Is exercise beneficial for Neck & Shoulder pain?

I have never been that keen on the idea of eating genetically modified food.  I understand the economic argument about same amount of land would give you a greater yield and that the crops would be more robust and hence would need less pesticides.  But I have always had my concerns about if scientist truly understood all the implications of modify crops.  In Europe generally the idea of fooling with nature caused widespread protests. Genetically modified crops were more acceptable in North America and were introduced 20 years.  Well I can safely say that any fears I had about any adverse side effects or any other fears of GM crops being "Frankenstein" food that is harmful to humans were laid to rest a long time ago.  So I would say that GM crops are now more acceptable by the European general public, who here in the UK we probably eat GM crops that are imported from North America.  So on the "Frankenstein" criteria they have been very successful. But what about the economic arguments that were put forward 20 years ago.  Data from the united nations reveals that there is no discernible advantage in yields between North America and Europe that didn't introduce GM crops.  Since GM crops like corn, cotton and soyabeans were introduced into North America the use of toxic chemicals to kill insects and fungi has fallen by 33% but the spraying of herbicides has increased by 21%.  In France, the use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by 65% and herbicide spraying as fallen by 36%. This suggests that GM crops aren't as robust as originally envisaged by scientist and they don't produce more abundant harvests either.  So western europe didn't loose out by not introducing GM crops. Where GM crops do seem to have made a difference according to Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany, is significant yield gains from insect-resistant varieties  of crops in the developing world, particularly in India. References Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and Prospects report see >> https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=23395

As a massage therapist you would expect me to be a big advocate of touch therapies.  We often think of the benefits of touch therapies like massage in [...]

Sitting all day is a current health concern.   While I know that sitting all day has been described as "the new smoking" until now this made me uncomfortable - as its not the same.  You can get help to quit smoking.  If you work in an office you are expected to sit and standing desks are rare, so you have no choice but to sit down.  While I am aware that smoking is an addiction, I think it is still more within the individual's control than sitting if you work in an office. I am an optimistic person by nature, so I don't want to be the voice of doom for my readers about sitting.  So I was very interested in some recent research which demonstrates how to limit the impact of sitting. Spending much of the day sitting around increases the risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and ultimately, death - with 50,000 people anually in the UK dying as a result, say researches from Queen's University in Belfast.    Around 30% of adults spend at least six hours a day during the week sitting and this rises to 37% at weekends.  Roughly one-thrid of people who are sedentary will have at least two major health conditions, such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes.  Researchers from the American Cancer Society estimate that just 30 minutes of some physical activity would halve the death rates from chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. So 30 minutes of physical activity per day (like walking) is what researchers currently think is required to combat sitting all day. References Journal Epidemiol Community Health. 2019 Jul;73(7):625-629. doi:10.1136/jech-2018-211758 Americal Journal of Preventive Medicine, Mortality Risk Reductions for Replacing Sedentary Time with Physical Activities, Rees-Punia, Erika et al.  Volume 56, Issue 5, 736-741