Yahoo New, in a story by AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner, reports that "new research challenges the notion that you can be fat and fit, finding that being active can lower but not eliminate heart risks faced by heavy women.

The new study involving nearly 39,000 women helps sort out the combined effects of physical activity and body mass on women's chances of developing heart disease.

The study by Harvard-affiliated researchers appears in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.

Participants were women aged 54 on average who filled out a questionnaire at the study's start detailing their height, weight and amount of weekly physical activity in the past year, including walking, jogging, bicycling and swimming. They were then tracked for about 11 years. Overall 948 women developed heart disease.

Women were considered active if they followed government-recommended guidelines and got at least 30 minutes of moderate activity most days of the week, including brisk walking or jogging. Women who got less exercise than that were considered inactive.

Weight was evaluated by body mass index: A BMI between 25 and 29 is considered overweight, while obese is 30 and higher.

Compared with normal-weight active women, the risk for developing heart disease was 54 percent higher in overweight active women and 87 percent higher in obese active women. By contrast, it was 88 percent higher in overweight inactive women; and 2 1/2 times greater in obese inactive women.

About two in five U.S. women at age 50 will eventually develop heart attacks or other cardiovascular problems. Excess weight can raise those odds in many ways, including by increasing blood pressure and risks for diabetes, and by worsening cholesterol. Exercise counteracts all three.

"It is reassuring to see that physical activity really does make an impact," said lead author Dr. Amy Weinstein of Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. However, she added, "If you're overweight or obese, you can't really get back to that lower risk entirely with just physical activity alone."

University of South Carolina obesity expert Steven Blair, a leading proponent of the "fit and fat" theory, said the study is limited by relying on women's self-reporting their activity levels. That method is not as reliable as a more objective fitness evaluation including exercise treadmill tests, Blair said. These tests include heart-rate measures to see how the heart responds to and tolerates exercise.

In Blair's research, overweight people deemed 'fit' by treadmill tests did not face increased risks of dying from heart disease.

Dr. Laura Concannon, who specializes in treating overweight patients at Chicago's Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, said the study's message that exercise can help reduce health risks isn't new, but it's important.

Over the next several blogs I plan to concentrate on basic information about driving safety.

Driving a car is one of the most routine activities we engage in, but it's also one of the most dangerous. Over 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents each year.

These 40,000 deaths translate into lifetime odds of 1-in-100 of dying in a motor vehicle accident.

Another discouraging number associated with motor vehicles is that 1-in-2 of us will suffer a temporary or permanent disabling injury* in a motor vehicle accident.

With odds like these, your only answer is to develop a defensive driving attitude when you get into a car. As the articles in the Driving section show, there are many steps you can take to reduce the odds you will be one of these statistics.

One of the most important steps you can take is to develop an attitude to make every driving trip a "perfect trip." This includes such things as wearing seat belts, obeying speed limits, and driving defensively under all weather and traffic conditions.

Driving a car should be one of life's pleasures, not one of life's tragedies.

The principal causes of motor vehicle deaths, based on recent National Safety Council statistics, are: Collision Between Motor Vehicles - 20,600; Collision with Fixed Object - 13,300; Pedestrian Accidents - 5,900; Noncollision Accidents - 5,200; Collision with Pedalcycle - 900; Collision with Train - 200; Other Collision - 100.

* A disabling injury is an injury that disables you beyond the day of the injury.

Over the next several blogs I plan to concentrate on basic information about driving safety.

Driving a car is one of the most routine activities we engage in, but it's also one of the most dangerous. Over 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents each year.

These 40,000 deaths translate into lifetime odds of 1-in-100 of dying in a motor vehicle accident.

Another discouraging number associated with motor vehicles is that 1-in-2 of us will suffer a temporary or permanent disabling injury* in a motor vehicle accident.

With odds like these, your only answer is to develop a defensive driving attitude when you get into a car. As the articles in the Driving section show, there are many steps you can take to reduce the odds you will be one of these statistics.

One of the most important steps you can take is to develop an attitude to make every driving trip a "perfect trip." This includes such things as wearing seat belts, obeying speed limits, and driving defensively under all weather and traffic conditions.

Driving a car should be one of life's pleasures, not one of life's tragedies.

The principal causes of motor vehicle deaths, based on recent National Safety Council statistics, are: Collision Between Motor Vehicles - 20,600; Collision with Fixed Object - 13,300; Pedestrian Accidents - 5,900; Noncollision Accidents - 5,200; Collision with Pedalcycle - 900; Collision with Train - 200; Other Collision - 100.

* A disabling injury is an injury that disables you beyond the day of the injury.

On December 27, 2007 the Nevada Supreme Court clarified in Awada v. Shuffle Master, Inc., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 57, the manner in which a Nevada District Court may handle mixed claims for legal and equitable relief at trial and found as follows:

In this appeal, we consider the primary issue of whether a district court has the authority to bifurcate the legal and equitable claims presented in a single action, conduct a bench trial on an equitable claim, and then use the findings of fact and conclusions of law from that bench trial to dispose of the case. On this issue of first impression, we conclude that Nevada district courts have discretion to bifurcate legal and equitable claims in a single action and to first conduct a bench trial on an equitable claim. Furthermore, a district court that exercises such discretion may then use its findings of fact and conclusions of law as a basis for disposing of claims remaining in the case, so long as it does so in a manner consistent with Nevada law and our rules of civil procedure.

We also consider whether the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte disposing of the remaining claims in a summary judgment-like manner after conducting a bench trial on respondents' counterclaim for rescission. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it first considered respondents' counterclaim for rescission and rescinded the parties' agreement. Based on its findings and conclusions, the district court properly disposed of all of appellants' contract-based claims against respondent Shuffle Master, Inc., because those claims could not stand absent a valid contract. However, the district court improperly granted summary judgment as to the claims against respondent Mark Yoseloff and appellants' remaining claims against Shuffle Master because those claims can survive absent a valid contract between the parties. Additionally, the district court erred in resolving those claims without satisfying the procedural requirements of NRCP 56.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment as to appellants' claims for breach of contract and contract-based claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; we reverse the district court's judgment as to appellants' claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contractual relations/prospective economic advantage and as to appellants' claims against Yoseloff; and we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A new study that appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that the graveyard shift in hospitals is the most dangerous time for a patient to require a "code blue" for a stopped heart. Researchers found that among the late night cases studied, there were a higher portion of instances where patients were discovered with no heart electrical activity; that is, too late to deliver a lifesaving shock.

According to the Associated Press, "Everyone who works in a hospital is going to look at this and say, 'Are we doing everything we should be?'" said Dr. Charles Porter, a cardiologist at the University of Kansas Hospital in Kansas City, Kansas.

This sounds a bit disingenuous in my experience since nearly every doctor or nurse I've ever talked to is perfectly aware that care declines at night. Among other things, this is common sense.

In fact, and as some readers know, I've previously blogged on the subject of the danger of hospitals at night and on weekends. Doctors know this; nurses know this; even lawyers know this.

Washoe District Court Judge Robert Perry has reduced the recent landmark jury award against pharmaceutical giant Wyeth arising from Wyeth's development and marketing of Prempro.

Judge Perry cut the award from $134 million to $58 million. $23 million is allocated toward compensatory damages and $35 million is punitive damages. Wyeth wanted the Judge to reduce the total award to $4 million.

Wyeth is up against 5300 similar lawsuits throughout the United States.

It will be interesting to see what the Nevada Supreme Court has to say about this case since it is almost certainly bound for full appeal.