Say Goodbye to Erectile Dysfunction with Tadalafil

Erectile dysfunction, abbreviated ED, and otherwise known as impotence in men, is the failure of a man to obtain and maintain an erection which is direly needed for engaging in sexual intercourse.

Erectile dysfunction is a condition that is very common in much older men.  It has been estimated that about half of all men who are within the bracket age of 40 to 70 may have ED at a certain degree.  Depending on the circumstances and on the individual himself, erectile dysfunction can also affect those who are younger, even if they are just around the age of 25 or more.

Why does ED Occur in some Men?  Erectile dysfunction causes actually vary, and they can be physically related or psychologically related.  Physical causes of ED may include hormonal issues, surgery or injury, tightening of the blood vessels that lead towards the penis which is usually linked to high cholesterol, hypertension, or diabetes.  Psychological (mental) causes of ED may include depression, anxiety or problems with relationships. Read more…

Cartoon baddies

Concern grows on the use of cartoon characters that entice children to eat badly

Using a generational icon, say, recruiting Shrek to get kids to eat, is not new. The gimmick has worked for years. Doctors and parents have applauded the tactic when, for example, stamped images of Sesame’s Street’s Elmo endorsed packages of broccoli. Controversy arises when licensed characters promote victuals arguably considered to be junk food – those low in nutrients, like gummy bears and graham crackers.

A recent study conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and published in the June 21 issue of Pediatrics (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3433) confirmed the rationale of many North American retailers – that to spend $1.6 billion annually on wooing children is well worth it – at least when it comes to dollars + cents. Nutritionally, it’s another matter. When pre-school and Grade 1 kids were asked to choose foods showing Shrek, Dora the Explorer and Scooby Doo on the packaging compared to unadorned choices, not surprisingly, most opted for the boxes with the cartoon characters, despite the identical content.

This trend had certain groups up in arms. Corporate Accountability International, an advocacy group out of Boston, has begun the “Retire Ronald” campaign. Rather than symbolizing Ronald McDonald House of Charities, the 50-year-old clown these days appears to promote poor nutrition and food choices, according to the organization. “Ronald McDonald is a pied piper drawing youngsters all over the world to food that’s high in fat, sodium and calories,” says retired physician and volunteer Alfred David Klinger.

Happy Meals – food geared to the under 12-year-old set – are also under the gun. Historically, McDonald’s has used toys and games to attract their youngest clientele. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is planning to wage a lawsuit against McDonald’s for selling toys. “McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s,” says organization member Stephen Garner.

In 2006, their first lawsuit against mega-chain Kellogg for promoting poor quality nutrition to children resulted in products with higher nutritional value.

Even Disney, who partnered with McDonald’s from 1997-2006, allowing the food chain to use their cinematic characters in their toy line, eventually had second thoughts and ended that tie, in order to endorse healthier choices.

So, where are Mom and Dad in all this? Everyone agrees that they should be doing more to guide their children towards healthier eating habits. But in many cases, they themselves are eating as badly, if not worse – with no need for encouragement from SpongeBob SquarePants, Buzz Lightyear, Diego, or that irritating little red racecar Lightning McQueen. We can make junk food less enticing, but kids won't eat healthier food unless it's served at home. Such a reminder by physicians will be much appreciated down the road, by the kids as adults, and our healthcare system.

2 comments:

sharon(aka Purley Quirt ) said...

Why strain at a gnat...when we can swallow a camel?

Parents train their children with "life
threatening" allergies what to eat and not to eat with great success.
[ Even peanut butter is banned by the many for the safety of the few ]

The real camel that we need to face is broader banning than just allergies ..... for many foodstuffs are " life threatening" in slower ways than anaphylaxis ( but equally terminal)

said...

I truly agree with sharon.Nice thought shared.