New 'Active' Video Games May Give Kids More Exercise

Youngsters in Australian study were a bit less sedentary

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, July 2 (HealthDay News) -- Newer-generation "active" video games give a slight boost to children's physical activity levels at home, according to a new study.

Most video games are passive and no better than watching television in terms of getting youngsters to move and burn energy. Children in developed nations spend 38 to 90 minutes a day playing video games.

But it wasn't known if active video games are any better. In this study published online July 1 in BMJ Open, Australian researchers looked at how removing passive games from the home or replacing them with active games affected the activity levels of 56 children, aged 10 to 12.

For eight weeks, all video games were removed from the home. This was followed by eight weeks of being allowed to play passive video games and then eight weeks of being allowed to play active video games.

Levels of physical activity didn't vary much during any of the three eight-week periods, according to a journal news release. Removal of video games was associated with a nearly four-minute increase of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day and a nearly five-minute decrease in sedentary time. During the period when the children were allowed to play active video games, their daily activity levels increased by about three minutes and sedentary time fell by just over six minutes.

The differences appear small and, by themselves, are unlikely to have any effect on children's health, according to the study authors Dr. Leon Straker at Curtin University, in Perth, Western Australia, and colleagues.

However, the researchers said these slight increases in activity are significant in light of the rapidly increasing levels of exposure children have to electronic gaming on computers, tablets and smartphones, as well as Internet surfing and social media.

"Therefore small changes across a variety of these platforms could result in a more substantial clinical impact," the study authors wrote.

"While our study focused on the home setting, school offers another opportunity for more active technologies such as sit-stand desks or active-input electronic media as part of lessons," they added.

The researchers also noted that replacing passive video games with active versions may be easier for families to maintain than a total ban on video games.

View the original article here

Pharmacist-Guided Home Blood Pressure Monitoring May Help Patients

Study found combination led to better control of hypertension

By Serena Gordon

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, July 2 (HealthDay News) -- Using home blood pressure monitoring and partnering with a pharmacist for lifestyle advice and medication changes led to better control of hypertension, a new study shows.

After six months of the intervention, nearly 72 percent of the study volunteers had their high blood pressure under control compared to 45 percent in the group that received usual care. Also, the effects of the intervention persisted even after the intervention ended. Six months later, about 72 percent of the intervention group had their high blood pressure under control compared to 57 percent in the usual care group.

"The reason that only about half of people with [high] blood pressure have it under control is that usual care isn't working. We combined two interventions that we thought would be very powerful together -- home monitoring and pharmacist managements -- and this is one system that we've shown works very well for blood pressure control," said senior investigator Dr. Karen Margolis, from the HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research in Minneapolis.

The findings appear in the July 3 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

High blood pressure affects about 30 percent of U.S. adults, according to background information in the study. Treating and controlling high blood pressure can help prevent cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks. However, only about half of the adults in the United States with high blood pressure have it under control.

Home blood pressure monitoring has shown some success in helping people lower their blood pressure, so the researchers took that a step further and used telemonitoring devices that could send blood pressure readings to a pharmacist who could then adjust that person's blood pressure medication accordingly.

The study included 450 people receiving care at one of eight different clinics. All of the people recruited for the study had high blood pressure that wasn't well controlled.

The patients were randomized to receive either usual care (222 people) or the study intervention, which included blood pressure telemonitoring with pharmacist management.

In the study intervention group, each person received a home blood pressure monitor capable of sending readings to a secure website that a pharmacist monitored. At the start of the study, patients met with the pharmacist for an hour and were taught how to use the machines. They were also given lifestyle advice on lowering their blood pressure.

People in the study intervention group were asked to send at least six blood pressure readings from different times of the day to the pharmacist each week. During the first six months of the study, patients and pharmacists talked by phone every two weeks, until blood pressure was under control for at least six weeks, and then they talked monthly. During months seven to 12 of the study, the calls were reduced to every two months. During the calls, pharmacists reviewed lifestyle changes and emphasized adherence to medications.

View the original article here

I Feel Like a freak on this website...

I'm 18 years old, 5'9.5" and around 108-115 lbs and have always been very skinny. About a year ago, due to stress/health issues I accidentally dropped a few pounds, and before I knew it anorexia took a hold of me. I managed to get back up to the weight I was before but my BMI is still so low---As background, my family runs "long and lean". My father is 6'2" and 130 lbs, my mother is my height and around 15-20 lbs more than me (she was much lighter when she was my age). I don't starve myself; quite the opposite, I find myself eating 2500+ calories a day with little exercise other than walking, yoga, and the occasional run/light weight session. 

Yet on this website, I often see girls much heavier than me eating astonishingly less to maintain. I get such mixed signals---people saying I need to gain weight and am "undereating" when their meal plans equate to sometimes less than half of mine. I have found it extremely difficult to gain past this point and with my period resumed and energy levels stable, I wonder what it really is my body wants? My doctors express no concern about my weight, and actually never diagnosed me as anorexic though my loved ones and I know from the symptoms I was. However, a recent blood test revealed I had mild anemia. Basically, what should I do? I read startling posts about how BMIs less than 18.5 are dangerous and life-threatening and wonder what I'm doing wrong? 

View the original article here

Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs Have Same Impact on Time Lost at Work: Study

Patients gained no more benefit from higher-priced biologic drug Remicade vs. cheaper medications

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 1 (HealthDay News) -- Treatment with a pricey biological drug was no better than cheaper, conventional therapy in terms of reducing time off from work for people with rheumatoid arthritis, a new study finds.

Swedish researchers assessed lost work days among rheumatoid arthritis patients who had not responded to initial treatment with a standard medication, methotrexate.

The group of 204 patients were randomly given either the biological drug infliximab (Remicade) or conventional combination therapy with the non-biologics sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine.

At the start of the study, the average amount of lost work time was 17 days per month for all patients. During the 21-month study, the patients receiving conventional therapy lost about six fewer days of work per month, compared with about five fewer days for those taking Remicade -- not a significant difference.

Regardless of the drugs used, early and aggressive treatment for patients who've failed to respond to methotrexate "not only stops the trend of increasing work loss days but partly reverses it," concluded researchers led by Jonas Eriksson of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

However, the team say they "did not find any difference" in terms of work absentee rates depending on which drugs the patients took, even though Remicade did seem to provide "significantly improved disease control."

Experts not connected to the study said the relative price tags of these drugs is another key factor to consider.

"Currently, there are nine biologics FDA-approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis," explained Dr. Steven Carsons, chief of the division of rheumatology, clinical immunology and allergy at Winthrop-University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y.

However, he said that biologics can cost between $15,000 to $20,000 per year, while the two non-biologics included in the Swedish study might cost only a tenth of that amount.

So, the new findings are "reassuring in terms of having effective, lower-cost alternatives with established safety profiles available for patients who do not have coverage for the more expensive biologics," Carsons said.

He added, however, that in the "real world" each patient responds differently to various rheumatoid arthritis medications, and many do fare much better on a biologic drug.

Another rheumatologist, Dr Diane Horowitz of North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., said the new study "brings into question the utility of choosing the more expensive [treatment] option" if ability to function well at work is a key consideration.

It's not clear, however, if the work-related benefits of a biologic would improve over a longer period of use. According to Horowitz, who is also a rheumatologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., "further reseach needs to be done" to answer that question.

The study was published July 1 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

View the original article here

is this enough?

Hi! I'm 16, 5 foot 3 and about 110 pounds but I feel like my weight may be slowly going up. I lost about 20 pounds last year due to celiac disease and had to gain back 10. While gaining i ate about 2,300 calories a day with little exercise. Now I'm trying to maintain around 110 by eating 2,000-2,100 calories a day. I was really busy a few days ago and only managed 1,600 could this be why the scale went up? Should I continue to eat the same amount or wait more to see if I gain more?!

View the original article here

I blew my dinner tonight and help with major stomach cramp from exercising.

Yesterday, we went to the YMCA, and I did 200 reps of lifting 5 lb weights, and 7 minutes of the elliptical machine.

This morning, I woke up with a major stomach cramp on my lower left side. We went to the Y again this afternoon, and I did 20 minutes of the elliptical machine.

I still have the cramp, which hurts like a dog when I breathe, and I was wondering how I should treat it and how I should exercise or rest it out a day.

And I've been trying to eat healthier, but tonight we went to Ruby Tuesday, where I had 8 oz of Coke, 4 hot wings, 5 tortilla chips, 3 tbsp of spinach dip, half of my petite sirloin steak, 1/4 of white cheddar mashed potatoes with butter, and all of my broccoli.

So I'm really pissed off at myself for doing what I did tonight. I should've got water and the kid's menu grilled chicken with broccoli.

So anyways, thanks for listening to/reading my whining, lol.

View the original article here