We have all seen movies where right before the hero starts fighting, he cracks his knuckles and makes it look like the coolest thing in the world! But then our parents told us that you should not crack your knuckles because that weakens your grip and hand strength. But is that true? While many people do say that they experience a small loss in strength immediately after they crack their knuckles, but are their long-term effects to it? And what is the sound actually coming from?

The reason why people crack their fingers is because the evident and sharp crack noise causes a sense of relief. Many people also do it when they have done an activity that required them to work with their hands a lot like typing or sewing, giving themselves a sense of satisfaction, similar to stretching after doing hard work. That "crack" sound can make some people cringe, while others find it strangely satisfying. Cracking your knuckles is a pretty common habit, but there are a lot of misunderstandings about it. Some people do it without even thinking, others can't stand the noise, and some can't crack their knuckles at all. You might have been told as a kid that it causes arthritis or makes your fingers swell up. But those are just old wives' tales. There's a real science behind this habit, and it's more interesting than you may think.

Why Do Knuckles Make That Popping Sound?

The "crack" isn't actually bones breaking or anything bad happening to your joints. It's a normal thing called "crepitus." This just means harmless popping, snapping, or grinding sounds that come from your joints. The main reason you hear this sound is because of gas bubbles in the fluid that cushions your joints. This fluid is called synovial fluid. When you move or stretch, these tiny bubbles form and then pop, making the sound. It's totally normal and doesn't hurt you. Sometimes, especially in bigger joints like your knees, shoulders, or ankles, the sound can also happen when the stretchy tissues that connect your bones (ligaments and tendons) move slightly and then snap back into place.

After you crack your knuckles, you can't usually do it again right away. You have to wait a bit. That's because the gas bubbles in your joint fluid have already popped, and it takes a little while for them to build up again. While cracking your knuckles doesn't give you arthritis, doing it too much might cause some problems. Doctors say that cracking them too often could make your joints a little wobbly and might even make your grip weaker. Also, if the stretchy tissues in your joints keep snapping over your bones, they can get irritated and sore.

When Joint Popping Might Mean Something More

Sometimes, a pop in your joint is just like cracking your knuckles, nothing to worry about. But other times, it can be a sign of something else. As we get older, the cushiony stuff in our joints, called cartilage, can start to wear down. This cartilage helps your bones move smoothly. When it gets thin or uneven, the bones can rub together, and that can make a grinding or popping sound. This is different from the pop you get from gas bubbles. If this grinding sound happens along with pain, it could be a sign of osteoarthritis. This is a type of joint problem that's more common in older people, but younger people can get it too, especially after a joint injury. If your joints hurt, especially in the morning or after you've been sitting still for a while, feel wobbly, or are hard to move, it's a good idea to see a doctor.

Higher education has changed far more than we often acknowledge. Universities are no longer simply places where students earn degrees. They are where young adults spend some of the most formative years of their lives, away from familiar support systems, making independent decisions, navigating uncertainty and, for many, encountering the first signs of a mental health condition. That quiet shift has expanded the role of educational institutions in ways that were never envisaged a decade ago.

The conversation around student wellbeing has evolved alongside this change. Mental health is no longer viewed as a subject to be discussed only after a crisis. Students are speaking more openly, parents are asking different questions, faculty members are becoming more aware and institutions are recognising that emotional wellbeing is closely linked to learning, participation and long term outcomes. This change deserves to be welcomed because it has helped move mental health from the margins of campus life to the centre of institutional responsibility.

Why A Counsellor Alone Is Not Enough?

Yet one assumption continues to shape much of this conversation. The presence of a counsellor is often seen as evidence that a campus is equipped to support student mental health. Counsellors remain indispensable and, for many students, they provide exactly the support that is needed. The challenge arises when counselling is expected to fulfil every role within a mental healthcare system.

Every effective healthcare system is built on layers of expertise. A physician does not replace a surgeon. A laboratory does not replace a diagnosis. Emergency care does not replace rehabilitation. Mental healthcare should be viewed no differently. Counselling is often the first point of contact, but the needs of students do not end there.

Some require structured therapy, others psychiatric evaluation, some ongoing clinical monitoring, and a few immediate crisis intervention. A mature campus mental healthcare system should be equipped to respond across this entire spectrum. The conversation should therefore move beyond whether campuses have counsellors to whether they have a system capable of supporting every stage of care.

Also read: Why People With Mental Health Conditions Are More Likely To Struggle With Tobacco Addiction

Building A Comprehensive Campus Mental Healthcare System

Encouragingly, public policy is beginning to recognise this changing reality. The University Grants Commission’s draft guidelines on mental health and wellbeing for higher educational institutions, with recommendations on counsellor ratios, dedicated wellbeing centres, round the clock helplines and mechanisms for early identification of distress, mark an important step in strengthening institutional support. More importantly, they open the door to a broader conversation on what comprehensive mental healthcare within higher education should look like over the coming years.

Building such a system requires looking beyond individual appointments. One of the most valuable lessons from developing healthcare services is that outcomes are rarely determined by the first consultation alone. They depend on how seamlessly care continues afterwards. If a counsellor recognises that a student needs specialised assessment, how quickly can that happen?

Also read: Lindsay Clancy Trial: What Postpartum Psychosis Really Looks Like, From A Survivor

If medication becomes necessary, is psychiatric care available without delay? If a student experiences a crisis outside campus hours, is there a clearly defined pathway to immediate support? If treatment begins, who ensures continuity during semester breaks or after the student returns home? These are not administrative questions. They are questions that shape recovery.

A comprehensive campus mental healthcare ecosystem should therefore bring together different levels of expertise rather than rely on one profession alone. Counsellors, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, experienced mental health specialists and emergency support services each play a distinct role. Their contribution becomes most effective when they work as part of an integrated network with clear referral pathways, shared clinical responsibility and continuity of care that extends beyond the physical boundaries of the campus.

Prevention And Early Intervention Matter Too

Also read: Sugar Rationing In First 1,000 Days Linked To Lower Depression, Cancer Risk In Adulthood

Equally important is recognising that mental healthcare should not begin only after a student seeks help. Institutions have long understood the value of preventive healthcare through regular physical health assessments, vaccination drives and awareness programmes. Mental health deserves the same thoughtful approach.

Periodic, voluntary mental health check ins, appropriate screening, trained faculty and peer support networks, backed by specialist expertise, can help identify concerns early while respecting privacy, dignity and informed consent. Early recognition is not about labelling students. It is about ensuring that support reaches them before distress becomes disabling.

Technology can strengthen this ecosystem, but it cannot replace it. Digital consultations, secure follow up, coordinated records and access to specialists across locations can make care more continuous, particularly for students studying away from home. Their real value lies in connecting different parts of the system rather than functioning as isolated solutions.

Mental Healthcare As Part Of The Institutional Foundation

The quality of a university has traditionally been measured through its academic standards, faculty and research. Increasingly, it will also be measured by how well it supports the people who make learning possible. Mental healthcare deserves to be seen as part of that institutional foundation, not as an additional welfare service that sits alongside education.

The conversation has already moved beyond whether student mental health matters. The next step is to recognise that no single professional, however skilled, can meet every need that students may bring with them. Every campus needs more than a counsellor because every student deserves access to a mental healthcare system that is prepared not only to listen, but also to respond, support and care through every stage of that journey.

By Dr. Jothi Neeraja, Founder, Chairwoman and Managing Director, Maarga Mindcare

Anxiety and depression are major concerns in adulthood, but could nutrition during the earliest stages of life influence health decades later? Two new studies suggest that lower sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days of life may be associated with lower risks of anxiety, depression and even several cancers later in life.

The findings, from studies published in Translational Psychiatry and PNAS point to the potential long-term effects of early-life nutrition. However, the findings do not mean that restricting sugar in infancy directly prevents these diseases.

Sugar Rationing And Mental Health

A 2026 study led by researchers from the University of Surrey, UK, analyzed 46,448 people born between October 1951 and March 1956.

Participants were grouped according to how long they were exposed to sugar rationing: from in utero only to 24 months. People conceived after food rationing had ended served as the main comparison group.

Researchers also analyzed brain MRI data from 5,990 participants.

Lower Risk Of Anxiety And Depression

Compared with people conceived after rationing ended, those exposed to sugar rationing for the three longest periods had significantly lower hazards of both anxiety and depression.

• Shorter-exposure groups did not show significant differences.
• The associations were stronger in women.
• Adult sugar intake was broadly similar across groups, at about 58–59 g/day of free sugar and 122–124 g/day of total sugar.

When later-life sugar intake was considered, the association with anxiety persisted among those exposed throughout pregnancy and the first two years of life, while the association with depression weakened and was no longer statistically significant.

Further, MRI analysis found differences across rationing groups in 80 of 139 gray matter regions. Analysis identified 11 regions that differed from participants conceived immediately after rationing ended, including the brainstem, occipital fusiform gyrus and several cerebellar regions.

Sugar And Cancer Risk

A separate study published in PNAS examined whether sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days could influence cancer risk later in life.

Researchers from China Agricultural University and the University of Cambridge used the abrupt end of UK sugar rationing in September 1953 as a natural experiment. The analysis included 64,761 UK Biobank participants born between 1951 and 1956.

Compared with those whose first 1,000 days were not affected by rationing, participants exposed to rationing showed lower incidence of several cancers:

• Liver/intrahepatic bile duct cancer: 69% lower
• Prostate cancer: 52% lower
• Lung cancer: 41% lower
• Rectal cancer: 40% lower
• Breast cancer: 36% lower

The researchers identified two possible pathways behind the association.

How Could Early Sugar Exposure Matter?

• Long-term dietary habits: People exposed to rationing consumed less sugar, ate smaller quantities and had healthier, more diverse diets even five decades later, suggesting that early-life exposure may influence lasting food preferences.

• Biological ageing: The rationed groups had longer leukocyte telomeres, equivalent to about 2.2 fewer years of biological ageing, along with lower levels of Granzyme B, a marker linked to chronic immune activation.

Sugar's Link With Mental Health And Cancer

Sugar is an important source of energy for the brain, and very low blood glucose can impair brain function. However, excess sugar intake has also been associated with metabolic problems that can affect long-term health.

When it comes to cancer, sugar does not directly cause cancer, and cutting out all sugar does not “starve” cancer cells. Both healthy and cancer cells use glucose for energy.

However, consistently consuming excessive amounts of added sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity, which are established risk factors for several cancers.

Men who consume higher amounts of dietary nitrite may have a greater risk of colorectal cancer, particularly the type affecting the distal colon, according to a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study followed 82,009 middle-aged and older adults in Sweden for more than two decades and identified 3,170 cases of colorectal cancer.

Researchers found that men in the highest category of nitrite intake had a 23% higher risk of colorectal cancer overall compared with those in the lowest category. The strongest association was for for distal colon cancer, where the risk was 50% higher.

The findings were not seen in women, and dietary nitrate was not associated with colorectal cancer in either men or women.

More About The Study

Researchers from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden used dietary information collected in 1997 and updated in 2009 and 2019. They linked this information with Sweden's cancer registry to identify colorectal cancer cases through 2022.

Rather than relying only on participants' diet at the beginning of the study, researchers used repeated measurements to capture changes in nitrite and nitrate intake over time. Among men, the highest versus lowest levels of nitrite consumption were associated with a hazard ratio of 1.23 for colorectal cancer. For distal colon cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 1.50.

Also read: How Genetic and Genomic Testing Can Help Women Make Smarter Cancer Decisions

Difference Between Nitrite And Nitrate

Nitrite and nitrate are related compounds, but they are found in different foods and behave differently in the body. Nitrate occurs naturally in vegetables, particularly leafy greens, as well as drinking water. Nitrite is also naturally present in some foods but is commonly used as a preservative in processed meat and other animal products.

The researchers found no association between dietary nitrate and colorectal cancer, making the distinction particularly important.

Also read: Moderna-Merck’s Personalized mRNA Vaccine: Ushering In A New Era In Cancer Care?

Why Nitrite Could Be A Concern For Cancer Risk?

A possible explanation involves N-nitroso compounds, which can form when nitrate and nitrite undergo chemical reactions in the body. Some N-nitroso compounds are known to be carcinogenic in animals.

The researchers saw that previous studies have also investigated possible links between nitrite exposure and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. However, the exact biological mechanism behind the association observed in this study remains uncertain.

The researchers also found that the association was specific to men, and they said the reason for this difference is unclear.

Sex Difference Needs More Investigation

The authors noted that the higher risk associated with nitrite intake was confined to men and suggested several possible biological explanations, including differences in oxidative stress and other sex-specific factors.

But they stressed that these mechanisms have not been established as the reason for the finding. The study concludes that further research should examine nitrite and colorectal cancer separately in men and women and.

The study was observational, meaning researchers identified an association between dietary nitrite intake and cancer risk but could not prove a direct cause and effect relationship.