Did you do a double take after you read the title of today's posting? I know I would. It sounds sarcastic or provocative, but it's not - just the plain truth. According to a new research, anyway.
The Cancer Research UK-funded study involving 200,000 women from nine European countries found that doing housework can reduce the risk of breast cancer. Seriously. The research looked at both pre- and post-menopausal women doing a range of physical activities such as work, leisure and housework. When taken together, all forms of activities reduced tbe breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women, but had no visible effect on pre-menopausal women.
Only housework, of all the activities, significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer in both pre- and post-menopausal women. In fact, doing household chores cut the risk by 30% among the first group and 20% among the latter.
The women in the research were studied over an average of 6.4 years. They spent an average of 16 to 17 hours a week doing housework. The results of the research suggested that moderate forms of physical activity like housework may be more important than more intense but less frequent activity in reducing breast cancer risk.
It has long been known that exercise can reduce the risk of breast cancer. Women who maintain a healthy weight are also less likely to develop breast cancer, according to Dr Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK.
So if you're a woman and you don't enjoy doing housework (I still don't), you might begin to see it as a health-enhancing activity. I imagine some men will use this as another reason not to do any household chores. Well, I'm off now - to do some housework, of course.
Monday, 8 January 2007
Sunday, 7 January 2007
Saved by the search engine
I admit I'm seriously addicted to the internet. If I was asked what (not who) I would take with me to a remote island, it would be any gadget that would give me access to the internet.
I also like search engines, especially Google. No, I haven't been paid to promote Google, honest. It's just that I've been able to find a lot of life-enhancing information via their search engine. And so I can understand why Louise Barker feels that Google saved her daughter's sight.
I read Ms Barker's story in the Reader's Digest; it seems to have been first published in The Guardian. Ms Barker's daughter was born with a birthmark that two health visitors, five GPs and four midwives said was nothing to worry about. But Ms Barker WAS worried because the birthmark was growing "like some alien" and she kept asking about it during her daughter's six-week check. To keep her quiet, she said, she was offered a non-urgent appointment with a dermatologist.
Ms Barker was, however, desperate to get to the root of her daughter's strange birthmark and so she "Googled" it. Within minutes, she found photos of the same condition her daughter had. She emailed the Birthmark Support Group and within 24 hours, a parent who helped run the group arranged an appointment at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. Long story short, Ms Barker's daughter was diagnosed with a rare condition that could have caused her to go blind. The consultant who treated her was thrilled to able to save her sight as he sees many children with reduced prospects as a result of poor diagnosis and referral.
Ms Barker doesn't recommend people "second-guess their GPs with Googled symptoms" but she believes the Net can be a godsend. I know it's helped me too. When I had an unusual (for me) condition affecting my wrist, the GP I saw recommended surgery or steroid injections for what I was told could be a chronic condition. Now I'm not keen on surgery or strong drugs and so I decided to search for less invasive alternatives. So I googled my symptoms (the GP had told me the name of the condition but I forget what it's called) and found that it could take months to recover from surgery, not to mention the risks involved. I opted for a few sessions of physiotherapy as well as taking nutritionally advanced supplements that I also happen to market. Within a month, I was pain free.
Moral of the story: we're all responsible for maintaining our own health. And Google's a great search engine.
I also like search engines, especially Google. No, I haven't been paid to promote Google, honest. It's just that I've been able to find a lot of life-enhancing information via their search engine. And so I can understand why Louise Barker feels that Google saved her daughter's sight.
I read Ms Barker's story in the Reader's Digest; it seems to have been first published in The Guardian. Ms Barker's daughter was born with a birthmark that two health visitors, five GPs and four midwives said was nothing to worry about. But Ms Barker WAS worried because the birthmark was growing "like some alien" and she kept asking about it during her daughter's six-week check. To keep her quiet, she said, she was offered a non-urgent appointment with a dermatologist.
Ms Barker was, however, desperate to get to the root of her daughter's strange birthmark and so she "Googled" it. Within minutes, she found photos of the same condition her daughter had. She emailed the Birthmark Support Group and within 24 hours, a parent who helped run the group arranged an appointment at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. Long story short, Ms Barker's daughter was diagnosed with a rare condition that could have caused her to go blind. The consultant who treated her was thrilled to able to save her sight as he sees many children with reduced prospects as a result of poor diagnosis and referral.
Ms Barker doesn't recommend people "second-guess their GPs with Googled symptoms" but she believes the Net can be a godsend. I know it's helped me too. When I had an unusual (for me) condition affecting my wrist, the GP I saw recommended surgery or steroid injections for what I was told could be a chronic condition. Now I'm not keen on surgery or strong drugs and so I decided to search for less invasive alternatives. So I googled my symptoms (the GP had told me the name of the condition but I forget what it's called) and found that it could take months to recover from surgery, not to mention the risks involved. I opted for a few sessions of physiotherapy as well as taking nutritionally advanced supplements that I also happen to market. Within a month, I was pain free.
Moral of the story: we're all responsible for maintaining our own health. And Google's a great search engine.
Saturday, 6 January 2007
Counting calories
I'm an online junkie and I like to trawl the internet for information on various subjects. All wholesome, of course.
I found an interesting post which I thought I'd share. If you are into healthy eating, you might find this helpful, and even if you're not, just take a look anyway. You don't have to change anything about the way you eat if you don't want to.
Do you know what 200 calories look like? Go here to see colourful pictures. You may be surprised.
It's late so I'm off to bed. I hope I don't count calories in my sleep (hey, that's got to be better than counting sheep!)
I found an interesting post which I thought I'd share. If you are into healthy eating, you might find this helpful, and even if you're not, just take a look anyway. You don't have to change anything about the way you eat if you don't want to.
Do you know what 200 calories look like? Go here to see colourful pictures. You may be surprised.
It's late so I'm off to bed. I hope I don't count calories in my sleep (hey, that's got to be better than counting sheep!)
Friday, 5 January 2007
All you can eat
In January many people think about losing weight. Either because they stuffed themselves over the holiday period or because they make a new year resolution to control their weight. Unfortunately, many resolutions are short-lived.
I'm interested in the different approaches to weight control . Take weight loss surgery, for instance. I've just read an interesting article on the subject. What follows may be too graphic for some. You've been warned.
Apparently, a gastric balloon can be placed down your oesophagus to control obesity. Once inside your stomach, the balloon is inflated, causing it to take up space so that you eat less. Some doctors have even proposed a sleeve that can be shoved up your intestines to block calorie consumption.
Weight loss surgery involves stomach-intestine procedures. The intestinal part bypasses your bowels so that you don't absorb calories. With the stomach procedure, the aim is to reduce the amount you can eat by making you feel full. But it's now possible to stretch the reduced stomach by eating past the point of fullness. In the US, some doctors even offer to 'readjust' the gastric band so you can eat more.
The gastric bypass is supposed to discourage you from eating too much sugar - apparently your body suffers if you do. Still, it is possible to work around this limitation by having procedures focused on the intestines. These procedures reduce more fat than gastric bands and bypasses, and they allow you to have a much bigger stomach too.
These are all drastic procedures that are not without risk. Yet, reports suggest more and more people are undergoing weight loss surgery. It seems that people can now lose excess weight without changing their eating behaviour. As a weight loss coach, I believe that it is better to control one's weight through diet, exercise and self-restraint rather than surgery (if you need help with weight control, click here). But some doctors that carry out weight loss procedures may disagree.
Will the increasing availability of such procedures promote guilt-free gluttony? I don't know. What do you think?
I'm interested in the different approaches to weight control . Take weight loss surgery, for instance. I've just read an interesting article on the subject. What follows may be too graphic for some. You've been warned.
Apparently, a gastric balloon can be placed down your oesophagus to control obesity. Once inside your stomach, the balloon is inflated, causing it to take up space so that you eat less. Some doctors have even proposed a sleeve that can be shoved up your intestines to block calorie consumption.
Weight loss surgery involves stomach-intestine procedures. The intestinal part bypasses your bowels so that you don't absorb calories. With the stomach procedure, the aim is to reduce the amount you can eat by making you feel full. But it's now possible to stretch the reduced stomach by eating past the point of fullness. In the US, some doctors even offer to 'readjust' the gastric band so you can eat more.
The gastric bypass is supposed to discourage you from eating too much sugar - apparently your body suffers if you do. Still, it is possible to work around this limitation by having procedures focused on the intestines. These procedures reduce more fat than gastric bands and bypasses, and they allow you to have a much bigger stomach too.
These are all drastic procedures that are not without risk. Yet, reports suggest more and more people are undergoing weight loss surgery. It seems that people can now lose excess weight without changing their eating behaviour. As a weight loss coach, I believe that it is better to control one's weight through diet, exercise and self-restraint rather than surgery (if you need help with weight control, click here). But some doctors that carry out weight loss procedures may disagree.
Will the increasing availability of such procedures promote guilt-free gluttony? I don't know. What do you think?
Thursday, 4 January 2007
Chocolate Alert
I'm sure glad I don't have strong cravings for chocolate anymore.
Would nutritional labelling have helped me control my consumption? Perhaps, but not before I was ready to eat more healthily.
A campaign to promote nutritional labels is being launched by some of the UK's biggest food manufacturers, including the company that makes Mars and other chocolate bars. The labels will show percentages of guideline daily amounts (GDA) of sugar, salt, fat and calories in each serving.
The GDA labelling differs from the "traffic lights" system (with its red, amber or green labels) approved by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA says its research shows traffic light labels are easier to understand than the percentages used in the GDA system. The GDA group claims the opposite is true. But they also say consumers will avoid products with red labels. Could this be the real reason for the campaign?
I don't think the GDA group need worry that people will avoid products with red labels. Those who aren't interested in making healthy food choices will ignore all labels, just as many smokers ignore the health warnings on cigarette packs and the anti-smoking TV ads.
Nutritional labels of any type will help only people who WANT to eat healthier food.
Would nutritional labelling have helped me control my consumption? Perhaps, but not before I was ready to eat more healthily.
A campaign to promote nutritional labels is being launched by some of the UK's biggest food manufacturers, including the company that makes Mars and other chocolate bars. The labels will show percentages of guideline daily amounts (GDA) of sugar, salt, fat and calories in each serving.
The GDA labelling differs from the "traffic lights" system (with its red, amber or green labels) approved by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA says its research shows traffic light labels are easier to understand than the percentages used in the GDA system. The GDA group claims the opposite is true. But they also say consumers will avoid products with red labels. Could this be the real reason for the campaign?
I don't think the GDA group need worry that people will avoid products with red labels. Those who aren't interested in making healthy food choices will ignore all labels, just as many smokers ignore the health warnings on cigarette packs and the anti-smoking TV ads.
Nutritional labels of any type will help only people who WANT to eat healthier food.
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
Take control or take risks - your call
Just how much control does one have over one's life?
Depending on their worldview, people tend to ascribe a greater or lesser role to predestination, circumstances outside their control, or simply, "fate". In a survey conducted by Cancer Research UK, 4000 people were asked if they thought they could cut their risk of developing cancer or whether it was out of their hands.
In total, 27% said it was "down to fate" whether they would be affected by the disease. In the most deprived areas, the percentage of those who believed they had no control over their cancer risk rose to 43%, and in most privileged areas it was as low as 14%. Make of this what you will. The poll also showed that 34% of smokers and 36% of over 65s shared this worldview.
Dr Lesley Walker, the director of cancer information at Cancer Research, was shocked by the results of the survey. Dr Walker says that half of all cancer cases can be prevented by lifestyle changes. Smoking and obesity can increase the risk of cancer.
I know people who disagree with this. They say that life's too short to deny oneself of pleasures such as smoking or overeating. I can see how someone can think like that. What I don't understand though is why many people treat some of their possessions, take cars for instance, with much better care than they do their bodies. After all, a car can be replaced if it is beyond repair; the same can't be said of the body.
Depending on their worldview, people tend to ascribe a greater or lesser role to predestination, circumstances outside their control, or simply, "fate". In a survey conducted by Cancer Research UK, 4000 people were asked if they thought they could cut their risk of developing cancer or whether it was out of their hands.
In total, 27% said it was "down to fate" whether they would be affected by the disease. In the most deprived areas, the percentage of those who believed they had no control over their cancer risk rose to 43%, and in most privileged areas it was as low as 14%. Make of this what you will. The poll also showed that 34% of smokers and 36% of over 65s shared this worldview.
Dr Lesley Walker, the director of cancer information at Cancer Research, was shocked by the results of the survey. Dr Walker says that half of all cancer cases can be prevented by lifestyle changes. Smoking and obesity can increase the risk of cancer.
I know people who disagree with this. They say that life's too short to deny oneself of pleasures such as smoking or overeating. I can see how someone can think like that. What I don't understand though is why many people treat some of their possessions, take cars for instance, with much better care than they do their bodies. After all, a car can be replaced if it is beyond repair; the same can't be said of the body.
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
'Hair' Me Out
Hair is an emotive subject for many black women. When the terms 'good hair' and 'bad hair' have been used, they have often meant long, straight, soft and silky (Caucasian-like) hair; and short, coarse and tightly curled ('kinky', 'nappy', Afro) hair respectively.
From the pressing combs to the earlier straighteners, permanent relaxers, jheri curls and more recent weaves, black women everywhere have sought to make their hair 'more manageable'. Although so called 'natural styles' are increasingly being sported, most black women have their hair chemically processed in some way. For many years I had my hair processed despite extreme pain, discomfort and hair loss. Then ten years ago I made the decision to stop processing my hair. I continued to use vegetable dyes to cover grey hair (I went grey in my teens) until recently.
I remember when I first started wearing my hair in locks some years ago. A few black women, one of whom was a very close relative, made disparaging remarks and tried to talk me into wearing a more 'acceptable' hairstyle. Acceptable to whom? I told them it was my hair and I could choose what I did with it. And I believe that's true for everyone. I'm not going around telling women who choose to process their hair to go natural. The safety of the ingredients contained in many hair products, particularly those marketed to black women, have not been determined. And so I am careful about what I use on my hair.
Now I will get off my soap box. Below is some information you may find interesting.
I was inspired to write this post by an article that was forwarded to me by a friend (thanks, Mary). The article is by Debbie Norrell, a 15-year breast cancer survivor. You can read it Center of Environmental Oncology in Pittsburgh, U.S. has studied the links between personal care products and cancer. Their findings show a possible link between the use of certain products containing hormones like placenta and the greater incidence of breast cancer in black women under 40 (when compared to white women). You can read about the Center's research here.
I admit to using placenta-based products myself many years ago, and I shudder to think that I used them without thinking. Now I have questions like: how is the placenta obtained? What possibly unethical practices was I encouraging by my purchase of hormone-containing products?
While browsing the Center of Environmental Oncology's website, I also came across another interesting article. They have investigated the earlier onset of puberty in African-American girls (when compared to European- American girls) and while the causes have not been determined, it is thought that hormone-containing hair products used by black girls and their mothers may be a factor. You can read more about this here.
I found all of the above information interesting and wanted to share it with you, regardless of how you choose to wear your hair. You can forward this post to others by clicking on the envelope icon below. I will be updating this blog daily so you can either bookmark this page or click on the 'subscribe' link at the end of this post and you will be notified of updates.
I'd like to hear your comments. So if you've got an opinion on the subject, please share it by clicking on the 'comments' link below. Select 'Other' (not 'Anonymous if you want to enter the draw), enter your name and then type in your comment. As an incentive, everyone who sends in a comment by Saturday midnight GMT will have their name entered into a draw. The prize is a natural hair product, free of hormones, of course.
I hope you have a 'good hair' day.
From the pressing combs to the earlier straighteners, permanent relaxers, jheri curls and more recent weaves, black women everywhere have sought to make their hair 'more manageable'. Although so called 'natural styles' are increasingly being sported, most black women have their hair chemically processed in some way. For many years I had my hair processed despite extreme pain, discomfort and hair loss. Then ten years ago I made the decision to stop processing my hair. I continued to use vegetable dyes to cover grey hair (I went grey in my teens) until recently.
I remember when I first started wearing my hair in locks some years ago. A few black women, one of whom was a very close relative, made disparaging remarks and tried to talk me into wearing a more 'acceptable' hairstyle. Acceptable to whom? I told them it was my hair and I could choose what I did with it. And I believe that's true for everyone. I'm not going around telling women who choose to process their hair to go natural. The safety of the ingredients contained in many hair products, particularly those marketed to black women, have not been determined. And so I am careful about what I use on my hair.
Now I will get off my soap box. Below is some information you may find interesting.
I was inspired to write this post by an article that was forwarded to me by a friend (thanks, Mary). The article is by Debbie Norrell, a 15-year breast cancer survivor. You can read it Center of Environmental Oncology in Pittsburgh, U.S. has studied the links between personal care products and cancer. Their findings show a possible link between the use of certain products containing hormones like placenta and the greater incidence of breast cancer in black women under 40 (when compared to white women). You can read about the Center's research here.
I admit to using placenta-based products myself many years ago, and I shudder to think that I used them without thinking. Now I have questions like: how is the placenta obtained? What possibly unethical practices was I encouraging by my purchase of hormone-containing products?
While browsing the Center of Environmental Oncology's website, I also came across another interesting article. They have investigated the earlier onset of puberty in African-American girls (when compared to European- American girls) and while the causes have not been determined, it is thought that hormone-containing hair products used by black girls and their mothers may be a factor. You can read more about this here.
I found all of the above information interesting and wanted to share it with you, regardless of how you choose to wear your hair. You can forward this post to others by clicking on the envelope icon below. I will be updating this blog daily so you can either bookmark this page or click on the 'subscribe' link at the end of this post and you will be notified of updates.
I'd like to hear your comments. So if you've got an opinion on the subject, please share it by clicking on the 'comments' link below. Select 'Other' (not 'Anonymous if you want to enter the draw), enter your name and then type in your comment. As an incentive, everyone who sends in a comment by Saturday midnight GMT will have their name entered into a draw. The prize is a natural hair product, free of hormones, of course.
I hope you have a 'good hair' day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
