What a sad day. First, Mary Richardson Kennedy‘s heartbreaking suicide, and now, the AP has confirmed that disco royalty Donna Summer has died at age 63, following a long battle with breast cancer.

Summer, whose music has been a staple in dance clubs for decades, won five Grammys and was widely regarded as one of the most prominent hit-makers of the disco era. She also staged a successful comeback in the 1980s with the album She Works Hard For The Money.

Many news outlets are reporting that Summer “lost her battle” with breast cancer, but that makes it sound like it was a fair fight. Breast cancer is a horrible, pernicious disease that kills tens of thousands of women (and men) each year. It is the second most lethal form of cancer, and one in eight women will be diagnosed with it in her lifetime. And, despite being the most well-funded form of cancer, options for treatment are still imperfect, leaving women disfigured and ailing.

It is unfair to say that Donna Summer “lost” this battle–instead, let’s say that she fought and unbeatable opponent as bravely as any human could.

Rest in peace, Donna Summer.

Image via

Related posts:

• Mary Richardson Kennedy Commits Suicide, Highlighting Dangers Of Depression And Addiction
• Study: Doctors Suck At Giving Breast Cancer Patients Good Information
• Think Pink: Why Men Need To Get Comfortable Talking About Breasts
• Think Pink: In Which I Ask My Grandmother About Being A Breast Cancer Survivor

Post from: Blisstree

Photo: NYpost.com

Related posts:

• Mattresses Might Improve Your Sleep; They’ll Probably Ruin Your Sex Life
• Biking Hurts Our Vaginas–And Our Sex Life; Study Proves We’re Not Just Wimps.

Post from: Blisstree

Lana Kuykendall, a South Carolina mom who just delivered twins last week is in critical condition while battling flesh-eating bacteria. Apparently, the new mom was admitted just 12 hours after coming home from the hospital after a healthy delivery.

When she woke up the next morning she noticed an unusual spot on her leg that a friend described as “a bruise with a red outline.” Apparently that spot was about the size of her palm. Six hours later, after checking into a local hospital, it was the size of a sheet of paper. Doctors determined she had flesh-eating bacteria and have since performed four surgeries in six days where they had to remove tissue from her leg to keep the bacteria from spreading.

It’s certainly scary that one day we could be perfectly healthy, and the next day we could wake up with a life-threatening disease. And even though flesh-eating bacteria is not very common–only 750 cases a year–hearing about two cases in the past week is certainly unsettling.

Necrotizing fasciitis most commonly affects extremities, especially the legs, but it can affect any part of the body. It’s important to know the warning signs:

– Sudden, severe pain in the area of a cut or bruise.

– Fever, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and other flu-like symptoms.

– Redness, heat, swelling, or fluid-filled blisters in the skin over the affected area.

– Signs of shock (confusion, fainting, dizziness), which are often worse when you get up from sitting or lying down due to a drop in blood pressure.

– Scaling, peeling, or discolored skin over the affected area, which are signs of tissue death, or gangrene.

As always, if you notice any of these symptoms, contact your doctor immediately.

Photo: wistv.com

Related posts:

• Woman Loses Leg From Crazy Flesh-Eating Bacteria; Could This Happen To You?

Post from: Blisstree

Though Miley Cyrus seems pretty sold on the stuff, health advocates are always waffling about coffee–is it a miracle drug? Is it going to kill you? What does it all mean? But in a new (and giant) study published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, it seems that your morning cup of drip may help you reach retirement age and beyond. According to the study, it’s possible that drinking coffee helps you live longer. Or at least, the habits of being a coffee drinker might.

The study, which was observational (read: the researchers looked at the participants and asked them how much coffee they drank–that’s all) followed about 400,000 individuals between the ages of 50 to 71 for over a decade, and recorded how long they lived, and what their behaviors were like. And while coffee drinking didn’t seem to show much salient change in cancer fatalities, it did show a dramatic decrease in deaths from diabetes, heart disease, stroke, infections, and even injuries and accidents–some of the most common causes of death.

But there’s still plenty to look into. Researchers weren’t able to conclusively tie anything in coffee to the improved longevity–participants who reported drinking both caffeinated and decaf coffee were about evenly matched–so it could be that there’s something to the habitual drinking of coffee, or that there is some antioxidant or other healthy ingredient to coffee that could be acquired without slurping down a latte. And, says Neal Freedman with the U.S. National Cancer Institute in Rockville, the method of coffee preparation needs to also be examined. From HealthDay:

[A] lot of people like drip coffee, but others have espresso or French press. And the beans can be roasted to different amounts. And each of these choices affects the compound. And we don’t know whether this affects the association with disease as well.

Of course, if you’re looking to get a healthy, long-life boosting blast courtesy of a cup of java, remember that not all coffee is created equally. Instead of opting for high-calorie, sugar-and-cream laced crap (I’m lookin’ at you, Dunkin’ Donuts), opt for a robust Americano or cup of drip with some milk or a milk substitute. All the longevity-improving benefits in the world won’t help you if you’re downing more sugar than a serving of ice cream.

Image: Miley Cyrus’s TwitPic account

Related posts:

• Study Says Green Coffee Beans Promote ‘Substantial’ Weight Loss; Too Good To Be True?
• David Schomer Tells Us How To Make Awesome Coffee At Home
• Tim Hortons To Super-Size Canadian Coffee. Thank God For Universal Health Care, Eh?
• Stick With Plain Coffee; Starbucks Holiday Drinks Loaded With Fat And Calories

Post from: Blisstree

• Cooking thermometers are a necessary kitchen tool–here are some good ones (The Kitchn)

• One expert weighs in on how to help kids love their bodies. Awesome! (YourTango)

• Want to run faster? Of course you do. Try out one of these four tips (Fitbie)

• How to live by the “five second rule” and not, surprising, get sick (The Stir)

Post from: Blisstree

A new study says a 20% ‘fat tax‘—on ‘unhealthy foods’ and sugary drinks—would help curb obesity by substituting for the lack of self control that has clearly led to obesity (wink wink). Published in British Medical Journal, the study aggregated data from several countries measuring the effectiveness of food taxes, and found that they can have a positive impact on public health…if they’re significant enough to really make our wallets hurt. There’s so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just throw out the biggest issues that come to mind:

First, the phrasing: The concept of a “soda tax” isn’t inherently offensive, but calling it a “fat tax” makes it sound a lot like legislated discrimination. I’m all for correcting a food system that makes junk food artificially cheap, but framing it in terms of hitting fat people with financial penalties doesn’t address those problems—it just lends further credence to the myth that fat people are fat because they have an uncontrollable appetite for Twinkies and Coke.

But Twinkies and Coke are only half the problem; making them expensive might deter customers, but it won’t make vegetables cheap. It also won’t make it easier for people in food deserts to access fresh food, and it won’t teach people how to make healthy meals. And what’s really horrifying is that, for people who can literally barely afford to feed their families junk food from the 99-cent store, raising prices on even bad-for-you foods would mean that they basically don’t get to eat enough. So not only would they be malnourished; they’d literally be starving.

There are plenty of other logistical issues, like how we would define “unhealthy” foods, and how difficult it would be to implement. But what’s most frustrating to me about the whole idea of a ‘fat tax’ is that it completely overlooks the fact that those foods are cheap to begin with because of food subsidies.

If you’re not familiar with food subsidies, the basic concept is that the government gives money to certain agricultural industries in order to supplement their income, thereby influencing the cost and supply of certain commodities. In the U.S., the meat and dairy industries get huge boosts from the government, as do corn farmers—which is part of why things like Twinkies, Coke, and cheeseburgers are so damn cheap. Here’s a quick visual, courtesy of Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine:

Lead researcher Oliver Mytton said of the 30 or so international surveys they observed, most situations pointed to the success of taxes on unhealthy food:

Economists generally agree that government intervention, including taxation, is justified when the market fails to provide the optimum amount of a good for society’s well-being. [This] include[s] a failure to appreciate the true association between diet and disease, time inconsistency (preference for short-term gratification over long-term well-being), and not bearing the full health and social costs of consumption.

But, at least in the U.S., the market isn’t “failing’ to provide the optimum amount for society’s good; the government is failing to subsidize the optimum foods for our health. Layering taxes on top of already-dysfunctional production and pricing wouldn’t help make healthy food affordable or accessible; if we can make that happen (and, you know, frame the discussion around real health concerns instead of fat-shaming), I think we won’t even need to debate how to tax junk food.

Related posts:

• Obesity Costs U.S. $190 Billion Per Year—Let The ‘Fat Tax’ Battles Begin
• Soda Tax: Should We Pay the Price for Getting Fat?
• ‘Weight Of The Nation’ Isn’t The Fat-Shaming Debacle You Think It Is

Post from: Blisstree

New York sex therapist Sari Eckler explained it best to Barron’s:

There’s a lack of resistance for the knees and feet. And whoever is on the bottom is sinking into the bed.

Or, as an owner of one of these plush mattresses wrote on an Internet message board:

It’s like trying to do it in quicksand.

Ah, point taken.

The type of mattresses, in particular, that are the culprit for bad sex are memory-foam mattresses. And regardless of what happens–or doesn’t happen on them, they continue to be the fastest-growing segment of mattresses out there. In fact, their market share has gone from 14% to almost 20% in the past eight years.

Meaning, those of us in the market for a new mattress value sleep over sex. Or at least sex under the sheets. But who can blame us? Insomnia sucks, and roughly 60 million Americans suffer from it.

As Gayle Greene, author of Insomniac, explained to NPR, few people realize just how debilitating sleep deprivation can be:

Sleep is the fuel of life. It’s nourishing; it’s restorative. And when you are deprived of it, you are really deprived of a basic kind of sustenance.

She went on to explain that people who suffer from insomnia or any sleep disruptions will do whatever it takes to keep it away:

I don’t manage this beast. I live with it. I live around it. I bed down with it every night, gingerly, cautiously, careful not to provoke it. I do my best to placate it, domesticate it, dull its claws, avoid its fangs, knowing that at any moment it can pounce on me and tear me to bits.

And for many of us, that means choosing a plush mattress. Even if that means sex needs to take place elsewhere. Kitchen table, anyone?

Photo: shutterstock.com

Related posts:

• Insomnia Totally Sucks; 6 Foods To Help You Sleep Better
• Sleep To Get Slim: Obesity Genes Curbed By Nightly Rest, Study Says
• Biking Hurts Our Vaginas–And Our Sex Life; Study Proves We’re Not Just Wimps.

Post from: Blisstree

I get that Weight Watchers is all about helping people lose weight. Really, I do. But I don’t believe in scales. As a matter of fact, when I used to be a personal trainer (who worked with a lot of women trying to lose weight), I always advised them not to weigh themselves. Because, quite simply, weighing yourself is a recipe for disaster.

How many times have we stepped on a scale and actually liked what we saw? Not many. In my experience, getting on a scale is like being in grade school all over again–it’s yet another way of being judged and graded. This can lead to shaming, anxiety and self-loathing for many women whose self-worth is tied to a number. The truth is, our bodies are meant for so much more than that.

Instead of advising my clients to weigh themselves regularly like many weight-loss programs do, including Weight Watchers, I told them to throw out their scales. Get rid of them. Because from now on, we’re going to measure your health–not your weight. And we did that by training for a 5K run, a 10K walk, a triathlon and sometimes even a marathon.

I worked with my clients to focus on what their bodies can do–not how much they weigh. By getting in shape and training for a race or some type of physical accomplishment, the weight naturally took care of itself. People began eating better because they knew they had a long workout the next morning and didn’t want to bonk. They began making better choices at the grocery store because, all of a sudden, their food became a source of energy and fuel–not a source of feeding their emotions. And they began seeing their bodies differently. Instead of focusing on getting “skinny”, they focused on being thankful for a body that was allowing them to be so active and strong. It was a dramatic shift that ultimately led to dramatic weight loss–and self-esteem gain. In some instances, their blood pressure lowered, they came off certain medications and they slept better. In short, their bodies became more of their natural size, shape, ability and health, and they felt proud of themselves. And that forever changed my view of the scale.

I’m happy that everyone at Weight Watchers has a source of encouragement and support for their weight-loss goals. I just wish they weren’t so focused on weight–as ironic as that sounds.

One such member of Weight Watchers, Nancy, told me that she agrees about the weigh-ins being offensive:

I have been a Weight Watcher for more than 40 years and this issue is my pet peeve…there are some employees who still feel compelled to say the numbers out loud. I threatened to have one fired for doing so. I attend a meeting now where computers are not available. One person weighs you in and writes the number in your book. That would be OK, except that you have to THEN show your book to another person who takes your money. Those records are laying there on the counter in front of God and everybody, as I like to say. I avoid it like the plague. If it weren’t for the fact that I really like this particular Weight Watchers leader, I’d find another place to go.

She went on to say:

So, bottom line…they have the technology to do it privately and quietly, and that’s how it should be done. I stayed away for years because of the embarrassment of the public weigh-in. You know, for years, they kept your card in a card file on a counter and you had to pick yours out when you came in…and the WEIGHTS are listed right on the cards! I simply refused to have a card in that file…made them crazy every week.

But not everyone agrees.

Another Weight Watchers member, Leigh, wrote to me and said:

I feel that being weighed in holds me accountable for my behavior and progress. After all, people who have joined all have at least one goal in common—to lose weight. The weigh-ins are not done in front of everyone. They are private and the person recording the weight does not (or at least should not) say anything in terms of loss or gain. They do, however, offer a lot of encouragement.

And another member, Amy, added:

I have been doing Weight Watchers via the At Work program (meetings held at our office) and it’s been wonderful. I’ve lost 62 pounds so far and still going for a few more. The weigh-ins are what makes it successful for me. Knowing I have to face our leader each week, no making excuses – it’s holds me accountable for my food choices I make each day and for my successes or blips. The weighing in process is private, more so at the official Weight Watchers centers, and I personally don’t feel any humiliation at all.

Catharine, a former member and receptionist at Weight Watchers (who left due to a disagreement with them pushing so much artificial, processed food) said the program is all about weight and the weigh-ins are what motivate people:

When it comes to success with Weight Watchers, there are lots of ways to measure the progress toward goals, including multiple “non-scale victories”: feeling better in clothes, having more energy, enjoying social events. Having said that, those NSVs tend to be subjective. Weight is objective. When someone steps on the same scale at the same time every week, it’s a direct measurement of pounds gained or lost. That gives members manageable measurements and can also give leaders and receptionists feedback on how the program is or isn’t working for that individual.

She went on to say that there is “room for improvement” when it comes to the way that Weight Watchers stresses weight over health, the bottom line is that people come there to lose weight:

The overall goal of Weight Watchers is weight loss, like it or not. Additional benefits like better health and self-image are crucial, but people don’t join WW for those.

Nevertheless, I stand by my belief that no one should focus their weight-loss efforts on a scale, including Weight Watchers.

Oh, and that Weight Watchers meeting that I spoke at? When I was introduced, the leader gave everyone my credentials and then said, “Now wouldn’t we all like to look like her?” Yes, I’m naturally thin and a very active athlete, but really? Telling everyone that they should strive to look like someone else? Geez. How about striving to look like your best self? Without weighing yourself to get there.

Photo: losingphatty.blogspot.com

Related posts:

• ‘Weight Of The Nation’ Isn’t The Fat-Shaming Debacle You Think It Is
• It’s Official: Jessica Simpson and Weight Watchers To Make New Moms Feel Fat
• Jessica Simpson’s Weight Watchers Talks Prove America’s Bipolar Approach To Pregnancy
• Want Better Self-Esteem? Don’t Lose Weight.

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree