The country's biggest heart-health group, the American Heart Association (AHA), has released its new advice on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs). This news comes just before the second report from the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) Commission, which is expected to suggest new rules.

The AHA's main message is simple: Most UPFs are bad for you, especially your heart. They believe food companies should stop making so many of them, and the government should stop allowing it.

But the AHA report also talks about a big question: Are all ultraprocessed foods bad?

The answer, they say, is maybe not all of them. The guidelines, published in the journal Circulation, suggest a few types of UPFs could be okay as part of a healthy diet. These include things like some whole-grain breads, low-sugar yogurts, and nut spreads. However, the report adds that even these "healthier" options need to be watched to make sure they stay that way.

How Much Ultraprocessed Food Do We Consume?

The AHA's advice is coming at an important time because people are eating more UPFs than ever. New data from the CDC shows that over half of the calories Americans eat every day come from ultraprocessed foods. For children, that number is even higher, at 62%.

This is a serious problem because many studies have shown a clear link between eating more UPFs and a higher risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, and other health issues. One study found that eating just one extra serving of UPFs a day could raise the risk of dying from heart disease by 50%.

Why are Ultra-Processed Foods Bad for Us?

The British Heart Foundation explains that ultra-processed foods are often high in salt, sugar, and saturated fat. When we eat a lot of them, we don't have enough room in our diets for healthier, more nutritious foods. Some people also believe the additives in these foods might be harmful.

The way these foods are processed could also affect our bodies. For example, studies show that when you eat whole nuts, your body absorbs less fat than when you eat ground-up nuts. Another idea is that eating a lot of UPFs could be bad for our gut health.

Scientists are still trying to figure out exactly what it is about ultra-processed foods that causes health problems—is it the additives, the processing itself, or something else?

Even with these questions, it's a good idea to eat less of these foods since most of them contain high levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fat.

Do Healthy Ultraprocessed Food Help?

The new guidelines suggest that people should try to stop eating the worst kinds of UPFs, but it's okay to have a small amount of "better quality" ones. But some experts don't agree with this idea.

Some experts think that focusing on "healthy" UPFs isn't helpful. She points to a recent study that showed people who ate a "healthy" ultraprocessed diet still ate more calories than those who ate home-cooked, less processed foods. In that study, people who ate meals made at home lost twice as much weight as those who ate store-bought UPFs, even when the UPFs were considered healthy.

Do Processed Food Comes in Categories?

To help people make better choices, the new report puts UPFs into three groups

Healthy Choices

This group includes fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables without added salt or sugar, whole grains, nuts, beans, plain milk or yogurt, lean meat, and water.

Moderately Healthy

This category has things like white rice, pasta, full-fat dairy, salted nuts, canned fruits in light syrup, and hard cheeses.

Least Healthy

This group contains the usual bad foods: fatty red meat, processed meats (like hot dogs), butter, sugar, honey, chips, french fries, sugary drinks, cookies, and pizza.

Most of us have felt mild irritation when someone nearby taps a foot or clicks a pen but for people with misokinesia, these small repetitive movements trigger intense discomfort sometimes even rage. The reaction isn’t just in the mind. Physical symptoms can include a spike in blood pressure, adrenaline surges, heart palpitations, or nausea. Mentally, sufferers may experience anxiety, anger, disgust, or difficulty concentrating.

The condition can be selective certain people’s movements may be more triggering than others making it harder to maintain relationships or work comfortably in shared spaces.

What Is Misokinesia?

The term translates literally to “hatred of movement.” While its auditory counterpart, misophonia, has gained some public awareness in recent years, misokinesia has remained largely unexplored until recently. In contrast to misophonia, in which sound is the primary irritant, misokinesia is motivated by visual stimuli—nail biting, hair twirling, or restless leg shaking, for example.

A 2021 University of British Columbia (UBC) study discovered that nearly one in three individuals reported some degree of sensitivity to these movements. The study, conducted by psychologist Sumeet Jaswal, was the first scientific study of the phenomenon, which drew on the input of over 4,100 participants.

Is Misokinesia Common?

Researchers were surprised by the prevalence. Misokinesia is not restricted to people with diagnosed mental health conditions—it appears to be a common social challenge affecting a significant portion of the general population.

UBC psychologist Todd Handy began researching the phenomenon after his partner revealed that his own fidgeting caused her stress—just as anyone else’s fidgeting did. This personal experience sparked a formal investigation into what might be happening in the brain.

While modern environments may not directly cause misokinesia, today’s constant visual stimulation—open-plan offices, crowded public spaces, and high screen time might make symptoms harder to ignore.

Why do some people have such a strong reaction to fidgeting while others barely notice?

Researchers explored whether misokinesia could be tied to heightened visual-attentional sensitivity—an inability to block out peripheral movement. Early results didn’t confirm this theory.

One leading hypothesis involves mirror neurons, brain cells that activate both when we perform an action and when we see someone else perform it. If someone fidgets because they’re anxious, a person with misokinesia may subconsciously “mirror” that anxiety in their own body, creating a cascade of stress responses.

A follow-up 2024 study by Jaswal suggested another angle: people with misokinesia may struggle more to disengage from a visual stimulus than to initially block it out.

Living With Misokinesia

The impact can be substantial. Many report avoiding certain social situations or sitting away from others in classrooms, meetings, or public transport. Workplace productivity can drop when a colleague’s nervous tic is constantly within view.

Some sufferers experience ongoing tension in personal relationships. For example, spending time with someone who “stims”—repetitive self-soothing movements often seen in neurodivergent individuals—can create a conflict of needs that’s difficult to resolve without understanding and compromise.

Misokinesia vs. Misophonia

While the two conditions often overlap, misokinesia is rooted in sight, misophonia in sound. A person might have one without the other, both, or varying degrees of sensitivity to each. Both conditions share emotional triggers—frustration, anxiety, irritability—and both can limit social participation if unmanaged.

How To Deal With Misokinesia Triggers?

No cure exists, but some strategies can be effective:

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): This formal treatment can assist in identifying triggers, reframing responses, and acquiring coping skills.

Relaxation measures: Breathing techniques, mindfulness, or grounding exercises can dampen the physiological "fight or flight" response.

Environmental modifications: Occluding the line of sight to the movement, redirecting focus to another visual target, or establishing personal space in seating.

Communication: Educating friends, family, or co-workers about triggers can reduce unintentional exposure.

These methods will not completely prevent the reaction from happening, but they will make symptoms more tolerable and less disruptive.

We remain in the initial stages of understanding misokinesia. That it occurs in so many and is so far from mainstream conversation implies a lack of awareness and clinical recognition. There are many possible areas for further research that may reveal neurological or genetic mechanisms, shed light on the function of mirror neurons, and seek out eventual overlap with sensory processing disorders.

The goal is that by naming and researching the phenomenon, we can transition from quiet frustration to real solutions—less stigma and enhanced quality of life for those impacted.

If you catch yourself distracted by the sound of a pen click or foot tap next to you, you might not be merely "easily irritated." Misokinesia is a known and surprisingly prevalent affliction. Learning about it—whether you have it or know somebody who does—is the first step in making spaces more livable for all.

As Handy succinctly stated, "To those suffering from misokinesia, you are not alone. Your struggle is real and it's common."

Scroll through TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube and you’ll find an unsettling pattern: influencers dismissing sunscreen as unnecessary—or even harmful. Some promote “slow tanning” to build skin’s melanin. Others share DIY sunscreen recipes made from oils and butters. A few outright claim sunscreen causes skin cancer.

This narrative taps into a broader skepticism toward conventional health advice. But dermatologists say it’s a dangerous trend that risks reversing decades of public health progress.

Celebrity voices have amplified these claims. Former TOWIE star Sam Faiers told her 2.5 million Instagram followers she avoids sunscreen for her children, citing fears of “toxic ingredients.” TV personality Kelsey Parker has suggested SPF causes skin cancer. Influencer Lauryn Goodman advises followers to “train your skin” by gradually increasing sun exposure.

To many followers, this advice feels empowering. To dermatologists, it’s reckless.

“The idea that SPF is toxic or that children can ‘build immunity’ to the sun is not only irresponsible—it’s dangerous,” says Dr. Angela Tewari, consultant dermatologist at King’s College Hospital in London. “These views are unscientific and put children’s health at serious risk.”

What Science Actually Shows About Sunscreen Safety?

Concerns about sunscreen ingredients often stem from lab studies—like those showing that high doses of certain chemicals affect rats in the womb. But context matters. To match the chemical exposure levels in those studies, a human would need to apply sunscreen daily for decades—up to 277 years in some calculations.

More recent research, such as a 2019 JAMA study, confirmed that some sunscreen chemicals enter the bloodstream. However, the amounts studied were far higher than typical daily use, and no harm to humans was found.

No credible human studies have shown that sunscreen ingredients like oxybenzone cause cancer. On the contrary, evidence overwhelmingly supports sunscreen’s role in reducing skin cancer risk.

Why Is Skin Cancer Risk Is Real And Rising?

Melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, is climbing worldwide. In the UK, diagnoses are projected to hit a record 21,300 in 2025—up 22% from 2023. In the US, the American Cancer Society estimates more than 100,000 new melanoma cases in 2025.

About 90% of skin cancer cases are linked to unprotected sun exposure. Childhood sunburns are especially dangerous—just one blistering burn can nearly double lifetime melanoma risk. That’s why dermatologists recommend SPF 50 for children during high UV months, from March to September in northern climates, and year-round in sunnier regions.

How Sunscreen Works?

There are two main types:

1. Chemical sunscreen absorbs UV radiation and turns it into harmless heat. Ingredients include avobenzone, oxybenzone, and octocrylene.
2. Mineral sunscreen (also called physical sunscreen) contains zinc oxide or titanium dioxide to physically block and reflect UV rays.
3. Both protect against UVB rays (which cause burns) and, in broad-spectrum formulas, UVA rays (which cause premature aging and contribute to cancer).

SPF, or sun protection factor, tells you how much longer you can stay in the sun without burning compared to no protection. SPF 30, for instance, lets you stay 30 times longer without burning—assuming correct application and reapplication every two hours.

Higher SPFs provide more margin for error. A 2018 study found SPF 100+ sunscreen was significantly more effective than SPF 50+ in preventing sunburn during real-world use.

What is The Myth of ‘Slow Tanning’?

Proponents of slow tanning argue that gradually building sun exposure helps the skin produce melanin, offering natural protection. While melanin does absorb some UV rays, it’s no substitute for sunscreen. Even deeply pigmented skin can burn and sustain DNA damage, which accumulates over time.

According to dermatologists, “training” the skin is a myth. UV damage occurs from the very first unprotected exposure—whether or not you burn.

Why Are Some People Abandoning Sunscreen?

Distrust in health authorities, desire for “natural” living, and negative personal experiences with certain products all contribute. Some people have had allergic reactions or irritation from sunscreen ingredients, leading them to avoid it altogether.

That’s why dermatologists stress that not all sunscreens are the same. Mineral sunscreens are generally better tolerated by sensitive skin. Newer formulations avoid oxybenzone and other controversial ingredients, while still providing strong UV protection.

The American Academy of Dermatology and the World Health Organization both recommend daily use of broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher. They emphasize that sunscreen is one of the most effective tools to prevent skin cancer—especially when combined with shade and protective clothing.

How to Protect Yourself And Be 'Safe'?

• Choose broad-spectrum SPF 30 or higher.
• Apply liberally—most adults need about a shot glass–sized amount for full body coverage.
• Reapply every two hours, or after swimming or sweating.
• Use mineral formulas if you have sensitive skin or want to avoid certain chemicals.
• Pair sunscreen with shade and UPF-rated clothing for best results.

The anti-sunscreen movement thrives on fear and mistrust, but science paints a very different picture. Sunscreen doesn’t cause skin cancer—it helps prevent it. And while research into ingredients continues, the risks of skipping SPF are well-established and potentially deadly.

We tend to hear we need a "good night's sleep" if we want to be healthy. But there's evidence now that it's not how much you sleep—it's how you sleep. A huge study of more than 88,000 individuals has identified six specific sleep characteristics with the risk of developing 172 separate diseases, and this indicates that poor sleep rhythms can be much more harmful than we ever imagined.

Investigators at Peking University and the Army Medical University in China examined data from the UK Biobank, tracking participants for a median of 6.8 years. They didn’t just track how long people slept—they examined six core sleep traits:

1. Sleep length
2. Sleep onset (bedtime)
3. Sleep rhythm (regularity of sleep-wake cycles)
4. Extent of sleep
5. Sleep efficiency
6. Frequency of night wake-ups

Their findings, published in Health Data Science, show that sleep rhythm—how consistently you go to bed and wake up—was the single strongest predictor of health outcomes.

Why Sleep Rhythm Is Important Your Health?

Participants with the most irregular sleep rhythms faced up to a 2.8-times higher risk of Parkinson’s disease and a 1.6-times higher risk of type 2 diabetes compared to those with the most regular patterns.

Sleep rhythm was associated with nearly half of the 172 diseases identified—three times as many disease links as sleep duration or bedtime alone. That list included hypertension, COPD, acute kidney failure, depression, and several metabolic and cardiovascular conditions.

“Time we broaden our definition of good sleep beyond just duration,” says Shengfeng Wang, senior author and epidemiologist at Peking University.

Why Bedtime Is More Crucial Than You Might Expect?

The research also uncovered significant bedtime-related risks. People who routinely went to bed after 12:30 a.m. were 2.6 times more likely to develop liver cirrhosis than those who went to bed before 11:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, low sleep efficiency—time spent actually sleeping versus just lying in bed—was linked to a nearly 1.8-fold increase in respiratory failure risk.

Why Wearable Data Changes the Game?

This study stands out because it used both self-reported surveys and objective wearable sleep monitor data. And that revealed an important truth: we’re not always accurate about our own sleep. Nearly one in four people who claimed to be “long sleepers” actually slept fewer than six hours a night when measured objectively.

This discrepancy matters because previous studies relying solely on self-reported sleep may have underestimated—or overestimated—the role sleep plays in various diseases.

The researchers explain, “Some participants with difficulty falling asleep or keeping stable sleep may have spent a long time in bed but have short real sleep.” That misclassification skews results and may mask the impact of poor sleep patterns.

Traditionally, public health advice has focused on getting seven to nine hours of sleep per night. But this research indicates that sleep quality, timing, and regularity could be as significant—if not more so—than duration alone. For instance:

• Consistent sleep rhythms seem to lower risk across neurological, cardiovascular, and metabolic illness.
• Earlier bedtimes could guard against liver health issues.
• High sleep efficiency could lower respiratory and cognitive decline risk.

Whereas the research can't establish causation—it demonstrates correlations, not cause-and-effect per se—the size of the dataset makes the results difficult to ignore. The researchers also confirmed the findings using a different large database, the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), further bolstering the evidence that these sleep characteristics are associated with general health outcomes.

If verified by subsequent research, these results may redefine sleep health policy and contribute to guided interventions for vulnerable populations.

Disease was once recognized as a consequence of poor sleep, but this study puts a different spin on the discussion. It implies that we may need to consider sleep as much as we consider diet—not merely the "amount" (calories or hours), but the "quality" and "consistency" count as much.

As Dr. Wang and collaborators say, the aim should be to "expand our definition of good sleep" to encompass rhythm, timing, and efficiency. At least for the moment, that could entail establishing a regular bedtime, steering clear of late-night screen exposure, and tracking patterns with wearable devices—rather than merely hours slept.