Obesity bad for sex

Moral of the story: Obesity doesn't just shorten your life expectancy and worsen your quality of life in the stereotypical ways, it also affects sexual health in serious and unexpected ways (ED, STIs, fewer sexual partners, less use of contraception, and a dramatically higher rate of unintended pregnancies).

Source: BMJ Press Release 6/18/2010

(1) Obesity may harm your sexual health
(Research: Sexuality and obesity, a gender perspective: results from French national random probability survey of sexual behaviours)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/340/jun15_1/c2573 (Editorial: Obesity and poor sexual health outcomes)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/jun15_1/c2826
Being obese impacts on sexual health according to research published on bmj.com today.
The study reports that the rate of unplanned pregnancies is four times higher among single obese women than normal weight women, despite them being less likely to have been sexually active in the past year. Obese women are less likely to seek contraceptive advice or to use oral contraceptives. Obese men have fewer sexual partners in a 12 month period, but are more likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and develop sexually transmitted infections than normal weight men.
Obesity is emerging as one of the fastest growing pandemics in modern times says the study, but its effects on sexual health are unclear. The research led by Professor Nathalie Bajos, Research Director at the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicale in Paris, is the first major study to investigate the impact of being overweight or obese on sexual activity and sexual health outcomes such as sexual satisfaction, unintended pregnancy and abortion.
The authors undertook a survey of sexual behaviours among 12,364 men and women aged between 18 and 69 years of age living in France in 2006. Of the participants, 3,651 women and 2,725 men were normal weight (BMI between 18.5 and 25), 1,010 women and 1,488 men were overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) and 411 women and 350 men were obese (BMI over 30).
The results show that obese women were 30% less likely to have had a sexual partner in the last 12 months. Obese men were 70% less likely to have had more than one sexual partner in the same period and were two and half times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction.
Sexual dysfunction was not associated with BMI among women. However, obese women under 30 were less likely to seek contraceptive advice or use oral contraceptives. They were also more likely to report an unintended pregnancy. Obese men under 30 were far more likely to have had a sexually transmitted infection.
Obese women were also five times as likely to have met their partner on the internet, more likely to have an obese partner, and less likely to view sex as important for personal life balance. The authors suggest that social pressure, low self-esteem and concerns about body image may help explain these findings.
The authors conclude that the public health impact of these findings is important. They say: “The scale of the problem and the magnitude of the effects (particularly the fourfold increase in risk of unintended pregnancy among obese women) warrants focused attention. In terms of targeting advice and care, a considerable proportion of the population is obese, is easily identified as such, as is at increased risk in terms of poorer sexual health status.”
In an accompanying editorial, Dr Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a specialist in psychosexual medicine, points to evidence showing that doctors find it difficult to discuss sex and weight issues with patients, and believes that clinicians must be prepared to address these difficult subjects which have such important effects on health and quality of life. She says: “We need to understand more about how obese people feel about their sex lives, and what drives the observed behaviours and attitudes.”
She concludes: “In public health terms, the study lends a new slant to a familiar message: that obesity can harm not only health and longevity, but your sex life. And culturally, it reminds us as clinicians and researchers to look at the subjects we find difficult.”
Contacts:
Research: Nathalie Bajos, Associate Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Research Director, Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, Paris, France
Email: nathalie.bajos@inserm.fr Editorial: Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, Associate Specialist in Psychosexual Medicine, Camden and Islington Mental Health Trust and Specialty Doctor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ipswich Hospital, UK Email: goldbeckwood@doctors.org.uk

World Cup horns could damage hearing, spread infectious diseases.

Moral of the story: wear earplugs and wash your hands.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/16/2010

World Cup horns could damage hearing, spread infectious diseases.

The Wall Street Journal (6/15, Stewart) reported that instead of the enthusiastic chants and cheers which usually play background to the World Cup, fans are hearing something quite different: loud plastic horns known as vuvuzelas. Traditionally, they were used to rally people living in remote places. Today, however, they are being used to champion athletes. But, in addition to the conflict they're causing among attendees and broadcasters, health experts are now saying they prompt hearing loss. In fact, researchers have found that even in the presence of hearing protection, the sound is "unacceptably high," louder even than an air horn and chain saw. The horn's biggest threat, however, is its ability to spread infectious disease like the flu.

US cigarette brands expose smokers to higher levels of cancer-causing agents.

Moral of the story: Not only is smoking bad for, in fact will kill you, but smoking in the US is especially bad for you.  The real question is why on earth are US cigarettes so bad for you?  Are the companies aware of this?  Is the newly empowered FDA going to address this issue?

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/2/2010

US cigarette brands expose smokers to higher levels of cancer-causing agents.

CBS News (6/1) reported on its website that "'cigarettes from around the world vary in their ingredients and the way they are produced,' Dr. Jim Pirkle, deputy director for science at the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Laboratory Sciences, said in a statement." But a newly-published paper appearing in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention shows, "for the first time, the major carcinogens and cancer-causing agents in tobacco products, which researchers call tobacco-specific nitrosamines [TSNAs], were found in higher levels in US cigarettes than in cigarettes from" three other countries.

        Before reaching that conclusion, the "CDC team enlisted 126 regular smokers in Australia, Canada, Britain and, in the US, in New York and Minnesota," the Los Angeles Times (6/1, Maugh) "Booster Shots" blog reported. "All smoked one brand routinely, typically the most popular brands in their country." Minnesotans "smoked Marlboro, Newport, Marlboro Light and Camel Light, while those in New York smoked Marlboro, Newport, Newport Light, Camel Light and Marlboro Menthol." The researchers "focused on the most lethal carcinogen in the tobacco smoke, 4-(methylnitrosoamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), and its primary metabolite in urine, known informally as NNAL."

Refusal of vaccines puts other "children in harm's way"

Moral of the story: Get yourself and your children vaccinated.  That is all.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/2/2010

Parents who refuse vaccines put other people's "children in harm's way," clinician says.

In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times (6/1), Pamela Nguyen, of UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital, pointed out that, according to CDC data, "there were 197,000 measles deaths worldwide" in 2007. The following year, "a seven-year-old unvaccinated child who was exposed to the virus while abroad" ignited an outbreak in San Diego. Still, "many parents continue not to vaccinate their children." Some believe certain "vaccine-preventable diseases" are "no longer a threat," while "parents in the San Diego outbreak...were afraid of autism." This is "creating large reservoirs of susceptibility, primarily in private and charter schools that are generally free from state restrictions." In other words, "by choosing not to vaccinate, parents put not only their own children, but also other peoples' 'children in harm's way.'"

Chefs improving school lunches- finally

Moral of the story: Chefs are finally starting to become involved in the fight against obesity.  Working with Michelle Obama they are starting an adopt a school program and are going to offer classes.  This is a very important first step, and as a former chef, I have to say a decidedly tardy but welcome one.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/4/2010

Chefs aim to improve school lunches in DC, across the US.

The Washington Post (6/4, Black) reports that Washington, DC's Iron Chefs "have taken the first steps to make real the lofty goals of Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative, which aims to end childhood obesity within a generation." Some have begun "teaching cooking classes to hundreds of students and parents, and have helped to plant school gardens." On Friday, "hundreds of...chefs will gather at the White House to launch a national adopt-a-school program. Dubbed Chefs Move to Schools, the initiative will draw both the brightest stars of the culinary universe -- Rachael Ray, Tom Colicchio and Cat Cora -- and the unknown soldiers who staff corporate kitchens, food banks and culinary schools."

        In an editorial, the Houston Chronicle (6/4) mentions the meeting between Mrs. Obama and the chefs, and says, "It's a fun, flashy piece of the mom-in-chief's war on childhood obesity -- which is, sadly, a big fat American problem." Notably, "Houston is on the leading edge of the problem." Approximately "36 percent of our kids ages 6 to 17 are overweight; 19 percent are obese." But, according to the Chronicle, "we're also on the leading edge of the solution -- largely because of Recipe for Success, one of the biggest organizations battling childhood obesity. The nonprofit group runs after-school cooking and gardening classes, as well as summer camps."

Obesity leads to caesareans, birth defects

Moral of the story: The US always has an abysmal showing in health statistics considering how much we spend on health care.  This story helps to fill that gap in reasoning.  Obesity is bad for OB/GYN.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/7/2010

High obesity rates contributing to high caesarean rates, more birth defects.

The New York Times (6/6, A1, Hartocollis) reported on its front page, "As Americans have grown fatter over the last generation, inviting more heart disease, diabetes and premature deaths, all that extra weight has also become a burden in the maternity ward, where babies take their first breath of life." Approximately "one in five women are obese when they become pregnant, meaning they have a body mass index of at least 30, as would a 5-foot-5 woman weighing 180 pounds, according to researchers with" the CDC. In addition, "medical evidence suggests that obesity might be contributing to record-high rates of Caesarean sections and leading to more birth defects and deaths for mothers and babies."

Health and global warming

Moral of the story: There are very real health effects to global warming that are rarely discussed in the news.  These should be an important part of the global warming discussion, as well as of the health discussion.  For example, obesity, public transport and climate change are integrally related and should be discussed as such.  We need better organized cities with better transportation, food and clinical care options.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/3/2010

Health benefits of potential global warming policy rarely discussed.

In the Washington Post (6/2) "Ezra Klein" column, Kate Sheppard pointed out that "among the many positive outcomes of carbon-reduction policy often ignored when looking at the costs are the health benefits." For instance, "programs to reduce emissions, like providing better public transportation and improving urban planning, could...result in indirect healthcare savings, thanks to lower obesity rates and fewer respiratory and heart problems." Meanwhile, "kidney stones could increase by 30 percent or more in some areas of the US because of dehydration -- a problem that alone could cost the US healthcare system more than $1 billion per year." Such arguments, however, "rarely surface in the climate debate." In fact, "a forthcoming study...found that stories connecting health and global warming made up just five percent of the climate coverage in the New York Times and...the Washington Post."

Hyaluronic acid only works when injected- don't waste your money

Moral of the story: If you want to fix your wrinkles, get some injectable hyaluronic acid, otherwise, don't waste your money on the topical forms.

Source: AMA Morning Rounds 6/7/2010

Hyaluronic acid does not eliminate wrinkles when used topically, dermatologist explains.

The Los Angeles Times (6/6, Dawson) reported that "hyaluronic acid, a substance that plumps and softens skin...has been added to products including lip gloss, eye shadows and moisturizers -- and almost everything else in the beauty aisle." The substance, which "is also the key component of several injectable wrinkle fillers," is able to draw "moisture from the air and is said to hold up to 1, 000 times its weight in water." Cosmetic dermatologist Norwell Solish, MD, FRCP (C) pointed out, however, that while hyaluronic acid works well as an injectable dermal filler, "it doesn't eliminate wrinkles" when used topically on the skin.