Sexual desire in men is fairly straightforward. Women are more complicated. A lot of pharmaceutical effort has gone into making sure that men can remain sexually active for as long as they like. (Think Viagra). But there is nothing on the market for women who want to increase their sexuality. Not that pharma isn’t trying, but women — are more complicated.

This week a new study measuring the amount low sexual desire in 2,000 women between the ages of 30 and 70 was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. What’s interesting about this study is not how many women report that they have low sexual desire — 36.2 percent. What’s new is that the researchers measured how distressed women were by their disinterest in sex. That combination of low sexual desire and distress is called hypoactive sexual desire disorder. In other words, low sexual desire is not a problem unless it bothers you.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Procter & Gamble. P&G is in the process of developing a testosterone patch for women that would increase their libido, or sexual desire. Just as in men, testosterone is the hormone that drives sexual desire in women, and it fades with menopause.

“We know libido diminishes with age and within relationships,” said Dr. June LaValleur, an expert on women’s sexuality at the University of Minnesota. She’s also doing research on P&G’s testosterone patch, but was not involved in this study. (Sexual desire also fades in men, she said, “but nobody talks about that.”)

Dr. June LaValleur

Using a proprietary questionaire developed by P&G, the researchers measured how women of different ages were emotionally affected by their disinterest in sex.

Read the rest of this entry »

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota has come up with what it hopes is one of those win win plans as part of its “do” exercise campaign. You’ve seen the signs and the ads that say you should just do. Exercise, that is.

This time they’ve cut a deal of sorts with 20 area bike shops. You keep track of your biking miles, and the bike shops will give you 10 percent off of their merchandise. (Not all merchandise. Not bikes, for instance. Not sale items.) You can  find information on their web site here. It’s kind of a frequent flyer program for bicyclists.

You join at any of the participating bike shops, get a safety inspection and an odometer, and the bike shop keeps track of your mileage. If you bike 50 miles, you get a “do” water bottle. Bike 100 miles, you get 10 percent off store merchandise. Bike 200 miles get 10 percent off store merchandise, plus a pair of “do” socks and a “do” water bottle. And so on.

Jill Chamberlain, Blue Cross project manager for community initiatives, said that the idea came about as a compliment to the discounts health plan members get on their gym memberships. Some employers pay part of the membership fees for people who join fitness clubs. But bikers and runners who don’t pay to exercise are left out of that deal.

This is also a way for bike shops to encourage customer loyalty and get repeat business. They pay for the 10 percent discount, Blue Cross provides the “do” merchandise.

There are some interesting questions here, starting with whether an advertising campaign can actually get people to change their habits and get moving. In this deal, Blue Cross is providing a web site and free “do” stuff. The bike shops are spending the money in the form of discounts to bicyclists.

One avid bicyclist I know scoffed at the reward plan as nothing but a way for bike shops to generate foot traffic. It doesn’t go nearly far enough, he said. Why not, say, give people who ride 1,000 miles in a year — or a summer — $500 off a new bike? Now there’s an incentive, he said.

Chamberlain says this is the first time bike shops have tried anything like this. If it works, maybe it it will grow.

Would you do this? Is there enough in this for you to go to the trouble of getting an odometer, signing up at a bike shop and keeping track? Or is this just something that people who already bike a lot will use?

Never mind straight talk. How about any talk at all?

Sen. John McCain was asked the big question earlier this week — no, not the war with Iraq or the economy. Viagra and birth control.

His campaign advisor Carly Fiorina started it on Monday when she was talking with reporters about consumer driven health care. She pointed out that some health plans cover Viagra, but not birth control. Women might like a choice in that, she said.

Good point. (Item: McCain twice voted against legislation that would require health plans to cover birth control. )

Then on Wednesday Los Angeles Times reporter Maeve Reston asked McCain about it on his campaign bus.

Here is the video clip from that exchange.

Seems like simple question, doesn’t it? If health plans cover Viagra, should they cover birth control, too? I can’t wait to hear what he does think — if he ever gets around to answering the question.What do you think?

Are you confused by sunscreens? I am. S.P.F., UVA, UVB, wide spectrum, sweat resistant, waterproof, Mexoryl SX, avobenzone, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.

Whew.

Now there’s help. The Environmental Working Group has posted a data base of 1,000 or more ratings on different sun screen products. They rate them for how well they block both UVA and UVB rays, plus what kinds of chemicals they contain. You choose among the top ten products (none of which I’ve ever seen at Target), the top ten widely available products, or check out the brand you like best.

The site will also ask you to send a letter to the Food and Drug Administration urging it to update its sun screen standards — which haven’t been updated in 30 years. The new ones may include better ratings for both UVA and UVB, provide better information on how to apply it, and limit the claims that can be made. The FDA said it expects an update soon. In the meantime, though, you can learn a lot about what’s in sunscreen by perusing the Environmental Working Group’s research.

Apparently when it comes to broccoli not all men are created equal.

About half the population carries a gene called GMST1. Those people get more benefit from eating broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables than the other half. Now, researchers know why — at least when it comes to broccoli and prostate cancer.

In a study published this week in the on line journal PLoS ONE, men at risk for prostate cancer ate either 400 grams of broccoli or 400 grams of peas every week for 12 months. Researchers measured the activation of every gene in their cells. They found the broccoli eaters had more gene activation than the pea eaters. In fact, broccoli had a “profound effect on the gene expression” in the men with the GMST1 gene, the scientists wrote. Eating just a few portions of broccoli per week, they think, can amplify the signal to the cell nucleus, where genes are expressed, and that reduces the risk for cancer.

Of course, most of us have no idea whether or not we carry the GMST1 gene, so what to do? Eat MORE vegetables.

“Eating two or three portions of cruciferous vegetables per week, and maybe a few more if you lack the GSTM1 gene, should be encouraged,” the researchers concluded.

Here’s a list of the cruciferous club: broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, rocket, watercress, garden cress, kale, bok choy, radish, horseradish and wasabi.

And don’t forget the red wine.