Over the years, here is an on-going conversation I have with my family physician:

Doctor: What kind of exercise are you doing?

My reply: I have three kids and a house to keep clean. I think that is all the exercise I need.

Doctor then rolls his eyes.

End of conversation.

I am 5-foot, 7-inches, weigh 120 pounds and am on the go from 5:30 AM to about 10 PM each night. Aside from work as an artist and writer, which requires that I sit at a drafting table or in front of the computer (which is not prolonged sitting -- I am up and down, up and down -- because as every parent knows, somebody always needs something or something needs to be done) I am in movement.

I am physically able to climb down riverbanks and over river boulders when we go fishing, and I can hike up any hill with the best of them. I do not worry that I am out of shape. I know I am not physically inactive. You can bet I will be taking a copy of this latest research with me to my next visit to see the doctor. He asks the same exercise question each time, only this time, I have data to back up my claim that I am indeed getting a very good form of exercise.

According to researchers, when it comes to the best workout, cleaning the house outranks playing a sport as a better form of exercise and "far more cancer protective." They state "that moderate forms of physical activity, such as housework, may be more important than less frequent but more intense recreational physical activity in reducing breast cancer risk."

The women in the study spent an average of 16 to 17 hours a week cooking, cleaning and doing the laundry, and the researchers found housework cut breast cancer risk by 30 percent among the pre-menopausal women and 20 percent among the post-menopausal women. The study focused on women and breast cancer, but there is no reason to believe that these findings will not translate into cancer prevention for all cancers, and for men as well, as exercise is known to offer protection against the development of cancer. And in weighing in for the guys, men do housework too.
.

Munchkin, a company offering infant and toddler products that excite, delight and make life easier for mothers and fathers, has launched the Project Pink campaign to support mothers in their fight against breast cancer.

"One out of every eight women faces the risk of breast cancer in her lifetime, and I know from personal experience that the disease can strike even young mothers with no family history of breast cancer, as it did my wife last year," said Doug Gillespie, Vice President of Marketing at Munchkin, Inc. "Munchkin is determined to do what we can to offer a helpful resource to the amazing moms who continue to nurture their families while they battle this disease."

On the special Project Pink area of the company website, you can read tips and stories from mothers facing breast cancer; order a limited edition pink duck; send a pink ducky eCard; enter the Project Pink sweepstakes to win a family vacation and view the celebrity decorated ducks for auction.

Beginning October 2nd, charity auction bidding begins on the fabulous pink ducks glamourously decorated by eBay President and CEO Meg Whitman, Former First Lady Barbara Bush; ABC's Dancing with the Stars Stacy Keibler; West Wing Emmy Award winner Allison Janney; Martin Sheen; Access Hollywood Nancy O'Dell; singer Patti LaBelle; actress Reese Witherspoon; Curb Your Enthusiasm Cheryl Hines and everyone's favorite actor who has gone where no man has gone before William Shatner.

Munchkin has invited women to share tips and stories to help mothers in facing the struggles of breast cancer. The advice is practical and real. A sampling of suggestions include:

• Kathy of Pittsburgh, PA advises, "Get meals brought in by anyone who offers even if you don't think they can cook!"
• Christina N. of Boston, MA advises, "Don't be afraid to have the kids see you bald or sick. You're better off talking it through than having the kids be horrified and not telling you."
• Jen G of Des Moines, IA shares, "We had a pajama party for my mother to lift her and our spirits. We even danced to the Time Warp, wore funny hats, ordered pizza, and drank wine."
  

While visiting Munchkin's Project Pink, enter to win a free family vacation to Los Angeles. No purchase necessary to enter to win.

Parents who know they are at high-risk for passing on genetic defects that can lead to disease for their child, have been relying on genetic testing to screen embryos for inherited diseases. British scientists announced today they have developed a new test that focuses on DNA fingerprinting near the gene. The new test allows more couples to be tested since they are looking at DNA markers opposed to trying to find the gene, which can vary. According to the researchers, this is a more reliable test. The method involves taking a cell from the embryo to detect signs of the DNA marker and discarding it if it does show the likelihood of gene mutation. Only healthy embryos are used during the in-vitro fertilization, ensuring parents a healthy child.

Right now, there are strict ethical controls on this type of medical procedure, but in the years to come, when these types of procedures become more commonplace, and less expensive, will the controls begin to relax? I am not going to argue against choosing a healthy embryo over one that carries a genetic mutation that might one day lead to disease later in life, but I am still hesitant to embrace where the medical field might be going with these new tests and the potential for superficial application such as -- say -- designer babies. Paris Hilton mommies embryonic shopping for a child. I realize that is an extreme example, but it is the one I fear most. In addition, I am not an adherent of scientific worship and see medical science as a very shaky inexact science. The more I learn, the more I realize they do not know. However, here we are, and you can't un-ring a bell. Hopefully the future will prove all my misgivings wrong.

For more thoughts on designer babies, related posts: Woman pregnant with cancer-free baby and Disease-free designer babies embryo selection.

What would you do if you tested positive for a gene that caused the death of many of your family members? The descendants of Golda Bradfield, who died of gastric cancer and from whom the defective gene was inherited, made a radical decision based on knowing they had inherited the gene that killed their grandmother. Eleven cousins in all had their stomachs removed to avoid the certain fate of dying from gastric cancer. Some of the cousins had already watched their parents, aunts and uncles, die from gastric cancer. It is a decision they do not regret. After the stomachs were surgically removed and sent to the lab for analysis, the stomach tissue had already begun to develop cancerous growths. Without surgical removal of the stomach, this would not have been discovered in time as there are no tests to detect early stage gastric cancer.

According to experts, in the near future, doctors may do routine DNA tests to detect disease risks that can be lowered. "We do not yet have a general DNA test that fits into that category, but we're headed for it at a pretty good clip," said Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

The CDH1 gene mutation, first discovered about eight years ago in a New Zealand family with a history of stomach cancer, is extremely rare. It is estimated only 100 families worldwide carry the flawed gene that leads to hereditary gastric cancer.  

Oh hello! Here's a little study that I am certain many parents are going to shake their collective heads at when it comes to the published results. First, this study is based on a questionnaire so I am not at all convinced there are hereditary genes at work -- simply because the researchers did not do an under-the-microscope study to find out if there are genes, and identify which ones, affecting our food preferences.

From my understanding, I believe genetics are a primary determining factor in what we do and do not inherit. I could be wrong. In the meantime, I am standing by my initial concept of genes in the role of heredity. Back to food preferences.

Parents want what is best for baby. No parent wants to expose their baby to cancer-causing chemicals. Because you cannot always rely on baby care product makers to offer only the safest and the best products for your baby, the Environmental Working Group offers Skin Deep, an online searchable safety ratings database of brand-by-brand baby care products.

Skin Deep's database of baby care product categories includes: after sun products; anti-itch/rash creams; baby bubble baths; baby lotions; baby oils; baby powders; baby shampoos; baby soaps; baby sunscreens; baby toothpastes; baby wipes; cradle cap treatments; diaper creams; lip balm/treatments; and nipple cream for mothers.

While every baby care product on the market is not yet included in the Skin Deep baby care products database, parents can find many of the major brands listed. Each product comes complete with a safety score that allows parents to shop wisely.

Of special note: Parents can be safe from cancer-causing personal care products too. Back in February, we featured Skin Deep's Campaign for Safe Cosmetics when it launched a searchable database of adult personal care products used every day that might contain chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and other serious health issues. To learn more about this resource, go here.

Because cancer can take years to develop -- and because certain dietary habits have been linked to an increased risk of cancer -- and because helping children adopt informed healthy habits of eating during the early years seems a practical strategy to a lifetime of cancer prevention -- this headline Parents health food fads make children ill, grabbed my attention. According to eating disorder expert Dr. Steve Bratman, parents who encourage their children to choose healthy foods are dangerous role models. It seems that limiting the amount of sugar, fat, salt and artificial additives are putting children at risk of serious damage to their health, and in some cases, death by starvation. With great pain, Dr. Bratman shares that he is deeply disturbed to be receiving an ever-increasing amount of email from children interested in healthy eating habits.

Because no term exists in medical tomes to describe this condition, Dr. Bratman made one up. He calls the condition of junk food aversion and deprivation -- orthorexia. Dr. Bratman has written a book and developed a website devoted to this new life-threatening eating disorder where growing numbers of children, influenced by their parents, are taking an interest in eating healthy. To use the closing remark often used by John Stossel of ABC News 20/20 to a news story that defies sanity and common sense -- give me a break!

Over the years, every dentist I have taken my children to see advocated in favor of fluoride for the prevention of tooth decay. Now, a National Academy of Sciences panel has concluded that the maximum amount of fluoride allowed by the federal government puts children at risk for developing mottled pitted teeth, weakened bones leading to fractures, and can even affect IQ scores.

According to this study, fluoride poses numerous health risks, including a link to a rare bone cancer in boys. The report is recommending research to clarify the relationship between fluoride and cancers.

The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation states that the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, never approved fluoride ingestion. It was grandfathered in before the FDA drug testing laws were enacted. Routine fluoride supplementation is no longer recommended by the Canadian Dental Association, the Western Australian Health Authority's Dental Section and the German Scientific Dental Association. Belgium has banned the sale of fluoride supplements. In the U.S., fluoride is routinely added to municipal drinking water. Dentists give out fluoride tablets to parents for children who live in an area where the drinking water is not fluorinated.

At this time, eleven unions representing over 7,000 EPA scientists, engineers, lawyers and others are asking for a moratorium on the fluoridation of drinking water. Dentists are asking parents not to panic. If you are a parent, who do you believe?