Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Keep Eyes Looking Full With An Eyelash Extension Gold Coast Product

April 3, 2012 by admin

The nice part about using an eyelash extension Gold Coast product is they can last for weeks and weeks. Some people can get them to last several months, as long as the lashes are properly taken care of and everything is maintained. The other nice thing about using a product like this is there is no need for using mascara or worrying about messy glue.

Lash extensions Gold Coast products dont need a lot of maintenance, other than adding in periodic refills. The other thing that is nice about using these extensions is that they are waterproof. This means you can go swimming, take a shower, or be under running water, and you wont have to worry about any lashes falling out. This means you can start the day and end the day with lush, thick eyelashes.

If the eyelash extension Gold Coast product works so great, why do you need to include refills? The reason for fills at any point is because we lose eyelashes just like we do scalp hair. The old lashes fall out to make room for the new ones coming in. Since the extensions are attached with a special long-lasting bonding glue, the extensions fall out with the real lashes. With proper care and maintenance, you can add in fills and keep your lashes looking thick and full.

If you are deciding to try false eyelashes Gold Coast products, make sure you plan for enough time to apply them. The initial time for application should be around two hours. The reason it takes so long is because the eyelash professional will meticulously apply between 60 and 120 individual extensions to each of your own lashes. When you add fill lashes, this procedure only takes around 45 minutes. This means you can make changes over your lunch break to make sure the lashes always look thick and full.

Hair Loss

View the Original article

Caloric moderation can reverse link between low birth weight and obesity, early study indicates

ScienceDaily (Apr. 2, 2012) — Babies who are born small have a tendency to put on weight during childhood and adolescence if allowed free access to calories. However, a new animal model study at UCLA found when small babies were placed on a diet of moderately regulated calories during infancy, the propensity of becoming obese decreased.

See Also:Health & MedicineDiet and Weight LossObesityInfant's HealthFitnessPregnancy and ChildbirthDiseases and ConditionsReferenceBirth weightNutrition and pregnancyPremature birthInfant

Because this is an early study, UCLA researchers do not recommend that mothers of low-birth weight infants start restricting their child's nutrition and suggest they consult with their child's pediatrician regarding any feeding questions.

Previous studies have shown that growth restriction before birth may cause lasting changes of genes in certain insulin-sensitive organs like the pancreas, liver and skeletal muscle. Before birth, these changes may help the malnourished fetus use all available nutrients. However, after birth these changes may contribute to health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

"This study shows that if we match the level of caloric consumption after birth to the same level that the growth-restricted baby received in the womb, it results in a lean body type. However, if there is a mismatch where the baby is growth-restricted at birth but exposed to plenty of calories after birth, then that leads to obesity," said the lead author, Dr. Sherin Devaskar, professor of pediatrics and executive chair of the department of pediatrics at Mattel Children's Hospital UCLA. "While many trials that include exercise and various drug therapies have tried to reverse the tendency of low birth weight babies becoming obese, we have shown that a dietary intervention during early life can have long lasting effects into childhood, adolescence and adult life."

The study appears in the June issue of the journal Diabetes and is currently available online.

About 10 percent of babies in the United States are born small, defined as less than the 10th percentile by weight for a given gestation period, said the study's first author, Dr. Meena Garg, professor of pediatrics and a neonatologist and medical director of the neonatal intensive care unit at Mattel Children's Hospital UCLA. She added that some organizations define low birth weight as less than 2,500 grams or 5 pounds, 5 ounces at term.

Low birth weight can be caused by malnutrition due to a mother's homelessness or hunger or her desire not to gain too much weight during pregnancy. Additional causes include illness or infection, a reduction in placental blood, smoking or use of alcohol or drugs during pregnancy.

To conduct the study, researchers used rodent animal models and simulated a reduced calorie scenario during pregnancy. The results showed that low-birth weight offspring exposed to moderately tempered caloric intake during infancy and childhood resulted in lean and physically active adults related to high energy expenditure, as opposed to unrestricted intake of calories, which resulted in inactive and obese adults due to reduced energy expenditure. The authors concluded that early life dietary interventions have far reaching effects on the adult state.

Future studies will follow this study over the stages of aging to see if early regulation of calorie intake reverses diabetes and obesity while aging.

"This is an early pre-clinical trial that first needs to be tested in clinical trials before any form of guidelines can be developed," Devaskar said. "More importantly, we must make sure that control of caloric intake during infancy and childhood does not have any unintended side effects before taking on clinical trials. More research is required to ensure that these metabolic advantages will persist later in life."

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

In addition to Devaskar and Garg, the study was conducted by a team of UCLA researchers including Manikkavasagar Thamotharan, Yun Dai, Shanthie Thamotharan, Bo Chul Shin and David Stout.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:



View the Original article

Seeing double: 1 in 30 babies born in US is a twin

ScienceDaily (Apr. 2, 2012) — Women having children at older ages and the growing availability of fertility treatments has led to a marked increase in the birth of twins: In 2009, one in every 30 babies born in the United States was a twin compared with one in every 53 in 1980.

See Also:Health & MedicineFertilityPregnancy and ChildbirthInfant's HealthGynecologyDiseases and ConditionsWomen's HealthLiving WellReferenceMultiple birthTwinFertilityBreech birth

The findings, presented by Michigan State University's Barbara Luke this week at the 14th Congress of the International Society of Twin Studies in Florence, Italy, have important health implications, including greater morbidity and mortality risks and higher health care costs.

"Prior to 1980, the incidence of U.S. twin births was stable at about 2 percent of all births, but it has risen dramatically in the past three decades," said Luke, noting twin births increased for women of all ages, with the largest increases among women aged 30 and older. "Older maternal age accounts for about one-third of the rise, and two-thirds is due to the increased use of fertility treatments."

Those fertility-enhancing therapies include both assisted reproductive technologies and ovulation stimulation medications. About 12 percent of U.S. women have had fertility therapies.

"With multiple births though there are greater health risks," said Luke a researcher in the College of Human Medicine's Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. "Continued research is necessary to improve outcomes."

Luke, who first reported the numbers in a report with Joyce Martin of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted births for triplets and higher numbers also grew: one in every 651 babies in 2009 compared with one in 2,702 in 1980.

In other research presented at the conference, Luke reported early embryo loss is associated with the significantly increased likelihood of lowered birth weight for the surviving fetuses.

Previous findings have shown mothers using fertility treatments experience more adverse health outcomes than spontaneous-conception pregnancies. Luke and her team hypothesized the residual effects of fetal loss may impact the subsequent growth and birth weight of the surviving fetuses.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:



View the Original article

Personal Gene Mapping Has Limits, Study Says

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- Many people have pinned their hopes on human genome scans as the cornerstone of the rapidly emerging field of personalized medicine, able to predict the future health of individuals.

But there may be limits to what information whole genome sequencing can provide, according to new research slated for presentation Monday at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting in Chicago. The study will be simultaneously published online in Science Translational Medicine.

"In most cases, genome sequencing is not going to tell people what disease they're going to get or die from. It can be valuable in telling what diseases they have an excess risk for," said study co-author Dr. Bert Vogelstein, director of the Ludwig Center for Cancer Genetics and Therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

"Genome sequencing is not going to be the dominant component of patient care," he added. "It will not be a substitute for preventive medicine strategies incorporating routine check-ups, exercise, physical status, lifestyle."

The costs of whole genome sequencing are plummeting, making the test more accessible to more people, yet the ability of the test to provide useful information to patients has not been studied quantitatively, Vogelstein said.

The authors used data on identical twins in registries in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway, as well as a U.S. registry of World War II military veteran twins, to look at genetic risk for 24 common diseases including diabetes, Alzheimer's and breast cancer.

The researchers calculated that genetic sequencing would reveal a predisposition to at least one disease in 90 percent of the twins studied.

But that's only predisposition, not whether you actually fall ill or not. The actual risk of getting one of these conditions would be no different from that of the general population, the authors noted.

The analysis also concluded that most individuals would receive negative test results for 23 of the 24 diseases but, again, this hypothetical information would not necessarily predict the future. Even with a negative test result, the risk for developing most of the diseases for which one tested negative would still be 50 percent to 80 percent of that in the general population.

To put the results in context: 2 percent of women who undergo whole genome tests will likely get a positive result for ovarian cancer risk, explained Vogelstein, who is also an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, in Chevy Chase, Md.

That puts their overall risk of developing a tumor in their lifetime at 10 percent.

And the 98 percent of women who get a negative result don't necessarily get a "get-out-of-jail-free pass" as they still harbor the same risk as the general population, Vogelstein said.

If it comes down to a choice between spending money on a genome test and spending it on health measures such as regular check-ups and joining a gym, it might be wise to go with the latter, he said.

"If I spend it on a gym membership, that will definitely decrease my risk for ovarian cancer," Vogelstein said.

On the other hand, a genetic test might seem prudent for someone with a family history of a specific disease.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Marc Williams, vice president of clinical genetics for the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics in Salt Lake City, said: "There's certainly some promise in this type of testing but we're still trying to sort out what are the best situations in which to apply this type of whole genome technology."

Williams pointed out that "if we broadly apply it without thinking about the clinical context -- why we are doing the test, what we hope to learn -- then we could get into a lot of trouble in terms of coming up with a lot of information we don't know what to do with."

In the end, though, said study author Vogelstein, it comes down to an individual decision.

More information

The Human Genome Project has more on genetic sequencing.



View the Original article

Study Supports CPR Chest Compressions for Cardiac Arrest

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- People in cardiac arrest who can't be helped by a defibrillator are more apt to survive if they receive CPR in accordance with updated guidelines that stress chest compressions, a new study finds.

Researchers reporting in April 2 in Circulation said their findings are significant, since nearly 75 percent of cardiac arrests are "non-shockable," meaning they will not respond to a defibrillator.

"By any measure -- such as the return of pulse and circulation or improved brain recovery -- we found that implementing the new guidelines in these patients resulted in better outcomes from cardiac arrest," the study's lead author, Dr. Peter J. Kudenchuk, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in a journal news release.

Although there have been few life-saving options for patients who suffer non-shockable cardiac arrest, the study's authors said changes the American Heart Association (AHA) made to its CPR guidelines in 2005 have improved patients' chances of survival. The AHA's changes shifted the focus to more chest compressions with fewer interruptions.

In conducting the study, Kudenchuk and colleagues researchers identified almost 4,000 people who experienced non-shockable cardiac arrest from 2000 to 2010. The patients were divided into two groups: those who had their arrest before the CPR guidelines were changed and those who had their non-shockable arrest after the changes took effect.

After comparing the survival rates of these two groups, the study revealed the patients' likelihood of survival rose from 4.6 percent to 6.8 percent once the new guidelines were in place. The researchers also found the proportion of patients who survived with good brain function increased from 3.4 percent to 5.1 percent and the patients' one-year survival almost doubled, from 2.7 percent to 4.9 percent.

"Now, for the first time, we have seen a treatment that improves survival specifically in these patients," said Kudenchuk. "And that treatment is simply providing the more intense, quality CPR recommended in the new guidelines. You could save 2,500 more lives each year in North America alone by implementing these changes."

Although more research is needed to confirm their findings, the study's authors argued that survival rates among those who suffer non-shockable cardiac arrest can be improved if the AHA's updated CPR guidelines are properly followed.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health provides more information on CPR.



View the Original article

New Drug Might Reduce an Alzheimer's Marker: Study

'modId':'mediatabs_nmid_1_conv_prom','isPreLoad':0,'enableMediaTabEvent':0,'pageSize':12,'numFriends':null,'notificationCount':0,'property':'News','learnMorePath':'/activity-learn-more/','friendbarNotification':'0','moduleConf':YAHOO.Media.Facebook.ModuleConf,'friendIdList':

View the Original article

Pets at Work Keep Workers Happy

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- Allowing employees to bring their dogs to work appears to reduce stress and boost job satisfaction levels, according to a new study.

The research was conducted at a service-manufacturing-retail company in Greensboro, N.C., which has about 550 employees and allows up to 30 pet dogs on company premises each day.

Over the course of a week, Virginia Commonwealth University researchers compared stress levels and job satisfaction among those employees who brought their dogs to work, those who didn't bring their dogs to work, and employees without pets.

The study found that dogs in the workplace seemed to help reduce job-related stress for their owners and make work more satisfying for other employees who came into contact with the dogs.

"Although preliminary, this study provides the first quantitative study of the effects of employees' pet dogs in the workplace setting on employee stress, job satisfaction, support and commitment," principal investigator Randolph Barker, a professor of management in the VCU School of Business, said in a university news release.

"Dogs in the workplace can make a positive difference," he added. "The differences in perceived stress between days the dog was present and absent were significant. The employees as a whole had higher job satisfaction than industry norms."

The findings were published in the March issue of the International Journal of Workplace Health Management.

Stress is a major cause of absenteeism, poor morale and burnout and can lead to significant declines in productivity and resources, the researchers noted.

"Pet presence may serve as a low-cost, wellness intervention readily available to many organizations and may enhance organizational satisfaction and perceptions of support," Barker said. "Of course, it is important to have policies in place to ensure only friendly, clean and well-behaved pets are present in the workplace."

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health has more about stress.



View the Original article

Drug, Alcohol Abuse Common Among U.S. Teens, Study Finds

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- Alcohol and drug use is common among American teens and more than 15 percent of them meet the criteria for substance abuse, a new study finds.

"Once again, we are reminded that in most instances experimentation with alcohol and drugs begins during adolescence," said Bruce Goldman, director of Substance Abuse Services at The Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y.

"Unfortunately, many youth are at risk of developing abuse and dependency problems due to factors including genetic predisposition, environmental availability, school difficulties, social/family problems and co-occurring psychiatric or behavioral disorders," added Goldman, who was not involved in the new study.

In the study, Joel Swendsen, of the University of Bordeaux in France, and colleagues analyzed data from a U.S. survey of more than 10,000 teens between the ages of 13 and 18. They found that more than 78 percent of the oldest teens had consumed alcohol, about 47 percent consumed at least 12 drinks a year, and about 15 percent met the criteria for alcohol abuse.

The study also found that 81.4 percent of the oldest teens reported the opportunity to use illicit drugs, 42.5 percent used drugs, and 16.4 percent were drug abusers.

The median age when teens started substance use was 14 for regular alcohol use or abuse with or without dependence, 14 for drug abuse with dependence, and 15 for drug abuse without dependence.

"Because the early onset of substance use is a significant predictor of substance use behavior and disorders in a lifespan, the public health implications of the current findings are far-reaching," the team wrote in the April issue of the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

More must be done to make sure youth don't start out early on the road to substance abuse, Goldman said.

"It is imperative that families, schools, police, youth groups, and communities all join together to prevent or delay the onset of substance use as long as possible," he said. "Social norms have a very powerful impact on drug-use patterns. We need to create norms where substance use and availability, especially for young people, is not acceptable."

That means giving young people the resources to fight back, Goldman added. "Effective early intervention needs to be universally available to youth that are found to be using substance," he said.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism offers advice on parenting to prevent childhood alcohol use.



View the Original article

Why Stress Might Make You Sick

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- A new study involving the common cold may help explain why stress, which dampens the immune system, seems to trigger inflammation in many people.

That would appear contradictory, because the immune system creates inflammation (for example, the redness around a wound) to help the body heal. But the research suggests that high and long-term levels of stress contribute to inflammation.

In turn, the inflammation can lead to conditions such as heart disease, asthma and autoimmune disorders, in which the immune system turns against the body.

The research "suggests the kind of diseases that are going to be affected by stress," said study lead author Sheldon Cohen, professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "They're diseases in which inflammation is a key aspect."

Over the past five to six decades, researchers have linked stress to disease, Cohen said. "There's not much question that stressed people are at greater risk for developing some of these diseases or having them become more severe. A little bit less clear is exactly how that happens. How does stress get under the skin to affect disease outcomes?"

One possibility is that stressed people are simply unhealthier -- smoking and drinking more and sleeping less. In that area, the challenge is figuring out which came first, stress or unhealthy decisions.

The other possibility is that the body's hormones that respond to stress play a role.

In the new study, investigators performed two experiments, involving more than 300 people, to gain more insight. The researchers asked the participants about the stresses in their lives and then exposed them to cold viruses to see if they got sick.

After adjusting the statistics for various factors, the researchers found that people whose bodies had higher levels of ongoing psychological stress -- such as that caused by divorce -- were less able to dampen inflammation. This seemed to have something to do with their immune cells being less sensitive to a hormone that turns off inflammation.

The people with more stress were also at higher risk of developing a cold, according to the report published online April 2 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Andrew Miller, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University School of Medicine who studies how stress affects the immune system, said the research "provides a very concrete example of how chronic stress and its effects on the immune system can affect our daily lives in a very real-world context."

However, this is just part of a wider picture of how stress affects the body, Miller cautioned.

"In ancestral times, a stressful environment would have a high likelihood of involving some form of fighting and being wounded and thereby infected," he said. "Inflammation is a process in the body that is essential to fighting infections and healing wounds. Therefore, the induction of inflammation by stress is a way for the body to prepare itself for battle in an environment that represents danger of attack."

While the study uncovered an association between chronic psychological stress and inflammation, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

More information

For more about stress, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.



View the Original article

Monday, April 2, 2012

Many Preschoolers Not Getting Enough Outdoor Play

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- Roughly half of America's preschool-aged children are not getting a daily dose of parentally supervised outdoor playtime, a new study reveals.

Analyzing data on nearly 9,000 children previously collected in a long-term U.S. study, researchers found that much of the country's youth, especially young girls, aren't engaging in routine outdoor physical activities.

"One of the main points is that even though many of us may assume that young children spend some time outdoors every day, there's considerable room for improvement in how often parents take their children outside to play," said study lead author Dr. Pooja Tandon, a pediatrician and researcher with the Seattle Children's Research Institute.

"This study highlights something we already know from other studies, which is that girls in particular seem to have fewer opportunities for outdoor play than boys. We have to try to support girls in the same way we encourage boys to be active and to play outdoors," added Tandon, who is also an acting assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

The findings appear online April 2 in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

The study authors said the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests doctors take a proactive role in encouraging routine physical activity among kids, particularly outdoor activity, which can be critical to helping children develop motor skills, as well as promoting vision and mental acuity.

The research team looked at statistics on the outdoor-activity routines of 8,950 children born in 2001 who were tracked through enrollment in kindergarten. The data were deemed to be nationally representative, reflecting the behavior of an estimated 4 million kids.

Each child's mother was interviewed regarding the frequency and nature of her child's outdoor play experience at the ages of 9 months, 2 years and 4 years, (or a year before kindergarten) and then again once enrolled in kindergarten.

Only 51 percent of the kids were found to be following a daily routine of parent-supervised outdoor play. That figure, however, rose slightly -- to 58 percent -- among children who were not enrolled in some form of child care.

Boys were more likely than girls to get daily outdoor exercise, and children whose parents were more likely to exercise also were more likely to get out on a daily basis.

What's more, race seemed to play a role, with children from white families getting substantially more outdoor play than those with Asian, black or Hispanic mothers. Specifically, Asian mothers were 49 percent less likely to take their children outdoors for play, black mothers were 41 percent less likely and Hispanic mothers were 20 percent less likely.

Mothers were more likely than fathers to be the supervising parent during outdoor play -- 44 percent of mothers said they took their child out for daily play, while only 24 percent of fathers did so.

TV-watching habits of children did not affect the findings. Nor did mothers' marital status, perceived neighborhood safety or family income levels.

"I want to encourage parents to talk to all their child's caregivers, and to ask about their outdoor playtime experience in the same way they would normally ask about how much their child ate that day and what they learned," Tandon said.

Rahil Briggs, a child psychologist with Children's Hospital at Montefiore, in New York City, agreed that "there's a very real need for growing children to have outdoor play."

"Unfortunately, I'm not too surprised with these findings, because of what we already know about the obesity epidemic in this country and all the sedentary activities our children are partaking in with the use of video games, TV, the iPad and all of that," she said.

"Parents need to change their thinking about outdoor play as a luxury that they can get in for their kids on a Saturday, to something along the lines of a necessity," Briggs said. "We need to know that it has an important impact on our children's physical health and also on their behavioral development and concerns."

More information

For more on children and exercise, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



View the Original article

Routine Mammography May Lead to Overdiagnosis: Study

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- As many as one-quarter of breast cancers identified through routine mammography are "overdiagnosed," according to a new study that could reignite the debate about screening guidelines.

Overdiagnosis refers to cancers that are too small to be detected by means other than a mammogram and would not become lethal in a woman's lifetime.

"Overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment of nonfatal cancer creates a substantial ethical and clinical dilemma and may cast doubt on whether mammography screening programs should exist," said lead author Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at the Telemark Hospital in Norway and a visiting scientist at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "This dilemma can be reduced only when potentially fatal cancer that requires early detection and treatment can be reliably identified."

Until then, Kalager said, "women eligible for screening need to be comprehensively informed about the risk for overdiagnosis."

But other experts familiar with the study, which is published in the April 3 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, said no one can accurately determine which tumors will and will not progress.

When and how often a woman should have mammography -- an X-ray of the breast -- was widely debated after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new recommendations in 2009. The task force suggests that women aged 50 to 74 at average risk have a mammogram every two years. It recommends that women 40 to 49 at average risk discuss the pros and cons of screening with their doctors and decide on an individual basis when and if to start in their 40s.

Other organizations, including the American Cancer Society, recommend women begin mammogram screenings at 40 and repeat them annually.

The task force reasoned that between ages 40 and 50, the risk of anxiety-provoking false positive results outweighed the benefits gained from routine screening.

In the current study, Kalager analyzed data from nearly 40,000 Norwegian women with invasive breast cancer, about 8,000 of whom were diagnosed after mammography screening was introduced county by county starting in 1996. The information was gathered through the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program and included women aged 50 through 69. The researchers compared the number of breast cancers in women in counties offering the screening with those in counties not offering it.

The study authors theorized that if mammogram screening helps, it would lead to a decrease in late-stage breast cancers.

But that was not found. Instead, the investigators found that from 1996 to 2005, the incidence of invasive breast cancer increased 18 to 25 percent among the age groups invited to screenings.

The researchers estimated that from 15 to 25 percent of the women were overdiagnosed. The estimates varied depending on the length of follow-up.

The study didn't include ductal carcinoma in situ, an early form of breast cancer. Kalager said that would have boosted the percent of overdiagnosed women higher, as she said the lifetime risk of progressing from this early stage to invasive cancer is unknown, but probably is less than 50 percent.

Overdiagnosis probably occurs more often in the United States than in Norway because U.S. women generally start screening at 40, whereas 50 is the standard start time for Norwegian women, according to an accompanying journal editorial.

"For every life you prevent from breast cancer death, you are harming six to 10 women with overdiagnosis," Kalager said. Women who decide to go for screening, she said, have to accept these possible harms.

However, Kalager conceded that some guesswork is involved. "We cannot distinguish the lethal cancers from the slow or non-progressive cancers, so we do not know for sure," she noted.

Once a woman is diagnosed, she said, she would recommend treatment unless the woman is part of a clinical study.

Two experts not involved in the study took issue with the findings.

"It's too early to discuss the concept of overdiagnosis because science can't accurately predict which tumors are harmless from the ones that are more aggressive or deadly," said Dr. Kristin Byrne, chief of breast imaging at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

Byrne's advice to 40-plus women? "Don't stop getting yearly mammograms."

Judith Malmgren, affiliated professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine in Seattle, also objected to the authors' conclusions.

"I don't like the term overdiagnosis," Malmgren said. "A clinician would be hard-pressed to call a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis."

Malmgren also finds the study methods flawed. For instance, she said, comparing screened and unscreened women would have been better than conducting a county to county comparison.

More information

To learn more about mammograms, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.



View the Original article

U.S. Women Could Be More Obese Than Believed

HealthDay – 21 mins ago MONDAY, April 2 (HealthDay News) -- The way that obesity is currently measured greatly underestimates the actual number of women who are obese, a new study suggests.

Almost half of women currently labeled as not obese by virtue of their body mass index (BMI) turned out to be obese when measured by a newer method focusing on their percentage of body fat by weight, the research found.

Researchers Dr. Eric Braverman, president of the Path Foundation in New York City, and Dr. Nirav Shah, the current New York state health commissioner, say that an accurate measurement of obesity should include percentage of body fat as well as the ratio of height and weight known as BMI.

"If you're counting on looking at your body fat based on body mass index, it's virtually completely unreliable," Braverman said.

Based on BMI alone, "roughly 30 percent of Americans are obese, but when you use other methods, closer to 60 percent are obese," he said. "We call BMI the 'baloney mass index,'" Braverman noted.

"We are fatter than we realize; it's the percent of body fat, not BMI, that makes you obese," he explained.

The problem is especially seen among women, because "as women age, they tend to lose bone and replace muscle with fat," Braverman said.

The report was published online April 2 in the journal PLoS ONE.

Braverman and Shah found that when women had a special scan called a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan, which measures body fat, muscle mass and bone density, obesity measured by BMI alone underestimated obesity.

Among the more than 1,300 people who underwent DEXA in the study, almost half of women (48 percent) were misclassified as not obese by BMI, but were found to be obese by percent body fat on DEXA.

In contrast, 25 percent of men were misclassified as being obese by BMI, but were in fact not obese by percent body fat.

In fact, the researchers said, all of the study participants who were found to be obese by DEXA were women.

Braverman noted that a DEXA scan is expensive, so it wouldn't be practical for routine assessment. However, a simple blood test that measures leptin levels can serve the same purpose, he said. Leptin is a hormone involved in regulating appetite and metabolism.

In the study, levels of leptin correlated to body fat. The researchers said leptin levels can be used along with BMI as a more accurate measure of obesity.

"Leptin is a better marker of obesity in women," Braverman stressed, adding that successful weight loss depends on lowering leptin levels. However, he said, women can develop leptin resistance -- a metabolic disorder most often seen after menopause -- which makes dieting ineffective.

People with leptin levels below 5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) are considered thin and levels up to 10 are considered normal weight. Leptin levels of 10 to 30 ng/mL are correctable through diet and exercise, Braverman said, but extremely high levels are hard to reduce.

The effect of leptin is not as powerful in men, he said. But men with low leptin levels are very fit, he added.

Braverman believes that, eventually, leptin tests will become a regular part of a physical exam and people with high levels will be treated with various drugs and diets designed to reduce leptin levels.

"Everyone is going to get a leptin level

View the Original article