Thursday, July 25, 2013

U.S. Ends Effort to Limit Access to 'Morning-After' Pill

FDA will heed court order mandating that women, girls of all ages have over-the-counter accessAbout half of young couples reunite after a

By EJ Mundell

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. government has dropped its effort to block a court order that would make the morning-after contraceptive pill available over-the-counter to all women and girls.

After fighting for an age threshold on the nonprescription use of the Plan B One-Step pill for months, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a statement late Monday that it would heed the ruling of Judge Edward Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The drug prevents conception if taken within 72 hours of having sexual intercourse.

The Obama administration appears to have concluded that it could lose its case, and would have to weigh whether to request that the Supreme Court hear any appeal, the New York Times reported.

Women's reproductive rights groups, which had sued the government to clear the way for broader distribution of the drug were happy with the decision, the Times reported, but they still wanted to see the details of how the change would be implemented.

"We will not rest in this fight until the morning-after pill is made available without delay and obstruction," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, the newspaper reported.

"This is a huge breakthrough for access to birth control and a historic moment for women's health and equity," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a news release. "The FDA's decision will make emergency contraception available on store shelves, just like condoms, and women of all ages will be able to get it quickly in order to prevent unintended pregnancy."

However, the decision is certain to anger abortion rights opponents, who oppose allowing young girls access to the drug without the consent or involvement of a parent or a doctor.

Korman first issued his order April 5, igniting a battle over whether young girls could gain access to emergency contraception without a prescription. Soon after, on April 30, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lowered to 15 the age at which people could purchase the Plan B One-Step pill over-the-counter -- two years younger than the prior age limit of 17.

A day later, on May 1, the Obama Administration stepped in to appeal the Korman decision.

At the time of the FDA's move to lower the age limit, agency commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said in a news release that, "research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States."

"The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease," Hamburg said.


View the original article here

Health Highlights: April 11, 2013

The median annual cost of a private room in a nursing home in the United States rose 24 percent over the past five years, from $67,527 to $83,950, a new survey says.

The price climbed 4 percent from last year to this year, according to Genworth's 2013 Cost of Care Survey, which is based on data from nearly 15,000 long-term care providers, CNN reported.

The cost of a semi-private room at a nursing home has increased 23 percent over the past five years to a median of $75,405 a year. The cost of being in an assisted living facility also rose 23 percent and is now $41,400 a year.

Prices are being pushed up by a number of factors, including food, building maintenance, insurance and labor costs, Bob Bua, vice president of Genworth, told CNN.


View the original article here

Question About #2

Hi everyone,

I realize this isn't the most pleasant topic, nonetheless i'll get straight to the point.

Every morning I go to work, have some coffee, and have my breakfast, which is normally a frozen banana/protein/unsweetened almond milk/flaxseed shake with blueberries & strawberries mixed in. 99% of the time, this induces a bowel movement. I normally feel it coming on and can comfortably get to the bathroom and "go" no problem. I will then, more often than not, feel pretty empty and fine.

The problem then starts about 3 hours later. I have a snack, a small snack, such as a Greek yogurt, an apple, just something small. After eating this snack, whatever it is, I then have the urge to "go" again. Except this time, instead of practically forcing it's way out like my first BM, this time i'm just incredibly gassy, feel bloated, and I have to quite literally go to the toilet and push it out. It's often very small and not comfortable at all.

The same thing then happens AGAIN when I eat my lunch. Normally i'll either have peanut butter and jelly or a grilled chicken sandwich, nothing too big but enough to fill me up. And once again, I get this unpleasant, gassy, bloated feeling, which prompts to go to the bathroom and push another one out.

The funny thing though is that when I eat dinner, which is definitely my biggest meal of the day (I know this shouldn't be the case but it's just the way it is), I feel perfectly fine afterwards. Never have a bloated feeling, never have the urge to go after dinner, EVER. It's only during the morning and early afternoon, prompted by much, much smaller meals.

What it boils down to is that I go once in the morning, and even though I initially feel empty and fine, it's almost like i'm not getting "all" of it out, and it then takes 2-3 more very uncomfortable, small BMs to feel "empty" until the cycle repeats itself the next day.

Any ideas what could be going on?


View the original article here

Facebook Home on HTC First Available Today, 5 Things You Need to Know

Facebook Home Info

Last week Mark Zuckerberg unveiled Facebook Home for Android. It's not a Facebook phone, it's not an operating system, and it's not an app. Zuck says it's a way to "put people first instead of apps."

So, what is it?

I'd tell my grandma it's a Facebook screen saver.

When your phone is resting, photos and status updates from your newsfeed are visible, and even if your phone is locked, you can still like and comment on posts.

Facebook will now be at the core of your mobile experience (as if it's not already dominating social in so many ways). And today, you can buy the HTC First, which comes pre-installed with Facebook Home for $99 with a two-year contract. Nothing is in the works for iOS.

The 5 things you should care about:

Your Newsfeed (and your friends baby pics) will be everywhere: From the moment you turn on your phone, you'll see your newsfeed, status updates, and all - not just FB - notifications (new email, Twitter mentions, Instagram likes)Chat heads: Functionality allows you to seamlessly keep chatting with friends from any app. Data: Since Facebook Home is constantly downloading status updates and photos, consider changing your image quality setting to "low" so that you're not draining monthly data. The default setting is "medium" but you can also change to "high." Privacy: If you want to try Facebook Home and then decide you don't like it, you can turn it off in your Home Settings. And If you like Home but don't want it to appear as your lock screen, you have that option too. Other Droids: Not in the market for a new HTC First? Users who own the HTC One X, HTC One X+, Samsung Galaxy S III or the Samsung Galaxy II can download Home for free from the Google Play store.

So, are you gonna go get Facebook Home? Tweet us @StephaniePaige and @SELFMagazine.

RELATED LINKS:

Image Credit: Courtesy of Mashable


View the original article here

Tom Hiddleston at the ITV studios in London

Looking fiiiiine as per, Tom Hiddleston was snapped in a suit as he arrived at the ITV studios in London where he spoke about the five-day challenge, during which he aimed to live below the poverty line and eat for under £1 a day.


WHY WE LOVE TOM HIDDLESTON


View the original article here

can you recover fully on 2000 cals? 2500 cals? or do you REALLY need more?? how can I exercise without it being triggering??

I AM DOING IT!! THE UNTHINKABLE!!! F*** MY ED!!!

for the past month, I have eaten 2000 cals a day, and for 2 days now I ate 2500-3000!!! I AM HORRIFIED but I also know that this is probably the only way out of REDS and having disordered thoughts, and a f***ed up metabolism for the rest of my life. 

I am only 20 and I don't want to be 30 and still struggling with relapses and restrictive eating.

anyway, I am 5'2, 20, and currently 120+ lbs I would guess? which puts me around BMI 22??

I have had an ED of some sort since I was 16 - ate 1000 cals for 9 months, dropped from 140 to 105 lbs

but I semi recovered on 1600-2000 cals when I was 17, gained to 130 lbs

then mildly relapsed at age 18 - 1600-2200 cal + intense workouts for a year, lost to 110 lbs

then ACTUALLY relapsed - 1200-1400 cal +  less-intense workouts for a year, yo-yo'd from 110-115-110 and then hurt my knee and couldn't work out for another 2 months...

I gained from 110 to 116-7 in 2 months eating 1400-1600,

then I gained to where I am now, eating 2000 a day.

anyway I JUST started eating the youreatopia.com amounts because I am afraid that if I dont, I wont be able to maintain on a normal amount when I finally recover fully. 

My ED therapist who I talked with when I was 17 for my first "recovery" told me today that 2500-3000 is enough for me, and that I can do 30 minutes of weight training 3-4x a week to help create muscle mass, which will speed my metabolism? she also said i can take a 30 min, brisk daily walk... 

does ANYONE have experience of fully recovering and having a normal metabolism, on less than 3000? why is 3000 such a magic number, and am I causing myself unnecessary stress by forcing myself to eat and eat?

will I REALLY slide back down to set point weight, naturally?? I would say that 115 is my set point, and when I weigh anything lower, I get ED symptoms like obsessiveness, fogginess, and i generally spaz out.

DO you think I will recover sooner, seeing as I had already almost recovered fully once before, ( for 2 months I was eating a LOT and running, but eating a LOT and maintaining 115)...and this time around I didnt restrict as badly, and I am willing to eat more than 2000?? I KNOW I am going to overshoot... I already am in the process of overshooting... but I don't want to overshoot FOREVER and end up like, 130-140 lbs?? and then stay there for a year!! D: THAT IS HORRIFYINGGG


View the original article here

Mollie King on the street in Munich

Whilst we're majorly envious of Mollie King's Chanel belt, we probably would have teamed it with a more laid-back look. Still, we DON'T deny this Saturday looks great in her orange tweed mini. 

The Saturday's Twitter Takeover


View the original article here

Chopped Kale? Calories?

Hi there,

Probably such a silly question, but I know if I don't ask it will bother me. Today I find organic frozen chopped kale at Costco for 5$ (it's usually $3 for a non organic small bunch here when we have it). Naturally I had to buy it. I've been adding it to smoothies, salads, boiled with rice etc.

However, today when I looked at the bag it said that it had 60 calories a cup & 3 grams of fiber. However, calorie count says that one cup of chopped frozen kale is about 34 calories. So that is almost double. Now I know no one gets fat off of kale, however when I am eating/boiling 3 or 4 cups at a time, the calories can add up. 

The ingredients just say "100% organic chopped kale"

So do I log it as 60 calories or as 34 calories 


View the original article here

Weight-Loss Surgery May Affect Fat-Related Genes

Swedish researchers found better body-fat control in people who had procedureSwedish researchers found better body-fat control

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, April 11 (HealthDay News) -- Weight-loss surgery changes the levels of genes involved in burning and storing fat, a new study says.

The findings may help lead to the development of new drugs that mimic this weight-loss-associated control of gene regulation, said the authors of the study published online April 11 in the journal Cell Reports.

"We provide evidence that in severely obese people, the levels of specific genes that control how fat is burned and stored in the body are changed to reflect poor metabolic health," senior author Juleen Zierath, a professor with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, said in a journal news release.

"After [weight-loss] surgery, the levels of these genes are restored to a healthy state, which mirrors weight loss and coincides with overall improvement in metabolism," Zierath explained.

Weight-loss surgery -- also called bariatric surgery -- can help obese people lose large amounts of weight in a short time. The surgery also leads to early remission of type 2 diabetes in many patients.


View the original article here

Radiation Therapy May Raise Future Death Risk From Heart Surgery

News Picture: Radiation Therapy May Raise Future Death Risk From Heart Surgery

THURSDAY, April 11 (HealthDay News) -- Cancer survivors who had chest radiation therapy have a nearly twofold increased risk of dying in the years after having major heart surgery, a new study finds.

Researchers looked at 173 people who had chest radiation treatment for cancer an average of 18 years before they required heart surgery. These patients were compared to 305 people who underwent similar heart surgeries but had no history of radiation therapy.

The death risk in the first 30 days after heart surgery was about the same for both groups. But during an average follow-up of nearly eight years, 55 percent of the patients in the radiation group died, compared with 28 percent of those in the nonradiation group, the investigators found.

The study was published April 8 in the journal Circulation.

"These findings tell us that if you had radiation, your likelihood of dying after major cardiac surgery is high," study author Dr. Milind Desai, an associate professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in a journal news release.

"That's despite going into the surgery with a relatively low risk score. In patients who have had prior [chest] radiation, we need to develop better strategies of identifying appropriate patients that would benefit from surgical intervention. Alternatively, some patients might be better suited for [nonsurgical] procedures," Desai said.

"While radiation treatments done on children and adults in the late 1960s, '70s and '80s played an important role in cancer survival, the treatment often takes a toll on the heart," Desai explained.

"Survivors are at greater risk than people who do not have radiation to develop progressive coronary artery disease, aggressive valvular disease, as well as pericardial diseases, which affect the heart's surrounding structures," he said. "These conditions often require major cardiac surgery."

While the study found an association between chest radiation therapy for cancer and future risk of death after heart surgery, it did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

-- Robert Preidt MedicalNews
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Circulation, news release, April 8, 2013



View the original article here

Motivation

I have got to get back into the gym. I keep saying tomorrow. I pay a monthly membership fee but have not been using it. I keep thinking to myself with work and school, this will take up too much time. Losing weight is helping me get motivated, but I haven't got the burning desire to really get going yet. What type of motivation works for you?


View the original article here

Gene May Boost Death Risk From Most Common Thyroid Cancer

News Picture: Gene May Boost Death Risk From Most Common Thyroid Cancer

FRIDAY, April 12 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have pinpointed a genetic mutation that is strongly associated with an increased risk of death in people with thyroid cancer.

The investigators followed more than 1,800 patients after their initial treatment for papillary thyroid cancer, which accounts for 85 percent to 90 percent of all thyroid cancers.

After an average follow-up period of 33 months, 5 percent of those with the BRAF V600E mutation had died, compared with 1 percent of those without the mutation, according to the study in the April 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

However, the link between this mutation and increased risk of death was not independent of tumor characteristics, the study authors noted in a journal news release.

This, and the fact that the overall death rate from papillary thyroid cancer is low, means that it is unclear how to use these findings to reduce death risk in patients with this type of cancer, said Dr. Mingzhao Xing, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and colleagues.

The overall five-year survival rate for patients with papillary thyroid cancer is 95 percent to 97 percent. It's a challenge to distinguish patients who require aggressive treatment in order to reduce their risk of death from patients who do not, the researchers explained.

Even so, the authors of an accompanying editorial pointed out that the study provided important insight.

According to the editorialists, Dr. Anne Cappola and Dr. Susan Mandel of the University of Pennsylvania, "Although these findings do not support widespread BRAF V600E testing, they do support the need for additional study of how BRAF testing can be used to improve the already excellent prognosis of patients with papillary thyroid cancer."

While the study found an association between the gene mutation and thyroid cancer survival, it did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

-- Robert Preidt MedicalNews
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, news release, April 9, 2013



View the original article here

Rapid Weight Fluctuation

New poster here.  I've been having issues with my listed weight over the last week and could really use some advice and feedback.

I started exercising at the end of April regularly for the first time in years, and had lost a considerable amount of weight.  Or so I thought.  Last Tuesday I was down to 319.  I decided to weight myself again on Wednesday just because I wasn't going to be there Thursday (I usually weigh myself Monday and Thursday).  To my surprise, I was up to 330!  I weighed myself again today and was up to 334.  Now granted Thursday-Sunday my calorie intake wasn't as great as it had been, but it also wasn't awful either.  My daily high during that period was a little over 3000 calories.  

Thinking that maybe the scale at the gym is just not working right, I bought a new scale for home today.  This scale has me at 343, only 2 hours after I weighed in at the gym at 334.

I'm really at a loss for what's going on and what is actually accurate and whether all the weight I thought I had lost, I actually lost.


View the original article here

Obesity Does Slow People Down, Study Confirms

Women may be caught in cycle of fatigue, lack of self-esteem, expert says

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, April 5 (HealthDay News) -- Women who struggle with chronic obesity end up engaging in less and less routine physical activity, new research shows, confirming what may seem obvious to some.

The investigating team acknowledged that their observation so clearly aligns with conventional wisdom that it would be hard to describe it as "rocket science." But they say theirs is the first study to rigorously establish what most scientists have long presumed to be the case: that obesity does indeed have a negative impact on an individual's activity habits.

"An abundance of research has focused on factors that increase [the risk for] obesity, due to the many chronic diseases and conditions associated with it," said study lead author Jared Tucker, currently a senior epidemiologist at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. "And rightly so."

"However, physical inactivity is also independently associated with many of the same chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes," Tucker added. "But we don't often think about factors that influence activity levels."

Tucker was a graduate student when the research, reported online recently in the journal Obesity, was conducted.

"Our study suggests that obesity likely increases the risk of reducing physical activity levels in women," Tucker said. "Therefore, it appears that physical inactivity and obesity may be involved in a feedback loop, in which lower levels of activity lead to weight gain, which then leads to lower levels of activity."

To explore how obesity could depress activity levels among women, the authors focused on more than 250 middle-aged women living in the Mountain West region of the United States. Roughly half the participants were diagnosed as obese.

Rather than ask the women to self-report their activity routines -- a study method that can undermine reliability -- the team attached belt-strapped accelerometers to all the study participants. The small device measures movement of various accelerations and intensities. For a week, all the women were told to wear the straps throughout their day, except when exposed to water, such as while showering.

On average, the women wore the straps for nearly 14 hours out of the 15-hour daytime period (defined as 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). This allowed the team to assess total time spent engaged in daily light, moderate or vigorous physical activity.

Body composition assessments were conducted just before the accelerometer monitoring began and again 20 months later. In turn, after the 20-month re-assessment, the women were again asked to wear the accelerometers for another week of activity monitoring.

The result: Among the obese participants, physical activity was found to drop by 8 percent overall over the course of the 20-month study period. This was equivalent to a loss of 28 active minutes per week, the researchers said.


View the original article here