<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>House Calls &#187; women</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthrevelations.com/tag/women/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthrevelations.com</link>
	<description>Medicine&#039;s Most Independent Source for Health News You Can Trust</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:00:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The part-time diet that really works</title>
		<link>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/12/27/part-time-diet/</link>
		<comments>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/12/27/part-time-diet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 01:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Health Sciences Institute</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[House Calls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blood pressure levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diabetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HDL Cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insulin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lose weight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-calorie diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-carb diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediterranean diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triglycerides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthrevelations.com/?p=3796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Researchers put women on a low-carb diet up against women on a low-calorie diet -- but with a huge catch: The low-carb eaters would stick to the plan for just two days a week… and eat whatever they wanted the rest of the time.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the face of it, it hardly seemed fair.</p>
<p>Researchers put women on a low-carb diet up against women on a low-calorie diet &#8212; but with a huge catch: The low-carb eaters would stick to the plan for just two days a week… and eat whatever they wanted the rest of the time.</p>
<p>The low-calorie dieters, on the other hand, would commit to their diet 24/7.</p>
<p>Now, it&#8217;s been proven in the past that going low-carb is better than going low-cal any day of the week. But two days a week versus seven? How could it possibly compete?</p>
<p>Turns out very well &#8212; because after four weeks, the low-carb dieters lost more weight and had better insulin readings.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like winning a fight with both hands tied behind your back.</p>
<p>The study actually involved three groups of women: Two went low-carb for two days a week. One got to eat as much as they wanted as long as they kept the carbs to 50 grams or less… while the other had to practically starve for those two days, eating just 650 calories of low-carb food.</p>
<p>The third group had to stick a version of the Mediterranean Diet every single day, and limit themselves to just 1,500 calories.</p>
<p>Two months later, and both sets of low-carb women lost an average of 9 pounds &#8212; while the calorie counters lost just 4 pounds. In addition, the women in both low-carb groups lowered their insulin levels by 18 percent &#8212; versus just 4 percent among low-calorie eaters.</p>
<p>And for the cherry on top, the low-cal women were twice as likely to quit the study as those who went low-carb &#8212; but that&#8217;s hardly a surprise. Nearly everyone has tried calorie counting at some point… and nearly everyone has failed at it.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s impossible because it&#8217;s unnatural. When you&#8217;re hungry, the instinct is to eat until you&#8217;re full &#8212; and the low-carb diet allows you to do just that.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s more, low-carb diets have also been shown to lower blood pressure levels, improve HDL cholesterol, slash triglycerides, and dramatically reduce your risk of diabetes.</p>
<p>The best way to get all those benefits &#8212; and more &#8212; is to go full time on your own low-carb diet. The women in the study were allowed to eat whatever they wanted for five days a week &#8212; but they didn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Instead, their healthy low-carb habits carried over into the rest of the week, on their &#8220;off days,&#8221; once they realized how much good it was doing them.</p>
<p>Give it a shot yourself and you&#8217;ll find out why.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/12/27/part-time-diet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Risky vitamins? Don&#8217;t believe it!</title>
		<link>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/11/03/risky-vitamins/</link>
		<comments>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/11/03/risky-vitamins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 01:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Health Sciences Institute</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[House Calls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[folic acid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[healthy eating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnesium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multivitamins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutrients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vitamin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vitamin B6]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vitamin C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zinc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthrevelations.com/?p=3609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Common, safe nutrients and ordinary multivitamins are being blamed for everything in the book -- and now, a new study claims any number of vitamins will cause women to die early.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Based on the recent headlines, you&#8217;d think swallowing a vitamin is almost as bad as swallowing razorblades.</p>
<p>Common, safe nutrients and ordinary multivitamins are being blamed for everything in the book &#8212; and now, a new study claims any number of vitamins will cause women to die early.</p>
<p>But don&#8217;t panic, ladies &#8212; because like the other studies that claim vitamins come with risks, this one&#8217;s not even worth the paper it&#8217;s printed on.</p>
<p>First, the details meant to impress and frighten you at the same time: A study of some 39,000 women tracked for 19 years finds that those who took multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and/or copper had an ever-so-slightly higher risk of death from any cause than women who took no vitamins at all.</p>
<p>But here are some details that aren&#8217;t as prominent in the over-the-top coverage of this vitamin panic: The women were asked about their vitamin habits just three times in that 19-year period.</p>
<p>No one was actually given vitamins or placebos&#8230; no one&#8217;s habits were actually monitored&#8230; no one gave blood and the researchers don&#8217;t even know much about the overall health of the individual women in the study beyond what they reported in those surveys.</p>
<p>At best, you&#8217;ve got the weakest of all weak associations you could possibly make from an observational study &#8212; but it&#8217;s actually even worse than that.</p>
<p>Much worse &#8212; because an analysis by the Alliance for Natural Health finds that the supposed increase in death risk only appeared after some statistical &#8220;adjustments&#8221; that look to me more like statistical torture.</p>
<p>For example, women who had a healthy lifestyle and took vitamin C lived longer &#8212; but for that, the credit went to the healthy lifestyle.</p>
<p>There was a similar adjustment for &#8220;healthy eating&#8221; despite the fact that only two of the three surveys &#8212; spaced 18 years apart &#8212; even asked about food.</p>
<p>&#8220;(T)he authors just manipulated the data until they got what they wanted and more: Supplements not only didn&#8217;t help&#8211;they were killers!&#8221; the ANH wrote in its analysis. &#8220;And the lazy, biased, or naïve major media took it from there.&#8221;</p>
<p>You can get the &#8220;rest of the story&#8221; right <a href="http://www.anh-usa.org/shame-on-ama-part-two/">here</a>.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the bottom line on vitamins: Over the past 27 years, there have been exactly 11 deaths blamed on vitamin overdose. Medications, on the other hand, killed more than 37,000 Americans in 2009 alone &#8212; making legal drugs the nation&#8217;s leading cause of accidental death.</p>
<p>You tell me which is safer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/11/03/risky-vitamins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When it comes to exercise, less is more</title>
		<link>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/10/18/excercise-less/</link>
		<comments>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/10/18/excercise-less/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Health Sciences Institute</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[House Calls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anxiety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benefits of exercise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exercise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exercise moderately]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intense workouts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intensive gym sessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[light workout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overweight women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical exhaustion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychological wellbeing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steady regular movements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workout sessions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthrevelations.com/?p=3549</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everyone should make sure they get moving during the day -- but no one needs to turn into a treadmill-racing workout fiend to get the benefits of exercise.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everyone should make sure they get moving during the day &#8212; but no one needs to turn into a treadmill-racing workout fiend to get the benefits of exercise.</p>
<p>In fact, <em>too much</em> exercise can be as bad for you as too little &#8212; bad for you knees, bad for your heart and maybe even bad for your mood.</p>
<p>One new study finds that women who exercise moderately &#8212; in other words, get the steady regular movements they need without overdoing it &#8212; are actually much happier than women who exhaust themselves during intensive gym sessions.</p>
<p>Turkish researchers randomly assigned 255 women between the ages of 40 and 60 years old to one of two two-week workout regimens: Either 30 minutes a day on a treadmill at a moderate pace, or a run-till-you-drop session where they were told to go as fast as they could on that treadmill for as long as they could take it.</p>
<p>Sound like fun? Of course it doesn&#8217;t &#8212; and the results speak for themselves: The moderate exercisers had a better mood, lower levels of anxiety, higher levels of psychological wellbeing and more energy than those assigned to the torture-like workout sessions.</p>
<p>Women who got the intense workouts, on the other hand, were less likely to report the confidence to keep going with their exercise program. Overweight women in particular were stressed out by the more vigorous workouts and reported lower levels of calmness afterwards.</p>
<p>Who wouldn&#8217;t?</p>
<p>Whether you&#8217;re a man or a woman &#8212; and whether you&#8217;re badly overweight or slim and trim &#8212; you don&#8217;t have to drive yourself to the brink of physical exhaustion to get the benefits of a light workout.</p>
<p>Just pick something you like &#8212; and like the women in this study, you can enjoy some mood-boosting benefits along with your great fitness: At least one study has shown that a little sweat-inducing activity can be as powerful as antidepressant drugs… with none of the side effects.</p>
<p>Good examples of moderate workouts include traditional ones like tennis or a brisk walk/jog through the park, to a few things you might not think of as &#8220;exercise&#8221; &#8212; like gardening or even some home improvement projects.</p>
<p>In fact, keeping fit can actually be &#8212; dare I say it? &#8212; fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/10/18/excercise-less/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sex can help women age better</title>
		<link>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/09/22/sex-and-age/</link>
		<comments>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/09/22/sex-and-age/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 01:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Health Sciences Institute</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[House Calls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[better quality of life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[desire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug side effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elderly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female sex problems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female Viagra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hormone levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hormones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[older women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[satisfaction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[satisfying sex lives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex lives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual arousal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual encounter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual satisfaction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testosterone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthrevelations.com/?p=3422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sex doesn't just get better with age -- age gets better with sex, especially for women.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sex doesn&#8217;t just get better with age &#8212; age gets better with sex, especially for women.</p>
<p>In fact, older women with satisfying sex lives have better lives overall &#8212; and that&#8217;s not just opinion; it&#8217;s a scientific fact.</p>
<p>Because when researchers interviewed 1,235 senior women in San Diego, they found that even the elderly can have satisfying sex lives &#8212; and when it comes to those later years, quality trumps quantity (but feel free to boost quantity just the same, it&#8217;s good for both of you).</p>
<p>Overall, the researchers say 31 percent of women in their 80s, 57 percent of women in their 70s, and 70 percent of women in their 60s reported at least one sexual encounter over the previous six months.</p>
<p>But regardless of how much sex they had, they all reported similar levels of moderate to high &#8220;sexual satisfaction&#8221; &#8212; mostly hovering around 60 percent.</p>
<p>And with sexual satisfaction came other forms of satisfaction: Those women with satisfying sex lives reported more happiness and a better quality of life than those with less sexual satisfaction.</p>
<p>The researchers also wrote in <em>The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society</em> that as women got older, they were more likely to report problems with sexual arousal and desire &#8212; and of course, that&#8217;s music to the drug industry&#8217;s ears. (Cheesy 70s porn music, I&#8217;m sure.)</p>
<p>That&#8217;s because Big Pharma has been lusting after a so-called &#8220;female Viagra.&#8221; And while none of the drugs they&#8217;ve come up with have been approved for women (yet), that hasn&#8217;t stopped them from priming the market.</p>
<p>And as I&#8217;ve told you before, some of the tactics they&#8217;ve used have been <a href="http://healthrevelations.com/2010/11/12/scheming/">downright underhanded</a>.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t fall for it.</p>
<p>In many cases, female sex problems are caused by drug side effects, especially in older women. In other cases, it could just be one of the signs of aging as hormone levels drop &#8212; but not the ones you&#8217;re thinking of.</p>
<p>Testosterone is often considered a male hormone, but women need it too. Older women who get a boost often see dramatic improvements in their sex lives.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re having problems with arousal and desire, don&#8217;t wait for Big Pharma to come out with a sex med. Visit a naturopathic physician who has experience working with hormones.</p>
<p>Then tell your husband to get ready.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://healthrevelations.com/2011/09/22/sex-and-age/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

