Category: Medicine Page 1 of 8

Of course there will be medicine. I am The Grumpy Doc.

Keeping Things Moving: Bowel Health for Seniors

On May 11, 2026

Introduction

Let’s talk about something that affects nearly a third of all older adults but rarely makes it into polite dinner conversation: bowel movements. Specifically, how often should you be having them, what happens when you don’t, and what can you do about it. This isn’t exactly cocktail party material, but it matters, a lot, for your comfort, your health, and your overall quality of life.

Constipation is extraordinarily common in people over 60. Some estimates put the rate of chronic constipation as high as 30% in community-dwelling older adults, and it climbs up to 50% among nursing home residents. Yet it remains under-discussed, under-treated, and frequently dismissed as just a normal part of getting older. Spoiler alert: it isn’t.

What Is a “Normal” Bowel Movement Schedule for Seniors?

Here’s a liberating fact: there is no single right answer to how often you should go. The notion that everyone should have a bowel movement every day is a myth. The accepted medical range for normal stool frequency is anywhere from three times a day to three times a week. If you’re comfortable, there’s no straining, and nothing has dramatically changed from your usual pattern, you’re probably fine.

For most seniors, having a bowel movement once a day to three times a week falls within the typical range. The key phrase here is “typical for you.” What matters clinically is consistency and comfort, not hitting some magic daily number.

A large National Health Interview Survey of over 42,000 participants found something that surprises many people: infrequent bowel movements don’t automatically increase with age the way conventional wisdom has long assumed. As the researchers noted in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a decline in bowel movement frequency is “not an invariable concomitant of aging.”

So what does change with age? The colon can slow its transit time — the speed at which food waste travels from one end to the other. Muscle tone in the abdomen and pelvic floor may decrease. Nerve sensitivity in the rectum can diminish, meaning you may not feel the urge to go as acutely as you once did. Add reduced physical activity, inadequate fluid intake, and a roster of medications, and you have a recipe for sluggishness down below.

Harvard Health recommends paying attention to any dramatic departure from what’s normal for you. If you typically go once a day and suddenly you’re going once a week without an obvious explanation like a change in diet or travel, that’s worth discussing with your doctor. Especially if it comes with fatigue, pain, unintentional weight loss, blood in the stool, or a change in consistency.

The Downside of Infrequent Bowel Movements

Constipation might seem like just an inconvenience, but when it becomes chronic or severe, the consequences can be surprisingly serious. Here’s a rundown of what can go wrong.

Fecal Impaction

The most dangerous complication of untreated chronic constipation is fecal impaction — when hardened stool becomes lodged in the colon or rectum and simply cannot pass. This is a genuine medical emergency. In the UK, fecal impaction has been identified in about 40% of hospitalized older patients. What makes it particularly tricky is that it can masquerade as diarrhea: liquid stool from above the blockage leaks around the impaction, creating what’s called overflow incontinence. If left untreated, impaction can cause intestinal obstruction, ulceration of the bowel wall, and even perforation and these can be life-threatening.

Hemorrhoids and Anal Fissures

Chronic straining on the toilet puts enormous pressure on the veins around the rectum, which can produce hemorrhoids — swollen, painful, and sometimes bleeding. Hard stools can also cause small tears called anal fissures, which are painful and can bleed with each bowel movement. These aren’t just uncomfortable; they can signal that something needs to change.

Quality of Life

Don’t underestimate how much chronic constipation chips away at daily life. Studies using validated quality-of-life instruments have consistently found that constipated older adults score lower on measures of physical functioning, mental health, general health perception, and management of bodily pain. Some studies even found improvements in mood and depression once constipation was successfully treated. This is not a trivial problem.

Confusion and Cognitive Effects

In older adults, particularly those with dementia, unresolved constipation can contribute to confusion, agitation, and behavioral changes. Clinicians who work in geriatrics are trained to consider constipation when an older patient with cognitive impairment suddenly becomes more agitated or confused. It’s one of those connections that surprises non-clinicians but is well recognized in eldercare.

A Note on Red Flags

It bears repeating, new, unexplained constipation, especially in an older adult who hasn’t had it before, deserves medical evaluation. Colon cancer, among other serious conditions, can present as a change in bowel habits. Blood in the stool, unexplained weight loss, iron-deficiency anemia, or a family history of colorectal cancer are all signals to see your doctor promptly rather than reaching for a laxative.

Non-Pharmacological Approaches

Good news: there’s a lot you can do before opening the medicine cabinet. Lifestyle measures are always considered first-line therapy, and for many people, they’re enough.

Fiber Intake

Dietary fiber is the single most important nutritional factor in maintaining regular bowel movements. Fiber adds bulk to stool and helps it move through the colon more efficiently. Whole grains, fresh fruits, vegetables, legumes, dried fruits like prunes, figs, and apricots are all solid choices. Prune juice, in particular, contains sorbitol, a natural sugar that acts as a mild laxative (but I have to admit, it’s not my favorite). Some healthcare providers recommend a simple homemade mixture of equal parts prune juice, chopped prunes, applesauce, and wheat bran, starting with one tablespoon a day and working up to four (again, not my go-to breakfast).

One caution: add fiber gradually. Ramping up too fast can cause bloating and gas, which discourages people from sticking with it. Slow and steady works better here.

Hydration

Without adequate fluid, stool dries out and becomes harder to pass. Mayo Clinic recommends 8 to 10 eight-ounce glasses of non-caffeinated fluids daily. This is especially important if you’re taking a fiber supplement, which needs water to do its job properly. Admittedly, this can be a real challenge for some people.

Physical Activity

Exercise stimulates the gut. Even light walking helps move things along, and the CDC recommends that seniors aim for about 30 minutes of cardiovascular exercise on most days, with a mix of muscle and bone-strengthening activities. The Nurses’ Health Study, which followed over 62,000 women, found that physical activity two to six times per week was associated with a 35% lower risk of constipation.

Scheduled Toileting

Taking advantage of the body’s natural gastrocolic reflex — the wave of colonic contractions triggered by eating — is a simple but effective strategy. Sitting on the toilet 15 to 30 minutes after a meal, particularly breakfast, can help train the bowel to move on a regular schedule. This is one of the most underutilized, zero-cost interventions in geriatric care.

Toilet Positioning

A simple footstool placed under the feet while on the toilet can make a meaningful difference. Raising the knees above hip level — mimicking a squatting position — straightens the angle between the rectum and the anus, making stool easier to pass. Some patients find this makes a real difference in comfort and completeness of evacuation.

Privacy and Routine

This one sounds almost too simple, but it matters: many older adults, particularly those in assisted living or with mobility limitations, feel rushed, embarrassed, or lack adequate privacy when trying to have a bowel movement. Stress and anxiety directly suppress gut motility. Ensuring that someone has enough time, privacy, and a comfortable setting is a legitimate therapeutic intervention, especially in care facility settings.

Biofeedback Therapy

For seniors whose constipation stems from difficulty coordinating the pelvic floor muscles — a condition called dyssynergic defecation — biofeedback therapy can be a game-changer. It uses electronic sensors and visual or auditory feedback to help patients learn to relax the correct muscles during a bowel movement. It’s non-invasive, has no side effects, and is particularly well-suited for people whose constipation hasn’t responded to diet and laxatives.

Pharmacological Approaches

When lifestyle changes aren’t enough and sometimes, they’re not, a range of medications are available, from gentle over-the-counter options to prescription treatments for stubborn cases. Here’s how they generally stack up, from mildest to strongest.

Fiber Supplements (Bulk-Forming Agents)

Products like psyllium (Metamucil), methylcellulose (Citrucel), and polycarbophil (FiberCon) work by absorbing water and adding bulk to stool, making it easier to pass. They’re generally safe for long-term use and are typically the first pharmaceutical step. The key is taking them with plenty of water; without adequate fluid, they can worsen constipation.

Stool Softeners

Docusate sodium (Colace) works by allowing water and fats to penetrate the stool, making it softer and easier to pass. It’s commonly used in post-surgical patients or anyone who needs to avoid straining — for example, after a heart attack or hemorrhoid surgery. It’s gentle and generally well tolerated, though evidence for its effectiveness as a standalone constipation treatment is modest.

Osmotic Laxatives

Polyethylene glycol — sold as MiraLAX — is widely considered the preferred osmotic laxative for older adults. It works by drawing water into the colon, softening the stool and stimulating movement. It’s tasteless, mixes easily into beverages, and has a favorable safety profile compared to alternatives like lactulose (which can cause bloating and gas) or magnesium-based products (which should be used cautiously in people with kidney disease). Daily use of PEG is considered safe and is quite common in geriatric practice. This is my personal option.

Milk of Magnesia (magnesium hydroxide) is another osmotic option that works well for many people, but should be used cautiously in anyone with impaired kidney function, as magnesium can accumulate and cause toxicity.

Stimulant Laxatives

Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) and senna (Senokot) work by stimulating nerve endings in the colon wall, triggering muscle contractions that push stool along. They’re effective but generally recommended for short-term use rather than daily reliance, due to concerns about dependency and potential effects on colon muscle function over time — though evidence on long-term harm is less alarming than once believed.

Suppositories and Enemas

For more immediate relief — or when oral treatments haven’t worked — glycerin or bisacodyl suppositories can sometimes trigger a bowel movement within minutes. Warm water or mineral oil enemas are typically reserved for fecal impaction. These are short-term rescue measures rather than ongoing management tools and should only be used with medical supervision.

Prescription Medications

For seniors with chronic constipation that doesn’t respond to over-the-counter options, several prescription medications have been approved. Linaclotide (Linzess) increases intestinal fluid secretion and gut motility; studies have included patients up to age 86 and demonstrated increased bowel movement frequency. Lubiprostone (Amitiza) works similarly. For patients on opioid pain medications whose constipation is directly caused by those drugs, a class of medications called peripherally acting mu-opioid antagonists — including methylnaltrexone (Relistor) and naloxegol (Movantik) — can counteract the constipating effects of opioids without reducing their pain-relieving benefits.

A Note on Medications That Cause Constipation

It’s worth pausing here to note that many medications commonly prescribed to older adults are themselves a major cause of constipation. Opioid pain medications are the biggest culprits, but the list also includes calcium channel blockers (used for blood pressure and heart conditions), certain antidepressants, antipsychotics, antihistamines, iron supplements, and some antihypertensives. If constipation is a new or worsening problem, a medication review with your doctor is one of the most productive first steps.

The Bottom Line (Sorry about the pun)

Bowel health in older adults is more nuanced than many people realize. “Normal” varies from person to person, and the goal isn’t to hit a daily number on a checklist — it’s to maintain whatever is comfortable and consistent for you, without pain or straining. When that starts to slip, you should take it seriously rather than dismissing it as just part of getting older.

The hierarchy of treatment is straightforward: start with lifestyle — fiber, fluids, exercise, and toileting routine. If that’s not enough, move to gentle over-the-counter options like fiber supplements and MiraLAX. If those don’t work, a physician can guide more targeted approaches, including prescription medications or biofeedback therapy.

And always, always tell your doctor about changes in your bowel habits — especially if they come with blood, pain, or weight loss. Your gut has a lot to say, and it’s worth listening.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

· PubMed / Annals of Internal Medicine — Bowel habit in relation to age and gender (National Health Interview Survey, 42,375 subjects) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8572842/

· Mayo Clinic Community Health — Bowel habits as you age https://communityhealth.mayoclinic.org/featured-stories/bowel-habits-aging

· Harvard Health — Staying Regular https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/staying-regular

· National Institute on Aging (NIH) — Concerned About Constipation? https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/constipation/concerned-about-constipation

· PubMed Central — Chronic Constipation in the Elderly Patient: Updates in Evaluation and Management https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7272371/

· PubMed Central — Update on the Management of Constipation in the Elderly: New Treatment Options https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2920196/

· PubMed Central — Constipation in Older Adults: Stepwise Approach to Keep Things Moving https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4325863/

· HealthInAging.org — Caregiver Guide: Constipation Problems https://www.healthinaging.org/tools-and-tips/caregiver-guide-constipation-problems

· American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) — Management of Constipation in Older Adults (2015) https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2015/0915/p500.html

· American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) — Treatment of Constipation in Older Adults (2005) https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2005/1201/p2277.html

· Better Health While Aging — Constipation Treatment & Best Laxatives in Aging https://betterhealthwhileaging.net/how-to-prevent-and-treat-constipation-aging/

· Medical Daily — Chronic Constipation in Seniors: Complete Guide to Causes, Risks, and Safe Treatment Options https://www.medicaldaily.com/chronic-constipation-seniors-complete-guide-causes-risks-safe-treatment-options-474499

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

Medical Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read here.

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

The author of this article is a licensed physician, but the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any hospital, health system, or medical organization with which the author may be affiliated.

Cold Plunging: Real Physiology, Real Risks, and a Whole Lot of Hype

By John Turley

On May 4, 2026

In Medicine

Cold plunge tubs are popping up everywhere — gyms, spas, suburban backyards, and increasingly in high-end wellness retreats. Influencers post videos of themselves lowering into icy water with overly dramatic grimaces. Podcasters talk enthusiastically about dopamine surges and mental clarity. Biohackers track immersion times with the seriousness of laboratory researchers.

I have always been skeptical of what I call “fad medicine,” but cold plunging has become so widespread that it warrants a closer, more careful look. The question most people want answered is a simple one: is any of this real, is it at least minimally beneficial, or is it just expensive discomfort dressed up in scientific language?

The most honest answer is that it is a mix of all three. Some of the claims are grounded in solid physiology. Some are intriguing but still preliminary. And some have clearly outpaced the available evidence.

Cold-water immersion, often abbreviated as CWI, does have some legitimate scientific literature behind it. That said, the body of research is smaller, more recent, and less definitive than popular wellness culture would suggest. What follows is an attempt to separate what is known from what is plausible, what remains largely speculative, and what may be downright dangerous.

Long before cold plunging became a modern wellness trend, it existed as a long-standing human practice. References to cold water therapy appear in Egyptian medical texts dating back several thousand years. The Greek physician Hippocrates recommended cold water for pain relief and fatigue. Even Thomas Jefferson was said to have soaked his feet in cold water every morning for decades, believing it contributed to his health. The practice itself is not new but the attempt to study it systematically is.

For much of modern medical history, research on cold exposure focused primarily on its dangers—hypothermia, cardiac stress, and survival in extreme environments. Only in recent years has attention shifted toward possible benefits, driven largely by the explosion of public interest and researchers have acknowledged that the science is still catching up.

When it comes to physical effects, the strongest evidence relates to muscle recovery. Cold-water immersion has been shown to reduce soreness following intense exercise. The mechanism is relatively well understood. Exposure to cold causes blood vessels to constrict, which limits swelling and reduces inflammatory signaling. When normal circulation returns, metabolic byproducts are cleared more efficiently from muscle tissue. This is why athletes have relied on ice baths for decades.

However, this benefit comes with an important caveat. The same processes that reduce inflammation may also interfere with the body’s ability to adapt to strength training. Some studies suggest that regular cold exposure immediately after resistance exercise can blunt the molecular signals responsible for muscle growth. In practical terms, what helps you feel better in the short term may limit gains over the long term. For endurance athletes, this effect appears less pronounced, but for individuals focused on building strength and muscle mass, it is a meaningful consideration.

Cold exposure also has immediate and dramatic effects on the cardiovascular system. Immersion in cold water triggers what is often referred to as the “cold shock” response. Heart rate increases rapidly, blood pressure rises, and blood vessels in the skin constrict sharply, redirecting blood toward the body’s core. This is a powerful physiological stressor. Interestingly, once the body begins to recover, there is often a shift toward increased parasympathetic activity — the branch of the nervous system associated with rest and recovery. This shift is sometimes reflected in improved heart rate variability, a marker that correlates with cardiovascular resilience.

Observational studies of habitual cold-water swimmers suggest improvements in certain cardiovascular risk markers, including lipid profiles and oxidative stress. At the same time, it is important to recognize that even in well-adapted individuals, cold immersion still increases cardiac workload. The potential benefits and risks are not separate; they occur simultaneously. Whether long-term adaptation outweighs repeated short-term stress is still an open question.

Another frequently discussed area involves metabolism, particularly the activation of brown adipose tissue, or “brown fat.” Unlike white fat, which stores energy, brown fat burns energy to generate heat. Cold exposure stimulates this process, and some studies suggest it may improve insulin sensitivity and metabolic efficiency. A 2024 review published in GeroScience highlighted the possibility that cold exposure could reduce cardiometabolic risk. However, most of these studies are small and conducted under controlled conditions that may not reflect real-world behavior. While the findings are promising, they are not yet strong enough to support broad clinical recommendations.

More recently, researchers have begun exploring cellular-level effects. A 2025 study from the University of Ottawa found that repeated cold exposure influenced processes such as autophagy and apoptosis, which are involved in cellular repair and turnover. These mechanisms are often associated with aging and longevity. While the findings are intriguing, they were observed in a limited population and over a short time frame. At this stage, they represent an interesting possibility rather than a definitive conclusion.

The mental and emotional effects of cold plunging are perhaps the most widely discussed and the least clearly understood. Cold exposure triggers a surge in neurotransmitters, particularly norepinephrine and dopamine. These chemicals are associated with alertness, focus, and the experience of reward. Many individuals report feeling energized, clear-headed, and even euphoric after a cold plunge.

The key question, however, is whether these short-term effects translate into lasting improvements in mental health. Current evidence suggests that while immediate mood elevation is real, long-term benefits are less certain. Systematic reviews have found that the evidence for sustained reductions in anxiety or depression is inconclusive. It is also worth noting that some of the perceived benefit may reflect a placebo effect, which, while real, complicates interpretation.

There is somewhat stronger evidence supporting short-term stress reduction. Cold exposure acts as a controlled stressor, forcing the body to adapt. This concept, known as hormesis, suggests that small, manageable stressors can enhance resilience over time. Some studies have found that cold-water immersion is associated with reduced stress levels, improved sleep, and enhanced subjective well-being for several hours following exposure. However, these effects appear to be time-limited, and it is not yet clear whether they accumulate in a meaningful way over longer periods.

Claims regarding immune function are among the most popular and the least substantiated. A frequently cited study reported that individuals who took cold showers experienced fewer sick days. However, cold showers are not the same as full immersion, and reduced absenteeism is not a direct measure of immune performance. Studies examining cold-water immersion have produced inconsistent results. Some show changes in immune markers, while others do not. Most focus on laboratory measurements rather than actual illness outcomes. At present, the evidence for immune enhancement remains inconclusive.

For older adults, the picture becomes more complex. Aging affects the body’s ability to regulate temperature. The capacity to generate heat declines, sensitivity to cold may be reduced, and chronic conditions or medications can further impair thermoregulation. What might be an invigorating experience for a younger individual can pose a genuine risk for someone in their later decades.

This does not mean cold exposure is entirely off the table, but it does mean the approach must be modified. Milder temperatures, shorter durations, and greater caution are essential. The margin for error is smaller, and symptoms such as dizziness, confusion, or irregular heartbeat may be delayed. The risk-benefit balance shifts noticeably with age.

There are also groups for whom cold plunging is best avoided altogether. Individuals with cardiovascular disease, particularly those with arrhythmias or a history of heart attack, face increased risk due to the sudden cardiovascular stress. People with peripheral vascular disease or Raynaud’s phenomenon may experience harmful levels of vasoconstriction. Those with diabetes and neuropathy may have impaired sensation and circulation, increasing the risk of injury. Individuals with respiratory conditions such as severe asthma may be vulnerable to cold-induced bronchospasm. Additional caution applies to those with rare conditions such as cold urticaria or cryoglobulinemia, as well as anyone recovering from recent surgery.

It is important to acknowledge what the evidence does not support. Claims that cold plunging significantly slows aging are not backed by clinical data. The idea that it produces long-term immune enhancement remains unproven. Even the metabolic benefits, while biologically plausible, appear modest and context-dependent.

Another challenge is the lack of standardization in the research itself. Studies vary widely in water temperature, duration of exposure, frequency, and participant characteristics. This makes it difficult to compare results or draw firm conclusions. In many cases, researchers are effectively studying different interventions under the same label.

The bottom line is that cold plunging is neither a miracle cure nor pure nonsense. It produces real physiological effects, some of which are beneficial, particularly in the context of athletic recovery. For healthy individuals, it may offer short-term improvements in mood, stress, and perceived well-being. At the same time, its long-term benefits remain uncertain, and its risks are not trivial for certain populations.

For those who are curious and in good health, a gradual and cautious approach may be reasonable. Starting with cool water and progressing slowly allows the body to adapt while minimizing risk. A visit with a physician is still advised before starting any new regimen.

For individuals with underlying medical conditions, particularly cardiovascular disease, the prudent course is to consult a physician before attempting any cold water immersion.

Cold plunging clearly does something. The challenge is that we are still in the early stages of understanding exactly what that “something” is, how durable it may be, and for whom it is most appropriate. In medicine, that places it in a familiar category—an intervention that is interesting, potentially useful, possibly harmful in some cases, but not yet fully defined.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

1. Effects of cold-water immersion on health and wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis — PLOS One (2025)

2. Cold-water plunging health benefits — Mayo Clinic Health System (2024)

3. Cold plunges: Healthy or harmful for your heart? — Harvard Health (2025)

4. The untapped potential of cold water therapy for healthy aging — PMC / GeroScience (2024)

5. Health effects of voluntary exposure to cold water — PMC / Int J Circumpolar Health (2022)

6. Cold plunges actually change your cells — ScienceDaily / University of Ottawa (2025)

7. The health benefits (and risks) of cold plunges — Advisory Board (2025)

8. What are the health benefits of a cold plunge? Scientists vet the claims — NPR (2023)

9. The benefits of cold-water immersion therapy — UF Health Jacksonville (2024)

10. Cold and longevity: Can cold exposure counteract aging? — ScienceDirect (2025)

11. Ice bath for seniors: Safety and age-appropriate cold therapy — PlungeChill (2025)

12. What seniors should know before trying a cold plunge — SilverSneakers (2025)

13. Ice baths over 50, according to a geriatrician — Parade (2023)

14. Ice baths and saunas: Are the latest health trends bad for your lungs? — American Lung Association

15. Sauna and cold plunge for seniors 60+: Safe protocols guide 2026 — Calore Health

16. Cold plunge benefits, risks, and who should avoid — Dr. Axe (2024)

Medical Disclaimer

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

Gluten and Your Gut: Celiac Disease, Sensitivity, and the Gluten-Free Craze.

By John Turley

On April 30, 2026

In Medicine, Science

Walk down the aisles at any grocery store today and you’ll find bread, crackers, cereals, and pastas proudly stamped “Gluten-Free” — as if gluten were some kind of dietary villain lurking in your morning toast. For the roughly 1% of Americans with celiac disease, avoiding gluten isn’t a lifestyle choice; it’s a medical necessity. But for the much larger slice of the population without any gluten-related disorder, the science tells a more complicated story.

What Is Celiac Disease, and What Causes It?

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder — meaning the immune system turns on the body itself. The trigger is gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. Gluten fragments interact with an enzyme called tissue transglutaminase in the gut. The immune system mistakes this complex for a threat and attacks it, but in the process, it damages the body’s own intestinal tissue. This is what makes celiac disease an autoimmune condition, rather than a simple food allergy. The immune system mounts an attack, generating antibodies that damage the villi, the tiny finger-like projections lining the small intestine that are responsible for absorbing nutrients. Over time, that damage leads to malabsorption and a cascade of health problems.

The disease has a strong hereditary component — about 7.5% of close relatives of people with celiac disease also have it. Researchers have identified two specific genetic variants, HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8, that are present in virtually all celiac patients. But here’s the catch: about 40% of the general population carry one of these genes, yet most of them never develop celiac disease. That means genes load the gun, but something else pulls the trigger. Environmental factors — gastrointestinal infections, timing of gluten introduction in infancy, and other autoimmune conditions like type 1 diabetes and thyroid disease, surgery, even pregnancy — all appear to play a role. Researchers continue to study why some genetically susceptible individuals develop the disease while others do not.

Symptoms and Diagnosis: A Tricky Puzzle

If you’re picturing someone doubled over with stomach pain after eating a sandwich, that’s one version of celiac disease — but far from the only one. The disease presents in more than 200 documented ways. Classic gut symptoms include abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and foul-smelling stools. But celiac disease can also show up as iron-deficiency anemia, bone loss, infertility, nerve damage, depression, liver enzyme abnormalities, and even a distinctive itchy skin rash called dermatitis herpetiformis. Children may experience stunted growth and delayed puberty. Some people, especially seniors, may have no obvious symptoms at all.

This symptom diversity is part of why diagnosis is so often delayed. Researchers estimate that somewhere between 60–70% of Americans with celiac disease remain undiagnosed.

The path to diagnosis typically starts with a blood test measuring tissue transglutaminase IgA antibodies — a marker the immune system produces in response to gluten. If that test is positive, a gastroenterologist performs an upper endoscopy and takes small tissue samples from the small intestine to look for the telltale villous damage under a microscope. Both tests need to be done while the patient is still eating gluten; going gluten-free first can produce falsely normal results and delay or prevent an accurate diagnosis.

Treatment: One Answer, Lifelong Commitment

There are no medications, no injections, no surgical fixes for celiac disease. The only effective treatment is a strict, lifelong gluten-free diet. And “strict” really does mean strict — even trace amounts of gluten can damage the intestinal lining, sometimes without producing obvious symptoms. Gluten hides in surprising places: commercial soups, sauces, ice cream, hot dogs, medications, dietary supplements, and even some communion wafers. Working with a registered dietitian is strongly recommended.

The good news is that the intestinal lining is remarkably resilient. Once gluten is eliminated, symptoms typically improve within one to two weeks, and mucosal healing generally follows over one to two years. Nutritional deficiencies — commonly iron, folate, calcium, and B vitamins — are addressed with supplements during recovery. A small subset of patients develop “refractory celiac disease,” where the intestine doesn’t heal despite strict dietary adherence; these cases may require corticosteroids and carry a less favorable prognosis.

Prognosis: Life After Diagnosis

Most people with celiac disease who strictly follow a gluten-free diet do very well over the long term. Intestinal architecture normalizes, antibody levels drop, and many of the downstream complications — anemia, bone loss, neurological symptoms — improve or resolve. The earlier the diagnosis is made and the gluten-free diet is initiated, the better the outcome.

One significant concern on the long-term horizon is cancer risk. People with longstanding, untreated celiac disease face a roughly 6–8% elevated risk of lymphoma of the small intestine. There is also a modestly increased risk of other gastrointestinal cancers. The reassuring part: patients who achieve normal intestinal histology on a gluten-free diet appear to have the same lymphoma risk as the general population. Adherence to the diet is, quite literally, protective.

Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The Gray Zone

Between full-blown celiac disease and perfectly healthy gluten tolerance lies a murkier territory: non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). People with NCGS experience symptoms similar to celiac disease — bloating, abdominal pain, fatigue, headaches, brain fog — after eating gluten, but their blood tests for celiac antibodies are negative and intestinal biopsies show no structural damage. The condition is real and increasingly recognized, but its biology remains incompletely understood.

Non‑celiac gluten sensitivity does not have a single definitive test. Instead, it is a diagnosis of exclusion. Once all other causes have been excluded, NCGS is what’s left.

Milder Forms of Gluten Intolerance

Not everyone with gluten‑related complaints fits neatly into the categories above. Some people never undergo formal testing but notice a pattern: when they eat bread, pasta, or pastries, they just don’t feel good. When they cut back on those foods, they feel lighter and more energetic.

These milder forms of gluten intolerance can be tricky to interpret. The symptoms overlap with irritable bowel syndrome, lactose intolerance, stress‑related gut issues, and reactions to FODMAPs (fermentable carbohydrates) found in wheat and many other foods. In some cases, it may not be gluten itself causing problems but the overall carbohydrate profile of a highly processed, wheat‑heavy diet. Some scientists suggest renaming the condition “non-celiac wheat sensitivity” to better capture this complexity. Still, for the individual, what matters most is whether changing their diet in a structured way leads to sustained relief.

Wheat allergy is a classic IgE‑mediated food allergy to wheat proteins that can cause hives, wheezing, or even anaphylaxis, and needs to be distinguished from celiac disease and NCGS. It is treated like other food allergies and is best managed by an allergist.

The Gluten-Free Craze: Helpful Trend or Expensive Fad?

Here’s where things get interesting — and a little frustrating for nutritional scientists. Surveys suggest that roughly 30% of American adults are actively trying to reduce or eliminate gluten from their diets. A 2013 poll found that 65% of Americans believed gluten-free foods were simply healthier, and 27% thought going gluten-free would help them lose weight. These numbers vastly outpace the actual prevalence of celiac disease and gluten sensitivity combined.

What does the science actually say? For people without celiac disease, NCGS, or a wheat allergy, there’s no compelling evidence that a gluten-free diet improves health, reduces inflammation, boosts athletic performance, or prevents disease. A large 2017 study of over 100,000 participants without celiac disease found no association between long-term gluten consumption and heart disease risk — and in fact suggested that gluten-avoiders who cut back on whole grains might be inadvertently increasing their cardiovascular risk through lower dietary fiber and an increase in refined starches, sugars and fats in gluten substitutes.

There’s also a nutritional downside worth considering. Gluten-free processed foods — the breads, pastas, crackers, and cookies filling grocery shelves — are often lower in fiber, iron, zinc, B vitamins, and folate than their conventional counterparts. They tend to be higher in sugar and fat to compensate for gluten’s structural role. And they’re almost always more expensive.

On the other hand, for some people, adopting a gluten‑free pattern coincides with broader healthy changes—more fruits, vegetables, and home‑cooked meals—so perceived benefits may come from overall diet quality rather than gluten removal itself.

The bottom line from Harvard Medical School is clear: if you feel well and have no digestive symptoms, there’s no evidence that a gluten-free diet will help, and some modest evidence it might hurt.

That said, if you’re experiencing real, persistent gut symptoms and haven’t been evaluated, the right move isn’t to quietly go gluten-free and see if you feel better — it’s to see a doctor and get tested first. Eliminating gluten before testing can produce falsely negative results and close the diagnostic door on a condition that, left untreated, carries genuine long-term risks.

The Takeaway

Celiac disease is a serious autoimmune condition affecting about 1% of the population, with the majority still undiagnosed. It requires strict, permanent gluten avoidance and careful medical follow-up. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity occupies a legitimate but scientifically murkier space, affecting a real but incompletely defined group of people for whom reducing gluten makes practical sense. For everyone else — the majority of gluten-free shoppers — the science doesn’t support the hype. Gluten itself isn’t the villain; it’s just a protein. The real story is in the individual biology of those who can’t tolerate it.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources:

· WebMD — Celiac Disease: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/celiac-disease/celiac-disease

· Merck Manual (Consumer Version) — Celiac Disease https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/digestive-disorders/malabsorption/celiac-disease

· Merck Manual (Professional Edition) — Celiac Disease https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/malabsorption-syndromes/celiac-disease

· American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) — Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease: Guidelines From the American College of Gastroenterology (2024) https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2024/0100/practice-guidelines-celiac-disease.html

· Houston Methodist — Celiac Disease: Symptoms, Treatment and What To Know (2024) https://www.houstonmethodist.org/blog/articles/2024/jun/celiac-disease-symptoms-treatment-and-what-to-know/

· PMC / Nutrients Journal — The Gluten-Free Diet for Celiac Disease and Beyond https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8625243/

· PMC / Diabetes Spectrum — The Gluten-Free Diet: Fad or Necessity? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5439366/

· Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health — Gluten: A Benefit or Harm to the Body? https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/gluten/

·Harvard Health — Ditch the Gluten, Improve Your Health? https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/ditch-the-gluten-improve-your-health

Medical Disclaimer

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

The One True Gospel of Wellness

By John Turley

On April 23, 2026

In Commentary, Medicine

Why Every Guru Thinks They’ve Found the Only Path to Health

There’s a peculiar affliction that seems to strike fitness influencers, biohackers, homeopathic healers, and wellness gurus with near-universal consistency — the unshakeable conviction that they, and only they, have cracked the code on human health. Whether it’s cold plunges at 4 a.m., microdosing mushrooms, coffee enemas, or whatever supplement stack is trending this week, every one of these prophets arrives at the same conclusion: their method is the path, the others are at best misguided, and mainstream medicine is a corrupt temple worth burning down.

Psychologists have a name for part of what’s happening here. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect — the tendency for people with limited knowledge in a domain to overestimate their own competence. But that’s only part of the story. Many of these figures are genuinely smart, sometimes even credentialed. What really drives the zealotry is something closer to what researchers call “belief perseverance” — the tendency to hold tightly to a conclusion even when contradicting evidence rolls in. Once someone has built an identity, a brand, and an income stream around a single idea, the psychological and financial cost of admitting nuance becomes enormous.

Take the biohacking community as a prime example. Some influencers — like the self-proclaimed “father of biohacking” — have built empires on the premise that optimizing the body is a matter of finding the right levers and pulling them correctly. They have championed everything from Bulletproof Coffee to infrared saunas to testosterone replacement, positioning each as a revelation that conventional medicine is too slow or too corrupted to acknowledge. The problem isn’t that all of these interventions lack merit — some have legitimate science behind them. The problem is the rhetorical framework: the idea that skeptics aren’t just wrong, they’re complicit. That’s not science; that’s a revival meeting.

Homeopathy sits at a different extreme but runs on the same engine. Developed in the late 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on the idea that substances that cause symptoms in healthy people can cure those symptoms in the sick — and that extreme dilution actually strengthens a remedy’s potency. The scientific consensus is unambiguous: systematic reviews and meta-analyses have repeatedly found homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebo. And yet its advocates don’t merely disagree with this consensus — they dismiss the entire evidentiary framework, arguing that conventional research methods simply can’t measure what homeopathy does. It’s an airtight position: no evidence can ever count against it.

The fitness world runs its own version of this dogmatism on a perpetual loop. CrossFit devotees insist that anything other than functional high-intensity training is a waste of time. Carnivore diet advocates declare that vegetables are quietly poisoning you with antinutrients. Yoga instructors sometimes slide into the claim that breath control and mindfulness can substitute for actual medical care. Each subculture has its orthodoxy, its apostles, and its convenient explanations for why people who don’t follow the program are sick, lazy, or deceived. The irony is that many of these systems contain genuinely useful elements. Resistance training really does build muscle and bone density. Mindfulness really does reduce cortisol. Dietary quality really does matter enormously. But the insistence on one method to the exclusion of all others transforms useful practices into something closer to religious doctrine.

What’s lost in all the noise is the most important truth in medicine: human bodies are wildly heterogeneous. What works beautifully for one person may be ineffective or even harmful for another. This isn’t a flaw in the science — it is the science. Precision medicine, one of the most promising frontiers in modern healthcare, is built entirely on this recognition. The dream of a single universal protocol for human health isn’t just unrealized — it’s probably unrealizable. Yet that’s precisely what every wellness guru is selling.

There’s also a social dimension worth naming. The wellness industry is, in the most literal sense, an industry. It generated an estimated $5.6 trillion globally in 2022, according to the Global Wellness Institute, and that number continues to climb. When someone’s livelihood depends on their particular system being not just good but uniquely correct, objectivity becomes a luxury they can’t easily afford. Dismissing alternatives isn’t just tribalism — it’s good business.

None of this is to say that skepticism toward mainstream medicine is always misplaced. Conventional healthcare has real blind spots — in chronic disease management, in nutrition research, in the treatment of pain, and in its historical tendency to dismiss patient experience. The gurus often fill genuine gaps that the system has left open. But filling a gap is different from claiming you have the only map to the entire territory. The honest answer in health and fitness, as in most complex domains, is that we know a good deal, we don’t know quite enough, and anyone who tells you they’ve figured it all out probably hasn’t.

The next time someone tells you they’ve discovered the only way — whether it’s a supplement protocol, a spiritual practice, or a morning routine — it might be worth asking the simplest question in science: compared to what? If the answer is a dismissive wave at everything else, you probably have your answer.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Global Wellness Institute — Global Wellness Economy Monitor: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/

Ernst E. — Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts (Springer, 2016): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-43592-3

Dunning D. — The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260111440024

National Institutes of Health — Precision Medicine Initiative: https://www.nih.gov/research-training/allofus-research-program

Medical Disclaimer

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

The Accidental Footnote: Heel Spurs, the Vietnam Draft, and American Inequality

By John Turley

On April 17, 2026

In Commentary, History, Medicine, Politics

If you’ve ever winced taking your first steps out of bed in the morning, you may have already made an involuntary acquaintance with heel spurs — or more precisely, with the condition that often travels with them. The term itself sounds alarming, and for a brief but colorful stretch of American political history, it became something far more charged than a footnote to podiatry. But before we get to the politics, it’s worth understanding what a heel spur actually is, because the medical reality is both more mundane and more complicated than the caricature.

What Exactly Is a Heel Spur?
A heel spur is a small bony outgrowth — technically called a calcaneal spur — that extends from the underside of the heel bone (the calcaneus). It forms at the spot where the plantar fascia — the thick ligament running the length of your foot from heel to toe — attaches to the heel bone. The spur is not, despite what the name implies, a sharp spike. It is typically smooth and rounded, though it can still cause irritation if it presses into surrounding soft tissue.

The image depicts a comparison between a healthy foot and one with a prominent foot ulcer, highlighting the condition's visible effects.

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Heel spurs affect about 10% of the population, making them one of the more common foot conditions around, though most people who have one don’t know it. The spur develops gradually — usually over months or even years — as the body deposits calcium in response to chronic stress at that heel attachment point. Think of it less as damage and more as your skeleton’s attempt at reinforcement.

What Causes Them?
The underlying driver is repetitive mechanical stress on the foot. Heel spurs are particularly associated with strains on foot muscles and ligaments, stretching of the plantar fascia, and repeated small tears in the membrane covering the heel bone. Athletes who do a lot of running and jumping are especially prone.

But you don’t need to be an elite runner to develop one. Walking gait problems — particularly overpronation, where the foot rolls inward — place uneven stress on the heel with each step. Worn-out or poorly fitted shoes, which fail to absorb shock or support the arch, compound the problem. Obesity increases the mechanical load on the heel. Occupations that require prolonged standing or walking on hard surfaces put the plantar fascia under constant tension. And as people age, tendons and ligaments lose their elasticity, making the tissues more vulnerable to micro-tears and the subsequent bony repair response.

Heel spurs are also closely connected to a condition most people have heard of: plantar fasciitis. The two are related a but not identical. Plantar fasciitis is inflammation of the plantar fascia itself, usually from overuse. A heel spur can develop as a downstream consequence of that inflammation — the body lays down extra bone in response to the ongoing stress at the fascia’s attachment point.

Symptoms — or the Lack Thereof
Here’s the part that surprises most people: the majority of heel spurs cause no symptoms at all, and many are discovered incidentally on X-rays taken for other reasons. Only about 5% of heel spurs are estimated to be symptomatic.

When a heel spur does produce symptoms, the experience is heavily intertwined with plantar fasciitis. The classic description is a sharp, stabbing pain on the bottom of the foot first thing in the morning, or after any prolonged rest. Many people compare it to stepping on a tack. Paradoxically, this pain often eases somewhat after walking around for a few minutes, only to return after extended time on the feet or after another rest. It’s that “worse in the morning” quality that tends to be the giveaway.

Other symptoms, when present, can include localized swelling, warmth, and tenderness along the front of the heel, as well as increased sensitivity on the underside of the foot. It’s worth noting that the pain associated with a heel spur is not generally thought to come from the bony spur itself, but from the irritation it causes in the surrounding soft tissue — tendons, ligaments, and bursae.

How Is It Diagnosed?
Diagnosis typically begins with a physical exam. Your doctor or podiatrist will ask about when the pain started, what activities preceded it, and what makes it better or worse. They’ll examine your foot for tenderness at specific points, assess your range of motion, and check foot alignment and press on key areas to locate the source of pain.

Imaging confirms the picture. An X-ray can clearly show the bony spur and is the most commonly used test. That said, the size of the spur on an X-ray doesn’t necessarily correspond to how much pain a patient is experiencing — a small spur can be quite painful while a large one may cause no trouble at all. In more complex cases, an MRI may be ordered to assess the soft tissues more closely and evaluate whether plantar fasciitis or another condition is also in play.

Treatment Options
The reassuring news is that the vast majority of cases resolve without surgery. More than 90% of patients improve with nonsurgical treatment. The catch is that conservative management requires patience — improvement typically takes weeks, and more stubborn cases can take months.

The cornerstone of treatment is rest and reducing the activities that provoke pain. This doesn’t necessarily mean completely stopping exercise; low-impact alternatives like swimming, cycling, or rowing allow you to stay active while giving the heel a break from impact. Icing the bottom of the foot after activity helps manage inflammation. Over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medications like ibuprofen or naproxen can provide relief, though they’re intended for short-term use.

Footwear matters enormously. Supportive shoes with good arch support, cushioning, and a slight heel rise reduce the strain on the plantar fascia. Custom orthotics with molded insoles designed to redistribute pressure across the foot are often recommended, particularly for people with gait abnormalities or flat feet. Physical therapy can be part of the treatment plan, focusing on stretching the calf muscles and plantar fascia, strengthening the foot’s intrinsic muscles, and correcting biomechanical issues.

For cases that don’t respond to these initial measures, the next tier of treatment includes corticosteroid injections to reduce inflammation at the spur site, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy — a non-invasive procedure that uses sound waves to stimulate healing in chronically inflamed tissue. Surgery is reserved for the minority of cases where conservative treatment fails after nine to twelve months. Possible complications include nerve pain, infection, scarring, and — with plantar fascia release — the risk of foot instability or stress fracture. Most orthopedic surgeons regard surgery as a last resort.

Are Heel Spurs Debilitating?
For most people, the honest answer is: no. Heel spurs are a common condition with a favorable prognosis, especially with early diagnosis and appropriate management. Many people live with heel spurs for years without ever knowing it, and even those who develop pain typically find substantial relief with conservative treatment within four to eight weeks.
That said, the pain at its worst — particularly in conjunction with plantar fasciitis — can be genuinely disruptive to daily life. Athletes may find their training significantly limited. People who spend long hours on their feet at work may struggle with sustained discomfort. And a small percentage of patients do end up with prolonged, treatment-resistant pain that affects mobility. So, the more accurate framing might be: heel spurs have the potential to be significantly uncomfortable and functionally limiting during flare-ups, but with proper treatment most people recover well and return to normal activity.

Heel Spurs and the Vietnam-Era Draft
Which brings us to an improbable chapter in heel spur history. During the Vietnam War era, heel spurs became — for at least one famous case — a ticket out of military service. Understanding how that worked requires a brief detour into the draft system of the 1960s and 1970s, and what it meant to receive a medical deferment.
According to the National Archives, of the roughly 27 million American men eligible for military service between 1964 and 1973, about 15 million were granted deferments — mostly for education, and some for mental or physical problems — while only 2,215,000 were actually drafted into service—another eight million volunteered. Some of those who later served had previously had deferments. The system was sprawling, complex, and — as was widely acknowledged even at the time — deeply unequal.
Roughly 60% of draft-eligible American men took some sort of action to avoid military conscription. There were many routes: college deferments, fatherhood, conscientious objector status (170,000 men received those alone), National Guard enlistment, and medical exemptions. Medical deferments covered a wide range of conditions — from serious chronic illness to conditions that, in a different context, most people would consider minor. Flat feet, poor eyesight, asthma, and yes, bone spurs all appeared on the list of potentially disqualifying ailments.
The system was known to favor men with access to money, education, and well-connected physicians. American forces in Vietnam were 55% working-class and 25% poor — reflecting those who didn’t have the means to navigate the deferment labyrinth. A working-class kid from rural West Virginia was far more likely to end up in the Mekong Delta than the son of a New York real estate developer.

The Most Famous Heel Spur in American History
Which leads, inevitably, to Donald Trump. As confirmed by Selective Service records obtained and reported by multiple news outlets, Trump received five Vietnam-era draft deferments — four for college attendance at Fordham and the Wharton School, and a fifth in 1968, recorded as a medical deferment for bone spurs in his heels. The medical classification left him disqualified for military service.

The circumstances surrounding the diagnosis have been contested ever since. Reporting by the New York Times included accounts from the daughters of a Queens podiatrist named Larry Braunstein, who alleged that their father had provided or vouched for the diagnosis as a professional favor to Trump’s father, Fred Trump — a landlord to whom Braunstein reportedly owed a debt of gratitude. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen also testified that Trump had admitted to fabricating the injury. Trump himself has maintained that the diagnosis was legitimate, stating that a doctor “gave me a letter — a very strong letter — on the heels.” The underlying medical records that would resolve the dispute are, conveniently, not publicly available; most individual Selective Service medical records from that era were subsequently destroyed.

It’s worth noting that Trump’s pattern — using legal channels, including a medical deferment of questionable validity, to avoid Vietnam service — was not unique to him. Historians have pointed out that numerous prominent figures on both sides of the political aisle received deferments of various kinds, including Joe Biden (asthma), Dick Cheney (student deferments), Bill Clinton (navigated the ROTC system), and George W. Bush (National Guard). The heel spur episode became politically charged in part because of Trump’s later hawkish rhetoric and his outspokenness in questioning the military service of others — most notably Senator John McCain, who spent years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

How Many People Got Heel Spur Deferments?
This is where the historical record hits a hard wall. No reliable statistics exist specifically for heel spur deferments. The Selective Service tracked broad categories — student deferments, hardship deferments, conscientious objector status, medical disqualifications — but it did not publish a breakdown by specific diagnosis, and most individual medical records from that era no longer exist.

What we can say is that bone spurs were a recognized medical disqualifier under Selective Service regulations, that medical deferments broadly were a commonly used — and commonly abused — avenue for avoiding service, and that the process was heavily influenced by access to sympathetic physicians. A man with means, connections, and a cooperative podiatrist had options that a man without those resources did not.

The honest answer, then, is that we don’t know how many men received deferments citing heel spurs specifically, and we almost certainly never will. The data either wasn’t tracked at that level of granularity or was long since destroyed. What we do know is that the condition became, for a time, a lens through which Americans examined something much larger: who serves, who doesn’t, and whether the systems meant to govern those decisions are applied fairly.

For most people, a heel spur is a manageable, if annoying, footnote in the story of their health. For at least one person, it became a footnote in the history of American politics.

Personal Note: I have heel spurs; I wish I’d known about them in 1967.

Images generated by author using AI.

Medical Sources
Cleveland Clinic — Heel Spurs overview
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21965-heel-spurs
WebMD — Heel Spur Causes, Symptoms, Treatments, and Surgery
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/heel-spurs-pain-causes-symptoms-treatments
Hackensack Meridian Health — Bone Spurs in the Heel: Symptoms and Recovery
https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthier-you/2024/01/02/bone-spurs-in-the-heel-symptoms-and-recovery
OrthoArkansas — Heel Spurs
https://www.orthoarkansas.com/heel-spurs-orthoarkansas/
EmergeOrtho — Heel Bone Spurs: Causes, Symptoms, Treatment
https://emergeortho.com/news/heel-bone-spurs/
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons — Plantar Fasciitis and Bone Spurs
https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases–conditions/plantar-fasciitis-and-bone-spurs/
Vietnam Draft & Military Service Sources
History.com — 7 Ways Americans Avoided the Draft During the Vietnam War
https://www.history.com/articles/vietnam-war-draft-avoiding
Wikipedia — Draft Evasion in the Vietnam War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion_in_the_Vietnam_War
Wikipedia — Conscription in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States
Students of History — The Draft and the Vietnam War
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/vietnam-war-draft
University of Michigan — The Military Draft During the Vietnam War
https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antivietnamwar/exhibits/show/exhibit/draft_protests/the-military-draft-during-the-
Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 310 — Vietnam War Statistics
https://www.vva310.org/vietnam-war-statistics
Vietnam Veterans of Foreign Wars — Fact vs. Fiction: The Vietnam Veteran
https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm
New York City Vietnam Veterans Plaza — Interesting Facts About Vietnam
https://www.vietnamveteransplaza.com/interesting-facts-about-vietnam/

Medical Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read here.
If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.
The author of this article is a licensed physician, but the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any hospital, health system, or medical organization with which the author may be affiliated.

Supplement Smarts: What Seniors Should Know Before Reaching for That Bottle

By John Turley

On April 9, 2026

In Medicine

Walk through the supplement aisle of any pharmacy and you’ll find shelf after shelf of promises — stronger bones, sharper memory, less joint pain, better sleep. Americans spend roughly $60 billion a year on dietary supplements, and seniors are among the most enthusiastic buyers. But which of these products actually deliver, which are harmless but ineffective, and which could do real damage? The answers are more nuanced than the marketing suggests.

Older adults are often drawn to supplements because aging changes appetite, digestion, medication use, and nutrient absorption. But the general rule is simple: supplements work best when they fill a documented gap, and they are least useful when they are taken as a broad “insurance policy” by otherwise well-nourished people. Let’s take a closer look.

First, a ground rule that applies to everything in this article: dietary supplements are not FDA-approved drugs. The FDA treats them more like foods, meaning manufacturers don’t have to prove effectiveness before selling them. Quality control also varies widely — what’s on the label may not always match what’s in the bottle. As a result, the scientific evidence behind many supplements is limited or inconsistent. When shopping, look for products with a USP (United States Pharmacopeia) verified mark, which indicates independent testing for identity, purity, and potency.

The Genuinely Helpful Ones

Vitamin D and Calcium are probably the most well-supported supplements for older adults. Bone loss accelerates with age, and these two nutrients work as a team — calcium provides the raw material for bone, while vitamin D helps the body absorb it. The National Institute on Aging recommends 600 IU of vitamin D daily for adults aged 51–70, and 800 IU for those over 70. Most seniors don’t get enough from diet or sun exposure alone, making supplementation genuinely sensible for many people. This is especially true for prople with documented deficiency or osteoporosis risk. One important caveat: don’t go overboard. Too much vitamin D can cause calcium to build up in the blood, potentially harming the kidneys and blood vessels.

Vitamin B12 is another legitimate priority; Up to 15 percent of older adults may bedeficient.. Older adults are prone to B12 deficiency not because they eat less of it, but because the stomach produces less acid with age, and stomach acid is needed to release B12 from food. Those taking acid-blocking medications are at even higher risk. Deficiency can cause nerve damage and anemia. The good news is that the form of B12 in supplements is absorbed without needing stomach acid, making supplements effective where food sources may fall short.

Omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish oil, have earned a solid reputation for lowering triglycerides — a type of blood fat linked to heart disease. A large study of over 400,000 people found associations between fish oil use and improved cholesterol profiles. However, the picture is more complicated for other claimed benefits. Evidence for omega-3s preventing dementia is mixed, and some research suggests fish oil can actually raise LDL (“bad”) cholesterol in certain people, so monitoring is wise. For those who can’t eat fatty fish regularly, fish oil is a reasonable backup — just don’t expect miracles beyond the triglyceride benefit.

Melatonin has moderate scientific support for improving sleep, which is a chronic issue for many older adults. It’s particularly helpful for resetting disrupted sleep cycles. The key is using it at low doses — often 0.5 to 3 mg is sufficient, though most over-the-counter products contain far more. It’s generally well tolerated but should not replace evaluation of underlying sleep disorders.

Creatine and protein supplements may sound like something only gym rats need, but research increasingly supports their role in combating sarcopenia — the age-related loss of muscle mass that can lead to falls and loss of independence. A 2024 Stanford review found that creatine supplementation, combined with resistance training, can meaningfully preserve muscle in adults over 65. Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) can play a supporting role in certain situations, particularly when protein intake from food is inadequate. Vegans should pay particular attention to protein intake.

The Ambiguous Middle Ground

Glucosamine and chondroitin are among the most popular supplements for joint pain, and the scientific debate around them has been going on for decades. These are naturally occurring compounds in cartilage, and the theory is that supplementing them may slow joint deterioration in osteoarthritis. A 2024 systematic review of 146 studies found that over 90% of the studies reported positive outcomes — impressive on its face. But the landmark NIH-funded GAIT trial told a more sobering story: glucosamine and chondroitin, alone or together, were no more effective than a placebo for most people with knee osteoarthritis. The exception was a subgroup with moderate-to-severe pain, who did show moderate improvement. Safety is generally good, but those on blood thinners like warfarin should be careful, as glucosamine may affect clotting.

Turmeric and curcumin have generated enormous popular interest, and there’s at least a plausible scientific basis for the excitement. Curcumin, the active compound in turmeric, is a potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant. Multiple clinical trials support some benefit for knee pain, and some research suggests potential benefits for cognitive health. However, curcumin is poorly absorbed on its own, which is why many products add black pepper (piperine) or use enhanced delivery formulations. The overall evidence, while promising, is still described as “mixed or low quality” by most reviewers. If you do try it, look for a formulation with enhanced bioavailability and give it at least 4–8 weeks and be aware that it may cause gastrointestinal symptoms.

Saw palmetto is widely used by older men for symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) — the enlarged prostate that causes frequent urination. A 2024 updated Cochrane review found some evidence of limited benefit for urinary symptoms for some men, though the results are inconsistent and most mainstream urology guidelines do not formally recommend it. It’s generally well tolerated. Men using it should still get their prostate checked regularly and not assume saw palmetto rules out other conditions.

Magnesium has had a social media moment, with enthusiastic claims about better sleep, improved mood, and reduced muscle cramps. The actual science is more cautious — there’s limited evidence for magnesium supplements providing any of these benefits in people who aren’t already deficient. That said, deficiency is relatively common in older adults, and correction of a true deficiency can absolutely help. A blood test can tell you if you actually need it.

Multivitamins present a genuine paradox. They’re the most commonly taken supplement category, often recommended by physicians as a nutritional safety net. And for seniors with reduced appetite or limited dietary variety, that logic holds. But large, well-designed studies have found limited evidence that multivitamins improve longevity or prevent major diseases in otherwise healthy older adults. A newer 2024 analysis from the COSMOS trial suggests some modest benefit for cognitive function. Senior-specific multivitamins are preferred — they typically contain more vitamin D and B12 and less or no iron, which reflects the actual needs of older adults.

The Ones That Raise Red Flags

Iron supplements deserve special caution in older men and post-menopausal women. Unless there’s a documented deficiency confirmed by blood testing, taking iron supplements can be harmful. In men, iron overload is a genuine risk, and about twice as many men carry the gene for hereditary hemochromatosis (a condition where the body absorbs too much iron) as carry the gene for iron deficiency. Excess iron has been linked to liver damage and may raise cancer risk. Senior-specific multivitamins wisely contain little or no iron for exactly this reason.

High-dose Vitamin A is another potential problem. The liver’s ability to clear vitamin A decreases with age, and older adults absorb more of it. Doses above recommended daily values can accumulate to toxic levels, potentially harming the liver. This is specifically the retinol form of vitamin A. Beta-carotene from plant sources is much safer. Check your multivitamin label carefully.

High dose Vitamin B6 can cause nerve damage, balance problems, and sensory neuropathy when taken over long periods but is safe at recommended levels.

Many supplements claim to improve memory or prevent dementia. Unfortunately, the evidence is generally weak. Fish oil, ginkgo biloba, and other popular products have not demonstrated clear benefits for preventing cognitive decline in controlled studies. Some research suggests that long-term supplementation with B vitamins might slow certain aspects of cognitive decline in specific populations, but results remain inconsistent.

St. John’s Wort is widely used for mild depression, but it comes with a serious warning: it interacts with a long list of medications, including antidepressants, blood thinners, heart medications, and antiretroviral drugs. For seniors managing multiple conditions with multiple prescriptions, this herb is particularly risky. Ginkgo biloba carries similar drug interaction concerns, especially around bleeding risk when combined with blood thinners or aspirin.

High-dose antioxidants — vitamins A, C, and E taken in large amounts — have largely failed to deliver on their promise of preventing heart disease and cancer. The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend these for prevention. In some cases, large antioxidant supplements may actually interfere with the body’s natural disease-fighting mechanisms.

The Bottom Line

Given the mixed evidence, a sensible approach to supplements includes several principles:

Food first. A balanced diet usually provides most necessary nutrients.
Test before supplementing. Blood tests can identify deficiencies such as B12 or Vitamin D.
Avoid megadoses. Excessive intake of vitamins can cause toxicity.
Check medication interactions. Many supplements interact with common drugs, including blood thinners.
Treat supplements like medications. They should have a clear purpose and measurable benefit.

Supplements that address documented deficiencies or fill genuine dietary gaps — vitamin D, B12, calcium, omega-3s — offer the best evidence for benefit in seniors. Joint supplements like glucosamine and turmeric may help some people, though the evidence is mixed enough that a try-and-see approach (with a 2–3 month window to assess benefit) is reasonable. And several common supplements, particularly iron in unsupervised use, high-dose vitamin A, and certain herbals in combination with medications, carry risks that are easy to overlook because they’re sold without a prescription.

I always advised my patients to bring all their supplement bottles to at least one visit each year and to bring any medicines prescribed by specialists. Physicians can spot dangerous overlaps, flag interactions with your prescriptions, and tell you if what you’re taking makes sense for you. Many seniors never hear a list of side effects for supplements the way they do for prescription drugs — and they often assume that means there aren’t any. That assumption, unfortunately, can be costly.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Kaufman MW et al. Nutritional Supplements for Healthy Aging: A Critical Analysis Review. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 2024.

National Institute on Aging. Dietary Supplements for Older Adults.

National Institute on Aging. Vitamins and Minerals for Older Adults.

Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University. Older Adults — Micronutrient Information Center.

Baden KER et al. The Safety and Efficacy of Glucosamine and/or Chondroitin in Humans: A Systematic Review. Nutrients, 2025.

National Center for Health Research. Glucosamine Supplements: Do They Work and Are They Safe?

BodySpec. Supplements for Joint Health: 2025 Evidence-Based Guide.

UCHealth Today. Dietary Supplements: Are These 14 Common Vitamins and Supplements Beneficial or a Waste of Money?

Cleveland Clinic. Dietary Supplements Compound Health Issues for Older Adults.

FDA. Mixing Medications and Dietary Supplements Can Endanger Your Health.

NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Iron — Health Professional Fact Sheet.

NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Multivitamin/Mineral Supplements — Health Professional Fact Sheet.

Foods (MDPI). Food Supplements and Their Use in Elderly Subjects — Challenges and Risks. 2024.

PMC. Improving Cognitive Function with Nutritional Supplements in Aging: A Comprehensive Narrative Review. 2023.

Memorial Healthcare System. Herbal Supplements and Prescription Drugs: Know the Risks. 2024.

WebMD. Saw Palmetto: Overview, Uses, Side Effects, Precautions.

________________________________________________

Medical Disclaimer

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

Hay Fever: The Allergy That Has Nothing to Do with Hay

By John Turley

On April 3, 2026

In Medicine

Let’s get one thing out of the way up front: hay fever has almost nothing to do with hay, and it doesn’t cause a fever. The name stuck after a popular 19th-century theory that the smell of summer hay was making people sick. Turns out, the culprit is invisible and far more pervasive — tiny airborne particles that your immune system, for reasons we can’t entirely explain, decides to treat like the enemy. The official medical term is allergic rhinitis, but most of us just call it hay fever, seasonal allergies, or, in the depths of pollen season, I call it a personal nightmare.

If you’ve ever spent a spring morning sneezing your way through a box of tissues or rubbed your eyes until they looked like you’d been crying all night, you already know what this feels like. What you might not know is why it happens, what exactly sets it off, and — most importantly — what you can do about it. Let’s dig in.

What Is Hay Fever, Exactly?

Hay fever is, at its core, an overreaction by your immune system. When you breathe in certain particles — pollen, dust, animal dander — your body may misidentify them as a threat. In response, it releases a chemical called histamine, which is supposed to help fight off invaders but instead triggers a cascade of miserable symptoms: sneezing, congestion, a runny nose, itchy eyes, and general stuffiness. None of this is actually doing anything useful. Your immune system is essentially deploying the cavalry against a dandelion.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, roughly 20% of Americans have allergic rhinitis, and a 2021 study found that more than 81 million people reported seasonal allergy symptoms that year alone. So, if you’re one of us, you are not alone.

Hay fever comes in two main varieties. Seasonal allergic rhinitis is what most people picture — the spring sneezing, the summer eye-rubbing, the early fall misery. Perennial allergic rhinitis, on the other hand, is the year-round version, driven by indoor allergens that don’t take the winter off. Either way, the underlying mechanism is the same: your immune system picking a fight with something that poses no real danger.

What Triggers It?

The list of potential triggers is longer than you might expect, but they fall into a few main categories.

Pollen is the classic offender and the one most associated with the “hay fever” label. But not all pollen is created equal. According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), seasonal hay fever is most commonly triggered by wind-carried pollen from trees, grasses, and weeds. Crucially, it’s not flower pollen — those heavy, colorful grains are carried by insects and never make it into your airway. The sneaky offenders are the plain-looking plants whose lightweight pollen drifts for miles. Tree pollens tend to peak in spring, grasses in early summer, and ragweed in late summer through early fall.

Hot, dry, and windy days are the worst for pollen exposure. A cool, rainy day provides some relief — rain washes pollen out of the air, at least temporarily. As noted by MedlinePlus (National Library of Medicine), pollen counts are highest during those breezy, sunny mornings when everything is blooming.

Beyond pollen, a range of indoor allergens can trigger perennial symptoms year-round. Dust mites — microscopic creatures that live in bedding, carpets, and upholstered furniture — are among the most common. Pet dander (the tiny flecks of skin that cats, dogs, and other animals shed) is another major culprit. Mold spores, which thrive in damp environments, can trigger symptoms both indoors and outdoors. And unpleasantly, cockroach droppings and saliva are also recognized as allergens. The ACAAI notes that perennial symptoms tend to worsen in winter, when people spend more time indoors with windows closed and allergens concentrated.

You may also notice that some non‑allergic irritants make things worse, such as cigarette smoke, strong perfumes, cleaning sprays or exhaust fumes. They do not cause hay fever on their own, but they can irritate already sensitive noses and eyes.

There’s also a lesser-known category: occupational rhinitis. If your symptoms are worse at work and better on weekends, you might be reacting to something in your workplace environment — cleaning chemicals, dust, fumes, or other irritants. This is worth discussing with a doctor if you notice a pattern.

The so-called “hygiene hypothesis” suggests that overly clean environments may predispose the immune system to overreact when you do come in contact with a trigger. This point remains debatable, but it’s widely discussed in immunology literature.

How Does It Feel?

The symptoms of hay fever overlap enough with the common cold that it can be genuinely hard to tell the two apart at first. The key difference is that hay fever is not contagious, doesn’t come with a true fever, and tends to linger as long as you’re exposed to the trigger rather than resolving in a week or two like a cold.

Typical symptoms include sneezing (sometimes in rapid-fire bursts), a runny or stuffed-up nose, itchy and watery eyes, an itchy throat or roof of the mouth, and post-nasal drip. More severe cases can cause fatigue, reduced concentration, and disrupted sleep. According to Harvard Health Publishing, the congestion can also lead to secondary complications like sinus infections or ear infections, since swelling can block the passages that normally drain those areas.

For people with asthma, hay fever can be an especially unwelcome companion. The same inflammation that irritates the nasal passages can travel through the airways and worsen breathing problems. The NCBI/InformedHealth.org notes that hay fever symptoms can sometimes “move down” into the lungs and develop into allergic asthma over time — one more reason to take persistent symptoms seriously.

What Can You Do About It?

The good news is that hay fever is manageable, even if it isn’t curable. Treatment generally falls into three strategies: avoidance, medication, and — for more serious cases — immunotherapy.

Avoidance sounds obvious but is easier said than done and takes some planning. Staying indoors on high-pollen days (especially in the morning when counts peak), keeping windows closed, using air conditioning instead of window fans, and showering after being outside can all reduce your exposure. For dust mite allergies, encasing pillows and mattresses in allergen-blocking covers and washing bedding in hot water regularly can make a noticeable difference. The ACAAI also suggests wearing wraparound sunglasses outdoors to limit the amount of pollen that reaches your eyes.

Medications are the backbone of hay fever treatment for most people. Antihistamines work by blocking the histamine response — they’re widely available over the counter and work well for mild-to-moderate symptoms. Older antihistamines (like diphenhydramine, the active ingredient in Benadryl) can cause drowsiness; newer ones like cetirizine (Zyrtec) and loratadine (Claritin) are much less sedating for most people. These make life tolerable for me in the fall and spring. When I was younger, there were days when I wouldn’t venture outside because of the unpleasant symptoms.

Nasal corticosteroid sprays are considered the most effective single treatment for allergic rhinitis by most clinical guidelines. According to MedlinePlus, they work best when used consistently rather than just on symptom days, and many brands — including fluticasone (Flonase) and budesonide (Rhinocort) — are now available without a prescription. Harvard Health advises starting these sprays a week or two before your expected allergy season begins for maximum effectiveness.

Decongestants can help with nasal stuffiness, but nasal spray decongestants (like oxymetazoline) should not be used for more than three days in a row, as they can cause a rebound effect that makes congestion worse. Oral decongestants don’t carry that risk but can raise blood pressure and heart rate, so they’re not appropriate for everyone.

Leukotriene inhibitors — most commonly montelukast (Singulair) — offer another option. These prescription medications work differently from antihistamines and steroids, blocking a different arm of the allergic response. They’re less effective than corticosteroid sprays on their own but can be useful in combination. Antihistamine eye drops are also available for people whose main complaint is itchy, watery eyes.

For people with persistent or severe symptoms that don’t respond well to medications, allergen immunotherapy may be the answer. This is the long game: regular, gradually increasing doses of the allergen itself, either through allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) or sublingual tablets and drops placed under the tongue. According to the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA), treatment typically runs three to five years and should be overseen by an allergy specialist. It doesn’t cure the allergy, but it can meaningfully reduce the severity of symptoms and lower your dependence on daily medications.

Finally, simple saline nasal rinses are worth mentioning. They’re not glamorous, but rinsing the nasal passages with saltwater (using a neti pot or squeeze bottle) can physically flush out allergens and thin mucus. They’re safe, inexpensive, and effective enough that clinical guidelines recommend them as a complementary strategy. Personally, I’ve found them unpleasant to use though many of my patients swear by them.

A Final Word

Hay fever is one of those conditions that can feel like a minor inconvenience until it’s not — until it’s disrupting your sleep, tanking your productivity, and making you dread the most beautiful days of the year. The encouraging news is that modern medicine has a pretty good toolkit for managing it. If over-the-counter antihistamines and nasal sprays aren’t cutting it, that’s worth a conversation with your doctor. Allergy testing can pinpoint your specific triggers, and from there, a targeted treatment plan can make a real difference.

There’s something ironic about hay fever: the very environments we associate with health—fresh air, blooming trees, green landscapes—can provoke the body into a defensive overreaction. Understanding that paradox is the first step toward managing it effectively.

In the meantime, maybe check the pollen count before you plan that picnic.

As always, this article is for information only. Consult your health care provider regarding your individual care.

Illustration generated by the author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Cleveland Clinic: Allergic Rhinitis (Hay Fever) — https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/8622-allergic-rhinitis-hay-fever

American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI): Hay Fever — https://acaai.org/allergies/allergic-conditions/hay-fever/

MedlinePlus (National Library of Medicine): Allergic Rhinitis — https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000813.htm

Harvard Health Publishing: Hay Fever (Allergic Rhinitis) — https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/hay-fever-allergic-rhinitis-a-to-z

NCBI / InformedHealth.org: Overview of Hay Fever — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279488/

Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA): Allergic Rhinitis — https://www.allergy.org.au/patients/allergic-rhinitis-hay-fever-and-sinusitis/allergic-rhinitis-or-hay-fever

A Clearer Look at the Chemistry of Health and Aging

By John Turley

On March 25, 2026

In Medicine

A Clearer Look at the Chemistry of Health and Aging

Introduction: The Invisible Chemistry Inside Your Body

At this very moment, a quiet chemical battle is taking place inside every cell of your body. On one side are free radicals—unstable molecules that react aggressively with nearby cells. On the other side are antioxidants, compounds that neutralize those unstable molecules before they cause damage.

When these two forces stay in balance, the body functions normally. But when free radicals outnumber the body’s defenses, the result is oxidative stress. Scientists increasingly believe oxidative stress contributes to aging and many chronic diseases.

Understanding this process does not require a chemistry degree. But knowing the basics can help explain why lifestyle choices such as diet, smoking, sun exposure, and exercise affect long-term health.

What Are Free Radicals?

Free radicals are simply unstable molecules. They are unstable because they contain an unpaired electron, which makes them highly reactive.

To stabilize themselves, free radicals attempt to steal electrons from nearby molecules. When they do this, they may damage the structure of cells, proteins, or DNA.

The most common free radicals in the body are forms of oxygen and nitrogen known as reactiveoxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS). Examples include superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals. Although these names sound intimidating, the basic idea is straightforward: they are oxygen-based molecules that react easily with other parts of the cell.

According to the National Cancer Institute, free radicals form when atoms or molecules gain or lose electrons during normal metabolic processes.

How Free Radicals Are Produced

Free radicals arise from both normal body processes and environmental exposures.

Internal Sources

The most important source is the body’s energy production system. Cells convert food into energy inside tiny structures called mitochondria. During this process, small numbers of free radicals are produced as natural by-products.

In addition, the immune system intentionally generates free radicals when fighting infections. Certain white blood cells release bursts of reactive oxygen molecules that help destroy bacteria and viruses.

Free radical production can also increase during inflammation, psychological stress, and intense physical exertion. In short, some degree of free radical production is unavoidable because it is a normal part of life’s chemistry.

External Sources

Environmental exposures can significantly increase free radical production. Cigarette smoke is one of the most powerful sources of oxidative chemicals. Air pollution, alcohol consumption, and excessive exposure to sunlight—particularly ultraviolet radiation—can also generate large numbers of reactive molecules. In addition, exposure to pesticides, industrial chemicals, and certain types of radiation may contribute to oxidative reactions inside the body.

These exposures can push free radical production beyond what the body’s natural defenses can easily manage.

The Surprisingly Useful Side of Free Radicals

Free radicals are often portrayed as purely harmful, but that description is incomplete. In moderate amounts they serve several useful functions.

One of the immune system’s most effective weapons is the oxidative burst. When immune cells encounter bacteria, they release a wave of free radicals that chemically attack and destroy the invading organisms. Without this response, the body would have far greater difficulty controlling infections.

Small amounts of reactive molecules also function as cellular signaling agents, helping regulate processes such as cell growth, repair, and programmed cell death. Programmed cell death is especially important because it allows the body to remove damaged or potentially dangerous cells.

Nitric oxide provides another example. Although it technically qualifies as a free radical, it plays an important role in controlling blood vessel relaxation and maintaining healthy blood pressure.

Exercise also temporarily increases free radical production. Surprisingly, this mild oxidative stress appears to stimulate beneficial adaptations. The body responds by strengthening its natural antioxidant defenses, which may partly explain why regular physical activity improves long-term health. Some researchers have suggested that very large doses of antioxidant supplements taken around workouts could reduce some of these benefits, although this remains an area of ongoing research.

When Free Radicals Cause Damage

Problems begin when free radical production exceeds the body’s ability to neutralize them.

Because free radicals steal electrons from other molecules, they can trigger chain reactions that damage important cellular structures.

One major target is the cell membrane. Cell membranes are composed largely of fats, and free radicals can attack these fats in a process called lipid peroxidation. When this happens, the membrane becomes weaker and less able to control what enters or leaves the cell.

Proteins are another common target. Proteins carry out much of the body’s work, including thousands of chemical reactions controlled by enzymes. When free radicals alter the structure of proteins, those proteins may lose their normal function.

Perhaps the most concerning effect involves DNA damage. Free radicals can alter the genetic material inside cells, creating mutations. If the body’s repair systems cannot correct these changes, the mutations may contribute to the development of cancer.

The body does possess repair mechanisms that fix much of this damage. However, these systems can be overwhelmed when oxidative stress persists for long periods.

Free Radicals and Chronic Disease

Researchers have found a strong association between oxidative stress and chronic diseases. Although the exact relationships are still being studied, the evidence suggests that oxidative damage contributes to several major health conditions.

Cardiovascular disease provides one of the clearest examples. Oxidative stress appears to play an important role in atherosclerosis, the process that leads to heart attacks and strokes. Free radicals can chemically modify LDL cholesterol, making it more likely to accumulate in artery walls and trigger plaque formation.

Cancer is also linked to oxidative DNA damage. When free radicals alter genetic material, they may activate genes that promote uncontrolled cell growth or disable genes that normally suppress tumors.

Interestingly, cancer cells themselves often produce large amounts of free radicals because of their rapid metabolism. Some cancer therapies take advantage of this by pushing tumor cells beyond their ability to tolerate oxidative stress.

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease are also associated with oxidative damage. The brain may be particularly vulnerable because it consumes large amounts of oxygen and contains fats that are easily oxidized.

Other conditions linked to oxidative stress include diabetes, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Aging itself may partly reflect the gradual accumulation of oxidative damage over time, a concept sometimes referred to as the free radical theory of aging.

Antioxidants: The Body’s Defense System

The body is not defenseless against free radicals. It maintains an extensive network of protective molecules known as antioxidants. They stabilize free radicals by donating an electron without becoming unstable themselves. This process stops the damaging chain reaction. The body relies on both internally produced antioxidants and antioxidants obtained from food.

Antioxidants Produced by the Body

Several powerful antioxidant enzyme systems operate inside cells. They work together to convert highly reactive molecules into less harmful substances, eventually producing water or oxygen.

A key molecule is glutathione, sometimes described as the body’s “master antioxidant.” Produced largely in the liver, glutathione plays an important role in neutralizing free radicals and assisting in detoxification processes.

However, the body’s ability to produce some antioxidants may decline with age, which could partly explain increased vulnerability to oxidative damage later in life.

Antioxidants from Food

Diet provides a wide variety of antioxidant compounds that support the body’s defenses.

Vitamin C is a water-soluble antioxidant commonly found in citrus fruits, strawberries, bell peppers, and broccoli. Vitamin E, a fat-soluble antioxidant that helps protect cell membranes, is abundant in nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils.

Plant pigments known as carotenoids also have antioxidant activity. Beta-carotene in carrots and sweet potatoes, lycopene in tomatoes, and lutein in leafy green vegetables are well-known examples. Plants also produce thousands of protective compounds called polyphenols. These substances occur in foods such as berries, tea, apples, onions, dark chocolate, and olive oil.

Because different plant foods contain different protective chemicals, nutrition scientists often recommend eating a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables.

The Antioxidant Supplement Puzzle

For many years, antioxidant supplements were promoted as a simple way to prevent disease. However, large clinical studies have produced mixed results. Several major trials found that high-dose antioxidant supplements did not provide the expected benefits. In some cases they were even associated with harm. For example, studies showed that high dose beta-carotene supplements increased lung cancer risk in smokers.

One possible explanation is that antioxidants behave differently when taken in very large doses. Under certain conditions they may act as pro-oxidants, potentially increasing oxidative reactions instead of preventing them.

Another concern involves cancer treatment. Some therapies work by generating oxidative damage that destroys cancer cells. High doses of antioxidant supplements might interfere with this mechanism.

Because of these uncertainties, many experts recommend obtaining antioxidants primarily from whole foods rather than supplements.

Oxidative Stress: When the Balance Is Lost

Oxidative stress occurs when free radical production exceeds the body’s ability to neutralize them. At the cellular level, oxidative stress can weaken membranes, disrupt protein function, and damage DNA. At the tissue level, it can trigger chronic inflammation, which in turn generates additional free radicals and perpetuates the cycle of damage.

Because free radicals exist only briefly, scientists usually measure oxidative stress indirectly by detecting chemical by-products that remain after oxidative reactions occur.

Lifestyle Factors That Influence Oxidative Stress

Many everyday habits influence the balance between free radicals and antioxidants.

Smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, air pollution exposure, chronic psychological stress, diets high in processed foods, obesity, and poorly controlled diabetes all increase oxidative stress.

In contrast, regular moderate exercise, diets rich in fruits and vegetables, maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding smoking, and managing stress help maintain a healthier balance between free radicals and antioxidants.

Conclusion: Balance Is Everything

The story of free radicals, antioxidants, and oxidative stress is ultimately about balance.

Free radicals are not simply destructive molecules. In appropriate amounts they help the immune system fight infection, regulate cellular communication, and assist the body in adapting to exercise. The damage occurs when these reactive molecules accumulate faster than the body can control them.

Antioxidants are an important part of the defense system, but they are not magic solutions. The best strategy appears to be supporting the body’s natural balance through healthy lifestyle choices. A diet rich in plant foods, regular physical activity, avoiding smoking, and minimizing harmful exposures all help maintain that balance.

Despite decades of marketing by the supplement industry, scientific evidence continues to suggest that the complex chemistry of whole foods works better than isolated antioxidant pills.

In many ways, modern science has simply confirmed an old piece of advice: eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, stay active, and take care of your body.

Sources:

Cleveland Clinic – Oxidative Stress

PMC – Free Radicals, Antioxidants in Disease and Health (2013)

Nature Cell Death Discovery – Free Radicals and Their Impact on Health (2025)

Frontiers in Chemistry – Oxidative Stress and Antioxidants (2023)

PMC – Oxidative Stress Crosstalk in Human Diseases (2023)

PMC – Free Radicals, Antioxidants and Functional Foods

MD Anderson Cancer Center – What Are Free Radicals?

Medical News Today – Free Radicals: How Do They Affect the Body?

Cleveland Clinic Health – What Are Free Radicals?

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Seeing Inside: A Guide to Modern Diagnostic Radiology

By John Turley

On March 16, 2026

In Medicine, Science

Not so long ago, if a doctor needed to know what was happening inside your body, the options were limited — a basic X-ray, an exploratory surgery, or educated guesswork. Today, a radiologist can map your brain’s blood vessels, detect a cancer smaller than a pea, or watch your heart metabolizing sugar in near real time — all without making a single incision.

The first medical X-ray appeared in 1895. For decades, imaging largely meant detecting fractures or large abnormalities. Today, radiology guides emergency care, cancer treatment, stroke therapy, cardiac management, and preventive medicine. Modern diagnostic imaging has transformed medicine in ways that would have seemed like science fiction to physicians just a few generations ago.

Modern imaging falls into three broad categories: structural imaging — what tissues look like, vascular imaging — how blood flows, and functional imaging — how cells behave metabolically. Here’s a plain-language guide to the big three: MRI/MRA, CT/CTA, and PET scans — what they are, how they work, and why they matter.

MRI and MRA: Magnets and Radio Waves

The MRI — magnetic resonance imaging — is one of the most versatile tools in modern medicine, and it works without a single ray of radiation. An MRI passes an electric current through coiled wires to create a temporary magnetic field in your body. A transmitter and receiver then send and receive radio waves, and a computer uses those signals to construct detailed digital images of whatever area is being scanned. Think of it as a very sophisticated tuning fork: it causes hydrogen atoms in your body’s water molecules to briefly align, then releases them — and the energy they emit on the way back creates the image. Because different tissues relax at different rates, MRI can distinguish gray matter from white matter in the brain, normal from inflamed or cancerous tissue, and ligament from muscle with impressive contrast.

The result is exceptional detail, especially for soft tissue. MRI scans take much clearer pictures of your brain, spinal cord, nerves, muscles, ligaments, and tendons than regular X-rays and CT scans. That’s why your orthopedic surgeon orders one when your knee goes sideways, and why neurologists reach for it when they suspect a stroke or multiple sclerosis.

MRA — magnetic resonance angiography — is MRI’s cousin, using the same magnetic technology but focused specifically on blood vessels. It lets physicians map arteries and veins in remarkable detail, identifying narrowing (stenosis), bulges (aneurysms), or blockages (occlusions) without the need for invasive catheterization. If your doctor suspects a blockage in the blood vessels feeding your brain or kidneys, an MRA can reveal it clearly. A contrast dye is sometimes injected to make vessels stand out even more sharply.

The main trade-offs with MRI are time and noise — scans generally take between 30 to 50 minutes, and the machine produces the kind of clanging racket that makes earplugs standard issue. People with certain metal implants or severe claustrophobia can’t always use it, which is where CT steps in.

CT and CTA: X-Rays, Upgraded

The CT scan — computed tomography — takes the familiar chest X-ray and turns it into something far more powerful. A CT scan takes multiple X-ray images from different angles rotating around the body, separates them by depth then processes them by computer to create cross-sectional views — essentially a detailed 3D picture rather than a flat 2D image. Think of slicing a loaf of bread: instead of seeing only the crust, you can examine every slice.

A CT shows more detail than a standard X-ray and is used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, injuries from trauma, and musculoskeletal disorders — it’s one of the most common imaging tests used today. Emergency departments rely on CT heavily because it’s fast, often completed in 10 to 15 minutes, and can quickly identify life-threatening conditions like internal bleeding or pulmonary embolism.

CTA — CT angiography — adds an injected contrast dye to the mix, allowing physicians to see blood vessels with high clarity. Contrasting agents help show various structures of the body more clearly, making CTA the go-to test for evaluating coronary arteries, aortic aneurysms, and vascular disease throughout the body. Unlike MRA, it’s faster and more widely available, though it does involve a dose of radiation — something physicians weigh carefully against the diagnostic benefit.

PET Scan: When Function Matters More Than Form

If MRI and CT show you the structure of the body, the PET scan — positron emission tomography — shows you what’s happening inside it. This is a fundamentally different question, and the technology reflects that.

A PET scan is used to see metabolism and chemical activity within your body. It can detect abnormal changes before structural changes occur — meaning it can detect cancer before a tumor is large enough to be seen on a CT or MRI. That’s a remarkable capability. The scan works by injecting a small amount of a radioactive tracer — most commonly a form of glucose — into your bloodstream. Diseased cells, particularly cancer cells, absorb more of the radiotracer than healthy ones do. Active cells consume glucose. Cancer cells, inflamed tissue, and active brain regions often use more glucose than surrounding tissue. These are called “hot spots,” and the PET scanner detects this radiation to produce images of affected tissue.

Beyond cancer, PET scans are invaluable in cardiology — showing whether heart muscle is still alive after a heart attack — and in neurology, helping diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and brain tumors by revealing abnormal patterns of brain activity.

The trade-off is resolution. The image resolution of nuclear medicine images may not be as high as that of CT or MRI, which is why PET is rarely used alone today. Combined PET/CT scanners perform almost all PET scans today , marrying metabolic information with anatomical precision. Hybrid PET/MRI scanners are also emerging though not yet in widespread use. They are particularly valuable for soft-tissue cancers of the brain, liver, and pelvis.

How They Compare — and Why It Matters

The simplest way to think about these three technologies is this: CT shows shape and structure quickly, with emphasis on bone and dense tissue; MRI shows soft tissue in extraordinary detail without radiation; and PET shows function and cellular activity that neither of the others can see directly.

A patient with suspected cancer might undergo a CT scan to identify the location of a mass, followed by a PET to determine its metabolic activity, and then an MRI to map its relationship to critical soft tissues. Used together, these tools give physicians a picture of disease that is more complete than any single test could provide.

The value to modern medicine is difficult to overstate. These technologies allow doctors to diagnose conditions earlier, stage cancers more accurately, guide surgical planning, and monitor how well treatments are working — all without exploratory surgery. Survival rates for many cancers have improved substantially in part because imaging lets us find disease when it’s still manageable.

The era when medicine was largely guesswork about what lay beneath the skin is over. Today, radiologists are, in a very real sense, reading the body like an open book.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources:

UNC Health Appalachian — MRI, CT, and PET Scan Comparison: https://www.unchealthappalachian.org/blog/2024/comparing-mri-ct-and-pet-scans-how-they-work-and-when-theyre-use/

WashU Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology — Differences Between CT, MRI, and PET: https://www.mir.wustl.edu/do-you-know-the-differences-between-a-ct-mri-and-pet-scan/

Cleveland Clinic — PET Scan Overview: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/10123-pet-scan

RadiologyInfo.org — PET/CT: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/pet

Open MedScience — CT, MRI, and PET Differences: https://openmedscience.com/ct-mri-and-pet-scanners-unravelling-the-differences-in-modern-medical-imaging/

Healthline — MRI vs. PET Scan: https://www.healthline.com/health/mri-vs-pet-scan

Revere Health — MRI, CT, and PET Explained: https://reverehealth.com/live-better/mri-ct-pet/

Lipoprotein(a): The Hidden Genetic Risk Factor That’s Finally Being Recognized

By John Turley

On March 9, 2026

In Medicine

For decades, most doctors, me included, focused on the usual suspects when assessing heart disease risk: LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, and lifestyle factors like smoking, activity, and diet. But lurking in the background was another player that most of us didn’t routinely check and most patients had never heard of—lipoprotein(a), abbreviated as Lp(a) and pronounced “L-P-little-A.”

Here’s the sobering reality: about one in five people worldwide have elevated Lp(a) levels, and if you’re among them, your risk of heart attack or stroke roughly doubles or triples. Yet until recently, most clinical guidelines didn’t even recommend testing for it. Why? Because there wasn’t much doctors could do about it even if we found it. That’s changing now, and the story of Lp(a) offers a window into how medicine sometimes waits for treatment options before fully embracing a diagnostic test.

What Exactly Is Lipoprotein(a)?

Lp(a) is structurally similar to LDL cholesterol—both are cholesterol-carrying particles—but Lp(a) has an extra protein component called apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a), that makes it particularly troublesome. The structure of this protein varies dramatically between individuals due to differences in genetic sequences, and the specific variant you inherit from your parents determines your Lp(a) level for life.

Unlike LDL cholesterol, which rises with age and responds to diet and exercise, your Lp(a) level remains largely constant throughout your lifetime. Eating better, exercising more, losing weight—none of the lifestyle interventions that work wonders for other cardiovascular risk factors will budge your Lp(a). It’s entirely genetic. There’s also significant variation across populations, with individuals of African descent tending to have higher average Lp(a) levels compared to people of White or Asian backgrounds, though the clinical implications of these differences are still not well understood.

Getting Tested: Who Should Do It and How Does It Works

The blood test for Lp(a) isn’t part of a routine cholesterol panel—your doctor has to specifically order it. So, who should be tested? Current recommendations focus on people with a family history of high Lp(a), those with a personal or family history of premature heart disease (cardiovascular events before age 55 in men or 65 in women), and anyone diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia, a genetic condition where the body poorly recycles LDL cholesterol. About a third of people with familial hypercholesterolemia also have high Lp(a), compounding their cardiovascular risk significantly.

Because Lp(a) levels don’t change over time, a single test is all you need. Results can be reported in two different units—milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) or nanomoles per liter (nmol/L)—and there’s no universal agreement on what constitutes a risky level. Most American guidelines use a threshold of ≥50 mg/dL or ≥125 nmol/L as indicating increased cardiovascular risk, with levels below 30 mg/dL generally considered normal.

What High Lp(a) Means for Your Health

The evidence linking elevated Lp(a) to cardiovascular disease has become increasingly compelling over the past two decades. People with high Lp(a) face a two to threefold increased risk of heart attack and aortic valve disease. For those with extremely elevated levels above 180 mg/dL, the cardiovascular risk approaches that of people with untreated familial hypercholesterolemia (genetic extremely high cholesterol), which is notoriously dangerous.

Beyond heart attacks and valve problems, elevated Lp(a) has been linked to peripheral arterial disease (clogged arteries) and aortic aneurysms. What makes it particularly insidious is that it contributes to what researchers call “residual cardiovascular risk”—meaning it raises your chances of a cardiovascular event even when your LDL cholesterol is well controlled. You could be doing everything right by traditional measures and still be at elevated risk if your Lp(a) is high.

A large multi-ethnic study following nearly 28,000 people for an average of 21 years found that higher Lp(a) levels were consistently associated with greater cardiovascular disease risk across different ethnic groups and in both men and women. The mechanism involves both promoting arterial plaque buildup and increasing blood clot formation—a double threat to cardiovascular health.

Current Management Options: Limited but Important

This is where the story gets frustrating. For years, the honest answer to “what can I do about my high Lp(a)?” has been: not much directly, but a few things indirectly.

While lifestyle changes won’t affect your Lp(a) numbers, people with high levels should still follow all standard heart-healthy practices—physical activity, good nutrition, adequate sleep, avoiding smoking, and maintaining a healthy weight. The logic is straightforward: if you can’t eliminate one major risk factor, be more diligent about controlling all the others.

People with high Lp(a) may also benefit from more aggressive LDL cholesterol treatment, even if their LDL is already in a normal range. Some injectable cholesterol medications can lower Lp(a) by about 20% in some patients in addition to their primary effect on LDL. This helps overall cardiovascular risk even if it doesn’t fully address the Lp(a) problem.

For the most severe cases, the only FDA-approved treatment specifically targeting Lp(a) lipoprotein is apheresis which filters apolipoprotein-containing particles from the blood, achieving over 50% reduction. But the reductions are temporary, the procedure is similar to dialysis in its time demands, and it’s expensive and reserved for only the most extreme situations. It’s not a practical solution for the millions of people with moderately elevated levels.

The Treatment Revolution: New Therapies on the Horizon

Here’s where things get genuinely exciting. After decades of essentially no targeted treatment, five promising new therapies are now in advanced clinical development.

Four are RNA-based therapies that work by silencing the gene responsible for producing apolipoprotein(a) in the liver thereby preventing Lp(a) formation at its source. All are engineered to be taken up specifically by liver cells, where Lp(a) is made to minimize side effects elsewhere.

Early trial results have been remarkable. One drug, given as a monthly injection under the skin, has reduced Lp(a) levels by about 80%, with 98% of participants achieving levels below the risk threshold of 50 mg/dL. A phase 3 trial enrolling over 8,300 patients is expected to report results sometime in 2026, potentially leading to regulatory approval shortly after.

Other drugs have shown even more dramatic results, with one achieving a 93.9% reduction in Lp(a) with a single dose, with the effect persisting above 90% even at 360 days after just one injection.

There’s also an oral medication in development which works by preventing the apo(a) protein from assembling into Lp(a) particles in the first place. Taken daily as a pill, it has shown reductions of 63-65%—less dramatic than the RNA-based therapies, but potentially preferable for patients who want to avoid injections entirely.

The Critical Caveat

While these medications dramatically lower Lp(a) levels, we don’t yet have definitive proof that lowering Lp(a) will prevent heart attacks and strokes. That sounds counterintuitive—if high Lp(a) causes cardiovascular disease, then lowering it should help—but medicine requires rigorous evidence from randomized controlled trials. The FDA won’t approve these drugs based solely on their ability to improve a lab value; they need to demonstrate actual clinical benefit. Large outcome trials are underway and we should have answers within the next few years.

Where Things Stand Now

The story of Lp(a) reflects a broader tension in medicine: when should we test for something we can’t yet treat? For decades, many argued against routine screening precisely because no targeted therapies existed. That calculus has shifted. Recent reviews have concluded that the benefits of early detection now outweigh the risks, even though specific Lp(a)-lowering drugs are not yet approved, because early knowledge allows for more aggressive management of other risk factors.

For the roughly 20-25% of people with elevated Lp(a), the next few years could bring transformative options. If you fall into one of the higher-risk groups and have never been tested, it’s worth asking your doctor whether screening makes sense. The treatment landscape for Lp(a) is changing faster than it has in decades, and knowing your number today puts you in a much better position to act when those new options arrive.

Illustration generated by the author using ChatGPT.

Sources

American Heart Association. (n.d.). Lipoprotein (a). https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/genetic-conditions/lipoprotein-a

American Heart Association. (n.d.). Lipoprotein (a) meaning and how does it impact my heart health? https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/genetic-conditions/lipoprotein-a-risks

Beck, D. L. (2025). Lipoprotein(a): An independent risk factor for CV disease. American College of Cardiology. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2025/12/01/01/feature-lipoprotein-a

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). About lipoprotein (a). https://www.cdc.gov/heart-disease-family-history/about/about-lipoprotein-a.html

Cleveland Clinic. (2025). Novel siRNA reduces lipoprotein(a) by more than 90% for 48 weeks. https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/novel-sirna-reduces-lipoproteina-by-more-than-90-for-48-weeks

Corliss, J. (2025). Lipoprotein(a): An update on testing and treatment. Harvard Health Publishing. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/lipoproteina-an-update-on-testing-and-treatment

Grundy, S. M., & Stone, N. J. (2022). Lipoprotein(a): A genetically determined, causal, and prevalent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 42(1), e48-e60. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATV.0000000000000147

Katsiki, N., et al. (2023). An update on lipoprotein(a): The latest on testing, treatment, and guideline recommendations. American College of Cardiology. https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2023/09/19/10/54/An-Update-on-Lipoprotein-a

Lombardi, A., et al. (2024). Lipoprotein (a): Underrecognized risk with a promising future. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11607505/

Lombardo, C., et al. (2025). Lp(a)-lowering agents in development: A new era in tackling the burden of cardiovascular risk? PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12115060/

Managed Healthcare Executive. (2025). New therapies on the way to lower Lp(a), a cardiovascular risk factor. https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/new-therapies-on-the-way-to-lower-lp-a-a-cardiovascular-risk-factor

Papathanasiou, M., et al. (2025). Current clinical trials for treating elevated lipoprotein(a). PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12282488/

Sabatine, M. S., et al. (2025). Lipoprotein(a) as a pharmacological target: Premises, promises, and prospects. Circulation. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069210

StatPearls. (2024). Lipoprotein A. National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570621/

Tsimikas, S., et al. (2025). Pelacarsen: Mechanism of action and Lp(a)-lowering effect. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287425003228

Tsimikas, S., et al. (2025). Rethinking cardiovascular risk: The emerging role of lipoprotein(a) screening. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667725000182

Wong, N. D., et al. (2024). Lipoprotein(a) and long-term cardiovascular risk in a multi-ethnic pooled prospective cohort. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.02.031

Zambon, A., et al. (2023). Lipoprotein(a) as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases: Pathophysiology and treatment perspectives. PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10531345/