UF Health Podcasts

It’s intuitive that getting more sleep at night gives us more energy for exercise during the day. Or that getting more exercise in the day leads to more sleep at night.

A recent Australian study turns those ideas on their head.

Scientists monitored 71,000 people over the course of three years. They used wearable devices to track activity and an under-mattress sensor to get a detailed picture of participants’ sleep patterns.

Their surprising results showed that individuals who slept six hours a night took 339 more steps the next day compared with those who got eight hours of shut-eye. In fact, those who slept seven hours walked 237 more steps compared with those who got that extra hour of rest.

What scientists found was that sleep efficiency is a better predictor of next-day energy levels. The analysis also shows that people who took just over half an hour to fall asleep walked less than those who fell asleep in half that time.

Sleep appears to have a greater impact on next-day activity than activity has on sleep. The study found that people who walked nearly 9,000 steps showed almost no difference in their sleep that night, compared with folks who walked 3,000 fewer steps.

The sweet spot for maximizing next-day energy appeared to be approximately six hours of sleep. It was slightly higher for older adults and slightly lower for younger folks.

It’s essential to note that deliberately aiming for less sleep carries its own health risks. But the study suggests new potential strategies for finding the right balance between sleep and activity. Ultimately, they’re both important.

While dog supplements aren’t inherently bad, many are poorly regulated and unnecessary if your pooch is eating a complete and balanced diet. On this episode, Dr. Richard Hill, a professor of small animal medicine and nutrition expert, talks all things pups and supplements, including regulatory issues with pet supplements, the dangers of over-supplementation and why herbal and holistic supplements can be dangerous. More nutrients do not always mean better health. It’s easy to disrupt balanced formulas and, in some cases, supplements can delay proper treatment or mask real medical conditions. Always consult with your veterinarian on canine diets and nutrition; routine supplementation is not recommended without veterinary oversight, according to the American College of Veterinary Nutrition.

For decades, patients undergoing blood cancer treatment have been told to avoid certain foods to reduce infection risk, guidance that some physicians hoped could safely be relaxed.

Now, a University of Florida study offers clear evidence that a diet designed to limit exposure to foodborne microbes results in fewer serious infections, confirming it is still the safest choice.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, findings from the large phase 3 randomized trial — considered the gold standard for clinical trials — demonstrated that patients hospitalized for blood cancer treatment who followed a diet restricting fresh fruits and vegetables had a lower risk of developing serious infection.

This “neutropenic” [new-tro-pee-nik] diet, gets its name from neutropenia, a condition in which patients have low levels of protective white blood cells called neutrophils. During chemotherapy, these cells are suppressed, increasing infection risk. The most serious infections arise from the intestinal tract and are linked to microbes in uncooked foods.

Fresh fruits and vegetables are important components of a healthy diet once patients’ immune systems have recovered, but during treatment, clinicians prescribe the diet to protect against infection. Researchers emphasized the need to come up with better approaches to improve the nutrition of patients with cancer without compromising their safety.

The study finally answers a decades-old question about the effectiveness of the neutropenic diet at preventing infection, but more work needs to be done to address ongoing nutrition issues, researchers said. A healthy diet remains important not only for the gut, but also for patient outcomes.

Children are getting them younger and younger. Maybe your son or daughter had one even before becoming a teenager. No, we’re not talking about braces or deodorants.

We’re talking about cellphones.

For years, debate has raged over at what age a child should own a phone — let alone have access to apps like social media. Now, research is quantifying just how early use of smartphones and heavy screen time can be harmful.

A new study found that those who received phones at age 12, compared with those who got one at 13, had more than a 60% higher risk of poor sleep and more than a 40% higher risk of obesity. That’s according to a publication from 2025 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Other studies show high levels of screen time are linked to measurable dips in cognitive performance — like slower processing, reduced attention spans and a weaker memory. Rates of depression and anxiety climb with more social media, too.

One country, Australia, became the first to ban social media for children younger than 16 in 2025. The ban included TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

Some neuropsychologists instead recommend setting an example — one led by parents, that is. Children tend to replicate behaviors observed in mom and dad. Even if it’s as small as cutting screen time for one hour a day, a decrease like that might lead to better long-term wellness and quality of life.

Communication is also key. If you are a parent, try to avoid being reactive —have a conversation instead. For kids eager to assert their independence, it might go over a little better … or at least result in fewer eyerolls.

Aside from convenience, shelf-stability and price point, ultraprocessed foods rarely have any positives associated with them — especially when it comes to our health.

Now, a study from Virginia Tech suggests certain age groups might be more sensitive — specifically, a category of young adults.

In the study, researchers looked at two types of diets: one dense in ultraprocessed foods, where 81% of calories consumed came from these foods, and a second that contained no ultraprocessed foods at all. Participants adhered to each of the diets for two weeks, with a break in between, eating breakfast in the lab and then receiving meals prepared in a metabolic kitchen.

After each diet period, researchers brought participants to an all-you-can-eat buffet breakfast. Each participant received a tray filled with around 1,800 calories of breakfast food, from which they could eat as little or as much as they wanted. After 30 minutes, they were escorted to a room and asked to rate different snacks. After taking one bite of each snack presented, they were given the option to keep eating, or rest until the study was over.

While the difference in calorie consumption didn’t change across the study’s participants as a whole (folks as young as 18 and as old as 25), researchers noticed a difference between age groups.

Those 18 to 21 years of age consumed more calories after feeling full when they adhered to the ultraprocessed diet. In contrast, participants ages 22 to 25, who also ate an ultraprocessed diet for two weeks, did not.

This was a short-term study, but researchers point out the difference in caloric consumption can add up quickly over time.

Exercise helps with most things: mood, bone density, heart health and more. It is a recommended means of managing common symptoms of menopause, too.

But a new study suggests even elite athletes might struggle to keep exercising in the face of some of the most common side effects of this change of life.

Researchers looked at 187 female athletes of several cardio-intensive sports: runners, swimmers, cyclists and triathletes. Every participant was between the ages of 40 to 60 years old. As the term “athlete” might imply, these were no couch potatoes: Each of the women surveyed exercised at least three days a week, sweating for a minimum of three hours a week.

They completed a scale that described different menopause symptoms, reporting how these affected their ability to perform during training and actual performance in the sport.

Most — 88% — reported difficulty sleeping, with physical and mental fatigue a close second at 83%. These were some of the most common menopause symptoms associated with negative effects on sports performance, along with muscle aches and pains and weight gain.

Notably, study authors say the severity and prevalence of these symptoms mimics those seen in the general population (also known as those of us sweating for less than three hours a week, and certainly not at elite levels). They recommend providers address symptoms not only for quality of life, but also for health — so patients can keep exercising with less discomfort.

And, while we might not all be triathletes, it’s nice to know hot flashes don’t discriminate.

A rare, inherited condition causes dangerously high cholesterol, even in newborn babies.

But if you have it, you probably have no idea.

A new Mayo Clinic study has found that current genetic screening guidelines fail to detect nearly 90% of those who have familial hypercholesterolemia [hi-per-cholester-o-lee-me-uh].

The condition is one of the most common genetic disorders and affects an estimated 1 in 200 to 250 people around the world.

It leads to extremely high levels of low-density lipoprotein, or LDL cholesterol, often referred to as the bad cholesterol.

The disorder snakes its way through family lines for years. It can be effectively treated with lifestyle changes and medication, but 9 in 10 of those who have it are unaware. Not knowing the condition needs treatment is dangerous, leaving the undiagnosed at risk for heart attacks and strokes.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers used exome sequencing to examine the protein-coding sections of the genome, which is where most disease-causing mutations happen. More than 84,000 participants in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota were screened and 419 people with familial hypercholesterolemia were identified.

Nearly 75% of those would not have met existing guidelines for testing based on their cholesterol levels or reported family history.

Researchers said expanding routine screening could help detect most people living with the genetic condition, reducing the likelihood of poor outcomes. They said the findings underscore the need for genomics-driven health care.

It stands to reason:  You can’t fix a problem if you don’t know it exists.

Sharp knives are safer than dull ones. And relaxing during a fight can make you more likely to win.

Sometimes, a counterintuitive solution works best. Researchers at the University of Sharjah [SHAA-ruh] in the United Arab Emirates are suggesting another counterintuitive idea deserves more study: garlic in mouthwash.

Garlic extract has been found to offer antimicrobial effects on par with commonly used antiseptics and disinfectants, such as chlorhexidine [chlor-heck-suh-dine].

Garlic-based mouthwash, however, might be slightly less comfortable to use than chlorhexidine. It might cause a slight burning sensation and there’s a bit of — no surprise here — an odor.

In its favor, mouthwash that includes garlic extract appears to offer longer-lasting antimicrobial protection for teeth and gums.

About 30 million metric tons of garlic were used in 2024, with China accounting for nearly 80% of global consumption and production. It is a $15 billion annual crop.

Garlic has long been one of the most potent naturally occurring antibacterial and antifungal crops. While it’s technically a vegetable, it’s more commonly used as an herb and a spice.

Garlic extract is already used in many over-the-counter health products. Unlike garlic, the synthetic chlorhexidine usually requires a prescription.

The researchers suggest more clinical trials are needed to confirm garlic’s effectiveness and usefulness as a mouthwash alternative.

But if you’ve got oral or dental issues, especially caused by bacteria, fungi or viruses, an antimicrobial mouthwash that includes garlic — and requires no prescription — could make life easier. Even though, yes, it sounds weird.

In a world inching its way toward sustainability, the market for meat substitutes is a lucrative one. From tofu to tempeh — and Beyond Burgers to those still humbly made of beans — vegetarians, vegans and people simply trying to eat less meat have more options than ever.

One of the strongest contenders in meat-like replacements is the mushroom — and researchers from China and the Netherlands are applying gene-editing technology to amplify what we can do with it.

In this case, we’re talking about a fungus whose genes have been “edited” to taste like meat (seasonings aside). They were also changed to make its digestion easier on the stomach than the original strain of fungi it originated from, which has thick cell walls.

Perhaps most importantly, though, they used the gene-editing tool to tinker with how much protein the fungus produces. Originally a resource-heavy mushroom to grow, researchers made an “edit” to how much nutrition is needed for the fungus to create protein in itself. This, along with other changes, lowered the environmental cost of the meat substitute’s production by 61%.

They modeled production across six countries, each with a different energy system. Examples included Finland, which relies on renewable energy, and China, which tends to run on coal.

Foods like this fungus could help meet growing food demand less expensively by limiting the environmental footprint associated with producing it.

Now, for those of us who hate mushrooms, it’s possible knowing where your meat substitute came from might lessen your interest in plucking it off the plate. But for now, it seems like we might not notice it’s mushroom to begin with.

In our collective consciousness, we likely imagine the typical fentanyl overdose victim as someone in their 20s — maybe 30s.

But people in their senior years (that is, old enough to be someone’s grandparent) are dying from a combination of fentanyl and stimulants in skyrocketing numbers.

Findings from a national study led by the University of Nevada, Reno, were presented at an annual conference of anesthesiologists. Their data showed that fentanyl overdoses among senior adults surged 9,000% — from 264 to 4,144 — over an eight-year span between 2015 and 2023.

The rise in fentanyl deaths among adults 65 and older involving stimulants took off in 2020, while deaths linked to other substances stayed flat or declined.

Cocaine and methamphetamines were the most common stimulants paired with fentanyl by those older adults, far more than alcohol, heroin and sedatives like Xanax and Valium.

The United States has been in an opioid epidemic since the 1990s, with a half-million lives lost since 1999.

It’s had four distinct waves: Prescription opioids in the ’90s, heroin starting around 2010, the emergence of fentanyl in 2013 and, since 2015, the lethal punch of fentanyl and stimulants.

In adults 65 and older, deaths involving fentanyl and stimulants rose from just under 9% in 2015 to nearly 50% in 2023. The same combo accounted for 59% of the overdose deaths in younger adults in 2023.

The researchers said prescribers must use caution in prescribing opioids to those 65 and older. And everyone needs to know about naloxone [nuh-laak-sown], or Narcan, a lifesaving over-the-counter medication that can rapidly reverse an opioid overdose.