Sexual & Reproductive Health Matters - SRHmatters.org

(Health.com) — The snooze button on your alarm clock may not be the only casualty of a sleepless night.

A new study of married couples suggests that when wives have trouble falling asleep, the quality of their relationship with their husband suffers.

The longer it took women to drift off, the study found, the more likely both partners were to report negative interactions with their spouse — such as feeling ignored or criticized — the following day.

The same wasn’t true for the men, however. The researchers found no relationship between the amount of time it took a husband to fall asleep and the couple’s interactions the following day. So why didn’t the husbands’ sleep affect next-day interactions, too?

Health.com: 8 factors that could be keeping you awake at night

“There is some evidence to show that women tend to be more communicative and expressive in relationships and men may be more repressive,” says the lead researcher, Wendy Troxel, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh. “After a bad night of sleep, women may be more likely to express irritability or frustration, whereas men might be more likely to withhold that.”
Research on sleep problems such as insomnia has tended to focus on the individual who is directly affected, Troxel and her colleagues note. But, they add, their findings suggest that sleep problems should perhaps be viewed — and treated — in a broader context that takes into account the patient’s relationships and social interactions.

“Sleep doesn’t occur in a vacuum,” says Lauren Hale, Ph.D., a sleep expert and associate professor of preventive medicine at Stony Brook University, in New York. “It’s embedded in the social world, and particularly relevant to one’s romantic relationships.”

Health.com: Which sleep position is healthiest?

Hale, who was not involved in the new study but has researched the effect of social factors on sleep, says that the person you share your bed with each night can have a significant influence on your own sleep quality.

“It may not be simply your own choices that affect your sleep,” she says. “If your partner snores or gets into bed two hours later than you and wakes you up, that will affect your sleep.”

Troxel presented preliminary results from the study at an annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies in Minneapolis on Monday. Unlike studies published in medical journals, the findings have not been thoroughly vetted by other experts.

Over the course of 10 nights, Troxel and her colleagues gauged the sleep quality of 35 married couples using an actigraph, a watch-size monitor that records patterns of rest and activity. (None of the participants had been diagnosed with a sleep disorder or other serious medical problems.)

In addition to measuring the amount of time it took each partner to fall asleep, the researchers also looked at their total sleep time and the number of times they woke up during the night.

Health.com: 7 tips for the best sleep ever

In a series of brief daily questionnaires, the study participants also reported whether they had negative interactions (such as feeling ignored) or positive interactions (such as feeling supported or valued) with their spouse that day.

On average, both partners were likely to report more negative and fewer positive interactions when the woman had trouble falling asleep the previous night. Though the researchers identified no link between the husbands’ sleep and marital interactions, they did find that men tended to sleep for less time than usual after a day of positive interaction with their spouses.

In this case, getting less sleep isn’t necessarily a bad thing; in fact, Troxel says, it could even indicate intimacy, rather than sleep, in bed.

Health.com: 28 days to a healthier relationship

Although more research is needed to explain how exactly marriages and sleep quality interact, the study highlights that sleep problems can potentially harm relationships and need to be treated, Troxel says.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/13/sleep.trouble.marriage/index.html?hpt=he_c2

We see it all the time—the 6-year-old riding in the front seat of a car, tweens biking on a busy road without helmets, young children in the neighborhood pool while mom sits yards away talking on her cell phone.

These situations make us cringe but it can be hard to know how we should react. Is it an innocent bystander’s ethical duty to approach the parent in the name of a child’s safety, or does society dictate minding one’s own business?

As a pediatrician I’m constantly counseling parents about their child’s safety and well-being, from SIDS prevention to proper nutrition and routine immunizations. Our check-up checklists run the gamut, covering tobacco exposure, lead poisoning, car seats, toothbrushing, risky adolescent behaviors, and more.

While most patients willingly listen to this guidance in the office, it’s my job to give them the information and their job to decide ultimately whether or not to take it. But when I step out of my white coat and into anonymity it can be difficult to see the line between offering potentially lifesaving advice and providing what’s perceived as unsolicited—and often unappreciated—criticism.

When a child is clearly in harm’s way, the decision is simpler, and many people would intervene to help. In the case of bodily injury, there are numerous requirements to report even the slightest possibility that child abuse has occurred.

However, more often than not we are presented with a child who isn’t in immediate danger, just potential harm, as a result of a parent’s indifference or lack of awareness. My medical background and inborn tendency to be outspoken lead me to err on the side of caution and speak up more often than not. I’m not sure this is always the right answer but it helps me sleep a little better at night.

Have you found yourself in a situation where you’ve turned a blind eye, hoping that everything would be OK, or did you speak your mind and risk a confrontation? If you’ve been on the receiving end of someone else’s unsolicited advice, how did you take it? I’d like to learn from your experiences and hope you’ll share your thoughts!

Follow Dr. Shu on Twitter

The information contained on this page does not and is not intended to convey medical advice. CNN is not responsible for any actions or inaction on your part based on the information that is presented here. Please consult a physician or medical professional for personal medical advice or treatment.

Source: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/monday-613-kids-at-risk-say-something-or-bite-your-tongue/?hpt=he_c2

(Health.com) — Children who live with dogs and cats are less likely to develop allergies to those animals later in life, but only if the pet is under the same roof while the child is still an infant, a new study suggests.

Compared to babies born into cat-free homes, those who grew up with cats were roughly half as likely to be allergic to them as teenagers, the study found.

Growing up around a dog reduced the risk of dog allergies by about the same amount for boys, but not for girls — a finding that mystified researchers.

Being exposed to pets anytime after the first year of life appeared to have no effect on allergy risk, however, which indicates that timing may be everything when it comes to preventing allergies.

Health.com: 15 hypoallergenic dogs and cats

Though they can’t say for sure, the researchers suspect that early exposure to pet allergens and pet-related bacteria strengthens the immune system, accustoms the body to allergens, and helps the child build up a natural immunity.

“Dirt is good,” says lead researcher Ganesa Wegienka, Ph.D., summing up the theory. “Your immune system, if it’s busy with exposures early on, stays away from the allergic immune profile.”

This isn’t the first study to find that having a household pet may protect kids from allergies, but it is the first to follow children until they were 18 years old.

Health.com: How to reduce pet allergens at home

Previous studies have had mixed results — some have even linked pet exposure during infancy to an increased risk of allergy — so it’s too early to recommend getting a dog or cat just to ward off allergies in your infant, says David Nash, M.D., clinical director of allergy and immunology at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

“In the end, we’ll probably find out that there are periods of opportunity when exposure to allergens, for some people, is going to have a protective effect,” says Dr. Nash, who was not involved with the new study. “But we’re a long way from figuring out who it’s protective for and when that optimal period is.”

By the same token, don’t give away your beloved family pet because you’re concerned the critter will provoke allergies.

“I would not get rid of my dog if I was having a child,” says Wegienka, an epidemiologist in the department of public health sciences at Henry Ford Hospital, in Detroit. “There’s no evidence that you should get rid of a dog or a cat.”

Health.com: What to do if you’re allergic to your pet

Moreover, it’s possible that factors other than having a dog or cat in the house influenced the study participants’ risk of allergy.

For instance, although the researchers took into account whether the children’s parents were allergic to animals, they didn’t ask about a broader family history of allergies or other health problems. So it could be that children who are genetically predisposed to animal allergies simply are less likely to grow up in homes with pets.

In the study, which appears in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy, Wegienka and her colleagues collected information from 566 children and their parents about the kids’ exposure to indoor pets and their history of allergies.

In addition, when the kids turned 18, the researchers took blood samples and tested them for certain immune-system proteins (known as antibodies) that fight off cat and dog allergens.

The teenagers who lived with a cat during their first year of life had a 48 percent lower risk of cat allergy than their peers, and the teen boys who lived with a dog had a 50 percent lower risk of allergy.

The authors suggest that infant girls may not develop the same immunity as boys because they may interact differently with dogs than infant boys, but that’s only a guess.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/13/pets.infants.allergies/index.html

Comments (155 comments)
Permalink
Apples top 2011 ‘dirty dozen’ list, says group

Apples are the most chemically contaminated produce, says a new report by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit focused on public health.

The report suggests buying organic apples instead of conventional, and names other fruits and vegetables that rank highest in pesticides. Organic produce is grown using materials of plant or animal origin, instead of chemicals. On the “dirty dozen” list are:

1. Apples

2. Celery

3. Strawberries

4. Peaches

5. Spinach

6. Imported nectarines

7. Imported grapes

8. Sweet bell peppers

9. Potatoes

10. Domestic blueberries

11. Lettuce

12. Kale/collard greens

The group also lists the “Clean 15,” or those that rank lowest in pesticide residues. These are:

1. Onions

2. Sweet Corn

3. Pineapples

4. Avocado

5. Asparagus

6. Sweet peas

7. Mangoes

8. Eggplant

9. Domestic cantaloupe

10. Kiwi

11. Cabbage

12. Watermelon

13. Sweet Potatoes

14. Grapefruit

15. Mushrooms

“Though buying organic is always the best choice, we know that sometimes people do not have access to that produce or cannot afford it,” EWG President Ken Cook said. “Our guide helps consumers concerned about pesticides to make better choices among conventional produce, and lets them know which fruits and vegetables they may want to buy organic.”

However, United Fresh Produce, the trade association representing produce companies, calls the report “misleading.”

In a statement to CNN, the group said:

“At a time when medical experts strongly urge Americans to realize the health benefits from eating more fruits and vegetables, it is irresponsible to mislead consumers with a sensational publicity stunt disguised as science. While its authors admit the ‘health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure,’ the Dirty Dozen list will almost certainly discourage many people from eating the recommended amounts of fresh produce and potentially diminish the nutrition and health of millions of Americans.”

The EWG report is an update from the 2010 one. It is based on data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Samples were tested as they were normally eaten- washed, and sometimes peeled.

“The pesticide data that USDA publishes each year provides regulators, scientists, farmers, and consumers important insights about ongoing challenges as well as significant progress in the use of pesticides,” a USDA spokesman said in a statement.

“Our annual report shows that overall pesticide residues found on foods tested are at levels below the tolerances set by the EPA.”

Registered dietitian Ann Dunaway Teh has some advice for shoppers watching their wallets.

“If you are on a food budget but you are concerned about pesticide residue and whether or not you should be buying organic foods, then this guide may be a good place to start for buying organic foods,” she said.

“The wider variety of fruits and vegetables that you eat, the lower your risk overall to pesticide residues.”

She says peeling may help to remove some of the pesticide residue, but also lost are some of the nutrients and fiber.

Source: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/apples-top-2011-dirty-dozen-list-says-group/?hpt=he_c2

It’s an unfortunate fact that when smokers kick the habit, they often gain weight — a side effect that many smokers use as a reason for not quitting.

Now scientists think they’ve pinpointed the pathway in the brain through which nicotine helps suppress appetite, suggesting that it’s possible to get the same effect without the cigarettes.

(More on TIME.com: Photos: Your Doctor Wants You To Smoke)

Nicotine works on many different receptors in the brain, including those in reward regions that contribute to addiction. But working with mice, a team led by Yale University School of Medicine psychiatrist Marina Picciotto found that the drug also binds to receptors on appetite-regulating neurons, which aren’t involved in addiction. These neurons, located in the hypothalamus, send the “I’m full” message after a meal, helping to regulate how much you eat.

It helps explain why smokers aren’t as hungry when they smoke, and why they tend to stay thinner on the habit. When they quit, however, many smokers tend to eat more, typically gaining on average about five pounds after quitting.

Picciotto believes that nicotine hijacks various neural circuits in the brain — those involved in reward, and now in appetite — and that understanding how the tobacco compound works on brain cells could lead to better cessation strategies.

Understanding the link between nicotine and satiety, for example, could lead to new drugs that target the nicotine receptors on appetite-controlling cells, giving smokers a way to quit without the weight gain. Already, says Picciotto, there are plant-based quit-smoking drugs available in Eastern Europe that may work in this way, but further research needs to be done to determine whether they’d actually help quitters gain less weight.

(More on TIME.com: Study: A Mysterious Gene Variant That Makes Quitting Smoking Easier)

“If we had a medicine targeted at these receptors, then people who are not quitting smoking because they are afraid of gaining weight now might make the attempt,” Picciotto says. “That’s a really exciting area of drug development.”

Even if such medicines were to prove effective, however, they may come with side effects. The nicotine receptors that regulate fullness and appetite are also closely linked to the body’s fight-or-flight stress response, in which the body revs itself up in the face of a threat. Activating these receptors could lead to increased blood pressure and heart rate, which may not be a good thing for anyone.

The fear of weight gain shouldn’t keep anyone from quitting smoking, a habit that is known to cause cancer and raise the risk of heart attack, stroke and various other health problems. And no one should wait around for a new drug that might help them stay slim. So Picciotto suggests that nicotine-based quit aids might help.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/10/scientists-discover-why-quitting-smoking-makes-you-fat/#ixzz1QBgU3wjU

Source: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/10/scientists-discover-why-quitting-smoking-makes-you-fat/

(Reuters Health) - Men taking cholesterol-lowering medication may be less likely to get prostate cancer than those not on the drugs, suggests a new study.

They are also less likely to wind up with aggressive versions of the disease, researchers found.

The finding can’t prove that the drugs, called statins, lower the risk of prostate cancer, and the authors note that there is still some controversy about if and how statins affect a man’s chance of getting prostate cancer.

But the new study is “helping to build a story that there may be something there,” said Dr. Stephen Freedland, who studies prostate cancer at the Duke University School of Medicine.

Still, the men in the study weren’t randomly assigned to take statins, and so might harbor hidden differences that could influence their cancer risk, added Freedland, who was not involved in the new research.

“There’s probably something about them that (explains why) they were taking statins,” he told Reuters Health, such as being proactive about their health.

According to the American Cancer Society, one in six men gets prostate cancer at some point in his life and one in 36 dies from it.

In the new investigation, Dr. Nelly Tan and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic reviewed the medical records of more than 4,000 men who had a biopsy to test for prostate cancer at their institution between 2000 and 2007. All of those men were biopsied because doctors found possible signs of prostate cancer in their blood or during an exam.

About 1,000 of those men were taking statins, and about 3,000 weren’t, according to their records.

After their biopsies, 55 percent of men taking statins were diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared to 58 percent who weren’t taking statins. When the researchers took into account age, weight, and other differences between statin users and non-users, they confirmed that difference.

Men taking statins were also less likely to have aggressive forms of prostate cancer — especially those who had been taking the drugs for more than five years, the authors report in The Journal of Urology.

Tan and her colleagues note that they couldn’t take other diseases such as diabetes and heart disease into account, or other medications men were taking. And because their study only consisted of men who were already having a prostate biopsy done, they don’t know if the results can be generalized to other men.

However, Tan said that previous studies have shown the same effect in the general population, and that “the literature is pointing toward a link” between statin use and a lower overall risk of prostate cancer. And the evidence is convincing, she said, that statins protect against more aggressive prostate cancer.

The association could be due to the cholesterol-lowering effects of statins, Freedland said. Cholesterol, he explained, is a nutrient for tumors, and if there’s not enough cholesterol, they can’t grow.

It’s also possible, Tan said, that statins could affect other pathways in the body linked to prostate cancer, outside of cholesterol levels.

She told Reuters Health that the results reflect one more possible benefit of taking statins, which are generally prescribed to protect against heart disease, although she added that men shouldn’t start taking them just to stave off prostate cancer.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-cholesterol-prostate-idUSTRE75101620110602

With a month to go before the height of summer, temperatures in New York are already hitting 30C (86F).

For Dennis, Johnson and Javii, playing basketball in the Bronx, it’s the kind of weather for a refreshing fizzy drink.

“Soda’s good for us,” says Johnson.

Dennis is even sure fizzy drinks can help with medical problems: “If you have a stomach ache,” he says, “What does your mom buy?”

He answers his own question: “Ginger ale, right? That’s a soda.”

Twenty-three-year-old Dominique Pleasant is sitting nearby with her two daughters. They’re all drinking cans of cola.

Like more than a quarter of people in the Bronx, Dominique qualifies for food stamps.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/13618342

(CNN) — As part of the Catholic wedding vows they took four years ago, Melissa and Jacob Arnold promised to be “open to children.”

Choosing not to use birth control, the couple dreamed of having a large family. Six months later, Arnold’s period was late.

“One day at work, a friend came up to me and said, ‘I’ve got a bun in the oven!’ ” Arnold says. “I thought, ‘Maybe I do too!’ So I ran home at lunch to take a pregnancy test. My husband read it and said to me, ‘You’re going to be a mommy!’ We were so thrilled. I ran back to work and said, ‘Guess what, I’m pregnant, too!’ ”

But Arnold, who was 23 at the time, wasn’t going to be a mother, at least not yet. When she was eight weeks pregnant, she miscarried. A few months later she was pregnant again, and again she miscarried, this time at 10 weeks.

Finally, she had a healthy baby girl, but then she miscarried twice more, including one pregnancy with twins. In all, Arnold had four miscarriages, losing five babies in less than three years.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/09/miscarriage.not.fluke.ep/index.html

Is “sexting” really cheating? Well, if, like Congressman Anthony Wiener, you’re married and sexting someone other than your spouse (and without your partner’s knowledge or approval), of course it is!

In an earlier post for The Chart, I talked about Internet infidelity and how it’s accelerating at a record pace. With its easy accessibility and novelty, the Internet enables us to easily tune out and turn off to our partners, when we should be making an effort to tune in and turn on.

The instant gratification of these technologies stimulates reward centers in the brain, and soon we find ourselves craving the quick hit of an instant connection or lamenting its absence.

Real relationships take time and patience, whereas sexting a stranger or engaging in a flirtatious Facebook friendship brings us a quick thrill and requires a lot less work. And the more technology becomes a personal accessory that renders us always on, the more likely we are to become novelty seekers in search of the next ping.

We live in an era when many consider sexual infidelity to be the ultimate personal betrayal. But there are those who believe that if infidelity doesn’t involve a physical component, it’s not really cheating—and that’s just not true.

The accessibility of the Internet means that we need to be more vigilant of emotional infidelity, and seemingly benign activities that nonetheless have a sexual and secretive component.

In her seminal book on emotional infidelity, “Not Just Friends,” the late psychotherapist Shirley Glass implores readers to “maintain appropriate walls and windows. Keep the windows open at home. Put up privacy walls with others who could threaten your marriage.” She contends than an emotional affair is marked by three distinguishing qualities:

– Close friendship and emotional intimacy. An emotional affair often begins as friendship and gradually drifts into something more. While friendship alone isn’t enough to qualify as cheating, a feeling of shared closeness and understanding is the starting point for an emotional affair.

– Sexual attraction. An emotional affair is fueled by feelings of attraction between two people.

– Secrecy. Here’s where friendship and attraction cross the line into emotional cheating. In an emotional affair, each person stops sharing certain aspects of the friendship with his or her partner, and starts confiding more in the “friend” and less in his or her partner.

We’re all living, breathing sexual beings. Attraction doesn’t end once we’re in a relationship. Even the most happily coupled people are going to feel the familiar buzz of attraction when someone catches their eye or laughs at one of their jokes. And as I discussed in another column for The Chart on negotiated monogamy, some couples are even willing to expand the boundaries of flirtation and accepted behavior within their relationship.

Relationships often start out in the “fast lane,” but eventually we find a comfortable cruising speed in the middle lane, and sometimes switch over to the slow lane.

Some relationships run out of fuel altogether, and every couple needs a jump-start every now and then. Instead of seeking that jolt of excitement from outside your relationship, make more of an effort to seek it within.

Source: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/go-ahead-sext-your-spouse/

As an infertility specialist, the first, and sometimes hardest, thing I have to accomplish is to assess a couple’s understanding of how the whole getting pregnant thing—naturally or otherwise—works. Despite widespread sex education and increased public awareness of the issue of infertility, many people still don’t really get it; a study from New Zealand, for instance, showed that 74% of women presenting to a fertility clinic had inadequate fertility awareness.

An extreme example: I once had a couple come in for an infertility consultation, and only after probing some of the most esoteric—and as it turns out, irrelevant—minutiae of the biology of reproduction did I find out that the husband wasn’t able to ejaculate during vaginal intercourse. (Yes, this is generally considered a prerequisite to conception.)

So if you’re in the baby-making market, here are some of the more common mistakes I see people make. And don’t be embarrassed if you learn something new; you may or may not save yourself a consultation, but either way, you’re certainly not alone.

1. 40 is the new 30
Since the days of Adam and Eve, never have so many women deferred childbearing until their mid-30s or later. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in 2006, about 1 out of 12 births in the U.S. were to first-time mothers older than 35, compared to 1 out of 100 in 1970. In other words, only about 1% of first-time mothers were 35 or older in 1970; this number increased eightfold to about 8% in 2006.

The same social and economic forces that have contributed to this reality have also led many women to believe that fertility typically lasts into their 40s. Unfortunately, there’s bad news: Historical data suggests that the overall risk for infertility—defined as more than one year of regular unprotected intercourse without conception—increases with age, from 6% between ages 20 and 24 to a whopping 64% between ages 40 to 44. Need more evidence? Take a look in my waiting room. Women in their 20s are few and far between, and most are there to donate eggs—to women in their 40s and 50s.

2. There’s no rush
A groundbreaking study of more than 5,000 couples in the 1940s and 1950s showed that at least 85% conceived within one year of trying for a baby. Historically, this one-year landmark has defined infertility, and many couples postpone evaluation until they have met this milestone.

This is a reasonable rule of thumb for women younger than 35 who are in otherwise perfect health. But anyone older than 35, or anyone with gynecologic or medical problems (irregular or painful periods, diabetes, thyroid problems, or just about anything else), should seek evaluation by a fertility specialist or her ob-gyn. There are numerous fertility problems that can be treated easily but make it nearly impossible to conceive without medical assistance. The key is to be informed. Don’t wait, as time is precious when it comes to fertility.

3. We have sex often enough
It never ceases to amaze me how much our fast-paced lifestyles and schedules interfere with conception. I have met so many busy professional couples who are surprised they aren’t pregnant, yet they only sleep together in the same bed, let alone on the same continent, once every month or two.

Just remember: Even someone very fertile and her partner, both in their 20s and in perfect health, will, at best, have about a 25% chance of conceiving in any given month, even with perfectly timed intercourse. This so-called fertile window is open four to five days prior and through ovulation, and it’s suggested you have intercourse every 24 to 48 hours during that period. Statistically speaking, this rate of success decreases to about 10% to 15% per month if you’re not pregnant within three months, and 5% or less if you’re not pregnant after a year.

Source: http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20486519,00.html