Dear Doctor: When our first son was born, we almost lost our minds as we rode out his bouts of colic. Our second son is due this spring and the idea of dealing with colic again already has me panicking. I've been reading that certain probiotics can help. Is this true?

Dear Reader: We honestly think it's a toss-up as to who suffers more when an infant is caught in a bout of colic -- the baby or those trying to help him. For anyone fortunate enough to not know what we're talking about here, colic is a condition in which a baby has regular, often predictable, episodes of intense crying that last anywhere from several minutes to several hours. It typically begins when the baby is a few weeks old and can continue for several months.

The frustrating thing is that the child can be well-fed, well-rested, in a clean diaper and in a comfortable environment. Then suddenly she or he will be in profound and prolonged distress. The crying is often high-pitched, accompanied by clenched fists, tensed-up stomach muscles and a defensive, curled-up posture. The level of discomfort is such that comforting a colicky baby can seem all but impossible.

A new study has good news for parents of colicky babies. It appears that a certain probiotic that is already being marketed as a treatment for colic can, in fact, be effective. Known as Lactobacillus reuteri, this species of probiotic has been shown to exhibit antimicrobial activity. And while various small studies have already pointed to Lactobacillus reuteri as a hedge against colic, this latest study backs up the claim for the probiotic with a larger and broader sample size.

Researchers looked at the raw data collected from babies who had been enrolled in four different clinical trials. The stated purpose of these clinical trials had been whether Lactobacillus reuteri was effective in reducing the distress of colicky babies. In these trials, half of the infants with colic received the probiotic, and half received a placebo. The babies were then monitored for outcomes that included how long each baby spent crying during a bout of colic, the degree of fussing that took place, and whether or not the colic symptoms had resolved after three weeks of treatment.

According to the findings, the group taking the probiotic spent measurably less time less crying and fussing than did the babies in the group that received the placebo group. But -- and this is important -- researchers were only able to confirm the positive effect of the probiotic among babies who were exclusively breast-fed. This was because there were not enough formula-fed infants in the clinical trials to generate sufficient data from which to draw conclusions.

The bottom line: This is a promising avenue of treatment for breast-fed babies with colic. We suggest that parents who want to give it a try (Lactobacillus reuteri is widely available as an over-the-counter product) do so in partnership with their pediatricians.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o Media Relations, UCLA Health, 924 Westwood Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA, 90095. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)

Dear Doctor: Can you shed some light on transient global amnesia? I was diagnosed with this five years ago (I'm now 71) after my family noticed that I couldn't recall common facts. I had no physical ailment or injury prior to this, and I'm told that the recurrence rate is 1 percent.

Dear Reader: Transient global amnesia is, as the name describes, a short-lived inability to retain new memories. Because the episodes are so sudden, they can be disorienting to all involved. Afflicted people often repeatedly ask questions about the date, their location or their reason for being there. They can temporarily lose memories from a few hours before the event to, more rarely, up to a year before the event.

Note that such episodes do not affect a person's ability to perform complex tasks such as driving, cooking, lecturing and playing a musical instrument. Nor do the events interfere with self-awareness.

The episodes last, on average, about six hours, but can be as short as one hour or as long as 10 hours. Afterward, a person does not remember anything that transpired during the episode and may even lose some memories formed just before the incident. Although the episodes can be preceded by an acute emotional event, physical activity, or exposure to cold or heat, doctors don't really know what causes such amnesia.

MRIs have shown that the events affect the memory centers of the brain in the temporal lobe and in the hippocampus. Like the symptoms, however, the resulting lesions that develop in these areas are not permanent. Some brain experts suspect that blood flow restriction may be a trigger, but the evidence for this is thin. Another hypothesis, which has more merit, is that a backflow of venous blood is the catalyst; such flows are more likely to affect the aforementioned parts of the brain.

One strong risk factor is psychogenic stress -- in other words, a psychiatric condition that produces a physical response. A 2005 study found that people with a history of psychiatric disease or alcohol abuse had three times the likelihood of experiencing transient global amnesia.

The condition typically occurs in people ages 50 to 80 and is diagnosed in one in every 3,500 people over 50 each year in the United States. The peak incidence occurs in those 60 to 65. Men and women are equally affected. Because the symptoms can resemble those of a stroke or a transient ischemic attack, many people mistake the condition for a stroke or TIA. Unlike those conditions, however, transient global amnesia doesn't have a vascular cause, and people who experience it have the same incidence of stroke as the general population. Nonetheless, because of the similarity in symptoms, immediate medical attention is needed to rule out more serious causes.

You mention a 1 percent recurrence rate, but studies have shown the rate to be about 5 percent. This is still very low.

This sudden loss of memory must have been unnerving for you. Please take some comfort in the fact that it's unlikely to happen again.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o Media Relations, UCLA Health, 924 Westwood Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA, 90095. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)

Dear Doctor: I never gained the infamous "freshman 15" while I was in college. But now I've graduated and am behind a desk for nine hours a day for my new job. I'm not only putting on the pounds, I feel generally lousy. Is this just adjusting to working life, or is sitting so much bad for you?

Dear Reader: Making the switch from the freeform life of a college student to the strictures and structure of a full-time job can indeed be a challenge. It's quite possible that some of what you're feeling is a result of this shift in lifestyle. However, your question zeros in on an important element of the modern workplace, and one that numerous studies have identified as a genuine health hazard. That is, the fact that so many of us spend the majority of our days sitting. To quote more than a few of the headlines we've seen on the topic -- sitting may be the new smoking.

Our bodies are built for movement. Every one of our systems -- lungs, circulatory, lymphatic, skeletal and muscular -- benefits from regular activity. Even improved mood and memory have been linked to physical fitness. Yet the default of our modern world has become inactivity, whether it's in cars, at desks, on couches or seated in front of screens. As more and more of us began to spend our lives sitting down, researchers examined the consequences. The results have been anything but reassuring. Numerous studies have now linked those long hours of sitting to an increased risk of a number of health threats, including diabetes, some cancers and heart disease.

An intriguing new study from the University of Illinois-Chicago suggests a new way forward for desk-based workers. Researchers evaluated the merits of three different types of work stations. One was the desk-and-chair combo we're all too familiar with. One was the standing desk, which has become a common sight in many workplaces. And one was a seated desk that had been outfitted with a mobile foot rest. The device, which goes by the brand name HOVR, is basically a leg swing that allows the seated person to stay in motion.

According to the study, individuals who used the mobile foot rest burned 17 percent more calories than did those who sat still. Interestingly, the foot rest group also used 7 percent more calories than people at standing desks. Admittedly, it's a modest step forward (sorry), but the point we took from the study is that even small interventions can be beneficial.

Whether the option of a foot swing is in your future, you can make some changes to how you spend your work day. Stand up and stretch every 10 or 15 minutes. Take short walks around the office. As much as possible, add motions that flex and stretch your legs, arms and trunk muscles. And it wouldn't hurt to ask whether your workplace offers any alternatives to the seated desk.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o Media Relations, UCLA Health, 924 Westwood Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA, 90095. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)