Denis Leary and autism: Apology accepted, but not enough

After Denis Leary's apology for the comments he made about autistic children in his book, "Why We Suck: A Feel-Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid," autism activists say they have called off a nationwide protest but say they want a percentage of the proceeds of his book to go to help children diagnosed with autism -- either that, or deletion of the offending chapter. That chapter contains the following comments:

"There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically, so they throw money into the happy laps of shrinks . . . to get back diagnoses that help explain away the deficiencies of their junior morons. I don't give a [bleep] what these crackerjack whack jobs tell you -- yer kid is NOT autistic. He's just stupid. Or lazy. Or both."

Autism United's statement today included the following:

"Autism United acknowledges Denis Leary for his belated apology for the harm done by his statements about people with autism and their families made in his recently published book, "Why We Suck."

"I feel that Denis' apology was enough," said comedian Mark Anthony Ramirez, a spokesman for Autism United and Gabby's Kids, and the father of a child diagnosed on the autistic spectrum. "But his claim that his comments were taken out of context is a veiled attempt to elicit more sales."

"As a parent of a child with autism, I feel he owes the autism community the money he is making for using what has quickly become an epidemic in our country as a cheap ploy to sell his book," said Ramirez. "He should donate a portion of his sales to assist children with autism."

Leary's comments offended many parents of children with autism. A blog by Lisa Jo Rudy asks if people aren't playing into Leary's hands by giving him publicity. "Today, Leary is front page news, and Jenny McCarthy is quoted as saying --in US Magazine-- 'Whoo! First of all, let me tell you, the autism community has received probably 10,000 e-mails [saying] "Go kill him! Go yell at him!" ' Go KILL him? Assuming that Jenny is telling even half the truth, there are tens of thousands of autism-related families out there thinking about Leary, writing about Leary, and caring about Leary to the point where they're actually writing letters to ask for his demise. Wow."

-- Rosie Mestel

Conscientious people live longer

Most of the factors related to longevity are physical: the presence of disease, body weight, smoking or drinking habits, and on and on. But having a personality trait known as conscientiousness seems to matter, too, according to a new study.

The research, conducted at UC Riverside, analyzed data from 20 studies on conscientiousness-related traits and longevity. The studies involved more than 8,900 people in the United States, Germany, Norway, Japan and Sweden. Psychology professor Howard S. Friedman found highly conscientious people live two to four years longer, are less likely to smoke or drink to excess and live more stable and less stressful lives. He also examined several facets of conscientiousness, such as being organized, efficient, responsible, self-controlled, disciplined, achievement-oriented, persistent, industrious and socially responsible. He found that achievement and having an orderly life were the strongest facets linked to longevity.

Conscientiousness, said Friedman in a news release, "seems to be as important as most commonly assessed medical risk factors, few of which are psychological ... Not only do conscientious individuals have better health habits and less risk-taking, but they also travel life pathways toward healthier psychosocial environments -- such as more stable jobs and marriages -- and may even have a biological predisposition toward good health."

Can one learn to be conscientious? Conscientiousness can't be changed in the short-term, says Friedman. But people who enter stable jobs or good marriages can become more conscientious. The study is published in the current issue of Health Psychology.

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Ringo H.W. Chiu / Los Angeles Times

Rodent of the week: Eat grapes

Have you seen all those gorgeous grapes in the grocery stores these days? Eat 'em. They may help you with high blood pressure that results from a salty diet.

Research published this week in the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, examined rats from a research breed that develops high blood pressure when fed a salty diet. The rats were fed a mixture of green, red and black table grapes in powdered form along with their regular salty diet. When the grape-fed rats were compared 18 weeks later with control-group rats, who ate a salty diet without grapes, they were found to have lower blood pressure, better heart function, reduced inflammation throughout their bodies and fewer signs of heart muscle damage. Some of the rats in the control group received a blood-pressure medication. Those rats had lower blood pressure but their hearts weren't protected from damage as were the grape-fed rats.

"These findings support our theory that something within the grapes themselves has a direct impact on cardiovascular risk, beyond the simple blood pressure-lowering impact that we already know can come from a diet rich in fruits and vegetables," said Mitchell Seymour, who led the research as part of his doctoral work in nutrition science at Michigan State University.

The rats in the study mimic the condition of many Americans who develop hypertension because of their diet and then develop heart failure over time because of prolonged hypertension, the researchers noted. But the addition of the grape powder changed the trajectory of the rats' health.

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Advanced Cell Technology Inc.

Happy Halloween (if you survive all the hazards)

Halloween -- it's the most dangerous time of the year, or so it seems from the 1,001 health-themed Halloween-warning e-mails we've received from health groups and PR firms these last weeks. Be afraid.

From the USC School of Dentistry: Candy causes cavities!

From the California Dental Hygienists' Assn.: Sour candy is as acidic as battery acid and will etch your wee ones' teeth!

From Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York: Kids can asphyxiate on treats such as sourballs and gumballs if they lodge in the windpipe.

Of course, much of the advice meted out can't be argued with. Watch out for cars; kids should wear face paint instead of masks that could obscure their vision; don't shove scratchy costume contact lenses in your eyes; eat candy while sitting still, not while running about; don't use toxic makeup. Make sure hems aren't too low and trippy. (Maybe that's one good thing about the current trend toward slutty, high-skirted witch-and-princess costumes we recently covered.)

But you also start to wonder how realistic some of these tips really are, and if the earnest groups that send them are likely to get much by way of compliance. Don't ever let kids carve pumpkins -- knives are sharp. Don't put real candles in the pumpkins. Give the kids dried apple, soy cookies, unsalted nuts, oatmeal bars and raisins. Trick-or-treat only in the daylight. And never wear dark costumes. (I guess any kid dressing up as the Grim Reaper, Count Dracula or a witch should go as a Grim Reaper, Count Dracula or witch on vacation in the Caribbean or Bali.) 

And here's another easy one: Avoid candy with any artificial food coloring because it might make a kid hyper. (When my kid was racing around a bat- and cobweb-festooned house dressed up as Belle from "Beauty and the Beast" all those years ago, it never occurred to me that the food coloring was to blame.)

Perhaps my favorite news release came from Mederma for Kids, an anti-scarring product, which lists 27 Halloween safety tips on two pages, then devotes two-and-a-half pages to information about the anti-scarring product -- is that for in case the tips don't work? 

We'll concede that if you have a child who's allergic to a foodstuff like peanuts then sentences like "Halloween spooks and scares are not limited to vampires and witches" are excusable, but do parents of such children truly need to be reminded to check ingredient lists on the candy? You'd think they would have nailed that one by now.

And for most kids, the hysteria around candy just seems a little much -- lots of talk of rationing and instructions to give kids just a piece or so and make them work for every piece they receive thereafter. Wellspring weight-loss programs writes to tell us that, "Halloween is about having fun, not hoarding stashes of candy" and that the "typical dietary recommendation for candy is a maximum intake of 22 pounds per year for a 12-year-old child." A very useful stat, that.

We got more handy stats from the California Dietetic Assn. and the California Milk Processor Board: "Did you know that a typical Jack-O-Lantern bucket holds about 250 pieces of small chocolate bars and candy that could easily add up to 9,000 calories (4.5 times the recommended daily amount for a grown person!), 200 grams of fat and 1,500 grams of sugar?" (It recommends milk to be drunk as part of a healthful meal before kids go out trick-or-treating.) One can practically see PR firms bipping away on their calculators from one end of the land to the other.

By our own calculations, Halloween is one night. There are 365 nights in a year, except once every four years when there are 366 nights -- so let's average things out and say there are 365.25 nights in a year. It would seem that what matters, when it comes to kids and diet, has not much to do with Halloween and everything to do with the rest of the year. Let's be safe. And keep perspective.

-- Rosie Mestel

Photo credit: Sergio Dionisio / Getty Images

A state-by-state look at the rise in diabetes

Diabetes is up -- way up -- in the United States.

And if that doesn't surprise, the state-specific information might. Using national survey data, analyzed by state, researchers from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that incidence of the disease increased among adults by more than 90% in the last 10 years.

That's a rise from 4.8 cases per 1,000 people in a 1995-97 survey to 9.1 cases per 1,000 people in a 2005-07 survey. Obesity was one of the main causes.

California's rate increased 36%. That increase was one of the lowest and may not seem too horrifying, most things considered (Idaho's rate increased by 216%, Texas' rate by 208% and Florida's by 203%), until you also consider that California's age-adjusted rate is 9.0, just under the national 9.1 rate. Apparently, other states are simply catching up.

The report says:

"Development and delivery of interventions that promote weight loss and increased physical activity among persons at high risk for diabetes are needed to reduce the diabetes incidence. Also needed are public health interventions, including environmental and policy changes (e.g., creating or enhancing parks, walking trails, and access to healthier foods) that encourage healthy lifestyles and maintenance of healthy weight to prevent obesity and reduce the risk for diabetes."

At this rate, we all may want to consider the prospect (and impact) of the diabetes numbers a decade from now.

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Insulin, used to treat diabetes.

Credit: Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times

Vigorous exercise cuts breast cancer risk in women

Many studies have found a link between regular exercise and breast cancer. Now a study from the National Cancer Institute provides some specifics regarding that relationship. The research, published today in BioMed Central's open access journal Breast Cancer Research, found that normal-weight women who exercise vigorously are about 30% less likely to develop breast cancer compared with normal-weight women who don't exercise vigorously.

The study examined more than 30,000 postmenopausal American women for 11 years. Vigorous exercise was defined performing such tasks as heavy housework (scrubbing floors, washing windows, heavy yard work) and participating in strenuous sports or exercise, such as running, fast jogging, competitive tennis, aerobics, bicycling on hills and fast dancing. In other words, activity in which you really work up a sweat.

The study also found that light housework (vacuuming, washing clothes, general gardening) and light exercise, such as walking, hiking, light jogging, bowling and recreational tennis) was not protective. Moreover, vigorous activity was only protective in lean or normal-weight women, not those who were overweight or obese. According to the lead author, Dr. Michael F. Leitzmann, physical activity may protect against breast cancer by reducing body mass, increasing immune function and decreasing chronic inflammation-all factors known to influence the disease risk.

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Robert Durell / Los Angeles Times

For women, sexual problems and distress over them are two different things

We knew that 40% or so of U.S. women report sexual problems. What we didn't know was how many were upset about it. The answer: 12%. So says a study published in the November issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The research, led by a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, was based on information from more than 32,000 women. The reported problems included low desire (most common), limited arousal and difficulties having an orgasm.

Overall, 43% of women age 18 and older reported some type of sexual problem. Such problems were most common in women over age 65. Distress over them was most common in women age 45 to 64. Women age 18 to 44, perhaps not surprisingly, were least likely to have problems or distress.

The differences among the age groups may not be surprising, but much could be (and will be) written about those 43% and 13% figures. For now, take from them what you will. 

Says lead author Dr. Jan Shifren in a news release: "While distressing sexual problems are much less common in women than sexual problems overall, they still affect approximately one in eight adult women. ... As part of a thorough health assessment, it's important that health care providers ask their female patients if they have sexual concerns and if those problems are associated with distress."

For more on sexual desire in women, check out this recent story from L.A. Times Mating Game columnist Regina Nuzzo: Mapping the way to G-spot utopia

And then there's her reporting about sex in both genders: Science of the orgasm, Use it or lose it and a related story, Sexual dry spells hurt blood pressure, intensify orgasms

And in other coverage, there's Quest for the little pink pill, a Times story about the search for a female Viagra, and A woman's guide to reviving sex drive, from WebMD.

-- Tami Dennis

An antidote to a stressful campaign season

Has all the stress from the upcoming elections turned you into a nonstop eating machine, lunging for comfort food to relieve the anxiety?

Gold’s Gym may be able to help you whittle down that expanding waist: They’re offering a free one-week VIP membership for anyone who votes. Bring in proof of voting to any Gold’s Gym between now and election day (that’s Nov. 4 in case you weren’t sure) to receive the membership.

Anyone who has been following election season probably has an anxiety level that’s cranked up to 11. Between the polls, the ads, the debates and the heated discussions with friends, family and co-workers, steam has definitely been building up.

That’s why Gold’s decided to allow people to release it. "At the end of the day," says Dave Reiseman, director of communications, "no matter what kinds of messages you’re bombarded with, the gym is the one place you can go where there’s no economic crisis, no war, no election."

That is, of course, unless you’re watching the news while doing your cardio. We know better and prefer to let our angst run down while watching the E! channel (no worries there) or the umpteenth rerun of "Top Chef."

Reiseman says Gold’s was approached by the Obama and McCain campaigns about running political ads on the in-house TV programming. While he gives both camps credit for the creative ingenuity, he politely declined the offer.

"We wanted the gym to be an escape," he says.

Gold’s also released its list of top ten fittest U.S. presidents (John Quincy Adams topped it — those Potomac swims and all), and people can also vote for who they think is the fittest president at the company’s website.

-Jeannine Stein

Photo courtesy of Gold's Gym

Danger may lurk in some foreign wines

Many red and white wines from Europe contain potentially toxic levels of heavy metals, according to researchers from Kingston University in London.

The study examined wines from 16 countries in Europe, South America and the Middle East for their Target Hazard Quotient, a measure designed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine safe levels of frequent, long-term exposure to various chemicals. A THQ over one indicates a health risk.

The study, published today in the open access Chemistry Central Journal, found that typical wines had a THQ ranging from 50 to 200 a glass and some wines had a THQ of 300 a glass. In comparison, THQs for heavy metal contamination in seafood have typically ranged from one to five.

A single glass of wine with a high THQ isn't harmful, noted a co-author of the study, Declan P. Naughton. But drinking a glass or two a day for many years could be hazardous. The minerals with the highest impact were vanadium, copper and manganese, but high levels of lead, zinc, chromium and nickel were also found. An excess intake of metal ions is thought to contribute to some neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, and some inflammatory diseases, such as cancer.

The only countries with safe wines that were examined in the study were Argentina, Brazil and Italy.

Though mild or moderate intake of red wine has been linked to health benefits (due to the antioxidants in wine), this finding suggests those advantages may be outweighed by potential harm from wines with heavy metals, the authors said.

"Levels of metal ions should appear on wine labels, along with the introduction of further steps to remove key hazardous metal ions during wine production," they said.

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times

The agony of aches and pains -- amateur athletes feel them, too

We all know professional athletes suffer injuries all the time, but that’s an understood part of the gig.

But amateur athletes can experience serious aches and pains as well, according to a study that examined amateur bowlers. Researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel surveyed 98 amateur bowlers involved in two bowling clubs. They were given questionnaires to assess musculoskeletal disorders as well as other factors such as features of the game itself.

Some 62% of bowlers said they experienced musculoskeletal symptoms in one or more joints during the last year. The number of leagues that bowlers participated in was a predictor of painful joints in the upper extremities, and the average achievement of bowlers predicted the number of painful joints in the entire body.

A few tips for amateur athletes was offered by Navah Ratzon, lead author of the study published recently in the journal Work, and director of the occupational therapy department at Tel Aviv University, via a release. She said that players of ball sports such as tennis, golf and basketball should understand that one unnatural move, such as a twist of the back, could have painful consequences. While stretching is always important, so is exercising the muscles that don’t get used that often. For example, tennis players and bowlers need to work their non-dominant arms, as well as shoring up other muscle groups to balance any asymmetries.

"Increasing numbers of adults are pursuing amateur athletics during their leisure hours," Ratzon said. "But we've found worrying indications that this activity — when not done properly — may have negative effects on the musculoskeletal system."

She added that people should avoid stressing out about their amateur endeavors. Becoming anxious about missing practices or spending too much time on a sport can aggravate persistent health issues.

-- Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Mark Boster / L.A. Times