Brad Pitt : Sure, I Make Parenting Mistakes

Article post from People.com

Brad Pitt may be the poster boy for Hollywood dads, but he admits that even he makes parenting mistakes just like everyone else.

Asked if he's ever felt that all-too-common sinking feeling like he's just made a terrible dad error, Pitt tells PEOPLE, "Not [like I'm] a horrible parent, but I've certainly made mistakes and had to make up for it."

The actor spoke to PEOPLE at the Los Angeles premiere of his new film The Tree of Life, which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. In the movie, Pitt plays an abusive 1950s-era father whose actions profoundly impact the life of one of his three sons in particular.

Pitt had to draw on his acting skills to find his inner bad dad. "I certainly don't raise my kids that same way," he says. "I'm painfully aware that my actions leave a double mark on them in these formidable years, so I make sure I don't bring my crap at home."

Plus, Pitt says he wants to let his six kids with partner Angelina Jolie learn to be themselves. "I want to keep them free to explore that innocence as long as possible and find out what's really interesting to them," he says. "I just don't want to encumber them in any way."

Because director Terrence Malick's film was shot largely without a script, Pitt and the filmmakers took extra care not to traumatize the young actors who play his sons during the scarier sequences.

"We had to be careful with that, because they are young boys and you don't want to scar them in the process," Pitt says. "So it was explained to them ahead of time and they knew it was coming, but they didn't know when it was coming. And in between we made sure we had a lot of time of everyday life, throwing the ball around and riding bikes. And I think everyone got through it unscathed."

But just in case, Pitt made sure to win the boys' hearts off-screen – by buying them motorcycles. "They are great," he said. "We come from the same neck of the woods."

Back at home, Pitt says neither he nor Jolie is nudging their kids to follow in their acting footsteps. "Listen, I just want them to follow their bliss. Whatever makes them happy," he says.

And right now, making his family happy includes his next role, recording a voice for the animated sequel Happy Feet 2. "I mean Happy Feet is on heavy rotation in our house," he says with a laugh, "so it was a must!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 Secrets of Low-Stress Families

What did researchers see when they spied on every living, breathing moment of 32 families for four days straight?

WebMD Feature from "Redbook" Magazine
By Nicole Yorio 
Originally published on September 13, 2010

It was the first experiment of its kind: Thirty-two California families opened their doors (their front doors, bedroom doors, even bathroom doors) to researchers from UCLA who wanted to find out how they manage the demands of work and family life. With a three-person crew, researchers occupied families' homes for four days from morning until bedtime, recording every minute spent folding laundry, every homework panic, every dinner table dispute about the yuckiness of vegetables. The researchers conducted interviews with each of the family members and measured their stress levels throughout the day. The families were studied between 2002 and 2005; each had two working parents, two or more children, and a mortgage — a profile that looks like many American households. "When I observed these families, I felt like I was looking in at my own life," says lead researcher Tami Kremer-Sadlik, Ph.D., director of research at UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. "I'm a working mom with two children, and I could identify with the women we studied who reported feeling pressed for time and who were trying to balance work and family demands." But among those stressful moments, researchers also saw the key instances of warmth and love that make great families. And as Kremer-Sadlik and other female researchers who had their own families found out, getting a glimpse into the lives of other families gives us a unique perspective on how to better take care of our own. Use what they learned to calm stress and create joy in your house.

1. Low-stress couples don’t divvy up the chores. 
For one part of the project, Kremer-Sadlik and a colleague studied how couples’ division of housework was connected to their marital satisfaction. "Surprisingly, it didn’t matter how evenly couples split up the chores," Kremer-Sadlik says. "We found that both spouses were happier when both felt like they were working toward the same goal, regardless of who did more" (and women did more across the board). "The women in happy marriages told us that their spouses seemed to have an understanding of what needed to be done. We observed their husbands setting the table while their wife was cooking, or straightening up without being told what to do." Sound too good to be true? Know that just talking about your joint mission for the family can eliminate much of the "keeping score" conflict. "The happy couples often discussed their shared goals for their family," she says. "There was more of awe-ness there — and that spilled over into chores. Their attitude was more, ‘We do for our family,’ not, ‘I do this for you.’" But with two working parents’ and children’s schedules to coordinate, researcher Darby Saxbe, Ph.D., a 33-year-old mom from Los Angeles, observed many couples communicating only about who needed to do what. "It felt like they were running a business!" Saxbe says. "Squeezing in little moments of fun with your partner — whether you steal a quick kiss or exchange a joke — makes a difference." And researchers noticed that in some homes where the wives expressed more appreciation, the husbands also took on more household tasks.

2. Low-stress families find small moments of togetherness.
Every mom fantasizes about taking the perfect family vacation or spending a blissed-out day with her husband and kids. But real-life bonding time is made up of much smaller events. "I think a lot of us have this idea that we need to create big moments of togetherness, but we saw so many times that families had opportunities to connect throughout the day that they weren’t aware of," Kremer-Sadlik says. Those small moments might be the 10 minutes you spend braiding your daughter’s hair or your time spent cheering on your son at his Little League game. "I remember one moment when a daughter and mom were folding laundry, and the daughter stuck her foot in a sock and challenged her mom to find her foot among the pile of laundry," she recalls. "It was a loving moment of laughing and playing around in the midst of daily life."

Belinda Campos, Ph.D., whose focus in the study was family relationships, noticed the same thing. "There’s this cultural ideal of wanting to carve out quality time," says the 36-year-old from Irvine, CA. "But many families overlooked the daily stuff that keeps you connected." One example was the way families reacted when dads came home from work. "There were two types of behaviors among the families: those where the wives and children greeted the dad with a warm hello, and those where the children never got up from their video games and the wives greeted Dad with logistics like, ‘Did you pick up the chicken for dinner?’" Campos says. "But those seconds after Dad walked in the door may have shaped his mood for the night. It’s such a small thing; that’s the moment to acknowledge that a person is coming into a place where he matters."

3. Low-stress parents are role models — not pals.
Treating your partner with respect is not only good for your marriage — it also actually affects the whole family dynamic. "When spouses showed patience and support, as opposed to being impatient, sarcastic, or critical, their children were more respectful toward them, and the smoother the households ran," Kremer-Sadlik says of her findings from a previous study. "Their mini goals throughout the day, such as getting dinner on the table or finishing homework, ran more smoothly and more pleasantly." The same was true for parents who set the rules for the kids, as opposed to those who let their children help make the decisions. "When parents delegated chores to their children, rather than asking them which chores they wanted to do, there were fewer tantrums and arguments," Campos says. "There was still affection and humor in homes where parents were the bosses, but there was never a question of who was in charge."

4. Low-stress moms make dinner from scratch.
Believe it or not, using processed convenience foods for dinner doesn’t actually save you cooking time. That’s what really surprised 39-year-old mom and researcher Margaret Beck, whose focus for the study was food preparation. "All the families spent roughly one hour preparing dinner, whether they used processed foods or fresh ingredients," she says. The moms who prepared more convenience foods tended to overcompensate by having more courses — either side dishes or separate meals for the kids — which wasted time. And if you want your children to eat what’s on the table: "The kids who assisted in the food preparation always ate what was served," Beck says. "And the mood in the house was lighter and happier when the kids spend cooking time in the kitchen." Talk about a win-win!

5. Low-stress moms take five minutes of me time.
There’s a secret to being fully present and enjoying family life after a demanding day at work: "The findings suggested that when women unwound alone for 5 or 10 minutes, it set a positive tone for the rest of the night," says researcher Shu-wen Wang, a 28-year-old mom from Los Angeles who helped review more than 1,540 hours of footage. "Moms reported unwinding by exercising, gardening, or having a candy bar — not that I recommend that last approach! I always felt selfish taking time for me, especially after working all day, but this study proved to me how healthy it is for moms and their families."

6. Low-stress families watch TV together.
If you feel guilty every time your family plops in front a television after a long day rather than doing something more interactive, don’t sweat it. "Families who watched TV together showed many bonding behaviors," Campos says. "Bonding can be sharing snacks, high-fiving each other if the Lakers score a basket, or guessing trivia questions together during Jeopardy!" Even sitcoms can bring you closer. "When families laugh together during a TV show, that’s a shared moment they have in common, and it creates a memory," she says. So on days where you just can’t muster the energy to recruit the kids for crazy 8’s or kickball in the yard, know that a little TV time can be good for your family too.

7. Low-stress families embrace daily rituals.
"I used to believe that spontaneity and excitement were what kept couples connected, but it’s truly the routine and continuity that set the foundation for making family relationships thrive," Wang says. "Whether it was a couple sitting down at the end of the day with a cup of coffee or parents reading a bedtime story to their children, these little moments are what make family life so comforting and kept couples close." Sometimes, the mad-dash moments seem to define our days, but "it’s only when we find moments to slow down that we can fully appreciate those everyday moments that make a family," Saxbe says. "I remember watching a mom kissing her son and tucking him into bed. The son responded, ‘I want another kiss, Mommy!’ So the mom kissed him again. They repeated this five or six times — it was so sweet! Watching this made me appreciate how lucky I am to have a family I care about and how I how important it is to cherish these little moments of love when they come along."

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diet and Smoking May Affect Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Progression

 Dietary factors and cigarette smoking may alter the course of disease in patients with a milder form of multiple sclerosis, a new study finds.

Out of nearly 900 patients with what is called "relapsing onset" multiple sclerosis (MS), those who regularly consumed alcohol, caffeine and fish were less likely to progress to the point that they needed help walking, which is considered a milestone in the course of the disease. In contrast, cigarette smoking was associated with an increased risk of becoming disabled.

One explanation is that dietary factors might have a direct protective effect on MS patients, said Dr. Marie D'hooghe, a clinical neurologist in Belgium and lead author of the study. Caffeine, fish and alcohol at low to moderate levels are all known to have anti-inflammatory properties, and focal, or localized, inflammation in the brain and spinal cord is an important aspect of relapsing MS.

However, the study did not prove that caffeine and alcohol will slow MS, an incurable disease of the nervous system, and patients should not use these findings as a reason to suddenly start brewing coffee and sipping cocktails.

Also, the study only saw the associations between diet and smoking and disease progression among patients with relapsing-remitting MS, and not among those with what is known as primary progressive MS.

This suggests that progressive MS is a distinct phase of the disease with different mechanisms, D'hooghe said. "Degeneration [of nerve cells] is probably more relevant in progressive onset and inflammation is not as important," she said.

MS affects more than 350,000 people in the United States and about 2.5 million worldwide. Most patients experience relapsing-remitting MS, which has a variable disease course involving alternating attacks and recovery periods, while about 15 percent of patients have primary progressive MS, marked by a steady worsening of the disease.

The new study is published in the April issue of the European Journal of Neurology.

For the study, researchers mailed questionnaires to patients registered with the Flemish MS Society, asking about their consumption of alcohol, wine, coffee, tea and fish, as well as about cigarette smoking.

The questionnaires also asked patients about their disease (relapsing or progressive), and whether they had reached the stage that they needed a cane or other support to walk about 330 feet, and if so, how long after disease diagnosis they reached that point.

The study included almost 1,400 participants, about 900 with relapsing-remitting MS and almost 500 with primary progressive MS. They were between 17 and 89 years of age.

Researchers found that the association between delayed disease progression and consumption of alcohol, caffeine and fish among relapsing MS patients was stronger for patients with greater consumption.

For example, patients who did not consume any alcohol took about 25 years to progress to the stage of disease where they needed support to walk. However, those who had either less than one drink or at least one alcoholic drink per week reached this stage at around 28 and 32 years, respectively.

In contrast, smoking appeared to accelerate disease progression. Smoking is known to be a risk factor for developing MS, and could also play a role in disease progression, D'hooghe said.

Still, it remains possible that diet and smoking do not affect the disease's course, D'hooghe noted. Instead, people who drink alcohol and caffeine and eat fish might be more likely to make other lifestyle or diet choices that affect the disease.

Another possibility, D'hooghe added, is that the MS patients who are able to enjoy a glass of wine or go out to buy fish are also the ones who have less advanced disease.

But even if dietary factors are not helpful against disease, this study suggests that low to moderate consumption might also not be harmful. "At least we have no argument for an adverse effect," D'hooghe said.

Another expert said it is tricky to know what the findings mean for patients.

Dr. Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, a neurologist at State University of New York at Buffalo, suggested that patients talk with their doctors about whether drinking alcohol might interfere with their medications and about the possibility that drinking caffeine could aggravate bladder problems that are common in MS.

While these dietary components could help early in the course of relapsing MS, it is very difficult to have a clear-cut benefit in the later stages of the disease or in the case of primary progressive MS, said Weinstock-Guttman.

 ---------------------------------
Article from HealthDay.com
----------------------------------

Chocolate Lovers Tend To Weigh Less : Study

NEW YORK - People who ate chocolate a few times a week or more weighed less than those who rarely indulged, according to a United States study involving a thousand people.

Researchers said the findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, do not prove that adding a candy bar to your daily diet will help you shed pounds. Nor did the total amount of chocolate consumed have an impact.

But the researchers, led by Dr Beatrice Golomb, from the University of California San Diego, said it was possible that antioxidants in chocolate could be behind health benefits including lower blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as decreased body weight.

"People have just assumed that because it comes with calories and it's typically eaten as a sweet, therefore it would inherently have been one way, bad," said Dr Golomb.

She and her colleagues used data from a study on cholesterol-lowering drugs that surveyed 1,000 healthy adults on typical eating habits, including how often they ate chocolate.

The participants, who ranged from 20 to 85 years old, ate chocolate an average of twice per week and had an average body mass index, or BMI, of 28, which is considered overweight but not obese.

The researchers found that people who ate chocolate with greater frequency tended to eat more calories overall, including more saturated fat, than those who went light on the candy. But even so, chocolate lovers tended to have a lower body weight.

That was still the case after researchers accounted for age and gender, as well as how much they exercised.

The effect worked out to a 2.3 to 3.2 kg difference between people who ate five servings of chocolate a week compared to those who did not eat any, Dr Golomb said. However, it was only how often they ate chocolate, rather than the total amount, that was linked to their weight.

Past studies have tied chocolate to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and better insulin sensitivity, possibly because of antioxidants or other chemicals in cocoa.

There are a number of possible explanations for the results, said Dr Eric Ding, a nutritionist at the Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the study.

One is that poorer people stick to the basics when they are buying food and do not eat as much chocolate. Poverty has been tied to higher body weight.

Another possibility is that "people who lost weight reward themselves with chocolate, more than chocolate causing the weight loss," he told Reuters Health.

Because the new study is relatively small and could not prove cause-and-effect, it is hard to take any lessons from the findings, Dr Ding said. But the key for chocolate lovers seems to be considering calories and knowing that not all chocolate is created equal.

For example, past evidence suggests that antioxidants in chocolate called flavonoids are behind any benefits tied to chocolate - and dark chocolate has the most flavonoids.

"If you consume chocolate, consume it in place of something else, rather than adding to your net daily calories. Try to consume dark chocolate," he said.

The researchers agreed that moderation is important.

"This certainly does not provide support for eating large amounts of chocolate," Dr Golomb said. "For those of us who do eat a little bit of chocolate regularly, perhaps any guilt associated with that might be qualified."

REUTERS

------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------

An Aspirin A Day Can Keep Cancer at Bay : Study

LONDON - Three new studies published today added to growing scientific evidence suggesting that taking a daily dose of aspirin can help prevent, and possibly treat, cancer.

Previous studies have found that daily aspirin reduces the long-term risk of death due to cancer, but until now the shorter-term effects have been less certain - as has the medicine's potential in patients already diagnosed with cancer.




The new studies, led by Dr Peter Rothwell of Britain's Oxford University, found that aspirin also has a short-term benefit in preventing cancer, and that it reduces the likelihood that cancers will spread to other organs by about 40 to 50 per cent.

"These findings add to the case for use of aspirin to prevent cancer, particularly if people are at increased risk," Dr Rothwell said.

"Perhaps more importantly, they also raise the distinct possibility that aspirin will be effective as an additional treatment for cancer - to prevent distant spread of the disease."

This was particularly important because it is the process of spread of cancer, or "metastasis", which most often kills people with the disease, he added.

Aspirin, originally developed by Bayer, is a cheap over-the-counter drug generally used to combat pain or reduce fever.

The drug reduces the risk of clots forming in blood vessels and can therefore protect against heart attacks and strokes, so it is often prescribed for people who already suffer with heart disease and have already had one or several attacks.

Aspirin also increases the risk of bleeding in the stomach to around one patient in every thousand per year, a factor which has fuelled an intense debate about whether doctors should advise patients to take it as regularly as every day.

Last year, a study by British researchers questioned the wisdom of daily aspirin for reducing the risk of early death from a heart attack or stroke because they said the increased risk of internal bleeding outweighed the potential benefit.

Other studies, including some by Dr Rothwell in 2007, 2010 and last year, found that an aspirin a day, even at a low dose of around 7mg, reduces the long-term risk of developing some cancers, particularly bowel and oesophageal cancer, but the effects do not show until eight to 10 years after the start of treatment.

Dr Rothwell, whose new studies were published in The Lancet and The Lancet Oncology journals today, said this delay was because aspirin was preventing the very early development of cancers and there was a long time lag between this stage and a patient having clinical signs or symptoms of cancer.

Dr Rothwell and others said deeper research was now needed into aspirin as a potential treatment for cancer in patients whose disease has not yet spread.

"No drug has been shown before to prevent distant metastasis and so these findings should focus future research on this crucial aspect of treatment," he said.

Dr Peter Johnson, chief clinician at the charity Cancer Research UK, said his group was already investigating the anti-cancer properties of aspirin. "These findings show we're on the right track," he said.

In a written commentary on the research in The Lancet, Dr Andrew Chan and Dr Nancy Cook of Harvard Medical School in the United States said it was "impressive" and moved health experts "another step closer to broadening recommendations for aspirin use". REUTERS ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------