Happiness can be tricky to hold onto, especially on days when our mental health takes a hit. While popular strategies like journaling and meditation can offer great benefits, they often feel daunting or hard to maintain consistently.
TikToker Jacey Adler (@jaceyadler) found herself looking for a simpler, yet impactful practice. She discovered what she calls her “happiness list,” a straightforward method of noting anything that sparks joy throughout her day. Adler shared her simple routine on TikTok, sparking enthusiasm from her followers who say it’s noticeably improved their daily mental well-being.
Adler’s journey to creating her happiness list began out of necessity. “I started my happiness list in July 2023 after experiencing a rough period with my mental health,” Adler explained to Newsweek. “I had been struggling with depression for a couple of months and really felt like I had no energy to do my normal practices like journaling or meditation.”
A woman on a beach enjoys a sunset Canva
She emphasizes the simplicity of this practice in her video, stating, “Doing this one small thing every single day absolutely changed the game for my mental health. I’ve tried so many things to improve my mental health, and this is so easy and actually changes the way I feel on a day-to-day basis.”
Rather than writing on paper, Adler uses her phone’s Notes app. “I created this Notes app in my phone and separated it by month, and every time something makes me happy—even the smallest little thing like I walk into a store and my favorite song is playing—I put it on this list,” she shares. “It can be anything, small or big. I really just feel like it rewires your brain to just focus and tune yourself to the little things that are going on.”
A woman uses her cell phone on the sidewalk Canva
She stresses that joy often lies in small moments rather than major life events. “We are so wired to just focus on these big moments to give us happiness, and often it’s just not sustainable—and not really how you feel joy on a day-to-day basis,” Adler explains. “Doing this has made me so aware of all the little moments in my day that are there to give me happiness and to make me feel alive and good.”
Adler also highlights the ease of the method: “You can do it anywhere—it is so, so easy. I just love being able to look back at all the moments that make me happy. It’s such a good reminder when I’m in a funk.”
A smiling woman looks at her phone Canva
The positive impact of her video resonated deeply with viewers, many of whom shared their gratitude in the comments. “This is absolutely life changing. Thank you so much,” one follower commented. Another wrote, “Thank you :,) I’m going through a breakup and have been trying to be really intentional with my mental journey out of it, and this is perfect. ” One more person shared their own experience: “I’ve been doing this for years. Recently read all my fav memories to my husband and we cried and giggled together at the beauty of life .”
This article was originally published earlier this year.
Most people know only two things about the appendix: You don’t need it – and if it bursts, you need surgery fast.
That basic story traces back at least to Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who developed the theory of natural selection. In “The Descent of Man,” he described the appendix as a vestige: a leftover from plant-eating ancestors with larger digestive organs. For more than a century, that interpretation shaped both textbook and casual medical wisdom.
But the evolutionary story of the appendix turns out to be much more complicated.
Along with our colleague Helene M. Hartman, a student preparing for a career in health care, we combined our expertise in behavioral ecology, biology and history to review the scientific literature on the appendix, expecting a simple answer.
Instead, we found an organ that evolution kept reinventing, more interesting than most people imagine.
How did the appendix evolve?
The appendix is a small pouch branching off the first section of the large intestine. Its shape and structure vary widely across species – a clue that evolution may have tinkered with it more than once.
Some species, including certain primates such as humans and great apes, have a long, cylindrical appendix. In others, including several marsupials such as wombats and koalas, the appendix appears shorter or more funnel-shaped. Still others, including some rodents and rabbits, have differently proportioned or branching structures. This structural diversity suggests that evolution has modified the organ under different ecological conditions.
That suspicion is supported by evolutionary analyses. Comparative studies show that an appendix-like structure evolved independently in at least three distinct lineages of mammals – marsupials, primates and glires, a group that includes rodents and rabbits. A broader evolutionary survey found that the appendix evolved separately at least 32 times across 361 mammalian species.
When a trait evolves repeatedly and independently, biologists call this convergent evolution. Convergence does not mean a structure is indispensable. But it does suggest that, under certain environmental conditions, having that structure provided a consistent enough advantage for evolution to favor it again and again.
In other words, the appendix is unlikely to be a useless evolutionary accident.
What does the appendix do?
The appendix supports the immune system. It contains gut-associated lymphoid tissue – immune cells embedded in the intestinal wall that help monitor microbial activity in the gut. In early life, this tissue exposes developing immune cells to intestinal microbes, helping the body learn to distinguish between harmless symbionts and harmful pathogens.
The appendix is particularly rich in structures called lymphoid follicles during childhood and adolescence, when the immune system is still maturing. These immune components participate in mucosal immunity, which helps regulate microbial populations along the intestinal lining and other mucosal surfaces. Lymphoid follicles produce antibodies, such as immunoglobulin A, to neutralize pathogens.
These hypotheses motivated a question our team explored: If the appendix helps preserve microbial stability, could removing it subtly affect reproductive fitness?
Older clinical concerns suggested that appendicitis or appendectomy might impair fertility by causing inflammation and scarring – known as tubal adhesions – in the fallopian tubes. Such scarring could physically obstruct the egg’s passage to the uterus. But several large studies have since found no decrease in fertility after appendectomy – in some cases, researchers found a small increase in pregnancy rates.
The appendix appears to have multiple functions, including immune and microbial ones. Affecting fertility, however, does not seem to be one of them.
Evolutionary importance and modern life
While the appendix has an interesting past, with evolution continually reinventing it, its modern importance is modest at best. Darwin underestimated the organ’s history, but his instinct wasn’t far off in the medical present: Some parts of human biology mattered more in the environments people evolved in than in the lives they lead today.
Early humans lived in environments with little sanitation and strong social contact – perfect conditions for outbreaks of pathogens that cause diarrhea. An appendix that quickly restored the microbiome after infection could significantly improve survival. But over the past century, clean water, improved sanitation and antibiotics have sharply reduced deaths from diarrheal diseases in high-income countries.
As a result, the evolutionary pressures that once favored the appendix have largely disappeared. Meanwhile, the medical risks of keeping the appendix – most notably appendicitis – remain. Modern surgery typically treats an infected appendix by removing it. A structure that was once a global evolutionary advantage is now more of a medical liability.
This mismatch between past adaptations and present environments illustrates a core principle in evolutionary medicine: Evolution optimizes for survival and reproduction in ancestral environments, not for health, comfort or longevity in modern ones.
Evolution operates at the level of populations over generations, favoring traits that increase average reproductive success, even if those traits sometimes harm individuals. Medicine works the other way around – helping individuals thrive in the present world rather than survive the past one.
The appendix is not an IKEA spare part included “just in case,” but neither is it essential today. Human biology has many traits that were once beneficial, now marginal – and understanding them allows medicine to make better modern decisions.
Some doctors now believe you should be spending even LESS time in the shower than previously thought. Admittedly, I was already shocked when I found out a while back that the average shower should take only eight minutes. But upon reflection, it made sense. While hot showers can feel relaxing, we obviously need to be conscious of our resources, no matter where we live in the world.
But a recent piece by Pang-Chieh Ho called “You Could Be Showering Too Long,” published in Consumer Reports, claims that showers should really only be around five minutes, seven at the most. Just shaving off a couple of minutes can help tremendously with conservation. “For people in the U.S., the average shower lasts about 8 minutes, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s 20 gallons for every average shower, given that the standard showerhead uses around 2.5 gallons of water per minute.”
Experts say your shower might be too long
A woman washing her hair in the shower. Photo credit: Canva
And it’s not just because of the environment. Our skin can dry out more quickly than some might think. Dermatologist Lisa Akintilo, MD, is cited as saying, “It’s true that long, hot showers may feel restorative, but they can dry and irritate the skin.”
An article in Time magazine, “How Much Do You Actually Need to Shower?” by Angela Haupt, reveals that some doctors say you can skip even the five-minute daily shower, though they admit, “there’s no one-size-fits-all equation.” Dermatologist at NYU Langone Health, Dr. Mary Stevenson, suggested, “Ideally, I think people should shower at least every other day. Most people, by day two or day three, are not clean. But it’s a little bit personal.” She later added, “In general, you really only need soap in your armpits, your groin, and your feet.”
“You probably don’t need to be in the shower as long as you are. You’re no cleaner—it’s just for your psychological health or for your routine.”
– Philadelphia dermatologist Dr. Jules Lipoff
Some people on Reddit disagree. In a thread called “On average, how long do you take to shower?” many admitted that long showers are a guilty pleasure. A few people answered 45 minutes to an hour. One even claimed they showered for “light years,” though someone quickly pointed out that “light year” was a measurement of distance, not time.
One noted that there are variables in play. “Depends on how many shower beers.”
Another measures the length of time in music. “Two Spotify songs,” they insisted.
People online still love their long showers
A bearded man singing in his shower with a microphone. Photo credit: Canva
One Reddit user got vulnerable about the mental benefits of a hot shower. “The mean and the median probably differ quite a lot for me. The vast majority of my showers do not exceed 20 minutes, but I’ve had some depression showers or anxiety showers or whatever you wanna call them where I stayed in for over an hour.” Another commenter put it less delicately: “Until I can no longer feel the pain of life.”
And lastly, this person didn’t mince words but mentioned the temperature variable. “If it’s a hot shower, no less than 30 minutes. If it’s a cold shower, I scrubba dubba the F out of there in less than three.”
This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.
Photo credit: zoranm/E+ via Getty Images – Studies have found small amounts of toxic heavy metals and other potentially harmful substances in some menstrual pads and tampons.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that many personal care products, including shampoo, lotion, nail polish and menstrual products, contain hazardous chemicals. Items used in or near the vagina are of particular concern because they are in contact with vaginal mucous membranes – the moist tissue lining the inside of the vagina that secretes mucus. These tissues can absorb some chemicals very efficiently.
People use menstrual products 24 hours a day for multiple days monthly, over the course of many years. Tampons, which are used internally, are surrounded by the permeable vaginal mucous membrane for up to eight hours at a time.
I am an environmental epidemiologist, and I study chemical exposure, its sources and its health effects. As a person who menstruates, I also must make my own decisions around menstrual products and manage the challenge of finding accurate information about women’s health risks, which receive less research attentionand funding than men’s health.
In 2024, I co-authored the first paper that detected metals in tampons, including toxic metals like lead and arsenic. My colleagues and I also wrote a review paper that surveyed the scientific literature and found about two dozen studies measuring chemicals in menstrual products.
The various chemicals that these studies detected were typically at concentrations low enough to make their health impact unclear. However, they included chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system, which makes and controls hormones that are essential for bodies to function.
How contaminants get into menstrual products
The first modern tampon in the U.S. was patented in 1931. Nearly a century later, tampons still are made primarily from cotton, rayon or a blend of the two.
Research suggests that these chemicals are present in a large proportion of menstrual products – we found lead present in all 30 tampons we tested. What we don’t yet know is if these chemicals can get into people’s bodies in a high enough concentration to cause health effects in either the reproductive system or elsewhere in the body.
Limited federal regulations
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates tampons, menstrual cups and scented menstrual pads as Class II medical devices, which carry moderate to medium risk. Unscented menstrual pads are Class I medical devices, which are considered low-risk. These categories are based on the risk the device may present to a consumer who uses it in the intended way.
FDA guidance for Class II devices offers only a few general guidelines with respect to chemicals. For menstrual tampons and pads, it recommends – but does not require – that products should not contain two specific dioxin products or “any pesticide and herbicide residues.” Dioxins are a chemical by-product of the bleaching process to whiten cotton, and they are associated with cancer and endocrine disruption. Using non-chlorine bleaching methods can reduce dioxin formation.
The most stringent regulation of tampons in the U.S. occurred after an illness called toxic shock syndrome became a public concern in the 1970s and 1980s. Menstrual toxic shock syndrome occurs when the bacteria Staphlococcus aureus grows in the vagina on inserted menstrual products and releases a toxin called TSST-1. This substance can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa and cause a variety of symptoms, including fever, high blood pressure, shock and even death.
During this epidemic, in which at least 52 cases were recorded and seven people died over a period of eight months, tampons were associated with the syndrome – especially a highly absorbent tampon called Rely, which was pulled from the market.
In response, the FDA created a task force that recommended standardizing the tampon absorbencies and advised consumers to use the lowest absorbency for their flow. This is why tampons in the U.S. now come in a range of absorbencies, from light through regular to super and ultra, so that users can choose the level they need while minimizing risk of toxic shock.
Living in a ‘soup of chemicals’
Just because a chemical is present in a menstrual product doesn’t mean it can get into the body. However, chemicals like lead and arsenic are known threats to human health. So it’s important to study whether harmful chemicals present in menstrual products could contribute to health problems.
Nonetheless, science has shown that chemical exposure from at least one menstrual product – vaginal douches – does affect health. Vaginal douching is the process of washing or cleaning the inside of the vagina with water or other fluids.
Scientists are working now to determine what concentrations of metals and other chemicals can leach out of tampons and other menstrual products. One 2025 study estimated that volatile organic compounds, a group of chemicals that vaporize quickly, can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa. Volatile organic compounds may be added to menstrual products as part of fragrances, adhesives or other product components.
My team and I are now shifting our focus to the relationship between menstrual product use, various chemicals, and menstrual pain and bleeding severity. We want to see whether some chemicals will be elevated in menstrual blood, whether these chemical levels are higher in people who use tampons, and whether the chemicals are associated with greater menstrual pain and bleeding.
California also enacted a law in October 2025 that requires manufacturers of disposable tampons and pads to measure concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc in their products, and to share those measurements with the state, which can publish them. More information like this will help support informed choices for millions of consumers who rely on menstrual products every month.
