Microwaves are a common appliance in every household now. You will see it in kitchens of not just houses, but offices, cafeterias, and co working space. However, there are studies that show that heating food in a microwave could be a health concern. While it does come handy, there are questions about harmful radiation and nutrient loss and heating safety that still linger.

Does Microwave Destroy The Nutrients In Food While Heating?

Some research suggests that microwaving may cause nutritional loss, particularly in vegetables. For example, studies have shown that microwaving broccoli with water diminishes its flavonoid content, which are anti-inflammatory compounds. However, experts note that cooking method and duration have a significant influence on nutrient retention.

Surprisingly, several studies indicate that microwaving preserves more nutrients than traditional cooking methods. A study comparing microwaved versus oven-cooked ready meals found that the microwaved version contained somewhat more vitamin C. Another study discovered that microwaving some vegetables, such as broccoli and green beans, may retain more beneficial compounds than boiling.

Ultimately, the nutrient loss really vary on the type of food which is being heated and how it is being cooked. Experts also recommend using minimal water and shorter cooking times to maximize the nutrient retention.

Is Heating In Plastic Safe?

Plastic containers and heating food in it, has always been a topic of debate. While containers do come with microwave-safe stamps, is it really safe to heat them with food?

According to research, when certain plastics are subjected to heat, they produce compounds such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). These substances have been associated to hormonal disturbance, metabolic problems, and perhaps reproductive concerns.

A study also took in account over 400 plastic food containers that were microwave-safe and found that most of them leaked hormone-disrupting chemicals. These are phthalates, warn experts, which are commonly used in food packaging and can interfere with body's hormonal balance, and increase risk of diabetes or even high blood pressure.

Additionally, BPA exposure has been associated with fertility issues and immune system disruptions.

So, what can be done instead?

To minimize this risk, experts recommend using glass or ceramic container when microwaving foods. If you must use a plastic container, make sure the container is not damaged or old, as they are more prone to leach harmful chemicals.

What About The Radiation?

Concerns about microwave radiation have been largely debunked by decades of research. Microwaves use non-ionizing radiation, which does not have enough energy to damage DNA or cause cancer. The electromagnetic waves used in microwaves are similar to those from radios and light bulbs.

Experts emphasize that microwave ovens are designed to contain radiation, preventing exposure. As long as the microwave is in good condition and the door seals properly, there is no significant health risk from microwave radiation.

Other Concerns

Microwaving food could sometimes also lead to uneven cooking and it can create some risks to food safety. Thus, experts advertise to use microwave only to reheat the food and not to actually cook raw food. For safe reheating, food should reach at least 82°C (176°F) throughout to kill bacteria.

In my years as an orthopaedic surgeon, I have operated on thousands of joints, ligaments, and bones. And if there is one pattern I have seen repeat itself more consistently than any other, it is this: two patients can undergo the exact same surgery, performed by the same surgeon, using the same technique — and walk away with completely different outcomes. The difference rarely lies in the operating room. It lies in what happens afterwards.

Most patients walk into surgery believing it is the finish line — the hard part, after which everything else is just optional maintenance. Physiotherapy gets treated as something to fit in "if there's time" or "if it still hurts." This is one of the most damaging misconceptions in orthopaedic recovery.

Surgery fixes the structure. It repairs the torn ligament, replaces the worn joint, sets the fractured bone. But it does not, on its own, restore function. That has to be rebuilt — deliberately, gradually, under guidance. And that rebuilding is physiotherapy's job, not the scalpels.

The numbers bear this out. Across orthopaedic procedures, roughly one in five to one in three patients fail to reach their expected functional milestones, and inadequate rehab is consistently among the top reasons why — alongside pre-existing stiffness and delayed rehab starts. A technically flawless surgery, followed by a half-hearted recovery, routinely underperforms a good surgery paired with disciplined rehabilitation.

What's actually happening inside the body

Three things happen to nearly every post-surgical joint, regardless of how well the operation goes. Muscles begin to atrophy almost immediately — the quadriceps around a knee can lose measurable strength within a week of reduced use, and rest alone does not reverse this. Only progressive, graded loading does, which is exactly what physiotherapy provides.

At the same time, as surgical wounds heal, the body lays down scar tissue. Left unmanaged, this tissue binds to surrounding structures, restricts tendon movement, and quietly steals range of motion — tightening further with time rather than loosening on its own. And joints that aren't moved regularly through their range begin to stiffen as the joint capsule tightens around them.

A joint essentially "learns" its new, restricted range unless someone deliberately and safely pushes it beyond that — which is precisely the judgment call a physiotherapist is trained to make.

Also read: Attention Ladies: More Than 5 Cups Of Coffee Linked To Lower Bone Density; Tea May Help

Why the body can't just heal its way back

Healing and recovery are not the same thing. Biological healing — wound closure, bone union, tissue integration — largely happens on its own, on a fixed timeline. But functional recovery — strength, coordination, the confidence to move and bear weight normally — requires the tissue to be used correctly while it heals.

Left alone, the body defaults to protection. It guards the operated area, recruits other muscles to compensate, and avoids the very movements it needs to relearn. Patients typically drift toward one of two extremes: under-loading out of fear, or over-loading out of impatience. Physiotherapy is what calibrates that loading correctly, stage by stage.

There is also a less visible disruption that few patients are aware of — the connection between brain and muscle. Pain, swelling, and immobilisation can cause a structurally intact muscle to simply stop firing efficiently, because the nerve pathways that recruit it have gone quiet from disuse.

Left unaddressed, the body compensates by recruiting other muscles instead — which can look like recovery on the surface while quietly setting up problems in neighbouring joints. This is precisely what targeted neuromuscular re-education in physiotherapy is designed to correct — retraining the brain to activate the right muscle, in the right sequence, again.

Also read: 6-Year-Old Australian Kid Dies From Rarely Seen ‘19th Century Disease’: Why Is Scurvy Still A Risk Today?

When patients stop too soon

The most common reason patients abandon physiotherapy early is what I call the "pain-free equals cured" mentality. Pain typically resolves well before strength, range, and control are fully restored — and once it's gone, patients read that as the finish line. Physiotherapy at that stage feels repetitive and effortful compared to the relief of simply feeling better, so motivation drops exactly when the harder, more important phase of rebuilding begins.

The long-term cost of this is real. In my practice, I regularly see stiffness that never fully resolves, chronic weakness that surfaces years later as instability or a limp, and compensatory strain in neighbouring joints — a hip overworking for an under-rehabbed knee, a shoulder overcompensating for a poorly recovered elbow.

Some of these cases eventually need a second procedure just to release stiffness that consistent physiotherapy could have prevented in the first place. These are not failures of surgery. They are failures of the recovery process that followed it.

The real answer to "I feel fine, do I still need physiotherapy?"

Feeling fine and being fully recovered are not the same thing — and that gap is exactly where physiotherapy does its work. Pain is often the first symptom to disappear and the last thing to reflect what's actually happening inside the joint. Strength deficits, altered movement patterns, and residual stiffness can persist long after pain is gone, only to resurface later as instability, re-injury, or early joint wear.

Stopping physiotherapy because the pain has gone is a bit like stopping antibiotics because the fever broke — the underlying process isn't necessarily finished just because the most obvious symptom has resolved.

Surgery and physiotherapy are not two separate stages of treatment. They are two halves of a single continuous process, and the outcome is determined by both. Surgery repairs the structure. Physiotherapy restores the function. Patients who understand this going in don't just heal better — they move better, for years afterwards.

GLP-1 drugs are set to become the “new statins of the world” and could transform metabolic health, said Wasim Hanif, Professor of Diabetes and Endocrinology at University Hospital Birmingham.

Speaking exclusively to HealthandMe, Prof Hanif discussed their growing use in obesity and diabetes, potential benefits, side effects and when patients should stop treatment.

GLP-1 Drugs Could Save NHS Billions

Even as the NHS is rolling out GLP-1 drugs, including tirzepatide (Mounjaro), for severe obesity, Prof Hanif said their kidney and cardiovascular benefits could also reduce the healthcare burden.

NICE recommendations cover tirzepatide and semaglutide for obesity and type 2 diabetes, with recommendations also expected for obstructive sleep apnea and MASH.

“I think these drugs will have a huge impact. These are going to be the game changers in metabolic health. These are the new statins of the world,” he said.

The only caveat, according to him, "is the cost, especially in the West".

"The cost of these medications is too high, but the hope is that within the next couple of years, once they become generic, they'll be used even more,” the professor told HealthandMe, on the sidelines of an event organized by the BMJ Group in New Delhi.

From GLP-1 To GIP And Glucagon

The Professor explained that the drugs have evolved beyond GLP-1 alone:

• GLP-1: Drugs based on glucagon-like peptide-1
• GLP-1 + GIP: Tirzepatide
• GLP-1 + GIP + glucagon: Retatrutide

US: Obesity And Diabetes Trends Falling

Prof Hanif pointed to growing use in the US and resulting health benefits.

“The total amount that the companies made with the use of these drugs in the United States was 43 billion dollars. Now we are actually seeing, for the first time, the trends of obesity and diabetes coming down,” he said.

He added that cardiovascular benefits are also expected to have a major impact.

‘Weight Losses We Never Imagined’

Prof Hanif said the drugs are producing major clinical improvements.

“For the first time in years I'm seeing my patients with diabetes achieve normal HbA1c once these drugs are used. Secondly, we are seeing weight losses we never imagined we would be able to get,” he said.

He also highlighted improvements in:

• Obstructive sleep apnea
• Cardiovascular health
• Heart failure.

Does Everyone Need A High Dose?

Recent research showed that GLP-1 drugs are showing benefits, even with lower doses. Prof Hanif said dosing depends on the condition and patient.

“For weight loss, yes, you need bigger doses, and that depends upon what your baseline weight is. So if your BMI is 40-45, you probably require a bigger dose, but if your BMI is less, you require a lesser dose,” he explained.

“For diabetes, you don't need the higher doses. With one milligram of semaglutide or five milligrams of tirzepatide, 80% of the patients get the decision,” he said.

“For cardiovascular protection, you don't need big doses. So it really depends upon — it's not that every person will need the topmost dose.”

GLP-1 Side Effects: What Does The Data Show?

Do these drugs have side effects? Prof Hanif said yes — but stressed that side effects occur with every medication. However, he pointed out to increasing "medical misinformation about GLP-1 drugs spreading rapidly through social media and websites in the US, Asia and India".

“Between 2007 and 2025, there were 1900 cases of pancreatitis reported or associated with GLP-1, with 19 deaths in the UK. Now how many patients were using these agents? Millions,” said Prof Hanif, who is also part of the board of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Comparing this with metformin, he added: “During the same period of time or even less, metformin caused 25 deaths.”

Hair Loss, Muscle Loss And Retinopathy

Prof Hanif said side effects associated with GLP-1 drugs do occur, but there are strategies to mitigate them.

“Hair loss is very — it does happen, but it's not that common. Loss of muscle mass happens, but it happens with any kind of weight loss.”

“There are mitigation strategies — how you do it.”

He also highlighted retinopathy, particularly among people with diabetes.

“We know if somebody's having proliferative retinopathy or having laser treatment, you don't use it. There are guidelines on that.”

He also warned against viewing GLP-1 drugs as lifestyle drugs, and buying them online and using them without appropriate medical oversight.

“So these drugs have to be used under medical supervision by people who know how to use these drugs, like any other drugs," Prof Hanif said.

Immunotherapy isn’t always better than chemotherapy. Its benefits depend on the cancer type, stage and biomarkers. Similarly, “superfoods” do not cure cancer, health experts said while addressing comedian Rahul Dua’s claims about cancer treatment.

On a recent podcast, Dua opened up about a family member’s four-year cancer battle and his research into alternative treatments.

Dua said his family member began improving after switching from chemotherapy to immunotherapy. He also claimed that low-cost drug combinations, including ivermectin and fenbendazole, could have potential in cancer treatment and questioned whether pharmaceutical profits influence which treatments receive attention.

But what does science say? HealthandMe spoke to oncologist to fact-check these claims and address common cancer-treatment myths.

Immunotherapy Isn’t Always Better Than Chemotherapy

“Immunotherapy is not universally ‘better’ than chemotherapy. Benefit depends on cancer type, stage, and biomarkers such as PD-L1, MSI-H or TMB,” said Dr Shyam Aggarwal, Chairman, Medical Oncology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.

“In melanoma, mismatch-repair–deficient tumors and selected lung or kidney cancers, immunotherapy often outperforms or usefully combines with chemotherapy. In many other cancers, chemotherapy remains the backbone,” he added.

Patients should not decide their treatment on their own, the expert told HealthandMe.

Accurate diagnosis, staging and molecular testing require a multidisciplinary team. Shared decision-making with an oncologist is essential, as self-directed treatment choices can delay effective care and cause harm.

Also read: Wegovy & Zepbound Are Not Approved By US FDA For Children Under 12: So Why Are Prescriptions Rising?

‘Superfoods’ Don’t Cure Cancer

Dua also claimed that certain “superfoods” — including a high-protein, high-fat, low-fibre diet — combined with immunotherapy can cure cancer.

“‘Superfoods’ do not treat cancer. A balanced diet supports strength and treatment tolerance, but no food replaces proven therapy. Miracle-food claims lack rigorous evidence,” Dr Shyam said, stressing that patients should consult their oncologist for individualized, evidence-based care.

The Rs 50 Ivermectin-Fenbendazole Claim

Dua also spoke about a combination of ivermectin and fenbendazole, describing it as a “₹50 cancer treatment” that he believed could be more effective and questioned whether pharmaceutical profits were a factor.

“But since it was a 50 rupee cure. There is no profit for pharma in that. There is no profit for pharma in that. Off the record, there is this medicine combination of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole. Fenbendazole is a dog dewormer. It costs 20 rupees. Ivermectin is a horse dewormer. I am very convinced that as soon as my auntie moved from (4 years of) chemo to immunotherapy. (She) Started becoming better,” Dua shared during the podcast.

According to the American Cancer Society, ivermectin is not approved to treat cancer in people or animals, and no clinical guidelines recommend it as a cancer treatment.

"Ivermectin has not undergone the rigorous clinical trials needed to establish whether it is safe and effective as a cancer treatment in humans. Available research is insufficient to determine whether it could work as an anticancer drug," it says.

While ivermectin may be used at recommended doses to treat certain worm infections, large doses can be dangerous, potentially causing seizures, coma and even death. It may also worsen the side effects of standard cancer treatments such as chemotherapy.

Read More: Bill Ackman’s Daughter Gets Experimental Treatment For Vision Loss: When Can Mitochondrial Transplants Help?

Experts Warn Against ‘Miracle Cure’ Claims

Dua’s claims has drawn sharp criticism from oncologists, public health specialists and medical communicators, who warned that unscientific “miracle cure” claims could mislead patients into delaying evidence-based treatment.

“Don’t fall for this. A ₹50 cancer ‘cure’ that pharma is hiding is clickbait, not care. These people never follow it themselves and feel no responsibility when patients delay real treatment just so a video can go viral. Lives are not content,” Dr Rishabh Jain, Medical Oncologist, AIIMS Delhi, said on X.

Dr Arshiet Dhamnaskar, neurosurgeon at Western India Institute of Neurosciences, also said people not “trained in medical science should refrain from commenting upon it. As even one bit of misinformation can be disastrous.”