Gentlemen, start your engines.

A new study finds that men who rev it up in the bedroom are far less likely to suffer from heart disease.

I don’t know many people who need an excuse to have more sex–but in case you do, here it is.

Researchers studied data on the sexual activity of more than 1,000 men between the ages of 40 and 70. And the study published in the American Journal of Cardiology found that men who had sex at least twice a week were 45 percent less likely to develop heart disease than men who had sex once a month or less.

Part of the reason is that healthy men can have sex more often… and unhealthy men who have a higher risk for heart disease anyway have sex less often because they’re physically unable.

But researchers believe it goes further, and that sex has a physical and mental effect on men that can help them to stay healthier.

And of course sex is great at reducing stress, one of the risk factors for heart disease.

The new study is consistent with earlier research, including a study which found that men who have sex at least twice a week had a 50 percent decrease in the risk of fatal heart attack than those who had sex less than once a month.

That’s not the only reason to keep busy in bed… another study found that men who have orgasms five times a week– with a partner or without–were less likely to get prostate cancer.

Other studies have found that men who have sex twice a week live longer.

Naturally, there are plenty of other benefits for both partners, too.

For example, you can forget the old line “Not now, I have a headache,” because sex can actually make that migraine disappear. A study at the Southern Illinois School of Medicine found that an orgasm is as effective as aspirin for migraine headaches. Other studies have shown than the oxytocin and endorphins released during sex are powerful painkillers, and that same oxytocin can also stimulate healing.

Sex can even help you beat the cold and flu. One study found that doing it once or twice a week in the winter boosts the immune system by increasing levels of immunoglobulin A, helping the body to fight invading organisms… like the flu virus.

Sounds like a lot more fun than a vaccine to me.

A new nutritional cocktail is showing some real promise in the fight against Alzheimer’s.

But don’t drink this Kool-Aid just yet… and I’ll tell you why in a moment.

First, the good news: A nutritional blend called Souvenaid made by the French company Danone (as in Dannon yogurt) appears to help improve some brain function in Alzheimer’s patients, according to a small study published in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

The researchers say the patients who drank Souvenaid had better verbal recall than those on the placebo. In other words, they were able to better remember what they had been told earlier. They did not, however, show improvement in other cognitive areas.

The drink is a patented blend of uridine, choline and DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid). These aren’t drugs, but nutrients already found in a healthy human body (although the company says the drink should be taken under the guidance of a physician).

On the surface, the research is promising. But don’t put your hopes in Souvenaid just yet–because there are some real problems with this study.

First, it was a small, short study. Researchers tracked 225 patients with mild Alzheimer’s for just 12 weeks. For a progressive disease like Alzheimer’s, 12 weeks is almost no time at all.

Second, the study was funded by Danone, and carried out by researchers with ties to the company. The authors even hold the patent on the drink’s nutritional blend.

Does it mean the research is bad? Not necessarily. But it also means that, on its own, the study is essentially worthless. There are enough questions and conflicts here that we need to see more research on this–real, impartial research over a longer period of time.

If Souvenaid really works as well as the company believes, they should have nothing to be afraid of, right?

Whether it gets that extra research or not, the company thinks it’ll be on the market here next year. Since it’s not a drug, it won’t need the usual FDA approval–but you can bet they’ll be watching every letter of the wording used to market this drink.

Then, get set for a real heavyweight fight–Big Pharma vs. Big Food. The pharmaceutical suits won’t be very happy with the idea of a supplement drink muscling in on their turf.

Stay tuned.

There are plenty of good reasons to stay active as you age, and volunteering is a great way to do that.

Researchers tracked more than 1,000 men and women in their 70s for three years — all of whom were reasonably high functioning at the start. Twenty-eight percent of these seniors did volunteer work, 25 percent had child-care duties, and 19 percent had jobs. There was quite a bit of overlap as some seniors did more than one of those activities, while 45 percent of them did none of those things.

After three years, the researchers found that working and child-care didn’t prevent against becoming frail, while those who volunteered seemed to be less frail.

Now, I’m all for volunteering – just don’t do it based on the results of this study.

For starters, it was an observational study, which is just about the weakest form of research. These studies are sometimes useful for spotting trends, or even finding areas worthy of more research – but they’re not especially good at determining cause and effect, as the researchers involved in this project readily admit.

But what really weakens the study is this: The researchers said their results could have been different simply by tweaking the definition of “frail.” They also said their study indicates that everything from religion to “a strong sense of personal mastery” may play a role in avoiding frailty.

In other words, they’re not really sure what the connection is, how strong it is, or even what it means to be “frail.”

Let’s just leave it at this: Whether or not volunteering prevents you from withering away, it’s still a great way to stay active and engaged, which can help you live better. Last year, a study even found that seniors who volunteer may live longer – and that sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

There’s a silent war going on, and we’re losing.

The latest disturbing report showed that common hospital bacteria can learn to resist antibiotics they haven’t even been exposed to.

The report, published in the journal Microbiology, found that the bacteria can learn to resist disinfectants – something we’ve already known. But it turns out that as they mutate to fight the disinfectant, they also end up immune to ciprofloxacin, a common antibiotic.

These and other drug-resistant superbugs aren’t getting enough attention, but they’re turning into a major problem, especially for seniors who spend so much time in hospitals and nursing homes.

One new study found that bathing patients in antiseptic before surgery – instead of the traditional brown iodine rub – could cut surgical-site bacterial infections by 40 percent. Sounds good… for now. But if bacteria can learn from disinfectant, then it’s not out of the question they could do something similar with antiseptics.

In fact, there have already been reports of antiseptic- resistant bacteria.

In just 10 years, the most common drug-resistant bacterial infection – MRSA – has risen by 90 percent in the United States. MRSA now kills 20,000 people per year – and you can expect that number to rise, too. Meanwhile, other bacteria are learning to mutate and resist drugs as well – like Acinetobacter, Clostridium difficile and Streptococcus pneumoniae.

They’re also being seen more frequently outside of hospitals.

This problem is only going to get worse… because there’s not a lot of money in a solution. Yet.

Our overuse of antibiotics is one of the biggest problems – but most doctors know this, and still happily prescribe them at every turn.

We could turn to new and different antibiotics – there’s been some promising early research there – but Big Pharma is not all that interested in spending big money developing those. Patients take these meds for a few days at a time, and they’re done.

They would much rather invest in meds with big paydays, like statins and antacids, which people take – usually unnecessarily – day after day, year after year.

Big Pharma will eventually invest in this, too – just not yet. Because as far as they’re concerned, there’s one other much more lucrative option: Waiting.

“Really it is vaccines – rather than antibiotics – which hold the key to the big victories,” Dr. David Livermore, an infections expert at Britain’s Health Protection Agency, told the BBC last year.

Sadly, Dr. Livermore – who has actively and repeatedly campaigned for better antibiotics and more responsible use of these meds – is right.

Big Pharma would much rather wait for new diseases caused by superbugs, and then force vaccines on us, than solve the problem now by investing antibiotics and promoting more responsible drug use.

That’s more dangerous for us… but much more profitable for them.