Tag: Healthlines

• Injectable “wellness” peptides have become wildly popular among health and wellness enthusiasts, despite lacking credible evidence for their safety and effectiveness.
• Social media influencers and biohackers tout wellness peptides as a “fountain of youth” to achieve longevity and fitness gains.
• Experts in the medical community have raised alarms about the safety of compounded peptides marketed for wellness, calling for federal oversight of these products, which are largely sold online.

During the 1980s, anabolic steroids emerged out of elite athletic circles and rose to popularity among fitness and gym enthusiasts.

It didn’t take long for the medical community to question their safety. Researchers and athletic organizations raised concerns over the health risks associated with recreational anabolic steroid use, such as cardiovascular disease. By 1991, the substances were banned for non-medical use under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act.

But the quest for fast-tracked, unproven methods to achieve peak fitness is far from over.

Today, influencers and biohackers tout peptide injections as a “fountain of youth,” a one-stop shop to achieve muscle gain, longevity, and more.

Echoing the past, so-called “wellness” peptides have become ubiquitous despite lacking any credible evidence. No studies to date have verified their safety for use in humans.

A recent position paper by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices on the safety and efficacy of wellness peptides highlights an “alarming safety concern” about their widespread use.

Unlike well-studied commercial peptide drugs (i.e., insulin and GLP-1s), compounded peptide products marketed for “wellness” are unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

While no states have outright banned non-FDA-approved peptides, some have stepped up public health messaging, aiming to crack down on online sales. For instance, Alabama’s medical regulator recently issued a warning against the use of non-FDA-approved research-grade peptides due to health and safety risks.

Experts are concerned that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an avid supporter of peptides who oversees the FDA, could ease some of the red tape.

“This has nothing to do with wellness,” said Bert Mandelbaum, MD, sports medicine specialist, orthopedic surgeon, and co-director of the Regenerative Orthobiologic Center at Cedars-Sinai Orthopedics in Los Angeles.

“I would call it more of an uninformed fad. It’s worse than that — it’s criminal. The influencers, including RFK Jr., are abusing the system and not following the science,” he told Healthline.

Healthline spoke with Mandelbaum to learn more about the dangers of unregulated peptides and why most people should probably steer clear.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Mandelbaum: Peptides are a group of compounds that come together to have a wide variety of functions in our body.

Peptides are leucine, the amino acid that’s fantastic for building muscle, and it’s been well studied. Since peptides are protein derivatives, they’ve been exploited on social media.

The peptides BPC-157, TB-500, and CJC-1295 have been marketed by influencers for anything from performance to joint healing to fat loss and anti-aging. They’re just peptides that are being abused. There’s no research, there’s no label, there’s no associated effects.

Fortunately, our real athletes haven’t fallen prey to this. The good news is we have biologics that can make a difference in many of the things that peptides claim to do.

If you’re a bodybuilder and you’re trying to build your muscles, you might think that peptides are going to do it for you. At one time, that was about anabolic steroids and combinations of anabolic steroids, but we have since proven the titanium to be unsafe.

Mandelbaum: In the sense of the legality of these self-injections, this whole thing is a farce.

From a regulatory perspective, they’re not FDA-approved. They’re banned by the World Anti-Doping Administration (WADA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Justice (DoJ).

BP-157 (15-amino acid pentadecapeptide) is a synthetic derivative of human gastric juice, and it’s promoted online as having incredible healing capabilities and also for performance and longevity, none of which have ever been substantiated in anything other than rodents.

It’s almost like a group of gym rats got together and said, “Let’s see how much of this stuff we could sell.” It’s totally unregulated.

Mandelbaum: There are risks, some of which we don’t know, like tumor risk, for example.

There’ve been infections; there may be negative impacts on the heart or the immune system, or risks to bone or tissue, none of which we know or don’t know. These things have to be investigated.

We don’t even know the safety profile, but I’ve seen patients inject this stuff into their knees, and there’s been contamination.

Any effectiveness of BP-157 is a myth. There’s no evidence in terms of doing any of these things on the clinical side, and the safety side is really a tremendous hole of issues, because now these influencers are selling it, using the leverage of social media to convince people to inject themselves in their knees with this stuff.

Beyond safety, these things are also extremely expensive.

Mandelbaum: In sports and performance medicine, we want to promote healing, and we want to improve our muscles and optimize performance — preservation is what we call it.

There’s a whole family of orthobiological compounds that have been proven with very high levels of evidence to be safe and effective to support healing.

If we’re talking about longevity, health span, or play span in athletes, when you’re trying to preserve performance over time, it’s not just one thing.

It’s about your fitness, VO₂ max, and load. It’s all about the nutritional aspects: recovery, sleep, and injury prevention. Creatine can help build muscle.

Right now, we are limited to what we call “autologous products,” which include platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and adipose tissue, all of which are allowed by the FDA and none of which are prohibited.

Orthobiologics do have a role, but all of those things add up to 100%.

Each of these factors can influence an athlete’s performance, but to do so, it’s all those variables. Understanding free radicals and inflammation in our bodies is critical.

Mandelbaum: That’s what we would want from the FDA.

I would hope that the government’s first response would be that there’s a tremendous amount of appeal here.

We need more research, more, more efficacy — the number of steps we have to go to approve a biological process through the FDA is extremely challenging.

As physicians and scientists, we have to ask ourselves and answer the questions: Is it effective for that specific use? And is it safe? Is it safe in animals? Is it safe in humans? And the only way we learn this is to study that. Peptide influencers have gone through the back door with this.

Until we have more evidence, until it’s been well studied, until we have that information, the onus is on our government to close the gap between hope and knowledge.

Public health officials have a responsibility. Let’s study it; let’s sponsor a 5- to 10-year research protocol to examine it, and let the FDA evaluate that data when it’s complete.

Take PRP, for instance. In 2007, we said we needed more research to determine its safety and to ensure its efficacy for muscle, tendon, and joint healing. We had to go through this vigilance over the last 19 years, just with PRP, to understand how it could help athletes.

To respond at the governmental level without performing due diligence would really hurt our population.

• Oura Ring has announced the release of the newest generation of its smart ring.
• The Oura Ring 5 promises to be smaller, more proactive, and more personalized than before.
• With the new software portfolio, Oura Ring includes upgraded features that help track more than 50 metrics.

Oura rings are smart devices that help you track your health and fitness. The smart rings track sleep metrics, activity and fitness, and women’s health, such as period tracking.

The Oura Ring 5, released on June 4, promises to deliver even more insights than previous generations.

Every Oura ring has helped you track various health metrics, such as:

Oura Ring 5 offers even more features and personalized tracking.

“Oura Ring 5 is a big step toward our vision of giving every body a voice. By reimagining Oura Ring 5 to be smaller and easier to wear, and pairing it with our most advanced software yet, we’re making it possible for many more people to wear Oura every day—and to benefit from the personalized, predictive health insights that come with it,” Tom Hale, CEO at Oura, said in a statement.

The new Oura Ring 5 is 40% smaller than previous generations, making it the smallest smart ring. It is lighter in order to be more comfortable both day and night.

It also has upgraded, precision sensors to achieve better skin contact, greater consistency, and improved accuracy across more finger types and skin tones.

Alongside the new ring launch, Oura is also releasing a new portfolio of software that promises to make the app more proactive, personalized, and useful in daily life.

New software features include:

• Health radar: This includes two new proactive capabilities in addition to the existing experiences — blood pressure signals and nighttime breathing.
• Live activity tracking: This lets you start a workout directly in the app and view key metrics in real time. It also improves the accuracy of automatic activity detection for more than 40 activities, including low-motion workouts like yoga and Pilates.
• GLP-1 insights: This brings together information people often track in multiple apps, such as dosing, side effects, and weight. It provides a single longitudinal view of your GLP-1 journey, along with Oura insights, so you can see how your medication and daily habits work together over time.

Oura Ring 5 also offers the same long battery life as previous generations. This smaller ring still allows 6 to 9 days between charges. It is also waterproof up to 100 meters.

The Oura Ring 5 comes in six finishes and starts at $399.

• Public health experts are concerned that the 2026 FIFA World Cup may test the public health playbook.
• While Ebola and measles may not pose a high risk for these games, the spread of other respiratory illnesses is possible, as are heat-related illnesses.
• The CDC and other government agencies are putting plans in place to help protect people from health concerns.
• There are steps you can take to protect yourself from infectious diseases and other health issues while attending World Cup games this summer.

The FIFA World Cup kicks off on June 11 and is expected to draw millions of spectators to North America.

The international tournament is hosted by 16 cities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico and runs through July 19. Fans can expect 104 games from 48 teams, with the opening match featuring Mexico vs. South Africa in Estadio Azteca in Mexico City.

There is generally a well-established “playbook” for protecting the public’s health during mass events like this. However, there are also broader circumstances this year that experts believe could put that playbook to the test.

With any mass gathering, there’s always a risk of common respiratory illnesses spreading among crowds. However, all three countries hosting the World Cup this year have also seen a recent resurgence in measles, which is highly contagious and can be deadly among unvaccinated individuals. Still, the risk of measles transmission at the games is low.

Despite concerns over Ebola and hantavirus, experts say it’s unlikely these rare diseases would circulate during the World Cup.

In past tournaments, heat-related illnesses posed the greatest threat during matches, which typically take place outdoors in the summer months. Of course, there’s also the risk of mosquito bites, which is more of a nuisance than anything else.

“The most common issue was heat-related illness, with falls, diabetes, seizures, and chest pain also noteworthy,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine, health policy, and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University.

“A fundamental concept is preparation — planning by all the relevant agencies. We have done this well before and ought to be able to manage the World Cup events also,” he told Healthline.

The current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda poses a global health concern.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has described the outbreak as a “public health emergency of international concern.” However, the risk of Ebola spreading at the World Cup remains low.

“The risk of importing Ebola is very low. If such should occur, with heightened awareness, the patient should be diagnosed promptly and can be cared for safely by U.S. hospitals and personnel using rigorous infection control procedures,” said Schaffner.

“Remember, Ebola does not spread readily, in contrast to influenza and COVID.”

Another potential concern is measles amid recent surges in across the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

However, experts say the risk of measles during the games remains low. “It is possible that there could be importations of measles or other vaccine-preventable illnesses,” Schaffner said.

“Given the less-than-optimal vaccination rates in the U.S., there could be limited spread to unvaccinated persons. This would be detected quickly and would evoke a public health response. Again, the risk of this happening is low.”

Government organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are working hard to plan for and mitigate potential health risks during the World Cup.

“CDC is actively engaged in World Cup preparedness as part of the federal coordination structure led by the White House FIFA World Cup 2026 Task Force,” a CDC spokesperson told Healthline. “As part of HHS, CDC is regularly engaging with public health departments in host cities, other federal agencies, and partner organizations.”

“At U.S. ports of entry, CDC Port Health maintains around-the-clock protocols for identifying and responding to ill travelers arriving from international destinations, in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” said the CDC spokesperson.

The CDC has also developed a dedicated World Cup data dashboard (currently in final development) to provide state and local health departments with enhanced visibility into disease trends within and beyond their jurisdictions.

You can also visit the CDC Safety for Soccer Fans. It gives health and safety tips to help keep players, travelers, and visitors safe this summer.

Healthline contacted WHO for more information on how it is preparing for the World Cup. However, we have not received a response. The WHO website does show how the organization is working to improve planning for mass gatherings worldwide.

To protect your health before and after the World Cup games, you can follow these tips:

• Stay informed: Check travel advisories and protocols at the stadiums.
• Prepare for risks: Be sure your vaccinations are up to date and speak with a healthcare professional about any concerns you may have.
• Practice safe, healthy hygiene habits: Wash your hands frequently, take any necessary medications, avoid touching your face, and ensure the food and water you consume are safe.
• Monitor yourself and your loved ones for symptoms: After the games, be sure to watch for signs of illness, such as fever, cough, diarrhea, or changes in mood. If you experience any symptoms, contact a healthcare professional.

“Enjoy the World Cup games,” Schaffner said. “If you are in a high risk group (age 65 and older, anyone with a chronic medical condition, and those who are immunocompromised or pregnant), consider wearing a well-fitted mask if you attend crowded events. Of course, if you develop symptoms, seek medical care promptly.”

• Doctors are reporting increases in infectious diseases, including measles, whooping cough, rotavirus, and others, especially in children.
• Experts say the primary reason for the rise of these illnesses is the increasing number of adults and children who are not vaccinated.
• They say it’s important for medical professionals to educate their patients about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Doctors are reporting what they describe as an alarming rise in a variety of serious illnesses due to declining vaccination rates.

Children who aren’t vaccinated appear to be bearing the brunt of these illnesses, but officials also note an increase in unvaccinated adults requiring hospitalization, including some who refuse tetanus shots and blood transfusions.

The news comes a week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order reaffirming an assessment by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that aligns “the United States’ childhood vaccine practices with scientific evidence and best practices from peer, developed countries.”

The executive order notes that in 1980, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended children in the United States receive 23 vaccine doses in seven shots against seven different diseases. In 2024, that number had risen to at least 84 vaccine doses in at least 57 shots for 17 diseases, more than any other developed nation.

In January, HHS officials led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a new childhood vaccination schedule that recommended vaccination against 11 diseases. The six other diseases were recommended only for children at higher risk.

“After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Health Secretary Kennedy said in a statement at the time.

However, experts who spoke with Healthline say the decrease in vaccination rates and the resulting increase in disease are worrisome.

“I am very concerned about the increase in cases of vaccine-preventable infections in children in the United States,” said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and a specialist in infectious diseases.

“Large measles outbreaks have been well-publicized; less well known are recent increases in whooping cough and rotavirus (diarrheal) infections in children,” he said. “There also have been clusters of chickenpox. All these illnesses can make children feel miserable, and that would be bad enough, but all can result in serious illness that requires hospitalization and can cause death.”

By late May, the CDC reported 30 measles outbreaks in 2026, resulting in 1,983 cases. In 2025, there were 48 measles outbreaks with 2,288 confirmed cases.

The major measles outbreaks this year have occurred in South Carolina, with 669 cases so far. Utah is next with 484 cases, followed by Texas with 182 and Florida with 139.

About 21% of this year’s cases involve children under 5. About 72% involve children and young adults 19 years and younger.

About 6% of cases this year have required hospitalization, compared to 11% last year. So far, no deaths related to measles have been reported this year. Last year, three deaths were recorded.

The CDC reports that 92% of measles cases this year involve unvaccinated individuals or those with unknown vaccination status.

“Measles infection can result in serious complications, hospitalization, and death. Vaccination remains a critical tool for the prevention of measles infection and severe disease,” CDC officials wrote in another report.

Health experts recently told the New York Times that measles can be a harbinger of things to come. They say that’s because measles is highly contagious and can be the first disease to spike as vaccination rates broadly decline.

Graham Tse, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of MemorialCare Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital in California, is among the physicians noticing the trend.

Tse said that his facility had gone more than two decades without a measles case. Now, these cases are starting to crop up.

“I’m deeply concerned,” he said. “We’re talking about a disease that can have serious consequences,” Tse said the reason for the increase in cases is simple. “It’s vaccine hesitancy,” he said. “It’s because more and more people aren’t getting vaccinated.”

Increasing rates of infectious diseases have spread beyond measles, raising alarms among experts.

Meghan Hofto, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the New York Times that she and her colleagues have treated more children than usual for persistent diarrhea.

She blames rotavirus, a highly contagious infection most common in children under 5 that had largely been contained by vaccination.

Hofto told the Times that she had treated only four or five children with rotavirus in the past decade. Now, she said she had treated about that many already this year, and none of them were vaccinated. She said many children with a stomach virus might need a day or so of IV fluids, but these patients were being hospitalized for three or four days.

Danelle Fisher, MD, a pediatrician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in California, said that until recently, she had seen only one rotavirus case in 19 years. Now, they are cropping up again. “This is literally what happens if you don’t get vaccinated,” she said.

Hofto said she has treated several infants with whooping cough who had stopped breathing after coughing fits. “It’s hard to know when they’re safe to go home,” she told the Times.

Hofto and other doctors say unvaccinated children with high fevers sometimes need to be subjected to more invasive testing, including spinal taps, to rule out life threatening infections that vaccinated children are protected against.

Despite the dangers, doctors say some parents still decline to have their children vaccinated even after emergency treatment.

The trend isn’t limited to children. Doctors told the Times that there is an increasing number of unvaccinated adults who are refusing to get tetanus shots even after being treated for serious infections from cuts and other injuries.

Two anesthesiologists told the Times they have had patients refuse to consent to blood transfusions before surgery because they didn’t want blood from vaccinated donors.

Tse said he is concerned that these trends will continue because of the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding vaccines.

“I don’t see anything that is changing right now,” he said.

Fisher agreed that it may take time to reverse this tide. “These diseases are happening, and it’s going to get worse and worse if people don’t get vaccinated,” she said. “I’m afraid it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”

Tse said he tries to hear people’s concerns about vaccines and then urges them to educate themselves about vaccinations. “I tell them to really try and find the truth,” he said. “Vaccines are safe and help prevent disease, illness, and death.”

Fisher shared a similar strategy. “I try to have a respectable dialogue,” she said. “But I worry about these children and the children around them.”

The CDC reports that vaccination rates among U.S. children are at 92% for polio, 90% for measles and mumps, and 90% for chickenpox. The combined 7-vaccine series rate is slightly below 70%.

Health officials consider a vaccination rate of 95% to be necessary to develop “herd immunity” against measles, for example.

Schaffner said this trend is disturbing. “The U.S. has long been the international leader in deploying vaccines universally to make growing up safer,” he said. “We seem to be slipping back to the bad old days, letting nasty viruses spread, finding the unvaccinated.”

Schaffner said the consequences go beyond the person who isn’t vaccinated.

“There now are many immunocompromised children living among us, going to day care and school,” he explained. “These children often have a medical contraindication to receive vaccines or respond to them sub-optimally. Because their immune systems do not work well, when they become infected, they become seriously ill.”

He said the solution is simple.

“Having all the rest of us protected, thus creating a cocoon of protection around them. For that to work, vaccination must be comprehensive — all the rest of us must be vaccinated,” Schaffner said.

• A recent study found an association between alcohol consumption and 20 different health outcomes.
• The findings show that any amount of alcohol may increase the risk for various cancers.
• The researchers noted that the effects of alcohol can vary based on factors like sex, age, drinking patterns, and other behavioral risk factors.
• The study found that there is no evidence to support sex-specific thresholds on alcohol guidelines.

It’s well-established that consuming alcohol can have negative effects on overall health.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that moderate drinking may have health risks, while the World Health Organization (WHO) warns that no amount of alcohol is safe.

A new study found that any alcohol consumption can raise the risk for major cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

The findings, published on June 1 in Nature Health, show associations between alcohol use and several additional health outcomes, including other forms of cancer.

The researchers noted that while there are limitations to the study, the results present a clearer picture of the risks associated with alcohol consumption to help inform personalized decisions about alcohol use.

“This is not surprising and illustrates the many mechanisms through which alcohol, especially when consumed in large amounts, is toxic to our bodies,” said Ketan Thanki, MD, board certified colorectal surgeon with the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA. Thanki wasn’t involved in the study.

Even moderate alcohol consumption may increase the risk for certain health conditions, especially cancers.

The study analyzed 843 cohort and case-control studies published through 2023 using the Burden of Proof meta-analytic framework.

The researchers aimed to systematically re-evaluate the relationship between alcohol consumption and 20 health outcomes. These included 10 types of cancer:

It also included four cardiovascular diseases:

The study included six other conditions as well:

Alcohol raised the risk of five health outcomes by 15–50%, including:

• lip and oral cavity cancer
• laryngeal cancer
• cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases
• pancreatitis
• colon and rectal cancer

The strongest association was between alcohol consumption and pharyngeal cancer, with a 105% increased risk.

Any amount of alcohol consumption appeared to increase the risk for pharyngeal cancer more than the other health conditions that were considered.

Nine outcomes met the criteria for an increased risk of developing a health condition by 0–15% or, in some cases, a decrease in risk by 0–13%. These included:

• esophageal cancer
• breast cancer
• Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias
• atrial fibrillation and flutter
• type 2 diabetes
• liver cancer
• pancreatic cancer
• lower respiratory infections
• prostate cancer

There were five health outcomes that showed weak or inconsistent evidence: stomach cancer, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, tuberculosis, and ischemic heart disease.

The researchers found some evidence that the risk of type 2 diabetes actually decreased with low consumption of alcohol and increased with higher consumption.

However, this is not to say that you should start drinking alcohol if you currently don’t.

“While I readily recognize the role that alcohol consumption plays in the human experience, when anyone asks me about safe alcohol consumption, I always begin by saying that abstinence is the safest and truest bet,” Matt Glowiak, PhD, licensed counselor and chief addiction specialist with Recovered, told Healthline. Glowiak was not involved in the study.

“If one is going to drink, it is within their legal right if of age. However, they must make themselves fully aware of the health implications, which extend greatly beyond any warning label posted directly on beverage labels,” he said.

While current CDC guidelines define moderate drinking as 2 drinks per day for males and 1 drink per day for females, the WHO states that no safe amount of alcohol is safe for health.

However, the conflicting public health messaging around alcohol consumption may sow confusion around how much is considered safe, which is why many experts say that abstinence is best.

If you do wish to enjoy alcohol in moderation, Glowiak offered some parameters. “There are other proposed recommendations that speak to a 2-2-2 rule or 3-2-1 rule,” he told Healthline.

“For example, the 2-2-2 rule indicates no more than 2 drinks per occasion, no more than 2 days in a row, with no more than 2 days per week of consumption. Essentially, the 2-2-2 rule equates to no more than 4 drinks per week, which is actually a more conservative recommendation than the CDC,” Glowiak said.

The current study showed that even moderate alcohol consumption may increase the risk for nine cancers. This reinforces the well-established carcinogenic effects of alcohol.

However, the researchers also noted that current evidence does not support sex-specific thresholds for defining moderate drinking.

Thanki agreed and stated, “While the current literature does suggest that moderate drinking is better for you than heavy drinking, it is hard to make sex-based claims as to what constitutes moderate in each sex based on the current data.”

While it showed some evidence that low alcohol consumption may decrease the risk of certain conditions, like type 2 diabetes, these outcomes are largely observational and may be subject to bias.

“Heavy consumption, whether regular or episodic, is going to increase your risk of developing a multitude of disease processes,” said Thanki.

“In an ideal world, we probably should be avoiding alcohol consumption altogether, especially when we are young and unlikely to reap the benefits the elderly see from low-moderate alcohol consumption. In the setting of our cultural expectations, though, that is unlikely to happen, so keep your consumption low to moderate and avoid high alcohol content (ABV) drinks to minimize direct injury to the GI tract,” he told Healthline.

• A new study found that females using GLP-1 drugs had about a 30% lower risk of developing breast cancer.
• The effect may be related to the metabolic improvements associated with this class of medications.
• More research is needed before GLP-1 drugs can be recommended for breast cancer prevention.
• Experts say that regular screening and a healthy lifestyle remain important preventive measures.

A new study from the University of Pennsylvania has found that women who take GLP-1 medications are about 30% less likely to develop breast cancer.

Semaglutide, the active ingredient in GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, mimics a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1, which helps regulate blood sugar and appetite. GLP-1 medications were originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, but are also widely prescribed for weight loss.

The new research raises hope that GLP-1 drugs could serve as a strategy for breast cancer prevention, especially among higher-risk females with overweight and obesity.

The findings come at a moment when scientists are exploring the use of GLP-1 drugs to treat other conditions beyond type 2 diabetes and obesity, such as sleep apnea and addiction.

The research team conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records from the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which includes both academic and community medical sites across Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

During this process, they identified 217,624 females who underwent breast imaging between January 1, 2022, and June 30, 2025. The study focused on 111,646 females ages 45 to 80 who were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25) and had documented breast imaging outcomes.

Among these participants, 15,264 (13.7%) had been prescribed GLP-1 medications prior to their imaging exam, while 96,382 (86.3%) had no record of GLP-1 use.

To ensure a fair comparison and reduce bias, the researchers performed a one-to-one case-control matching.

Each woman taking GLP-1 drugs was matched with a woman not taking the drugs, based on factors such as age, race, ethnicity, BMI, breast density, and diabetes status. This matching process helped control for variables that could independently influence breast cancer risk, independent of GLP-1 use.

The primary outcome measured was the diagnosis of new breast cancer during the study period.

Statistical modeling was used to analyze the association between GLP-1 exposure and breast cancer incidence.

The researchers’ analysis found a significant association between GLP-1 use and reduced breast cancer risk.

Females taking GLP-1 medications had about 35% lower odds of developing breast cancer compared to those who did not use these drugs in the full cohort.

In the matched cohort, which controlled for potential confounding factors, GLP-1 use was associated with a 30.5% reduction in breast cancer incidence.

Specifically, among the 15,264 females on GLP-1 drugs, 1.62% were diagnosed with breast cancer during the study, compared to 2.47% of the 96,382 females who did not use GLP-1 medications. This translated into an absolute risk reduction of about 0.69%.

The protective effect of GLP-1 medications was consistent across racial groups, including Black and white females, and was independent of diabetes status, age, BMI, and breast density.

The researchers believe several mechanisms could explain these findings.

GLP-1 drugs not only promote weight loss, which is known to reduce breast cancer risk, but they also reduce systemic inflammation, a known contributor to cancer development.

Laboratory studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists may directly inhibit cancer cell growth and alter metabolic pathways essential to tumor survival.

While the study was observational and cannot prove causation, its large sample size and rigorous matching lend weight to the results.

However, the researchers emphasized that prospective clinical trials are necessary to definitively determine whether GLP-1 medications can prevent breast cancer and to understand the underlying biological mechanisms.

This study opens the door to exploring GLP-1 drugs as a potentially safer alternative to existing breast cancer preventive medications, which often have significant side effects.

Given the widespread use of GLP-1 medications for weight management and diabetes, the findings could have significant public health implications.

Monique Gary, DO, a breast surgical oncologist at St. Luke’s University Health Network who wasn’t part of the research team but did attend the conference, said that GLP-1 could be exerting this effect because multiple factors influence breast cancer risk.

“GLP-1s may be influencing breast cancer risk indirectly by improving some of the metabolic factors we know matter, including weight, insulin resistance, inflammation, and the hormonal environment,” she told Healthline.

Gary further noted that adipose tissue is metabolically active and can affect estrogen production and inflammatory signaling, both of which are involved in breast cancer biology.

At the same time, she said it’s important to note that what was seen was simply a statistical association.

“It does not prove that GLP-1s prevent breast cancer, and these medications are not FDA-approved for cancer prevention or cancer treatment,” Gary explained.

Nevertheless, these findings are important, she said, because they reinforce that breast cancer prevention involves looking at “the full risk picture” rather than just one factor.

“GLP-1s may become part of a larger prevention conversation for some patients in the future,” said Gary, “but they are not a replacement for screening, risk assessment, or individualized medical guidance.”

While GLP-1s may play a future role in breast cancer prevention, Mia Kazanjian, MD, a board certified radiologist and director of Women’s Imaging at Norwalk Radiology Consultants, said there are several steps women can take right now to help reduce their risk. Kazanjian wasn’t involved in the study.

Breast cancer screening is an important part of this process, she told Healthline. Females should generally get annual mammograms, along with an ultrasound if they have dense breast tissue.

“Societies recommend starting at age 40 if average risk, though I recommend a baseline at 35 yo as I practice in CT, which has the highest rate of early onset breast cancer in the U.S.,” said Kazanjian.

She added that females may wish to consider a breast cancer risk assessment using the Tyrer-Cuzick Model by the age of 25, or even sooner if they’re at high risk.

The value of breast cancer risk assessment made headlines in 2024 when actor Olivia Munn shared that it led to her early breast cancer diagnosis.

Additionally, Kazanjian suggested embracing a healthy lifestyle as a part of your prevention plan.

“About 30 minutes of moderate activity a day is ideal,” said Kazanjian. “This can be divided into smaller chunks of time for busy people.”

Kazanjian also suggested following a plant-based diet with lean protein. “Avoid ultra-processed foods,” she added.

Finally, Kazanjian said it’s important to avoid cigarettes and alcohol. “Any amount [of alcohol] increases risk of breast cancer,” she warned.

• A new study found that 90–120 minutes of strength training each week could help promote longevity.
• Around 1.5 to 2 hours of weekly strength training lowered the risk of death from cardiovascular and neurological diseases, and death from any cause.
• The findings add to the known health benefits of strength training, including bone health, improved balance, and weight management.

Strength training is heralded as a valuable aspect of an exercise regimen and regular physical activity.

Strength and resistance training offer myriad benefits, including improving bone strength and balance, and helping with weight management.

A new study found that aiming for 90-120 minutes of strength training each week may help lower your risk of death.

This means for most people, around 1.5 to 2 hours per week is sufficient for overall health and longevity.

“It is important to engage in aerobic exercise that increases the heart rate. This new study finds [that] another important aspect of exercise is strength training, including free weights, weight machines, and body weight exercises,” said Clarinda Hougen, MD, a primary care sports medicine specialist at Cedars-Sinai Orthopedics in Los Angeles. Hougen wasn’t involved in the study.

“By training and growing your muscle mass, you can improve your metabolic health and help reduce cardiovascular risk,” Hougen told Healthline.

The researchers for this study drew on 30 years of data from three large groups of study participants:

These totaled 147,374 participants, of whom 31,540 were males, and 115,834 were females. The average age at the beginning of the study was 54.

Participants were questioned every 2 years about the time they spent on strength training and aerobic exercise each week for up to 30 years.

Aerobic exercise included:

• brisk walking
• running or jogging
• swimming
• cycling
• tennis and squash,
• strenuous outdoor work
• stair climbing

Strength training included exercises using weights or body weight, such as push-ups, lunges, and squats.

During the course of the study, 35,798 participants died. A higher weekly and long-term level of strength training was associated with a lower risk of death.

The researchers found that 90–119 minutes per week of strength training was associated with a 13% lower risk of death from any cause. No further benefits were seen above 120 minutes per week.

The researchers found that 90–120 minutes of weekly strength training was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

The same amount of strength training also lowered the risk of death from neurological disease by 27%.

A lower risk of cancer was only seen at lower levels of strength training. A 9% lower risk was observed at 1–29 minutes per week, and an 12% lower risk at 30–59 minutes per week.

As this is an observational study, no firm conclusions of cause and effect can be drawn. The researchers also acknowledge the study’s limitations.

These limitations include the self-reported nature of the data, the exclusion of strength-training activities such as calisthenics and Pilates, and the lack of information on the duration of each exercise session or the intensity of strength training, any of which might have influenced the findings.

However, the findings still show an association between regular strength training and mortality rates and overall health.

“This particular study reported an optimal range of 90–120 minutes per week, although benefits may be seen with lower targets. This adds to a growing body of already established evidence touting these benefits,” said Mary Greene, MD, board certified cardiologist with Manhattan Cardiology in NYC. Greene wasn’t involved in the study.

This study focuses on the mortality benefits of strength training. But there are various other benefits of this type of exercise as well.

Greene told Healthline some of the other benefits of strength training include:

• cardiovascular benefits, such as lowered blood pressure, improved cholesterol, improved endothelial function (blood flow, inflammation control, and cardiovascular health)
• metabolic health, such as a decrease in type 2 diabetes risk and improved insulin sensitivity
• musculoskeletal health, such as increased bone density, reduction of osteoporosis risk, reduced osteoarthritis, and prevention of functional limitations
• mental health and sleep benefits
• body composition, such as increased lean mass

“When planning to start a new exercise regimen, it can be useful to first consult with your doctor if you have any health concerns that may need to be addressed first,” said Hougen.

“You should also try to find exercises or activities that you will enjoy, as this will make it more likely that you will stick with the routine. Finally, you should plan to ease into the routine gradually, setting smaller goals initially that can improve your confidence to eventually get to higher activity levels.”

• A new medication performed remarkably well in a phase 3 clinical trial for treating pancreatic cancer.
• The drug daraxonrasib reduced the risk of death by nearly half, as well as shrank tumors in people who were given the drug.
• Pancreatic cancer has the highest mortality rate of all major cancers, and early detection is the key to treating the disease.

A new type of medication is showing promise in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest forms of cancer.

In a phase 3 clinical trial, the drug daraxonrasib significantly improved survival rates of participants with pancreatic cancer who had previously been treated with chemotherapy.

The researchers found that daraxonrasib reduced the overall risk of death by 60% compared with people with advanced pancreatic cancer who were treated with chemotherapy.

The medication also helped shrink or eliminate tumors among participants in the trial.

Officials at Revolution Medicines, the manufacturer of daraxonrasib, said the clinical trial results are a major breakthrough in pancreatic cancer treatment.

“These results represent a potentially transformative advance for patients and underscore daraxonrasib’s potential to redefine the treatment landscape,” said Mark Goldsmith, MD, the chief executive officer and chairman of Revolution Medicines, in a statement.

Participants were given doses of between 10 milligrams (mg) and 400 mg of daraxonrasib orally once a day, with 300 mg selected as the phase 3 dose.

The researchers focused on 168 participants who had been previously treated with chemotherapy.

The researchers reported that participants using daraxonrasib had an average survival rate of 13 months from diagnosis to death compared to 6 months for participants treated with standard chemotherapy.

In people with a known RAS mutation called G12, tumors remained ⁠under control for a median of about 7 months among participants on daraxonrasib compared to about 3 months for those treated with chemotherapy.

The percentage of patients whose cancer shrank or disappeared was about 33% in patients with the G12 mutation compared to about 12% for people given chemotherapy. Overall, about 31% of trial participants saw their tumors shrink or disappear compared with 11% who received chemotherapy.

Experts not involved in the trial are very encouraged by the findings.

“This is an extraordinarily hopeful moment for the pancreatic cancer field,” said Diane Simeone, MD, the director of the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, as well as the founder and chief scientific advisor of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium (PRECEDE), in a statement shared with Healthline.

“Pancreatic cancer patients have had far too few effective treatment options,” she added. “The progress around daraxonrasib shows what is possible when long-term scientific investment, academic discovery, and industry innovation come together,” Simeone continued.

Christina Annunziata, MD, senior vice president of Extramural Discovery Science at the American Cancer Society (ACS), was also buoyed by the research.

“These results are extremely promising since this drug doubled overall survival for patients with relapsed pancreatic cancer,” she told Healthline.

Daraxonrasib is the first in a new class of drugs called RAS(ON) inhibitors that target variants of the RAS gene that drive cancer growth.

Side effects were reported in 96% of participants who received doses of 300 mg or less. Those included:

Side effects were grade 3 or higher in about a third of participants.

Annunziata, however, noted that “the side effects were lower compared to standard chemotherapy typically used in this second-line treatment setting.”

However, she had concerns about access to the new medication. “The only concern will be the availability of this drug to people who need it. This will depend on the cost and level of insurance coverage,” Annunziata said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) reports that 68,000 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year, and roughly 53,000 will die from the disease.

Pancreatic cancer affects the pancreas, an organ that plays an essential role in digestion by producing enzymes that the body needs to digest fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. The pancreas is located behind the stomach, which can make detection and diagnosis of cancer difficult.

SEER data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) show that around 3% of people whose cancer has spread from the pancreas to distant organs have a 5-year survival rate. About 80% of patients are diagnosed in the advanced or metastatic stage.

The average lifetime risk for pancreatic cancer is about 1 in 56 in males and about 1 in 60 in females.

Pancreatic cancer often doesn’t produce symptoms until it reaches an advanced stage. Symptoms at later stages may include:

• loss of appetite
• unintentional weight loss
• abdominal pain that may radiate to the back
• fatigue, weakness
• jaundice
• nausea and vomiting

The American Cancer Society (ACS) reports that there are risk factors for pancreatic cancer that you can lower by adopting certain lifestyle behaviors. These include:

• tobacco use
• excess body weight
• exposure to workplace chemicals

They also note there are risk factors that cannot be modified.

One of them is age. The ACS states that almost all pancreatic cancer patients are older than 45. About two-thirds are at least 65 years old. The average age at diagnosis is 70.

Males are slightly more likely than females to develop pancreatic cancer, partly due to higher smoking rates and other factors.

African-Americans are also slightly more likely to be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer than other groups. The ACS states this may be due to factors such as diabetes, smoking, and excess body weight.

There are various treatments that are used to fight pancreatic cancer, including:

• surgery in which portions of the pancreas are removed
• radiation therapy
• chemotherapy
• targeted therapy
• immunotherapy

“New treatments can help patients live longer, but we have the greatest opportunity to change the trajectory of this disease when pancreatic cancer is found earlier, before it has spread,” Simeone said.

Annunziata listed various reasons why pancreatic cancer is so difficult to treat:

• it’s often discovered in its later stages
• dense connective tissue around the cancer decreases the effectiveness of chemotherapy and immunotherapy
• pancreatic cancer cells have gene mutations that make them grow quickly and evade chemotherapy

Early detection of pancreatic cancer can help improve survival rates.

There are a variety of tests used for pancreatic cancer screening, such as:

• CT or MRI scans of the pancreas
• an endoscopic ultrasound
• a biopsy of tissue from the pancreas
• blood tests to check for biomarkers

Annunziata said what makes screening for pancreatic cancer problematic is the lack of early stage symptoms.

“There is currently no screening method for pancreatic cancer in the general population,” she said. “People with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer, or known hereditary syndromes like BRCA [breast cancer gene] or Lynch [syndrome], should talk with their doctor about regular screening with endoscopic ultrasound or MRI.”

Annunziata said the best defense is to adopt a lifestyle that decreases the possibility of pancreatic cancer developing.

“People can reduce their risk by avoiding factors known to be associated with pancreatic cancer: don’t smoke or use tobacco products, maintain a healthy weight and diet, pursue regular exercise, and limit alcohol intake,” she said.

• Anne Hathaway recently shared about the early onset cataract that left her legally blind in one eye for 10 years.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that 17.2% of Americans ages 40 and older have a cataract in one or both eyes.
• Cataracts generally begin to occur in people over 40, but they can and often do occur in people younger than this.

Academy Award and Golden Globe-winning actor Anne Hathaway recently spoke out about the early onset cataract that left her nearly legally blind for 10 years.

“I was half blind for 10 years — age 30 to 40,” Hathaway told the New York Times’ Popcast in an earlier interview. “I had an early onset cataract, and it affected my vision so much that I was basically legally blind out of my left eye.”

Hathaway said she underwent surgery to fix her cataract. “I didn’t realize how bad it had gotten until I could finally see the full spectrum,” she told the Popcast.

Cataracts are common among middle-aged and older adults. They affect approximately 94 million people globally and are one of the leading causes of vision impairment.

“Everyone will develop at some point in their lifetime, and while they typically begin forming between ages 40 and 50, we do see cases that develop earlier, often referred to as early onset cataracts,” said Ashley Brissette, MD, an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon specializing in cataract surgery in New York City.

Healthline spoke with Brissette to learn more about early onset cataracts and how they’re treated.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Brissette: Cataracts can progress to significantly impact vision if left untreated. As the lens becomes more clouded, patients may experience blurred or cloudy vision, difficulty seeing at night, and faded colors.

The old thinking was to wait until cataracts became advanced before removing them surgically, but a more modern approach is to remove them as soon as they affect your vision and quality of life.

We have excellent options for lens implants that are placed inside the eye after cataract surgery. These lenses can provide a range of vision to limit the need for glasses after surgery.

The important thing to know is that this kind of vision loss is treatable with modern cataract surgery.

Brissette: In the early stages, some patients can manage with stronger lighting or updated glasses. But when cataracts begin to interfere with daily life, surgery is the standard, highly effective, and safe treatment. And it can help you see better with less dependence on glasses.

Cataract surgery is one of the most common procedures performed in the United States.

What’s really exciting today is how much the procedure has evolved. We are not just removing the cataract. We are replacing it with an intraocular lens that can correct vision.

With advanced technologies, including some of the latest presbyopia correcting options, I am seeing patients achieve a range of vision that can significantly reduce their need for glasses. In many cases, patients are not just getting back the vision they had before their cataract. They are actually seeing better than they did before it developed.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that cataracts are just something you have to live with, but that is not true.

Cataracts are highly treatable, and addressing them can make a meaningful difference not just in vision, but in overall quality of life, from maintaining independence to reducing risks like falls and even reducing the risk of dementia.

The key takeaway is to stay proactive. The earlier we evaluate changes in vision, the more options we have to deliver the best possible outcomes.

• A growing body of evidence suggests that a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) measurement is a better indicator of obesity and health than body mass index (BMI).
• New research suggests that BMI measurements may be significantly underestimating the number of U.S. adults with obesity, which can lead to other chronic diseases.
• Experts say obesity misdiagnoses may be preventing people from getting the treatments that they need.

New research suggests that body mass index (BMI) may be drastically underestimating the number of people in the United States with obesity.

Around a quarter of people considered to have a healthy BMI measurement may actually meet the standard of having obesity, which raises the risk of various chronic health conditions.

Researchers say that half of those classified as “overweight” based on their BMI should be reclassified as having obesity. The findings were published on June 1 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The authors said that measurements of abdominal fat may be better indicators of obesity. They noted that people who are misdiagnosed based on BMI may not be getting the medical intervention they need or qualify for pharmacologic or surgical treatments for obesity.

In addition, physicians may not flag these patients as needing lifestyle modifications that could improve their health.

“Many people assume that if their BMI says they are not obese, they don’t have to worry about the many health problems linked to obesity,” said Brian P. Lee, MD, a hepatologist and liver transplant specialist with Keck Medicine and principal investigator of the study, said in a statement.

“Our findings show that millions of Americans may already have obesity-related health impacts and may be missing needed health interventions.”

They concluded that 26% of people with a “normal” BMI and 50% of people with an “overweight” BMI actually qualified as having obesity.

“BMI is problematic because it does not specifically measure body fat and instead reflects total body weight, which includes muscle and bone,” Lee said in a statement.

“So, a muscular person can have a very high BMI but not have excess fat, while someone without much muscle can have a normal BMI but have excess fat causing health problems.”

David Cutler, MD, a family medicine physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said that, based on BMI, some professional athletes might be classified as overweight or obese when, in reality, they are in peak shape.

“All you have to do is watch a football game to see that,” he told Healthline.

Mir Ali, MD, a bariatric surgeon, bariatric medicine specialist, and medical director of MemorialCare Surgical Weight Loss Center at Orange Coast Medical Center in California, said that while BMI alone isn’t the most accurate measure of obesity, there are reasons for its use. Ali wasn’t involved in the study.

“I agree that BMI is not the ideal indicator of obesity and that measuring the waist-to-hip ratio offers certain advantages,” he told Healthline. “However, BMI remains the most widely used measure by providers and insurance companies because it is easier to calculate, whereas waist-to-hip measurements can vary.”

In recent years, research has suggested that the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) may be a more accurate measure of overweight and obesity.

For instance, a 2023 study found that WHR measurements had the strongest association with all-cause mortality risk regardless of a person’s BMI. The authors suggested that body fat distribution, rather than body weight, should be considered in clinical recommendations.

Cutler said he favored waist-to-hip ratio measurements over BMI. “BMI measures weight. The others measure fat. They’re two different things,” Cutler said.

Ali noted that WHR, DEXA scans, and body roundness can more accurately determine whether a person has obesity. “However, these methods have not been widely adopted due to drawbacks like cost and complexity,” he said.

“While BMI fails to account for body composition — potentially categorizing muscular individuals as overweight — it will likely remain the standard until a more effective, simple calculation is established,” Ali continued.

Dan Azagury, MD, an associate professor of surgery at Stanford University and the medical director at the Stanford Lifestyle and Weight Management Clinic, shared similar thoughts. Azagury wasn’t involved in the study.

“BMI is a useful and widely used screening tool for obesity because it is simple and easy to apply,” he told Healthline.

“However, it is not perfect for several reasons. Most importantly, BMI is not designed to assess the health impact of obesity. As a result, two patients with the same BMI may experience very different health effects. In this regard, the waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure, as it more accurately reflects metabolically active fat, which tends to accumulate inside the abdomen rather than around the hips,” Azagury continued.

Cutler said that a critical issue with relying solely on BMI is that people who are overweight may not be getting the information they need on diet, exercise, medications, surgery, and other ways to manage obesity.

“It puts them at higher risk of all the diseases that are associated with obesity,” he said. “This condition needs to be recognized and managed.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 40% of adults in the United States have obesity, based on BMI measurements.

However, a December 2025 report published in JAMA notes that if waist-to-hip and waist-to-height ratios were used along with BMI, the obesity rate among U.S. adults would be 75%.

Even with BMI measurements, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that about 73% of U.S. adults can be classified as being overweight or having obesity.

The CDC states that there is no significant difference in obesity rates between males and females. The age group with the highest obesity percentage is people ages 40 to 59.

The federal health agency adds that non-Hispanic Black adults and adults may have higher obesity rates than other groups.

Obesity can also affect many parts of the body, including the brain, blood vessels, liver, and joints.

“Obesity is a complex, long-term medical condition influenced by genetics, lifestyle, and hormones,” said Ali. “If not properly treated, it can affect every organ system and contribute to diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. Studies also show that obesity can significantly shorten a person’s life span.”

Diet is considered a primary factor in the development of obesity.

When the calories a person consumes exceed those they burn, the body stores the excess as fat, which may lead to weight gain over time.

In addition, the quality of the calories consumed is another important factor. Foods high in sodium, fat, sugar, and refined starches can lead to weight gain. Many processed foods fall into this category.

Other factors, such as a lack of exercise and inadequate sleep, can also contribute to obesity.

Experts say the first step is to know the facts about obesity and receive a definitive diagnosis. From there, people can seek treatment.

“The good news is that obesity can be treated,” said Lee in a statement. “Whether through lifestyle changes, medication or both, we have effective ways to reduce excess body fat and lower the risk of future health problems. The earlier we identify people at risk, the better chance we have of improving long-term health and quality of life.”

Ali said that what a person eats and how much they exercise are key to healthy weight management.

“To lower their risk, individuals should maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle, and consult a medical professional if they face challenges in doing so,” he said.

Azagury said the focus should be more on treatment and less on risk reduction. “Prevention is always preferable,” he said. “However, obesity is a highly complex condition with multiple contributing factors, including genetics, which makes prevention challenging.”

“At this point, our main advantage is the availability of several highly effective treatments,” Azagury said.

“For individuals with obesity, initiating effective therapy — such as GLP-1 medications or surgery — early is important, ideally before health complications develop. For that reason, discussing treatment options with your physician at an early stage is critical,” he said.