Could your mattress be the source of your pain? For some people, the answer is Yes! Flora Zhao, writing in The Epoch Times, tells us many people with unexplained symptoms simply need to replace their mattress.

“A lot of people wake up in the morning, and they will have a stiff back or a sore back. That may be a sign that the mattress is getting older,” Bert Jacobson, regents professor of applied health and educational psychology at Oklahoma State University, told The Epoch Times.

Over the past two decades, Jacobson has led and participated in a series of studies on mattresses. He has identified a common phenomenon: When people switch to a new mattress, the symptoms that once troubled them often disappear. In his research, many individuals reported no longer experiencing stiffness and pain upon waking, feeling more refreshed, and having less psychological stress. He noted that people may not realize that all these discomforts are related to what they’re sleeping on.

“The average age of a mattress is around 10 years old,” Jacobson said. In one of his earlier studies, 59 healthy participants who used the same mattresses for an average of 9.5 years reported mild sleep-related pain and compromised sleep quality. After switching to a new medium-firm mattress for four weeks, they experienced a 48 percent reduction in back pain, a 55 percent improvement in sleep quality, and an approximately 20 percent decrease in stress.

Another study involved participants whose mattresses had been in use for 11.3 years. They exhibited significant health improvements after switching to new mattresses. Their physical stress scores dropped from 2.57 to 1.73, their psychological stress decreased from 1.70 to 1.37, and they slept longer.

As an orthopedist, I have often recommended a new mattress for patients with low back pain. As a general rule, “Firmer is better.” Many people with low back pain will get better with a firmer mattress.

Recognizing that simply replacing a mattress can alleviate or eliminate pain and discomfort, Jacobson designed a study to examine the wear and tear of old mattresses, focusing on the most commonly used spring mattresses. He and his colleagues collected 32 old mattresses, the average age of which was nine years. By extracting and testing the weight-bearing springs from the center of the mattresses, as well as the non-weight-bearing springs from the head and foot, they found that although the mattresses appeared flat and the springs looked normal, the weight-bearing springs were weaker than the non-weight-bearing springs due to years of compression.

Specifically, when approximately 2.2 pounds of weight was applied to both types of springs, the weight-bearing springs were compressed by an average of 1.09 inches. In contrast, the non-weight-bearing springs were compressed by little more than half an inch, highlighting a significant difference.

Some people believe that their mattresses, despite years of use, are still in good condition, but this is just an illusion. Jacobson explained that non-weight-bearing areas of the mattress can appear visually flat, and since a bedspread always covers them, the mattress may even look relatively new. However, even a small amount of weight can cause significant deformation in the weight-bearing springs, potentially compromising their original structural support. This can result in poor sleep posture and a decline in sleep quality.

(Note: There are other threats within old mattresses besides pain. For more on these see Part II of this series.)

How reliable are the results of clinical trials of new drugs? That’s an important question and one that is getting the attention of researchers.

When a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, they must first put it through a clinical trial to prove its efficacy and safety. That means patients volunteer to be “guinea pigs” to find out if a new medicine will help them. Only after extensive clinical trials can a new drug be accurately evaluated. Clinical trials are required for FDA approval and form the basis of all new pharmaceutical developments.

But how reliable are these clinical trials and do they have an inherent bias? Huey Freeman, writing for The Epoch Times, tells us of some recent research that suggests there may be bias in some of these trials. He says, “Drug studies sponsored by drug manufacturers tend to report higher drug efficacy than studies not sponsored by drug companies, a report published in the Journal of Political Economy on Oct. 7 found. The report found a “sponsorship effect” that tends to bias sponsored studies toward reporting higher drug efficacies. The author could not find differences in study design between those funded by drug companies and those not.

“Removing the sponsorship effect would reduce the difference in efficacy … by about 50 [percent],” Tamar Oostrom, an assistant professor of economics at Ohio State University, said in her paper.”

“This effect was larger than I expected,” Oostrom told The Epoch Times over email. “My results suggest that sponsored arms of trials should be discounted substantially.” She said that the difference in results between sponsored and unsponsored trials may be that “manufacturers are running multiple trials and selectively publishing those that are more favorable towards their drug.”

Her research analyzed the published papers of 509 trials and 1,215 treatment arms (groups of participants). Most of the trials were published after the drug gained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. About three-quarters of those examined were for antidepressants, with the remaining quarter for antipsychotic medications. “My paper is the first to examine the effect of financial sponsorship on outcomes by directly comparing a large set of trials in which the exact same arms are tested with differing financial interests,” Oostrom wrote.

There is an obvious incentive for pharmaceutical companies to try to influence the results of clinical trials. Trials in which the manufacturer’s drug does well are more likely to be published. Publications are then used to market the drug to physicians who in turn are more likely to prescribe the new drug.

As an example of bias, Oostrom presented the case of Effexor, an antidepressant introduced by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 1993. Over the following 15 years, Wyeth funded 14 randomized controlled trials comparing Effexor’s effectiveness with that of its rival, Prozac. In 12 of these trials, funded solely by Wyeth, Effexor was found to be more effective.

However, when Effexor and Prozac were compared with alternative funding, only one out of three trials found Effexor to be more effective. “Each of these trials is a double-blind RCT comparing the exact same two molecules and examining the same standard outcomes,” Oostrom wrote in her paper.

This research only looked at psychiatric drugs but the results and conclusions may well apply to other clinical trials, too. More research is needed to see if this same bias is present in other clinical trials.

In Part I of this series, we learned that many people suffer from cell phone addiction or digital dependency. This addiction is enhanced by a neurotransmitter in the brain, dopamine, that reinforces this behavior by giving people temporary pleasurable feelings, much like gambling or heroin addiction.

In Part II we learned there are many different categories of this addiction including Social Media, Gaming, Information, Texting and Messaging, and Gambling. These can lead to adverse impacts on our lives such as Mental Health Disorders, Social Isolation, Relationship Strains, Productivity Decline, Sleep Disruption, and Fear of Missing Out.

Today we will discuss ways to fight back and overcome this addiction. Dr. Gregory Jantz, mental health specialist, tells us to use these strategies:

Set Time Limits

Many smartphones now offer built-in-screen time tracking features that allow users to monitor their usage and set time limits for specific apps. Set daily limits for social media, games, or entertainment apps, and adhere to them.

Create Phone-Free Zones

Designate certain areas, such as the dinner table, or times, such as during meetings or before bed, as “phone-free.” These boundaries can help reduce screen time and encourage more meaningful engagement with those around you. 

Turn Off Notification

One of the most effective ways to reduce phone usage is to turn off nonessential notifications. Constant pings and vibrations trigger compulsive behavior, making it hard to resist checking the phone.

Engage in Physical Activities

Replace mindless scrolling with activities that improve your physical and mental well-being. Exercise, sports, or outdoor hobbies can provide a break from screens while promoting a healthier lifestyle.

Schedule Times for a “Digital Detox”

Be intentional about taking periodic breaks from your phone. This could mean going a few hours each day without it or dedicating an entire day of the week to disconnecting from screens. Or schedule a weekend retreat, where you engage in real-world activities without technology.

Prioritize Face-to-Face Interactions

Make a conscious effort to engage more in person. Whether it’s scheduling time with family and friends or attending social events, these real-world interactions provide emotional fulfillment and help reduce reliance on virtual connections.

Reframe Your Mindset

Shift how you think about your phone. Instead of seeing it as a source of entertainment or constant connection, view it as a tool meant for specific purposes, such as communication and work. Reframing your relationship with your device can help reduce its appeal as a mindless escape.

I hope you have enjoyed this deep-dive into the science and reality of cell phone addiction or digital dependency. While most common in young people, it is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the adult population. As in all addictions, recognizing the problem is the first step toward overcoming the problem.