Episode 2 Health: Truth or Scare

Every day, we're bombarded with conflicting messages

about how to live a healthy, happy life.

One minute, we're told something's the right thing to do.

The next, it's the complete opposite,

and we're left without a clue which advice to follow.

So we've been wading through the confusion to separate the

scare stories from the truth

to help you work out what's best for you.

Hello and welcome to Health: Truth Or Scare,

the series that asks whether or not the dramatic headlines and

shocking stories that we read about every day are really giving us

the whole picture when it comes to what is really good or bad for us.

Yeah, and today we'll be getting to grips with reports that

suggest the technology millions of us use every day and

might be hard pushed to live without could actually be doing

irreparable damage to our senses.

So whether it's our gadgets, our sedentary lifestyles,

or even our desk jobs,

it really does seem that some aspects of 21st century life

may not represent progress in quite the way that we had all hoped.

And actually, it could even be doing us harm, so by the end of

today's programme,

we do rather hope that you're going to have a much better idea of which,

indeed if any, of those stories you need to pay a bit more attention to.

Coming up, is modern technology making us blind and deaf?

We hit the streets to find out.

Oh, my goodness!

-That's bad.

-And when it comes to washing your hands,

should we dig the dirt rather than blitz that bacteria?

How can my hands possibly be dirtier after I wash them?

Now, Kevin, I know you're a fair bit younger than me, but when you were a

little lad, did your mum used to say to you, "Now, Kevin, don't you get

"too close to that television screen,

"cos you'll ruin your eyesight."

She did, Angela. All the time.

I've got to be honest, though, I didn't listen to her.

I don't think any of us did.

But I say the same things to my kids as well and they don't listen

to me, but they get so much closer to their smartphones and

tablets than I ever did to my mum's old telly.

And that's exactly the problem that some of these headlines are

suggesting we are now facing.

"How modern life could be harming our health," says this one.

And they're worried not just about what damage we might be doing

to our eyes by looking at all these electronic devices, but just as

importantly, what damage we might be doing to our ears because we're

listening to everything on headphones, and actually

they're talking about the possibility of lots of people

going prematurely deaf.

But hang on, before any of you throw away your tablets,

your smartphones, or even your headphones, let's find out for sure

whether or not our gadgets really are playing havoc with our senses.

Over the past few decades,

Britain has slowly turned into a nation of headphone addicts.

Walk down a busy city street today and you might find the

people not wearing headphones are in the minority.

I must admit, I do use headphones, and that's

so that I can listen to or watch things that I've downloaded on the

tablet, usually before I'm about to make a trip on a train or a plane.

But I do always try to ensure that the volume is low enough

so that I'm not annoying everybody else who's around me.

Because when I hear other people with sound coming out of their

headphones, I must admit, I do worry what that is doing to their hearing.

There have been plenty of reports claiming those headphones are

causing a rise in the number of cases of the condition tinnitus,

which causes a ringing in the ears.

And one study even predicted that

Britain is facing an epidemic of deafness.

But how accurate are these reports?

And how aware are we all of the dangers of our listening habits?

You've got earphones in. Can you hear what I'm saying to you?

-Barely.

-Do you want to take them out?

-Yeah.

What level do you have the sound at?

Middle, cause my older brother's a doctor and he's got tinnitus,

so he's warmed me about this sort of thing already.

-So you're aware of the damage that noise can do to your ears.

-Yes.

How much time in the day do you reckon you listen on your

-headphones?

-A good three or four hours a day.

Are you aware of how high the level is?

It's actually got a warning and I always push it above the warning.

-Why?

-I've got a few years left in

me yet before I have to worry about my hearing.

I'm a musician so I try to look after my ears, so I keep it down.

-Are you worried about going deaf?

-Yeah, of course I am.

Yeah, I'm really conscious of that. Music is my first love.

I would be lost without music.

So is this love of listening to music putting our hearing at risk?

Chris Plack is a professor of audiology

at the University of Manchester

who's studied the impact of noise exposure on our ears.

I think one of the main problems these days is people

listening to loud music on their MP3 players using their earphones.

A lot of them use what I use,

which are those... What I call the little buds that go in the ear.

So if they're in a noisy environment,

then they'll tend to crank these things up to quite dangerous levels

so that they drown out all external sound.

What is the damage that we are actually doing to our hearing?

I think one of the main causes of sort of conventional hearing loss,

that you can measure in a clinic, is damage to the sensitive hair

cells in the inner ear.

The damage will build up and you get this sort of permanent loss

-in function.

-Is it reversible? Is there anything you can do?

At the moment, I'm afraid there's nothing you can do.

Hearing loss affects a staggering 11 million people in the UK,

and although the majority of those cases aren't caused by listening

to loud music, many stories are still predicting widespread hearing

damage among young people.

I think young people tend to expose themselves to more loud noise

-than older people.

-So they'll go deaf earlier?

It's possible that this generation are going to experience

hearing problems at an earlier age than the previous generation.

So to find out just how loud people listen to their music,

we've headed to a noisy city centre with Professor Plack, his colleague

Keith, and this guy, Kemar, who's used for hearing and sound research.

We'll be testing whether the younger generation are

cranking up their headphones to ear-damaging levels.

And first up is 21-year-old student Mubina,

who reckons she spends about half her day listening on earphones.

Do you turn the levels up to try

and get rid of the sound that's around you?

Yeah. If it's blasting... I don't know. I like it more.

Crucially, all personal music players and mobile phones

sold in the EU since 2013 must now display a warning when

a sound limit of 85 decibels exceeded, but many users,

like Mubina, often override this level.

How high have you got that up?

-Like, up to here.

-It's up to the red?

-Yeah.

That's really quite loud.

Yeah. I just got kind of used to it.

Time for Kemar to test Mubina's levels.

Play the music. Let's see what we get up to.

OK, so we're getting levels here of about sort of 80, 83 DBs.

Not too bad. It's not too bad.

I wouldn't recommend listening to it at that level all day.

It might, you know, be causing some minor damage.

This level is about the equivalent of standing 15 metres from

a moving freight train, so Mubina needs to limit the volume and

amount of time she uses her headphones.

Fellow student Shannon has also volunteered to be tested.

She reckons she spends about two hours a day on her headphones.

Oh, my goodness!

-That's bad.

-Oh, no.

-That is very loud.

So we're getting readings of sort of 95 DBs,

so that's 10 DB more than would be considered safe.

This is the equivalent of Shannon listening to a power mower,

and according to official advice, this could cause permanent damage.

Our next participant, Christian, is rarely without his headphones

and loves his music on maximum.

I go to a lot of concerts, so I've had occasions where one ear

has just gone completely deaf for a couple of days.

And there's further cause for concern when Chris tests

Christian's usual listening level.

It was showing readings there of about 95.

Saw one there of over 100 DB.

That's really very loud indeed, so you wouldn't need to listen

to that for very long to start causing damage to your hearing.

-He's admitted there are days when you go deaf.

-Yeah.

-Oh, my goodness.

Do you have any problems with hearing people speak in

-a noisy environment?

-Yeah, a lot of the time.

So I think you'd have to go to an audiologist to get your

hearing checked if you're worried about it.

Christian, how much of a shock was that reading that you are way

-over the top for dangerous sound levels?

-It was quite a shock.

I knew I was listening to it way over probably what I should be,

but I didn't realise it was probably significantly damaging my ears.

That's not something I want to happen.

But, if like Christian, you go to a lot of concerts,

then headphones aren't the only way you can damage your ears.

If you've ever experienced ringing in your ears after

a concert or event,

then you'll know it doesn't usually last for more than a day or

so, but even so, being exposed to loud sounds can damage your hearing.

And for anyone who does that frequently over a long period,

it could pose a serious and

irreparable damage risk to their hearing.

The music young people listen to at festivals,

gigs and clubs has helped spark reports predicting that they

are going to be generation deaf,

but just how true is that?

I think it's a worrying trend that more young people are

reporting hearing problems,

and I think one of the issues is that these hearing problems

often don't get picked up, so we're looking for ways in which we

might be able to detect the early signs of noise damage.

So Professor Plack has already showed us how loud people have their

headphones, but now he and his colleague Hannah are going to

carry out tests to see whether three volunteers who love live music

have any hearing loss at high frequencies,

the frequencies that disappear first when you start to lose your hearing.

First to be tested is Kieran,

a 31-year-old electric guitarist in a band and regular gig goer.

OK, so if you want to take a seat in the booth and we'll get you set up

for the hearing test.

I've especially noticed I've lost the left-hand side of me,

which is the side that is next to the speakers.

Some of the beeps will be quite easy to hear and some will be very,

very quiet indeed.

Every time you hear one, press the button.

If Kieran fails to hear the high frequency tones,

it could be a sign of hearing damage.

It looks like for this very highest frequency, Kieran's hearing

does drop off, but it's still just about within the normal range.

He doesn't seem to be quite as good in the left ear.

Kieran's results for that left ear could be the first

indicators of potential future hearing loss.

Next up is loud metal lover Christian from earlier.

He's already experienced hearing problems after regularly

listening to loud music for long periods of time.

So his performance starts to drop a little bit at the very

highest frequency,

but it's still well within the normal range.

Yeah, I mean, I think at the moment, he's actually doing slightly

better than you would normally expect someone of his age.

Professor Plack and Hannah are surprised by Christian's results.

He's someone who does subject his ears to an awful lot of

high-level noise and so we would expect to see some kind of

damage showing up, but not so in his case.

I mean, different individuals have different susceptibility to

noise damage so it could be that Christian has quite tough ears.

All done, so I'll just pop those headphones off you.

So Christian is lucky, but he needs to turn it down.

Next into the booth is professional DJ Paulette,

who spent 30 years DJing in noisy clubs.

When I'm DJing, I will start at eight o'clock and finish at

two in the morning and that will be right through.

And her tests show that years of DJing have definitely had an

effect on her hearing.

Left ear, there's a little bit of hearing loss.

We understand that Paulette has a monitor on that side in her work,

so she's exposed to more noise.

But it's her right ear that gives the biggest surprise of the day.

So we've just tested the very highest frequencies in the

right ear on Paulette and she can't hear any of them at all,

no matter how loud we make them.

So her hearing for the very highest frequencies has really dropped down.

So that might be indicative that she's been listening to loud

-music for a large portion of her life.

-Yeah.

At the moment, it's only sounds outside the everyday range of

hearing that Paulette can't detect.

But if she doesn't take precautions now,

and continues to listen to loud music, the damage could get

worse and affect her ability to hear everyday sounds.

The good news for you is that you haven't really done much

damage in the important range, so there's still time for you to

take precautions against noise exposure.

OK, so I do need to wear my ear plugs.

Yeah, I think professional ear plugs that you can get are very

good at reducing the levels of sounds,

but evenly across the different frequencies.

So Paulette doesn't have to hang up her headphones just yet,

and Chris and Hannah have another top tip for the rest of the group

to help prevent hearing damage.

One of the things that can help you hear your music clearly in a loud

environment is if you have sound isolating earphones that have

a sort of squidgy tip that lodge really firmly in your ear and

seal it closed and block out the background sounds,

or equally if you have headphones that surround your ears entirely.

It means that you can pop your volume down to

a really quite safe level and still be able to appreciate your

music in all environments.

And it's listening to music at a safe level that is key to

avoid the hearing problems we've been warned about.

As we've found out, there's a lot of people listening to music that's too

loud for too long, and the damaging effects of that can be irreversible.

So remember to look after your lugs.

I have to admit,

I was really quite relieved to read a bit of research that was

done recently by a germ specialist into what's known as the

five-second rule.

It's that rule that suggests that if you drop some food on the floor,

provided you pick it up and eat it within five seconds,

it's actually all right to eat. And apparently it's true.

Well, you know what?

I'm just thinking back now to when I was a child and maybe you can

relate to this as well - I'm sure we played the 20, 30, 40 second rule.

I think we all did!

I mean, the world's gone antibacterial mad, hasn't it?

There seems to be a gel, lotion or spray that can pretty much

kill every imaginable germ out there.

And, you know, when it comes to your hands,

the question is how often should we wash them, and in what?

Because there are headlines that suggest that it's our

obsession with keeping our hands clean that is actually doing

more harm than good, so we sent Steve Brown off to investigate.

Now, when I was growing up,

I thought a bar of soap and plenty of hot water always did the

trick when it came to washing our hands properly.

But these days, this old-fashioned method has become exactly that,

as we all splash out on antibacterial gels,

wipes and sprays.

Whether we're at home, in the office, or out and about,

we've been led to believe they're all we need to keep germs at bay.

I'm also really conscious about how dirty my hands get.

Hundreds of times a day, they touch my wheels and in turn my

wheels then touch the floor.

In autumn 2016, some antibacterial soaps were banned in America

amid claims they didn't work any better than soap and water,

and worse still, they might actually do more harm than good.

And the ban was followed by more stories saying we should

instead embrace a bit of dirt,

contrary to what we've long believed.

So to help me find out if we're unnecessarily obsessed with

bacteria, I've recruited an accomplice.

Katie's a mum to three-year-old Tabitha.

And while she's not a complete clean obsessive,

her home is always well-stocked with cleaning products.

I tend just to buy what's on offer in the supermarket or in the shops.

We use antibacterial soaps.

I've got a variety of different wipes

that I use on different surfaces.

Lots of them claim to kill 99.9% of bacteria so I think as a mum,

you think, "Oh, that must be good. That must be doing the job then."

But recently, Katie's become concerned that it might not

be money well spent.

It's just really difficult to know what to do for the best.

Do you make sure that they're immaculately clean and

everything they touch is immaculately clean all of the time,

or do you actually just be a bit more relaxed about it?

But the bacteria inside the house is just the tip of the iceberg.

Katie worries even more might be lurking outside.

Something she has in common with the

other parents at the local playgroup.

Generally, when I'm on the move, though, I'll always have, like,

a hand sanitiser in my handbag and I use that for myself and my daughter.

Because when you're out and about with a child,

they get messy all the time,

and it's not always in toilets and in restaurants.

It's not always as hygienic as you would like.

I always thought antibacterial soaps and gels would do the best

job at keeping my hands clean.

But there are suggestions that the opposite is true.

So are we placing too much faith in their antibacterial powers?

To find out, Katie and I are meeting clinical bacteriologist

Professor Peter Hawkey at the University of Birmingham.

-And come through to the laboratory.

-Thanks very much.

So my hands, Katie's hands, your hands,

they get dirty during the day.

Obviously, one of the issues I have is the second I wash my hands,

I'll clean them, dry them, put them straight on my wheels.

Today, they've been on two trains, through the high streets,

up through the lifts, through the bathrooms, and then I come in here.

The risk of you getting something very nasty from that exposure

is negligible.

However, if you're going to go and eat some sandwiches,

then you need to wash your hands.

Despite touching my wheels regularly,

the professor says that, just like everybody else, the bacteria I

pick up on my hands from my day to day environment are unlikely

to make me ill.

But when I do wash my hands, what should I use?

Well, the university is going to run a little experiment for us to

find out what's best out of antibacterial handwash,

soap and water, and alcohol-based sanitiser.

So we've got jelly in here,

which has got nutrients for the bacteria, so we put the four fingers

on there, lightly pressed, so we've just got an impression,

-and then put your thumb in the middle.

-Right, OK.

First, we're going to test the levels of bacteria on our

hands as they are now, having not washed them for a couple of hours.

Katie next.

-This way?

-Yeah, perfect, and thumb in the middle.

And now that's done,

we're going to wash them and test for bacteria once again.

Katie will be using antibacterial handwash to clean hers.

I'll be using good old soap and water, and Professor Hawkey,

an alcohol-based sanitiser gel.

Each of these work in a different way.

Soap and water washes the grime from your hands and hopefully the

bacteria too.

The antibacterial wash is similar,

but with an antibacterial agent to kill the bacteria on your hands.

And the alcohol-based sanitiser gel doesn't need any water and

also directly kills the bacteria.

We'll come back to get the results in a couple of days.

So with two days to fill, Katie's keen to get to the bottom of the

claims that washing our hands with antibacterial soap might

actually be bad for us.

Ian Henderson is professor of microbial biology at

Birmingham University, and he's concerned about the problems

caused by applying hospital levels of hygiene to our homes.

We know that with the over-use of antibiotics or the over-use

of certain antibacterials that bacteria can become

resistant to both the disinfectants as well as the antibiotics.

So although antibacterials might help us individually kill germs

around the house, when used on a mass scale,

they can, in some cases, promote antibody resistance

and increase the number of superbugs around.

And Ian thinks they might also play a role in children's allergies.

Those children that live in uber clean environments,

they don't get exposed just to environmental bacteria,

they tend to suffer more with allergy.

-READS:

-Why you should NOT wash your hands.

Less soap could be a good thing for your health.

You should not wash your hands? What?!

I'm being told I should wash my child's hands all the time.

It's these mixed messages that just cause all the confusion.

Crucially, Ian thinks our fear of bacteria is heightened

by stories that don't differentiate

between harmful and harmless bacteria.

The majority of microbial life is harmless.

You know, there are ten times more bacterial cells on and in your

body than there are human cells.

You're more germ than you are human.

There are germs all over your skin, what you might call germs -

microbes, fungi, bacteria, all over your skin.

But how many bacterial cells were on our hands?

Well, the samples are now ready and we are back with Professor Hawkey

to find out the results.

Right, what did we find?

So, Steve, let's start with you, and you had the plain soap.

Soap. Soap and water, I was.

So that is your hand. So in fact your hands weren't that dirty.

They're very typical, I would say.

So there's no need for me to worry about my hands and how often

they come into contact with my wheels,

but what the professor says next really takes me by surprise.

After washing, and again it is the same for both hands,

what is your observation there?

-There's more on there after washing.

-Exactly.

Yep, there is more after washing.

How can my hands possibly be dirtier after I wash them?

You produce, on your skin, something called sebum.

That's got some acids in it and other chemicals that

inhibit the bacteria on your skin.

When you wash your hands, you wash away that inhibitory substance.

Well, I never!

-So, my hands have really got their own antibacterial.

-Yep.

And that means that after washing them, I have washed away my

natural antibacteria and more bacteria has been able to grow.

Exactly.

-Wow.

-So you may say, "Why bother to wash your hands?"

If you have viruses and spores of that C diff hospital organism,

then they will be washed away.

I have to admit, I am blown away by what Professor Hawkey

has just told me. Time to see if Katie's results with the

antibacterial wash turn up any more surprises.

Your hands were a little bit more dirty than Steve's.

-Oh, no!

-Don't worry.

But that's... Nothing bad there, as you can see.

That's the other hand there.

That's dealing with a three-year-old for you.

Probably, yes. But what happened?

So, you might think, "Well, we spent all that money on those

-"antibacterial washes, they'll do some good."

-Yeah.

-Wow. So it looks like there is more there.

-Yes.

Although there is an antibacterial substance in here,

it gets washed away as you put it on.

It's really surprising because a lot of these products claim

to kill 99% of bacteria.

So nothing on there, then, is actually a dangerous bacteria,

-that's shown up on either of these plates?

-It shouldn't be, no.

They're very, very unlikely to be.

So Katie's antibacterial hand wash is actually no more effective

in killing general bacteria than the soap and water I used.

Time to see if the alcohol hand sanitizer fared any better at

the job.

-That's the result with the alcohol.

-That's completely different.

-It is.

So, virtually wiped out. There are some bacteria coming through.

The professor's hands had virtually

no bacteria left on them after cleaning with the sanitizer.

However, there is a downside.

The alcohol not only killed any potentially bad bacteria but

also the body's natural fatty acids that fight bacteria.

So the soaps, both the soaps, have still left some bacteria on

our hands, but you have got nothing at all, Professor.

What's the difference between the soaps and the gel?

Well, the soaps are physically removing bacteria and they're

removing these fatty acids, but the alcohol hand rub,

you have to remember, was designed for hospital use,

where they needed something to quickly kill the bacteria

on nurses' hands.

We don't need that in the home.

So, although you might be tempted to use the wash or alcohol gel

for normal domestic use, unless someone in the house

has a nasty bug you don't want to spread, it's really not necessary.

And this advice Katie intends to follow from now onwards.

I probably won't worry quite so much about some of the

antibacterial products that make all of these claims and I'll try

not to be quite so led by the TV adverts and the

headlines that scare you into taking action.

I was blown away by the results today.

Not only did I have more bacteria after I washed my hands,

but it also turns out,

soap and water is as good as pricier antibacterial washes and gels.

And more importantly, when we look at the effects

of bacteria-killing products being used in so many homes,

there is some truth to the reports it's causing more harm than good.

Still to come, are desk jobs damaging our health?

You are more at risk of cancer, diabetes,

of cardiovascular diseases.

But first... Earlier, I asked whether technology was damaging our

hearing, but there are claims that that is not the only harm our

devices might be causing. Our love of screens is in the frame, too.

Three generations of screen users from the same family -

84-year-old Great Aunt Dorothy,

42-year-old mum Gaynor and her son, Leo, aged five.

They might use their laptops, smartphones,

tablets and TVs for different reasons, but they all have

one thing in common - they're glued to them every day.

The tablet is my favourite because it has games that nothing else does.

The Black household is like many others, mine included.

Like millions of people, I own a smartphone and a tablet,

and I do spend quite a lot of every day looking at them.

When you add to that my laptop and my television at home, clearly I

spend many hours of every day looking at one screen or another.

And frankly, I'd be lost without any of them.

In fact, we spend on average a reported 5 1/2 hours

a day on our tablets and smartphones,

but read some stories and you'll see claims that our screen habits

are doing serious damage to our eyes and causing record

levels of slight loss in screen-addicted children,

who hardly venture out of the house.

But these warnings don't seem to bother some people.

How long during the day do you think you spend looking at a screen?

-About four hours.

-Probably about six.

I know that I am spending too much time in front of a screen.

It's just you can't avoid it these days.

Do you worry about any damage that the screen might be

doing to your eyes and your eyesight?

Not really. No.

-Stella has now got glasses and I need them too.

-Yes.

I've been diagnosed with migraine before.

The doctor, like, he told me that I have to reduce the time I spend

on my cellphone especially.

Clearly, lots of us worry about the effect of screens on our eyes,

so with the help of the Black family,

I'm going to find out whether our screen habits are actually

quite as bad for us as some reports seem to suggest.

Gaynor runs a children's party business from home and often

spends much of the day online.

I use the screen four to five hours a day, and that's mainly

because of my business. I'm constantly checking e-mails.

I have had that feeling when I have spent quite a few hours on

the laptop, where it's just almost like,

"Ugh, I just need to get away from the screen."

It does get too much.

-Do you want some juice, Leo?

-Yes, please.

After work, Gaynor switches screens, from her phone and laptop to

her tablet, but only if five-year-old Leo isn't using it.

He's very much sort of homed in.

We'll see that he doesn't want to speak anyone,

he is just absolutely focused on that screen, and that's it.

Great Aunt Dorothy doesn't have to worry about sharing her tablet

with anyone.

I have the iPad on in the evening.

I also have the TV on in the evening,

so it is kind of one eye on one, one eye and the other.

One exception is Gaynor's partner,

Barnaby, who actively tries to reduce his screen time

outside of work.

I use screens as probably half of the working day, so at least four

hours a day, so when I come home, I very rarely look at them at all.

Over the next week, we're going to track how long the whole

family spends on their screens, whether it is a laptop,

tablet, smartphone, TV or games console.

The question is, are their screen habits bad for their eyes?

To find out more, I've come to meet Daniel Hardiman-McCartney

from the College of Optometrists.

Daniel, what actually happens to our eyes when we are focusing on

a screen, be it a mobile phone, a tablet or a computer?

So our eyes are designed to focus far away. And what happens is

the muscles in the eyes change the shape of the lens in order to

focus on a screen close-up. When people do use a screen for

a long period of time,

they can get eyestrain and discomfort,

and that's relatively common.

In fact, between 50% and 90% of people experience some degree of

eyestrain, and that might be to do with the focusing.

We blink less effectively,

and that makes your eyes feel dry and sore.

We think, at the moment, that actually the difference

between the screen and a manuscript or a book

actually isn't that different.

Daniel says eyestrain is easily solved,

but there's been more serious reports saying screens

could be a major factor in short-sightedness in children.

I think we are all using screens a lot more,

and if we look at short-sightedness, in the 1960s,

only about 7% of children were short-sighted,

whereas recently, it's something like 16%.

So more people are becoming short-sighted.

But that has nothing to do with screens.

Well, maybe not directly.

Daniel says short-sightedness is on the rise because children

spend more time indoors,

often on their screens, and less time outdoors in the sunshine.

We know that being outside has a protective value,

so by spending two hours each day outside in sunlight doing

something, not using your screen,

is likely to reduce your risk of being short-sighted.

So it's the lack of sunlight rather than the screen time which is

causing short-sightedness.

But another worry is that the blue light emitted by screens may

cause blindness.

But Daniel says there is no cause for concern.

Scientists have been concerned that blue light might be harmful

because it has similar properties to UV light.

But actually, the evidence suggests that the blue light

emitted from screens is a lot less than that that you find in sunlight.

There is no evidence that there will be harm.

There is evidence that blue light can disrupt our sleep patterns,

but according to Daniel,

our only real worry about screens is eyestrain.

Bottom line then, looking at a screen does not damage our eyes,

-though it might strain them.

-Absolutely.

-And sunlight is good for our eyes.

-Correct.

Although, it is important to wear sunglasses when you're out

in sunlight, which is the UV.

So, there you have it from the expert.

Screens won't cause the epidemic of blindness that has been claimed.

However, they can strain your eyes.

-Hello.

-Hello.

Back in Salford,

It's time to catch up with the Black family to see how their

screen time over the past week may have had an effect.

Day one, the total was 140 minutes.

How about you, Leo, what have you been up to?

Playing on the iPad a lot.

I think today's probably been the most screen time,

just because I was going from one computer to laptop,

to tablet, back to laptop.

I think Gaynor would come out on top. The winner, if you like.

Or the loser, whichever way you look at it.

At the end of the week,

Daniel is paying them a visit to compare their screen time and help

them all deal with any strain they might be causing to their eyes.

Who do you think, Leo?

Who do you think has been using the screen the most?

-Me.

-OK. Let's have a look at the results.

-GAYNOR:

-I think it might be me.

-Yeah?

-I'm at the bottom. Definitely.

Well, we topped up all the results and actually it

was almost a joint first place with yourselves.

Me? Rubbish!

Much to everyone's surprise,

Dorothy's screen time added up to about 37.5 hours for the week.

That's three quarters of an hour more than Gaynor.

THEY LAUGH

What are you laughing at?

And Gaynor's attempts to limit how long five-year-old Leo spends

playing games on the tablet means he's clocked up just over 12 1/2

hours for the week.

The least... High-five, Leo.

While none of those screen habits are known to do long-term

damage, they could cause pain and irritation,

so Daniel had some advice.

The advice we give to everyone, that's useful, is the 20-20-20 rule,

so that's for every 20 minutes that you are looking at a screen,

you spend 20 seconds just away from it and looking at something

20 ft away, or just outside the window

or across the other side of the room.

When you're taking the break, screwing up your eyes

and having really big blinks can refresh your tears

and make them feel more comfortable.

There are different considerations for Dorothy.

As the oldest in the family,

her eyes will find it harder to react to changes in focus and

they will strain more easily,

so Daniel has got some dedicated tips for her, too.

Were you using the screen more or less than you thought?

-LAUGHS:

-More than I thought.

-More.

There is a temptation to make things really small on the screen, so try

and make the screen bigger, so it's really easy to see things,

and you can do that just by pinching out or changing the

option to make the text bigger, so it is easier to see.

So, while there is no epidemic of blindness on the horizon,

we shouldn't just take that as a reason to spend more time

staring at our screens.

Once again, spending more time outside rather than in the

house is what is best for our health.

Next, we read a lot about how our lifestyles are becoming

more sedentary and how bad that might be for our health.

But while that might conjure an image in your mind of someone who's

stuck on the sofa with a bag of crisps...

-I'll say!

-..in fact, the latest headlines suggest it's anyone

sitting at a desk that could be at risk.

I've been looking at some of those headlines, Kevin, and I tell you,

anyone who does have a desk job is in for a pretty rude awakening.

Sitting down makes you age by eight years, and in women it speeds

up the ageing process.

Do you know, Kevin, I think we should be standing up

doing this programme.

Well, just to get more of an understanding on this,

I went to find out whether or not

it's time we all stood up for our health.

Like millions of office workers around the country,

these colleagues in Brighton like to sit down an awful lot.

I'm chained to my desk normally nine to five.

Go home, sit on my sofa.

I don't stand a lot at all.

I'm really conscious of the fact that I sit at my desk a lot,

so I do think about it.

The only time I get up is for lunch or to go to the toilet.

The World Health Organisation has branded physical inactivity as

the fourth biggest killer in the world,

and sitting down is proven to be a contributing factor to

a wide range of conditions such as

heart disease, diabetes and cancer,

all information that has been very widely reported.

Over the years, I've been an actor, dancer, personal trainer, amongst

a few other things as well, but I've never really had a desk job.

Now, if I'm to believe all of those headlines,

then I should be feeling smug right now because I'll have

a body that is fitter, stronger, younger, healthier.

Professor John Buckley has spent four years looking into the activity

of office workers, and he thinks I am right to feel a bit smug.

Well, there has been quite a few large-scale studies in the

past ten years looking at a strong link between those people who have

jobs where they sit a lot and the incidence of things like

diabetes and heart problems and strokes and obesity.

People who spend more than six or seven hours

a day seated tend to start developing these problems.

John says around two thirds of the population spend more

than 60% of their day seated, which is asking for trouble.

How long is too long to sit down?

You shouldn't be sat for more than an hour.

If you could break it up throughout the day.

Opening the blood vessels, getting that glucose flowing

into the tissues on a frequent basis

seems to bring the levels of those unhealthy things

in the body down over the course of the day.

Because it also increases our heart rate,

standing up burns energy and gives you health benefits.

To find out just how much energy it burns,

John has fitted up our team with heart rate monitors to see the

changes between standing up and sitting down.

OK, Sophie, how much has yours gone up by? Is it going?

-Yeah, it's going up now.

-Going up?

-Is yours going up?

-Yeah, about five beats a minute.

-OK.

You're doubling your energy expenditure

compared to sitting down.

Now, that is 0.8 calories extra every minute, on average,

that you are doing that.

It doesn't seem much, but added up over a year and it comes to

the equivalent of about eight pounds of fat of energy.

John's challenging the team to reduce their sitting time

over the next two days, so he has given them all activity monitors.

On day one, the team will behave as normal.

But on day two, they'll attempt to increase their standing time.

Rather than use a big bottle of water, I could maybe use

a little glass and just keep making more trips to the water machine.

Rather than eating my lunch at my desk,

I might just get up and go for a walk for the hour.

I'm going to come back in a couple of days to see how much

activity you've been doing.

John has high hopes that the team can significantly reduce the

percentage of time they spend inactive.

And in this case, 70 is the magic number.

The data shows that we start to see problems occur when people

start to spend more than 70% of their waking hours seated.

What I am hoping to see, and I haven't primed them at all on this,

is whether they're sitting for less than 70% of their waking hours.

It's not just office workers that could do with paying attention

to how much time they spend on their backsides.

GP Aisha Shareef says her surgery is full of people whose

illnesses stem from a life spent sitting.

I see this problems of a sedentary lifestyle day in, day out.

The muscular support that you have, for example,

in your spine is not that strong, so you have a weaker back,

you're more prone to back injuries and back pain.

And you are also... Interestingly, you can be more risk of

things like constipation because you literally aren't moving those

bowels, so we see this a lot in the elderly population.

But some conditions can be more serious and even life-threatening.

You are more at risk of cancer, diabetes,

of course cardiovascular diseases like stroke, heart disease.

Aisha's advice is clear, that we all need to get moving if we want

to live a long and healthy life.

So my advice would be definitely try to get a more active lifestyle,

not through the big things,

but through the little things that we can incorporate day-to-day -

parking the car further from the entrance

to a shop, for example, taking those stairs instead of hitting the

elevator... Small things make a big difference.

Back in Brighton, it is day two of the experiment, and some of

the team are showing promise when it comes to increasing their activity.

Here we are, beautiful, sunny day and I'm going to go for a walk.

I'm just going to go on to the IT floor to speak to one of the IT

guys instead of e-mailing him.

Today, I've just been trying to keep coming up and down the stairs to

give messages to people and talk to people rather than using the phones.

I thought I would come over to use IT's standing desks to get off of my

desk for a while.

The next day, Professor Buckley returns to Brighton,

and the results are in for his tests.

-Welcome back.

-Hi, John.

-How did you find it?

-Yeah, it was good.

-Enjoyable.

So what we are going to do is we're going to look at the results.

The team were assessed for how much of both their working day and

their whole day they were sitting.

The more they can reduce their time toward the 70% target,

the more they will decrease their chances of developing some

cancers, heart disease and diabetes.

First up, it's the working day.

So, the average sitting time at work reduced from 430 minutes in

the day, which is about 85% of your working hours, down to about 364,

which is about 75% of your working hours.

That is good, you're getting towards that 70% target.

So there is still room for improvement whilst at work.

But across the whole waking day,

the team have broken below the magic 70.

You actually have become more healthy in terms of the

activity. On average 83%, as a team, you were spending sitting down.

I put a red line here, which is our target, and you're down to 64%.

So all of the team have done well across their whole day,

but they are still way off when it comes to work.

The experiment has been a wake-up call, though,

and they are now sold on the idea of standing more.

I'm going to make sure I stand up when I am on the phone.

Yeah. Steve?

I think I'll continue to go out at lunchtime and try and be on my

feet for the whole hour rather than eat my lunch sitting down.

Get away from the office for lunch. And maybe one day it

will become more habit rather than you having to consciously think

about it.

It seems many of those reports were right and we just don't have any

idea how sedentary our lifestyles are or the impact it could have

on our health, but simple lifestyle changes could help

us all get under that crucial 70%.

I think the overall general message is really never to be on your

backside for more than an hour at a time.

You know, Kevin, ever since I made that film about screens,

-and headphones in particular...

-Yeah.

..I have really been extra careful

with my own gadgets, but I have to admit,

every time I walk down the street and I see someone with

headphones on, I do worry about how loud their music is and what

damage they might be doing to their ears.

You know, working on this series has really opened my eyes, too.

No pun intended, by the way.

But it is at least good to know that not all the headlines about

how bad the latest technology is for our eyes are true and there are

ways to avoid really straining your eyes.

But don't worry, that means you can watch our programme as much as you

like, which is what exactly what I hope you will do

when we return next time.

-Until then, though, from both of us....

-Bye-bye.

-Bye-bye.