• iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Depression is the leading cause of disability, with 350 million people affected worldwide.
    Read more...
  • iStock/ThinkstockUpload File(NEW YORK) --  If they don’t have to think about cost or availability, women may be more likely to choose long-lasting birth control, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health.
    Read more...
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Paying attention to the quality of the food is more effective for weight loss than religiously counting calories, according to a new study.Researchers at Stanford University found there is no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet versus a healthy low-carbohydrate diet.The 12-month weight loss study of 609 individuals found the tactic of choosing whole, unprocessed foods and not worrying about calories resulted in similar weight loss for people following both diets.The study also found there is no specific insulin levels associated with the dietary effects of weight loss and no specific gene pattern that affected which diet made an individual lose weight."I was very happy when I read it," Maya Feller, a New York-based dietitian, said of the study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.“The takeaway is that the quality of what you eat is incredibly important,” she said. “You may or may not need to eat an 1,800-calorie diet, but what you need is a diet that is based on whole and minimally processed foods without an excess of added sugars, salts and saturated fats.”Feller said staying within calorie limits doesn't necessarily mean making good nutrition choices. For example, choosing to eat a 100-calorie pack of cookies would make it easy to count the calories consumed, but it won't contribute to better health."Yes, it’s 100 calories and if you’re on a calorie-counting diet it probably fits within your plan, however a 100-calorie pack of [cookies] is not really going to give you as much nutrition as having a piece of fish and some vegetables," she said.Participants in the Stanford study were given nutrition information in 22 diet-specific small group sessions led by health educators, over the 12-month period. The study said the sessions focused on "ways to achieve the lowest fat or carbohydrate intake that could be maintained long-term and emphasized diet quality."Making the switch from focusing on the number of calories consumed to eating whole, unprocessed foods is a “deep paradigm shift,” according to Feller.“I do think that consumers may be confused because for some people who don’t have a healthy relationship with food, counting calories gives them guidelines,” she said. “It’s like really relearning a relationship to food.”That relearning process requires both mindfulness and focus, but Feller believes it can be done."It means you’ve shifted from buying the box that lists out the serving size to actually purchasing a head of collard greens and saying, ‘I’m going to pair it with quinoa and grilled fish,'" she explained.Feller recommends setting a goal to eat two to three servings of fruit per day and consuming a minimum of two servings of non-starchy vegetables at both lunch and dinner.People concerned about portion size can focus on dividing their plates, Feller suggested. Half of the plate should have vegetables, one-fourth should have lean protein and one-fourth should have grains or starchy vegetables.Whole, unprocessed foods are also naturally more filling and satiating, she added.When shopping for food, Feller recommended buying the food in its most minimally processed state.“If you want broccoli, then you should be eating a head of broccoli,” she said. “And you can buy fresh produce in bulk and freeze it for later use, so you become your own manufacturer.”Advance preparation can also be key to eating whole foods daily, instead of running to the vending machine.“Meal prep can be a lifesaver,” said Feller. She shared these four tips for meal prep success.1. Use Saturday to plan ahead: Sit down Saturday and look at your week. Ask yourself, 'What am I prepping for? Is there a refrigerator? Do I need to bring it in a cooler?'2. Be creative: One size doesn’t fit all. You have to be creative a
    Read more...
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Being a trailblazer is familiar territory for Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill. She was the first disabled vet to serve in Congress, the first Asian American representative to be elected from Illinois and come spring she'll chalk up another milestone -- the first Senator to give birth while serving in the chamber.Duckworth is expected to deliver her second child a few weeks after she turns 50, a time when many woman expect the end of fertility and the beginning of menopause to be around the corner.The Senator said she delayed having children to pursue her career and, by the time she was ready, she had to overcome infertility."The early part of my career, which was also, [like] for most women, your twenties and early thirties, your prime fertility years," she told ABC station WLS in Chicago, "were also my career-building years."She is not alone. Duckworth is among a growing number of women, including celebrities like Janet Jackson and Sophie B. Hawkins, tackling motherhood in their fifties.Overall birthrates in the United States have been declining for years, reaching a record low in 2016, according to National Bureau of Health Statistics, and provisional data suggests a new low for 2017.But, among women over 40, the birthrate has increased. Women ages 40 to 44 had a 4 percent increase in birthrate and there was also a slight birthrate increase in of .1 percent among women between 45 and 49 years old.Some doctors are seeing the trend in their practices. Dr. Norbert Gleicher, the medical director and chief scientist at the Center for Human Reproduction, which specializes in treatments of last resort for women who are either older or have had complications in trying to get pregnant, said more than half of his patients are 43 or older."This would have been unimaginable 10 years ago," Gleicher told ABC News. "The trend toward having children at older ages is growing year by year. And we are learning better ways to treat older women."He said he was turning clients over 40 away, a decade ago, because their chances for a viable pregnancy were so small. But many advances in the past several years have changed the landscape: Higher life expectancy, advances in technology and increased rates of egg donations are helping to raise the odds that women in their fifties, and even in their sixties, can have successful pregnancies."They need to be screened carefully, but with proper screening the outcome stats are surprisingly good," Gleicher said. "All the published data suggest that with the appropriate screening having babies in the fifties is perfectly manageable.""In general a healthy woman will have a completely normal pregnancy," he added, "although [older women] do have a higher Cesarean rate due to the higher risk of complications."Although some women in their later 40s and beyond can have success getting pregnant with their own eggs, the New York City-based fertility specialist said, it's still more common that they conceive with donor eggs.IVF treatments later in lifeDr. Leona Ashmore, 53, is hoping to become pregnant again this year. The child psychologist has two children -- ages 19 and 17 -- and is divorced, but she has been eager for a bigger family."I always thought I had all this time," she said.But after she turned 52, Ashmore realized time was running out and thought, "I've got to do this now."Ashmore spent a year researching fertility clinics before settling on CHR."It’s so beautiful they have this technology that could help you with that," she added.Although she was in good health, she went through a battery of required tests, including psychological screening, a cardiac stress test and a lung x-ray, before she was accepted as a candidate for IVF.Gleicher said older women do face higher health risks for pregnancy, like diabetes, hypertension, preeclampsia, and congestive heart failure. Women over the age of 45 at his clinic undergo expanded pre-testing for physical and mental fitness."Pregnan
    Read more...
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Among parents who own guns, only one in three store their guns the way pediatricians recommend, a new study found: locked, unloaded and separate from ammunition.This was the case whether or not the children in the home had any history of mental health issues, according to the study in the journal Pediatrics.Guns that are accessible and loaded may be more dangerous to the children than to anyone else, including those who might harm themselves."One of the most incontrovertible pieces of evidence is that when a gun is in the home it increases risk of suicide," Dr. Matthew Miller, a study author and professor of health sciences and epidemiology at Northwestern University, told ABC News, "especially when it is stored loaded."The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in their mortality data report that, among children age 10 to 17, firearms accounted for more than 40 percent of all suicides.Mental health conditions increase the likelihood of suicidal behavior, so Miller, who has researched gun violence for the past 20 years, and his team decided to study guns and homes with children who have a history of mental health challenges.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or attention-deficit disorder (ADD), depression and mental health conditions other than depression were categorized as "self-harm risk factors" in this study. The research team asked two crucial questions for the study:Are parents whose children are at risk of self-harm any less, or more, likely to live in homes with guns? Do parents with firearms store their household guns more, or less, safely?Researchers conducted an online survey of almost 4,000 adults across the United States in 2015. The results were self-reported and the authors admit that this could increase the chance of bias, but said they do not believe it played a dominant role in their findings.Among the group who responded, approximately one in three households contained firearms.Of those, having a child with self-harm risk factors did not affect how parents stored their guns. This came as "no surprise" to Miller.Despite what appears to be a recent upswing in gun violence, and extensive media coverage of school shootings, public health recommendations regarding homes with both guns and children have not wavered.The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized the need to reduce firearm injury to children over a quarter of a century ago. They say the safest home for a child is one without guns. But if guns are in the home, their recommendation is that risk can be substantially reduced by storing all household firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition."The best thing to do is to not have a gun in the home, especially if you have a child with a mental health issue," Miller advises parents. "But even if your child does not have a mental health issue, children can be impulsive and having a gun in the home in that instance is likely to prove fatal."
    Read more...
  • Pima County Sheriff's Office (TUCSON, Ariz.) -- An Arizona couple was arrested for child abuse after allegedly locking their adopted children in rooms without food, water or a bathroom, officials said.The investigation began Saturday when a boy in "disheveled condition" asked to use the phone at a Family Dollar store in Tucson, and the store clerk called 911 to report the suspicious activity, the Pima County Sheriff's Office said in a news release Tuesday.When deputies responded to the boy's home, they found four children -- ages 6 to 12 -- and learned they were kept in separate bedrooms that were locked from the outside, the sheriff's office said.The sheriff's office said the children were regularly kept in their locked rooms for up to 12 hours at a time without access to food, water, a bathroom or lights.One bedroom had a bucket as a toilet, the sheriff's office said.The child who asked to use the Family Dollar store phone had escaped through a window at the home, according to the sheriff's office.The other four children were removed from the home while the adoptive parents, Benito Gutierrez, 69, and Carol Gutierrez, 64, were arrested and each charged with three counts of child abuse, the sheriff's office said.They were set to make their first court appearance on Wednesday.Last month, two Southern California parents were arrested for allegedly holding their 13 children captive in their home.David and Louise Turpin allegedly forced the children to shower only once a year, shackled them and beat them routinely, prosecutors said. The victims weren't released from their chains even to go to the bathroom, according to prosecutors.They were arrested after the couple’s 17-year-old daughter escaped and alerted authorities.David and Louise Turpin have each been charged with 12 counts of torture, 12 counts of false imprisonment, seven counts of abuse of a dependent adult and six counts of child abuse. David Turpin was also charged with one count of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 by force, fear or duress. They have pleaded not guilty.Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
    Read more...