Schwarzenegger, Patty Baena and Maria Shriver's Sons Born Six Days Apart

Schwarzenegger, Patty Baena and Maria Shriver's Sons Born Six Days Apart - In 1984, Dudley Moore played a bigamist whose wives, "Micki and Maude," had babies at the same time. In the Schwarzenegger-Shriver-Baena love triangle, Patty Baena and Maria Shriver gave birth to Schwarzenegger's sons within six days of each other.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver have always seemed to be a poster couple. They have a 25-year marriage and four beautiful kids. There have been rumors of flirtations on Arnold's part, but by and large the marriage appeared healthy, especially when you consider the odds stacked against them.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver have weathered years of Kennedy family drama. Shriver is JFK's niece and the daughter of Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Then there was Arnold's high-profile movie career and Maria's front-woman post with NBC.

Most difficult of all may be that the couple is on opposite sides of the political coin: she is a strict Democrat while he is a first-water Republican. My husband and I have similar politics, but even our few differences can be hard on our relationship. Polar opposites must make strange bedfellows.

The rock-solid house of Schwarzenegger was recently discovered to have cracks in the foundation, however. After the governor's term of office was up in January, he was back in circulation on the film scene sans wife. Then Shriver moved out of their mansion. Rumors of infidelity surfaced, but nothing specific.

On May 17, the bombshell broke. "Conan" had been in an affair with his housekeeper, Mildred Patricia "Patty" Baena. More than that, the two had a child together. Despite Baena's claims that her husband at the time, Rogelio Baena, was the father, Schwarzenegger admitted to paternity.

Here's where the "Micki and Maude" part comes in. TMZ obtained copies of the child's birth certificate. The document shows that Schwarzenegger's fourth and youngest child Christopher was born to Maria Shriver at the same time his baby mama, Patty Baena was giving birth to their love child.

Baena's child's birthday is Oct. 2, 1997. Shriver's son Christopher Sargent Shriver was born Sept. 27, 1997. The former Mr. Universe's boys are six days apart.

Photos of Baena, with the child show his face blurred to preserve juvenile privacy. However the famous Schwarzenegger grin is still visible. Even in an indefinite image, the child looks like his father.

Reading about the tandem births, I immediately thought of the "Micki and Maude" connection. "Micki and Maude" was a funny, warm movie. After a dust-up when the two women discover each other and their coincident babies, it turns out well. Everyone kisses and makes up after a neat 90-minute wind-up. But it's a movie.

Schwarzenegger has hurt a lot of people by his choices: his wife, his children (especially Christopher and the unnamed son of Patty Baena), Rogelio Baena, and even arguably Patty Baena herself. In real life, adultery and deceit don't dovetail so neatly as they do in movies. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Schwarzenegger, Patty Baena and Maria Shriver's Sons Born Six Days Apart

Can More Sleep Make Athletes Better?

Can More Sleep Make Athletes Better? - All athletes, both pro and weekend, look for that training edge that will boost their strength, improve their accuracy or extend their endurance. In their search for the perfect ergogenic aid, they may be overlooking an obvious (and free) strategy: get more sleep. One scientist, Stanford’s Cheri Mah, has been on a multiyear crusade to test, prove and publicize the athletic benefits of additional hours of slumber.

In her most recent research, Mah, a researcher at the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic and Research Laboratory, tested college football players on the Stanford University team to see if more pillow time would improve their performance. They were asked to maintain their current sleep patterns for the first two weeks of the season (most getting less than 8 hours per night). Baseline times for the 20-yard shuttle run and the 40-yard dash were taken, along with scores for the Profile of Mood States (POMS) to monitor changes in mood, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale to measure just what it sounds like, sleepiness.

Then, with some accommodations to their daily schedule, they were asked to sleep as much as possible, with a minimum of ten hours per night, for the next eight weeks. After retesting, Mah found some pretty significant changes.

The shuttle sprint times went from an average of 4.71 seconds to 4.61 seconds while the 40-yard dash also improved an average of .10 seconds, from 4.99 to 4.89. While it may seem small, these are actually impressive reductions over just two months. As expected, the sleepiness and fatigue levels of the players also went down significantly.

"Sleep duration may be an important consideration for an athlete's daily training regimen," Mah said. "Furthermore, sleep extension also may contribute to minimizing the effects of accumulated sleep deprivation and thus could be a beneficial strategy for optimal performance."

The research was presented at SLEEP 2010, the 24th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

For the last several years, Mah has applied her theory to several Stanford sports teams. Last year, she showed that more sleep helped the women’s tennis team sprint faster and be more accurate in their serves. In 2008, Stanford swimmers were quicker in the water, quicker off the starting block and quicker in their turns after more time in bed. Men’s basketball players became faster and more accurate shooters after they were tested in 2007.

"Traditionally, elite athletes dedicate numerous hours to daily practice, strength training, and conditioning as well as work closely with nutritionists in hopes of optimizing their athletic performance," said Mah. "However, very little, if any, attention is focused on an athlete's sleeping patterns and habits.

Her mission is to convince coaches that something as simple as shut-eye can provide a genuine competitive edge. Of course, convincing student-athletes to stay in bed another few hours in the morning shouldn’t be an issue. ( lifeslittlemysteries.com)

READ MORE - Can More Sleep Make Athletes Better?

Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity

Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity - A 12-year-old child prodigy has astounded university professors after grappling with some of the most advanced concepts in mathematics.

Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170 - higher than Albert Einstein - and is now so far advanced in his Indiana university studies that professors are lining him up for a PHD research role.

The boy wonder, who taught himself calculus, algebra, geometry and trigonometry in a week, is now tutoring fellow college classmates after hours.

Scroll down for video

Gifted: Jacob Barnett is so far ahead of his age group he is now leaving university he is developing his own theory on how the universe came into being

And now Jake has embarked on his most ambitious project yet - his own 'expanded version of Einstein's theory of relativity'.

His mother, not sure if her child was talking nonsense or genius, sent a video of his theory to the renowned Institute for Advanced Study near Princeton University.

According to the Indiana Star, Institute astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine -himself a world renowned expert - confirmed the authenticity of Jake's theory.

In an email to the family, Tremaine wrote: 'I'm impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far.

'The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics.

'Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.'

But for his mother Kristine Barnett, 36, and the rest of the family, maths remains a tricky subject.

Speaking to the paper, Mrs Barnett said: 'I flunked math. I know this did not come from me.'

And it hasn't gone un-noticed by Jake, who added: 'Whenever I try talking about math with anyone in my family they just stare blankly.'

Jake was diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, a mild form of autism, from an early age.

His parents were worried when he didn't talk until the age of two, suspecting he was educationally abnormal.

It was only as he began to grow up that they realised just how special his gift was.

He would fill up note pads of paper with drawings of complex geometrical shapes and calculations, before picking up felt tip pens and writing equations on windows.

By the age of three he was solving 5,000-piece puzzles and he even studied a state road map, reciting every highway and license plate prefix from memory.

By the age of eight he had left high school and was attending Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis advanced astrophysics classes.

Genius: Jake Barnett is now set to become a paid astrophysics researcher

His classroom presence is quite unnerving for many of the 18-plus year old students at his IPIU lectures.

Speaking to the Indy Star, Wanda Anderson, a biochemistry major said: 'When I first walked in and saw him, I thought, 'Oh my God, I'm going to school with Doogie Howser.'

She added: 'A lot of people come to him for help when they don't understand a physics problem.

'People come up to him all the time and say, 'Hey Jake, can you help me'.

'A lot of people think a genius is hard to talk to, but Jake explains things that would still be over their head.'

And his Professor John Ross said his performance in lectures had been 'outstanding'.

'When he asks a question, he is always two steps ahead of the lecture.

'Everyone in the class gets quiet. Poor kid. . . . He sits right in the front row, and they all just look at him.

'He will come to see me during office hours and ask even more detailed questions. And you can tell he's been thinking these things through.

'Kids his age would normally have problems adding fractions, and he is helping out some of his fellow students.'

According to his parents Jake has trouble sleeping at night as he constantly sees numbers in his head.

But far from complaining, Jake has turned the sleepless nights to his advantage - debunking the big bang theory.

The next step, according to professor Ross, is for Jake to leave class altogether and take up a paid research role. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity

Boon or Bane for Sexuality?

Menopause: Boon or Bane for Sexuality? - To many women, menopause may seem like a time when almost nothing goes right. A woman may experience hot flushes, sleeplessness, mood swings, vaginal dryness, and loss of sexual desire, among other physical and mental disturbances.

During this time, her children are most likely reaching adulthood and moving away, leaving behind the dreaded "empty nest." And as physical beauty inevitably wanes, a woman may also notice that her sexual relationship with her partner suffers from a grinding, unexciting sameness.

With such a scenario, is there any chance that sexual pleasure and satisfaction can be sustained, let alone improved after menopause? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

A recent large European study, soon to be reported in the scientific literature, found that as many postmenopausal women did well sexually as did poorly. Not all women go through the plethora of possible menopausal symptoms mentioned above. Most symptoms of menopause are due to the dramatic reduction in estrogen production as the ovaries shut down. In many women, these symptoms can be effectively treated with estrogen replacement regimens.

Loss of sexual desire is not due to menopause, as most people believe, but to reductions in the hormone testosterone associated with aging. Physicians can prescribe replacement testosterone just as they prescribe replacement estrogens, although this avenue of treatment is sought much less frequently. And with concerns about pregnancy and monthly periods in the past, many women feel much freer to enjoy sex. Postmenopausal couples can finally focus fully on sexual gratification for the first time in decades.

Sometimes the problem is not experienced by the postmenopausal woman herself but resides in her partner. Often, male partners of the same age experience physical maladies that may undercut their sexual functioning. Here, too, there is hope in the half-dozen or so drugs now available for men. Nearly 70 percent of men with erectile problems respond to these treatments.

Menopause is not synonymous with physical and mental discomfort and a lackluster sex life. With a little effort to deal with symptoms as they arise, the results may well be worth it. ( lifestyle.yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Boon or Bane for Sexuality?

Time to get your child into healthy habits

Time to get your child into healthy habits - Children all over the world are starting to feel nervous about the return to school after a lovely long summer at home. Many children feel under pressure to perform well at school and many parents naturally want their children to do well in a competitive world.

The school summer holiday provides children with a wonderful release from routine and academic pressure to do well. The start of the new school year is a good time to get children into a new healthy routine. Children need a balanced life to do well in school. Healthy foods and adequate exercise help them to maintain good health and do their very best at school. Many schools do not offer enough exercise to keep your child healthy.

Start following these three simple healthy habits now to instil healthy behaviour throughout the coming school year.

Back to school breakfast

Studies have shown that children who eat a healthy breakfast are able to concentrate and perform better in school.

Parents can act as healthy role models by eating breakfast with them. To do this you will have to make time by packing bags, preparing uniform and getting lunch boxes organized the night before to ensure there is enough time to eat breakfast.

Here are some healthy breakfast tips for your child:

• Layer low fat yogurt with berries and top with granola.
• Whole-grain cereals, with milk. Top with fresh or dried fruit.
• Whole grain toast with honey or mashed banana.
• Boiled egg and toast.
• Have a special breakfast on Fridays featuring smoothies, pancakes, waffles, or croissants as a treat for eating healthy on weekdays.

Lunch boxes

Making up children’s lunch boxes is time consuming and it is very tempting to buy in ready-packed single portions that can be quick and easy to send the children off to school happy. But you have to be very careful. Drinks can be labelled good for you because they contain Vitamin C — yet they are also full of colorants and artificial orange flavoring. Buy freshly squeezed juice and add a little water. Always provide a bottle of cold water.

It is not necessary to buy small supermarket ready-wrapped lunch box snacks: Even if you are busy you can quickly prepare a happy lunch box. Children like small bite size portions so make a wholemeal bread sandwich and cut it into 8 bite size pieces; put a few grapes or berries in a bowl — cucumber and carrot sticks with a little dip are fun. And most children enjoy cherry tomatoes. t is important to also include a small treat in the lunch box. It is good for children’s teeth if they finish lunch French style with a small piece of cheese. Crisps or chips should be end-of-week treats or allow just a very few each day: Not a whole packet.

Exercise and activity

Try to encourage your child to do something active each day, such as a hobby, play a game or be involved in sport.

To increase your child’s level of activity, try to:

• Discuss a limit on the amount of time spent watching television or computer.
• Do something physical and active together.
• Go and watch your child play sports.
• Encourage daily activity, such as using the stairs. ( arabnews.com )

READ MORE - Time to get your child into healthy habits

Why a New Girlfriend Is the Last Thing You Need

Why a New Girlfriend Is the Last Thing You Need - So it’s over. Maybe it was a divorce, maybe just a breakup, but, in any case, she’s gone. Chances are she left you, because two thirds to three quarters of divorces are filed by women, and probably most breakups in dating relationships are initiated by women.

Now you’re alone — maybe for the first time in a long while. The longer you have been in a relationship, the more daunting this may sound. But a new girlfriend may be the last thing you need right now.

Many men start lining up prospective dates and bed partners even while the smell of their ex’s perfume is still lingering in the air. You may fantasize about having choices again, and as soon as friends see you as “single” they may offer to “fix you up” with their coworker or their cousin who is also newly single. It can be flattering, and it can be exciting, but more likely it is confusing. You may not have dated in years, and you may find the whole process more anxiety-provoking than fun.

When a relationship ends, both men and women often say that they are going to be very cautious about their next one. Yet, the statistics show that single life tends to be short-lived for most people. About 50 percent of divorced men remarry within two years, and maybe 30 percent remarry in less than one year. For guys whose girlfriend called it quits, that period of single life is probably even shorter.


Rushing into a new relationship?

Why are we so quick to rush into another relationship? After all, if you have been in a committed relationship that has lasted for a year or more, what are the odds that the first or second woman you meet after the breakup is the perfect match for you?

One major reason for men getting too quickly involved with a new girlfriend is that they are accustomed to having their emotional needs met by women. Most guys are not very good at connecting emotionally with other men. We may have buddies, but we usually are reluctant to bare our souls to them. Instead, when guys are hurting, we turn to our wives or girlfriends. But if these women have left us or, worse, are the source of our pain, in whom do we confide?

Furthermore, for many guys, especially ones who have been married a good while, their female partner is the key to their social life. We may go to her family’s house for the holidays, and she probably has accompanied us to most social events. Guys also may quickly start a new relationship because they dread the idea of being alone. But being alone does not necessarily imply being lonely. After all, some of the saddest cases of loneliness occur when you feel unloved in a relationship.

Some of us are anxious to jump into a new relationship in order to find a new sexual partner. If this is you, remember to use your brain, the part above the belt, and not the part below that all too often wants to call the shots.


Avoiding the pain?

But the major reason that men prematurely get into a new committed relationship is to avoid the pain associated with the loss of the previous relationship. This is quite natural. Almost everybody will use aspirin to quell a headache, for example.

However, the pain after a relationship ends is part of the recovery process. It makes you reevaluate the relationship, its history, the mistakes you made, and the meaning of it for your life. Most importantly, the pain can help you avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Unfortunately, people don’t really learn very well from their mistakes in relationships. For example, the divorce rate of second marriages is even higher than that of first marriages.

You are not ready to engage in another committed relationship soon after a breakup. You may think that you, but you are overestimating yourself. If you have ever sustained a sports injury -- say, a sprained ankle while running -- you probably remember being anxious to get back on the track as soon as possible after getting hurt. But if you rush to resume your old regimen before your ankle is fully healed, you will most likely re-injure it -- but this time the injury will be more severe and put you out of commission for a lot longer. This is exactly your situation now, but instead of your ankle being injured, it’s your “heart” that's suffering. Give it the time it needs to heal before you get into a new relationship.


Tempted to find a new girlfriend?

Consider these thoughts as you get tempted to find that new girlfriend:

Don’t look to another woman to make you feel OK: If you are still hurting, don’t try to bandage the wound by explaining your plight to another female. She can't make it better, but you can. Instead of distracting yourself or looking to a new girlfriend to ease the pain you feel, work on self-improvement and self-understanding. The last thing you need is another failed relationship.

Find comfort in being alone: Strangely enough, unless you are comfortable being alone, you are probably not ready for a new relationship. The best relationships grow out of a desire to be with a particular person, not from the fear of being with no one at all. To be comfortable with being alone means you: don’t feel depressed when you don’t have someone with you; can take care of your own basic needs; don’t need someone else to entertain you; and can deal with not having a regular sexual partner.

Let go of your anger at your ex: Consider doing some small thing to communicate kindness and forgiveness to a person that you once loved. Yes, she may have hurt you, but you learned in elementary school that two wrongs don’t make a right. Practice forgiveness of her and of yourself.

Be careful not to party too hard: Drowning your sorrows via drinking or drugging won’t change anything for the better. Instead, focus on improving your health habits for the New Year or getting back to “catching weight” (i.e. your ideal body weight). Psychologists Fred Rabinowitz and Sam Cochran note that we men are most likely to externalize our psychological distress through action, distraction and/or compulsive acting out. Consequently, men are more likely than women to get in trouble because of substance abuse.

Develop some new part of yourself: In order to connect more with others, look for situations in which you can be yourself, have fun, learn something and, later down the line, make contacts. Developing pastimes is very important, and they can make a huge difference in the quality of your life.
when are you ready for a new girlfriend? ( foxnews.com )

You will know you are more ready to have a new relationship when you:

• Can consider the possibility of going out with a woman without masses of anger or anxiety welling up in you.
• Have reconnected with people in non-romantic ways.
• Are not preoccupied with thoughts of your previous relationship or marriage.
• Can tolerate living on your own and being by yourself.
• Can find meaningful and interesting things to do even if you are alone.
• Have developed ways to meet and engage with new people.

READ MORE - Why a New Girlfriend Is the Last Thing You Need

Sex, drugs more common in hyper-texting teens

Sex, drugs more common in hyper-texting teens - Teens who text 120 times a day or more — and there seems to be a lot of them — are more likely to have had sex or used alcohol and drugs than kids who don't send as many messages, according to provocative new research.

The study's authors aren't suggesting that "hyper-texting" leads to sex, drinking or drugs, but say it's startling to see an apparent link between excessive messaging and that kind of risky behavior.

The study concludes that a significant number of teens are very susceptible to peer pressure and also have permissive or absent parents, said Dr. Scott Frank, the study's lead author.

"If parents are monitoring their kids' texting and social networking, they're probably monitoring other activities as well," said Frank, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Frank was scheduled to present the study Tuesday at a meeting of the American Public Health Association in Denver.

The study was done at 20 public high schools in the Cleveland area last year, and is based on confidential paper surveys of more than 4,200 students.

It found that about one in five students were hyper-texters and about one in nine are hyper-networkers — those who spend three or more hours a day on Facebook and other social networking websites.

About one in 25 fall into both categories.

Hyper-texting and hyper-networking were more common among girls, minorities, kids whose parents have less education and students from a single-mother household, the study found.

Frank's study is billed as one of the first studies to look at texting and social networking and whether they are linked to actual sexual intercourse or to other risky behaviors.

"This study demonstrates that it's a legitimate question to explore," said Douglas Gentile, who runs the Media Research Lab at Iowa State University.

The study found those who text at least 120 times a day are nearly three-and-a-half times more likely to have had sex than their peers who don't text that much. Hyper-texters were also more likely to have been in a physical fight, binge drink, use illegal drugs or take medication without a prescription.

Compared to the heavy texters, the hyper-networkers were not as likely to have had sex, but more likely to have been involved in other risky behaviors like drinking or fighting.

A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that about half of children ages 8 to 18 send text messages on a cell phone in a typical day. The texters estimated they average 118 texts per day. That study also found that only 14 percent of kids said their parents set rules limiting texting.

Other studies have tied teen texting to risky or lewd behavior. A Pew Research Center study found that about one-third of 16- and 17-year-olds send texts while driving. And an Associated Press-MTV poll found that about one-quarter of teenagers have "sexted" — shared sexually explicit photos, videos and chat by cell phone or online.

The latest survey did not ask what students texted or what they discussed on social networks.

One suburban Cleveland student said her texts involve non-sexual small talk with friends, homework assignments and student council bake sales.

"I text with my mother about what time I need picked up," said Tiara Freeman-Sargeant, a 14-year-old Shaker Heights High School freshman. She said she sends and receives about 250 texts a day.

Talking on the phone just isn't appealing to some teens, said her classmate, Ivanna Storms-Thompson.

"Your arm gets tired, your ear gets sweaty," said Ivanna, who also doesn't like the awkward silences.

Like her friend, Ivanna said she mostly gets A's. Whether kids who text do well in school or behave in a crazy, risky way is coincidental, she said.

"It depends on who you're talking to and whether they have their priorities straight," she said. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Sex, drugs more common in hyper-texting teens

Sex for 10 minutes is just about perfect, say researchers

Sex for 10 minutes is just about perfect, say researchers. Sexual marathons lasting all night are boring but 10 minutes is just about perfect for most people, researchers have concluded.

Sting once boasted of tantric 'all night' sex but has since said he was misquoted Photo: REUTERS

A survey of 50 members of the Society for Sex Threapy and Research, who counsel and treat couples with sexual problems, suggested the time range for adequate, too short and too long copulation.

They said between one and two minutes was too short, three to seven minutes was acceptable, and anything over 13 minutes was too long.

They added that sex lasting between seven and 13 minutes was "desirable".

The researchers noted that popular culture had tended to reinforce unrealistic ideas about how long sex should last.

Researcher Eric Corty, an associate professor of psychology at Penn State University, said: "Many men and women seem to believe the fantasy of all-night-long intercourse.

"This seems a situation ripe for disappointment and dissatisfaction.

"We hope this survey will dispel fantasies and encourage men and women with realistic data."

The findings were published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Sex for 10 minutes is just about perfect, say researchers

Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal

Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. With the help of a pinch of fossil bone dust, scientists have discovered that modern human beings interbred with Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, and that 1 to 4 percent of the genes carried by non-African people are traceable to the much-caricatured, beetle-browed cavemen.

The Neanderthal project, which took four years and involved 57 scientists, is the latest and most astonishing example of the recovery of scientifically useful information from ancient DNA.

The new data answer a few of the many questions about modern human beings' relationship with their last big hominin competitors, who died out about 30,000 years ago. The data also hint at what Homo sapiens had -- but Homo neanderthalensis didn't -- that may have made the difference between survival and extinction.

"What this means is that Neanderthals are not totally extinct. In some of us, they live on," said Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, who led the genome reconstruction described in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The findings show that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred, probably in the Middle East, between about 100,000 and 80,000 years ago, soon after modern humans migrated out of Africa and before they diversified, through chance and natural selection, into the ethnic groups that exist today. That's why northern Europeans, the Chinese and Papua New Guineans carry traces of Neanderthal ancestry, but Africans do not.

The Neanderthal versions of genes differ from the human versions by one or more DNA letters, known as nucleotides, in the string of thousands of letters that make up a gene. The Neanderthal versions are salted through the 20,000-gene human genome in no particular order. Whether they endow their holders with certain traits or hazards isn't known.

On the other hand, there are dozens of genes (and even some long stretches of DNA encompassing numerous genes) that are distinctly different between modern humans and Neanderthals. Whether those differences had real-world consequences when they crept in through mutation eons ago -- and whether they are keys to human success -- are among the tantalizing questions arising from the new research.

"This is a very powerful method for shining light on a really crucial time in human evolutionary history," said Richard E. Green of the University of California at Santa Cruz, who did much of the work as a postdoctoral student in Paabo's laboratory. He and other scientists are eager to study those genes and regions "to understand exactly what changed, and why."

Until recently, the recovery of genetic material from flora and fauna subjected to the elements for 400 centuries was the subject of science fiction. But new methods of toning up degraded DNA, along with fast and accurate nucleotide sequencing, and software that lets researchers assemble the equivalent of a million-piece jigsaw puzzle, have made it possible.

The Neanderthal genes were recovered from three bones excavated in a cave in Croatia about 20 years ago. One is 38,000 years old, another 44,000 years old and one is undated. They appear to be shin bones, and all are from females. They also seem to have been intentionally broken, possibly to get at the marrow to eat.

The researchers removed half a gram of bone powder with a dental drill. More than 95 percent of the DNA in the sample belonged to bacteria and fungi, not to the Neanderthals. The scientists used a variety of techniques to eliminate the microbial DNA, recover the non-microbial DNA through polymerase chain reaction amplification, and assure themselves they had Neanderthal material and not modern human contaminants.

Proto-humans and chimpanzees diverged from each other about 6.5 million years ago. Modern humans and Neanderthals diverged about 300,000 years ago. On a genetic level, Neanderthals and modern humans are almost as closely related as today's ethnic groups are to each other.

But the differences may be important.

The researchers identified 73 genes for which all modern people have the same molecular version but for which Neanderthals have the more ancient, chimpanzee version. Five of the genes have two molecular differences between the human and Neanderthal-and-chimpanzee versions, suggesting there might be something especially distinct about the human version.

One of those genes encodes a protein that helps the sperm cell's flagellum beat. Another is for a protein that seems to be involved in the healing of wounds. A third is for a protein abundant in skin, sweat glands and hair roots. Successful reproduction, survival after injury and the ability to interact optimally with the environment: All are crucial to survival and obvious "targets" for natural selection.

Several other genes in which the human and Neanderthal versions differ are involved in important aspects of physiology and brain function. In damaged form, many of those genes are in turn implicated in human disease. ( washingtonpost.com )

READ MORE - Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal

Is There A Link Between Mental Illness and Being Sleep Deprived?

Is There A Link Between Mental Illness and Being Sleep Deprived?. Anytime our bodies lack an essential requirement for optimal functioning, such as sleep, we will experience loss of attention, indecisiveness, lack of focus, poor balance and memory.

What happens when our bodies become sleep deprived over an extended period of time? Long periods of sleep deprivation could produce emotional, mental, and psychological deficiencies over the long haul; brain activity increases and can induce delusions and hallucinations.

Lack of sleep depletes our body's natural power reserves; that's why we feel cranky, irritated, nervous, anxious, and moody when our bodies do not get the normal amounts of sleep it needs to flourish. The body can heal and regenerate itself through the use of wholesome foods, vitamins and minerals, sufficient sleep, pure water, and any other components it needs for optimal health.

We are accountable for filling those needs. We own our bodies and have to live in them every single day of our lives, and in that respect we should be responsible caregivers for what goes into our bodies as well as what is lacking from within our bodies.

The difference between a deficiency and illness is that a deficiency is easily remedied by filling up that deficiency with what the body is lacking. Over time a deficiency will progress into a mental illness or disease if we don't take care of that deficit. By that time, we must deal with a mental illness and or physical disorder, often suffering much physical pain and mental sorrow in the process. Why wait?

Are You Getting Enough Sleep? One way to tell if you are in fact sleep deprived is to find a quiet spot where you can lay down and just rest for fifteen or twenty minutes with your eyes closed - if you have not fallen asleep within that time you probably are not sleep deprived.

Most of us that experience sleep deprivation will do something about it before it gets out of hand and causes immune deficiency break down. But some of us do not listen to our bodies warning signals and before long symptoms that could have been easily restored, develop into disease and disorders that cause much more havoc within our mental and physical makeup.

In the table below I list some of the short-term symptoms of sleep deprivation and compare those to the long-term symptoms of sleep deprivation. Why wait until symptom progress into something uncontrollable? Take care of your body now before it's too late.

Short Term Sleep Deprivation

• Irritation and stress
• Apathy
• Lack of focus
• Inability to rationalize
• Anxiety
• Low immune system
• Accident-prone
• Dark circles and bags
• Moodiness
• Withdrawn
• Anger

Long Term Sleep Deprivation

• Nervousness
• Depression
• Lack of attention
• Hallucinations
• Panic Attacks
• Illness / disease
• Car or other major accident
• Noticeable signs of aging
• Temper tantrums
• Antisocial
• Violent outbursts

The symptoms described above are generated from the body's lack of a basic need - sleep. I do not think we should label sleep deprivation as an illness until the root cause of the mental deficiency has been reached. If sleep deprivation continues, and you discover you may have a sleep disorder, then it is advisable to arrive at the root cause of that disorder and rectify it through whatever means possible before it begins to affect your body and mind in a major way.

Causes of Sleep Disorders:

• Moving to a new city
• Changing jobs or careers
• Divorce
• Separation from a spouse or loved one
• Death of a loved one
• Anxiety and stress disorder
• Underlying fear
• Illness or disease
• Stressful lifestyle
• Lack of exercise
• Sleep apnea (snoring)
• Eating sugar before bed

The objective should be to repair and restore any deficiencies you become aware of rather than define it as an illness, where medications are usually administered that can then react negatively somewhere else within the body causing major physical and mental problems.

The good news is we can restore our body to ultimate health through the use of proper diet, cleansing, fasting, juicing, and sufficient exercise. We can still feel good, look great, and lead a active and fun-filled life if we take a little bit of extra time to take care of our mental and physical needs and listen to our bodies warning signals.

You are your body's best friend, be there for it, and be fit, active and happy. In the end it is between you and your body, God and your soul. Stay in touch with what you body is telling you, and you will in fact add YEARS to your life expectancy. ( heavenministries.com )

S w e e t d r e a m s!

READ MORE - Is There A Link Between Mental Illness and Being Sleep Deprived?

Sex on a platter

Sex on a platter. Rewind. Way back in the age of Greek Gods and Goddesses, the ‘Venus’ of the Romans or the Goddess of Love and Sensuality was Aphrodite.

That’s how foods that enhance sexual pleasure got their name — Aphrodisiacs. According to mythology, the Goddess of Love herself considered the amorous sparrows sacred, which is why sparrows were added to brews... However for the sexual desire to take flight, sparrows seem passé. The pills are in. But not many know that some herbs, veggies, fruits, nuts and grains can do the job for you, too.

Actress Kim Sharma, tells us, “The concept of aphrodisiacs isn’t new. It has been existent since time immemorial. And let’s not talk about western fads that have been ‘adopted’ by us. On the contrary, aphrodisiac foods have always been a part of Indian tradition and customs, and the recipes are being passed on gradually to the next generation. It’s another story that we aren’t aware about the ‘aphrodisiacal qualities’ about these things.”

The actress further explains, “What do you think your grandmother or your mother-in-law is doing when she walks into your room with kesar-badam ka doodh? Well, she is doing more than just being nice to you. Milk with saffron and almond is aphrodisiacal and meant to up the libido. It’s a custom that has been followed over the years... The ‘love potions’ or the need to consume such foods may have arisen from the importance given to procreation then. To father a child was the mission of man; to take the race forward. It was a religious issue then and the potency of both the male and the female was of utmost importance.”

Some of the most common foods with aphrodisiacal characteristics are chocolate, ginger, ginseng, saffron, cardamom, garlic, pineapple, pomegranate, pine seeds, mustard, basil, dates, cherries, figs... “Oyster meat is supposed to be very rich in aphrodisiacal elements,” adds Kim, “And then there’s of course cocoa. You know, in some parts of the world, like Mexico, earlier prostitutes were paid in cocoa beans. Interesting na?”

According to Tanushree Poddar, author of You Are What you Eat, aphrodisiac foods are found all over the world, and every culture has their respective beliefs in the union of the male and female. While in China the bird’s nest soup is recommended to cure impotency, Arabs consider the camel’s hump to be the panacea of sexual inadequacy.

Most foods reminiscent of the male or female sex organ are automatically considered to be those that boost the sexual drive — bananas, carrots, sea urchins, seeds, nuts, asparagus... “But augmenting sexual desire is not only about boring healthy things, it can be made interesting with wine, honey, chocolate, vanilla, truffles, raspberries and strawberries,” suggests Kim,

“Sometimes it’s the scent of the food that does the trick for you. And also more often than not there’s a lot that you can do for yourself and your partner ensuring a perfect end to a perfect date.”
Sensuous Sharma proposes, “A sexy dress, a great perfume, romantic music, scented candles, beautiful flowers, wine, strawberries covered with chocolate, oyster soup, tossed salad, garlic chicken parmesan, dessert wine followed by beautifully presented dessert. And yes, drop the fork and knife, and lick those luscious fingers... it’s ahem!” ( indiatimes.com )

READ MORE - Sex on a platter

Is it OK to impregnate a 60-year-old woman?

Fertile Old Ladies. Is it OK to impregnate a 60-year-old woman?. Should old women have babies?

Until recently, this wasn't an issue. Nature exhausted your egg supply, and that was it. But technology has surmounted that problem. Now you can get in vitro fertilization, donor eggs, and womb-rejuvenating hormones. You can freeze your eggs or embryos. You can even freeze your ovarian tissue, reimplant it later, and resume ovulating.

Everywhere you look, moms are older. Over the last three decades, the U.S. birth rate among women aged 35 or older has increased by 140 percent. These women now produce one of every seven American children. In Europe, women over 35 have increased their share of pregnancies from 5 percent to 20 percent. More than 100,000 American women aged 40 or older have babies each year. In the last 15 years, at least a dozen women aged 60 or older70. have done it. The oldest age at which a woman has given birth is now

Is middle-aged motherhood getting out of control?

The latest poster children for this controversy are the offspring of Maria del Carmen Bousada. Three years ago, Bousada, a 66-year-old unmarried Spaniard, pretended to be 55 and persuaded a California clinic to impregnate her using donated eggs and sperm. Later that year, she delivered twins. Two weeks ago, she died of cancer at age 69. Her 2-year-old sons are now orphans.

The case has provoked outcries around the world. "There's a lesson for baby boomers in the story of Maria del Carmen Bousada," wrote columnist Allison Pearson in London's Daily Mail. "The lesson is that, contrary to the fond belief perpetrated by the most self-absorbed generation ever to grace the planet, 60 is not the new 40 and it never will be." Pearson called Bousada "part of an epidemic of older women who think they can get away with defying biological laws that have held good for thousands of years."

That would be a tidy lesson, but it isn't quite true. The biological laws of maternity are shifting. Sixty may not be the new 40, but in some respects, 65 is the new 55. Maternal age is going up in part because, in terms of frailty and longevity, older women aren't as old as they used to be.

The clinic that impregnated Bousada ends eligibility for treatment at age 55. British and Spanish clinics have informal cutoffs at 50. Tony Rutherford, the head of the British Fertility Society, draws the line at 45 in his own practice. A bioethics institute is proposing to enforce the same limit in Spain. Britain's National Health Service cuts off in vitro fertilization at 40.

Why draw these lines? One rationale is nature. The British Fertility Society opposes fertility treatment after age 50 because "nature didn't design women to have assisted conception beyond the age of the natural menopause," says its secretary, Allan Pacey. "Once you get into the mid-50s, I think nature is trying to tell us something."

But what exactly is nature saying? Assisted conception is inherently unnatural. Strictly speaking, nature is telling us not to do it at all. Furthermore, in 1900, life expectancy for a girl born in the United States was 50.7 years. Was nature telling us that women shouldn't live, much less bear children, beyond that point? That didn't stop us from using science to extend women's lives. Why should it stop us from extending their fertility?

For that matter, the British Fertility Society supports IVF, egg donation, and cloning human embryos for research. Why, when the debate turns to menopause, does it suddenly invoke nature?

The second argument for line-drawing is efficacy. Rutherford's clinic cuts off IVF at age 45 because beyond that age, it's unlikely to work. But for many women, egg donation circumvents that problem. So do frozen eggs, embryos, and ovarian tissue. The reason why so many people are freaking out over middle-aged moms is that the old rules of efficacy are gone. These women aren't failing to have babies. They're succeeding.

So the debate boils down to a third argument: These women are too old to raise kids. Why does the clinic that impregnated Bousada draw a line at 55? Because, according to the clinic's owner, any woman who's going to have babies should "survive until the kids reach 18."

A century ago, that would have been a good reason to draw the line at 55. In 1910, an American woman who reached age 55 could expect 18 more years of life. But by 1950, the line had moved: Women could expect 18 more years if they made it age 60. Today, they can expect 18 more years if they make it to age 67. In 2006, when Bousada gave birth at age 66, she had a remaining life expectancy of about 19 years.

Does that mean 66-year-old women should run out and get pregnant? No way. To begin with, the hormone injections that facilitate pregnancy at such an age can be dangerous. In Bousada's case, they may have contributed to the cancer that killed her. Second, life expectancy is an average, not a guarantee. Bousada thought she'd live a long time because her mother made it to 101. Three years later, Bousada was dead. That's the cruelty of averages: Nineteen years of life expectancy means that one 66-year-old woman will live 35 more years, while another will live 3. By definition, the chance that you'll die before your projected life expectancy is 50 percent.

Third, life expectancy includes years of frailty when you're no longer effectively able to raise children. In 2002, for instance, a 65-year-old American woman could expect 19.5 years of life but only 14.3 years of good health, 11.7 years of full activity, and five years of freedom from chronic diseases. If you want mothers to stay healthy and active until their kids reach 18, you'd better cap maternity at an earlier age.

But if health and activity are what's important, why focus on age? Fertility clinics already screen patients for health risks such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. No law of biology says a middle-aged woman can't meet such tests. Mary Shearing, who had twins at 53 in 1992, is thriving at 70 today. So are her 16-year-old daughters.

Maybe Shearing owes her good health to her daily gym workouts, or maybe she owes both to lucky genes. Either way, should her clinic have turned her away? Is she slower and weaker than most younger moms would be? Sure. But she's also wiser and steadier. Barack Obama was raised by a grandmother in her 50s, and I don't see many folks complaining about how he turned out.

And what about men? Strom Thurmond, the late senator from South Carolina, had kids at 68, 69, 70, and 73. Where was all the "nature" talk then? Do men get a pass if they have younger wives? Shearing's husband was 32 when her kids were born. Shouldn't that count?

Waiting till you're 45 or 50 to bear a child is a bad idea. Waiting till you're 60 or older is even worse. The odds are that you'll fail to get pregnant, or you'll miscarry, or you won't be able to raise the child. But those are just the odds. Some women can do it. More women can do it today than could have done it a century ago. Little by little, the laws of biology are changing. The fertility industry, born of that change, must change with it. (slate.com )

READ MORE - Is it OK to impregnate a 60-year-old woman?

The organic vs. conventional

The organic vs. conventional. Are Organic Veggies Better for You? Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, it's a useless debate..

Last week the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency published an extensive report on organic food that concluded with this bombshell: "There is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." The finding—based on a review of 55 relevant studies conducted over the past 50 years—now threatens an organic food industry that has been growing at an annual rate of 20 percent for the past couple of decades and is now worth something like $23 billion in global sales. The overwhelming success of the organics market has a lot to do with the pervasive belief that eschewing synthetic pesticides and fertilizers makes food more nutritious. Now we know that belief may be unfounded.

Many health professionals took the news in stride. Connie Diekman, a nutritionist at Washington University in St. Louis and former head of the American Dietary Association, said "it is good to see that a systematic review of the literature supports what has long been believed … if [consumers] choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs." Laura Telford, national director of the Canadian Organic Growers, said, "We don't dispute what they found," before highlighting some non-nutritional benefits of eating organic.

Others, of course, were dismayed. "I'm angry and perplexed," explained Peter Melchett, policy director of the U.K.-based Soil Association, "We genuinely expected the FSA to report the facts. … I think it's outrageous." In more measured tones, Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, charged the FSA with "downplay[ing] positive findings in favor of organic food," using data from "very old studies" and omitting measures of "some important nutrients."

This is a debate that tends to the extremes. If the past is any indication, here's how it will eventually play out: Boosters of the study will highlight a dozen supporting conclusions reached over the past two decades and stress that the FSA report was the most comprehensive examination of organic heath claims ever undertaken; detractors will highlight a dozen contrasting conclusions reached over the past two decades and note that the FSA report failed to measure for antioxidants and pesticide residues. Both sides have a leg to stand on with these critiques. What's lost in all the mudslinging and nitpicking, however, is a point that cuts to the core of the debate: Any comparison between such general categories as "organic" and "conventional"—no matter which side comes out ahead—is of very limited value. One might even say it's useless.

First, the demographic profile of organic consumers makes this debate one that's hardly worth having. There's no broad public health issue at stake here. Organic food costs 60 percent more than conventional and comprises a mere 2.5 percent of the food eaten in the United States. Advocates of organic agriculture often argue that there's no such thing as a "typical" consumer of organic food. It's true that organic consumers are rapidly diversifying, but the fact remains that consistent buyers of organic goods tend to be female, college-educated, and at least somewhat well-off. All these demographic factors happen to correlate with better access to health care and basic nutritional awareness. Why should we worry whether an already healthy, wealthy, and well-informed cohort absorbs minimally more nutrition from an organic apple? It's far more important that we get more fresh food—organic or not—to those wide swaths of the country that sociologists now call "food deserts."

Another factor undermining the FSA study is the fact that the terms "organic" and "conventional" encompass a wide spectrum of practices. It's so wide, in fact, that accurately comparing the categories is virtually impossible. For example, it's well-known that large, industrial farms overuse pesticides and fertilizers, but many conventional family farms practice integrated pest management, selectively employ advanced fertilizers to reduce runoff, spray very selectively, and establish grazing systems for livestock that rely on environmentally sound rotational schedules. Likewise, the environmental virtues of organic agriculture are conspicuously (and deservedly) touted, but the glowing reports rarely note that most organic food comes from large corporate operations, that some organic farmers rely heavily on natural pesticides that are toxic in high doses, that organic compost can contain more contaminants than conventional fertilizer, and that soil erosion can be as bad or worse on organic farms. There is no standard "organic" or "conventional" farm, so any broad comparison is little more than speculative.

That's part of the reason why these organic vs. conventional studies have yielded such maddeningly mixed results—which, in turn, allow consumers to cherry-pick whatever data support their preconceived notions. Proponents of organic agriculture can cite, if they want, a 2007 report from Newcastle University showing that organic produce has 40 percent more antioxidants than conventional produce. Whereas the naysayers might refer to a 2000 study that found no effect on the levels of healthful phenols in organic strawberries and blueberries. Or perhaps they'd choose a report that found higher rates of naturally occurring toxins in organic foods on account of their being grown without the benefit of synthetic fungicides. All are sound science, but what do they tell the health-conscious consumer who's trying to decide whether to go organic?

To choose one study and declare a position on the debate, as so many advocates do, is not only intellectually dishonest; it ignores the underlying complexity of agriculture itself—a complexity that includes variables that transcend the organic/conventional divide, including plant genetics, cultivars, soil type, farmer skill, harvest methods, timing of harvest, place, and climate. To pick one example, the use of seeds with high yields (by both organic and conventional farmers) may have much more to do with the decline in the nutritional content of produce since World War II than any other factor in agricultural production.

Perhaps most important, our obsession with proving one system better than the other obscures a more critical public health issue. As a nation, we eat far too much meat (273 pounds per year each on average, as of 1999) and not nearly enough fruits and vegetables. According to B.J. Friedman, a nutritionist at Texas State University-San Marcos, only one-quarter of Americans eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. "We should be concentrating on encouraging people to eat more fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables," she says. "I'm all for eating organically and locally to protect our environment, but this way of eating is economically and geographically out of reach for most Americans." Her point is getting lost in the debate over last week's FSA report. Let's first focus on what we eat before we start fighting over the details of how, exactly, it's grown. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The organic vs. conventional

How to Get Your Ex-Boyfriend Back

How to Get Your Ex-Boyfriend Back. After careful and thoughtful consideration, you've decided that your ex was really Mr. Right. Now what? Here is a six-step plan for a second chance at romance.

Is there a woman out there who isn't a little bit haunted by that "one who got away"? You know: the ex you regret breaking up with, or the guy friend you had a secret crush on in high school, or the hot summer fling you wish had turned into more ... Oh well, he's nice to fantasize about occasionally, but he's a lost cause, right?

Not necessarily. In fact, "retrosexual romances" seem to be the hottest hook-up trend out there — courtesy of Facebook and other social networking sites that make it super-easy to reconnect with an old flame. But should you? Diana Kirschner, Ph.D., author of Love in 90 Days: The Essential Guide to Finding Your Own True Love, shares the deets on whether to dig back into the past, and, if you do, how to work a happy reunion.

1. Before contacting your ex, ask yourself two key questions.

First, do you truly harbor feelings for him — or are you possibly just bored or sick of being single? Don't go there unless you're positive you're still into him. Second, was your past relationship with him healthy? It's much easier to recall all the great things about a guy than to bring to mind the bad stuff, like how you fought all the time or how unmotivated he was. Make an honest assessment of your past bond to avoid falling back into a negative situation.

2. If your answer to both questions was "yes", go ahead and reach out.

Start off super-casual to take the temperature of things. Say something like, "It was so nice to see your name on Facebook! How are you?" His response will reveal a lot. If his reply is short and curt ("Hey there, hope all's well.") that's not a good sign. If he's effusive (think exclamation points or a smiley face) and asks you questions about yourself, that's a green light to take things a step further.

3. One last thing before asking him out: Figure out whether he's single.

If he doesn't list his relationship status online, check out his Facebook photos to see whether the same girl reappears in various cozy poses with him. Or you can subtly feel him out by asking, in a Facebook message or e-mail, about old friends you both had, and then segue into a conversation about his personal life in general. Hopefully his love situation will come up.

4. Good response so far? Suggest a short, low-key meet-up, like going out for coffee.

It's neutral, so you're not putting yourself on the line too much if the romantic interest isn't there on his part. Or, propose revisiting one of your old haunts, like the bar where you used to meet after work, or your favorite Thai restaurant from back in the day. Being in that familiar environment will trigger memories of the past.

5. During your rendezvous, casually reminisce about funny, romantic, or exciting times you had together — like a fantastic trip you took or how you first met.

It'll conjure up the feelings you had then. And find a way to subtly make physical contact, like letting your knees touch his under the table. Notice if he pulls away or relaxes into you.

6. Wait, don't carried away quite yet!

Remind yourself of why things didn't work out the first time around and look for clues to whether things would be any different now. If you broke up because he partied too hard, for instance, notice how much he drinks or how he talks about his nightlife. It would be a bummer to get back together only to discover that the same problems are still haunting you. So take it slow and trust your gut. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - How to Get Your Ex-Boyfriend Back

Middle-class drinkers in their homes are as bad as riotous youths

Middle-class drinkers in their homes are as bad as riotous youths. Middle-class drinkers who consume alcohol in their homes are just as irresponsible as drunk youths on the streets, a senior bishop has claimed.

The Rt Rev John Gladwin, the Bishop of Chelmsford, criticised the double-standards he claims exist in the attitudes of more affluent sections of society towards Britain's "binge-drinking" culture.

He argued that they could not condemn teenagers' behaviour if they are getting drunk themselves, and claimed that they are ultimately responsible for the rise in alcoholism.

Recent figures show one in four adults are putting their health at risk by drinking too much and that 360,000 11 to 15 year-olds get drunk every week Photo: David Burges

His comments follow the release of official figures that show one in four adults are putting their health at risk by drinking too much and that 360,000 11 to 15 year-olds get drunk every week.

Bishop Gladwin, a former social responsibility secretary for the Church, called for a new approach to the problem, which he said was caused by "growing prosperity".

"While do we have a significant problem among young people, not least the binge drinking that breaks out onto our streets, that is not the issue," he said.

"Growing prosperity is behind the rise in alcoholism. We now go out and buy our wine for the weekend."

The bishop said that it was unfair to draw attention to young and poorer people getting drunk in public when they are also having too much alcohol, but in the privacy of their own homes.

"Often poorer people in society haven't got the protection – the safety of jobs and homes – so when young people do go out clubbing it's all very public, whereas for older people you can collapse at home at the weekend and have levels of alcohol consumption that are just as bad."

He added: "People in the middle-classes have got into habits of high levels of alcohol consumption without thinking through the implications for the whole community.

"They can't turn around and complain about another generation who, with cheap alcohol and easy access to it, are doing the same but more publicly."

One in three men and one in six women are classified as hazardous drinkers, according to the NHS Information Centre, while six per cent of men and two per cent of women drink so much that they are likely to suffer physical or mental harm such as liver disease or depression.

The charity Alcohol Concern warned last month that "While the attention paid to binge-drinking and town centre disorder is important, there is a crucial need to tackle the hidden harm caused by alcohol to older people, women and children."

A Government report last year, commissioned by Ed Balls, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, criticised middle-class parents who introduce their children to wine-drinking using the excuse that the approach works on the Continent.

Bishop Gladwin admitted that clergy were also affected by the problems with alcohol.

"Clergy have gone beyond the limit and got themselves into higher levels of alcohol dependency," he said.

Discussing the Rt Rev Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, who was alleged to have been drunk after a Christmas drinks reception at the Irish embassy, he said: "I like Tom [Butler] because he's a straightforward human-being like the rest of us. There can be no doubt about his shared humanity.

"I think that's why people warm to him. I guess people know that this (alcohol) is an issue for a lot of people. This is what lots of people's lives can be like.

"Whatever went on, right or wrong, a bishop caught up in it and seeking to deal with it is a sign of a shared humanity."

After the party, in December 2006, witnesses reported seeing a man who looked like Bishop Butler climb into the back of an unlocked Mercedes and start throwing toys out the car.

When asked what he was doing, the man replied: "I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what I do." ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Middle-class drinkers in their homes are as bad as riotous youths