistic, educational, or [have] documentary considerations, or when there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action" (i.e., censoring the post .
Previously, users were not notified when a post or image had been censored. Users would see some activity on a post or image and suddenly, despite ongoing conversation, the post would cease receiving notifications. Because the post or image was still visible to a user, it was hard to tell immediately that its view status had been changed from what the user selected (e.g., Public, Circles, Extended Circles to Limited. This has become slightly less confusing -- going to one's photos tab within the network now shows a graphic that enables a user to locate images that have been deemed to be in violation of Google+'s content policy.
Attention graphic in photo section.
Notification that an image does not comply with content policies.
The policy, which is slightly more liberal, is not evenly applied, however. Profile images, for example, are subject to more intense scrutiny, as TechCrunch columnist MG Siegler
found out when he uploaded a profile image showing his middle finger.
When Google+ photo manager Brian Rose was questioned about the withdrawal of an image I had uploaded for the 18 and over page I created on the network (which shows the middle section of a woman's nude body , Rose responded: "Profile photos are held to a stricter standard than photos shared in the stream, I believe because they may also show up on Google.com search result pages, other Google services, etc."
Censorship will continue on the network until a function is created to shield those who do not want to be exposed to mature or controversial content -- however educational or artistic -- and until controls are created to enable users to decide whether they want their pages to appear in Google Search, as profiles currently allow.
Response to Abuse
Last year, atheist and anti-censorship activist Brandon Campeaux
quit Google+ despite his network of over 250,000 followers due to the number of death threats he had received for voicing his controversial views on the social network. Despite calling attention to the issue several times using Google+'s feedback feature, none of the accounts threatening Campeaux were suspended. The network eventually reached out to Campeaux and he returned, but to date no user that threatened him has been suspended.
What's more, Campeaux’s interaction with Google+ employees on the network about this problem eventually led Google developer advocate Chris Chabot to
block Campeaux. According to Champeaux, Google+ community manager Natalie Villalobos blocked him as well after he criticized her for not taking down child pornography quickly enough.
This response is worrisome, though to be fair, my own has been markedly different: I find members of the Google+ team responsive and attentive to suggestions made by users. Zunger is very active with activists fighting for full pseudonym support, for example. Rose is quick to address questions about flagged images and bring issues to the attention of the photo review team. Villalobos has exceled in a handful of conversations about what constitutes a violation of community guidelines. In general, my own experience with people who are working at Google+ suggests that the people behind the network care about its users in a way that other networks simply do not, regardless of the missteps Google+ has made.
They illustrate a statement made six months ago by Google site reliability engineer Trey Harris:
I keep seeing people on comment threads about Google+ policy saying something along the lines of: ‘the service belongs to Google, they get to make the decision, if you don’t like it, use something else.’ … This argument -- if you can dignify calling it that -- is obvious, it’s facile, and it’s unhelpful. It amounts to telling the people you disagree with to just shut up. It isn’t a way to forward a constructive discussion.
Google+ cares about being the best social network out there and they should. There is a lot at stake for Google, which has positioned itself to bring together all the user-generated data from its services, including Google+, to improve targeting for advertisers. The question now is whether Google+ will adapt quickly enough to keep the users it has gained while attracting this new demographic of individuals aged 13 and up.
AV Flox is the section editor of Love & Sex and Health on BlogHer. You can connect with her on Twitter
@avflox, Google Plus
+AV Flox, or e-mail her directly at av.flox AT BlogHer.com
No comments:
Post a Comment