SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " cardi " 1,787 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Wildfire Smoke causes greater health risks than other air pollution
Wildfire smoke poses greater health risks than other air pollution, with studies linking to cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes.
Culturally Relevant Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Care Strategies
(Feature Impact) Driven by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors, cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the United States. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-top-asset'); }); Hispanic people represent nearly 1 in 5 of the U.S. population and are the nation’s largest ethnic minority group, yet many continue to face barriers to achieving heart health and accessing high-quality healthcare. A new scientific statement published in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal, “Circulation,” revealed how social, economic, cultural and environmental factors contribute to persistent disparities in cardiovascular health, calling for culturally tailored prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research.“Hispanic populations in the U.S. are incredibly diverse even within their own communities with differences in genetic ancestry, language, cultural traditions and social experiences that can significantly influence cardiovascular health,” said Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, director of the Division of Heart Failure and medical director of the Hispanic Heart Center within the Mount Sinai Health System. “Yet Hispanic people remain underrepresented overall in the research that guides prevention and treatment strategies… Without better representation and more detailed data, we risk overlooking important differences that can help us improve care and save lives.”Hispanic Cardiovascular Health by the NumbersCardiovascular risk factors – obesity (nearly 46%), type 2 diabetes (15.5%) and high blood pressure (approximately 44%) – are prevalent among Hispanic adults and often emerge at younger ages and occur more frequently among Hispanic adults compared with white adults.According to the report, only about 1 in 5 Hispanic adults achieves ideal cardiovascular health as defined by the American Heart Association’s original Life’s Simple 7 metrics. Updated analyses using the Life’s Essential 8 framework demonstrated persistent disparities for heart and brain health, as well as suboptimal dietary quality, sleep patterns and levels of physical activity.Social and Economic Barriers MatterBiology alone does not explain cardiovascular health disparities. The environments where people live, work and age, along with social and economic challenges, impact heart health. In fact, approximately 17% of Hispanics live below the federal poverty threshold, compared with 8.2% of white adults. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-middle-asset'); }); “Many Hispanic adults face obstacles that extend far beyond the doctor’s office,” Contreras said. “Limited health insurance coverage, language differences, food insecurity, environmental exposures and concerns related to immigration status can make it more difficult to prevent disease, manage chronic conditions and receive timely treatment.”Contreras emphasized the cultural values and practices of Hispanic people also influence how they perceive their health and healthcare options.“Family plays a central role in many Hispanic communities and can be an extraordinary source of strength, support and resilience,” Contreras said. “At the same time, family members are often called upon to translate medical information, navigate health systems and help make healthcare decisions for loved ones. Those responsibilities can shape how health information is understood and acted upon.”An Action Plan for Improving Hispanic HealthThere are practical opportunities to achieve equitable cardiovascular health and reduce disparities through community engagement, culturally responsive care, inclusive research and policies that address the underlying drivers of health.“Reducing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic populations demands action at every level,” Contreras said, “from improving access to culturally responsive care and expanding research participation to addressing the social and environmental conditions that shape health.”By addressing both medical risk factors and the social conditions that shape health, experts believe there is an important opportunity to reduce disparities and help more people live longer, healthier lives. Learn more at Heart.org.Photo courtesy of Shutterstock googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('fixed-big-ad-bottom-asset'); });
Culturally Relevant Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Care Strategies
(Feature Impact) Driven by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors, cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the United States.Hispanic people represent nearly 1 in 5 of the U.S. population and are the nation’s largest ethnic minority group, yet many continue to face barriers to achieving heart health and accessing high-quality healthcare. A new scientific statement published in the American Heart Association’s flagship journal, “Circulation,” revealed how social, economic, cultural and environmental factors contribute to persistent disparities in cardiovascular health, calling for culturally tailored prevention strategies, equitable access to care and greater representation of Hispanic populations in cardiovascular research.“Hispanic populations in the U.S. are incredibly diverse even within their own communities with differences in genetic ancestry, language, cultural traditions and social experiences that can significantly influence cardiovascular health,” said Johanna Contreras, M.D., M.Sc., FAHA, director of the Division of Heart Failure and medical director of the Hispanic Heart Center within the Mount Sinai Health System. “Yet Hispanic people remain underrepresented overall in the research that guides prevention and treatment strategies… Without better representation and more detailed data, we risk overlooking important differences that can help us improve care and save lives.”Hispanic Cardiovascular Health by the NumbersCardiovascular risk factors – obesity (nearly 46%), type 2 diabetes (15.5%) and high blood pressure (approximately 44%) – are prevalent among Hispanic adults and often emerge at younger ages and occur more frequently among Hispanic adults compared with white adults.According to the report, only about 1 in 5 Hispanic adults achieves ideal cardiovascular health as defined by the American Heart Association’s original Life’s Simple 7 metrics. Updated analyses using the Life’s Essential 8 framework demonstrated persistent disparities for heart and brain health, as well as suboptimal dietary quality, sleep patterns and levels of physical activity.Social and Economic Barriers MatterBiology alone does not explain cardiovascular health disparities. The environments where people live, work and age, along with social and economic challenges, impact heart health. In fact, approximately 17% of Hispanics live below the federal poverty threshold, compared with 8.2% of white adults.#placement_976606_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid976606 = window.pid976606 || rnd;var plc976606 = window.plc976606 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=976606;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid976606+';place='+(plc976606++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');“Many Hispanic adults face obstacles that extend far beyond the doctor’s office,” Contreras said. “Limited health insurance coverage, language differences, food insecurity, environmental exposures and concerns related to immigration status can make it more difficult to prevent disease, manage chronic conditions and receive timely treatment.”Contreras emphasized the cultural values and practices of Hispanic people also influence how they perceive their health and healthcare options.“Family plays a central role in many Hispanic communities and can be an extraordinary source of strength, support and resilience,” Contreras said. “At the same time, family members are often called upon to translate medical information, navigate health systems and help make healthcare decisions for loved ones. Those responsibilities can shape how health information is understood and acted upon.”An Action Plan for Improving Hispanic HealthThere are practical opportunities to achieve equitable cardiovascular health and reduce disparities through community engagement, culturally responsive care, inclusive research and policies that address the underlying drivers of health.“Reducing cardiovascular disease among Hispanic populations demands action at every level,” Contreras said, “from improving access to culturally responsive care and expanding research participation to addressing the social and environmental conditions that shape health.”By addressing both medical risk factors and the social conditions that shape health, experts believe there is an important opportunity to reduce disparities and help more people live longer, healthier lives. Learn more at Heart.org.Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
Rapid reactions: Cardinals stumble in decisive loss to Seahawks
Arizona Sports hosts react to Arizona's loss to Seattle in Week 2's home opener after the team showed regression from its Week 1 win.
Cardinals vs. 49ers odds: Opening lines for Week 3 matchup
Arizona Cardinals are two score underdogs on the road in week three.
Seahawks vs. Cardinals, Week 2 live discussion and game thread
It’s Seahawks vs. Cardinals in Glendale once again, will Seattle keep its winning ways going? Let’s talk about it!
Cardinals-Seahawks 2026 discussion thread
Talk about the game with your friends at Revenge of the Birds.
Arizona Cardinals fans confidence soars after week one win
Cardinals fans are excited about the new era of Cardinals football.
Seahawks vs Cardinals live updates: Score, highlights, predictions, analysis
Seahawks play the Cardinals in a pivotal NFC West Showdown. Follow live score updates, highlights, injury news, key plays and instant analysis.
What went right for the Cardinals in 2026?
The finishing touches are being put on to the St. Louis Cardinals season and despite another season missing the playoffs, the overall year has to be seen as a success. With the season being a fact-finding mission for the roster, there are very few remaining questions on the big league squad while the minor league […]
8 common food additives linked to high blood pressure and heart disease
Common preservatives hiding in processed foods may carry unexpected heart risks, with heavy consumption linked to substantially higher rates of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Researchers identified eight widely used preservatives associated with hypertension, although the observational study cannot prove they were directly responsible.
Cardinals Urged to Target Blue Jays Veteran This Offseason
The St. Louis Cardinals missed the playoffs this season and will need to go back to the drawing board as they look to build a team capable of returning to the postseason next year.With that in mind, the question is which moves they should make to improve the roster and compete with the Chicago Cubs […] The post Cardinals Urged to Target Blue Jays Veteran This Offseason appeared first on HEAVY.
ACC football power rankings after Week 3
Week 3 was a chaotic one in the ACC, with the Virginia Cavaliers and Louisville Cardinals both losing. Here are the updated power rankings
Announcers, Referees and Jersey Combination for Cardinals Week 2 Game vs. Seahawks
Get the full Week 2 game details for Cardinals vs.
Colwill's 'surreal' Ronaldo and Haaland ambition
In just 12 months, the Cardiff City midfielder has gone from League One football to the prospect of facing Cristiano Ronaldo and Erling Haaland.
Defender Ng predicts big wins to come for Cardiff
Cardiff City defender Perry Ng says he expects the club to "batter some teams" moving forward as the Bluebirds finally put an end to their winless run.
Cardinals vs. Seahawks: Arizona offense facing tremendous Seattle defense
Seattle's defense is great. Can the Cardinals hang?
Seattle Seahawks Lose Another Starter For Cardinals Game
The Seattle Seahawks announced Saturday that starting right guard Anthony Bradford is out for Sunday’s contest against the Arizona Cardinals; Mike MacDonald told reporters on Friday that Christian Haynes takes Bradford’s place in the starting lineup. In a corresponding move, the Seattle Seahawks promoted safety Rodney Thomas II, similar to the opening game against the […] The post Seattle Seahawks Lose Another Starter For Cardinals Game appeared first on HEAVY.
Duke football report card: Grading Blue Devils after Stanford victory
How did Duke football perform against Stanford? We hand out grades for the Blue Devils in their beatdown win over the Cardinal.
St. Louis Cardinals vs Washington Nationals Game Discussion Saturday Night
Only two more games for the Cardinals season at Busch Stadium. Saturday night, it’s game 2 of the weekend homestand vs the Washington Nationals. Michael McGreevy is the starter for the Cardinals while it’s LHP Andrew Alvarez for the Nationals. First pitch is scheduled for 6:15pm and the game broadcast will be available through Cardinals.tv.
Cardinal Health Targets 13%-15% EPS Growth as Specialty Momentum Builds
Cardinal Health (NYSE:CAH) CEO Jason Hollar said the company expects fiscal 2027 to extend the broad operating momentum it generated in fiscal 2026, with all five operating segments positioned for what he described as a “constructive” period. Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Confere
Seahawks injury update: Anthony Bradford ruled out of Cardinals game
Christian Haynes, welcome to the starting lineup.
Devils well-beaten by Flames in Challenge Cup
Guildford Flames thump Cardiff Devils 5-1 to secure their first Challenge Cup win of the 2026-27 season.
SMU-Louisville Injury Report Creates Key Questions Before ACC Showdown
SMU and Louisville enter their Top 25 ACC showdown with injury concerns, but the Cardinals received encouraging news surrounding their backfield.
Has Seahawks' Jadarian Price Earned More Reps vs. Cardinals?
Price was used sparingly against New England, so is he set to have an increased workload against Arizona?
Cardinal Health Sees Growth Normalize as Specialty, At-Home Investments Expand
Cardinal Health (NYSE:CAH) CEO Jason Hollar said the company’s fiscal 2026 performance was supported by double-digit earnings growth across each of its five operating segments, while fiscal 2027 guidance reflects continued growth from a more normalized base. Speaking at a Baird event, Hollar said t
TST Best Bets: September 19, 2026
Lane Kiffin’s return to Oxford was always going to be loud. After leaving Ole Miss for LSU last season, he’ll walk back into Vaught-Hemingway Stadium on Saturday as the coach of one of the Rebels’ biggest rivals. With both teams ranked in the top 10, there’s plenty at stake beyond the reception Kiffin gets.Earlier in the day, No. 16 SMU visits No. 23 Louisville in a ranked ACC matchup. The Mustangs have opened 2-0, while the Cardinals have a chance to make an early statement at home after a 1-1
The Big Holes in Wearable Heart Rate Variability And Readiness Scores
On September 9th, Apple announced it was revamping its Apple Watch Health Sensing System, rolling out a Readiness score (0 to 10), and increasing the frequency of heart rate variability (HRV) outputs 24-fold. This can be viewed as upping its competition with various other consumer wearable sensors. These “readiness scores” as a composite of multiple metrics, with heart rate variability (HRV) being front and center for most. The majority of Americans are now using wearable sensors, which equates to well over 100 million adults. HRV and Readiness scores are increasingly being marketed as a measurement of autonomic nervous system health, a digital marker for future disease, a clock for biological age, and a holistic metric to promote healthspan and even longevity. (Apple also introduced a new longevity tab and “Health Age”.) None of this has been proven. In this edition of Ground Truths I am going to review what we know about heart rate variability and readiness scores. Heart Rate Variability HRV is the variation in normal heart cycle timing. The variability of the heart rate, the barely perceptible millisecond changes in time between consecutive heart beats (see R-R intervals in the Figure below, left panel), is due to interplay between the sympathetic and parasympathetic (vagal nerve) inputs. Distinct from heart rate, individuals with the same heart rate can have very different HRVs. It is a rough reflection of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, inadequate to say whether a person’s ANS function is abnormal. For more than three decades, heart rate variability (HRV) has been measured and several studies have found an association of low HRV and clinical outcomes, particularly a link with higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. There have also been less well established links of low HRV to risk of early cognitive impairment, dementia, mental illness, Type 2 diabetes and substance abuse. An important reminder is that HRV is a surrogate marker without any established cause-and-effect relationship. If you increase your HRV, that doesn’t mean it will improve health outcomes. In fact, there is no hard evidence for that. All that work linking to health outcomes was done with electrocardiogram (ECG) derived HRV. Now, in the era of consumer wearables, this is getting assessed differently, by optical pulse (yes, the lights you see) plethysmography (PPG) or what is called pulse rate variability (PRV). They are not the same, as shown below (right panel) and only concordant when the delay between the ECG and pulse is kept constant, which basically means at rest. I should mention there’s also what I will call MPV, a mattress mechanical movement sensor, a derived heart rate variability, that companies like Eight Sleep use, even further away from directly measuring HRV. HRV has not one uniform measurement but many different types of quantification, such as RMSSD, the magnitude of difference between successive R-R intervals of normal sinus beats (N-N) or SDNN, the standard deviation of NN intervals, both in milliseconds. SDNN is one of the so-called frequency domain HRVs (others are LF, HF, LF/HF). Different wearable sensors use different metics; Apple has relied on SDNN and nearly all of the others use RMSSD, which is generally considered the more accurate metric. There’s also the different length of time measured, such as for a matter of minutes, all day, or an overnight’s sleep. Short measurements are especially problematic since they don’t capture enough of respiratory modulation and other factors that influence HRV. Share Ground Truths How well does HRV correlate with PRV? There are very limited studies, especially independently done. One that is commonly cited was conducted by Air Force researchers in only 13 healthy adults assessing Oura ring 3 and 4, Whoop 4.0, and Garmin Fenix 6 and showed a correlation coefficient of 0.88 to 0.97 and a mean absolute percentage error from 6 to 10%. The correlation is not a perfect 1.0, but there’s at least a fairly high level of correlation. HRV is supposed to increase during the night due to takeover of the parasympathetic nervous system, and higher during deep sleep. A recent example of my 1 week, all day “HRV,” and one during sleep is shown below. As you can see, the N of 1 data are inconsistent for the same days from different sensors (Oura, AppleWatch, Fitbit Air, and Eight Sleep) by patterns, absolute numbers, and comparison with prior days and weeks. The largest study in over 8 million Fitbit users (the old version, not Google Fitbit Air, introduced in May 2026) gives you a sense of the effect of age, sex, and the 2 different main HRV (here PRV) metrics, with RMSSD on the left and SDRR (=SDNN) on the right below. That study, from data collected in 2018, is a major outlier, since all the more recent ones are tiny with respect to sample size. Many of the companies have not had independent evaluation of their HRV, such as Eight Sleep, but have published a low standard error on their website. There are some other published studies on the correlation between HRV and PRV, but they are all small and only in healthy adults. A scoping review emphasized the lack of study in underrepresented individuals, including the aged, people of color (which affects the PPG signal), and individuals who are underweight or obese. Add the typical adult age 60 plus with one or more chronic diseases. For example, one study in over 900 adults found poor correlation of HRV and PRV, non-uniformly underestimated across many chronic diseases (cardiovascular, endocrine, neurological, respiratory, and others), concluding PRV is “an invalid surrogate for HRV.” A recent systematic review of 43 studies comparing HRV and PRV found reasonable pooled absolute standardized error (HRV as gold standard) but only 10 of the studies provided quantitative synthesis in ideal conditions. Their main conclusion was similarly cautious: “PPG-derived HRV [PRV] should not be regarded as universally interchangeable with ECG-derived HRV across all devices, populations, and recording contexts.” Factors Affecting HRV and PRV That gets me to the long list of factors that affect HRV (and PRV) besides the device, the type of measurement (RMSSD, SDNN or others), the person’s signal, the sensor site, the duration of data capture, if weighting by sleep stage is used, how artifact is processed and corrected. And this list is not complete!: Oura puts out data from their community of users (who input data) on what affects their overnight HRV. The factors currently provided are: no alcohol (increase 8%), melatonin (increase 2%, float tank (increase 2%), wine (decrease 4%), and party (decrease 14%) in overnight HRV. Must be some big parties! Subscribe What is a PRV measurement good for? It has been falsely characterized as an index of “autonomic balance” and a specific indicator of stress. A 2018 review of the studies available for HRV and its relationship to stress, not using any of the current wearables, found that stress can lower HRV. But so can many other factors. The non-specificity of the signal, indexed to the table above, is striking. Evidence from a UK Biobank study of over 46,000 participants with actual HRV looked at genetically predicted HRV, a genetic risk score, that failed to show the expected HRV-mortality link, indicating that _HRV is likely not causa_l, but rather a reflection of person’s physiologic state. A review of consumer wearable HRV data from 5 longitudinal studies showed that nighttime PRV was not associated with perceived stress, and surprisingly higher HRV, in the largest cohort (N=717 participants), was correlated with higher stress. An Oura ring cohort of 525 first-year college students found a link between overnight PRV and perceived stress, but that was also seen with resting heart rate, sleep, and respiratory rate. Several very small studies have examined the relationship of HRV and athletic injuries or guiding training with mixed, and predominantly negative results. HRV biofeedback training with paced breathing had no significant effect on reducing stress or raising HRV, as demonstrated with sham controlled trials. When HRV for multiple days showed a decline in conjunction with body temperature, the Oura ring published data for prediction of Covid. The WHOOP company sponsored an observational study, published in 2026, of 30,000 users for 72 weeks, without a control group, that reported reduced alcohol intake (5.8 % points) by self-report. That doesn’t tell us much, and particularly about the merits of HRV for behavioral change. If you use the same device and conditions as longitudinal trends for multiple (at least 2-3) weeks that may be the one way to get something useful from the measurements. Data for overnight sleep with minimal motion and using RMSSD is the best proxy for real HRV. The reason to look at trends rather than any given night is that it more likely represents something, even though you won’t know with certainty what the “it” is. Keep in mind there are no data, no peer-reviewed evidence, to show that HRV fluctuation in-person has any correlation with health outcomes. Share Readiness Scores These are proprietary scores that integrate different metrics for each of the wearables: no algorithms have been disclosed. They are unvalidated against health outcomes. In a review of 14 composite health scores of readiness and recovery, HRV contributed 86% to the scores, followed by reading heart rate (79%), physical activity and sleep duration (both at 71%). That review noted the substantial variability in measurement protools and lack of standardization. Sleep staging is notoriously inconsistent and inaccurate by these sensors, which adds further to the HRV uncertainties for what the scores, which use sleep stage data, mean. Only resting heart rate has been shown consistently across devices to be extremely accurate. I’ve made a Table to summarize what we know about which metrics are included, the scores, any peer-reviewed studies that compared the readiness score with health outcomes, and the corresponding (if any, NA-not available) citation. You will note that some companies do not use the term “readiness," such as WHOOP for recovery, and Garmin, which has 2 different scores, one of which is Body Battery. Eight Sleep uses the term “Fitness Score.” They all include HRV; Apple includes a new metric they call “Recovery HRV” which among other components uses 7-days of sleep, but it is unclear what this means or how it is differentiated from other scores (there are clearly no data for outcomes). We have no knowledge of how the different components are weighted or whether any of these scores are better than resting heart rate, HRV alone, physical activity, or any other single metric. Since none of these are standardized, they are not interchangeable, so if you get a 90 for Oura that has no relationship to a 90 on a Google Fitbit Air. Notably, the company can update its algorithm for readiness score at any point without notification to device users. Without any useful evidence of actionability for these scores or established relationship with health outcomes, it is hard to make a case for their value. At the Apple recent announcement they showed their Readiness score (0-10) on the watch (Figure below) but there are no published data on this score, not even on their website. It’s available only on their new Watch Series 12 or Ultra 4 [of course, ;-)]. That exemplifies the problems with these scores, lack of data and evidence for being meaningful to promote health. Perhaps the best study (which isn’t saying much) is the WHOOP Recovery for golfer performance, because it did correlate with an objective outcome, even though there was no control group and the authors were all from the company. Among the 389 pro golfers, an absolute 10-per cent point increase in Recovery score was associated with about 0.5 fewer strokes per round. But that’s hardly a health outcome! WHOOP is also conducting a study in over 2,700 runners to see if their recovery score will be linked to less injuries and improved performance, but that is not yet published and has no control group or randomization. Putting This in Context For two decades I’ve been enthusiastic about the potential for digital health and particularly wearable biosensors. Over the years, we’ve seen some great progress for their ability to promote physical activity and accurately detect atrial fibrillation (the first FDA cleared deep learning AI for consumers). That work was the subject of rigorous research. But there are holes in the data and evidence for other metrics. One notable one is the “VO2 max” story that I wrote about earlier this year. At that time many subscribers asked me to cover heart rate variability, which I finally got to here. When I dived into the research and publication for HRV and readiness scores, I expected to find at least some that were of high quality and demonstrated their utility by linkage to health outcomes. To my surprise, I found none. The wearable sensor measurements for HRV (PRV) are, for the most part, accurate, but that validation work has only been done in small studies of healthy adults and does not take into account the long list of factors, from the device, software side, and the user side, that affect HRV measurements. Moreover, this metric chiefly relies on optical sensing and, as we have learned for heart rate PPG sensing, may be less accurate in people of color. Keep in mind that all of the health outcome association evidence comes from ECG-derived HRV; none are from wearable sensor data. I will repeat the key point: there's no peer-reviewed evidence to show that in-person HRV fluctuation—or efforts to raise your HRV— has any correlation with health outcomes. For those of you who look at your HRV on awakening, or even 2+ week trends of it being low, I hope this context helps to relieve any anxiety. Yes, low HRV (not PRV) has been shown to increase risk of some diseases as summarized above. But efforts to raise your HRV—a surrogate metric— has not been established for improving any health outcomes. HRV does not have any evidence of causality (the genetic evidence actually goes against this possibility). In this summary, I have not included data for other wearable sensors such as Polar, Samsung, Withings, Suunto, Amazfit, Coros, Ultrahuman, or additional mattress sensors. These are beyond my first-hand experience, and as far as I know from my in-depth review none have any peer-reviewed published data that differ from the 6 sensors I’ve reviewed here. From the points I’ve gone over above, we’re not ready for readiness scores. Besides being proprietary, they are predominantly based on metrics that have their own issues. It’s compounding the problem, like building a house without a solid foundation that has never undergone a rigorous inspection, and then selling it. Like I mentioned for PRV, you can look at trends over weeks rather than any single day, to get a handle, but even that may not be helpful. There’s simply no evidence that these scores meaningfully relate to health outcomes. I’d emphasize they might, but that requires doing prospective or randomized studies to prove it. None exist. There’s great promise for HRV/PRV utility_. For example**,**_ Prof Maiken Nedergaard, who discovered the brain glymphatics that are essential in eliminating metabolic waste products from the brain during sleep, has posited that HRV could be a non-invasive marker for neuromodulator oscillations, brain-body regulatory circuits, and brain clearance. That would be extremely useful, but like everything else on HRV and readiness scores it requires solid research and validation. The lay media isn’t helping much to get the story straight. Earlier this year The Economist published a piece entitled “The most useful indicator of your overall health” which ordained HRV as an “accumulated stress score.” That’s akin to the false assertion about VO2max: “V02 max is the singular most powerful marker for longevity.” As I’ve summarized here, that is not established. The fact is that so many things can lower HRV, including physical exercise (especially an intense workout), reduced sleep quality, stress, the list above, no less the device, signal, and software. Whatever fluctuations observed have not been correlated with any health outcome. Sadly, “datamaxxers” are widely using HRV and readiness scores that have never been validated to mean anything. We already know that for some people using the sensors for sleep metrics, it can induce “orthosomnia,” an obsession to get high sleep quality, with associated high levels of anxiety. In an experiment done by a company to promote sleep quality for its employees, “For those employees who did use the trackers, many reported feeling perfectly rested until their tracker told them they had had a terrible night. Others were told that they had slept like a baby when they had actually been lying awake worrying about the quality of their sleep. “ The same problem can result from preoccupation with HRV or readiness scores, with anxiety that would lead to further reduction in both. It you are using a wearable like >100 million American adults, it’s OK to look at these data, but contextualized with the major caveats reviewed here. If you are one to require evidence that HRV or readiness scores are linked to health outcomes, you may not even want to look. The companies make it hard to turn them off! Let me end with the companies that make and sell wearables. Apple’s doubling down on HRV (24-fold more reporting and heart rate very 5 seconds) and introduction of a Readiness score tells us that consumers have bought into these metrics and they are joining the club. However, all of this is occurring with a backdrop of tens millions of users, claims about the data that are not backed up by adequate evidence, marketing way out in front of whatever limited data exists, and not being transparent about their readiness score algorithms. The companies can well afford to do the research that is needed to connect these metrics with health outcomes show, once and for all, that increasing HRV or using readiness scores promotes our health. If they believed and invested in the products they are selling, we’d not be in this position of not knowing. That’s essentially where we are with HRV and readiness scores. Perhaps someday this will change and we’ll have good reason to embrace them. NB: I wrote this post. No AI. I have no conflicts of interest with any of its content. Loading... Ground Truths has 215,000 subscribers from every US state and 214 countries. There are over 300,000 followers of Ground Truths so more than 90,000 folks who can easily convert to be free subscribers. Your subscription to these free essays and podcasts makes my work in putting them together worthwhile. If you’re not a subscriber, please join! If you found this interesting PLEASE share it! Share Ground Truths The proceeds from all voluntary paid subscriptions go to support our summer internship program. It enabled us to accept and support a record number of 62 summer interns that joined us in 2026! These are high school, college and medical students selected from thousands of applicants. We couldn’t do this expanded program without the funds coming in through Ground Truths. Thank you!
Big 12, Top-25 college football games on TV today
Here are some big college football games you can watch today.
Two Washington Nationals Set Milestones in Win vs. St. Louis
Both Cade Cavalli and CJ Abrams set new franchise records for the Washington Nationals in a 9-1 win vs. St. Louis Cardinals
How to Watch SMU vs. Louisville in Massive ACC Showdown
The Mustangs and Cardinals meet Saturday in a ranked matchup that could shape the ACC Championship race and SMU's College Football Playoff resume.
We Asked a Cardiologist If You Need Fish to Get Enough Omega-3s
We asked a cardiologist if you need to eat fish to get enough omega-3s. Here’s what she said.
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
Can Cardinals break historic losing streak to Seahawks in Week 2?
GLENDALE – The Arizona Cardinals look to exercise some demons in Week 2 vs. NFC West rivals Seattle Seahawks.
Cardinals’ Jeremiyah Love Shares Bold Update on Health Entering Week 2
The Arizona Cardinals had a shocking upset over the Los Angeles Chargers in Week 1. This was fueled by No. 3 pick Jeremiyah Love’s impressive debut with the team. Coming off an ankle injury, Love looked the part of a first-round pick with 50 yards from scrimmage and a touchdown, playing in less than half of […] The post Cardinals’ Jeremiyah Love Shares Bold Update on Health Entering Week 2 appeared first on HEAVY.
Stanford DB May Have Provided Extra Motivation for Duke
With the Stanford Cardinal coming to Durham for a showdown with Duke, they may have provided some extra motivation.
Cardinals vs. Seahawks TV coverage maps
The Cardinals and Seahawks play in Week 2, and the game airs on FOX. Where in the US will the game air?
Cardinals vs. Seahawks: 2 player connections in Week 2
The Cardinals and Seahawks both have one player who was drafted by and played for the other team on their roster.
2026 Week 3 Preview: SMU Mustangs @ Louisville Cardinals
This ranked ACC matchup might be the conference’s most important game all year. Expect an offensive clinic.
Seattle Seahawks injury report: Cooper Kupp upgraded
Check out which Seahawks players did not practice on Thursday or were limited.
Cardinals Starting DL Is Surprise Addition to Thursday’s Injury Report
Three days remain until the Arizona Cardinals‘ week two battle against the Seattle Seahawks, as of Sept. 17.The game status for key Cardinals is shaping up to benefit the squad heading into Sunday, although one key surprise came about following Thursday’s practice.Read more about Arizona’s addition to the report, as well as a focus on […] The post Cardinals Starting DL Is Surprise Addition to Thursday’s Injury Report appeared first on HEAVY.
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation offers lasting heart health benefits
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation reduces hospital admissions by a third and heart attack risk by more than a quarter, as well as remaining beneficial in the long term, a new Cochrane review finds.
Trey McBride returns to practice
Arizona Cardinals TE Trey McBride practiced Thursday after receiving a day off
Mike McDaniel plans to get underutilized weapon more involved
The Los Angeles Chargers are searching for answers following their disappointing Week 1 loss to the Arizona Cardinals. They especially struggled on offense, failing to score on eight of their 10 drives. When wide receiver Ladd McConkey exited the game with a rib injury, other Chargers offensive weapons failed to step up. However, one was […] The post Mike McDaniel plans to get underutilized weapon more involved appeared first on HEAVY.
University of Michigan Health cardiologist named to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
University of Michigan Health cardiologist Venkatesh Murthy, M.D., Ph.D., has been appointed to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
$12.6M cardiology center opens in New Hyde Park
A $12.6 million cardiology center is now open in New Hyde Park and is designed to expand access to heart care in Nassau County and Queens.
Seahawks unanimously picked by Sports Illustrated to beat Cardinals
The Seahawks are backed to pull off the win against the Cardinals as favorites in the matchup.
Cardinals Taking Expected Approach with Jeremiyah Love Entering Seahawks Week
Jeremiyah Love is headlining the rookies to keep an eye on this year, and it is for a team that no national rankings have high expectations for: the Arizona Cardinals. That alone tells a lot about the potential he flashed in the preseason games before he unfortunately sprained his ankle. His rough recovery timeline had […] The post Cardinals Taking Expected Approach with Jeremiyah Love Entering Seahawks Week appeared first on HEAVY.
Wildfire smoke poses greater health risks than other pollution
As climate change drives more frequent and intense wildfires, researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai have published two large-scale studies showing that wildfire smoke may pose greater health risks than other sources of air pollution, with higher risks of hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory disease and poorer survival among patients with lung cancer.
Arizona Cardinals depth chart: 4 Week 2 observations
The Cardinals' Week 2 depth chart vs. Week 1 playing time has a couple of interesting things.
Seahawks vs Cardinals: Week 2 score prediction
Predicting the outcome of the Seahawks vs Arizona matchup for Week 2 of the NFL season.
Giants Outlast Cardinals in Extras to Take Series
The San Francisco Giants found a way against the pesky St. Louis Cardinals on Wednesday.
Sam Darnold injury opens major opportunity for Arizona Cardinals
The Arizona Cardinals were originally 10-point underdogs against the Seattle Seahawks, but that line is down to 3.5 after Sam Darnold was ruled out.
Women’s kidney health may be overlooked, delaying critical prevention and treatment opportunities
Statement Highlights: Diagnosis of women’s chronic kidney disease (CKD) is often delayed, and they are less likely to begin dialysis or receive a kidney transplant. Several female-specific factors impact women’s kidney and cardiovascular health...
How to Prevent a Diagnosis That’s a ‘Silent Assassin’ for the Heart, Cardiologist Warns
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a cardiologist urges people to prevent a condition that affects millions of Americans and dramatically raises their risk of heart disease.
Judging St. Louis Cardinals Walk-Up Songs
I went to the game on Monday – and I am grateful I went to the one win of the series if you’re wondering – and for some reason a few of the players walk-up songs stood out to me. Just some surprising picks that threw me off briefly. I instantly wanted to write this […]
Oura, Counsel Health join CMS ACCESS model to test whether wearables and AI can improve chronic care at scale
Oura and Counsel Health are teaming up to participate in CMS' 10-year chronic condition management program, betting that continuous health data from Oura's smart ring paired with medical AI can hel | Counsel Health, an AI-native primary care company, plans to participate in CMS' ACCESS Model under the early cardio-kidney-metabolic track, with smart ring maker Oura serving as the preferred wearable partner.
Pick of the stats: Cardiff City v Charlton Athletic
BBC Sport highlights some of the key stats and facts for the Championship match between Cardiff City and Charlton Athletic.
Women's Kidney Health in Focus
Globally, one in 10 women lives with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is closely intertwined with cardiovascular risk as part of the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome.
Chargers Tabbed Potential Suitor for $44 Million “Quality” Defender
The Los Angeles Chargers are named as a potential suitor for a defensive line after the Week 1 loss to the Cardinals. The post Chargers Tabbed Potential Suitor for $44 Million “Quality” Defender appeared first on HEAVY.
Arizona Cardinals add 2 DBs to practice squad
With Kitan Crawford on IR and Kalen King moving to the active roster, the Cardinals added 2 DBs to the practice squad.
Trey McBride receives day off Wednesday
Arizona Cardinals TE Trey McBride sits out the opening practice ahead of Week 2
Seahawks make final Sam Darnold decision ahead of Cardinals game
The Seattle Seahawks have made their final call about whether Sam Darnold will hit the field for the team in Week 2.
Kitan Crawford on Injured Reserve
Cardinals S Kitan Crawford placed on IR after Week 1 injury
Cardinals activate rookie second baseman JJ Wetherholt from injured list
St. Louis activated rookie second baseman JJ Wetherholt from the 10-day injured list Wednesday morning before the Cardinals met the San Francisco Giants.
NFL Power Rankings: Cardinals soar, while Packers tumble
Some big risers and fallers hit the rankings in Week 2.
Giants' Offense Powers Them to Easy Win Over Cardinals
The San Francisco Giants' offense looked a lot better on Tuesday against the St. Louis Cardinals.
Eating four to six wholegrain servings daily protects heart health
Eating four to six servings of wholegrain each day reduces several major risk factors for cardiovascular disease, according to a new study published in the European Heart Journal today (Wednesday).
UT San Antonio study finds lowering blood pressure benefits brain health
While scientists have long studied the detrimental effects of high blood pressure on cardiovascular function, its effects on the brain are less understood. A new study from UT Health San Antonio, the academic health campus of The University of Texas at San Antonio (UT San Antonio) shows that even a small decrease in blood […]
How to watch San Francisco Giants vs. St. Louis Cardinals
The Giants wrap up this three-game road series against the Cardinals later this morning.
Could a daily glass of orange juice support heart health? Study finds citrus compounds influence genes linked to blood vessel function
Naturally occurring compounds in orange juice regulated genes involved in the control of cardiovascular and blood vessel function, according to a new clinical trial.
Chargers Hit With Injury Blow, Place WR on IR
The Los Angeles Chargers are having a tough week. They were upset at home by the Arizona Cardinals in their 2026 season opener, and lost a couple of players due to injury. On Tuesday the Chargers made the decision to place one of their young, up-and-coming playmakers on injured reserve. Los Angeles Chargers Place WR […] The post Chargers Hit With Injury Blow, Place WR on IR appeared first on HEAVY.
High draft pick cut by Cardinals reportedly joining playoff contender
Arizona Cardinals' 2023 NFL Draft second-round selection BJ Ojulari was cut by the team in August, but was reportedly signed by the Jaguars.
Stanford Seeks Road Redemption Against Defending ACC Champs at Duke
The Cardinal face a daunting Durham test as they battle to end an 11-game road drought against a stingy Blue Devils defense and their reigning conference championship momentum.
Why frailty and heart health may be more closely connected than we thought
A narrative review proposes cardiovascular frailty as a distinct phenotype that brings together blood pressure regulation, vascular aging, oxi-inflammaging, and clinical frailty deficits. The authors argue that a validated cardiovascular frailty index could support earlier detection and personalized care, although longitudinal studies are needed before the concept can be used clinically.
Louisville's DeMelo sues doctors after cardiac arrest during NWSL game
Racing Louisville FC midfielder Savannah DeMelo is suing the University of Louisville Health and two physicians for allegedly failing to diagnose a heart condition that led to her suffering cardiac arrest on the field during a match in September 2025.
How to watch San Francisco Giants vs. St. Louis Cardinals
Blade Tidwell vs. Andre Pallante
Heart disease tops deaths in Hispanic adults, AHA says; cardiologist shares tips
A new report from the American Heart Association is drawing attention to urgent cardiovascular health concerns among Hispanic adults in the U.S.
Whole grains are good for your heart. How do you know if you’re eating enough?
Eating four to six servings of whole grains a day reduces your risk of cardiovascular diseases, a new study suggests. But one dietary swap can’t do it all.
ACCESS update: CMS boosts coverage for heart failure technologies
The ACCESS model is designed help more patients get treated and managed with advanced technologies. In addition to heart failure, improved coverage has been announced for Medicare beneficiaries battling COPD, substance use disorders and nicotine dependence.
Racing Louisville player who collapsed during game sues UofL Health, doctors
A Racing Louisville star is suing UofL Health and two doctors over the care she received before suffering cardiac arrest.
Chargers Poll: NOW how confident are you in the Bolts?
How confident are you in the Chargers after their frustrating loss to the Cardinals?
Providence to receive $1.1B from Nike co-founder to build women’s health hospital in Oregon
Providence will receive $1.1 billion from Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife, Penny — one of the largest gifts ever pledged to a U.S. healthcare institution — to build Oregon's first women's hospital and expand cardiovascular services. The funds, directed to Portland's Providence St. Vincent Medical Center and Providence Heart Institute, build on the Knights' prior $200 million gift to the heart institute.
Providence announces $1.1 billion pledge from Phil and Penny Knight
The donation will fund a new women’s hospital and cardiovascular care. It's part of the Knights' history of funding health research and hospitals in Oregon, including $200 million in previous gifts to Providence's Heart Institute and a recent $2 billion pledge to OHSU.
Does Mike LaFleur's familiarity with Seahawks give Cardinals an edge?
Does Mike LaFleur's familiarity with the Seattle Seahawks give the Arizona Cardinals an edge in Week 2?
Health Care Access and Affordability for Adults with Multiple or Complex Health Conditions: A Snapshot of Patient Experiences
Significant shares of adults with multiple or complex health conditions, including cancer, lung disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health conditions say they struggle to pay their medical bills and access needed care and medication. These challenges fall hardest on uninsured adults who face greater costs and access challenges.
Chargers OC Mike McDaniel’s Offense Left Much to Be Desired
The hype surrounding Mike McDaniel’s new offense was high entering the season, but the Chargers struggled to find consistency in Sunday’s loss to the Cardinals. With just 14 points, this offense has plenty to clean up moving forward.
Arizona Cardinals crack top 20 in new NFL Power rankings
The Arizona Cardinals crack the top 20 in one set of power rankings.
Exercise — and echocardiograms — in space protected astronauts’ hearts in study
If humans journey to Mars in 2035, exercise will be critical to keeping their hearts strong in microgravity.
New health workforce data shows over 5,000 job ads for registered nurses in Southwest and Southside Virginia
The new quarterly report from the George Mason University Center for Health Workforce also indicates significant demand for other professional services that require less specialized training.
Hispanic Heritage Month: Representation matters for heart health
DALLAS, Sept. 15, 2026 — As Hispanic Heritage Month begins, a new report from the American Heart Association reveals a troubling milestone: cardiovascular disease has surpassed cancer as the leading cause of death among Hispanic adults in the United...
Early Returns on Mike LaFleur Show Cardinals Made Right Choice
The NFL, perhaps more than any other professional sports league, is built by its little moments — the numerous individual tiles inside the mosaic of 60 minutes of Sunday football....
How to watch San Francisco Giants vs. St. Louis Cardinals
Landen Roupp vs. Quinn Mathews (again)
Common bedroom mistake could be quietly taking a toll on your health, experts say
A Tulane University study links sleeping with light on to higher risks of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke and cardiovascular death.
Meet the new Philadelphia Eagles cheerleaders balancing careers in healthcare
The Philadelphia Eagles' cheerleading squad has nine new members, including a Jefferson Health cardiac ICU nurse and three other healthcare professionals.
Series Preview: St. Louis Cardinals Hosting San Francisco Giants
After winning the weekend series against the Chicago White Sox, the St. Louis Cardinals do not get a break as they begin the week playing host to the San Francisco Giants. While there are no playoff slots realistically at stake, it should make for an interesting 3-game series. I can’t give you a realistic look […]
Jeremiyah Love finds the end zone
Arizona Cardinals RB Jeremiyah Love rushed 11 times for 41 yards and a touchdown in the Week 1 win over the Los Angeles Chargers.
Jacoby Brissett stands out
Arizona Cardinals QB Jacoby Brissett was 27-for-37 for 277 yards, one touchdown and no INTs in Week 1 win over Los Angeles Chargers.
Cardinals get promising JJ Wetherholt injury news before Giants series
The Cardinals could get their second baseman back this season.