Want to sleep longer? Adding mini-bursts of exercise to your evening routine can help – new study
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.
Exercising before bed has long been discouraged as the body doesn’t have time to wind down before the lights go out.
But new research has found breaking up a quiet, sedentary evening of watching television with short bursts of resistance exercise can lead to longer periods of sleep.
Adults spend almost one third of the 24-hour day sleeping. But the quality and length of sleep can affect long-term health. Sleeping too little or waking often in the night is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.
Physical activity during the day can help improve sleep. However, current recommendations discourage intense exercise before going to bed as it can increase a person’s heart rate and core temperature, which can ultimately disrupt sleep.
Nighttime habits
For many, the longest period of uninterrupted sitting happens at home in the evening. People also usually consume their largest meal during this time (or snack throughout the evening).
Insulin (the hormone that helps to remove sugar from the blood stream) tends to be at a lower level in the evening than in the morning.
Together these factors promote elevated blood sugar levels, which over the long term can be bad for a person’s health.
Our previous research found interrupting evening sitting every 30 minutes with three minutes of resistance exercise reduces the amount of sugar in the bloodstream after eating a meal.
But because sleep guidelines currently discourage exercising in the hours before going to sleep, we wanted to know if frequently performing these short bursts of light activity in the evening would affect sleep.
Activity breaks for better sleep
In our latest research, we asked 30 adults to complete two sessions based in a laboratory.
During one session the adults sat continuously for a four-hour period while watching streaming services. During the other session, they interrupted sitting by performing three minutes of body-weight resistance exercises (squats, calf raises and hip extensions) every 30 minutes.
After these sessions, participants went home to their normal life routines. Their sleep that evening was measured using a wrist monitor.
Our research found the quality of sleep (measured by how many times they woke in the night and the length of these awakenings) was the same after the two sessions. But the night after the participants did the exercise “activity breaks” they slept for almost 30 minutes longer.
Identifying the biological reasons for the extended sleep in our study requires further research.
But regardless of the reason, if activity breaks can extend sleep duration, then getting up and moving at regular intervals in the evening is likely to have clear health benefits.
Time to revisit guidelines
These results add to earlier work suggesting current sleep guidelines, which discourage evening exercise before bed, may need to be reviewed.
As the activity breaks were performed in a highly controlled laboratory environment, future research should explore how activity breaks performed in real life affect peoples sleep.
We selected simple, body-weight exercises to use in this study as they don’t require people to interrupt the show they may be watching, and don’t require a large space or equipment.
If people wanted to incorporate activity breaks in their own evening routines, they could probably get the same benefit from other types of exercise. For example, marching on the spot, walking up and down stairs, or even dancing in the living room.
The key is to frequently interrupt evening sitting time, with a little bit of whole-body movement at regular intervals.
In the long run, performing activity breaks may improve health by improving sleep and post-meal blood sugar levels. The most important thing is to get up frequently and move the body, in a way the works best for a person’s individual household.
Jennifer Gale, PhD candidate, Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago and Meredith Peddie, Senior Lecturer, Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago
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!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Online Reaction Tests & Women’s Cognitive Health (Test Yours!)
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.
A team of researchers have looked into the use of online reaction tests (in which, for example, one clicks whenever a certain prompt is shown, or for more of a cognitive challenge, one presses a numerical key when the corresponding digit is shown) to cognitive health in women at different ages.
Why women? To quote the man who had the honor of being the first-listed author on the study (something that happens mysteriously often in science),
❝Women have long been under-represented in healthy aging research, despite making up more than half the population. We developed an easy way to measure cognitive function in the home, without the need for individuals to travel to clinics or receive home visits. Our research shows that testing of cognitive function in the home largely acceptable, easy and convenient❞
About that convenience: they used data from the UK Women’s Cohort Study, which involved over 35,000 British women, and then specifically focused on a follow-up study of 768 participants aged 48–85.
Of the two kinds of online reaction tests we described up top, they used the numerical kind. The participants also filled in a questionnaire about their personal traits (demographic data, mostly, though things like self-reported level of health literacy, and how they would rate their overall health).
What they found
The findings included:
- Younger women were more likely to participate, with participation rates dropping from 89% at age 45 to 44% at age 65.
- Each higher level of education increased the likelihood of volunteering by 7%.
- Women who rated themselves as having “high” intelligence were 19% more likely to participate than those who considered themselves of “average” intelligence.
- Women with lower self-reported health literacy made fewer errors, possibly due to taking longer to decide on answers—consistent with findings from older adults.
You can read the full paper itself here: Health literacy in relation to web-based measurement of cognitive function in the home: UK Women’s Cohort Study
Why this matters
We wrote, a little while ago, about the use of online games (of a specific kind) to improve cognitive function:
Synergistic Brain-Training: Let The Games Begin (But It Matters What Kind) ← the good news is, these are very accessible too
When it comes to rapid and/but correct reactions, this becomes really critical:
How (And Why) To Train Your Pre-Frontal Cortex ← Dr. Sandra Chapman advocates strongly for this, and it’s closely related to working memory and the ability to focus
Want to test yours?
Here are two ways to do it (now, for free, without needing to sign up for anything; the tests are right there on the page):
- HumanBenchmark.com’s Reaction Time Test ← this one’s just a “click when the red panel turns green” test, but the merit here is that it compares your scores to a very large dataset of other people
- Keypress Reaction Time Test ← this one’s the kind that was used in the study, and requires pressing the correct numerical key when the corresponding digit is shown on the screen. You can make it easier or harder by restricting or increasing the range of numbers it uses (default setting is to use the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
What is ‘double pneumonia’, the condition that’s put Pope Francis in hospital?
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.
Pope Francis has been in hospital for more than a week with what some media reports are now calling “double pneumonia”.
The Vatican released a statement on Tuesday evening saying
laboratory tests, chest X-rays, and the clinical condition of the Holy Father continue to present a complex picture.
The 88-year-old Catholic leader has a long history of respiratory illness.
So, what makes this bout of pneumonia – a severe lung infection – so “complex”? And how will it be treated?
Marco Iaccobucci Epp/Shutterstock What is double pneumonia?
Pneumonia is a serious infection that fills the lungs with liquid or pus and can make it difficult to breathe. People may also have chest pain, cough up green mucus and have a fever.
“Double pneumonia” is not an official medical term. It may be being used to describe two different aspects of Pope Francis’s condition.
1. A bilateral infection
Pope Francis has pneumonia in both lungs. This is known as “bilateral pneumonia”.
An infection in both lungs doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more severe, but location is important. It can make a difference which parts of the lung are affected.
When just one part of the lung or one lung is affected, the person can continue to breathe using the other lung while their body fights the infection.
However when both lungs are compromised, the person will be receiving very little oxygen.
2. A polymicrobial infection
The Vatican has also said the infection affecting Pope Francis’s lungs is “polymicrobial”.
This means the infection is being caused by more than one kind of microorganism (or “pathogen”).
So, the cause could be two (or more) different kinds of bacteria, or any combination of bacteria, virus and fungus. It’s vital to know what’s causing the infection to effectively treat it.
How is it diagnosed?
Usually, when someone presents with suspected pneumonia the hospital will sample their lungs with a sputum test or swab.
They will often also undergo an X-ray, usually to confirm which parts of the lung are involved.
Healthy lungs look “empty” on an X-ray, because they are filled with air. But pneumonia fills the lungs with fluid.
This means it’s usually very easy to see where pneumonia is affecting them, because the infection shows up as solid white mass on the scan.
Lungs infected with pneumonia will have solid white areas on an X-ray. Komsan Loonprom/Shutterstock How is it treated?
The sputum or swab helps detect what is causing the infection and determine treatment. For example, a specific antibiotic will be used to target a certain bacterium.
Usually this works well. But if the infection is polymicrobial, the normal treatment might not be effective.
For example, the antibiotics may work on the bacteria. But if there’s also a virus – which can’t be treated with antibiotics – it may become the dominant pathogen driving the infection.
As a result, the patient may initially respond well to medication and then begin deteriorating again.
If the infection is caused by multiple bacteria, the patient might be given a broad-spectrum antibiotic rather than a single targeted drug.
A viral infection is harder to treat, as the anti-viral drugs that are available aren’t very effective or targeted.
In severe cases, a patient will also need to be in intensive care on a breathing machine because they can’t breathe alone. This helps make sure they receive enough oxygen while their body fights the infection.
Who is most susceptible?
It’s possible to recover, even from severe infections. However having pneumonia can damage the lungs, and this can make a repeat infection more likely.
Most people will never have a severe infection from these same pathogens. They may only experience a minor cold or flu, because their immune system can adequately fight the infection.
However, certain groups are much more vulnerable to developing a serious case of pneumonia.
Risk factors include:
- age: babies under two, whose immune systems are still developing, and adults over 65, who tend to have weakened immune systems
- lung damage: previous infections can cause scarring
- lung disease: for example, if you have emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- being a smoker
- immunosuppression: if your immune system is weakened, for example by medication you take after a transplant or during cancer treatment.
Pope Francis has a number of these risk factors. The pontiff is 88 years old and has a history of respiratory illness.
He also had pleurisy (a condition that inflames the lungs) as a young adult. As a result, he had part of one lung removed, making him susceptible to lung infections.
On Tuesday, the Vatican said Pope Francis remains “in good spirits” while he receives medical care and is grateful for the support he has received.
Brian Oliver, Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney and Min Feng, PhD Candidate in Respiratory Disease, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
When the Body Says No – by Dr. Gabor Maté
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.
We know that chronic stress is bad for us because of what it does to our cortisol levels, so what is the rest of this book about?
Dr. Gabor Maté is a medical doctor, heavily specialized in the impact of psychological trauma on long term physical health.
Here, he examies—as the subtitle promises—the connection between stress and disease. As it turns out, it’s not that simple.
We learn not just about the impact that stress has on our immune system (including increasing the risk of autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis), the cardiovascular system, and various other critical systems fo the body… But also:
- how environmental factors and destructive coping styles contribute to the onset of disease, and
- how traumatic events can warp people’s physical perception of pain
- how certain illnesses are associated with particular personality types.
This latter is not “astrology for doctors”, by the way. It has more to do with what coping strategies people are likely to employ, and thus what diseases become more likely to take hold.
The book has practical advice too, and it’s not just “reduce your stress”. Ideally, of course, indeed reduce your stress. But that’s a) obvious b) not always possible. Rather, Dr. Maté explains which coping strategies result in the least prevalence of disease.
In terms of writing style, the book is very much easy-reading, but be warned that (ironically) this isn’t exactly a feel-good book. There are lot of tragic stories in it. But, even those are very much well-worth reading.
Bottom line: if you (and/or a loved one) are suffering from stress, this book will give you the knowledge and understanding to minimize the harm that it will otherwise do.
Click here to check out When The Body Says No, and take good care of yourself; you’re important!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
When And Why Do We Pick Up Our Phones?
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.
The School of Life’s Alain de Botton makes the argument that—if we pay attention, if we keep track—there’s an understory to why we pick up our phones:
It’s not about information
Yes, our phones (or rather, the apps therein) are designed to addict us, to draw us back, to keep us scrolling and never let us go. We indeed seek out information like our ancestors once sought out berries; searching, encouraged by a small discovery, looking for more. The neurochemistry is similar.
But when we look at the “when” of picking up our phones, de Botton says, it tells a different story:
We pick them up not to find out what’s going on with the world, but rather specifically to not find out what’s going with ourselves. We pick them up to white out some anxiety we don’t want to examine, a line of thought we don’t want to go down, memories we don’t want to consider, futures we do not want to have to worry about.
And of course, phones do have a great educational potential, are an immensely powerful tool for accessing knowledge of many kinds—if only we can remain truly conscious while using them, and not take them as the new “opiate of the masses”.
De Botton bids us, when next we pick up our phone. ask a brave question:
“If I weren’t allowed to consult my phone right now, what might I need to think about?”
As for where from there? There’s more in the video:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Further reading
Making Social Media Work For Your Mental Health
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:
-
Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.
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.
This article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.
It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.
We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.
Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.
“We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”
Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.
We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.
It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?
As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.
One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption.
Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.
For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue.
One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.
Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination.
As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking.
Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.
Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.
It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.
Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource 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:
-
Everything you need to know about cervical cancer
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.
Every year, around 11,500 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. While cervical cancer used to be one of the most common causes of cancer death for U.S. women, the vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV), and increased early screening and detection have resulted in a decrease in rates.
“Cervical cancer is almost always preventable and typically diagnosed in patients who have either never had a screening test or have gone many years without one,” says Fred Wyand, director of communications at the American Sexual Health Association, which includes the National Cervical Cancer Coalition.
January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, so we spoke to experts to learn more about what it is, its symptoms, and what you can do to prevent it.
What is cervical cancer?
Cervical cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the cervix—the lower part of the uterus that connects the vagina to the uterus. Cervical cancer can affect anyone with a cervix but is most frequently diagnosed in women ages 35 to 44, according to the American Cancer Society.
There are two types:
- Squamous cell carcinoma: Cervical cancer that starts in the thin squamous cells on the outside of the cervix. This is the most common type of cervical cancer.
- Adenocarcinoma: Cervical cancer that starts in glandular cells that line the inside of the cervix. This type of cervical cancer is less common.
In some cases, cervical cancer has features of both types.
What causes cervical cancer?
Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by high-risk cases of HPV, a virus that is spread through sexual activity or other close skin-to-skin contact. But don’t panic: HPV is very common, and getting HPV doesn’t always mean you’ll get cervical cancer. Around 85 percent of people in the U.S. will get an HPV infection in their lifetime, but for most people, the virus clears on its own.
However, there are many strains of HPV, and some are linked to cervical cancer. In those cases, when the virus does not clear on its own and the HPV infection persists, it can cause a range of cancers in both men and women, including cancers of the cervix, anus, penis, throat, and vagina.
That’s why HPV vaccination is so important for all people: It can help prevent many types of cancer, including cervical cancer caused by those high-risk HPV infections.
What are the symptoms of cervical cancer?
Cervical cancer doesn’t usually have symptoms in its early stages, but once cancer begins to spread, the symptoms can include:
- Vaginal bleeding between periods, after sexual intercourse, or after menopause.
- Heavier and longer menstrual periods than usual.
- Vaginal discharge that has a strong odor and is watery.
- Pelvic pain or pain during sexual intercourse.
In more advanced stages, symptoms of cervical cancer can include:
- Leg swelling.
- Difficult or painful bowel movements or bleeding during a bowel movement.
- Blood in urine or difficulty urinating.
- Back pain.
“Most women present with no symptoms,” Dr. Kristina A. Butler, gynecologic oncologist at Mayo Clinic, tells PGN. “Therefore, the checkups with visualization of the cervix, speaking with your provider, and having a Pap smear are so important.”
How can you help prevent or reduce your risk for cervical cancer?
Vaccination: Cervical cancer is highly preventable. The most effective way to help protect yourself from it is by getting the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine is most effective before a person is first exposed to HPV, typically before becoming sexually active.
“If we are able to vaccinate children before they become adults [and] are subsequently exposed, those individuals are maximally protected against the [worst effects] of the virus, which could ultimately be cancer,” Butler adds.
You’re eligible to get the vaccine if you’re between 9 and 45 years old, but there are specific guidelines for each age group. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends HPV vaccination for children ages 11 or 12 (though it can start at 9 years).
The CDC says that you can get catch-up doses until you’re 26 if you didn’t get vaccinated earlier, but if you’re between 26 and 45 years old, you should talk to your health care provider about your individual risk for HPV and to see if you should get the vaccine.
Screenings: This is another effective way to prevent cervical cancer.
Dr. Deanna Gerber, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, tells PGN that regular screenings can catch HPV before it has a chance to become cancer.
“Now that we’re encouraging people to see their gynecologist and get screening more regularly, we’re catching cancer at earlier stages,” she says.
Screenings for cervical cancer include:
- Pap smear: During a Pap smear, also known as a Pap test, cells are collected from your cervix to find precancerous or cervical cancer cells. Pap smears should start at 21 years old, regardless of when you start having sex.
If you’re between 21 and 29, you should get a Pap smear every three years. If you’re 30 to 65 years old, it’s recommended you get one every three years, a Pap and HPV test together every five years, or an HPV test alone every five years.
- HPV test: During an HPV test, cells are collected from your cervix to look for infection with high-risk HPV strains that can cause cervical cancer. If you’re between 21 and 30 years old, it’s only recommended that you get an HPV test if you had an abnormal Pap smear result. After 30, an HPV test is recommended with a Pap smear every five years, as long as other results were normal.
(People over 65 years old should talk to their health care provider about whether they need screening.)
Not smoking: Avoiding smoking can reduce your risk of developing cervical cancer because “HPV and smoking tobacco work together to accelerate the negative effects of HPV,” says Gerber.
Wearing condoms: Although condoms don’t completely prevent HPV infection, they provide some protection. And according to the CDC, the use of condoms has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer.
There is hope with early detection
There is hope for people diagnosed with cervical cancer. “Compared to the survival [rates] 10 years ago, women survive much longer now with the great treatments we have,” adds Butler.
Some of those treatments and advances include radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical therapy.
And while there may be some stigma surrounding sexual health, it’s important to advocate for yourself, says Gerber.
“Being comfortable and bold talking to your doctor about your health or any concerns that you have, feeling comfortable with your provider by asking all these questions is really the best thing you can do.”
For more information, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good 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: