Wise Ideas

Just a Spoonful of Sugar (Helps the PR Blitz Go Down)

Hey moms!  Have you heard the news?  You and your entire family can start loading up on soda, Twinkies and anything else with high fructose corn syrup again, because It's not as evil as we've been led to believe.  How do I know?  Because I heard it on a TV commercial!

Two new TV ads running now are just the start of an 18-month long campaign aimed at erasing the stigma surrounding high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), as you can read here in this TIME article.  You see, the Corn Refiners Association thinks their refined corn sweetener has gotten a bad rap --- just like the Sugar Association thinks their product has been unfairly blamed for contributing to America's obesity epidemic.  

Imagine that.  Two lobbying groups attempting a major marketing makeover to change America's mind about the consequences of excessive use of their products.  The next thing you know, the tobacco lobby will launch a campaign to convince us that smoking isn't hazardous to our health.

All sarcasm aside, and in all fairness - high fructose corn sugar, as well as other sweeteners including sugar, are not entirely to blame for our weight woes.  As the American Medical Association reported back in June, "because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose."  And let's be honest, America's couch-potato tendencies and addiction to salty products are also huge culprits.

But the PR blitz to turn HFCS into some sort of innocent bystander is, in a word, bizarre.  I'm speaking primarily about the ad running now showing two moms chatting at a birthday party, as one mom pours a Kool-aid like drink out of plastic jug:

MOM 1:  "Woowwww.  You don't care what the kids eat, huh."

MOM 2:  "'Scuse me?"

MOM 1:  "That has high fructose corn syrup in it."

MOM 2:  "And...."

MOM 1:  "You know what they say about it?

MOM 2:  "Like what...that it's made from corn, doesn't have artificial ingredients and that like sugar, is fine in moderation?"  

That seems to shut up Mom 1, who has no comeback.  Maybe she's just too stunned that someone is defending a chemically-altered refined corn product as "natural." 

The reaction out in Mom-land is not surprising.  "They can tell us whatever they want, but we're not drinking the Kool-Aid," says MomLogic - where readers also expressed mostly shock, amazement and disdain regarding the campaign.  

Parent Dish takes it a step further.  "If the CRA really believes their own "in moderation" line, then they should be reducing HFCS in children's food products. Not staging a mommy war next to the cupcakes."

And on YouTube, 358 out of more more than 100,000 viewers of the ad felt strongly enough about the commercial to comment on it.  And although I didn't have time to browse through all of them - let's just say the discussion is heated and not very complimentary.

However, one astute reader of Parent Dish likened the HFCS campaign to another more politically correct PR blitz:  "Regardless of the message, they (the corn producers) are just using the same tactics that 'green' folks have been using for ages now."

I couldn't agree more.  But what the HFCS blitz lacks is some good old-fashioned smarts.  To make any inroads what-so-ever with today's moms, it has to be an intelligent campaign aimed not at manipulating attitudes with fuzzy logic - but rather with honest, straight talk that actually shows some good faith in helping people make wise decisions.  Maybe a mini-lesson on healthy daily calorie guidelines...suggestions on how kids can burn-off a Twinkie treat (biking around the block?  swinging for 10 minutes?)...real-world examples of HFCS in moderation (two sodas a week?) that make sense...anything other than a lame commercial pitting two moms against each other.  

I don't know how much the CRA is spending on this 18-month long campaign - but it's wasted money if it continues on its current course. 

The End of the World As We Know It?

I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering writing this post today.  It's not really how I envisioned spending my last hours on earth.  That is, if you believe the doomsayers.

As you may, or may not know by now, the end of the world as we know it may have occurred just after midnight (PST), when a group of physicists and other scientists attempted to re-create the big bang in a machine called the Large Hadron Collider, located 300 feet underneath the Swiss-French border outside Geneva.  (I'm still writing this, so apparently - and according to NPR, the experiment was successful)

It is the greatest science experiment ever built, as Scientific American puts it.  And, with a price tag of $8 billion, it is also the most expensive scientific experiment ever conducted. 

After reading a number of different, complicated explanations on what, exactly, the machine will do -- I will put try to put this in layman's terms.  If this experiment is successful, it will help unlock the secrets of the universe.

If it all goes terribly bad, critics say activating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could create a bunch of little black holes all around Earth which will eventually suck us all into oblivion.

Scientific American, among most other publications, say that the experiment "will most assuredly not destroy the world.  But as the U.K.'s Telegraph reports, that hasn't stop death threats aimed at the scientists at  CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, who are conducting the experiment.

What this Star Trek-ian experiment has to do with marketing, motherhood and the media -- I'm not sure.  But anytime we can all take a step back and consider how to make our time on earth more fulfilling, meaningful, and pleasurable - seems like a good thing to me.

Standing Up, and Shelling Out, Against Cancer

I had to dust off and put on my yellow LiveStrong wrist band again this week, with the diagnosis of yet another member of my extended family.  This time it's ovarian cancer. 

I could call it a "surprising" diagnosis.  But every since both my parents untimely deaths due to untreatable cancers 15 and 13 years ago --- not much about cancer "surprises" me anymore.  No matter how healthy my family is - and man, are we healthy - cancer still seems to strike us on a regular basis.  It sucks. 

I bring this up on a sunny Friday morning, because tonight when you sit down to relax after a hard week and complain that there's nothing on TV -- you'll notice that your choices are much more limited tonight because "the big three" will be airing the same program.

At 8pm, NBC, CBS and ABC will all be broadcasting "Stand Up To Cancer," an hour-long, commercial-free, celebrity-filled fundraiser for cancer research.  "Funding for cancer research is woefully lacking," ABC News anchorman Charlie Gibson tells The Orlando Sun.  "As a country, we spend more checking shoes and purses at the airport than we do on cancer research."   Gibson will be joined by competitors/colleagues Brian Williams and Katie Couric, whose lives and families - like everyone else's - have been impacted by cancer.

Stand Up To Cancer is the brainchild of movie producer (Pretty Woman, As Good As It Gets, 3 Spider-Man's) Laura Ziskin - who is battling Stage-3 breast cancer.  As it says on iVillage, the program will feature a number of celebrity cancer survivors, and is not your typical telethon. Ziskin calls it "edutainment designed to raise awareness and get cancer funding prioritized on the national to-do list."

Though he's been a powerful voice and dynamic force in the war against cancer, Lance Armstrong can't do it by himself - but he's been trying.  In a hearing last spring chaired ironically by a then-healthy Senator Ted Kennedy, Lance testified before the Senate Health Committee questioning federal funding cuts to cancer research.  A year ago, Armstrong hosted a Cancer Research Forum in Iowa featuring the only presidential candidates (at the time) who accepted his invitation to speak.  They were John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.

Tonight, Lance will be among the "celebrities" trying to break through the media bubble of the presidential campaign to remind us all that while cancer kills 1500 Americans a day - millions of Americans are living with various forms of the disease thanks to new treatments.  Treatments that cost a lot of money (You can download all the stats at Cancer.org, the site of the American Cancer Society).  Research to discover and develop new treatments cost even more.

Lance knows that wearing a yellow wristband is only a start.  Digging into your pockets is the next step.  As is putting pressure on the two remaining presidential candidates to make cancer research funding a priority in their administration.  

A lot of promises are made during presidential campaigns.  Cancer research funding is one that touches every single American - a win-win for everyone.

So tonight, don't go cruising the cable channels or on-demand or online for something to watch.  Stick with the networks, and Stand Up To Cancer instead.  

And finally, a shout out to friend and Mom-Wise's Sarah Moore - who is walking 60 miles this weekend in her 7th three-day Breast Cancer Walk for the Susan G. Komen Foundation.  You go girl.  And remember - hydrate!

Have a great weekend, all.

The Unending BPA Debate

I think we can now say with 100 percent assurance that BPA causes confusion --- and is a health hazard to millions of moms solely due to the stress caused by worrying about whether or not their water bottles, baby bottles and Cuisinarts are adversely affecting their families health.

BPA, aka bisphenol-A, is a plastic-hardening chemical commonly found in clear, shatterproof baby bottles, food containers and many popular water sports bottles. Most of us were blissfully unaware of BPA until last April, when Canadian health officials announced their intention to ban BPA-made products because animal studies show that the compound may negatively impact behavior, the brain, and survival rates of unborn fetuses.

Then, just days later, a report from the U.S. National Toxicology Program added fuel to the fire by saying its scientists had found "some concern" about BPA's risk.

Countless Nalgene bottles were trashed....Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and Babies R Us announced a phase-out of BPA-tainted products....and lawmakers in California, New Jersey and at least 10 other states launched legislation that would restrict the use of BPA (see the BPA timeline on WebMD).

Now - twelve weeks and millions of newspaper articles, talk shows and blog comments later --- an FDA advisory panel has issued a report saying that despite the safety concerns of parents, consumer groups and politicians - the small amount of BPA that leaches from such bottles and containers is not dangerous.

"The F.D.A.’s report concluded that those levels (of BPA found in common products) were thousands of times below what would actually be dangerous to adults or children," reports The NYTimes, which also adds the fascinating fact that "about 93 percent of Americans have traces of bisphenol in their urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

The FDA is holding a public meeting in mid-September on the issue, and "public input is welcome" according to InjuryBoard.com, "a community of attorneys, media professionals, safety industry experts, and local activists, committed to making a difference by helping families stay safe and avoid injury."

FDA officials better plan on holding that hearing in a big room with lots of security. There is great and now growing frustration over the "is it or isn't it dangerous" question regarding BPA. Just browse through the comments from the Wall Street Journal's Health blog and you'll find two very vocal sides of the issue: those who deeply distrust the FDA's ability to make such a determination, versus those who say solid scientific evidence squashes the concerns of environmentalists and activists who don't recognize a safe product when they see one.

My reaction - will somebody please come up with a conclusive decision! One not driven by reactionary activists OR lobbyists for the chemical industry! 

Unfortunately, the FDA does not appear to be the agency to do this.....as it struggles with a number of problems best illustrated recently by its inability to trace - within a reasonable amount of time - this year's massive salmonella outbreak to tainted Mexican peppers.

Until then, millions of moms will likely ere on the side of caution and seek out BPA-free products.  Either that, or we'll all just go back to the product that has survived the test of time with no adverse health effects. 

And won't the glass industry be happy about that!

The Sex & Cereal Connection

The next time you go to the grocery store, don't be surprised if you find a number of women in their prime children-bearing years stocking up on Cheerios, Shredded Wheat and Frosted Flakes.

That's because yesterday, some surprising news hit the wires saying that researchers have for the first time, found a link between a woman's diet prior to pregnancy and her future baby's gender.  Or, as the study, printed in a British medical journal, more simply puts it, "you are what your mother eats." 

As The Associated Press reports, "having a hearty appetite, eating potassium-rich foods including bananas, and not skipping breakfast all seemed to raise the odds of having a boy."  And because cereal is the most common breakfast food eaten in England (and probably here in the U.S., too), the study revealed that "women who ate at least one bowl of breakfast cereal daily were 87 percent more likely to have boys than those who ate no more than one bowlful per week."

Put another way, the women in the study who who had a higher calorie diet tended toward having boys, while the majority of those with a low cal diet had girls.  You can read more on The WaPost's health blog, Check Up.

Other fertility experts caution that although the study's results are plausible, it's no reason for women to pig out if they want a boy, and starve themselves if they want a girl.

As one UCLA OB says, ""The bottom line is, we still don't know how to advise patients in how to make boys."
That is, unless you buy into the old "boxers make boys" theory....one among many you can read at HowToHaveABoy.com. 

But you've gotta admit, the new study brings a whole new meaning to "Lucky Charms."

A FEW MORE FOOD NOTES TODAY:
The theory that Starbucks has become an economic bellwether gained grounds today, as the coffee chain issued a warning that it's first quarter earnings are weaker than expected, and it doesn't look so good for the rest of the year, either.  The company says its business has been particularly bad in two of its largest markets, Florida and California, where the housing market  has been hardest hit.

Just this week I wrote in Grocery Woes about how we didn't have it so bad here in the US, as the rest of the world grapples with a grain and rice shortage that's causing food riots and destabilizing governments.  It seems we are not immune. A run on rice here in the states has prompted big box stores Sam's Club and Costco to start rationing rice.  As you can read here in the San Jose Mercury News, rice prices have  soared and prompted a number of people to begin stockpiling.  Costco's CEO  blames the media.

 

Brain Drain

One of the biggest adjustments I had to make after having kids was admitting to the fact that I had - at least temporarily - lost the steel-trap known as my brain.

Prior to having my babies (who aren't babies anymore), I WAS the sharpest knife in the drawer, not in intelligence - but in terms of memory, recall and sheer acuteness of mind.

But when I came out of the hospital on July 22nd, 2000 carrying my newborn son as if he was a Faberge egg on the brink of cracking ...my mind had turned to mush.  And it stayed mushy for the next five years.  My confused, concerned, and often frustrated husband used to jokingly(?) say I brought home a baby but left my brain in the delivery room.  And there were many moments when I feared he was right.

Well, it turns out I didn't leave my brain in the hospital.  I had brought home the same brain -- it just happened to be stewing in a new, spicy hormonal soup that - when mixed with lack of sleep, breastfeeding and a general feeling of new-baby panic - caused me to be mentally fuzzy. 

I had "momnesia," the pseudo-scientific term given post-partum mush brain by University of San Francisco neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine, author of The Female Brain. "Other parts of your brain that are usually on high alert are sort of taken offline," Brizendine tells USA Today,(and The Today Show, and NBC Nightly News), and "it turns you into someone who serves that little infant, to keep it alive no matter what."

So --- you can't find your car keys, and you put the cereal in the refrigerator, but you could kill someone in a split second with Jet Li-like reflexes if they threatened your infant.  Hummmmmm.  Interesting and frightening all at the same time!

But now that there's a explanation for your post-baby brain drain, as well as a name (like it or not) bestowed upon it by a respected researcher - does it make you any more accepting of the fact that it isn't the brain you once had? 

Scientists do assure us that once breastfeeding ends and our hormones go back to "normal" levels, our brain power returns.  In fact one journalist, Katherine Ellison, believes motherhood actually makes us smarter in many respects.  As Ellison posits in her book, The Mommy Brain,that having children sharpens a woman's multi-tasking skills, increases her aptitude for risk-taking, and gives her greater powers of empathy and negotiation.

However, you could say the same thing about age - because these are all attributes of today's 40+ woman.  At least, that's what all the women interviewed in MORE magazine always say. 

But there's this other small thing about age that, like childbirth, many of us weren't warned about.  Because of the drop (yet again) in estrogen levels in the menopausal years - women's brains have been known to turn fuzzy again. 

And while the brain experts over at SharpBrain.com debate that one --- I think I'll just wallow in my new hormonal soup and try to remember the point I was going to make when I started this blog.

Have a great weekend.

Love Shack or Dog House?

Note to husband:  there are only three full shopping days left until Valentine's Day.  And, as I have so bluntly asked in years past, please forgo buying me the last-minute one-pound box of heavenly homemade chocolates from our neighborhood candy store.  Because although the thought is (semi) sweet, it only upsets me knowing I can't consume such treats anymore without severe consequences that take weeks to erase.

Valentine's Day is a tricky one for us "married with children" types.  Though we hate to admit it, many of us are past the underwear-with-hearts phase.  Jewelry is a luxury that a family saving for college (or private high school, middle school, grade school and/or preschool) can't really afford.  And a dozen roses or other floral arrangement - though lovely - seems so fleeting.  Especially when that money could pay for a babysitter and a chance to escape the house and leave the kids behind, if only for a few hours!

If, like the saying goes, it's really the thought that counts...then it stands to reason that the more thought you put into it -- the more meaningful it is.

And as it turns out, my Valentine's Day gift giving theory actually has some scientific research backing it up!

A survey conducted by researchers from Stanford, Berkeley and the University of Chicago has found that gifts purchased well in advance of holidays like - say - Valentine's Day, are given in a more positive light and meant to sweep the recipient off her feet.  Those purchased the day of said holiday are tinged with a negative aura...and are purchased mainly to avoid a spat between the giver and the give-ee.

And even more interesting - the advertising that occurs during each of these holiday time frames (early or late) are geared to that buying psychology as well.

The study, which you can read about here in the University of Chicago Press, appears in the February edition of The Journal of Consumer Research.  Bottom line?  Early shoppers get a lot more happiness and pleasure out of giving than do late shoppers...and the same can be said for each group's recipients as well. 

Not so coincidentally, The Washington Post found an election year spin to this study.  One of the researchers, Jennifer Aaker of UC Berkeley, tells the WaPost that the research is really about how people are motivated by hope and optimism on one hand and by fear on the other.

"When leaders and advertisers build their campaigns around hope, optimism and other positives, they are more likely to develop relationships that endure," Aaker says. "There is a behavioral commitment that comes from fear-based relationships, but a psychological commitment that comes from hope-based relationships."

Take from that what you will, voters.  But the message here to lovers is this:  there may be three more shopping days until V-Day, but shopping NOW for your sweetheart's gift will keep you out of the Dog House and put you in the Love Shack.

Man (& Woman & Children) vs Wild

Just six short hours from now - our family will be heading up to the snowy Sierra Nevada to take part in an activity that my husband and I used to do religiously before we had kids...but haven't done since.  And no, sex is the wrong answer.

We're going skiing. 

I'm fairly certain that once we get up there on top of the mountain - after we've wrestled ourselves and the kids into all our winter gear, paid an arm-and-a-leg for lift tickets, dropped the kids off at ski school and tromped with great effort over and onto the lift -  we'll wonder what in the world took us so long to get back up there.  The breath-taking beauty, the snow-hushed silence, the feeling of peacefulness and well-being --- plus great fun and a lot of leg-burning exercise.  Nothing compares.

I tried to describe what being on a ski mountain is like to the kids, and I ended up saying "I just can't even describe it...but you'll love it."

It was like trying to describe hiking, camping, fishing, kayaking or any other nature activity to an inner city child who can't even imagine such a scenario.  Which, sadly enough, is exactly the direction this country is heading.

A new report, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, finds that there's been a steady decrease in the past 20 years in the number of people who visit state and national parks.  As a result, as the scientists who conducted the research put it, there is "an ongoing and fundamental shift away from nature-based recreation," and toward a more "virtual" appreciation of the outdoors through TV and electronic games.

The team who conducted the study call it "videophilia."  "The replacement of vigorous outdoor activities by sedentary, indoor videophilia has far-reaching consequences for physical and mental health, especially in children," Oliver R.W. Pergams says in a statement to the Associated Press.  "Videophilia has been shown to be a cause of obesity, lack of socialization, attention disorders and poor academic performance."

This trend is really nothing new.  It's been the subject of a number of books, including the best seller by Richard Louv titled Last Child Left in the Woods, the topic of news stories on NPR , USA Today, and NBC Nightly News among others, and it's the focus of an entire movement cleverly called "No Child Left Inside" by The Economist.  It's also an issue near and dear to me, which I've been following, and blogging about, for a few years now.

Although my husband and I have been remiss in not getting the kids out skiing sooner...we are a family that enjoys, revels and yes, sings the praises of the outdoors.  It is our church,and we worship in it as often as we can. 

However, as an urban family -- we all too often see the impact "videophilia" has on our friends and neighbors...the play dates who would rather play video games than go to the park, the classmates who dread the school's annual Outdoor Ed trip to the mountains or the coast, the friends who declare overwhelming boredom in the first five minutes of a hike or swim. 

Living in a place like the Bay Area, we are blessed with the weather and the landscape that encourages constant outdoor activity.  City parks, state parks and national parks surround us.  And you can't argue with the price of a hike. 

The study released today, which was funded by The Nature Conservancy, argues that although Americans are a lot greener than they used to be - that less time spent outdoors means less contact with nature and, eventually, less interest in conservation and parks.  That's an in-congruency that needs to be remedied.

My husband and I having been using the kids as our excuse for not getting back out into the pseudo-wilderness of a ski resort .... which is a shame really because it's an outdoor experience that's unparalleled (pun intended, you skiers).   And while many would argue that ski resorts aren't very environmentally friendly --- at least they get you outdoors in winter and to a place that wouldn't normally be accessible.

There is a case to be made that videophilia and outdoor recreation can live in harmony --- and it comes via two San Francisco skiers who accidentally went off the trail in a blizzard, and got lost in the Sierra back country.  As you can read here in the Reno Gazette Journal , the young men spent two days in the wilderness -- and survived by finding a river and following it,  digging a snow cave, rationing a few Cliff Bars, and staying hydrated by drinking water made from snow melted in a plastic bag.

And how did they learn to do all that stuff?  By watching Discovery Channel's Man vs Wild. 

Good thing that's my son's favorite show.  See you Monday. 

RX Needed for Big Pharma

It hasn't been a good year for the big drug companies.  Which doesn't bode well for the pharmaceutical industry, since we're only 22 days into the new year.

Pfizer, Merck and Schering-Plough all suffered costly embarrassments last week.  First it was Pfizer, whose $2 billion dollar drug Lyrica was panned in a front page article in The NYTimes titled "Drug Approved: Is Disease Real?"

You've no doubt seen the TV ads featuring an obviously pained woman reading from her diary about her struggle with "fibromyalgia," a chronic, painful condition of unknown origin that affects middle-aged women.  It turns out, according to the Times, that there are a number of experts -- including the doctor who first defined the disease in 1990 -- who doubt its existence.

This divergence of opinion in the medical community didn't seem to matter to the FDA, which approved Lyrica (originally a treatment for diabetic nerve pain and seizure) for use on fibromyalgia patients.  Eli Lilly and Forest Laboratories hope to follow suit - but may have some trouble now due in large part to the Times article.

Curiously, the pain caused by fibromyalgia or whatever it is, may actually worsen due to known side effects of Lyrica, including severe weight gain, dizziness and edema. That's a decision best left to the sufferers of this invisible pain, who are looking for real answers and relief, rather than becoming Pfizer's next gravy train. (read more about this affliction at the website of the National Fibromyalgia Association)

However, Pfizer's troubles seemed small compared to those involving Merck and Schering-Plough's cholesterol drug, Vytorin.  As Time Magazine, among others reports, the drug makers finally fessed up that while its studies prove Vytorin reduces levels of LDL or bad cholesterol, "the medication, which has been on the market since 2004, had little effect on the buildup of plaque in the arteries, a harbinger of heart attack and stroke." 

The bottom line, as a cardiovascular expert at the Cleveland Clinic said, is that we just don't know yet what Vytorin does...even though Merck and Schering-Plough sell more than a billion dollars worth of it, and spend $100 million marketing it as a cholesterol lowering drug.

Making matters worse, it seems Merck and Schering-Plough kept that little bit of bad news to themselves for more than a year!  Coming on the heels of the Lyrica story, "the Vytorin news is fanning the flames of public mistrust for the $5 billion direct-to-consumer drug industry -- and the ad business in general," says Advertising Age. 

Imagine that -- people not trusting big drug companies. "They're just above Congress and used-car salesmen," brand expert Rob Frankel tells AdAge.  But this isn't anything new.  Despite what they do, the big pharma crowd isn't often put in the "good guy" category.  Every time a presidential candidate demonizes the drug companies for high prescription drug costs and killing health care reform - a standing ovation erupts. 

Damage control is nothing new for big pharma, which goes through embarrassments like Lyrica and Vitorin all the time. The thing is, we're living longer, better lives thanks to chemistry.  The old saying "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em" seems apt here.

Except wouldn't it be nice to trust the people who are working to save your life?

Men, Women and My Aching Head

It's been a rough week.  It wasn't my daughter's birthday, Halloween, parent/teacher conferences or one-hour early dismissal of school all this week that threw me off my game.  It was the lurking menopausal migraine that put me over the edge.  Five days of it. 

And if the pounding headache pain wasn't enough -- I had all those other lovely symptoms that result from ebbing estrogen:  inability to make simple decisions, lack of patience and sense of humor, hot flashes, tears of frustration, and an overwhelming desire to JUST BE LEFT ALONE (hard to do with two grade school kids on Halloween week, let me tell ya).

But once again, I have survived and lived to tell the tale.  And the tale I have to tell this time is about the glaring differences between how men and women deal with health issues.

All this week whenever a female friend, colleague or acquaintance found out I was suffering from migraine, each asked what I was doing to deal with with it.

Whenever a male friend, colleague or acquaintance heard the same information (including my well-intentioned husband), each asked what I was taking to deal with it.

Doing versus taking.  One requires the harder work of actively modifying behavior in order to change your physiological state for the long-term - by diet or exercise or both.  The other is a more passive response designed to change one's internal chemistry to deal short-term with the problem.

Doing versus taking.  Female versus male.  Venus and Mars.  We're different planets, alright.   

Several women I spoke to who have similar health issues told me about books they had read or advice they had gotten from their doctors involving significant lifestyle changes such as increasing daily exercise, and cutting out wine, caffeine, chocolate and processed meats.   These women are all struggling to make these changes in their lives.  But they know that their health -- and ultimately their family's health -- depends on it.  "Taking" something is viewed not as an option --- but as a last-ditch solution.

The men I talked to wondered why I hadn't asked my doctor to "put me on something."  When I told them that prescriptive solutions carry inherent risks -- each thought it was a risk worth taking in order to avoid pain and discomfort. It never occurred to them that "gutting it out" and going for the longer-term healthier solution was ultimately better for the body.   In their eyes, I was a martyr. 

I'm not claiming this was a scientific study - or that all men would choose the "taking" rather than "doing" option.  But in my experience, mini focus groups like this aren't far off the mark. 

I used to suffer from migraines monthly, and when they grew worse about two years ago I decided to do something about it.  I began a behavior modification routine of daily, vigorous exercise and diet change - which keeps the headaches at bay for months at a time.  But every four or six months, I get a doozy like I got this week.

Today however, my head has cleared.  My sense of humor is back, I'm in control of my emotions and my decision-making process again, and my patience (what's left of it) is returning.

I know that despite my ongoing efforts to minimize the discomforts of aging, I will undoubtedly have another rotten week like this one.  And for the time being, I can manage it myself....without taking anything more risky than Motrin.  And sneaking a Snickers here and there.

Have a good weekend.