Posts
All Comments
The way I'm built, my thighs will always rub together. That being said, I've always had the slight annoyance of the creeping shorts...
Three days ago that changed! I bought a pair of running tights and it has been the best investment EVER! No more chafage, no more jiggly thighs, just smooth sailing!
Just hit my personal record on a 5K by 4 minutes! Must be the tights...
Just thought I would share. Have a Good Evening Everyone!
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, July 2 (HealthDay News) -- Two HIV-positive patients show no trace of virus after receiving chemotherapy and stem-cell transplants as treatment for lymphoma, according to new research.
These patients have become the second and third known cases of a "sterilizing cure," in which medical treatment removes all traces of HIV -- the virus that causes AIDS -- from the body. They have remained virus-free even though doctors months ago took them off their HIV-targeted medications.
"We have been unable to detect virus in either the blood cells or the plasma of these patients," said lead researcher Dr. Timothy Henrich, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "We also biopsied gut tissue from one of our patients, and we were unable to detect HIV in the cells of the gut. Essentially, we do not have any evidence of viral rebound."
The findings are scheduled for presentation Wednesday at the International AIDS Society Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The patients had been receiving long-term antiretroviral therapy for HIV when they developed lymphoma, a type of blood cancer involving white blood cells, Henrich said.
Both underwent chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplants to cure their lymphoma. Afterward, Henrich could not detect any HIV infection in their bodies.
Henrich presented preliminary findings on the research at the International AIDS Conference last July. Since then, he and his research team withdrew the patients' antiretroviral therapy to see how completely the cancer treatment had rid them of HIV. One patient has been off treatment with no detectable virus for about 15 weeks, and the second patient for seven weeks.
Henrich warned that it is too soon to declare the patients completely cured of HIV. "Although we cannot detect HIV, it's possible it's there but in extremely low amounts," he said. "We're going to watch and wait, and see where it goes with these patients."
Unfortunately, this type of cure is not something that can be put into widespread practice for all people infected with HIV. "Transplantation is not a scalable, affordable or even safe treatment for HIV patients," Henrich said.
The so-called "Berlin patient," Timothy Brown, is the first documented case of a sterilizing cure for HIV. An American man living in Germany who received a bone marrow transplant for leukemia, Brown has remained HIV-free even after discontinuing his antiretroviral drug therapy. The transplanted bone marrow cells came from a donor who had a rare genetic mutation that increases immunity against the most common form of HIV, and researchers believe that helped protect Brown from re-infection.
In Mississippi, a baby born with HIV nearly three years ago is the first case of a "functional cure," in which early treatment eradicates the virus. Immediate treatment with antiretroviral medications rid the child of all traces of HIV within the first month of life, and she has remained virus-free even after discontinuing drug therapy at 18 months of age.
By Karen Pallarito
HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, July 3 (HealthDay News) -- In a surprise announcement, the Obama administration said Tuesday evening that it was delaying implementation of a key part of its landmark health-reform law -- the requirement that employers with more than 50 workers offer insurance coverage by Jan. 1, 2014 or face fines.
The new deadline for providing such coverage is now Jan. 1, 2015, administration officials announced on blog postings.
Administration officials said the delay was prompted by concerns from business leaders that the reporting system needed to carry out the coverage mandate was complex and made it difficult to meet the Jan. 1, 2014 deadline.
"We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so," Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department, wrote in a blog posting.
Business groups had complained that the employee coverage provision was too complicated and welcomed the delay in its implementation.
There was no advance indication of the Obama administration's decision, which came as a "pleasant surprise," Randy Johnson, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the Associated Press.
Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, said, "We commend the administration's wise move. It will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment."
Under the provision, companies with 50 or more workers must provide affordable coverage to all full-time employees or face the risk of escalating tax penalties. The requirement was expected to have the largest impact on major chain hotels, restaurants and retail stores, the AP said.
Some companies with payrolls near the 50-worker cutoff point said they would consider eliminating jobs or switching some full-time workers to part-time status to avoid having to offer insurance coverage, The New York Times reported.
Several observers speculated that the delay could threaten the ultimate goal of the 2010 Affordable Care Act -- to offer insurance coverage to an estimated 30 million Americans who currently don't have it.
"I am utterly astounded," Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University and a supporter of the law, told the Times. "It boggles the mind. This step could significantly reduce the number of uninsured people who will gain coverage in 2014."
The hospital industry deemed the announcement "troubling" for people who will not get job-based coverage next year. "The goal of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] was to extend coverage to the uninsured, which required a shared responsibility from all stakeholders," Rich Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, said in a statement. "We are concerned that the delay further erodes the coverage that was envisioned as part of the ACA," he said.
I could really use some excercises to help strengthen my legs without over doing it,my legs tend to spasm on me when i just walk,im on medication,my legs were alot worse to the point that i could barely feel my toes..walking is getting alot better with me getting up more and walking,but i have bad knees as well and my left knee tends to give out at times making it hard to do anything,it gets really frustrating ! I was a very athletic little girl,chunky but very athletic,i loved playing football,baseball,soccer,and so on and now i just want to ride a bike again,i miss riding it was my favorite thing to do growing up,i had very strong legs,and im asking to please help me get them back....!!
My husband has congestive heart failure. The doctor says it is caused by his age, and that there is no treatment. I read about a new discovery that age-related heart failure can be reversed in mice. Could that help my husband?
There are different kinds of congestive heart failure, and there are effective treatments for many. Your husband may have a common kind called age-related diastolic dysfunction. There is no specific treatment that prevents or reverses this condition. But you are right that a remarkable treatment was recently reported for a similar condition in mice.
Congestive heart failure occurs when the heart cannot pump efficiently enough to meet the body’s need for blood. In a young, healthy heart, when blood enters the main pumping chambers (the ventricles), their walls stretch and the chambers expand to receive all the blood.
In age-related diastolic dysfunction, the heart muscle becomes thicker and stiffer. As a result, when blood enters the heart, the heart muscle can’t stretch enough to accept all the blood. The blood backs up into the lungs, causing breathing difficulty. Blood also backs up into the rest of the body, causing fatigue and swelling — particularly of the legs and feet.
We don’t know what causes age-related heart failure in humans, and because of that, we don’t know how to prevent or reverse it. A similar condition occurs in mice, and we may now have figured out how to treat it.
A group of my colleagues at Harvard Medical School conducted the research in mice that you read about. They were led by Dr. Richard Lee, co-editor-in-chief of the Harvard Heart Letter, and professor Amy Wagers.
Dr. Lee and Dr. Wager’s team joined the blood circulation of an old mouse to that of a young mouse. Suddenly, the arteries and veins of the two animals shared the same blood. After four weeks of a shared circulation, the thickened, stiff heart muscle of the old mouse became dramatically less thick and stiff. The experiment was repeated on many pairs of old and young mice, with the same results.
This indicated that some substance was present in the blood of the young mice that rejuvenated the heart muscle of the old mice. Most likely, that substance had been in the blood of the old mice when they were younger, but the substance had decreased as the mice aged.
The team then identified a substance, called GDF11, which was present at high levels in the blood of young mice but not old mice. They treated old mice with enough GDF11 to raise their blood levels of GDF11 to the same levels as it was present in young mice. Again, the thickened, stiff heart muscle of the old mice became thinner and more flexible.
This discovery in mice may one day lead to effective treatments to prevent or reverse this common type of heart failure in humans. Although it will take many more years of research to determine if this discovery will help us, recent advances in aging research gives me hope that it will.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: "199616670120169", status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true});}; (function() { var e = document.createElement("script"); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js"; document.getElementById("fb-root").appendChild(e);}());
Do-it-yourselfers, take heart. Here’s something else to do at home that can have a substantial benefit on your health: measure your blood pressure. It’s easy, inexpensive, and helps control blood pressure better than visits to the doctor.
The latest evidence for the benefits of home blood pressure monitoring comes from researchers in Minnesota. They studied 450 people with hypertension, more commonly known as high blood pressure. All had blood pressures higher than deemed healthy—above 140/90, or above 130/80mmHg if they had diabetes or kidney disease.
About half of the volunteers were given home blood pressure monitors capable of electronically sending readings to a secure website. After being shown how to use their monitors, the volunteers were asked to send six readings each week. That information was assessed by pharmacists, who could adjust medications if needed and offer advice on lifestyle changes that could improve blood pressure. The other volunteers received usual care from their primary care providers.
At every step of the way, people in the home monitoring group had more success getting their blood pressure under control than people who had received only usual care. At the end of the trial, 72% of those doing home monitoring had their blood pressure under control, compared to 57% of the usual care group. The benefits persisted six months after the program had ended.
The results, published today in JAMA, are similar to the findings of previous studies on home blood pressure monitoring. But, according to the researchers, this is the first time people with both uncontrolled blood pressure and other conditions (such as diabetes) have been studied in such a program, and the first time results were measured after the formal monitoring program had ended.
“More frequent blood pressure monitoring allows more opportunities to detect blood pressure that is higher than the desired range. That may trigger more intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure,” says cardiologist Dr. Deepak Bhatt, a professor at Harvard Medical School. In other words, if you stay on top of it, you’ll do a better job of treating it.
An editorial accompanying the report said that the study “demonstrates how to improve blood pressure control by making hypertension management more like modern banking: accessible, easy, and convenient.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 1 in 3 adults in the United States has high blood pressure, and half of them don’t have it under control. High blood pressure increases the risk for heart disease and stroke, the leading causes of death in the United States.
Even though the American Heart Association and other organizations have called for greater use of home blood pressure monitoring, it isn’t yet widespread. One reason is that insurance coverage for such programs still lags. Another is that full-fledged efforts like the one in Minnesota could cost $1,350 per person.
But you don’t need a special program. You can buy a good home blood pressure monitor at a pharmacy or online merchant for anywhere from $50 to $100. (Ask if your insurance company will cover the cost.) A few things to look for:
an automatic monitor that doesn’t require a stethoscope (it’s easier to use)a monitor that takes the blood pressure reading using a cuff that fits around the upper arm;a read-out large enough for you to see the numbers;a seal from an organization such as the British Hypertension Society, International Protocol for the Validation of Automated BP Measuring Devices, or Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI).Ask your doctor, nurse, or pharmacist for help calibrating your monitor and learning how to use it.
How often should you check? At first, take your blood pressure twice a day for a week. The best times are early in the morning (before you have taken any blood pressure medications) and again in the evening. After you’ve done this for a week, once or twice a month—or whatever your doctor recommends—is fine.
“It can be a very effective way to see if blood pressure medications are doing the trick. It can also be useful to monitor for the side effect of blood pressure that is too low. Just remember that home monitoring should not be used as a substitute for regular physician check-ups, especially for patients with poorly controlled blood pressure,” says Dr. Bhatt.
Check out the video below to see the right, and wrong, ways to check blood pressure at home. And you can see more tips here.
