Gossip Rocks Forum - Health and Fitness

Changes in U.S. pap smear guidelines released

Laurent — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:55:22 GMT

Quote:

New cervical cancer screening guidelines released
By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer
November 20, 2009 10:51 a.m. EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence.

--Dr. Alan G. Waxman

The current guidelines, from 2003, recommend that women get a Pap test three years after they begin having sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21. And that women younger than 30 have an annual exam. For women 30 or older, the recommendation was every two to three years, if they'd had three consecutive negative Pap tests.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) supports the guidelines and said it is reviewing new data and updating its own recommendations.

"There's good data since the last guidelines in 2003 that show that screening teens or before age 21 is not having an impact on reducing cervical cancer," said Debbie Saslow of the Cancer Society.

And, Saslow added, this is completely different from the new, hotly debated mammogram recommendations.

"Getting an annual Pap test is the equivalent to getting a mammogram every four months. Breast cancer on average is growing at a point where, if you get a mammogram every two years, you will miss a lot of deadly cancers that you would have caught if you're having them every year. This is not true for cervical cancer; we are detecting pre-cancers that are taking 10 to 20 years to develop into cancer."

According to the ACS, there are about 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer each year, and more than 4,000 deaths. Over half were found in women who never had a Pap test. Most cases are in women younger than 50, and rarely occur in females younger than 20.

The risk simply is not there, though the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for 70 percent or more cervical cancers, is high among sexually active teens, said Dr. David Soper of the Medical University of South Carolina.

The vast majority of those infections will resolve and not cause any significant pre-cancerous lesions, according to Soper. Females, particularly adolescents, develop immunity to HPV and can resolve the infection without treatment.

The ACS expects to release its new guidelines in late 2011.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends first Pap tests at 21

* After age 21, women should have a Pap test every two years, instead of every year

* Rates of cervical cancer have declined by 50 percent since the 1970s

New cervical cancer screening guidelines released - CNN.com

I'm over 30, but I won't be waiting 3 years between paps - that's just too long, imo. I hope my insurance will cover it.

I can't help but wonder if these guidelines would be different if breast and cervical cancers were primarily a man's disease.[/paranoid]

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Nevan — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:22:47 GMT

I hesitate even sharing this because it's really personal to me, but I need a place to get some hopefully positive feedback. Sorry so long, I am long winded when writing. LOL

I've mentioned on here before that I suffer from panic disorder. Supposedly, it starts rearing its head in your early 20s, and looking back, I can clearly see the signs that I probably did have it and it's just got progressively worse. Right now, it's out of control. I take Xanax when needed and I also take heavy sleeping meds at night because I have insomnia, and if I don't get a good, full night's sleep, my panic is INSANE the next day. Basically, lack of sleep is one of my biggest panic triggers. I have been on numerous SSRIs (which is generally what doctors give you to treat panic because it's under the category of a depressive disorder) ... they do NOTHING to control my panic, and I've done research and found that is the case with a lot of panic sufferers.

I've had three psychiatrists in my life, and all three have been in the last three or four years. The first one was awesome with trying different combos of meds to treat me, but he was EXTREMELY unprofessional to the point that I had to stop seeing him. The second one was very passive and way, way overmedicated me to the point that I was toxic, had pretty much a breakdown and wound up in the hospital. The third was also great about trying different meds (I am very resistant to medication and I also get tolerant very quickly, even non-addicting ones) but cancelled on me with virtually no notice three times in about five months and then wanted me to wait another two months each time before I could make another appointment. I don't know if this is just my state or what, but here, psychiatry is reduced to a 10 minute (at best) meeting where all they're doing is pushing meds on you. There is absolutely no therapy or discussing of problems or anything like that. You are expected to go to a therapist for therapy.

Which brings me to my other problem ... I have had bad experiences with therapists/counselors. I was physically and emotionally abused as a child and taken out of my home by the state five times ... and always put back. Every time I was removed, it was mandated by the state that I attend therapy/counseling ... which makes total sense. But the first one I went to .... it was really, really bad ... like traumatizingly bad. I've had two in my adult life ... the first one a few years ago who was very wishy-washy (I am very stubborn and need someone firm) and it just wasn't working. The other was a cognitive behavioral therapist, but we just did not mesh. She tried to hypnotize me a few times (never worked), I left the office in tears in the middle of session a few times and I just think that even though she was firm (which I admit, I need), our personalities didn't click.

After I stopped seeing the last psychiatrist almost a year ago, my long-time regular internist has been prescribing me the same meds the psychiatrist was. Clearly, my medicine has run its course because I'm getting tolerant of the sleep med (I'm waking up throughout the night, sometimes only getting 2-3 hours of sleep a night) and my panic is just out of control. I just got diagnosed a few months ago (after a long struggle with the symptoms with no diagnosis) with IBS (irritable bowel syndrome). My GI doctor is one of the best in the area and said that almost all his IBS patients have panic disorder. Then about two months ago, I got diagnosed with something called interstitial cystitis which is something to do with the thinning or spasming of the lining in your urethra/bladder. This was the third time I've been diagnosed with it ... it's something that has no definitive diagnostic test, just symptoms. The symptoms (which I've had since 08/08) are pretty much a constant REALLY bad UTI (but it's not a UTI, just the same symptoms) and pelvic pain. The pain is so bad that I've been on Percocet off and on throughout the diagnostic process. After doing research on it (since now three different doctors told me they feel I have it, I guess I can safely assume I do), some patients feel pain the equivalent to end stage renal failure (I've never had renal failure, but I can tell you my pain OFTEN is debilitating) AND there are numerous studies that many panic disorder sufferers have interstitial cystitis. So, now not only am I making myself emotionally crazy, the panic disorder is affecting my physical health. Now it's time to do get serious and do something about it.

Tomorrow I have an appointment with a cognitive behavioral therapist (who also happens to be an LPN), and then will meet with a psychiatrist ... it's part of an outpatient program at the hospital where my DH works. Which in itself is freaking me out ... mental illness has such a stigma (at least in my eyes) and I feel horrible and guilty that I'm bringing this to my husband's place of work where everybody knows him. But he could care less, and actually wants me there .... I have come to rely on him to get all my doctor referrals instead of going to who my long-time internist refers me to because I've gotten burned before (like a butcher of a surgeon he sent me to, when my DH begged me to go to someone he knew at the hospital instead, but I trusted my doctor's opinion) ... like I said, he knows pretty much everyone there, is good friends with many doctors and he makes sure that I get the best doctor available. So I'm trusting him on this. He has already spoken at length with the therapist and explained that I'm very stubborn, all my health issues, etc.

I'm trying so hard to go into it with an open mind, but I've had so many bad/false starts that I have a mental block with therapy. Please tell me this works. Please tell me that you have or know someone that has had good results with CBT.

Woke up with 50% hearing loss in right ear, tinny ringing, wtf?

Grimmlok — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:28:33 GMT

so as the title says.. i went to bed fine.. woke up, and my right ear is messed. It's muffled, like there's something in it.. but what sound DOES get through is tinny and painful, and there's a constant ringing. It's only at about 50%.

anybody ever experience this? what the hell?

Gov't panel says women should wait until 50 for mammogram, self-exams are worthless

Moongirl — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:47:42 GMT

:eek2:

Quote:

MSNBC.com
New advice: Wait until 50 for mammograms
Government panel says benefits of early screening doesn't outweigh risks
The Associated Press
updated 2:01 p.m. PT, Mon., Nov . 16, 2009

NEW YORK - Most women should wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years, a government task force said Monday in a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing recommendation of annual screening starting at 40.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

For nearly two decades, the cancer society has been recommending regular mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often is harmful, causing too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of surviving the disease.

"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines.

Experts expect the revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness.

Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Sharp criticism from cancer society
The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

False alarms
Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force's changes.

"Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this," she said. "It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That's no small undertaking."

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn't convinced it was needed. Now she doesn't plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was "thrilled" with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn't support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

"Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions," she said. "These guidelines will help that conversation."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: New advice: Wait until 50 for mammograms - Women's health- msnbc.com

MSN Privacy . Legal
� 2009 MSNBC.com

Weight-management myths debunked

celeb_2006 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:41:15 GMT

Weight-Management Myths Debunked on Yahoo! Health

See why you can eat after 7 p.m., plus get the real story about six other commonly held beliefs

Diets are filled with dogma about when, what and how much to eat. Certainly "the rules" are usually based on observations that make sense, but unless you understand why you do certain things, you'll break the rules as soon as the temptation is greater than your motivation. Let's examine some of these myths, where they come from and how to make long-term changes that will work for you.
Myth #1: Don't Eat After 7 p.m.
Your metabolism doesn't shut off at 7:01 p.m., so why is this rule so common? It is based on the observation that a lot of people who struggle with their weight overeat in the evening. Most people have already eaten dinner, so they aren't snacking because they're hungry. They snack because of boredom, television, loneliness and other triggers.
Rather than creating a rule to address those habits, ask yourself, "Am I hungry?" whenever you feel like eating in the evening. If you truly are, eat, keeping in mind that your day is winding down so you won't need a huge meal. If you aren't, consider why you feel like eating and come up with a better way to address that need. Ken, a man in one of my workshops, realized he was just bored, so he started doing stained-glass projects in the evenings to entertain himself. Whatever works!
Myth #2: Eat Small Meals Every 3 Hours
This rule is based on the fact that many thin people tend to eat frequent small meals. However, most of the thin people I know don't check their watch to tell them it's time to eat--they eat when their body tells them to. They eat when they're hungry and stop when they're satisfied. Since that tends to be a small meal, they get hungry again in a few hours.
Instead of watching the clock, begin to tune into the physical signs of hunger to tell you when to eat. And remember, your stomach is only about the size of your fist, so it only holds a handful of food comfortably. By learning to listen to your body's signals, you are likely to follow a frequent small-meal pattern naturally.
Myth #3: Don't Let Yourself Get Hungry
This one is based on the belief that overweight people are incapable of controlling themselves when they are hungry. In my experience with hundreds of workshop participants, once they learn to tell the difference between physical hunger and "head hunger," the opposite is true.
Think about it. When you're hungry, food tastes better and is more satisfying. My grandmother used to say, "Hunger is the best seasoning." Besides, if you aren't hungry when you start eating, what's going to tell you to stop? Of course, you also need to learn to recognize hunger and make time to eat before you are too hungry, since it's harder to make great choices when you are starving!
Myth #4: Exercise More When You Cheat
I hate this one because it has caused millions of people to equate physical activity with punishment for eating. As a result, many people either hate to exercise or use exercise to earn the right to eat.
While it's true that your weight is determined by your overall calories in versus your calories out, exercise is only part of the equation and it has so many other important benefits. Instead of using exercise to pay penance, focus on how great you feel, how much more energy you have, how much better you sleep and how much healthier you are becoming. In the long run, you are more likely to do something because it feels good than because you are forced to.
Myth #5: Follow Your Diet Six Days a Week, Then You Can Have a Cheat Day
This is absurd! What if you were a harsh, overly strict parent six days a week, then completely ignored your kids every Saturday? How would this approach work for your marriage or managing your employees?
It just doesn't make sense to try to be perfect (whatever that is) Sunday through Friday while obsessing about everything you're going to eat on your day off. Then on Saturday you overeat just because you're allowed to, so you end up feeling miserable all day. Huh? Personally, I would rather enjoy eating the foods I love every day mindfully and in moderation. I call this being "in charge" instead of going back and forth between being in control and out of control.
Myth #6: Eat X Number of Calories (or X Number of Points) Every Day
Does it make sense that you would need exactly the same amount of fuel every day? Aren't there just days when you're hungrier than others, maybe because of your activity levels or hormonal cycles?
Rather than setting yourself up to "cheat" on those hungry days and forcing yourself to eat more food than you want on your less hungry days, allow yourself the flexibility to adjust your intake based on your actual needs rather than an arbitrary number. Important: For this to work long-term, you also need to learn to tell the difference between physical hunger and "head hunger."
Myth #7: Carbs Are Bad (or Fat Is Bad)
This "good food-bad food" thinking makes certain foods special. As a result, you may feel deprived and think about them even more than you did before. Worse yet, healthy foods become a four-letter word.
The truth is, all foods fit into a healthy diet. Since different foods have different nutritional qualities and calorie content, you can use the principles of balance, variety and moderation to guide you without trying to restrict yourself from eating an entire food group.
Truth: You Are In Charge
I assume the rule makers are well intentioned and don't realize that they've created a tightrope that most people will fall off of sooner or later. If your head hadn't already told you that all these rules are crazy, wasn't your heart saying there had to be a better way?
It's time to give yourself a wider path that you can stay on forever. Allow yourself the flexibility to make any decision as long as you consider the advantages and disadvantages of your choices and always keep self-care in mind.

Probiotic goo to rebalance your internal flora/fauna... worth the investment?

Grimmlok — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:16:05 GMT

I bought some of this stuff today, because my internals have been effed the fuck UP the last year:

It's basically GOOD bacteria (billions of them) in a little bottle (it's a bit chunky and tastes fermented) that people with compromised gut bacteria can slug to replace what they lost.. a lot of people on antibiotics do it, cuz we all know what happens when you take antibiotics.

Anyhow, i picked up this stuff cuz my guts have been seriously off this last year.. didn't seem to matter what I ate, i'd be in the washroom 5 mins after. I tried cutting out this and that to see if it had any effect, sadly no. I was beginning to think i had a chronic lack of good gut bacteria to digest stuff properly.

So i just slugged one of these back (god it was awful.. like curdled milk) and we'll see if it has any positive effect.

Breakthrough lung cancer drug trialled

micashell — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:58:33 GMT

A new lung cancer drug that could mark a breakthrough in combating the disease could be tested on patients as early as next year.

The drug, currently known only by the codename PD173074, wiped out 50 per cent of small cell lung cancer tumours in one strain of laboratory mice.
In other animals it slowed the growth of tumours and prevented them becoming resistant to chemotherapy treatment.
If similar results are seen in human patients it will bring new hope to thousands of sufferers.
A fifth of lung cancer patients have the "small cell" version of the disease and only 3 per cent can expect to survive five years after diagnosis.
Researchers hope to begin clinical trials of the drug, or a similar medicine, next year. One advantage is that it can be taken in tablet form rather than being injected into the bloodstream.
Small cell lung cancer tumours spread so quickly that they can rarely be removed by surgery. Standard treatment for the disease is chemotherapy, sometimes accompanied by radiotherapy, which has harsh side effects.
The cancer usually grows back rapidly and becomes resistant. Each year around 39,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer in the UK and 34,500 die from the disease.

Breakthrough lung cancer drug trialled - Yahoo! News UK

Anyone have Celiac's disease or a gluten allergy?

fgg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:22:48 GMT

i self-diagnosed myself today with celiac's disease or at the very least a gluten allergy. has anyone dealt with this?

i went to the whole foods tonight and got a bunch of gluten-free food to see what happens if i watch it all carefully. i tend to eat healthy/low-fat foods and so many of the gluten-free items were so full of calories and fat. and it's all so expensive. so frustrating!

i'm also trying to figure out how to eat out now.

help!

Question for the women

smf — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:56:00 GMT

i was just told that my pap smear had come back adnormal and i have to go back for another testing ,something about a microscope and viniger ! and also they found hpv virus cells (i think thats what its called )and to make sure i have my pap anually so they could track it !! im scared to death :( but they didnt schedule my app till end of dec ,does anybody else have this kinda experience idk want to expect or think ive always been pretty healthy .

"If you want to be popular, you can't afford to be skinny"

twitchy2.0 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:17:45 GMT

MBT sneakers

autumn — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:57:52 GMT

i watched a show where they were talking about mbt seakers. they said those shoes make you more fit. that it makes your stomach toned and your legs tones too.

anyway, is this real? that it actually makes you more fit just by walking around with those sneakers?

HotMess Workout. Where bricks and bats make it happen.

hustle4alivin — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:32:09 GMT

YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

From OhHellNawlblog.com:

I have a feeling that if more trainers took this type of attitude on folks, We�d all be a whole lot slimmer. And even though I crack mad jokes on how ghettoe-douchie people look with damn bluetooth headsets attached to their head when not in the car, thebottom line is that lil cockdiesel bastard has a bat in his hands, and I DID pay this fool for a service. So maybe a bytch would hush the hell up and listen to his ass.

I�m curious as all hell about how much this course costs and what the money really goes to, because as you can see, there weren�t nan elipticals, bikes or benches. Those heffas had a cinder block, and an old ass chair to scoot across the room at full speed. Shiiiit, if it works, it works. I�m not even mad.

What I DID find funny, is when I was looking for an image of this dude or the class, I came across a site called fullfiggas.com, where a whole herd of heffas were saying exactly what you�d think they would: � Giiiirl I wish a muhfugga WOULD talk to me like that! Hit me with a Bat, I wish he would!!! He aint gonna be calling ME all those damn names, those women are stupid!�

uh, no heffa. THOSE women are serious about losing some damn weight, while you are sitting there bytching about what a lil bat wielding bastard AINT gonna do to you.

Yeah, like help a heffalump lookin-ass heffa lose some weight?

SHiiiiit, sometimes a little tough love goes a long way.

What do YOU think?

Personally, I'm conflicted. While I agree that tough reinforcement goes a long way towards weight loss (Hell, I like Jillian's methods on The Biggest Loser than Bob's, and her teams tend to win, so she must be doing something right), I WISH A MUTHAFUCKA WOULD HIT ME WITH A DAMN BASEBALL BAT - even if it is plastic. Now the women in this video seem to be fairly well-adjusted, unless their just masochists. But if I had a more fragile psyche, this would NOT be the class to for me. From what I gathered in the YouTube comments, some of the customers were saying that the guy is not like this before and after the class, but during the class, it's on. I do like the barebones approach with cinder blocks, but it makes me wonder if he learned many of these techniques from doing time.

The guy does look like a stripper or a porn star and he has a high-pitched voice, so I'd probably just laugh and get hit with a bat all day if I was in his class.

I've struggled with my weight for most of my life, and I realized that I had to be tough on myself in order to start my weight loss program, so I don't necessarily need someone like this pushing me. Even though I've had my bad days, I still tell myself to "get my fat ass to the gym!" all the time. I've lost about 75 lbs in the last 7 months, so I must be doing something right.

*shrugs*

Plucky 84-year-old bikes 150 miles for MS

twitchy2.0 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:58:24 GMT

Plucky 84-Year-Old Bikes 150 Miles For MS

Huffington Post | Tam Vo
First Posted: 10-28-09 05:02 PM

Lan Yin "Eiko" Tsai, attired in a classy dress and pumps, is a standout among the spandex-clad crowd at New Jersey's City to Shore, a 150-mile bike ride that benefits multiple sclerosis research. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. The spry, petite 84-year old has been biking the event for the past 26 years, and this is her normal riding uniform.
Riding a vintage one-speed purple bicycle outfitted with a wire basket on the front that holds her possessions, Tsai certainly makes a memorable splash. But it is her spirit of volunteerism and determination, spanning over two decades, that makes her a venerable symbol of the event.

It all started when Tsai began to work in a hospital many years ago. A native of Taiwan, she was trained in Japan in the art of shiatsu massage. So while working at the hospital, "I started to put my hands where they hurt," she says. Tsai began regularly giving massages to cancer patients, until one day, about 26 years ago, she massaged a patient with MS. It was then and there that she first heard aboutthe bike ride and decided to participate.

Tsai's commitment is significant, as the National Conference on Citizenship has found that 72 percent of Americans are volunteering fewer hours since the recession began over a year ago. Her extraordinary efforts have not gone unnoticed:

In 2008, Tsai's family honored her commitment by creating a team in the bike ride called "Team Eiko." Sim says17 riders, all family and friends "from all over the place," joined the team to participate in the ride, and returned this year. The 2009 City to Shore ride raised more than $5 million for MS research and care, and Team Eiko was responsible for more than $6,000 of that. Sim says his grandmother's determinationis inspirational for both the other riders and the MS patients themselves.

Follow Tsai's lead and find a Bike MS ride near you.

Source: Plucky 84-Year-Old Bikes 150 Miles For MS

My 85 year old dad is sick

angelais — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:37:55 GMT

My siblings and I found out from my mom that my dad has lost about 30 pounds in the past couple of months. He had stomach pain so bad he decided he better go to the doctor. (He hates going to the doctor). He had an MRI or fully body CAT scan on Monday and it revealed nothing.

He is scheduled for a colonoscopy next week. We are all hoping it is not cancer. He is 85 however so it isn't shocking that he is sick as he is no spring chicken. He's never had anything remotely like this before.

I don't know if they have done any blood tests. Isn't that how cancer is confirmed? Do MRIs or CAT scans actually show cancer?

My sister who lives closest to them is keeping us up to date on his situation.

Has anyone dealt with an older person with these sort of symptoms? I am hoping it is just an ulcer or something. I am really sad because I live in CA and they live in NE. I feel kind of helpless. I haven't been back home in over a year because it's expensive to fly myself, my husband and my son there.

I am really just very sad right now. It sucks when you really realize that your parents are getting old and frail. :(

Plus-sized nightclubs

WhoAmI — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:58:15 GMT

Quote:

Nightclubs for the Plus-Size Start to Take Shape
Monday, October 26, 2009

Aug. 8, 2009: This photo shows patrons dancing at Club Bounce in Long Beach, Calif. The club is specifically aimed at attracting overweight people.

LONG BEACH, Calif. � Move over, it's Saturday night at Club Bounce and people are bouncing onto the dance floor in a big, big way.

These are big, big people, all dressed to the nines and many tipping the scales at 250, maybe 300 pounds.

That's because this expansive nightclub a couple blocks from the Pacific Ocean, with its flashing lights, friendly atmosphere and wall-rattling hip-hop sounds, caters specifically to fat people.

That's right, fat people. Not just any fat people, either, but fat people who are proud to call themselves fat people. People who joke that they are part of the new Fat is Phat movement.

"Self-conscious? No! Not at all," laughs Monique Lopez, a curvaceous woman of 23 as she arrives in a tight, black dress and heels. "I was like, 'I'm going to Club Bounce tonight. I'm going to wear my shortest skirt.'" (Which she did.)

The movement for equal rights for plus-sized people is nothing new of course. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, with chapters around the country, was founded 40 years ago. A nonprofit group, it advocates that everyone be treated equally regardless of size, arguing that we don't live in a one-size-fits-all world.

But what has been slower coming, fat advocates say, are places like Club Bounce, where people who might have some trouble getting past the velvet ropes at other night spots because of their size are made to feel like they fit right in.

"When you're not what they consider ideal, you know, and you're out there trying to get your dance on at those other places, you get the looks, the stares. But not here. Everything's accepted here," says Vanessa Gray of Long Beach, an attractive 30-something woman who acknowledges jovially that after giving birth to three children, "I've got a little more meat on my bones."

Such clubs are still a relatively new phenomenon, however, with a handful scattered across California, mainly in coastal cities from San Diego to San Francisco.

"The whole thing really started on the Internet, with clubhouse parties organized online," says Kathleen Divine, who runs another Southern California plus-size club, the Butterfly Lounge. "Now you see a lot more large people out in public, not hiding behind their keyboards anymore."

A Web site for "big beautiful women" (bbwnetwork.com ) sponsors an annual "Vegas Bash," for example, and there are similar gatherings in cities like Atlanta and Seattle.

But veteran fat activist Lynn McAfe of the Council On Size and Weight Discrimination would like to see more clubs.

"It's nice to have a place to go where you can do a little flirting and maybe bring your thin sister or somebody from work who isn't fat, and they'll be in your world for awhile," says McAfe, a pioneer of the fat advocacy movement. "That's an amazing experience for a lot of people who aren't fat, to spend a day or night in a world of fat people."

Not that every large person prefers to be called fat, especially by someone who isn't.

Lisa Marie Garbo, who opened Club Bounce five years ago, says she prefers plus-sized or larger-framed.

"But I don't think fat is a bad word anymore," she adds. "I think a lot of people embrace it now."

Garbo, a vivacious, 40-year-old blonde partial to flamboyant outfits of tight-fitting pants and low-cut tops, said she opened the club for herself and others who were tired of being "the only fat girl at the local nightclub."

The club, with a capacity of 400, attracts relatively equal numbers of men and women, although Garbo says about three-quarters of the women tend to be heavy, while only about a quarter of the men are.

Some club-goers, like Chad Koyanagi, started out big, then slimmed down. Others, like Garbo herself, have seen their weight go up and down over the years. Still others say they're happy the way they are.

Like a lot of heavy people, Koyanagi says he started dropping by the club after a friend he met on a social networking site kept after him to get out of the house. Painfully shy at first, the 30-year-old eventually began to fit in and ended up shedding 50 pounds. Although he's no longer hefty enough to fit the club's BHM profile (Big Handsome Man), he says he's made too many friends to stop coming.

But while not all club-goers are overweight, the very nature of such venues has led some to question whether they are encouraging people to remain fat in a society where, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one-third of adults are already obese.

"I'm not a gain-weight advocate or anything like that," says Garbo, who adds she has struggled with her own weight since doctors put her on steroids as a child to treat her asthma. "My message to people is live your life no matter what size you are."

Although obesity remains a serious problem, with links to diabetes, heart disease and other health issues, says sociologist Karen Sternheimer, creating a place where people can feel good about themselves can build self-esteem, which in turn can prompt people to do something about their weight.

"As the country gets heavier and ultimately unhealthier, in many instances the problem is people feeling bad about themselves, and feeling bad about themselves doesn't motivate people to lose weight," says Sternheimer, author of "Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture."

What does motivate people, she said, is starting with a positive outlook of accepting who you are, then working from there to change your appearance in whatever way you want.

"Anything that helps people feel better about themselves," she said, "there's something positive to that."

Nightclubs for the Plus-Size Start to Take Shape - Nutrition | Physical - FOXNews.com