Category: 8. Health

People who take a mobile phone to the loo should keep to a two TikTok limit, according to doctors who found that toilet scrollers are more prone to haemorrhoids than phoneless lavatory-goers.

Those who sit on the throne with a phone spend far more time on the toilet than others, with longer stints linked to a greater risk of developing the bulging anal veins known as haemorrhoids or piles.

Though preliminary, the findings prompted the team to advise people against taking a phone to the lavatory, or at least to impose a scroll limit lest they become distracted and find themselves still sitting there half an hour later.

“Leave your smartphone outside because when you go in you have just one job, and you should focus on that job,” said Dr Trisha Pasricha, a gastroenterologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “If the magic hasn’t happened within five minutes, you should get up and go. Take a breather and come back.”

Pasricha and her colleagues examined 125 people for haemorrhoids during colonoscopies for a bowel cancer screening programme. The same volunteers completed questionnaires on diet, exercise and bowel habits, including how long they spent on the toilet and whether they ever strained or experienced constipation.

Further questions, according to the study in Plos One, delved into people’s mobile phone habits to find out whether they took their device to the toilet and what apps they used once there. All were aged 45 and over.

Two-thirds of people admitted to taking a phone to the toilet, where most scrolled through news and social media. After accounting for common risk factors for haemorrhoids such as older age, physical inactivity and low dietary fibre, toilet scrollers were 46% more likely to have piles than those who left their phone behind. More than a third (37%) of toilet scrollers spent more than five minutes on the lavatory compared with only 7% of those without phones.

Reading on the toilet is nothing new, but Pasricha believes that the newspapers, magazines and books that once kept people occupied are no match for the likes of TikTok and Instagram. “The whole business model of these apps is to make you lose track of time,” she said. “Our pre-TikTok ancestors were just reading a newspaper or whatever they could find. It wasn’t distracting to the same level.”

More work is needed on the health implications, but Pasricha suspects that smartphone apps prolong the time people spend on the toilet, which in turn increases the pressure on anal tissues, leading to haemorrhoids. “If you’re just hanging out there in the open, this passive pressure will eventually, over time, cause the connective tissue to weaken and cause those veins to engorge,” she said.

One pressing question surrounds the habits of younger people. In a continuing study of college students, Pasricha said nearly all admitted to taking phones to the toilet, raising concerns that the teenagers of today might develop piles sooner than older generations.

Haemorrhoids affect up to a quarter of all adults, and while most resolve on their own or with minimal treatment, more than 20,000 surgical procedures are performed on piles each year in the UK alone.

For those who cannot contemplate being phoneless on the toilet, Pasricha suggests minimising the toilet scroll. “Set a two TikTok limit,” she said. “What you shouldn’t be doing is getting so trapped in this cycle of scrolling and watching TikTok that you lose track of why you came here in the first place.”

Please chooseI’m not a medical professional.Allergy and ImmunologyAnatomyAnesthesiologyBiostatisticsCardiac/Thoracic/Vascular SurgeryCardiologyCritical CareDentistryDermatologyDiabetes and EndocrinologyEmergency MedicineEpidemiology and Public HealthFamily MedicineForensic MedicineGastroenterologyGeneral PracticeGeneticsGeriatricsHealth PolicyHematologyHIV/AIDSHospital-based MedicineI’m not a medical professional.Infectious DiseaseIntegrative/Complementary MedicineInternal MedicineInternal Medicine-PediatricsMedical Education and SimulationMedical PhysicsMedical StudentNephrologyNeurological SurgeryNeurologyNuclear MedicineNutritionObstetrics and GynecologyOccupational HealthOncologyOphthalmologyOptometryOral MedicineOrthopaedicsOsteopathic MedicineOtolaryngologyPain ManagementPalliative CarePathologyPediatricsPediatric SurgeryPharmacologyPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationPlastic SurgeryPodiatryPreventive MedicinePsychiatryPsychologyPulmonologyRadiation OncologyRadiologyRheumatologySubstance Use and AddictionSurgeryTherapeuticsTraumaUrologyMiscellaneous

Colon cancer is no longer just an older person’s disease. In recent years, doctors have been sounding the alarm as more young adults under 50 are being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, a trend that has surprised both patients and experts. Projections suggest that if the current pace continues, this cancer could become the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in young adults worldwide by 2030.

For decades, colorectal cancer was considered an age-related illness, largely kept in check among older populations thanks to better screening programs and lifestyle awareness. But now, high-income nations like the United States, Australia, and parts of Europe are reporting rising numbers in younger groups. Similar patterns are also emerging in Asia and Latin America, pointing to a global problem.

The shift has researchers looking closely at modern lifestyles, sedentary routines, processed diets, alcohol, and smoking, all factors that may be raising risks earlier in life.

On Sept. 4, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is scheduled to testify before the Senate Finance Committee, where he is expected to face questions about his vaccine policies.

A few days prior, on Sept. 1, 2025, President Donald Trump demanded pharmaceutical companies to prove that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work, saying that the CDC was “being ripped apart over this question.” It was his first public acknowledgment of the chaos roiling the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention amid the firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and subsequent resignations of four high-level agency officials.

Meanwhile, public health experts and HHS staffers are calling for Kennedy to be fired.

The turmoil comes about a month after HHS announced US$500 million in funding cuts for 22 research contracts on mRNA vaccine technology. The agency said it will instead pour these funds into research on a traditional approach to designing vaccines that was first used more than 200 years ago. With such vaccines, called whole-virus vaccines, a person’s immune system is presented with the whole virus, often in weakened or inactivated form. This switcheroo has puzzled many scientists.

As a vaccinologist who has studied and developed vaccines for over 35 years, I see that the science behind mRNA vaccine technology is being widely misstated. This incorrect information is shaping long-term health policy in the U.S. – which makes it urgent to correct the record.

Are mRNA vaccines less safe than whole-virus vaccines?

HHS defended its cancellation of mRNA vaccine research based, in part, on a nonpeer-reviewed compilation of selected publications called the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” harms research collection. This document lists about 750 articles claimed to describe harms caused by mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. However, the vast majority of these articles aren’t about vaccines but about the harms of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. And notably absent from it is the huge body of data showing mRNA vaccines actually prevent these harms.

For example, the document being used to justify RFK Jr.’s claims about mRNA vaccines highlights 375 studies reporting that the virus’s spike protein alone, which is produced when the virus replicates, can cause excessive inflammation and tissue damage. This is true. But the document marshals this evidence to support the claim that mRNA vaccines, which are designed to produce spike proteins, cause the same harm – which is not accurate.

While viral replication results in uncontrolled production of a large amounts of the protein, the way it’s produced by the mRNA vaccine is very different. The vaccine produces a small, controlled amount of spike protein inside a few cells – just enough to induce an immune response without causing damage. And by blocking the virus’s replication, it reduces the amount of spike protein in circulation, actually having the opposite effect.

What about side effects like myocarditis?

Early reports flagged a type of heart swelling called myocarditis as a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccine, particularly for young men ages 18 to 25 after a booster dose. A 2024 review identified about 20 cases out of 1 million people who received the vaccine. However, that same study found that unvaccinated people had an elevenfold higher risk of getting myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection than vaccinated people.

What’s more, another 2024 study showed that people who developed myocarditis after vaccination had fewer complications than those who developed the condition after getting infected with COVID-19.

Do mRNA vaccines make the SARS-CoV-2 virus resistant?

Another claim from the compilation of supposed mRNA vaccine harms that was cited as a reason for cutting funding for mRNA technology is that mRNA vaccines cause mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 virus that make them resistant or less susceptible to the vaccine.

When a virus replicates in its host, it produces millions of copies of its genetic material. Mutations are copying errors that occur naturally during the replication process. These acquired mutations produce new variants, which is why both the COVID-19 mRNA and the whole-virus flu vaccine get updated annually – to keep up with natural changes in the virus.

Slowing down viral replication decreases the rate at which a virus can acquire new mutations. Since both mRNA and whole-virus vaccines stop or slow the virus from replicating, both types of vaccines help reduce the emergence of resistant viruses.

Viruses can mutate to escape from antibodies, but the mRNA vaccines are not causing the emergence of more virulent strains, likely for at least two reasons. First, mRNA vaccines induce immune responses that can attack the virus at multiple spots, so it would have to come up with many mutations at once to escape the vaccine’s defenses. Second, even if the virus could acquire all these mutations, they would likely weaken it, making it unable to cause or even transmit disease.

mRNA vaccines versus new SARS-CoV-2 variants

Kennedy, in announcing cuts to mRNA vaccine research on Aug. 5, 2025, claimed that mRNA vaccines don’t work against respiratory viruses and that HHS was moving toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”

Both whole-virus vaccines and mRNA vaccines protected against COVID-19 and prevented hospitalization and death for millions of people worldwide between 2020 and 2024, but there’s clear evidence that the mRNA-based vaccines provided significantly better protection than whole-virus vaccines. And for COVID-19, mRNA vaccines are more effective against new variants, which emerge as viruses mutate, than whole-virus vaccines.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines started with exceptionally high efficacy, exceeding 94%. When the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants emerged in the spring and fall of 2021, mRNA vaccines became less effective in preventing infections. However, they remained highly effective in preventing severe illness, whereas in unvaccinated people the rates of severe illness and hospitalization remained high.

This is because mRNA vaccines induce the immune system to make both antibodies and specialized immune cells called T cells. These elements can recognize multiple parts of the virus, including ones that don’t change, enabling significant protection against new variants.

What’s more, the mRNA vaccines have a superpower that no other type of vaccine can currently match: They can be quickly updated and manufactured within two to three months. To develop a whole-virus vaccine, researchers must first spend months isolating and propagating the virus. Conversely, making an mRNA vaccine requires just sequencing the virus’s genetic code – a process that today takes just hours.

If a new pandemic began today, mRNA vaccines are currently the only type of vaccine that could be developed quickly enough to disrupt its spread.

The future of mRNA vaccine technologies

Thirty years ago, when scientists first started developing mRNA vaccine technology, they recognized its potential to overcome major limitations of whole-virus vaccines – namely, slow production time and more limited ability to protect from new viral variants. Today, mRNA vaccines are also being developed to prevent or treat diseases including HIV and cancer, as well as autoimmune and genetic diseases.

Of course, this technology can be further improved. New mRNA vaccine technologies are aimed, among other things, at making mRNA vaccines easier to store to allow for faster distribution and reduce their short-term side effects, eliminate the rare risk of myocarditis and more quickly block a respiratory infection.

The National Institutes of Health is funneling money away from new mRNA technologies toward a single project developing universal vaccines based on traditional whole-virus vaccine technology. Universal vaccines are urgently needed to provide broader protection against ever-changing respiratory viruses, such as influenza, that are major pandemic threats.

A 2022 study in mice and ferrets showed that a universal flu vaccine NIH plans to support has promise. However, multiple studies of potential universal flu vaccines based on mRNA technology show even more potential. Such vaccines could induce broader immunity than whole-virus vaccines by eliciting antibody and T-cell responses that target an even wider range of flu viruses.

It’s hard to square those benefits with the fact that HHS and NIH have named the planned new universal vaccine platform “Generation Gold Standard,” insisting that it represents a new standard in science and transparency. The effort seems more akin to eliminating all e-bike technology and telling everyone who seeks one to get by with a single brand of a 10-speed bike: Getting to the intended destination may still be possible, but it will be slower and harder.

And in the case of abandoning mRNA vaccine research, it may lead to lives needlessly lost, whether due to potential medicines untapped or to pandemic unpreparedness.

US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has chosen seven new members for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s panel of vaccine experts, an internal CDC document showed on Wednesday.

The Department of Health and Human Services has directed the CDC to name the new members to its advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), according to the document, which was seen by Reuters.

Inside Medicine, a Substack blog, reported on the new ACIP members earlier on Wednesday.

Kennedy fired all 17 members of the panel in June and replaced them with eight handpicked advisers, though one has since left the panel.

Among the seven new appointees is Dr Raymond Pollak, a semi-retired transplant surgeon with a background in immunology who confirmed he has been asked to serve on the panel.

“I’m being considered pending the vetting process. If I was offered the position, I would think carefully about it,” he said.

Others include Dr Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine specialist in New Orleans; Dr John Gaitanis, a pediatric neurologist; Dr Catherine Stein, an epidemiology professor; Hillary Blackburn, a trained pharmacist; and Evelyn Griffin, an obstetrician-gynecologist. None could be reached for comment.

Dr Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist, referred calls to the Department of Health and Human Services.

An HHS spokesperson declined to comment, adding: “You will hear from us when we are ready to announce.”

Scientists have found that the diabetes/weight loss drug Semaglutide, sold commercially under brand names like Ozempic and Wegovy, significantly reduces cocaine-seeking behaviour in rats. This work needs to be confirmed in humans, but it suggests that Semaglutide is a candidate to be developed as a treatment for cocaine dependency; at the moment there is no effective pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependency. The work is published in the September edition of the peer-reviewed journal European Neuropsychopharmacology.

Cocaine is the second most popular illegal drug used in Europe. The European Drug Agency reports that around 2.7 million young adults (between the age of 15-34) use cocaine regularly, representing around 2.5% of the population in that age group. Cocaine use in the UK is the second highest in the world, with around 2.7% of adults using the drug (see notes). There is, to date, no effective pharmacological treatment for problematic cocaine use.

Scientists from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and the University of Pennsylvania, led by Professor Elisabet Jerlhag (University of Gothenburg), gave male rats access to directly-injected cocaine, which they could dispense by pressing a lever in the cage. Then an experimental group of 10 of these animals were treated with semaglutide before being given access to the cocaine dispenser.

Elisabet Jerlhag said:

“We found that in comparison to the control animals, self-administration of cocaine use dropped by 26% in those animals which had been given semaglutide. Previous results, both from our group and from other groups, have found that semaglutide can reduce alcohol consumption and craving in both humans and animals, and this work on cocaine seems to reflect these previous findings on alcohol use. This is the first trial showing Semaglutide’s potential as a drug for cocaine dependence.

Importantly, we also found that after a period of abstinence, there was a 62% drop in cocaine seeking in those animals which had taken semaglutide and the motivation (work undertaken to attain the drug) was lowered by 52%.

This is animal work, so at the moment, we can’t say that we have anywhere near a viable treatment for human cocaine dependency. We need a bigger study to confirm these results, and then we need to see if the findings also apply to humans. However, these results are very promising, underlining the need for human studies, especially since there are no existing pharmacological treatments for cocaine dependency”.

Semaglutide belongs to a class of drugs called GLP-1 inhibitors. These drugs (along with the similar drug Mounjaro) have revolutionised the treatment of excess weight, and are now showing promise in the treatment of mental health problems.

Commenting, Professor Christian Hendershot (of the Institute for Addiction at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles) said:

“This is a carefully conducted study that provides additional evidence that GLP-1 receptor agonists can reduce cocaine reinforcement. These findings have clinical implications given the challenges identifying medications for stimulant use disorder, and the increasing clinical use of semaglutide in many areas of the world. These findings should encourage clinical trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists for stimulant use disorder”.

Professor Hendershot was not involved in this research; this is an independent comment. Professor Hendershot was lead researcher on the first randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of semaglutide’s effects on alcohol craving in adults

Notes

European Statistics https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/european-drug-report/2025/cocaine_en#edr25-cocaine-prevalence

UK report. https://theweek.com/health/britains-cocaine-habit-use-of-the-drug-is-surging-in-the-uk-with-alarming-consequences

Semaglutine and alcohol https://today.usc.edu/popular-weight-loss-diabetes-drug-shows-promise-in-reducing-cravings-for-alcohol/

Publication details

This paper appears in the September edition of the Journal European Neuropsychopharmacology (an official journal of the ECNP, www.ecnp.eu ):

Semaglutide suppresses cocaine taking, seeking, and cocaine-evoked dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens. Cajsa Aranäs , Antonia Caffrey, Christian E. Edvardsson, Heath D. Schmidt, Elisabet Jerlhag

European Neuropsychopharmacology Volume 98 , September 2025, Pages 1-10

Paper currently available online at:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X25001300

For funding see paper.

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

NIH-funded clinical trial shows potential to simplify treatment for early syphilis.

 Researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have found that a single injection of the antibiotic benzathine penicillin G (BPG) successfully treated early syphilis just as well as the three-injection regimen used by many clinicians in the United States and elsewhere. These findings from a late-stage clinical trial suggest the second and third doses of conventional BPG therapy do not provide a health benefit. The results were published today in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Benzathine penicillin G is highly effective against syphilis, but the three-dose regimen can be burdensome and deter people from attending follow-up visits with their healthcare providers,” said Carolyn Deal, Ph.D., chief of the enteric and sexually transmitted infections branch of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). “The new findings offer welcome evidence for potentially simplifying treatment with an equally effective one-dose regimen, particularly while syphilis rates remain alarmingly high.”

Syphilis is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum. The United States reported 209,253 total syphilis cases and 3,882 congenital syphilis cases in 2023, representing 61% and 108% increases over 2019 numbers, respectively. Without treatment, syphilis can result in neurological and organ damage as well as severe pregnancy complications and congenital abnormalities. Syphilis can also increase a person’s likelihood of acquiring or transmitting HIV.

BPG is one of the few antibiotics known to effectively treat syphilis, and stockouts are common worldwide. The antibiotic is currently being imported to the United States to resolve a nationwide shortage.

The study was conducted at ten U.S. sites and enrolled 249 participants with early syphilis, which encompasses the primary, secondary, and early latent stages of disease. Sixty-four percent of participants were living with HIV and 97% were men. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single intramuscular (IM) injection of BPG 2.4 million units (MU) or a series of three IM injections of BPG 2.4 MU at weekly intervals. All participants were monitored for safety. Biological markers of successful treatment in the blood—known as the serologic response to therapy—were examined at six months following treatment.

Seventy-six percent of participants in the single-dose group had a serologic response to treatment compared to 70% of participants in the three-dose group. The difference between groups was not statistically significant, even when participants were stratified by HIV status. One participant developed signs of neurosyphilis three days after starting BPG therapy and was excluded from the analysis. Three serious adverse events were reported but were not related to BPG.

“Syphilis has been studied and treated for more than a century, and BPG has been in use for more than 50 years, yet we are still acquiring knowledge to help us optimize treatment,” said Principal Investigator Edward W. Hook III, M.D., emeritus professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “We hope these promising results will be complemented by scientific advances in syphilis prevention and diagnosis.”

According to the study authors, the results from this trial provide substantial evidence that single-dose BPG 2.4 MU is as effective as three doses in treating early syphilis. More research is needed to understand the full potential of this abbreviated treatment strategy and to evaluate therapeutic approaches for all stages of syphilis, including late syphilis, latent syphilis of unknown duration, and clinical neurosyphilis.

The study was conducted through the NIAID-funded Sexually Transmitted Infections Clinical Trials Group.

For more information about this trial, please visit ClinicalTrials.gov using the study identifier  NCT03637660.

NIAID conducts and supports research—at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide—to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on the NIAID website.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health^®

Your heartbeat is one of the simplest signals your body gives off, but it reveals a lot about your health. It changes with your activity, stress, and even how hydrated you are.

Until recently, though, monitoring your heartrate meant using special devices like hospital monitors or smartwatches.

But now, researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), have shown that something as common as Wi-Fi can measure this vital sign with surprising accuracy.

The new system, called Pulse-Fi, transforms ordinary wireless signals into health trackers.

It promises a future where people can monitor their heart health without strapping on devices or relying on costly hospital machinery – all of this can be achieved using Wi-Fi devices that already exist in most homes.

Understanding Wi-Fi – the basics

Wi-Fi works by sending information through the air using radio waves, the same type of waves that carry music to your car radio. The difference is that Wi-Fi uses much higher frequencies, which lets it carry far more data.

Inside your router, a tiny transmitter turns digital information – like a video or a message – into patterns of radio waves.

Your phone or laptop has an antenna and receiver that catch those waves and turn them back into the pictures, sounds, or words you see on your screen.

It’s like tossing a ball back and forth, but instead of a ball, the “catch” is a stream of invisible energy carrying coded information.

Those radio waves don’t travel forever, though. Walls, floors, and even water in the human body can block or weaken them, which is the basic premise behind Pulse-Fi.

Turning Wi-Fi into Pulse-Fi

The UC Santa Cruz team included Professor Katia Obraczka, Ph.D. student Nayan Bhatia, and visiting high school researcher Pranay Kocheta.

Together, they created a low-cost method that pairs Wi-Fi transmitters and receivers with machine learning algorithms.

Wi-Fi waves move through space, bouncing and bending around objects. When those waves encounter the human body, tiny signal shifts occur.

Pulse-Fi’s algorithms analyze those faint disturbances to pick out the rhythm of a heartbeat while filtering out unrelated movements or environmental noise.

“The signal is very sensitive to the environment, so we have to select the right filters to remove all the unnecessary noise,” Bhatia said.

Heartbeats measured in seconds

The study involved 118 participants, and the results were impressive. After only five seconds of analysis,

Pulse-Fi measured heartrate with an error margin of just half a beat per minute. Longer monitoring improved accuracy even further.

The researchers tested people in varied body positions – sitting, standing, lying down, and even walking.

Regardless of position, the system worked reliably. Hardware placement in the room also made little difference, proving the system’s adaptability.

Low-cost components powered the tests. ESP32 chips, which cost under ten dollars, performed well.

Raspberry Pi devices, though more expensive, achieved even better results. Commercial-grade Wi-Fi hardware could improve performance further.

Distance doesn’t break accuracy

Another breakthrough was range. Pulse-Fi measured heart rate accurately at distances up to three meters, or nearly ten feet. Additional tests suggest it can perform even farther.

“What we found was that because of the machine learning model, that distance apart basically had no effect on performance, which was a very big struggle for past models,” Kocheta said.

“The other thing was position – all the different things you encounter in day to day life, we wanted to make sure we were robust to however a person is living.”

Creating Pulse-Fi datasets

To train their system, the team needed data. No existing dataset captured heartbeat effects on Wi-Fi signals from ESP32 devices, so they built their own. In the UC Santa Cruz Science and Engineering Library, they carefully set up ESP32 units alongside standard oximeters to generate parallel data streams.

This pairing provided a dependable “ground truth” for training, ensuring that every pulse recorded through Wi-Fi could be accurately matched with the medically verified heart rate.

They then trained a neural network to recognize which subtle signal changes represented heartbeats, focusing on even the faintest variations in the wireless data.

Alongside their newly built dataset, they validated Pulse-Fi using a large dataset from Brazil collected with Raspberry Pi hardware – one of the most comprehensive Wi-Fi-based health monitoring datasets available.

That cross-testing confirmed the system’s broad reliability and showed that Pulse-Fi could adapt across device types, room conditions, and participant groups. It demonstrated that a low-cost approach could achieve remarkable accuracy under diverse real-world scenarios.

Wi-Fi as health guardian

Pulse-Fi’s creators are not stopping here. They are now adapting the system to detect breathing rates. Early results show strong potential for diagnosing issues like sleep apnea, where subtle breathing patterns are crucial for detection.

Such a capability could give doctors new insights into sleep quality, respiratory problems, and long-term health risks – without the need for intrusive overnight monitoring.

By combining affordability, accuracy, and non-intrusiveness, Pulse-Fi points to a future where everyday Wi-Fi doubles as a quiet guardian of health.

Smart homes could eventually integrate the system, providing continuous tracking of both heart and lung function.

This advancement would make preventive care more accessible, offering people the chance to detect health issues early and share reliable data with clinicians.

What once required specialized devices might soon be handled by the invisible signals already surrounding us.

The study is published in the journal IEEE Xplore.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were nearly 148,000 new cases of colorectal cancers reported in the U.S. in 2022. More than 50,000 people in the U.S. died from colorectal cancer in 2023. Black Americans have the highest rates of colorectal cancer in the U.S., and they are more likely to die from it than other ethnicities and racial groups in America.

We know that diet plays a role in cancer risk. For example, there is evidence that people who follow plant-based diets have lower cancer risk than those who eat meat. Eating certain foods, such as broccoli, walnuts, and legumes, has been linked to a lower risk of colorectal cancer. And we know that eating more fiber can also help lower your risk of colorectal cancer.

Researchers from Boston University were curious about fish, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and CRC. Could eating more fish and PUFA-rich foods lower your risk? They published their findings in The Journal of Nutrition. Let’s break down what they found.

How Was This Study Conducted?

For this study, researchers were especially interested in Black American women and their risk of colorectal cancer, since Black Americans have the highest rate of colorectal cancer in the U.S. They drew their data from the Black Women’s Health Study (BWHS), a long-term study that ran from 1995 to 2021. From the BWHS, 52,690 women, ages 21 to 69, met the criteria researchers were looking for. Out of this population, 687 women developed colorectal cancer over the average follow-up time of 24 years. 

Researchers also had typical demographics that would be adjusted for during the statistical analyses. These included age, total energy intake (kcal/day), type 2 diabetes, BMI, smoking status, alcohol intake, red and processed meats (servings/day), fruits and vegetables (servings/day), education level, family history of colorectal cancer, aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) use, walking as exercise, vigorous physical activity, menopausal status and menopausal hormone use.

In addition, participants had completed two food frequency questionnaires: one in 1995, which included 68 food items, and a second one in 2001 that included 85 food items. From these questionnaires, researchers compiled information about participants’ intake of foods suspected to reduce colorectal cancer risk, and those believed to increase it, like processed meats. 

Based on participants’ responses, researchers divided them into four quartiles based on grams of fish eaten per 1,000 calories, with quartile one being the lowest intake of fish and quartile four the highest. And because colorectal cancer can be located in different parts of the colon and rectum, researchers also considered the type of colorectal cancer and its location in the gut. 

What Did This Study Find?

After running several statistical analyses, including adjusting for demographics and health and family history, researchers found that a high intake of baked fish—those who fell into quartile 4—was associated with a 26% decrease in colorectal cancer risk. The key here is that the fish was baked; interestingly, they did not find an association with total fish intake and a reduced colorectal cancer risk, probably because total fish intake includes all types of fish, including those low in PUFAs, and all types of cooking methods, including frying.

When looking at site-specific colorectal cancer, high baked fish intake was associated with a 44% decrease in proximal colon cancer. The proximal colon is the first part of the large intestine. It sits in the right upper abdomen. 

Researchers also found that higher intake of omega-3s in general, and having a healthy omega-3-to-omega-6 ratio, were associated with a 39% to 53% lower proximal colon cancer risk. 

There are several limitations to this study. First, anytime food frequency questionnaires are used, there is always a chance of recall bias; in other words, participants are essentially estimating how much of each food they eat and how often. Also, while researchers feel these results are generalizable to most Black American women, they can’t say if they apply to other populations. Lastly, there’s always a chance of error in statistical analysis and factors not taken into consideration skewing the results.

How Does This Apply to Real Life?

The American Institute for Cancer Research provides several diet-related recommendations for preventing cancer in general. They include:

• Eating a diet rich in whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes
• Limiting consumption of “fast foods” and other processed foods that are high in fat, starches or sugars
• Limiting consumption of red and processed meats
• Limiting consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks
• Limiting or avoiding alcohol

The AICR also recommends being physically active and trying to maintain a healthy weight. 

Omega-3s are a type of PUFA that most of us don’t get enough of. Including fish and seafood a couple of times a week is a good way to get this essential fatty acid. And it doesn’t have to be difficult or fussy. Crack open a can of tuna or salmon and toss it onto your salad, or make a tuna salad sandwich with it. We’ve even got a recipe for the best tuna salad if you’ve grown tired of your version. And if you’re looking to switch your tuna salad sandwich to salmon, we’ve got a recipe for that, too.

One thing we know about cancer and other diseases is that there is a connection to chronic inflammation. So eating more foods believed to be anti-inflammatory—like plants and baked fish—and avoiding or limiting those that are known to increase inflammation—like sugar, processed meats and alcohol—may help. If you’re ready to dive in, try our 30-Day No-Sugar Anti-Inflammatory Meal Plan. 

It’s also important to pay attention to which cooking method is most frequently used with your seafood. While having it fried now and then is fine, eating it baked or broiled appears to have more health benefits. According to these study authors, this is partly due to how baking better retains seafood’s omega-3s compared to frying or grilling. Researchers also note that frying fish in cooking oil can oxidize or degrade omega-3s in the seafood, and it can even add high amounts of fat and omega-6s, which most of us already get enough of. 

Our Expert Take

Colorectal cancer rates are highest among Black Americans. This study suggests that Black American women with the highest intake of baked fish may have the lower rates of colon cancer. It’s important to know the symptoms of colon cancer, including abdominal pain, fatigue and bloody stool, and get the recommended screenings for colorectal cancer. The current recommendation is that anyone with an average risk for colorectal cancer and no symptoms get a baseline screening at age 45. This may include an at-home test that involves sending in a stool sample for examination or a colonoscopy. 

Preventing cancer includes eating a diet high in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, lean proteins, fish and seafood, and limiting or avoiding sugar, processed meats, highly processed foods and alcohol. Move your body more often and try to get to and maintain a healthy weight. Managing your stressors, getting plenty of quality sleep and spending time with loved ones round out a whole-health approach to disease prevention and quality of life.