As the new year rolls on, sports fans rejoice! You’ve had the excitement of the college football bowl games and the national championship game, the NFL playoff games are winnowing teams down to the Super Bowl contestants, and basketball and hockey seasons are in full swing. Spring training for the upcoming Major League Baseball season is around the corner.
But hold these thoughts a moment. Watching sports — not just playing them — can be hazardous to your health. I’ve seen it firsthand while working in a walk-in clinic near Fenway Park, where people would show up bleeding from cuts that needed stitches (from trips and falls at the stadium), broken bones (from trying to catch a foul ball or an altercation with another fan), and dehydration.
Most of these injuries weren’t life-threatening. But there’s evidence that the health impact of sports spectatorship can be far more serious for some of us — and, perhaps, underappreciated.
What are the health risks of watching live sports?
When you’re watching games in person, some risks are related to the weather and other fans. For example:
Watching a baseball game in the summer for hours may lead to heat stroke or dehydration.
Live winter football games may raise the risk of hypothermia, frostbite, or other cold-related problems.
Stampedes, riots, and brawls between rival fans watching soccer matches are not rare and may actually be on the rise.
And, as mentioned, spectators of live sports can be injured by balls hit into the stands or other flying objects such as bats, pucks, or golf balls.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
How could watching sports on TV boost health risks?
Doctors and nurses often describe how quiet things get in the emergency room during a World Series game or the Super Bowl. But once the game ends, it tends to get much busier. One theory is that people with chest pain, trouble breathing, or other symptoms of a potentially serious problem who ordinarily would have reported to the emergency room right away may delay seeking care until after the game.
Of course, there’s another possibility: the game itself — especially if a game is close and particularly exciting — might cause enough stress on the body that heart attacks, strokes, or other dangerous conditions develop.
Research supporting the idea that watching sports can negatively affect your health includes:
Older studies have linked hospital admissions for heart failure and cardiac arrest with watching sporting events.
A 2017 study found that spectators of Montreal Canadiens hockey games experienced a doubling of their heart rate during games. The effect was more pronounced for live games than televised games, but even the latter experience led to faster heart rates similar to the effect of moderate exercise.
A 2022 study found that hospital admissions for cardiovascular problems jumped 15% during and just after World Cup soccer games.
Snuff is a smokeless tobacco similar to chewing tobacco. It rarely makes headlines. But it certainly did when the FDA authorized a brand of snuff to market its products as having a major health advantage over cigarettes. Could this be true? Is it safe to use snuff?
What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?
Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:
If you smoke, consider this: switching completely to this product from cigarettes reduces risk of lung cancer.
While the statement is true, this FDA action — and the marketing that’s likely to follow — might suggest snuff is a safe product. It’s not. Let’s talk about the rest of the story.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
What is snuff, anyway?
Snuff is a form of tobacco that’s finely ground. There are two types:
Moist snuff. Users place a pinch or a pouch of tobacco behind their upper or lower lips or between their cheek and gum. They must repeatedly spit out or swallow the tobacco juice that accumulates. After a few minutes, they remove or spit out the tobacco as well. This recent FDA action applies to a brand of moist snuff.
Dry snuff. This type is snorted (inhaled through the nose) and is less common in the US.
Both types are available in an array of scents and flavors. Users absorb nicotine and other chemicals into the bloodstream through the lining of the mouth. Blood levels of nicotine are similar between smokers and snuff users. But nicotine stays in the blood for a longer time with snuff users.
Why is snuff popular?
According to CDC statistics, 5.7 million adults in the US regularly use smokeless tobacco products — that’s about 2% of the adult population. A similar percentage (1.6%) of high school students use it as well. That’s despite restrictions on youth marketing and sales.
What accounts for its popularity?
Snuff may be allowed in places that prohibit smoking.
It tends to cost less than cigarettes: $300 to $1,000 a year versus several thousand dollars a year paid by some smokers.
It doesn’t require inhaling smoke into the lungs, or exposing others to secondhand smoke.
Snuff is safer than cigarettes in at least one way — it is less likely to cause lung cancer.
It may help some cigarette smokers quit.
The serious health risks of snuff
While the risk of lung cancer is lower compared with cigarettes, snuff has plenty of other health risks, including
higher risk of cancers of the mouth (such as the tongue, gums, and cheek), esophagus, and pancreas
higher risk of heart disease and stroke
harm to the developing teenage brain
dental problems, such as discoloration of teeth, gum disease, tooth damage, bone loss around the teeth, tooth loosening or loss
higher risk of premature birth and stillbirth among pregnant users.
And because nicotine is addictive, using any tobacco product can quickly become a habit that’s hard to break.
There are also the “ick” factors: bad breath and having to repeatedly spit out tobacco juice.
Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?
Perhaps, if many smokers switch to snuff and give up smoking. That could reduce the number of people who develop smoking-related lung cancer. It might even reduce harms related to secondhand smoke.
But it’s also possible the new marketing message will attract nonsmokers, including teens, who weren’t previously using snuff. A bigger market for snuff products might boost health risks for many people, rather than lowering them.
The new FDA action is approved for a five-year period, and the company must monitor its impact. Is snuff an effective way to help smokers quit? Is a lower rate of lung cancer canceled out by a rise in other health risks? We don’t know yet. If the new evidence shows more overall health risks than benefits for snuff users compared with smokers, this new marketing authorization may be reversed.
Social media and stores are full of products that promise perfect skin. Increasingly, these products are being marketed not just to adults but to teens and tweens. Many are benign, but some can cause skin irritation — and can be costly. And even if these products are benign, does buying them support unhealthy notions about appearance and beauty?
It’s worth looking at this from a medical perspective. Spoiler alert: for the most part teens and tweens do not need specialized skin products, especially expensive ones. But let’s talk about when they may make sense.
When can a specialized skin product help tweens and teens?
So, when should your child buy specialized skin products?
When their doctor recommends it. If your child has a skin condition that is being treated by a doctor, such as eczema or psoriasis, over-the-counter skin products may help. For example, with eczema we generally recommend fragrance-free cleansers and moisturizers. Always ask your doctor which brands to choose, and get their advice on how best to use them.
If they have dry and/or sensitive skin. Again, fragrance-free cleansers are a good idea (look for ones recommended for people with eczema). So are fragrance-free, non-irritating moisturizers (look for creams and ointments rather than lotions, as they will be more effective for dry skin). If you have questions, or if the products you are buying aren’t helping, check in with your doctor.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
What about skin products for acne?
It’s pretty rare to go through adolescence without a pimple. Many teens aren’t bothered by them, but if your child is bothered by their pimples or has a lot of them, it may be helpful to buy some acne products at your local pharmacy.
Mild cleansers tend to be better than cleansers containing alcohol. You may want to check out cleansers intended for dry skin or eczema.
Over-the-counter acne treatments usually contain benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, or alpha-hydroxy acids. Adapalene can be helpful for more stubborn pimples.
Steer away from astringents or exfoliants, which tend to irritate the skin.
Talk to your doctor about what makes the most sense for your child — and definitely talk to them if over-the-counter products aren’t helpful. There are many acne treatments available by prescription.
Ask questions and help dispel myths
If your teen or tween doesn’t fall into one of these groups, chances are they don’t need anything but plain old soap and water and the occasional moisturizer if their skin gets dry.
If your child has normal, healthy skin yet is asking for or buying specialized skin products, ask them why. Do your best to dispel the inevitable marketing myths — like that the products will prevent problems they do not have. Let them know that should a problem arise, you will work with them — with the advice of their doctor — to find and buy the best products.
Use it as an opportunity, too, to talk about self-image and how it can be influenced by outside factors. This is an important conversation to have whether or not your child is pining for the latest cleanser they see on Instagram. Helping your child see their own beauty and strengths is a key part of parenting, especially for a generation raised on social media.
Earlier this year, US defense secretary Lloyd Austin was hospitalized for complications resulting from prostate cancer surgery. Details of his procedure, which was performed on December 22, were not fully disclosed. Press statements from the Pentagon indicated that Austin had undergone a minimally invasive prostatectomy, which is an operation to remove the prostate gland. Minimally invasive procedures are performed using robotic instruments passed through small “keyhole” incisions in the patient’s abdomen.
Just over a week later, Austin developed severe abdominal, hip, and leg pain. He was admitted to the intensive care unit at Walter Reed Hospital on January 2 for monitoring and further treatment. Doctors discovered that Austin had a urinary tract infection and fluid pooling in his abdomen that were impairing bowel functioning. The defense secretary was successfully treated, but then readmitted to the ICU on February 11 for what the Pentagon described as “an emergent bladder issue.” Two days after undergoing what was only described as a “non-surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia,” Austin was back at work. His cancer prognosis is said to be excellent.
Austin’s ordeal was covered extensively in the media. Although we cannot speculate about his specific case, to help our readers better understand the complications that might occur after a prostatectomy, I spoke with Dr. Boris Gershman, a urologist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Gershman is also a member of the advisory and editorial board for the Harvard Medical School Guide to Prostate Diseases.
How common are urinary tract infections after a prostatectomy?
Minimally invasive prostatectomy is generally well tolerated. In one study that examined complications among over 29,000 men who had the operation, the rate of urinary tract infections was only 2.1%. The risk of sepsis — a more serious condition that occurs if the body’s response to an infection damages other organs — is much lower than that.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
How would a urinary tract infection occur?
Although urinary tract infections are rare after prostatectomy, bacteria can travel into the urinary system through a catheter. An important part of a prostatectomy involves connecting the urethra — which is a tube that carries urine out of the body — directly to the bladder after the prostate has been taken out. As a last step in that process, we pass a catheter [a soft silicone tube] through the urethra and into the bladder to promote healing. Infection risks are minimized by giving antibiotics both during surgery and then again just prior to removing the catheter one to two weeks after the operation.
How do you treat urinary infectious complications when they do happen?
It’s not unusual to find small amounts of bacteria in the urine whenever you use a catheter. Normally they don’t cause any symptoms, but if infectious complications do occur, then we’ll admit the patient to the hospital and treat with broad-spectrum antibiotics that treat many different kinds of bacteria at once. We’ll also obtain a urine culture to identify the bacterial species causing the infection. Based on culture results, we can switch to different antibiotics that attack those microbes specifically. The course of treatment generally lasts 10 to 14 days.
Lloyd Austin also had gastrointestinal complications. Why might that have occurred?
Although I cannot speculate about Austin’s specific case, in general gastrointestinal complications are very rare — affecting fewer than 2% of patients treated using robotic methods. However, a few different things can happen. For instance, the small intestine can “fall asleep” after surgery, meaning it temporarily stops moving food and wastes through the bowel.
Many health-conscious consumers have already cut back on hamburgers, steaks, and deli meats, often by swapping in poultry or seafood. Those protein sources are better than beef, and not just because they’re linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Chicken and fish are also better for the environment, as their production uses less land and other resources and generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
And choosing seafood that’s lower on the food chain — namely, small fish such as herring and sardines and bivalves such as clams and oysters — can amp up those benefits. “It’s much better for your health and the environment when you replace terrestrial food sources — especially red meat — with aquatic food sources,” says Christopher Golden, assistant professor of nutrition and planetary health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But instead of popular seafood choices such as farmed salmon or canned tuna, consider mackerel or sardines, he suggests.
Anchovies, herring, mackerel, and sardines are all excellent sources of protein, micronutrients like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, and heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, which may help ease inflammation within the body and promote a better balance of blood lipids. And because you often eat the entire fish (including the tiny bones), small fish are also rich in calcium and vitamin D, says Golden. (Mackerel is an exception: cooked mackerel bones are too sharp or tough to eat, although canned mackerel bones are fine to eat).
Small fish are also less likely to contain contaminants such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) compared with large species like tuna and swordfish. Those and other large fish feed on smaller fish, which concentrates the toxins.
It’s also more environmentally friendly to eat small fish directly instead of using them to make fish meal, which is often fed to farmed salmon, pork, and poultry. Feed for those animals also includes grains that require land, water, pesticides, and energy to produce, just as grain fed to cattle does, Golden points out. The good news is that increasingly, salmon farming has begun using less fish meal, and some companies have created highly nutritious feeds that don’t require fish meal at all.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Small fish in the Mediterranean diet
The traditional Mediterranean diet, widely considered the best diet for heart health, highlights small fish such as fresh sardines and anchovies, says Golden. Canned versions of these species, which are widely available and less expensive than fresh, are a good option. However, most canned anchovies are salt-cured and therefore high in sodium, which can raise blood pressure.
Sardines packed in water or olive oil can be
served on crackers or crusty, toasted bread with a squeeze of lemon
prepared like tuna salad for a sandwich filling
added to a Greek salad
tossed with pasta, either added to tomato sauce or with lemon, capers, and red pepper flakes.
Golden is particularly fond of pickled herring, which you can often find in jars in supermarkets, or even make yourself; here’s his favorite recipe.
Bivalve benefits
Bivalves are two-shelled aquatic creatures that include clams, oysters, mussels, and scallops. Also known as mollusks, they’re good sources of protein but are quite low in fat, so they aren’t as rich in omega-3’s as small, fatty fish. However, bivalves contain several micronutrients, especially zinc and vitamin B12. Zinc contributes to a healthy immune system, and vitamin B12 helps form red blood cells that carry oxygen and keep nerves throughout the body healthy. While most Americans get enough B12, some may not.
And from a planetary health perspective, bivalves are among the best sources of animal-based protein. “Bivalves can be ‘nature positive’ because they don’t require feed and they filter and clean up water,” says Golden.
Be aware, however, that bivalves can become contaminated from runoff, bacteria, viruses, or chemicals in the water. So be sure to follow FDA advice about buying and preparing seafood safely.
Although we tend to think of coastal cities as the best places to find seafood, it’s available throughout the United States. For less-common varieties, try larger Asian markets, which often carry a wide variety of fish and bivalves, Golden suggests.
Aquatic plant foods
You can even go one step further down the aquatic food chain by eating aquatic plant foods such as seaweed and kelp. If you like sushi, you’ve probably had nori, the flat sheets of seaweed used to make sushi rolls. You can also find seaweed snacks in Asian and many mainstream grocery stores. The truly adventurous may want to try kelp jerky or a kelp burger, both sold online.
At a dental appointment last month, I spotted a lead vest hanging unassumingly on the wall of the exam room as soon as I walked in. “Still there, but now obsolete,” I thought.
I’d just learned about new guidelines from the American Dental Association (ADA) saying lead vests and thyroid collars that cover the neck are no longer needed during dental x-rays. But they’d been a fixture of my dental experiences — including many cavities, four root canals, a tooth extraction, and two crowns — for my entire life. What changed, and could I feel safe without the vest?
Why were lead vests used in past years?
Lead vests and thyroid collars have been worn by countless Americans during dental x-rays over the years. They’ve been in use for far longer than my lifetime — about 100 years. The heavy apron-like shields are placed over sensitive areas, including the chest and neck, before the x-rays are taken.
“I haven’t worn a lead apron in the last 10 or 15 years — unless a dentist insists I put it on — because I know it isn’t needed,” says Dr. Bernard Friedland, an associate professor of oral medicine, infection, and immunity at Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
What has changed about dental x-rays?
When lead vests and thyroid collars were first recommended, x-ray technology was much less precise. But the technology has evolved significantly over the last few decades in ways that dramatically improve patient safety:
Digital x-rays enable far smaller radiation doses, reducing radiation exposure and the risks associated with higher doses, such as cancer. “The doses used in dental radiology are negligibly small now. If you go to the dentist today for a full series of mouth x-rays that are taken with a digital sensor, the total exposure time is just over five seconds,” explains Dr. Friedland, an expert in oral radiology. “A hundred or so years ago, that exposure time would have been many minutes.”
The small size of today’s x-ray beam significantly reduces radiation “scatter” and restricts the beam size to only the area needing to be imaged. This protects patients from radiation exposure to other parts of the body.
A less-recognized strike against using lead vests and thyroid collars is their ability to get in the way. They may block the primary x-ray beam, preventing dentists from capturing needed images. This quirk can lead to repeat imaging and unnecessary exposure to additional radiation. This is more likely to occur with panoramic x-rays.
The gear may also spread germs, Dr. Friedland notes. Although disinfected, it’s not sterilized between uses. “There’s a risk of spreading bacteria and viruses,” he says. “To me, that’s also an issue and another reason I don’t want to use one on myself.”
Who no longer needs the shields?
No one does — even children, who presumably have a long life of dental x-rays in front of them. The new recommendations apply to all patients regardless of age, health status, or pregnancy, the ADA says.
The recommendation to discontinue lead vests has been a long time in the making. In fact, the ADA isn’t the first professional organization to propose it. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine did so in 2019, followed by the American College of Radiology in 2021 and the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology in 2023.
Are some people confused or concerned about the no-lead-vest policy?
Yes. The new guidelines are bound to draw confusion and fear, Dr. Friedland says. Some people may even insist on continuing to wear a lead vest during x-rays.
“A big problem is that people’s perception of risk is very skewed,” he says. “Some people, you’ll never convince.”
People are likely to feel more comfortable if the practice is uniformly adopted by dentists. However, the ability to implement this change may hinge partly on public response. And it could take a while to fully adopt.
“I think the public is going to have more say on this than dentists,” Dr. Friedland says. “It might take a generation to make this change, maybe longer.”
Still concerned about the new recommendations?
If you have lingering concerns about the new recommendations, talk to your dentist.
And ask if dental x-rays are necessary to proceed with your diagnosis or treatment plan. Sometimes it’s possible to take fewer x-rays — such as bitewing x-rays of the upper and lower back teeth only — or to use certain types of imaging less frequently. Even with far safer x-ray conditions, dentists should be able to justify that the information from images is integral to diagnose problems or improve care, Dr. Friedland says.
It’s worth noting that the dose of radiation, while far lower than in the past, varies with the type of imaging and which parts of the jaw are being imaged. For example, the digital dental x-rays mentioned above involve less radiation than conventional dental x-rays. Either panoramic dental x-rays, or 3-D dental x-rays taken with a CBCT system that rotates around the head, typically involve more radiation than conventional dental x-rays.
Whenever possible, dentists should use images taken during previous dental exams, according to the ADA. “If I don’t need an x-ray, I don’t get one,” says Dr. Friedland. “I’m not cavalier about it. I also use technical parameters that keep the x-ray dose as low as reasonably possible.”
About the Author
Maureen Salamon, Executive Editor, Harvard Women’s Health Watch
Maureen Salamon is executive editor of Harvard Women’s Health Watch. She began her career as a newspaper reporter and later covered health and medicine for a wide variety of websites, magazines, and hospitals. Her work has … See Full Bio
Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing
Dr. Howard LeWine is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio
View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD
SHARE THIS PAGESHARE THIS PAGE TO FACEBOOKSHARE THIS PAGE TO TWITTERSHARE THIS PAGE VIA EMAIL
PRINT THIS PAGEClick to Print
Disclaimer:
As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles.
No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.
Don’t worry. It’s good advice if you can take it. Of course that’s not always easy, especially for health concerns.
The truth is: it’s impossible (and ill-advised) to never worry about your health. But are you worrying about the right things? Let’s compare a sampling of common worries to the most common conditions that actually shorten lives. Then we can think about preventing the biggest health threats.
Dangerous but rare health threats
The comedian John Mulaney says the cartoons he watched as a child gave him the impression that quicksand, anvils falling from the sky, and lit sticks of dynamite represented major health risks. For him (as is true for most of us), none of these turned out to be worth worrying about.
While harm can befall us in many ways, some of our worries are not very likely to occur:
Harm by lightning: In the US, lightning strikes kill about 25 people each year. Annually, the risk for the average person less than one in a million. There are also several hundred injuries due to nonfatal lightning strikes. Even though lightning strikes the earth millions of times each year, the chances you’ll be struck are quite low.
Dying in a plane crash: The yearly risk of being killed in a plane crash for the average American is about one in 11 million. Of course, the risk is even lower if you never fly, and higher if you regularly fly on small planes in bad weather with inexperienced pilots. By comparison, the average yearly risk of dying in a car accident is approximately 1 in 5,000.
Snakebite injuries and deaths: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 people are bit by poisonous snakes each year in the US. Lasting injuries are uncommon, and deaths are quite rare (about five per year). In parts of the country where no poisonous snakes live, the risk is essentially zero.
Shark attacks: As long as people aren’t initiating contact with sharks, attacks are fairly uncommon. Worldwide, about 70 unprovoked shark attacks occur in an average year, six of which are fatal. In 2022, 41 attacks occurred in the US, two of which were fatal.
Public toilet seats: They may appear unclean (or even filthy), but they pose little or no health risk to the average person. While it’s reasonable to clean off the seat and line it with paper before touching down, health fears should not discourage you from using a public toilet.
I’m not suggesting that these pose no danger, especially if you’re in situations of increased risk. If you’re on a beach where sharks have been sighted and seals are nearby, it’s best not to swim there. When in doubt, it’s a good idea to apply common sense and err on the side of safety.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
What do Google and TikTok tell us about health concerns?
Analyzing online search topics can tell us a lot about our health worries.
The top Google health searches in 2023 were:
How long is strep throat contagious?
How contagious is strep throat?
How to lower cholesterol?
What helps with bloating?
What causes low blood pressure?
Really? Cancer, heart disease and stroke, or COVID didn’t reach the top five? High blood pressure didn’t make the list, but low blood pressure did?
Meanwhile, on TikTok the most common topics searched were exercise, diet, and sexual health, according to one study. Again, no top-of-the-list searches on the most common and deadly diseases.
How do our worries compare with the top causes of death?
In the US, these five conditions took the greatest number of lives in 2022:
heart disease
cancer
unintentional injury (including motor vehicle accidents, drug overdoses, and falls)
COVID-19
stroke.
This list varies by age. For example, guns are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers (ages 1 to 19). For older teens (ages 15 to 19), the top three causes of death were accidents, homicide, and suicide.
Perhaps the lack of overlap between leading causes of death and most common online health-related searches isn’t surprising. Younger folks drive more searches and may not have heart disease, cancer, or stroke at top of mind. In addition, online searches might reflect day-to-day concerns (how soon can my child return to school after having strep throat?) rather than long-term conditions, such as heart disease or cancer. And death may not be the most immediate health outcome of interest.
But the disconnect suggests to me that we may be worrying about the wrong things — and focusing too little on the biggest health threats.
Transforming worry into action
Most of us can safely worry less about catching something from a toilet seat or shark attacks. Instead, take steps to reduce the risks you face from our biggest health threats. Chipping away at these five goals could help you live longer and better while easing unnecessary worry:
Choose a heart-healthy diet.
Get routinely recommended health care, including blood pressure checks and cancer screens, such as screening for colorectal cancer.
Drive more safely. Obey the speed limit, drive defensively, always wear a seatbelt, and don’t drive if you’ve been drinking.
Don’t smoke. If you need to quit, find help.
Get regular exercise.
The bottom line
Try not to focus too much on health risks that are unlikely to affect you. Instead, think about common causes of poor health. Then take measures to reduce your risk. Moving more and adding healthy foods to your meals is a great start.
Birth control pills have been safely used in the US (and sold only by prescription) for more than half a century. In 2023 the FDA approved Opill, the first daily contraceptive pill intended for sale over the counter with no prescription needed. This offers many more people access to a new nonprescription option for preventing pregnancy.
Opill is available online and soon to be stocked on drugstore shelves. Here’s what anyone interested — adults, parents, and teens — should know.
What is in Opill and how does it work?
Opill is a progestin-only form of birth control. That means it uses a single hormone called progestin (or norgestrel) to prevent pregnancy. It works by
affecting ovulation so that the ovaries do not release an egg every month
thickening cervical mucus, which blocks sperm from reaching an egg
changing the uterine lining in ways that keep a fertilized egg from implanting.
Chronic stress from ongoing unfair treatment may be to blame.
May 30, 2023By Julie Corliss, Executive Editor, Harvard Heart Letter
Reviewed by Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing
Experiencing discrimination in the workplace — where many adults spend one-third of their time, on average — may be harmful to your heart health.
A 2023 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that people who reported high levels of discrimination on the job were more likely to develop high blood pressure than those who reported low levels of workplace discrimination.
Workplace discrimination refers to unfair conditions or unpleasant treatment because of personal characteristics — particularly race, sex, or age.
How can discrimination affect our health?
“The daily hassles and indignities people experience from discrimination are a specific type of stress that is not always included in traditional measures of stress and adversity,” says sociologist David R. Williams, professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Yet multiple studies have documented that experiencing discrimination increases risk for developing a broad range of factors linked to heart disease. Along with high blood pressure, this can also include chronic low-grade inflammation, obesity, and type 2 diabetes.
More than 25 years ago, Williams created the Everyday Discrimination Scale. This is the most widely used measure of discrimination’s effects on health.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Who participated in the study of workplace discrimination?
The study followed a nationwide sample of 1,246 adults across a broad range of occupations and education levels, with roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Most were middle-aged, white, and married. They were mostly nonsmokers, drank low to moderate amounts of alcohol, and did moderate to high levels of exercise. None had high blood pressure at the baseline measurements.
How was discrimination measured and what did the study find?
The study is the first to show that discrimination in the workplace can raise blood pressure.
To measure discrimination levels, researchers used a test that included these six questions:
How often do you think you are unfairly given tasks that no one else wanted to do?
How often are you watched more closely than other workers?
How often does your supervisor or boss use ethnic, racial, or sexual slurs or jokes?
How often do your coworkers use ethnic, racial, or sexual slurs or jokes?
How often do you feel that you are ignored or not taken seriously by your boss?
How often has a coworker with less experience and qualifications gotten promoted before you?
Based on the responses, researchers calculated discrimination scores and divided participants into groups with low, intermediate, and high scores.
After a follow-up of roughly eight years, about 26% of all participants reported developing high blood pressure.
Compared to people who scored low on workplace discrimination at the start of the study, those with intermediate or high scores were 22% and 54% more likely, respectively, to report high blood pressure during the follow-up.
How could discrimination affect blood pressure?
Discrimination can cause emotional stress, which activates the body’s fight-or-flight response. The resulting surge of hormones makes the heart beat faster and blood vessels narrow, which causes blood pressure to rise temporarily. But if the stress response is triggered repeatedly, blood pressure may remain consistently high.
No difference between the two major approaches, according to clinical trial results.
February 12, 2024By Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases
Reviewed by Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing
Infections after a prostate biopsy are rare, but they do occur. Now research shows that fewer than 2% of men develop confirmed infections after prostate biopsy, regardless of the technique used.
In the United States, doctors usually thread a biopsy needle through the rectum and then into the prostate gland while watching their progress on an ultrasound machine. This is called a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS). Since the biopsy needle passes through the rectum, there’s a chance that fecal bacteria will be introduced into the prostate or escape into the bloodstream. For that reason, doctors typically treat a patient with antibiotics before initiating the procedure.
Alternatively, the biopsy needle can be passed through the peritoneum, which is a patch of skin between the anus and the base of the scrotum. These transperitoneal prostate (TP) biopsies, as they are called, are also performed with ultrasound guidance, and since they bypass the rectum, antibiotics typically aren’t required. In that way, TP biopsies help to keep antibiotic resistance at bay, and European medical guidelines strongly favor this approach, citing a lower risk of infection.
Study goals and methodology
TP biopsies aren’t widely adopted in the United States, in part because doctors lack familiarity with the method and need further training to perform it. The technology is steadily improving, and TP biopsies are increasingly being conducted in office settings around the country. But questions remain about how TRUS and TP biopsies compare in terms of their infectious complications.
To investigate, researchers at Albany Medical Center in New York conducted the first-ever randomized clinical trial comparing infection risks associated with either method. The results were published in February in the Journal of Urology.
The Albany team randomized 718 men to either a TRUS or TP biopsy. Nearly all the men who got a TRUS biopsy (and with few exceptions, none of the TP-treated men) first received a single-day course of antibiotics. All the biopsies were administered between 2019 and 2022 by three urologists working at the Medical Center’s affiliated and nonaffiliated hospitals.
The men were then monitored for fever, genitourinary infections, antibiotic prescriptions for suspected or confirmed infections, sepsis, and infection-related contacts with caregivers. Researchers collected data during a visit conducted two weeks after a biopsy procedure, and then by phone over an additional 30-day period following this initial meeting.
Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
Science has proven that chronic, low-grade inflammation can turn into a silent killer that contributes to cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Get simple tips to fight inflammation and stay healthy — from Harvard Medical School experts.
LEARN MORE
View Protect yourself from the damage of chronic inflammation.
What the researchers found
According to the results, 1.1% of men in the TRUS group and 1.4% of men in the transperineal group wound up with confirmed infections. The difference was not statistically significant. If “possible” infections were counted (for example, antibiotic prescriptions for fever), then the rates increased to 2.6% and 2.7% of men in the TRUS and TP groups, respectively.
Fever was the most frequent complication, reported by six participants in each group. One participant from each group also developed noninfectious urinary retention, requiring the temporary use of a catheter. None of the men developed sepsis or required post-biopsy treatments for bleeding.
The study had some limitations: Nearly all the participants were white, and so the results may not be applicable to men from other racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, since all the men were biopsied by a single institution, it’s unclear if the findings are generalizable in other settings. Still, the study provides reassuring evidence that both types of biopsies “appear safe and viable options for clinical practice,” the authors concluded.
Commentary from experts
“The paper provides needed evidence that TP biopsies without antibiotics are about as safe and efficacious as TRUS biopsies with antibiotics,” said Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The findings also help to dispel a growing view that transperineal biopsies are superior, Dr. Garnick pointed out.
“Recent years have witnessed a marked interest and surge in the transperineal approach, primarily driven by early studies suggesting a lower risk of infectious complications compared with transrectal biopsy,” said Dr. Boris Gershman, a urologist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and a member of Harvard Health Publishing’s Annual Report on Prostate Diseases advisory board.
“Interestingly, the investigators find no difference in infectious complications, and it will be important to see if other ongoing studies report similar results,” Dr. Gershman continued. “In addition to safety, we also need to confirm whether there are any meaningful differences between the two approaches with respect to cancer detection rates.”
Oregonstate News Blog 