Ditching the lawnmower may have unexpected health benefits, according to experts
While these campaigns were launched to support pollinators and biodiversity, some experts claim that skipping the mower could actually be good for your health.
Mowing, raking, digging and lifting might seem like harmless weekend chores, but according to Dr. Michael Policastro, a board-certified emergency physician and medical toxicologist in Cincinnati, Ohio, they can be physically taxing.
Beach Days Benefit Mental Health And Well-being As Visits Provide 'Sea Therapy'
"Lawn and garden work is physically demanding and can lead to muscle strains, back pain and joint injuries," Policastro told Fox News Digital.
The repetitive motions, awkward postures and sometimes heavy loads involved in yard work can strain the body in ways that accumulate over time, the doctor cautioned.
Read On The Fox News App
Even the act of pushing a lawnmower may not be as harmless as it looks.
"Vibrations from lawnmowers can strain your lower back, and poor posture while pushing or steering equipment can lead to pain in your back, knees and wrists," Policastro noted.
Anti-aging Benefits Linked To One Surprising Health Habit
Failing to warm up or stretch before tackling the lawn only raises the risk of fatigue or injury, which can result in chronic pain over time.
Chemical pesticides and herbicides involved in lawn care can carry their own set of risks, especially when airborne, Policastro cautioned.
Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter
"Pesticide sprays can also drift in the air, making it easy to breathe in harmful chemicals without realizing it," he said.
There could be a psychological upside to ditching the mower and embracing a natural yard.
Several mental health professionals agreed that lively, unmanicured spaces can foster mindfulness and well-being.
"Being in a green, natural environment can promote mindfulness and a sense of calm," Greg Adelstein, a licensed mental health counselor and owner of Ellie Mental Health Clinic in Hollywood, Florida, told Fox News Digital.
"It also provides a sense of accomplishment and purpose, which can boost self-esteem."
Letting nature reclaim the yard could also mean fewer chemicals and health hazards, some experts say.
Pain Could Be Reduced By Watching Nature Scenes, New Study Suggests
Fox News Digital previously reported on a study that linked exposure to nature with a reduction in people's experience of pain. This suggests the potential health benefits of a more natural lawn that promotes everyday access to wild plants and animals.
Natural lawns and gardens can also help combat loneliness by encouraging community engagement through shared gardening or conservation efforts, according to Elena Saldamando, a licensed clinical social worker and director of Ellie Mental Health Clinic in Avalon Park, Florida.
Despite the potential risks, tending to a lawn can present some benefits when done safely, experts say.
"Gardening promotes mindfulness and can lower cortisol levels, helping you feel calmer," Saldamando told Fox News Digital.
"Watching how the light hits a leaf, listening to birds chirp, feeling soil and dirt in your hands, smelling the flowers and seeing vegetables grow can be very grounding."
To reduce the physical strain of mowing and other yard work, Policastro recommended taking regular breaks, using ergonomic tools and maintaining proper posture.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
It's also important to work in a well-ventilated area and to wear a mask or respirator when handling dusty materials or applying chemicals, according to the doctor.Original article source: Ditching the lawnmower may have unexpected health benefits, according to experts
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trendy coffee choice sparks controversy when allergic child nearly takes a sip
A teenager's innocent coffee choice recently sparked an online debate after it nearly exposed a severely allergic child to a nut allergen. In a Reddit post, an 18-year-old wrote that the trouble began after she carried a hazelnut coffee to her friend's house for a study session. Advertisement She claimed the drink was only for her — but her cup of joe caused a stir. 'After a while, I got up to go to the toilet,' the student recalled. 'When my back was turned, my friend's little sister (8), who is allergic to hazelnut, tried to drink my coffee.' The Redditor's boyfriend quickly intervened, telling the 8-year-old girl that she couldn't sip the drink, according to the post. 'When I explained to her that the coffee has hazelnut, my friend got very upset at me, saying I shouldn't bring over something that could endanger his sister,' the young woman added. Advertisement A hazelnut allergy is one of the most common types of known tree nut allergies, according to For individuals with tree nut allergies, beverages made with real hazelnut extract can be life-threatening, according to WebMD. A hazelnut allergy is one of the most common types of known tree nut allergies, according to New Africa – The most severe reaction, anaphylaxis, can cause the body to go into shock and may be fatal without immediate treatment like an Epinephrine injection, as Fox News Digital has previously reported. Advertisement The 18-year-old admitted that the thought of an allergic reaction didn't occur to her when she got the drink. 'I just didn't think it would happen since she's always asked before eating any of my sweets and candies,' she said. On Reddit, people were split over the sticky situation, though most of the commenters took the teen's side. Advertisement 'The 8-year-old should not be sipping other people's drinks at all,' one person wrote. 'Especially if she has a serious food allergy. Who was supervising her?' 'Why is an 8yo drinking coffee (also without asking)?' another person asked. 'Assuming from your story that she is only affected by ingesting nuts (as opposed to airborne).' Others felt the original poster overstepped by bringing a nutty beverage into the child's home in the first place. 'It's generally considered a bad idea to bring something that someone is allergic to into their home – even if you thought they wouldn't eat it/touch it,' one user said. 'Cross contamination is real and dangerous.' 'There should be special attention given to any food that is out [and available] when a child has a serious allergy.' Another wrote, 'The child shouldn't have [taken a drink of] your coffee, sure, but what if you had spilled it somewhere communal or something and exposed the child that way?' Diane Gottsman, a Texas-based etiquette expert, weighed in on the debate. Gottsman, who owns the etiquette-focused Protocol School of Texas, called the situation 'unfortunate.' Advertisement She told Fox News Digital, 'If the person bringing in the hazelnut coffee knew there was an allergy, they should not have brought the coffee in.' 'But often the person bringing in the allergen does not know unless they are alerted by the family member.' Speaking from personal experience, Gottsman said that her own adult daughter has a serious nut allergy and takes precautions. Advertisement Others felt the original poster overstepped by bringing a nutty beverage into the child's home in the first place. JCM – Ultimately, children don't reason the same way adults do, which is why adult supervision matters. 'A parent can teach a child to not share foods or drink without permission … [but] when it comes to a child, they are young and do not have the same type of reasoning skills,' she said. 'While the person who brought in the hazelnut did not do it intentionally, it could have still been dangerous.' Advertisement At 18 years old, the Redditor is still learning the ropes of adulthood – and Gottsman chalked up the error as a simple accident, though it could have had serious consequences. 'There should be special attention given to any food that is out when a child has a serious allergy,' she concluded. 'While the person who brought in the hazelnut did not do it intentionally, it could have still been dangerous.'
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Popular weight-loss medication could relieve painful arthritis symptoms, doctors report
The positive effects of GLP-1 medications extend beyond just diabetes control and weight loss. GLP-1s, also known as GLP-1 agonists, are a type of drug that mimics a natural hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1 that helps to regulate blood sugar levels. Experts claim that these medications — which include semaglutide (such as Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro and Zepbound) — can also help with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA, a chronic autoimmune disease that occurs when the immune system attacks its own tissues, causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints, according to Mayo Clinic. GLP-1 medications have been found to help relieve painful arthritis symptoms, potentially through weight loss. Various studies have shown an association between being overweight or obese and the risk of developing RA. A 2020 study published in the journal Nature specified that having a higher body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference was linked to a greater prevalence of the condition. Sue Decotiis, M.D., a medical weight-loss doctor in New York City, said that in her own practice, she's witnessed patients experience "tremendous relief" for inflammatory arthritis disease after taking GLP-1s. "This is not just rheumatoid arthritis, but also mixed connective tissue disease," she said in an interview with Fox News Digital. "Most patients were actually able to stop their arthritis medications." While much remains to be learned about these alternate uses for GLP-1s and how they function, Decotiis noted that fat cells produce certain substances, like cytokines or adipokines, that can increase inflammation throughout the body and impact how the immune system functions. "Cytokines produced in excess can harm the body," she said. "With COVID, some patients who died had experienced a cytokine storm, where the immune system overresponded to the infection." Decotiis clarified that it is not yet confirmed that the reported anti-arthritis effect of GLP-1s is associated with weight loss, although she said she's seen this benefit continue even on a low dose of the drug. The expert said she has also noticed a wide range of other positive effects associated with GLP-1 medications, including reduced alcohol intake and less reliance on ADD and anti-anxiety medications. The popular drugs have also been linked to a reduced risk of migraines, Alzheimer's disease and even some cancers. "Anyone considering using GLP-1s should be followed by a physician knowledgeable in their usage and weighed on a body composition scale," Decotiis recommended. "Someone who is not overweight would have to be followed very carefully. Therefore, accessing these drugs from an online platform without in-person physician care is not advisable."
Fox News
7 hours ago
- Fox News
Democrats escalate anti-Trump lawfare by targeting Congress in Planned Parenthood funding fight
Abortion providers and Democrat-led states are bringing lawsuits over the Trump administration's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, a legal fight that raises the stakes by challenging the will of both Congress and the president. Planned Parenthood and several blue states have sued over the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips Medicaid funding from certain abortion providers for one year. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by the president in July. The legislation advances the pro-life movement's longtime goal of defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, but a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump Health and Human Services Department from carrying it out. Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told Fox News Digital that taking on two branches of government sets this litigation apart from many of the hundreds of other lawsuits targeting the Trump administration. "Congress has the power of the purse," Muller said. "Congress has a lot of discretion [over] how it wants to spend its money, and this is not an instance where the executive has been engaged in overreach or doubtful conduct. … This is ordinary legislation, and when it comes to ordinary legislation, there's more deference given to Congress, and certainly more in how it chooses to subsidize things, where it wants to give money or where it doesn't want to give money." The judge's decision to temporarily block the funding cuts stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit with hundreds of facilities across the country that provide abortions and other reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood's attorneys alleged in court papers that the provision was unconstitutional, arguing it would deprive the nonprofit of millions of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements, causing it to lose half of its patients and forcing it to shutter up to one-third of its facilities. Katie Daniel, counsel at SBA Pro-Life America, told Fox News Digital Planned Parenthood was making a "desperate argument" that "totally undermines Congress' ability to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent." It also signals that Planned Parenthood was not a solvent business, she said. "It's a business that really can't keep itself afloat without getting hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars," Daniel said. Planned Parenthood's attorneys noted that Medicaid does not typically cover abortions and that the funding cuts would affect other services. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the attorneys said. "The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave," the attorneys wrote. Daniel said the Medicaid marketplace includes other options for clinics and that those options "outnumber Planned Parenthood nationally 15 to one." Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, said she was inclined to agree with Planned Parenthood that the legislation violated several provisions in the Constitution and granted a preliminary injunction, which the Department of Justice is now appealing. That lawsuit has been joined by two others challenging the bill. A coalition of 21 states with Democratic attorneys general, along with the District of Columbia and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, brought one of them on Monday. Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 health facilities in the Pine Tree State, has also sued over the legislation. While lawmakers have touted that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood, it was written to include other entities, including Maine Family Planning, as a way to pass parliamentarian scrutiny. Daniel told Fox News Digital she anticipates the higher courts will rule in favor of the Trump administration but that the bill's one-year limit on the funding cuts works in Planned Parenthood's favor. "At this point for Planned Parenthood, it's really about running out the clock," Daniel said. "The defund provision is for one year, so every single day that they can keep getting money. … That's existential to them." If the Trump administration ultimately wins the court fight, it could attempt to claw back the Medicaid funds it lost while Talwani's injunction was in place. Daniel noted, however, that "it's incredibly difficult, it's time-consuming, it's costly, and Planned Parenthood is relying on all of that." Among Planned Parenthood's allegations was a longshot claim that Congress's bill violates the Constitution's bill of attainder clause because it singles out and punishes Planned Parenthood without a trial. Bills of attainder are pieces of legislation that serve to bypass the role of judges and punish people or entities. The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder because they infringe on the function of the courts. Muller told Fox News Digital he believed the bill of attainder argument was a "nonstarter." "People have tried to argue that certain things that Congress does, singling out or targeting individuals, could rise to a bill of attainder," Muller said. "This has gotten some traction in lower courts. It has never really gotten traction in the courts of appeal because it is far afield from the original meaning of the Constitution on this topic."
