Exercise counteracts anxiety and depression, from Harvard Men's Health Watch

BOSTON–Regular aerobic exercise can bring remarkable changes not just to your body your metabolism, and your heart, but also to your spirits, reports the February 2011 issue of Harvard Men's Health Watch.

Aerobic exercise is the key for your head, just as it is for your heart. It has a unique capacity to exhilarate and relax, to provide stimulation and calm, to counter depression and dissipate stress. Endurance athletes commonly experience the restorative power of exercise, and this has been verified in clinical trials that have used exercise to treat anxiety and depression.

How can exercise contend with problems as difficult as anxiety and depression? There are several explanations, some chemical, others behavioral. The mental benefits of aerobic exercise have a neurochemical basis. Exercise reduces levels of the body's stress hormones, such as adrenaline and cortisol. It also stimulates the production of endorphins, the body's natural painkillers and mood elevators.

Behavioral factors contribute to the emotional benefits of exercise. As your waistline shrinks and your strength and stamina increase, your self-image will improve. You'll earn a sense of pride and self-confidence. Your renewed vigor will help you succeed in many tasks, and the discipline will help you achieve other lifestyle goals. Exercise and sports also provide opportunities to enjoy some solitude or to make friends and build networks.

Harvard Men's Health Watch notes thatyou should exercise nearly every day. That doesn't necessarily mean hitting the gym. But it does mean at least 30 minutes of moderate activity. And if you need more help with stress, consider autoregulation exercises involving deep breathing or muscle relaxation.

Read the full-length article: "Exercising to relax"

Also in this issue:

• Meat or beans–which is the better protein?
• Heart disease and testosterone replacement
• Ultrasound checks for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Harvard Men's Health Watch is available from Harvard Health Publications (www.health.harvard.edu), the publishing division of Harvard Medical School, for $28 per year. Subscribe at www.health.harvard.edu/men or by calling 877-649-9457 (toll-free).

XXX

As the winter storm heads our way I thought these tips might help you beef up any storm preparation stories you are working on.  Email me back if you have any questions.

 

Be Safe!

Missy Lundberg

State Farm Insurance

 http://learningcenter.

What to have in your vehicle

In addition to the just-in-case items you should always have in your vehicle, such as jumper cables, tire-changing tools, flashlight and a first-aid kit, be sure to carry these winter essentials:

·       Cell phone and charger

·       Blankets

·       High-calorie, non-perishable food

·       Extra clothing (wool socks, gloves, hats)

·       Small can and waterproof matches to melt snow for drinking water

·       Road salt or cat litter to help with traction

·       Camping shovel Ice scraper and brush

·       Tow rope

·       Brightly colored flag or cloth to tie to your antenna

If you are stranded

If a winter storm strands you with your vehicle, stay calm and follow these tips:

·       Pull off the highway (if possible), turn on your hazard lights and hang a distress flag from an antenna or window.

·       If you have a phone, call 911 and describe your location as precisely as possible. Follow any instructions from the dispatcher.

·       Remain in your vehicle so help can find you.

·       Run your vehicle's engine and heater about 10 minutes each hour to keep warm. Open a downwind window slightly for ventilation and clear snow from the exhaust pipe to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning.

·       Exercise a little to maintain body heat, but avoid overexertion and sweating.

·       Drink fluids to avoid dehydration.

·       Don't waste your vehicle's battery power. Balance electrical energy needs? lights, heat and radio?with supply.

·       At night, turn on an inside light when you run the engine so help can see you.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Grassley: Proposed Dust Rules Would Cause Significant Harm to Rural America

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to make a good faith effort to review industry comments, studies, and economic analysis on the impact of proposed rules on dust.  Grassley this week sent a letter to administrator Lisa Jackson expressing his concern that excessive dust control measures would slow economic development and impose significant costs on family agriculturalists.

Grassley said that President Barack Obama's recent directive for each agency to review its rules and regulations with an eye toward economic harm should help bring to light the detrimental impact these rules could have on the rural economy.  Instead, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Environmental Protection Agency stated "that it was 'confident' it wouldn't need to alter a single current or pending rule."

"The EPA's attitude toward the President's directive is unfortunate.  Once again, the agency seems completely oblivious to the huge impact the rules and regulations it releases have on the general public and agriculture in particular," Grassley said.  "It defies common sense that the EPA would regulate that a farmer must keep the dust from his combine between his fence rows."

The EPA currently is considering approval of the Second Draft Policy Assessment for Particulate Matter (released on July 8, 2010).   If approved, the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in the nation's history would be placed on rural America.  The current levels of 150ug/m3 would be revised down to 65-85 ug/m3.

Here's a copy of the text of the letter Grassley sent to Jackson.

January 25, 2011

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20460

 

Dear Administrator Jackson,

On January 18, 2011, President Obama signed an Executive Order which required federal agencies to review all regulations, taking into account the costs and excessive burdens they might impede on businesses.  A Wall Street Journal editorial reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), less than a week after the President signed this Order, stated "that it was 'confident' it wouldn't need to alter a single current or pending rule."

Last July, I and twenty of my colleagues wrote to you with our continued concerns regarding EPA's actions in its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as required every five years under the Clean Air Act.  I would like to stress again that if approved, the Second Draft Policy Assessment (PA) for Particulate Matter (PM) released on July 8, 2010 would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history revising current levels of 150ug/m3 down to 65-85 ug/m3.  Our letter encouraged EPA to consider maintaining the primary and secondary standards, or in the alternative, consider different PM indicators.  We also asked that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee focus attention on EPA's choice to not adopt a PM10-2.5 standard.

As I have continually advocated over the years, lowering these PM standards could have devastating and burdensome effects on farmers and ranchers across the United States. Excessive dust control measures could be imposed on agricultural operations which would only slow economic development and impose significant costs on our nation's family agriculturalists.

I recognize the release of the final Policy Assessment has been delayed, but may be released at any time, but I am not aware if EPA also intends to delay release of the proposed rule, release of which was originally planned for February 2011.

I am concerned that EPA has pre-judged its review of existing and pending rules.  The President has now required that cost considerations on businesses, including farmers and ranchers, be taken into account.  I strongly encourage EPA in good faith to review industry comments, studies, and economic analysis as they become available on this critical issue.

Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley

 -30-

Funding comes in addition to the more than $84 million in funding announced in August

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that the State of Iowa will receive an additional  $8,040,652 in 2008 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster dollars from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  The funding can be used to assist Iowans still struggling to rebuild their homes and businesses, as well as for general economic recovery purposes in the wake of 2008's natural disasters. Today's funding comes in addition to the $84,126,989 that was announced in August, bringing the total CDBG dollars for Iowa to $92,167,641.  Nationwide a total of $311 million was allocated - close to 30 percent of which went to Iowa - based on mitigation efforts using CDBG disaster resources in various 2008 disaster impacted states.  As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Harkin led the fight to have these funds appropriated in the months after the 2008 floods and tornados and he successfully worked to avoid having the whole $311 million pot of funds rescinded in mid 2010.  

"In the time since the floods of 2008, Iowans have shown their perseverance and have made great strides to rebuild our state. There is, however, still more to do," said Harkin.  "I am pleased that what seems like a technical recalculation at the federal level means real, tangible funding for Iowa's rebuilding efforts. With this kind of federal support and the 'can do' attitude of our state, we will rebuild an even brighter future for Iowa."

This additional funding became available because of a recalculation of the amount of CDBG resources allocated to mitigation, resulting in Iowa's proportion of the total mitigation effort increasing.  Of the $6.1 billion in CDBG disaster funding appropriated in September 2008 for 2008 disasters, $311 million was put aside by HUD for this mitigation allocation.