The Scientific Reason You Aren’t Enjoying Your Free Time

Photo: Getty Images

How many of you live and die by your paper planner (yes, those still exist) or smartphone calendar? Logging every meeting, doctor’s appointment, and, of course, that Monday reminder to signup for your weekly SoulCycle classes, all in an effort to stay on top of your daily to-dos? Well, according to a series of 13 studies from the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, there is one type of event you should steer clear of scheduling: leisure activities. Yep, penciling in that 5 p.m. happy hour with your girls is a big no-no. Here’s why: researchers found that attaching a specific date and time to recreational activities made them less enjoyable.

RELATED: 12 Worst Habits for Your Mental Health

“We consistently find that leisure, once scheduled, becomes more like work,” explains study co-author Selin Malkoc, PhD, an associate professor of marketing at Washington University. “As a result, people become less excited and even resentful towards such scheduled leisure. Maybe more importantly, they also enjoy scheduled leisure significantly less than unscheduled leisure.”

Malkoc and her fellow researcher, doctoral candidate Gabriela Tonietto, looked into everything from going to a play to grabbing a coffee or snacks with a friend to test-driving a car—and the results remained the same. In fact, Malkoc notes that in one study, when folks were asked to think about the last movie they had seen, and report on how much they liked it and whether or not they had scheduled it, those who had made fixed plans derived significantly less pleasure from the activity.

Which makes sense. I mean how many times have you made plans in advance only to blow them off because, well, you just weren’t in the mood or, let’s be honest, you felt like it was a more of a chore to get yourself up, dressed, and out the door to said meeting place.

RELATED: 25 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be a Happier Person

So how do you make time for fun without it becoming a burden? Malkoc suggest being a little less structured with your plans. “For instance, instead of getting coffee from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., you could say ‘in the afternoon,’ or instead of 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., you could say ‘after dinner,'” she says. “We regularly find that when scheduling is done in this less specific way, it does not lead leisure to feel more like work, and thus it does not reduce enjoyment.”

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1YWDVzI

Move of the Week: Scale Pose

Scale pose is an effective move that targets and tones your abs. But it can be pretty challenging to conquer. Here, Health’s resident yoga expert, Kristin McGee, demonstrates the best way for yogis of any level to master the pose.

RELATED: Yoga Poses That Boost Metabolism

Here’s how to do it: If you can, fold your legs into lotus position. Otherwise sit in a comfortable cross-legged position. Place your hands on the mat next to your hips. Hollow out your lower abdominals and use your pelvic floor muscles to lift your lower body off the mat. Hold for 3 breaths, then lower back down. Do 3 reps.

If you can’t lift your entire lower body, keep your legs on the mat and lift your hips and buttocks for 3 breaths. Lower back down. Then lift your legs for 3 breaths and lower back down. Eventually you will be able lift both your hips and legs at the same time.

Trainer tip: To really reap the benefits of this pose, be sure to keep your abs hollowed out the entire time. 

Meet Kristin McGee at the Health‘s Total Wellness Weekend at Canyon Ranch April 22-24. For details, go to http://ift.tt/1AYb7dA.

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S2dENv

Mom’s Weight, Blood Sugar Levels May Affect Newborn’s Size

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Being overweight or obese during pregnancy may mean higher weights in newborns, a new study suggests.

Researchers have long known that heavier moms-to-be tend to have bigger babies. But it hasn’t been clear that the extra pounds, per se, are the reason.

So the new study, reported March 15 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, dove into the genetics of the issue.

Using genetic information from more than 30,000 women, researchers found that women who carried more obesity-related gene variants tended to give birth to bigger babies.

The same was true when the researchers considered mothers’ genetic vulnerability toward having high blood sugar — a precursor to type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, women with many gene variants tied to high blood pressure tended to have smaller newborns.

The findings offer good evidence that heavier weight and higher blood sugar in moms directly cause higher birth weight, according to Rachel Freathy, one of the researchers on the study. She’s a fellow at the University of Exeter Medical School, in the United Kingdom.

“Genetic association is stronger evidence of cause-effect than just measuring body mass index, glucose [blood sugar] or blood pressure,” Freathy explained.

That’s because a woman’s weight is influenced by education, diet, smoking and other lifestyle factors, Freathy said — and those factors also affect her baby’s birth weight.

“But a genetic ‘score’ for blood pressure, [obesity] or glucose is not influenced by these lifestyle factors,” she said.

The findings are based on genetic data from women who took part in 18 studies conducted in Europe, North America and Australia.

Freathy’s team assigned each woman “genetic scores” for obesity [before pregnancy], blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol and triglyceride levels. So, a woman who carried a large number of genes related to obesity, for example, would have a higher genetic score for that trait.

Overall, the study found, babies’ birth weight rose in tandem with mothers’ genetic scores for obesity and blood sugar.

For example, each standard deviation in the obesity score — about a 4-point increase in a woman’s body mass index (BMI) — was related to an extra 2 ounces in a newborn’s birth weight, the study said.

Body mass index is a rough estimate of a person’s body fat based on height and weight measurements. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered normal, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The researchers also found that for every 10-point increase in a woman’s systolic blood pressure meant a 7-ounce drop in her baby’s birth weight. Systolic is the top number in a blood pressure reading.

It makes sense that higher blood pressure scores would be related to lower birth weight, said Dr. Jennifer Wu. She’s an obstetrician at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City.

That’s because high blood pressure appears to restrict fetal growth, explained Wu. She wasn’t involved in the current research.

Wu agreed that the genetic associations in this study strengthen the case that a pregnant woman’s weight, blood sugar and blood pressure all directly affect her newborn’s weight.

The findings also support what’s already recommended for a healthy pregnancy, Wu said.

“It’s very important that women go into pregnancy at a healthy weight,” she said. Women who are obese, or show spikes in blood pressure or blood sugar during pregnancy, will likely need extra monitoring, Wu added.

“We want babies to be a healthy weight, not too heavy and not too light,” Freathy said.

The researchers said they plan to tackle the next big question: Do the effects of mothers’ weight, blood sugar and blood pressure on newborns’ weight eventually translate into health effects later in life?

For now, Freathy agreed that the findings underscore the importance of maintaining a healthy weight through diet and exercise — before and during pregnancy.

She also stressed that pregnant women should have regular prenatal care, including routine blood pressure and blood sugar checks.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has advice on having a healthy pregnancy.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MkCG5V

Vaccine Refusal a Driving Force Behind Measles Outbreaks, Study Finds

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — A look at recent measles outbreaks in the United States finds more than half of the cases involved unvaccinated children.

Vaccine refusal was also often the culprit in whooping cough (pertussis) outbreaks as well, according to the new study.

“When vaccine refusal rates are high, the rates of measles and pertussis are higher,” said researcher Dr. Varun Phadke, a fellow in infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta.

In 2000, the United States was declared measles-free. But infected travelers returning to the country have caused outbreaks, and unvaccinated children are most at risk, research has shown.

This study found that among more than 1,400 cases since 2000, more than half of patients had no history of vaccination. Most had nonmedical exemptions — based on religious or philosophical beliefs — not medical exemptions, researchers said.

The report was published March 15 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Measles and whooping cough are highly contagious, and when fewer people are vaccinated, widespread protection known as herd immunity breaks down, giving these viruses free rein to spread.

Dr. Matthew Davis is a professor of pediatrics and communicable diseases at the University of Michigan and author of an accompanying journal editorial. “Vaccination is one of the most effective and safest tools to protect our population against many diseases,” he said.

But rates of nonmedical vaccine exemptions have increased steadily over the past 20 years, the researchers said in background notes.

Davis and Phadke agreed that states need to make it harder to obtain vaccine exemptions.

In California, where a 2014 measles outbreak led to 111 cases, legislation was passed to eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination, Phadke said. He’d like to see other states follow California’s lead.

“States that make it harder not to get vaccinated have lower rates of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Phadke said. “Strategies aimed at decreasing vaccine refusal may have an important impact on the community.”

To determine how many outbreaks since 2000 were the results of vaccine refusal, Phadke and colleagues reviewed 18 previously published studies that included 1,416 measles cases. Among these patients, 57 percent had not been vaccinated, they found.

Looking at nearly 1,000 cases that had detailed vaccination data, they found nearly 600 were not vaccinated despite being eligible. In those cases, 71 percent had refused vaccination for religious or philosophical reasons, Phadke’s team found. The rest had medical reasons for not being vaccinated.

The researchers also looked at 32 reports on whooping cough outbreaks, which involved more than 10,600 patients. In the five largest outbreaks, up to 45 percent of the patients had not been vaccinated or had not had booster shots, the study authors said.

However, several of these outbreaks occurred in highly vaccinated populations. This indicates that immunity to whooping cough was waning, Phadke said.

The researchers also found that in eight of 12 whooping cough outbreaks for which detailed vaccination data was available, as many as 93 percent of unvaccinated patients were intentionally not immunized.

This trend is worrisome, Phadke said. “We are going to see more measles outbreaks,” he predicted.

Davis said efforts to improve vaccination coverage should involve multiple fronts.

“Outbreaks of diseases like measles and pertussis remind us that there are still ways to improve how we use vaccines to safeguard the health of children and adults across the United States,” he said.

Because some vaccines are less effective than others — the whooping cough vaccine, for example — more booster shots may be needed along with a new, more effective vaccine, Davis said.

Also, it’s not enough to just vaccinate children, he said. Outbreaks can be prevented “by doing a better job of vaccinating adults and not just trying to do the best job of vaccinating children,” Davis added.

More information

For more on childhood vaccines, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MkCFPz

‘Difficult’ Patients May Tend to Get Worse Care, Studies Find

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — What happens to medical care when the patient is a jerk?

Dutch researchers asked the question in two new studies, and the answer should make grumps think the better of their bad behavior: “Disruptive” patients may get worse care from physicians.

The findings aren’t definitive because the researchers tested how physicians responded in fictional vignettes, instead of real-life encounters. Still, the results suggest that patients who make a scene distract physicians from doing their jobs.

“Patients who behave disruptively by displaying disrespect or aggressiveness may induce their doctors to make diagnostic mistakes,” said Dr. Silvia Mamede, who worked on both studies. She is an associate professor with the Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands.

An estimated 15 percent of patients treated in doctors’ offices are aggressive, disrespectful, overly demanding or distrustful, Mamede said.

“As might be expected, these behaviors provoke emotional reactions in doctors,” she said.

But do these patients actually get worse care? Physicians have long talked about this question, but researchers haven’t investigated that issue, according to Mamede.

The study authors could have monitored actual doctors’ visits to find an answer, but Mamede said that approach would have been “virtually impossible” because each case is so different.

Instead, the researchers created vignettes about “neutral” patients and disruptive patients who do things such as make frequent demands, ignore the doctor’s advice and act helpless. Then they asked physicians to diagnose the patients.

This approach is “feasible, ethical and reasonable,” said Dr. Donald Redelmeier, senior core scientist with the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto. Redelmeier co-wrote a commentary accompanying the study.

In one study of 63 family medicine physicians from Rotterdam, “doctors made 42 percent more mistakes in disruptive than in non-disruptive patients when the cases were complex, and 6 percent more mistakes when the cases were simple,” Mamede said. (The physicians did a better job when they had more time to think about their diagnoses; experts determined the correct diagnoses.)

The other study, which included 74 internal medicine residents, produced similar findings: In cases considered to be moderately complex, “doctors made 20 percent more mistakes in difficult compared to neutral patients,” she added.

The studies don’t provide information about how often the physicians got a diagnosis completely correct or missed it entirely. Instead, the researchers scored the diagnoses based on whether they were correct, partially correct or wrong.

What’s going on? Mamede said disruptive patients distract physicians by “capturing” their attention, preventing them from focusing more on actual medical conditions.

It’s not clear, she said, if poorer care will make disruptive patients even more frustrating to deal with over time, creating a vicious cycle of increasing disruption and more inaccurate diagnoses.

But Redelmeier said such a “negative feedback loop” is possible.

What can be done?

“Physicians should be trained to deal with these disruptive behaviors explicitly and effectively,” Mamede said. “An aggressive patient can be calmed. A patient who displays lack of trust in his doctor can be referred to another doctor,” she suggested.

As for patients, Redelmeier referred to the points he and a co-author make in the commentary. Patients, they explained, can try to channel their emotion into polite comments; for example, “Thank you for seeing me. I am frightened by what I am experiencing and that is why I am here looking for something that might help.”

Still, the editorialists added, “real people . . . cannot always control their temper when suffering or in pain.” More research is needed to figure out the best approaches, Redelmeier suggested.

The study was published online March 14 in the journal BMJ Quality & Safety.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more about talking to your doctor.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MkCFz3

Good Sleep Habits Ready Kids for School Success

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Children who have good sleep habits by age 5 do better at school, a new study finds.

Researchers reviewed the sleep behavior of nearly 2,900 children in Australia from birth until they were 6 or 7. They found that one-third had mounting sleep problems in their first five years that put them at added risk for attention disorders and emotional and behavioral problems in school.

“We now know 70 per cent of children are regulating their own sleep by five years, but for the remaining third it may be detrimental to them developmentally over time,” researcher Kate Williams said in a Queensland University of Technology news release. Williams is on the faculty in its School of Early Childhood.

“The overwhelming finding is it’s vital to get children’s sleep behaviors right by the time they turn five,” she added.

The study was published recently in the British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Children with increasing sleep problems in early childhood were apt to be more hyperactive and to have more emotional outbursts in the classroom.

“If these sleep issues aren’t resolved by the time children are 5 years old, then they are at risk of poorer adjustment to school,” Williams said.

She said sleep problems can be sorted out before children reach school age if parents and child care workers are aware and supported. Prevention is the key, she added.

“Parents can withdraw some habits, like lying with children over and over, letting them into their bed, it’s really important to give children a sense of skill so they can do these things themselves,” Williams said.

More information

The National Sleep Foundation has more about children and sleep.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MkCFiz

Anxiety, Depression May Reduce Women’s Success With IVF: Study

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Depression and anxiety — but not necessarily antidepressants — are associated with a lower chance of becoming pregnant through in vitro fertilization (IVF), a new study suggests.

The research included more than 23,000 women in Sweden who underwent IVF since 2007. Just over 4 percent of the women were diagnosed with depression or anxiety in the two years before IVF, and/or were prescribed an antidepressant in the six months before undergoing the fertility treatment.

“We found that women undergoing their first IVF treatment who either had been diagnosed with depression or anxiety or had dispensed an antidepressant had lower rates of pregnancy and live birth rates compared to women who did not suffer from these conditions or take antidepressants before beginning their IVF treatment,” study first author Carolyn Cesta said in a news release from Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Cesta is a doctoral student in the institute’s department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics.

“Importantly, we found that women with a depression or anxiety diagnosis without a prescription of antidepressants had an even lower chance of becoming pregnant or having a live birth,” she added.

The findings were published online recently in the journal Fertility & Sterility.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Anastasia Nyman Iliadou, “Taken together, these results indicate that the depression and anxiety diagnoses may be the underlying factor leading to lower pregnancy and live birth rates in these women.” Iliadou is an associate professor in the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics.

But, she added in the news release, the association seen in the study does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. Because this was not a randomized study, the results could be due to lifestyle and/or genetic factors associated with depression and anxiety, Iliadou said.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on assisted reproductive technology.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MkCFin

I’ve Been Flirting Online With an Old Crush—Should I Tell My Partner?

Photo: Getty Images

Q: I’ve been flirting on Facebook with an old crush. I’d never cheat, but I find myself hiding the relationship from my mate. Is that bad?

Yes, yes, yes. In the case of almost every couple I treat these days because of infidelity, the cheating started with flirting on Facebook or another social networking site. You’re betraying your partner already by hiding excited and sexual feelings you have for someone else, feelings you’re channeling into keeping up this flirtation and not giving to your spouse.

Your old flame is making you feel appreciated and aroused (which is easier to do online than in an ongoing day-in, day-out relationship). Often enough, what begins as emotional cheating turns sexual in due time. Get out while the getting is good, before you become another statistic and live to regret this.

RELATED: This Is the Secret to a Long and Happy Marriage, According to Research

Silencing your side chatter is a bit like ripping off a Band-Aid; it’s not too extreme to block or unfriend him. Beware of the little voice in your head that says, “Oh, I’ll just chat platonically.” Once you’ve developed a suggestive back-and-forth, it’s very difficult to backtrack.

Gail Saltz, MD, is a psychiatrist and television commentator in New York City who specializes in health, sex, and relationships.

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1Rj7Vpt

Nitrogen From Fertilizers Poses Long-Term Threat to Drinking Water: Study

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Even if farmers stopped using nitrogen fertilizers today, levels of dangerous nitrates in rivers and lakes would remain high for decades, researchers report.

Canadian scientists analyzed more than 2,000 soil samples from the Mississippi River Basin and found an accumulation of nitrogen. This buildup was not evident in the upper “plow” layer, but instead was found 2 inches to 8 inches beneath the soil surface.

“We hypothesize that this accumulation occurred not only because of the increased use of fertilizers, but also increases in soybean cultivation and changes in tillage practices over the past 80 years,” researcher Kim Van Meter, a doctoral student at the University of Waterloo in Canada, said in a university news release.

Nitrogen fertilizers have been contaminating rivers and lakes and getting into drinking water wells for more than 80 years, the researchers said. Nitrates in drinking water pose a number of health risks, they added.

Their findings suggest that this nitrogen could still find its way into waterways decades after being applied to the fields.

The study was published March 15 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

“A large portion of the nitrogen applied as fertilizer has remained unaccounted for over the last decades,” Nandita Basu, a Waterloo professor, said in the news release.

“The fact that nitrogen is being stored in the soil means it can still be a source of elevated nitrate levels long after fertilizers are no longer being applied,” Basu added.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about drinking water.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1prkFP1

Could Too Much Cellphone Time Signal Anxiety, Depression?

By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 15, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Some young adults who constantly reach for their smartphones might be anxious or depressed, preliminary research suggests.

A study of more than 300 college students found heavier technology use was tied to greater risk for anxiety and depression, particularly among those using the devices as a “security blanket” — to avoid dealing with unpleasant experiences or feelings.

Risk was not elevated, however, among young people who used smartphones simply to “escape boredom” or for entertainment, said the researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Nor were the devices themselves found to cause mental health problems.

“Handheld devices, with their countless applications and entertainment options and their constant presence at our fingertips, make it easier than ever before to disconnect with the problems [and] stresses of reality, and avoid actively engaging with them,” noted study co-author Tayana Panova.

“But over time,” she said, “turning to the device whenever an uncomfortable situation or feeling arises can become an escapist pattern of behavior, and may make people more vulnerable to stressors due to insufficient emotional ‘exercise.'”

For now, however, “the causation of the effect is unknown,” said Panova, who conducted the study for her undergraduate honors thesis.

“It may be that individuals with higher anxiety/depression use [phone] devices more intensively,” she said, “or that using devices more intensively can eventually lead to the development of anxiety/depression. Or it can mean that there is a cyclical relationship.”

The findings will be published in the May issue of Computers in Human Behavior.

Nearly 5 billion people use mobile phones worldwide, while the Internet is accessed by 3 billion users, the researchers said in background notes.

To explore how smartphone habits relate to mental health, the authors conducted a two-part study. First, they evaluated responses to a questionnaire about technology use and emotions, which was completed by 318 undergraduates.

Then, to examine cellphone use in a stressful situation, the team asked 72 students to spend five minutes writing about a personal flaw or weakness that made them uncomfortable. The anxiety-provoking writings were collected, under the false premise that they would be reviewed as part of a 10-minute psychology training exercise.

While the “review” was underway, one-third of the participants had no access to any technology; another third had access only to their cellphones; while the remaining third only had access to a simple computer game.

Those allowed to use their cellphones were found to have the lowest anxiety levels. They were 64 percent more likely to not experience anxiety than those with no technology access, the researchers said.

Among those in the cellphone group who did experience anxiety, 82 percent used their phones the entire waiting period. By comparison, only about half of anxious gaming participants played computer games the whole time.

Looked at in reverse, among those with cellphone access who didn’t feel anxious, only about half turned to their phones through the whole waiting period. And only one-quarter of anxiety-free gaming members played games throughout.

The investigators concluded that cellphones served as a kind of “security blanket” with “unique comforting capabilities.”

Still, the effect was relatively weak and short-lived, Panova and her co-author concluded.

Panova suggested that relying on cell phones to relieve anxiety may end up undercutting the development of more effective coping skills.

But the device itself is not problematic, she said. “It is the motivations for its use, and the manner in which it is used, that determine whether the user will experience negative consequences from it,” she added.

That point was seconded by Joe Bayer, who is finishing a Ph.D. in communication studies before beginning as an assistant professor at Ohio State University.

“It’s very important that readers not take away the idea that smartphones cause negative psychological conditions,” he said.

“Neither this research,” Bayer added, “nor the larger body of research suggests such a negative, causal effect. There were will always be anxious people, and these people are likely to use technologies in ways that reflect — and maybe amplify — these underlying conditions.”

More information

There’s more on stress at the U.S National Institute of Mental Health.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1prkEdM