Stop Stressing...Stop Cancer?

When it comes to your health, stress has earned its bad boy image (Want proof? Just take a look at what it does to your body.) I just got done reading Steve Mitchell's "Feeling stressed out linked to cervical cancer" on MSNBC, and it's definitely worth a read. A new study shows that a woman's stress-level might be a factor in her body's ability to fight off the cancer-causing virus, HPV. It's too soon to tell (they're currently doing more research), but it's a good article and it definitely doesn't hurt to think about it it--just don't stress about it!

Heartwarming Spouse Study

Hate how he always leaves the toilet seat up or that his morning breath lasts all day? A new study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research says to get used to the stuff that bugs you about about your better half. In fact, if you're in it for the long-run, buckle up--it could be a bumpy ride.

Kira Birditt, the lead author of the study, and colleagues Lisa Jackey and Toni Antonucci, sampled 800 people in the greater Detroit metropolitan area in 1992 and 2005 to evaluate how negative views of spouses, children and friends changed over time. The consensus? Each of the three age groups (20-39, 40-59 and 60 and over) viewed their spouses most negatively compared with friends and kids. The better news? That feeling typically increased over time.

And while individuals were busy getting more bugged by their spouses, their other relationships actually became less irritating over time. Why? Well, it actually makes pretty logical sense. Kids grow into mature, independent adults, making the parent's role a whole lot less demanding (and irritating). And as the saying goes ("you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose..."), we actively and highly-selectively choose our friends as we get older, so our negative feelings stay at bay by simply ditching ones that don't fit the bill.

Not exactly the way it works in partner relationships. The longer you're together, the more real your relationship gets. Sometimes that reality isn't picture perfect. His dying-to-impress you gig when you started dating can change faster than Cinderella at midnight, and your polite, I-love-everything-about-you act sometimes doesn't last long either. But that might just be the way the cookie crumbles in normal relationships.

So should all young, unattached singles out there throw in the towel on finding their happily ever after? Not yet. Researchers still seem confident about love, marriage and the happy-ending that ties it all together. While it may not be perfect or easy or pretty all the time, if you keep a healthy dose of reality (and a big bottle of mouth wash), you'll be able to work through every bothersome bump together.

Fat's the new black

I'm going to go out on a limb here and acknowledge the HUGE white elephant in this country: America has a weight issue. While the thin-is-in mentality has faced harsh criticism for its role in the fashion industry and Hollywood, the rest of the nation is dealing with a different, but equally dangerous mindset--that fat's the new black.

As long as I can remember, flipping through magazines meant looking at young girls with bodies that seemed too good to be true (only to find out that they are--mostly every image placed in women's magazines are retouched and fixed to look "better"). Sure, I probably wished my legs were that skinny, or that long, or my hair was that silky, or my lips that perfectly pouty. Maybe I got a complex from all the images, but it was the same complex I got from my gorgeous best friends and my perfectly beautiful classmates.

Flash forward to today. In an attempt to combat the emaciated starlets and models, the country has launched a plus-size counterattack. What began as a fantastic idea in the beginning, has had some unforeseen side effects. With roughly two-thirds of the population overweight or obese (and no, that's not in skinny model terms, that's in professional doctor terms), there are new concerns that our cultural connotations of healthy have shifted into dangerous waters. Take some time to read MSNBC's "Is fat the new normal?" by Karen Collins, which looks at a study from the July issue of Economic Inquiry. It seems as though as our country packs on the pounds, the cultural ideas of "healthy weight" tip the scales as well.

Now don't get the wrong idea here. I don't think it's okay that we let size 00 models stomp (or should I say, dizzily stumble) down runways. I'm still trying to understand how we have sizes like 00. It's uncomfortable to watch Project Runway and hear designers say that their model is harder to work with because she is a healthy size 4. But I also think that telling young women to completely disregard their health as long as they are proud of their bigger bodies isn't the solution either. Despite what some would like to believe, there is a line that no one should cross (on both extremes). There is such a thing as being too fat, just as there is a limit to how thin is too thin. It reaches a point where the curves become dangerous, and the health risks become serious.

I'm all for supporting women of all shapes and sizes, and being proud of who we are despite what the media has to say about it, but I think it's more important to be honest with yourself. Are you within a healthy weight range, or do you need to make some changes?

MSNBC's "A java jolt may boost, not wreck, your workout" was just what I needed to read as I sit here downing my morning mug of coffee, thinking about my workout in a few hours.

After reading through the American College of Sports Medicine's "Roundtable on Hydration and Physical Activity: Consensus Statements," here's what they said:

2. Caffeine, alcohol, and protein can modestly increase urine water losses.
A. Caffeine ingestion has a modest diuretic effect in some individuals, but does not affect water replacement in habitual caffeine users, so caffeinated beverages (eg, coffee, tea, soft drinks) can be ingested during the day by athletes who are not caffeine naive.

"Concussions and girls"

I was catching up on the past few days of CNN's Paging Dr. Gupta blog and today's entry caught my attention. "Concussions and girls" posted by Sharhreen Abedin dissects a recent study by the Journal of Athletic Training looking at high school athletic participation and frequency of concussions. What did they find? Girls suffer from more of them than boys. It's definitely worth a read, but this is the part that made me think:

What I find even more intriguing are the possible explanations behind the surprising stats. On one hand, researchers point to biophysical phenomena - for instance, the fact that boys have stronger neck muscles and larger heads than girls, so they can tolerate stronger blows.

But there is also a sociocultural explanation: The suspicion that girls tend to report their concussion symptoms more than boys, and boys hold back when they may be feeling a bit dizzy or nauseated because they want to be tough and keep playing, despite the potential long-term dangers of getting hit again too soon. (By the way, those possible dangers are no joke: repeated concussions can lead to long-term loss of cognitive function and memory loss.) And as far as returning to the field - coaches, athletic trainers and parents tend to be more cautious about letting girls back on to the court or field, more so than with their male counterparts.

So what is it? Are girls just not quite tough enough, or are boys too stubborn? I think it's not a boy v. girl matter, but a tough athlete v. sub-par one. I'll agree that society might "coddle" female competitors more than boys, but I refuse to accept the other explanation (that female athletes are crybaby's). As a former Division I athlete, I have my teammates bite their lips as their fight through everything from breaks to tears, concussions to dislocations just so they can stay on the field. I had a teammate (2 concussions deep) lie through a physical so she could get back out on the field (only to get another concussion). I'll accept that maybe biologically boys have a leg up, but I know that young women are just as tough (and stubborn) as any male athlete I have ever met.

Now you see it, now you don't!

We are powerless to ignore the clarion call of the candy jar, the beckoning of the buffet, the summons of the snack cupboard.

In one experiment, Wansink placed candy jars of chocolate in office workers' cubicles for a month. Simply having the candy closer meant the office workers ate five more candies a day. That adds up to 125 calories a day, or 12 pounds a year.

Whether or not we'd like to admit it, Brian Wansink, author of "Mindless Eating," has hit the nail right on the head. As he explains in this CNN article, we are "powerless" to the food that erks nearby.

I can testify to that.

Just last night, while my roommate and I studied through the night for our endless number of midterms, we reached our breaking point (I think it was somewhere between the third pot of coffee and the last Twizzzler). We took a break, only to regroup with some added company: a box of those iced animal crackers, a big bag of peanut butter M&Ms, and two bags of Sour Patch Kids.

These are a-bombs to my (somewhat) healthy eating patterns. I, for one, had not been craving any of those things--until, they were sitting right in front of me. Casually and subconsciously, my hand kept reaching into the bag of M&Ms. Within an hour, we looked at each other astonished (and half-disgusted)--everything was gone. Mr. Wansink, we would be great candidates for your next experiment.

Wansink's solution: Surrender. Accept that you will give in to temptation.

My solution: Keep all volatile items (ie. chocolate, candy, cookies, and ice cream) away from stressed, tired college students!