I only wear black clothing because I have huge sweat marks under my armpits and it's affecting my confidence – help!
NOW the sun is out, your SPF should be too.
Did you know we are recommended to use two shot glasses worth of suncream to cover our body?
It might seem excessive, but no patch should be left uncovered.
In fact, it's the little areas – the tops of the ears, back of the hands, tip of the nose – that are high-risk spots for skin cancer.
Melanoma skin cancer has been increasing in frequency.
Cancer Research UK analysis shows rates rose by almost a third between 2009 and 2019.
But 86 per cent of cases are preventable by protecting skin from UV rays.
You can reduce risk by applying suncream but also wearing a hat and staying in the shade . . . in the UK as well as holiday hotspots.
Reapply suncream every few hours to protect your skin.
Five or more sunburns more than doubles your risk of developing potentially deadly melanoma, warns the Skin Cancer Foundation.
Here's what readers have been asking me this week . . .
SWEAT MARKS THE PITS
Q: FOR years, I've had huge sweat marks under my armpits.
It's affecting my confidence because I mainly wear black clothing that shows it up less, when I would love to wear different colours.
I have tried everything and nothing seems to work.
Please help.
A: The medical word for excessive sweating is hyperhidrosis and it affects at least one per cent of people.
It can be an embarrassing condition but is not an illness – rather it's the extreme end of the spectrum of normal sweating.
Armpits are a common place for it to occur, as well as on the hands, feet or face.
The symptoms tend to be prominent in the daytime most days but absent at night.
More rarely there can be an underlying cause or disease causing the sweating.
But this would normally be obvious because there would be other symptoms, or an unusual pattern of sweating more at night.
While it is not dangerous to health, hyperhidrosis can terribly affect a person's life.
Aluminium chloride (20 per cent) is advised as a first treatment. It is available from the pharmacy without prescription.
The correct way to use it is by applying it at night just before sleep, then washing it off in the morning.
Apply every one to two days, until symptoms improve.
Following this, use as required, which may be up to every six weeks.
A major downside of aluminium chloride is that it can cause irritation.
To reduce risk of this, use an emollient to moisturise the skin, and gentle soap for washing (or use emollient as a soap substitute).
If irritation does happen you can reduce the frequency to maybe just twice a week, and use a one-per-cent hydrocortisone steroid cream, which again can be bought directly from the pharmacy.
By day, use an antiperspirant rather than a deodorant. The former reduces sweat, but the latter masks odour.
Other treatments include iontophoresis, which uses a low-voltage electric current to calm the sweat glands; it is a little impractical for armpits but can work when using specially designed pads.
And Botox injections into the armpit skin can give relief from excessive sweating for six to nine months, but this can be expensive and may lead to compensatory sweating elsewhere.
The International Hyperhidrosis Society (sweathelp.org) can be a useful resource.
Q: I AM a woman who is 74 years young.
I had a hysterectomy at age 47 and since then have suffered with ongoing UTI s.
4
I had my bladder stretched ten years ago which did help for two years, but the problem is back.
Three years ago I got referred to another consultant and had a bladder camera check, plus a scan, which didn't find anything.
I was put on Hiprex, 1g, for six months but it didn't work.
Then I was put on nitrofurantoin, 50mg, for six months.
One every night did work but apparently I cannot stay on them as they could make my stomach bleed.
I read that there is a uromone vaccine I could possibly try, but how do I get it?
In the past I've had numerous antibiotics, and have started to have a probiotic every morning to help my gut.
Please help.
A: There are various types of UTI vaccine being developed to treat recurrent UTIs.
They include ones that can be swallowed, injected, applied to the vagina and sprayed under the tongue.
All work by training the body's natural immune system to fight off a UTI before it can take hold.
In the UK, UTI vaccines are not currently licensed for routine use but the hope is they may provide a potential alternative to antibiotics for recurrent UTIs in the near future.
I find it interesting that your symptoms started when you had the hysterectomy.
Were your ovaries removed as well as the womb?
If so this would have put you into immediate menopause and I do wonder how much your symptoms may be helped by using topical oestrogen.
This means using a tablet, pessary, cream, gel or ring that you insert into your vagina, which can help with urinary symptoms (including recurrent UTIs) linked to lack of oestrogen.
Whilst this is a type of HRT, it does not have any of the risks associated with systemic HRT, so there is no reason not to give it a try.
Another suggestion would be D-Mannose, which is an over-the-counter treatment that can be used if the infection is caused by the E.coli bacteria.
Research suggests success rates of this treatment can be as high as 45 per cent at six months, but care needs to be taken in those who have or are at risk of diabetes, as D-Mannose is a sugar.
How can I relieve kneecap pain?
Q: I AM an 85-year-old man and worked in the marble and granite industry all my life.
I consider myself fortunate to have had no illnesses at all.
4
But three years ago I went to my GP with a painful kneecap, which caused me to fall.
I was sent for physio and tried different exercises, to no avail.
Finally, I asked about an injection but was told they don't always work.
I also asked about an op but was told there is a two-year wait, and that by then I might not be fit enough for surgery.
I was given co-codamol and a gel to apply – all of which is doing no good.
I have now resorted to wearing a knee brace, which helps a little. But is there anything else I can try?
A: Try to get referred back to the musculoskeletal team at the hospital for more information about these two potential treatments.
If surgery could help, I'd opt to get on the list and work towards improving your fitness to prepare for the surgery.
And yes, it is true that steroid injections don't always work, but sometimes they do.
So I'd be saying 'let's try it' because you might be one of the ones it does work for.
It could give you the relief you need to get moving more – which brings me on to what you can do for yourself, and that is exercise.
This is the number one therapy for osteoarthritis.
Exercise can strengthen the muscles around the knee, and alleviate symptoms, but I understand that this may seem a little counter-intuitive if a joint is painful.
So use painkillers and don't be afraid to gradually increase movement.
Studies have shown conclusively that improving strength can alleviate symptoms, even if you need to use painkillers.
In some areas of the UK there are exercise programmes such as Escape Pain (escape-pain.org) designed to help lessen pain and rehabilitate.
Things like cycling and swimming are also beneficial for pain.
Exercise can be done at home and the NHS website has some useful videos.
BRUSHING WITH DANGER
HALF of us go to bed without brushing our teeth at least once a week, a survey found.
The Oral Health Foundation warns millions are at risk of tooth rot due to laziness.
4
One in three fail to brush 'a few times a week', with that figure rising to 43 per cent for under-25s.
The OHF said it increases the chance of tooth decay as most people say they eat sugary snacks before bed.
A third snack every night after dinner, of whom 68 per cent opt for sugary treats such as chocolate, sweets and biscuits.
Three quarters of adults are missing at least one tooth and almost nine in ten have fillings.
Dr Nigel Carter, chief executive of the Oral Health Foundation, says: 'The UK is becoming a nation of late-night snackers and our teeth are paying the price.
'Snacking on sugary treats every night and then skipping brushing before bed is a recipe for disaster.
'When you don't brush, sugar and bacteria stay on your teeth all night, producing acids that eat away at the enamel.
'Over time, this can lead to tooth decay, gum disease and tooth loss.
'If you do choose to snack, pick options that won't harm your teeth.
'Savoury choices such as cheese, nuts or breadsticks are much better for your oral health.
' Brushing your teeth before bed is essential. It's your last line of defence against tooth decay.'
FAT LINK TO SCALY SKIN
BELLY fat increases your risk of the skin condition psoriasis, a study warns.
Psoriasis, which affects one in 50 people, causes scaly patches of skin usually around the scalp, knees and elbows.
Researchers at King's College London analysed data from over 330,000 Brits, including more than 9,000 people with psoriasis.
They found that abdominal fat was strongly linked to the likelihood of having the condition, particularly for women.
Study author Dr Ravi Ramessur said: 'Our research shows that where fat is stored in the body matters when it comes to psoriasis risk.
'Central fat, especially around the waist, seems to play a key role.
"This has important implications for how we identify individuals who may be more likely to develop psoriasis or experience more severe disease, and how we approach prevention and treatment strategies.'
Psoriasis typically begins in a person's 20s or 50s.
It is thought that a problem with the immune system causes the skin cells to replace faster than they should.
Experts reckon Ozempic-style fat jabs, such as Wegovy and Mounjaro, also known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, may help people with psoriasis.
Dr Joel Gelfand, from the University of Pennsylvania, said: 'The strong relationship between psoriasis and obesity, and the emerging promise of GLP-1 RAs, is a call to action for clinical trials.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers
NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby
Every baby born in the UK will have their DNA mapped by the NHS as part of efforts to assess their future risk of hundreds of diseases. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said every newborn would undergo whole genome sequencing within a decade. Streeting has said the move was part of a ten-year health plan, due to be published early next month, which will allow babies to 'leapfrog' major killers. 'The revolution in medical science means that we can transform the NHS over the coming decade, from a service which diagnoses and treats ill-health, to one that predicts and prevents it,' Streeting told The Telegraph. 'Genomics presents us with the opportunity to leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it.
