Health Insurers Limit Coverage of Prosthetic Limbs, Questioning Their Medical Necessity
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
When Michael Adams was researching health insurance options in 2023, he had one very specific requirement: coverage for prosthetic limbs.
Adams, 51, lost his right leg to cancer 40 years ago, and he has worn out more legs than he can count. He picked a gold plan on the Colorado health insurance marketplace that covered prosthetics, including microprocessor-controlled knees like the one he has used for many years. That function adds stability and helps prevent falls.
But when his leg needed replacing last January after about five years of everyday use, his new marketplace health plan wouldn’t authorize it. The roughly $50,000 leg with the electronically controlled knee wasn’t medically necessary, the insurer said, even though Colorado law leaves that determination up to the patient’s doctor, and his has prescribed a version of that leg for many years, starting when he had employer-sponsored coverage.
“The electronic prosthetic knee is life-changing,” said Adams, who lives in Lafayette, Colorado, with his wife and two kids. Without it, “it would be like going back to having a wooden leg like I did when I was a kid.” The microprocessor in the knee responds to different surfaces and inclines, stiffening up if it detects movement that indicates its user is falling.
People who need surgery to replace a joint typically don’t encounter similar coverage roadblocks. In 2021, 1.5 million knee or hip joint replacements were performed in United States hospitals and hospital-owned ambulatory facilities, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ. The median price for a total hip or knee replacement without complications at top orthopedic hospitals was just over $68,000 in 2020, according to one analysis, though health plans often negotiate lower rates.
To people in the amputee community, the coverage disparity amounts to discrimination.
“Insurance covers a knee replacement if it’s covered with skin, but if it’s covered with plastic, it’s not going to cover it,” said Jeffrey Cain, a family physician and former chair of the board of the Amputee Coalition, an advocacy group. Cain wears two prosthetic legs, having lost his after an airplane accident nearly 30 years ago.
AHIP, a trade group for health plans, said health plans generally provide coverage when the prosthetic is determined to be medically necessary, such as to replace a body part or function for walking and day-to-day activity. In practice, though, prosthetic coverage by private health plans varies tremendously, said Ashlie White, chief strategy and programs officer at the Amputee Coalition. Even though coverage for basic prostheses may be included in a plan, “often insurance companies will put caps on the devices and restrictions on the types of devices approved,” White said.
An estimated 2.3 million people are living with limb loss in the U.S., according to an analysis by Avalere, a health care consulting company. That number is expected to as much as double in coming years as people age and a growing number lose limbs to diabetes, trauma, and other medical problems.
Fewer than half of people with limb loss have been prescribed a prosthesis, according to a report by the AHRQ. Plans may deny coverage for prosthetic limbs by claiming they aren’t medically necessary or are experimental devices, even though microprocessor-controlled knees like Adams’ have been in use for decades.
Cain was instrumental in getting passed a 2000 Colorado law that requires insurers to cover prosthetic arms and legs at parity with Medicare, which requires coverage with a 20% coinsurance payment. Since that measure was enacted, about half of states have passed “insurance fairness” laws that require prosthetic coverage on par with other covered medical services in a plan or laws that require coverage of prostheses that enable people to do sports. But these laws apply only to plans regulated by the state. Over half of people with private coverage are in plans not governed by state law.
The Medicare program’s 80% coverage of prosthetic limbs mirrors its coverage for other services. Still, an October report by the Government Accountability Office found that only 30% of beneficiaries who lost a limb in 2016 received a prosthesis in the following three years.
Cost is a factor for many people.
“No matter your coverage, most people have to pay something on that device,” White said. As a result, “many people will be on a payment plan for their device,” she said. Some may take out loans.
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit lenders from repossessing medical devices such as wheelchairs and prosthetic limbs if people can’t repay their loans.
“It is a replacement limb,” said White, whose organization has heard of several cases in which lenders have repossessed wheelchairs or prostheses. Repossession is “literally a punishment to the individual.”
Adams ultimately owed a coinsurance payment of about $4,000 for his new leg, which reflected his portion of the insurer’s negotiated rate for the knee and foot portion of the leg but did not include the costly part that fits around his stump, which didn’t need replacing. The insurer approved the prosthetic leg on appeal, claiming it had made an administrative error, Adams said.
“We’re fortunate that we’re able to afford that 20%,” said Adams, who is a self-employed leadership consultant.
Leah Kaplan doesn’t have that financial flexibility. Born without a left hand, she did not have a prosthetic limb until a few years ago.
Growing up, “I didn’t want more reasons to be stared at,” said Kaplan, 32, of her decision not to use a prosthesis. A few years ago, the cycling enthusiast got a prosthetic hand specially designed for use with her bike. That device was covered under the health plan she has through her county government job in Spokane, Washington, helping developmentally disabled people transition from school to work.
But when she tried to get approval for a prosthetic hand to use for everyday activities, her health plan turned her down. The myoelectric hand she requested would respond to electrical impulses in her arm that would move the hand to perform certain actions. Without insurance coverage, the hand would cost her just over $46,000, which she said she can’t afford.
Working with her doctor, she has appealed the decision to her insurer and been denied three times. Kaplan said she’s still not sure exactly what the rationale is, except that the insurer has questioned the medical necessity of the prosthetic hand. The next step is to file an appeal with an independent review organization certified by the state insurance commissioner’s office.
A prosthetic hand is not a luxury device, Kaplan said. The prosthetic clinic has ordered the hand and made the customized socket that will fit around the end of her arm. But until insurance coverage is sorted out, she can’t use it.
At this point she feels defeated. “I’ve been waiting for this for so long,” Kaplan said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
HRT: Bioidentical vs Animal
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
HRT: A Tale Of Two Approaches
In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your assessment of menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
- A little over a third said “It can be medically beneficial, but has some minor drawbacks”
- A little under a third said “It helps, but at the cost of increased cancer risk; not worth it”
- Almost as many said “It’s a wondrous cure-all that makes you happier, healthier, and smell nice too”
- Four said “It is a dangerous scam and a sham; “au naturel” is the way to go”
So what does the science say?
Which HRT?
One subscriber who voted for “It’s a wondrous cure-all that makes you healthier, happier, and smell nice too” wrote to add:
❝My answer is based on biodentical hormone replacement therapy. Your survey did not specify.❞
And that’s an important distinction! We did indeed mean bioidentical HRT, because, being completely honest here, this European writer had no idea that Premarin etc were still in such wide circulation in the US.
So to quickly clear up any confusion:
- Bioidentical hormones: these are (as the name suggests) identical on a molecular level to the kind produced by humans.
- Conjugated Equine Estrogens: such as Premarin, come from animals. Indeed, the name “Premarin” comes from “pregnant mare urine”, the substance used to make it.
There are also hormone analogs, such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, which is a progestin and not the same thing as progesterone. Hormone analogs such as the aforementioned MPA are again, a predominantly-American thing—though they did test it first in third-world countries, after testing it on animals and finding it gave them various kinds of cancer (breast, cervical, ovarian, uterine).
A quick jumping-off point if you’re interested in that:
Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and the risk of breast and gynecologic cancer
this is about its use as a contraceptive (so, much lower doses needed), but it is the same thing sometimes given in the US as part of menopausal HRT. You will note that the date on that research is 1996; DMPA is not exactly cutting-edge and was first widely used in the 1950s.
Similarly, CEEs (like Premarin) have been used since the 1930s, while estradiol (bioidentical estrogen) has been in use since the 1970s.
In short: we recommend being wary of those older kinds and mostly won’t be talking about them here.
Bioidentical hormones are safer: True or False?
True! This is an open-and-shut case:
❝Physiological data and clinical outcomes demonstrate that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more efficacious than their synthetic and animal-derived counterparts.
Until evidence is found to the contrary, bioidentical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT. ❞
Further research since that review has further backed up its findings.
Source: Are Bioidentical Hormones Safer or More Efficacious than Other Commonly Used Versions in HRT?
So simply, if you’re going on HRT (estrogen and/or progesterone), you might want to check it’s the bioidentical kind.
HRT can increase the risk of breast cancer: True or False?
Contingently True, but for most people, there is no significant increase in risk.
First: again, we’re talking bioidentical hormones, and in this case, estradiol. Older animal-derived attempts had much higher risks with much lesser efficaciousness.
There have been so many studies on this (alas, none that have been publicised enough to undo the bad PR in the wake of old-fashioned HRT from before the 70s), but here’s a systematic review that highlights some very important things:
❝Estradiol-only therapy carries no risk for breast cancer, while the breast cancer risk varies according to the type of progestogen.
Estradiol therapy combined with medroxyprogesterone, norethisterone and levonorgestrel related to an increased risk of breast cancer, estradiol therapy combined with dydrogesterone and progesterone carries no risk❞
In fewer words:
- Estradiol by itself: no increased risk of breast cancer
- Estradiol with MDPA or other progestogens that aren’t really progesterone: increased risk of breast cancer
- Estradiol with actual progesterone: back to no increased risk of breast cancer
So again, you might want to make sure you are getting actual bioidentical hormones, and not something else!
However! If you are aware that you already have an increased risk of breast cancer (e.g. family history, you’ve had it before, you know you have certain genes for it, etc), then you should certainly discuss that with your doctor, because your personal circumstances may be different:
❝Tailored HRT may be used without strong evidence of a deleterious effect after ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, most other gynecological cancers, bowel cancer, melanoma, a family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease, in carriers of BRACA mutations, after breast cancer if adjuvant therapy is not being used, past thromboembolism, varicose veins, fibroids and past endometriosis.
Relative contraindications are existing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease and breast cancer being treated with adjuvant therapies❞
Source: HRT in difficult circumstances: are there any absolute contraindications?
HRT makes you happier, healthier, and smell nice too: True or False?
Contingently True, assuming you do want its effects, which generally means the restoration of much of the youthful vitality you enjoyed pre-menopause.
The “and smell nice too” was partly rhetorical, but also partly literal: our scent is largely informed by our hormones, and higher estrogen results in a sweeter scent; lower estrogen results in a more bitter scent. Not generally considered an important health matter, but it’s a thing, so hey.
More often, people take menopausal HRT for more energy, stronger bones (reduced osteoporosis risk), healthier heart (reduced CVD risk), improved sexual health, better mood, healthier skin and hair, and general avoidance of menopause symptoms:
Read more: Skin, hair and beyond: the impact of menopause
We’d need another whole main feature to discuss all the benefits properly; today we’re just mythbusting.
HRT does have some drawbacks: True or False?
True, and/but how serious they are (beyond the aforementioned consideration in the case of an already-increased risk of breast cancer) is a matter of opinion.
For example, it is common to get a reprise of monthly cramps and/or mood swings, depending on how one is taking the HRT and other factors (e.g. your own personal physiology and genetic predispositions). For most people, these will even out over time.
It’s also even common to get a reprise of (much slighter than before) monthly bleeding, unless you have for example had a hysterectomy (no uterus = no bleeding). Again, this will usually settle down in a matter of months.
If you experience anything more alarming than that, then indeed check with your doctor.
HRT is a dangerous scam and sham: True or False?
False, simply. As described above, for most people they’re quite safe. Again, talking bioidentical hormones.
The other kind are in the most neutral sense a sham (i.e. they are literally sham hormones), though they’re not without their merits and for many people they may be better than nothing.
As for being a scam, biodentical hormones are widely prescribed in the many countries that have universal healthcare and/or a single-payer healthcare system, where there would be no profit motive (and considerable cost) in doing so.
They’re prescribed because they are effective and thus reduce healthcare spending in other areas (such as treating osteoporosis or CVD after the fact) and improve Health Related Quality of Life, and by extension, health-adjusted life-years, which is one of the top-used metrics for such systems.
See for example:
Our apologies, gentlemen
We wanted to also talk about testosterone therapy for the andropause, but we’ve run out of room today (because of covering the important distinction of bioidentical vs old-fashioned HRT)!
To make it up to you, we’ll do a full main feature on it (it’s an interesting topic) in the near future, so watch this space
Ladies, we’ll also at some point cover the pros and cons of different means of administration, e.g. pills, transdermal gel, injections, patches, pessaries, etc—which often have big differences.
That’ll be in a while though, because we try to vary our topics, so we can’t talk about menopausal HRT all the time, fascinating and important a topic it is.
Meanwhile… take care, all!
Share This Post
-
Tuna vs Catfish – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing tuna to catfish, we picked the tuna.
Why?
Today in “that which is more expensive and/or harder to get is not necessarily healthier”…
Looking at their macros, tuna has more protein and less fat (and overall, less saturated fat, and also less cholesterol).
In the category of vitamins, both are good but tuna distinguishes itself: tuna has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, and D, while catfish has more of vitamins B5, B9, B12, E, and K. They are both approximately equal in choline, and as an extra note in tuna’s favor (already winning 6:5), tuna is a very good source of vitamin D, while catfish barely contains any. All in all: a moderate, but convincing, win for tuna.
When it comes to minerals, things are clearer still: tuna has more copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while catfish has more calcium, manganese, and zinc. Oh, and catfish is also higher in one other mineral: sodium, which most people in industrialized countries need less of, on average. So, a 6:3 win for tuna, before we even take into account the sodium content (which makes the win for tuna even stronger).
In short: tuna wins the day in every category!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Farmed Fish vs Wild Caught (It Makes Quite A Difference)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Nobody’s Sleeping – by Dr. Bijoy John
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Firstly, let’s mention: yes, for the sake of being methodical and comprehensive this book does give the same baseline advice as every other sleep book out there. However, it gives something else, too:
It goes beyond that baseline, to a) give more personalized advice for various demographics (e.g. per age, sex, health conditions, etc) and b) give direction for further personalizing one’s own sleep improvement journey, by troubleshooting and fixing things that may pertain to you very specifically and not to most people.
This means, that if you’re doing “all the right things” but still having sleep-related problems, there is hope and there are more approaches to try.
The style in which this is delivered is very readable, which is good, because if one hasn’t been sleeping well, then chances are that an intellectual challenge would be about as welcome as a physical challenge—that is to say: not at all.
Bottom line: if sleep is not your strength and you would like it to be and all the usual things haven’t yet worked, this book may well help you to overcome the hurdles between you and a good night’s sleep each night.
Click here to check out Nobody’s Sleeping, and refute that title!
Share This Post
-
How Old Is Too Old For HRT?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝I think you guys do a great job. Wondering if I can suggest a topic? Older women who were not offered hormone replacement therepy because of a long term study that was misread. Now, we need science to tell us if we are too old to benefit from begininng to take HRT. Not sure how old your readers are on average but it would be a great topic for older woman. Thanks❞
Thank you for the kind words, and the topic suggestion!
About the menopause and older age thereafter
We’ve talked a bit before about the menopause, for example:
What You Should Have Been Told About The Menopause Beforehand
And we’ve even discussed the unfortunate social phenomenon of post-menopausal women thinking “well, that’s over and done with now, time to forget about that”, because spoiler, it will never be over and done with—your body is always changing every day, and will continue to do so until you no longer have a body to change.
This means, therefore, that since changes are going to happen no matter what, the onus is on us to make the changes as positive (rather than negative) as possible:
Menopause, & When Not To Let Your Guard Down
About cancer risk
It sounds like you know this one, but for any who were unaware: indeed, there was an incredibly overblown and misrepresented study, and even that was about older forms of HRT (being conjugated equine estrogens, instead of bioidentical estradiol):
As for those who have previously had breast cancer or similar, there is also:
The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More
Is it too late?
Fortunately, there is a quick and easy test to know whether you are too old to benefit:
First, find your pulse, by touching the first two fingers of one hand, against the wrist of the other. If you’re unfamiliar with where to find the pulse at the wrist, here’s a quick explainer.
Or if you prefer a video:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Did you find it?
Good; in that case, it’s not too late!
Scientists have tackled this question, looking at women of various ages, and finding that when comparing age groups taking HRT, disease risk changes do not generally vary much by age i.e., someone at 80 gets the same relative benefit from HRT as someone at 50, with no extra risks from the HRT. For example, if taking HRT at 50 reduces a risk by n% compared to an otherwise similar 50-year-old not on HRT, then doing so at 80 reduces the same risk by approximately the same percentage, compared to an otherwise similar 80-year-old not on HRT.
There are a couple of exceptions, such as in the case of already having advanced atherosclerotic lesions (in which specific case HRT could increase inflammation; not something it usually does), or in the case of using conjugated equine estrogens instead of modern bioidentical estradiol (as we talked about before).
Thus, for the most part, HRT is considered safe and effective regardless of age:
How old is too old for hormone therapy?
👆 that’s from 2015 though, so how about a new study, from 2024?
❝Compared with never use or discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy after age 65 years, the use of estrogen monotherapy beyond age 65 years was associated with significant risk reductions in mortality (19% or adjusted hazards ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.82), breast cancer (16%), lung cancer (13%), colorectal cancer (12%), congestive heart failure (CHF) (5%), venous thromboembolism (3%), atrial fibrillation (4%), acute myocardial infarction (11%), and dementia (2%).❞
❝Among senior Medicare women, the implications of menopausal hormone therapy use beyond age 65 years vary by types, routes, and strengths. In general, risk reductions appear to be greater with low rather than medium or high doses, vaginal or transdermal rather than oral preparations, and with estradiol rather than conjugated estrogen.❞
Read in full: Use of menopausal hormone therapy beyond age 65 years and its effects on women’s health outcomes by types, routes, and doses
As for more immediately-enjoyable benefits (improved mood, healthier skin, better sexual function, etc), yes, those also are benefits that people enjoy at least into their eighth decade:
See: Use of hormone therapy in Swedish women aged 80 years or older
What about…
Statistically speaking, most people who take HRT have a great time with it and consider it life-changing in a good way. However, nothing is perfect; sometimes going on HRT can have a shaky start, and for those people, there may be some things that need addressing. So for that, check out:
HRT Side Effects & Troubleshooting
And also, while estrogen monotherapy is very common, it is absolutely worthwhile to consider also taking progesterone alongside it:
Progesterone Menopausal HRT: When, Why, And How To Benefit
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Children can be more vulnerable in the heat. Here’s how to protect them this summer
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Extreme heat is increasingly common in Australia and around the world and besides making us uncomfortable, it can harm our health. For example, exposure to extreme heat can exacerbate existing medical conditions, or cause problems such as heat stroke.
Due to a combination of physiology and behaviour, children are potentially more vulnerable to severe heat-related illness such as heat stroke or heat exhaustion.
But these are not the only heat-related health issues children might experience on a very hot day. In a new study, we looked at emergency department (ED) visits and unplanned hospital admissions among children in New South Wales on heatwave days.
We found a significant increase in children attending hospital compared to milder days – with a range of health issues.
maxim ibragimov/Shutterstock Why are children more vulnerable in the heat?
Sweating is the main way we lose heat from our bodies and cool down.
Children have a greater skin surface area to body mass ratio, which can be an advantage for sweating – they can lose more heat through evaporation for a given body mass. But this also means children can lose fluids and electrolytes faster through sweating, theoretically making them more susceptible to dehydration.
Meanwhile, younger children, particularly babies, can’t sweat as much as older children and adults. This means they can’t cool down as effectively.
Children in general also tend to engage in more outdoor physical activity, which might see them more exposed to very hot temperatures.
Further, children may be less in-tune to the signals their body is giving them that they’re overheating, such as excessive sweating or red skin. So they might not stop and cool down when they need to. Young children especially may not recognise the early signs of heat stress or be able to express discomfort.
Children may not easily be able to communicate that they’re hot and bothered. christinarosepix/Shutterstock Our study
We wanted to examine children’s exposure to extreme heat stress and the associated risks to their health.
We measured extreme heat as “heatwave days”, at least two consecutive days with a daily maximum temperature above the 95th percentile for the relevant area on a universal thermal climate index. This ranged from 27°C to 45°C depending on the area.
We assessed health outcomes by looking at ED visits and unplanned hospital admissions among children aged 0–18 years from NSW between 2000 and 2020. This totalled around 8.2 million ED visits and 1.4 million hospital admissions.
We found hospital admissions for heat-related illness were 104% more likely on heatwave days compared to non-heatwave days, and ED visits were 78% more likely. Heat-related illness includes a spectrum of disorders from minor conditions such as dehydration to life-threatening conditions such as heat stroke.
But heat-related illness wasn’t the only condition that increased on heatwave days. There was also an increase in childhood infections, particularly infectious enteritis possibly related to food poisoning (up 6% for ED visits and 17% for hospital admissions), ear infections (up 30% for ED visits and 3% for hospital admissions), and skin and soft tissue infections (up 6% for ED visits and 4% for hospital admissions).
Kids can be more vulnerable in the heat because of their behaviour and physiology. K-FK/Shutterstock We know many infectious diseases are highly seasonal. Some, like the flu, peak in winter. But heat and humidity increase the risk of certain infections caused by bacterial, viral and fungal pathogens.
For example, warmer weather and higher humidity can increase the survival of bacteria, such as Salmonella, on foods, which increases the risk of food poisoning.
Hot weather can also increase the risk of ear infections. Children may be at greater risk during hot weather because they often swim or play at the beach or pool. Water can stay in the ear after swimming and a moist environment in the ear canal can cause growth of pathogens leading to ear infections.
Which children are most vulnerable?
During heatwaves, we found infants aged under one were at increased risk of ED visits and hospital admission for any reason compared to older children. This is not surprising, because babies can’t regulate their body temperature effectively and are reliant on their caregivers to keep them cool.
Our study also found children from the most disadvantaged areas were more vulnerable to heat-related illness on heatwave days. Although we don’t know exactly why, we hypothesised families from poorer areas might have limited access to air-conditioning and could be more likely to live in hotter neighbourhoods.
Keeping kids cool: tips for parents
The highest levels of heat exposure on hot days for young children is usually when they’re taken outside in prams and strollers. To protect their children from direct sunlight, parents often instinctively cover their stroller with a cloth such as a muslin.
However, a recent study from our group showed this actually increases temperatures inside a stroller to as much as 3–4˚C higher than outside.
But if the cloth is wet with water, and a small fan is used to circulate the air close to the child, stroller temperatures can be 4–5˚C lower than outside. Wetting the cloth every 15–20 minutes (for example, with a spray bottle) maintains the cooling effect.
When young children are not in a stroller, and for older children, there are a few things to consider to keep them cool and safe.
Remember temperatures reported on weather forecasts are measured in the shade, and temperatures in the sun can be up to 15˚C higher. So sticking to the shade as much as possible is important.
Exercise generates heat inside the body, so activities should be shortened, or rescheduled to cooler times of the day.
Sunscreen and hats are important when outdoors, but neither are especially effective for keeping cool. Spraying water on the child’s skin – not just the face but arms, legs and even the torso if possible – can help. Wetting their hats is another idea.
Proper hydration on hot days is also essential. Regular water breaks, including offering water before, during and after activity, is important. Offering foods with high water content such as watermelon and orange can help with hydration too.
Wen-Qiang He, Research Fellow in Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney; James Smallcombe, Post-doctoral Research Associate, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney; Natasha Nassar, Professor of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology and Chair in Translational Childhood Medicine, University of Sydney, and Ollie Jay, Professor of Heat & Health; Director of Heat & Health Research Incubator; Director of Thermal Ergonomics Laboratory, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Staying Strong: Tips To Prevent Muscle Loss With Age
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Andrea Furlan, specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation with 30 years of experience, has advice:
Fighting sarcopenia
Sarcopenia is so common as to be considered “natural”, but “natural” does not mean “obligatory” and it certainly doesn’t mean “healthy”. As for how to fight it?
You may be thinking “let us guess, is it eat protein and do resistance exercises? And yes it is, but that’s only part of it…
Firstly, she recommends remembering why you are doing this, or because understanding is key to compliance (i.e. your perfect diet and exercise program will mean nothing if you don’t actually do it, and you won’t do it enough to make it a habit, let alone keep it up, if the reasons aren’t clear in your mind).
Sarcopenia comes with an increased risk of falls, reduced physical capacity in general, resultant disability, social isolation, and depression. Of course, this is not a one-to-one equation; you will not necessarily become depressed the moment your muscle mass is below a certain percentage, but statistically speaking, the road to ruin is laid out clearly.
Secondly, she recommends being on the lookout for it. If you check your body composition regularly with a gadget, that’s great and laudable; if you don’t, then a) consider getting one (here’s an example product on Amazon), and b) watch out for decreased muscle strength, fatigue, reduced stamina, noticeable body shape changes with muscle loss and (likely) fat gain.
Thirdly, she recommends more than just regular resistance training and good protein intake. Yes, she recommends those things too, but also getting enough water (can’t rebuild the body without it), avoiding a sedentary lifestyle (sitting leads to atrophy of many supporting and stabilizing muscles, you know, the kind of muscles that don’t look flashy but stop you falling down), and getting good sleep—vital for all kinds of body maintenance, and muscle maintenance is no exception (there’s a reason bodybuilders sleep 9–12 hours daily when in a gaining phase; you don’t need to do that, but don’t skimp on your 7–9 hours, yes, really, even you, yes, at any age).
Lastly, she recommends continuing to learn about the topic, as otherwise it’s easy to go off-track.
For more information on all of the above and more, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Protein: How Much Do We Need, Really?
- Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)
- Resistance Beyond Weights
- HIIT, But Make It HIRT ← this is about high-intensity resistance training (HIRT); confusing the muscles like one confuses the heart in HIIT, which thus yields improved results
- Sleep: Yes, You Really Do Still Need It
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
