Is mouth taping dangerous? An expert says the trend 'is not an appropriate therapy' for people with sleep apnea
Mouth taping has become a viral wellness trend among influencers and celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Graham and Emma Roberts. However, Canadian researchers are warning that putting tape or an adhesive patch over your mouth while sleeping could be "extremely unsafe" if you have breathing issues.
A study published Wednesday in the journal PLOS One indicated mouth taping could be harmful when trying to treat problems like mouth breathing and sleep disordered breathing. It could also be dangerous for someone with sleep apnea, a disorder where a person's breathing stops repeatedly while they're sleeping.
Dr. Brian Rotenberg, a senior author on the study, told Yahoo Canada there are two main reasons why people should likely avoid this home remedy. "If the patient is having nasal obstruction, there's usually a reason for that," the otolaryngologist at London Health Sciences Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care London and Western University in Ontario explained.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Contact a qualified medical professional before engaging in any physical activity, or making any changes to your diet, medication or lifestyle.
"It is better to have that reason investigated by a qualified health-care practitioner — for example a primary-care physician, an ENT (ear, nose and throat) person like myself or a nurse practitioner — to actually make a diagnosis than doing a Band-Aid and treating it without knowing the cause," he added.
The sleep surgeon further explained there are numerous people who are unaware they have sleep apnea. About nine per cent of men and three to four per cent of women have the disorder and remain unaware, he indicated. "We're talking millions of Canadians and way more Americans and way more globally."
Mouth taping is a home remedy method that involves a person placing a tape or adhesive patch over their mouth when going to sleep. This is meant to reduce their mouth breathing at night, pushing them to use their nose to breath. In turn, nose breathing should warm and humidify the air entering the body, reducing snoring and improving sleep quality.
In November 2022, Oscar-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow shared on Instagram she was using a product called MyoTape, touting it was "probably the single best wellness tool" she'd recently found: "Breathing through your nose at night apparently creates alkalinity in the body and promotes the best quality sleep."
The following May, supermodel Ashley Graham posted similar reviews to the practice, saying she had "never slept better." Actress Emma Roberts also recently called it "life changing" and that she wakes up feeling "more refreshed." Influencers online have lately been echoing similar sentiments, claiming that sleeping this way has improved their asthma symptoms, increased their oral hygiene and even sharpened their jawline.
But according to Rotenberg's research in collaboration with Halifax-based paediatric otolaryngologist Dr. Elise Graham and Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry resident Jess Rhee, there wasn't any strong evidence of mouth taping health benefits. The team looked at 86 existing studies on the topic, and gave an in-depth review of 10 worth looking over. Out of those studies, eight showed no benefits and two suggested minimal benefits.
Rotenberg used an analogy of a patient who is seeing their vision worsen. In some cases, that might simply be a case of needing new glasses.
"But what if you have glaucoma? What if you have cataracts? What if you have retinal disease? All those things can present as decreases in vision that are otherwise non-specified," Rotenberg noted. "But you would never not go to your eye doctor. You wouldn't just order glasses off the internet and say, 'Let's give them a go.' You would actually do something about it and investigate it."
He said the same analogy works with the nose, which is a part of the body that can have "lots of issues" that cause breathing problems. Those might include a deviated septum, nasal polyps or even a tumour. "Those things are not going to get fixed with mouth taping," he shared.
When it comes to having sleep apnea, he said mouth taping can become "extremely unsafe" and can potentially make the disorder even worse: "When you have sleep apnea, the throat's collapsing in. So your throat's collapsing, now your nose is blocked and you're treating your nose blockage by covering your mouth. At that point, what's left to breathe through?"
A few years ago, Rotenberg said he initially thought mouth taping was just another viral trend that wasn't worth spending time worrying about. But over time, he and his collaborators noted how it became a real thing that people were continuously doing. That pushed him to begin research on the topic about a year and a half ago.
Don't be easily influenced by influencers or celebrities, but actually think for yourself and get yourself a proper diagnosis.Dr. Brian Rotenberg
If a patient was asking about potentially using mouth taping as a remedy, Rotenberg said he'd do an assessment and then conduct an examination to see what might be happening: "More often than not, I would likely see something happening to cause the obstruction, in which case I would not offer mouth taping but I would offer them other therapies that are evidence based and science based."
Still, he noted there may be the odd occasion where a patient won't have any reason why they're not breathing through their nose. "Something like that, I think [mouth taping] would be OK." However, he urged people to use more critical thinking when it comes to following viral trends they come across on social media.
"Just to be clear, I don't want to portray mouth taping as the root of all evil on planet Earth — it's not like that. There for sure some people out there who would probably benefit from this," he shared. "My thesis is to have people apply a little more thought before they just initiate something because of an influencer suggesting this is a good idea. Actually look into it and think, 'What's the problem here in the first place?'"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Union says lawsuit over federal pesticide safety rules aims to protect agricultural workers
A union representing agricultural workers across the country says the information workers get when handling pesticides is insufficient. It is suing the federal government with the aim of forcing it to enforce rules, it says, already exist. "It's high time for the federal government to do what it's already committed to do and that's what this case is about," Derek Johnstone of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) said. "It's also another opportunity for us as Canadians to look at something as basic a food worker knowing what he or she or they are handling and not having that information, so how did we get here?" The union held an information session about safety sheets in Leamington, Ont., on Sunday. Thousands of workers come from countries such as Mexico and Guatemala to work in greenhouses in the southwestern Ontario community each year. The UFCW launched its lawsuit against the federal government in federal court last week. It argues that safety information including "material safety data sheets" are a condition of registering pest control products and that those sheets must be provided to workplaces that use the products. The application by the union states that the government has taken the "unreasonable position that the provision of material safety data sheets to workplaces is voluntary" and that by not enforcing the requirement, it is failing to protect agricultural workers. "It's unfortunate that the government has taken to using the term voluntary when it comes to providing basic information about chemicals and pesticides that workers handle," Johnstone said. "This is not a choice. This is not a recommendation by government. This is a right enshrined in health and safety law. The right to know is the first step when it comes to a worker's health and safety rights." Health Canada refused comment to the CBC on the lawsuit, citing pending litigation. Sean O'Shea of Ecojustice, an environmental law charity whose lawyers are listed on the application, says data sheets provide information about possible risks of pest control products and protective measures one should take when using them. "It might require you to wear (personal protective equipment) to discard of any clothes you're wearing before you return to your home," he said. "It might say that it shouldn't be mixed with another chemical or another pesticide because it's not just the use of one pesticide. The problem is the use of several pesticides can have cumulative effects when chemicals are mixed together."
Los Angeles Times
42 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
WASHINGTON — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months.' 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. 'We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be 'a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' 'In recent years, Americans have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago,' spokesman Kush Desai said. 'The Trump administration is focused on restoring the Gold Standard of Science — not ideological activism — as the guiding principle of HHS, the NIH, and the CDC to finally address our chronic disease epidemic.' Woodward and Ellgren write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How many Americans would lose health care coverage under the Republicans' megabill?
There's some understandable confusion over just how many Americans would lose their health care coverage under the Republicans' domestic policy mega bill — the inaptly named 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' For example, Russell Vought, the far-right director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN last week that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' That might've sounded encouraging to health care advocates, but there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A report from The Associated Press, for example, on the latest Congressional Budget Office score, said that 10.9 million Americans would lose their coverage if the GOP legislation became law. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, however, said 'nearly 14 million' would join the ranks of the uninsured. Meanwhile, a variety of prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have said the actual number would be 16 million. So, which is it? I reached out to the nice folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to help sort this out, and they referred me to the CBPP's helpful breakdown of the data. Roughly 16 million people by 2034 would lose health coverage and become uninsured because of the Medicaid cuts, the bill's failure to extend enhanced premium tax credits for ACA marketplace coverage, and other harmful ACA marketplace changes, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This gets a little wonky, but according to the CBO's nonpartisan analysis, the Republicans' Medicaid cuts alone, if implemented, would strip coverage from 7.8 million people. The same analysis added, however, that 4 million people would become uninsured due to cuts to Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and an additional 4.2 million people would lose their coverage because the Republicans' package fails to extend the Biden-era subsidies (the premium tax credit enhancements) that made ACA plans far more affordable. And that is where the overall tally comes from: 7.8 million + 4 million + 4.2 million = 16 million. When Trump and his party tried to 'repeal and replace' the ACA eight years ago, the CBO determined that the Republicans' plan would take health coverage from 23 million people, which was enough to cause a couple of Senate Republicans — Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski — to balk. (The late Sen. John McCain also gave the bill a thumbs-down, objecting to the party's rushed and incoherent process.) Eight years later, there's a reason the new Republican plan is being derided as 'Obamacare-repeal lite': Scrapping coverage from 16 million is certainly within shouting distance of ending coverage for 23 million, especially given the fact that the GOP's reconciliation package isn't exclusively a health care bill. To date, no Congress has ever approved legislation that would force so many people to lose their health security. Watch this space. This article was originally published on
