Author: admin_N2JhNDU

I grew up in India with my loving family, living in a 1,000-square-foot room. I was fearless and often experienced the bumps and bruises of an active boyhood. I always got up, dusted myself off, and walked again. I learned resilience and was a happy child.

Throughout my work as a physician, the importance of resilience has resonated. I lead research on the effects of consciousness, meditation, yoga, and spirituality on health. Little did I know my understanding of these issues was going to hit close to home.

Becoming a patient: A transformative day

It was an ordinary day. After long hours at work, I went home to enjoy dinner with my family. I did my daily exercise on the treadmill and relaxed, watching television with my son.

Suddenly, I experienced crushing pain. At first I didn’t want to take it seriously, but this pain was too much to bear and I fell on my knees. My wife quickly called 911, thinking it was a food allergy. When the EMTs arrived, I asked them to take me to the hospital where I work. There wasn’t time for that, they told me.

Those were the last words I heard.

Mindful awareness: Pain, but no suffering

I woke next to the squeaking sound of the bed wheels. I heard my best friend screaming, “I am here!” I felt a severe pain on my left shin. At that moment, I was simply aware of what was happening. The “watching myself” began. Was this a spiritual self-awareness, or the meta-awareness described by neuroscientists?

For the next few hours in the ICU, I had the range of disconcerting symptoms that accompanies a severe heart attack — the type of heart attack that only 5% of people survive. Yet it was like I was watching myself in a movie. While I was aware of profound discomforts that should have been terrifying, I felt no suffering. This experience stands out to me even today.

During my heart attack, I experienced a distance between myself, my body, and my mind. I was the witness of the event, not its victim. I believe that this is the result of a regular yoga and meditation practice that transformed my life forever. The type of yoga I practice emphasizes this distance between mind and body, but such benefits are not unique to any single type of yoga or method of meditation. My personal preference is Sadhguru yoga — you can try a simple Sadhguru meditation exercise here.

Bringing intention to illness

My experience is a powerful reminder that aligning spirituality with health not only can help you stay well, but can help you weather “dis-ease” with more intention.

Facing our own mortality can shake us into acknowledging that our time on this earth is indeed short. It serves up a strong reminder to prioritize the things that matter the most in your life. Before the heart attack, my life was driven primarily through intellectual knowledge. But now, I experientially know that there is much more to life than what my intellect perceives. I ask myself: Have I lived my life to the fullest? What impact have I had on the people around me, the city I live in, and the planet I walk on?

We have no control over what life throws at us. But we have a lot of say over what happens within us. I am grateful to the unbroken chain of resuscitation, science, and, I believe, my spiritual practices. As the new year begins, I’d encourage you to consider making spirituality — however you define it — a part of your health goals.

A student suddenly develops leg pain and paralysis; soon hundreds of schoolmates have similar symptoms. Nuns begin biting each other, and soon the same thing is happening at other nearby convents. Three schoolgirls begin laughing uncontrollably, sometimes going on for days. When nearly 100 classmates develop the same problem, the school is forced to close down.

Yet in each case, no medical explanation was ever found. Eventually, these came to be considered examples of mass sociogenic illness, which many of us know by different names: mass hysteria, epidemic hysteria, or mass psychogenic illness. Over the years, many possible sources for these illnesses have emerged — and today TikTok and other social media sites may be providing fertile ground.

What is sociogenic illness?

The hallmark of these conditions is that multiple people within a social group develop similar, medically inexplicable, and often bizarre symptoms. In some cases, those affected believe they have been exposed to something dangerous, such as a toxin or contagion, although thorough investigation finds none.

The suffering caused by these illnesses is quite real and profound —even in the absence of a clear cause and presence of normal test results. And no, a person with sociogenic illness is not "just looking for attention" or "doing it on purpose."

Labeling people as hypochondriacs or "crazy," or illness as "hysteria," isn’t helpful. Hysteria and hysterical — drawn from hystera, the Greek word for womb — are loaded terms, often used to diminish women as psychologically unstable or prone through biology to uncontrollable outbursts of emotion or fear. And while some researchers suggest these illnesses more commonly affect women, most of the published literature on this condition is decades old and based on a limited number of cases.

Common features of mass sociogenic illness

Past outbreaks include illnesses in which people suddenly fainted; developed nausea, headaches, or shortness of breath; or had convulsive movements, involuntary vocalizations, or paralysis. Usually, these outbreaks occurred among people in close proximity, such as at a school or workplace. Rarely, cases appear to have been spread by shows on television. Now, social media is a possible new source.

Certain features are typical:

• experiencing symptoms that have no clear medical explanation despite extensive investigation
• symptoms that are temporary, benign, and unusual for those affected
• rapid onset of symptoms and rapid recovery
• those affected are connected by membership and interaction within a social group or by physical proximity.

Generally, treatment includes:

• ruling out medical explanations for symptoms
• shutting down a facility where it occurred
• removing people from the site of supposed exposure (online or not)
• separating affected individuals from one another.

Reassurance regarding the lack of danger, and demonstrating that the outbreak stops once individuals are no longer in close contact with each other, generally reduces anxiety and fosters recovery.

Tics and TikTok: a new driver of sociogenic illness?

The first known examples of social media-induced sociogenic illness were recognized in the last year or two, a time coinciding with the pandemic. Neurologists began seeing increasing numbers of patients, especially teenage girls, with unusual, involuntary movements and vocalizations reminiscent of Tourette syndrome. After ruling out other explanations, the tics in these teenagers seemed related to many hours spent watching TikTok videos of people who report having Tourette syndrome and other movement disorders. Posted by social media influencers, these videos have billions of page views on TikTok; similar videos are available on YouTube and other sites.

What helped? Medications, counselling, and stress management, according to some reports. Avoiding social media posts about movement disorders and reassurance regarding the nature of the illness also are key.

Geographic boundaries may have become less relevant; now, the influences driving these illnesses may include social media, not just physical proximity.

Dancing plagues, mad gassers, and June bugs

Sociogenic illnesses are nothing new. If you had lived in the Middle Ages, you might recall the "dancing plague." Across Europe, scores of afflicted individuals reportedly began to involuntarily and deliriously dance until exhaustion. And let’s not forget the writing tremor epidemic of 1892, the Mad Gasser of Mattoon during the mid-1940s, and the June bug epidemic of 1962.

The anxieties and concerns of the times play a role. Before the 1900s, spiritual or religious overtones were common. When concerns were raised about tainted foods and environmental toxins in the early 1900s, unusual odors or foods sparked a rash of palpitations, hyperventilation, dizziness, or other anxiety symptoms. More recently, some residents of the West Bank who thought nearby bombings released chemical weapons reported dizziness and fainting, although no evidence of chemical weapons was found.

Closer to home, reports are swirling that Havana syndrome may represent another example of mass sociogenic illness, although no firm conclusions can yet be made. Initially described among members of the US State Department in 2016 in Havana, Cuba, individuals who experienced this suddenly developed headache, fatigue, nausea, anxiety, and memory loss.

These symptoms have been reported by hundreds of people in different parts of the world. Many are foreign service workers attached to US diplomatic missions. Soon after the first case reports, suspicion arose that a new weaponized energy source was causing the illness, such as microwaves fired from some distance. Cuba, Russia, or other adversaries have been blamed for this. Thus far, the true nature and cause of this condition is uncertain.

Nocebo, not placebo

One theory suggests that sociogenic illness is a form of the nocebo effect. A placebo — like a sugar pill or another inactive treatment — may help people feel better due to expectation of benefit. The nocebo effect describes the potential that people could have a negative experience based purely on the expectation that it would occur.

Think of it this way: you may be more likely to experience a headache from a medication if you’ve been warned of this possible side effect, compared with another person warned about a different side effect. Similarly, let’s say you see people fainting. If you believe this is caused by a substance they — and you! — were exposed to, you may faint, too, even if there’s no actual exposure to a substance that could cause fainting.

The bottom line

We don’t know why some develop sociogenic illness while others don’t. Plenty of people have lots of stress. Millions of people were stuck inside during the pandemic and turned to social media for more hours each day than they’d like to admit. Many people are prone to the power of suggestion. Yet, sociogenic illness remains relatively rare. Despite existing for hundreds of years, much about this condition remains mysterious. An open mind is important. Some cases of sociogenic illness may be due to an environmental toxin or contagion that wasn’t detected at the time.

If you or a loved one spends a lot of time on social media and has developed an illness that defies explanation, talk to your healthcare providers about the possibility of social media-induced sociogenic illness. We may soon learn that it’s not so rare after all.

Some things are not debatable. Rain falls from the sky. Elevators go up and down. Orange traffic cones are orange. But because we interpret the world through our experiences, a lot isn’t so definitive.

The boss might say, “Good job,” and we wonder why they didn’t say, “Great job.” We see someone looking in our direction and they seem angry, so we believe that they’re mad at us, and no other explanation makes sense.

What’s happening is that we’re distorting our experience, jumping to conclusions, mind reading, and going to the worst-case scenario. When we do this, we shrink our successes and maximize our “failures,” and because it can be an automatic process, it’s hard to tell when it’s happening. “You don’t know you’re wearing magnifying glasses,” says Dr. Luana Marques, associate professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School.

So what can you do to see things more clearly and with a more balanced perspective? It takes practice and a willingness to tolerate discomfort, but as with addressing any problem, it starts with awareness.

What’s happening when we magnify failures and jump to negative conclusions?

We like to process information quickly, and we use filters to help do that. If we believe, “I’m no good,” all words and behaviors that support that contention just make everything easier.

“The brain doesn’t want to spend energy trying to fight that,” Marques says. And the brain responds depending on the distortion. If something causes anxiety, say from a curious look or comment, the limbic system is activated and we’re in fight-or-flight mode, hyper-focused on the threat, not thinking creatively or considering alternative, less threatening options.

But sometimes, there’s no threat in play. We’re just thinking, probably overthinking, when we question our abilities and minimize our accomplishments.

So what can you do about it?

Label the type of thinking distortion

It helps to define our distortions, the common ones being:

• Catastrophizing: Taking a small incident and going to the worst-case scenario.
• Black-and-white thinking: Seeing only all-or-nothing possibilities.
• Jumping to conclusions: Assuming what will happen rather than waiting to see what will actually happen.
• Mind reading: Assuming what someone is thinking without much evidence.

When you label it, you can better understand and recognize what your go-to distortion is, because “we tend to do one more than another,” Marques says.

After that, it helps to take your emotional temperature by asking: Am I stressed? Am I sweating? Is my heart pounding or my breathing shallow? It brings you more into the moment and it allows you to think about what you were doing that brought on the response, such as, “I was trying to guess the outcome.” It’s another way to pinpoint the distortion you tend to favor, she says.

Challenge the distortion

Whichever distortion it is, you want to examine your assumption by looking for other evidence. If you question your boss’s reaction to you, ask yourself: What does my boss really say? What does this person say about other people? Have I received raises and promotions? Am I given good projects?

An easy trap with distortions is that they’re plausible. A person who is mad at me would give me a look. A person who hated me wouldn’t text me back. Maybe so, but think of five other possible explanations, Marques says. This exercise engages the prefrontal cortex, which takes you out of the fight-or-flight mode and expands your thinking. You’re then problem-solving and not solely keyed on one option.

You also want to ask an essential question: is this thinking helpful? You might realize that all your thinking/wondering/worrying does is make you anxious. Gaining that presence might be enough to get you off the path of distorted thinking. “Asking and answering the question about your thinking pauses the brain, and you potentially see the world differently,” she says.

Being balanced and kind to ourselves

As you examine and attempt to control your distortions, be mindful of how you treat yourself. Self-criticism is a really easy trap to fall into, but try talking to yourself as you would a friend. Better yet, imagine you’re speaking to a child. Your language would be considerate, supportive, and you wouldn’t use words such as “stupid” or “dumb.” This approach also shifts you into the detached, third person. “You get out of your head,” Marques says. “We’re cleaning our magnifying glasses a little bit.”

Lastly, realize that you’re not looking to switch your attitude from “I’m unworthy” to “I’m super-great.” That’s just trading one extreme for another. All you want is to counterbalance your distortion, then let it go. Countering thinking distortions is a lot like meditation, where you practice acknowledging your thoughts without getting hooked onto them.  “You don’t have to magnify or minimize.” Marques says.

Just about everyone experiences knee pain at some point in their lives. Most of the time, it follows an injury or strenuous exercise and resolves in a few days, but knee pain can last months or even years, depending on the cause. A new study suggests telehealth programs designed for people with knee osteoarthritis may help ease pain, improve ability to function, and possibly even lead to weight loss.

What is osteoarthritis of the knee?

Osteoarthritis (OA) — the age-related, “wear-and-tear” degeneration of the knee joint — is the number one cause of chronic knee pain, affecting nearly a quarter of people age 40 or older. It’s responsible for most of the 600,000 knee replacements in the US each year, and more than $27 billion in annual healthcare spending.

How is it treated?

No treatment for knee OA is ideal or works in every case. Standard approaches to treatment include pain management, exercise, and loss of excess weight.

For pain, people with knee OA may consider

• anti-inflammatory drugs that are rubbed on the skin, such as diclofenac gel
• anti-inflammatory medicines, such as ibuprofen
• pain relievers, such as acetaminophen
• injections of corticosteroids.

Opiates, arthroscopic surgery, and other injected treatments are not routinely recommended due to risks, lack of proven benefit, or both. Knee replacement surgery has a high success rate for knee OA, but is generally considered a last resort because it’s major surgery that requires significant recovery time.

Virtual visits can help

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, many people with knee OA regularly saw their healthcare providers to

• monitor their pain and ability to function
• consider changes in treatment
• check for treatment side effects
• determine if other problems are contributing to symptoms.

It turns out, much of this can be done virtually. The pandemic made it a necessity. And a new study suggests it works.

What did the study on knee osteoarthritis find?

The study demonstrated that telehealth visits are a good way to provide care to people with knee OA. The researchers enrolled nearly 400 participants who had knee OA and were overweight or obese. They were divided into three groups:

• Group 1 was given access to a website that provided information about OA, including pain medications, exercise, weight loss, and pain management.
• Group 2 received the same information as group 1, and also engaged in six exercise sessions with a physical therapist by videoconference. These sessions lasted 20 to 45 minutes and included advice about self-management, behavioral counseling, and education about choosing exercise equipment.
• Group 3 followed the same format as group 2, and also had six consults by videoconference with a dietitian about weight loss, nutrition, and behavioral resources. These sessions also lasted 20 to 45 minutes.

After six months, participants in groups 2 and 3 reported pain relief compared to Group 1. On a pain scale of 1 to 10:

• group 3 improved more than group 1 by 1.5 points
• group 2 improved more than group 1 by about 1 point.

People in groups 2 and 3 also had better scores for function compared to group 1. All of these improvements were considered meaningful and held up for at least 12 months.

In addition, those assigned to group 3 lost about 20 pounds over the course of the study, while the other groups’ weights were nearly unchanged. That’s an important finding, because excess weight can worsen osteoarthritis of the knee. Losing excess weight can improve symptoms and help prevent the arthritis from getting worse.

Since there was no comparison with in-person care, it’s impossible to say whether these virtual visits were better, worse, or similar to an office visit. In addition, this study did not report the costs of these virtual sessions, the long-term impact of virtual visits, or whether repeated virtual visits could maintain the improvements people reported.

The bottom line

The pandemic is giving researchers an opportunity to seriously study the potential value and limitations of virtual care on a large scale. If these visits are as good as or better than in-person visits for certain conditions and the costs are no greater, that’s a big deal. A virtual visit can eliminate time spent in travel and the waiting room, and possible parking fees that can make a brief doctor’s visit an expensive undertaking that takes half the day. Virtual care also has the potential to reach patients who otherwise cannot get to their doctor’s office.

Of course, telehealth isn’t equally available to everyone due to language barriers, technical abilities, health insurance plans, or simply not having access to smartphones, computers, or data plans. Some states are letting emergency measures supporting telehealth services expire. And some insurers may resort to pre-pandemic rules about coverage or physician licensing that create uncertainty about the future of telehealth.

This study and others suggest that it may be a mistake to curb telehealth just when it’s catching on. More studies like the one described here may make the case to insurers, regulatory agencies, healthcare providers, and patients that the future of medical care should rely on more, not less, virtual healthcare, and encourage approaches that overcome barriers to its use.

The Biggest Loser was a popular reality television show that ran on NBC for over a decade starting in 2004. In it, participants with obesity competed with each other through intense physical challenges and ate a reduced-calorie diet to see who could lose the highest percentage of body weight.

Prior findings from studies of The Biggest Loser contestants showed not only that metabolism slows drastically following significant weight loss, but also that regaining the lost weight does not restore metabolism back to its pre-weight loss levels. This means people who have lost large amounts of weight must adhere to an extremely low-calorie intake in order to maintain that weight loss. One show contestant lost 239 pounds and achieved a weight of 191 pounds, yet six years later, after regaining 100 pounds of that lost weight, had to consume an 800-calorie-per-day diet to maintain his weight.

New research about physical activity and metabolic rate

A more recent study by the same researcher aims to explain and interpret the findings from The Biggest Loser in light of an energy conservation model. In what he calls the "constrained model of human energy expenditure," Dr. Kevin Hall theorizes that because the contestants engaged in large, sustained periods of intense physical activity, their metabolisms slowed substantially in order to reduce their metabolic rates and thereby minimize changes in total energy expenditure. In other words, their bodies made automatic compensatory changes to maintain energy balance.

Of particular interest is the fact that at the end of The Biggest Loser competition, the degree of metabolism reduction was not related to contestants’ subsequent weight regain, and in fact, the contestants that maintained the greatest weight loss six years after the competition actually had the greatest amount of metabolism adaptation. This suggests that metabolic adaptation is a response to the change in lifestyle, namely the dramatic increase in physical activity observed in those who maintained the most weight loss. Fortunately for those trying to maintain significant weight loss, the compensatory mechanisms do not completely counteract lifestyle changes, so it is possible to keep off substantial amounts of weight.

What have we learned about weight loss from studying The Biggest Loser contestants?

Taken together, what we’ve learned from these studies on The Biggest Loser contestants is that while short-term reductions in resting metabolic rate are related to the extreme calorie restriction at the time of active weight loss, the larger, persistent metabolic adaptation that takes place later is related to substantial sustained increases in physical activity.

Results from the National Weight Control Registry (established in 1993 to determine characteristics of individuals successful at keeping weight off) have long demonstrated that physical activity is a key component of successful weight maintenance. What we don’t yet know is how sustained increases in physical activity lead to improved maintenance of lost weight, despite the compensatory long-term reduction in resting metabolic rate. Dr. Hall theorizes this could potentially be because of the effect of physical activity on lowering appetite.

But as is always the case, additional studies are needed to fully clarify the relationship between body composition, physical activity, energy regulation, and weight maintenance. In the meantime, we should continue to follow the well-founded advice to eat healthy whole foods in moderation, avoid processed foods, and engage in regular physical activity to maintain a healthy body weight.

Let’s file this under unsurprising news: many American adults report drinking more since the pandemic began in March 2020, according to a survey on alcohol use in the time of COVID-19. If you’re among them, you might want to start 2022 on a healthy note by joining the millions who abstain from alcohol during Dry January. Your heart, liver, memory, and more could be the better for it.

What did this survey find?

The researchers asked 832 individuals across the US about their alcohol intake over a typical 30-day period. Participants reported drinking alcohol on 12.2 days and consuming almost 27 alcoholic drinks during that time. More than one-third reported engaging in binge drinking (consuming five or more drinks for men and four or more drinks for women in about two hours).

Moreover, nearly two-thirds of the participants said their drinking had increased compared to their consumption rates before COVID. Their reasons? Higher stress, more alcohol availability, and boredom.

But we can’t blame COVID entirely for the recent rise in alcohol consumption. Even before the pandemic, alcohol use among older adults had been trending upward.

Why try Dry January?

If you recognize your own behavior in this survey and wish to cut down on your alcohol intake, or simply want to begin the new year with a clean slate, join in the Dry January challenge by choosing not to drink beer, wine, or spirits for one month. Dry January began in 2012 as a public health initiative from Alcohol Change UK, a British charity. Now millions take part in this health challenge every year.

While drinking a moderate amount of alcohol is associated with health benefits for some people in observational studies, heavier drinking and long-term drinking can increase physical and mental problems, especially among older adults. Heart and liver damage, a higher cancer risk, a weakened immune system, memory issues, and mood disorders are common issues.

Yet, cutting out alcohol for even a month can make a noticeable difference in your health. Regular drinkers who abstained from alcohol for 30 days slept better, had more energy, and lost weight, according to a study in BMJ Open. They also lowered their blood pressure and cholesterol levels and reduced cancer-related proteins in their blood.

Tips for a successful Dry January

A month may seem like a long time, but most people can be successful. Still, you may need assistance to stay dry in January. Here are some tips:

• Find a substitute non-alcoholic drink. For social situations, or when you crave a cocktail after a long day, reach for alcohol-free beverages like sparkling water, soda, or virgin beverages (non-alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks.)

  Non-alcoholic beer or wine also is an option, but some brands still contain up to 0.5% alcohol by volume, so check the label. "Sugar is often added to these beverages to improve the taste, so try to choose ones that are low in sugar," says Dawn Sugarman, a research psychologist at Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital in the division of alcohol, drugs, and addiction.

• Avoid temptations. Keep alcohol out of your house. When you are invited to someone’s home, bring your non-alcoholic drinks with you.
• Create a support group. Let friends and family know about your intentions and encourage them to keep you accountable. Better yet, enlist someone to do the challenge with you.
• Use the Try Dry app. This free app helps you track your drinking, set personal goals, and offers motivational information like calories and money saved from not drinking. It’s aimed at cutting back on or cutting out alcohol, depending on your choices.
• Don’t give up. If you slip up, don't feel guilty. Just begin again the next day.

Check your feelings

Sugarman recommends people also use Dry January to reflect on their drinking habits. It’s common for people to lose their alcohol cravings and realize drinking need not occupy such an ample space in their lives. If this is you, consider continuing for another 30 days, or just embrace your new attitude toward drinking where it’s an occasional indulgence.

If you struggle during the month, or give up after a week or so, you may need extra help cutting back. An excellent resource is the Rethinking Drinking site created by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). For the record, NIAAA recommends limiting alcohol to two daily drinks or less for men and no more than one drink a day for women.

Be aware of problems that might crop up

Dry January can reveal potential alcohol problems, including symptoms of alcohol withdrawal ranging from mild to serious, depending on how much you usually drink. Mild symptoms include anxiety, shaky hands, headache, nausea, vomiting, sweating, and insomnia. Severe symptoms often kick in within two or three days after you stop drinking. They can include hallucinations, delirium, racing heart rate, and fever. "If you suffer alcohol withdrawal symptoms at any time, you should seek immediate medical help," says Sugarman.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on so many people in so many ways. For babies born during this pandemic, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that the damage has potential to be lifelong.

The first three years of life are crucial for brain development. And it’s not just the health of babies that matters, but the interactions between babies and their caregivers. Babies need to be touched, held, spoken to, smiled at, played with. As they receive and respond to those interactions, in a “serve and return” kind of way, neural connections are built in the brain. When babies don’t have those interactions, or enough of them, their brains don’t develop as they should — and can even be literally smaller.

When you are a stressed or depressed parent or caregiver, it can be hard to find the time, let alone the energy or interest, to talk to and play with your infant. There are multiple studies showing that maternal depression, poverty, and other family stressors can change the development of a child forever.

How was the study done?

In this study, part of an ongoing study of mothers and babies, researchers from Columbia University looked at the development of three groups of 6-month-old babies. Two of the groups were born during the COVID-19 pandemic; the mothers of one group had COVID-19, while the mothers of the other did not. The third group was a historical cohort (a group of babies who were born before the pandemic).

Mothers participating in the study used an Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) to record their babies’ development. The researchers noted no difference in the development of the two groups of babies born during the pandemic, suggesting that prenatal exposure to COVID-19 doesn’t affect development, which is great news. But the babies born during the pandemic scored lower in gross motor, fine motor, and social-emotional development than the babies born before the pandemic. Examples of developmental tasks for infants this age are rolling from back to tummy (gross motor), reaching for or grasping a toy with both hands (fine motor), and acting differently to strangers than to parents or familiar people (social-emotional development).

What does it suggest about infant development during the pandemic?

It’s just one study, and we need to do more research to better understand this, but the findings are not really surprising given what we know about infant development. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a lot of stress — emotional, financial, and otherwise — for so many families. It has also markedly affected the number and kind of interactions we have with other people. Babies are on average interacting with fewer people (and seeing fewer faces because of masking) than they did before the pandemic.

Even though we need to do more research, this study should serve as an alarm bell for us as a society. The children of this pandemic may carry some scars forever if we don’t act now. We’ve been seeing the emotional and educational effects on children; we need to be aware of the developmental effects on babies, too. All of these could permanently change their lives.

What can we do to address these challenges?

We need to find ways to support families with young children, financially and emotionally. We need to be energetic and creative, and work every angle we can. While our government should play a role, communities and individuals can help too.

We need to refer families to and fund early intervention programs around the country that support the development of children from birth to 3 years of age. Because of the pandemic, many of these programs have moved to virtual visits, which can make them less effective. So we need to get creative here, too. We can’t just wait for the pandemic to be over.

And parents and caregivers of infants and toddlers need to know about this research — and ask for help. It’s understandable and natural for parents to think that babies are too small and unaware to be affected by the pandemic. But they are affected, in ways that could be long-lasting. Talk to your doctor about what you can do to help yourself, your family, and your baby’s future.

Follow me on Twitter @drClaire

Boutique or specialty fitness studios offer all sorts of ways to exercise, such as strength training, indoor cycling, and kickboxing. Other popular options, like yoga and Pilates, are less likely to leave you sweaty and breathless, emphasizing flexibility and measured movement. Now a new trend has emerged: studios that focus solely on stretching. What are these studios offering, and will you benefit from this focus?

What are stretch studios offering?

These studios, which include StretchLab, StretchMed, LYMBYR, and others, provide assisted stretching sessions, either one-on-one or in small groups. The promised benefits range from reasonable goals of increasing flexibility and range of motion to more questionable assertions, such as preventing injuries and eliminating chronic pain.

“If you participate in certain sports that require flexibility, like dance or gymnastics, stretching may be important to maintain range of motion,” says Dr. Adam Tenforde, associate professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, and sports medicine physician at Spaulding Rehabilitation and Mass General Brigham.

But if your focus is on improving your overall health, the evidence to support stretching is sorely lacking — especially compared with the wealth of evidence supporting the benefits of regular, moderate physical activity.

“Contrary to popular belief, there’s no consistent evidence that stretching helps prevent injuries,” says Dr. Tenforde. And if you have an existing injury, such as a muscle or joint sprain, aggressively stretching that tissue could actually make the injury worse, he adds.

The “stretch therapists” and “flexologists” at stretching studios may have certain certifications and training, but they’re probably not qualified to recognize and address health-related causes for pain or stiffness. If you have a previous or current musculoskeletal injury, you’re much better off going to a physical therapist who has the expertise and training to treat you correctly.

Feeling tight and stiff?

If you’re free from injuries but just feel tight and stiff, try a yoga class, which can provide added benefits like improving your balance and helping you relax and de-stress. Or consider tai chi, a gentle, meditative form of exercise that can help lower blood pressure and enhance balance. Another option is to get a massage.

If you decide to try assisted stretching offered at a studio, listen to your body, and make sure you communicate how you’re feeling with the therapist working on you, Dr. Tenforde advises.

But you’ll probably do more for your overall health by spending that time taking a brisk walk or some other type of exercise instead, he says. Most Americans don’t meet the federal recommended guidelines for physical activity, which call for 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity exercise and muscle-strengthening activities twice weekly. “As doctors, we’re dealing more with diseases related to inactivity, not diseases of inflexibility, says Dr. Tenforde.

Want to do your stretching at home?

Three easy morning exercises — an A-B-C routine of arm sweeps, back bend, and chair pose — can help ease morning stiffness. This also works well during the day if you spend too much time sitting.

Stretching at home could save you money and time. These tips can help you get the most out of at-home morning stretches or other flexibility routines.

• Warm up muscles first. Much like taffy, muscles stretch more easily when warm.
• Feel no pain. Stretch only to the point of mild tension, never to the point of pain.
• Pay attention to posture and good form. Posture counts whether you’re sitting, standing, or moving. Photos of stretches tell only part of the story, so read instructions carefully to get form right.
• Focus on the muscle being stretched. One side of your body often is tighter than the other. Work on balancing this over time.
• Breathe. Breathe comfortably while stretching rather than holding your breath.
• Practice often. You’ll make the best flexibility gains if you stretch frequently — daily, or on as many days of the week as possible. At the very least, try to do stretches two or three times a week.

It’s winter, as a glance outside your window may tell you. COVID-19 is circulating at record levels across much of the country. Keeping our immune systems healthy has taken on new importance, as many of us hope to ward off flu and winter colds as well as worrisome variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, whether Delta or Omicron.

Not surprisingly, marketers are taking advantage of our concerns. A whole cottage industry is devoted to chewables, pills, and powders that claim to “boost” or “support” your immune system. Some people even claim that healthy eating and vigorous workouts are all you truly need to avoid getting sick. But are any of these claims true?

The best strategies for staying healthy

I asked Michael Starnbach, professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, for his advice on steps that can help us stay in good health this winter.

“Vaccination, skepticism of any other products claiming immune benefits, and staying away from places without universal masking are the best strategies,” he says. Here’s why these approaches count.

Get vaccinated

When it comes to improving your immune response, getting the COVID vaccine and booster shot, along with other recommended vaccinations, is best. Think of vaccination as a cheat sheet for your immune system. When a viral invader makes its way into your body, your immune system prepares to fight. But first it has to figure out what’s attacking, which takes time — time that allows the virus to keep multiplying inside your body.

A vaccine introduces the immune system to the invader ahead of time and allows it to develop a battle plan. So when the virus does show up at the door, your immune system can react quickly, which may mean no symptoms, or at least preventing serious illness. A booster shot is a refresher course to keep those lessons fresh.

While it is possible to become infected even if you are vaccinated, your immune system is primed to clear the virus more rapidly, so the infection is far less likely be severe or life-threatening. “We should get all available vaccines and boosters so that if we do get infected, we have a better chance of having a mild case,” says Starnbach.

Be skeptical

Any number of vitamin formulations and probiotics claim to boost or support your immune system. And while there is a grain of truth to some of those claims, the big picture is that they often don’t work. For example, vitamins do help immune function, but really only in people who have a vitamin deficiency — not in an average, healthy adult.

Probiotics also hold promise. This mini-universe of organisms living in your gut called the microbiome does play an important role in immunity. But experts don’t know enough about that role to create a product that can manipulate the microbiome to enhance immunity. That may change over the next decade — but for now, view probiotic claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, says Starnbach.

Mask up

Ultimately, nothing is better at keeping you well than avoiding exposure to a virus altogether. Wearing a mask isn’t on anyone’s favorites list, but it can help reduce the risk of spreading COVID (and some other viruses) to people who are unvaccinated, including children who aren’t yet eligible for the shot, and people with immune system deficiencies who don’t get adequate protection from the vaccine, says Starnbach. Masks are most effective when everyone around you is wearing one. “We now know clearly that the best way to prevent the unvaccinated from becoming infected is by indoor mask mandates,” says Starnbach.

Practice good health habits

But what about exercise and good nutrition? Do they have a role in supporting your immune system?

The answer is yes. Strategies to improve your overall health are never wasted. Healthy people are more resistant to disease, and often fare better if they are infected. Good health habits can help your immune system operate at its peak. Exercise and good nutrition aren’t the only habits that can help. You should also try to get consistent, high-quality sleep and manage your stress level. Lack of sleep and chronic stress can impair immune function.

But if you hope to avoid COVID-19 and other viruses, these strategies should come in addition to — not as a substitute for — vaccination and other protective measures.

Various versions of low-carbohydrate diets have been popular for many years. The details of what is allowed and what is not vary quite a bit, and the amount of carbohydrates also differs. Too often these diets contain plates piled high with bacon, meat, eggs, and cheese. Due to the high saturated fat content in these diets, doctors and nutritionists worry about their potential adverse effect on cardiovascular disease.

The American Heart Association recommends aiming for about 13 grams of saturated fat, which is about 6% of 2,000 calorie diet. Recently, a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that at least in the short term a low carb diet with a higher amount of saturated fat might still be heart-healthy. But is it that simple? Let’s take a look at what this randomized diet trial did and what the results really mean.

What did the study actually involve?

The 164 participants in this study were all considered overweight or obese, and had just finished a weight loss trial to lose 12% of their body weight. They were randomly assigned to one of three diets containing different proportions of carbohydrates and fat. Protein content was kept the same (at 20% calories) for everyone. They were not planning to lose any more weight.

The three diets were:

• Low carbohydrates (20%), high fat (60%), saturated fat comprising 21% of calories: this resembles a typical low-carbohydrate diet and has much higher saturated fat than recommended.
• Moderate carbohydrate (40%), moderate fat (40%), saturated fat comprising 14% of calories: this is not far from the typical American diet of 50% carbohydrates and 33% fat, and it is quite similar to a typical Mediterranean diet, which is slightly lower in carbohydrates and higher in fat than an American diet.
• High carbohydrate (60%), low fat (20%), saturated fat comprising 7% of calories: this meets the recommendation of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and is a typical high-carbohydrate diet, including a lot of grains, starchy vegetables, and fruits or juices.

The study participants received food prepared for them for 20 weeks. They had their blood measured for a number of risk factors of cardiovascular disease, and a lipoprotein insulin resistance (LPIR) score was calculated using a number of blood markers to reflect the risk for cardiovascular disease. (LPIR is a score that measures both insulin resistance and abnormal blood cholesterol all in one number, and it is used for research purposes.)

The researchers found that at the end of eating these diets for five months, the participants in each of the three groups had similar values of cardiovascular disease markers, such as the LIPR score an and cholesterol blood levels.

What were the participants actually eating?

Alas, those who were eating the low-carbohydrate diet were not piling up their plate with steak and bacon, and those eating the high-carbohydrate diets were not drinking unlimited soda. All three diets were high in plant foods and low in highly processed foods (it is easier to stick to a diet when all the food is prepared for you). Even the low-carbohydrate group was eating lentils, a good amount of vegetables, and quite a bit of nuts.

Even the two diets with higher than recommended amounts of saturated fats also were high in the healthy poly- and monounsaturated fats as well. For example, the diets contained a combination of higher amounts of healthy (salmon) and a small amount of unhealthy (sausage) choices. In addition, fiber intake (at about 22 grams/day) was slightly higher than the average American intake (18 grams/day). Overall, except for saturated fat being higher than recommended, the diet as a whole was quite healthy.

What is the take-home message?

Striving for a plant-based diet with saturated fat being limited to 7% of total calories remains an ideal goal. But for people who choose a low carb, high fat diet to jump start weight loss, keeping saturated fat this low even for a few months is challenging. This study at least provides some evidence that higher amounts of saturated fat in the context of a healthy diet do not seem to adversely affect certain cardiovascular risk markers in the short term. How it would affect actual disease — such as heart attack, stroke, and diabetes — in the long run is unknown. However, there is ample evidence showing that a diet that consists of healthy foods and has moderate amounts of carbohydrate and fat can lower the risk of these diseases.

Preventing diseases is a long-term process; a healthy diet must not only be effective, but it should also be flexible enough for people to stick to in the long run. Could a diet with lower amounts of healthy carbohydrates and ample healthy fats with a bit more saturated fat be healthy enough? As the researchers state, we need long-term testing to help answer the question.