Is going to the toilet ‘just in case' good or bad for you?
Urologists call this practice 'convenience' or 'proactive' voiding, and people of all ages do it, often before heading out the door or going to sleep.
An occasional 'just in case' bathroom break won't do much harm, said Dr Ariana Smith, a professor of urology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. But doing it several times a day, she said, can increase the likelihood of bladder issues by disrupting the natural feedback loop between your bladder and your brain.
To understand why proactive voiding can be harmful, it helps to know how the bladder works. As your kidneys filter blood to remove waste, they produce urine, which is carried to your bladder. Women can typically hold up to 500ml (a little less than one pint) of urine in their bladders; men can store 700ml (1.2 pints).
READ MORE
We generally feel the urge to use the bathroom well before we hit that limit, when our bladder contains between 150ml and 250ml of liquid. As the bladder fills up, it sends nerve signals to the brain, letting us know it's time to go.
The experts we spoke to said that when you pee 'just in case', your bladder starts alerting your brain too early, before having the standard amount of urine. This disruption can reduce 'the volume your bladder can hold over time', said Siobhán Sutcliffe, an epidemiologist and professor of surgery at Washington University.
As a result, you might experience discomfort when you are in a situation in which you can't use the bathroom right away, Dr Smith said.
Urinating before the need arises also makes you more likely to strain. Doing so puts extra pressure on the pelvic floor muscles – a muscle group that supports the bladder and other organs – and can potentially weaken them, said Kathryn Burgio, a behavioural psychologist.
For these reasons, 'just in case' peeing may lead people to develop an overactive bladder, a condition marked by a strong and frequent urge to urinate, Dr Sutcliffe said.
Is it possible to break the habit?
The short answer is yes. Researchers have found that the brain has more control than we might think, or as Dr Alayne Markland, chief of geriatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, likes to tell her patients: 'Mind over bladder.'
If you want to reduce preventive bathroom breaks, try deep breathing, distraction or self-statements like 'I'm in control,' Dr Burgio said. A few small studies suggest that mindfulness techniques can reduce sudden, intense urges to pee. More research is needed, but experts believe that methods like these could help you retrain your bladder to send signals only when more liquid has accumulated.
If you're already experiencing conditions like an overactive bladder or urinary incontinence, however, there are other things you can try:
Work with a pelvic floor therapist.
There's a growing body of research to suggest that physical therapy for pelvic floor muscles can help people have more control over when they pee, Dr Sutcliffe said. By working with a physical therapist, patients can learn to engage and strengthen those muscles to control the bladder. 'We teach people to wait, take a deep breath and contract the pelvic floor muscles repeatedly,' Dr Burgio said. That will 'help calm the bladder, so the urge goes away'.
Monitor what you drink.
Experts emphasised that lifestyle modifications like fluid management can also help. Caffeine, alcohol, drinks with high acidity and even some artificial ingredients, such as sweeteners, can irritate the bladder's lining and cause more frequent urges. Cutting back on caffeine, Dr Smith said, 'is something we've universally seen as helpful', as doing so can decrease urges and leakage.
Get checked out for other health conditions
. Talk with a doctor about your overall health, as conditions like diabetes or sleep apnoea can cause more frequent urges. Other interventions, such as medication, might be options in cases like these.
The goal is to tame the 'vicious cycle between the brain and the bladder,' said Dr Smith, who is optimistic that, in most cases, the effects of 'just in case' peeing can be remedied. 'Healthy bladders are resilient,' she said.
– This article originally appeared in the
New York Times
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Almost a quarter of doctors in Ireland work more than European limit
The regulator for the medical profession in Ireland has raised concerns about patient safety and doctor wellbeing after new data found almost a quarter of doctors report working more than European limits. The Medical Council today publishes its 2024 annual workforce intelligence report, which found there were 20,962 clinically active doctors working in the State last year. According to the report, almost a quarter of doctors (23.1 per cent) self-reported working more than 48 hours on average per week, in contravention of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD). The EWTD seeks to safeguard the health and safety of workers by setting minimum standards for working hours and rest periods across the European Union. READ MORE The disciplines most likely to indicate working more than 48 hours a week were surgery (50.9 per cent) and obstetrics and gynaecology (34.9 per cent). Among doctors who reported working more than 48 hours per week, 45.6 per cent also reported working in direct patient care for more than 48 hours per week. The report said this 'raises concerns in relation to doctor wellbeing and patient safety, as excessive work hours are demonstrably associated with attrition, stress, burnout and are predictive of adverse event involvement'. For the first time, doctors were also asked about their views of patient care and safety. Just over one quarter (26.1 per cent) reported experiencing difficulty providing a patient with sufficient care at least once a week or more frequently, while slightly more than one-third (33.6 per cent) reported never experiencing difficulty. 'Pressure on workloads' was the most commonly cited barrier to providing sufficient patient care, with 73 per cent of doctors reporting this. It was followed by 'time spent on bureaucracy/administration', at 55.1 per cent, and 'delays to providing care, treatment and screening', at 46.1 per cent. According to an analysis of the medical register, the mean age of doctors was 43.7, with one in five aged 55 or older. The highest number of clinically active doctors was concentrated in disciplines of general practice (25.9 per cent) and medicine (23.4 per cent), followed by surgery (11.9 per cent). The report also highlighted a continued reliance on international doctors, who now account for 27.8 per cent of the workforce. The most common country of qualification for international graduates was Pakistan, accounting for 39.7 per cent of the international graduate cohort, followed by Sudan at 21.3 per cent. Last year, 1,632 doctors left the Medical Council's medical register. The majority of these were voluntary withdrawals. Of the doctors who voluntarily withdrew from the register, 58.8 per cent (603) said they wanted to practise medicine in another country, while a further 14.5 per cent (149) said they wished to stop practising medicine.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Assessment of need and the HSE
Sir, – The report that over a quarter of children undergoing the Assessment of Need process are found not to have a disability highlights a fundamental flaw in the naming of the process (' Quarter of children found not to have disability after assessment of need, HSE figures show ,' July 28th.) These applications reflect real needs for support by our health, social and education system, as evidenced by families' willingness to pursue this process, even if the children do not meet the legal criteria for disability. As a GP, I regularly see children wait years for vital services often resulting in further distress and worsening of their condition. Furthermore, that families must resort to a legal process instead of a health process to access diagnosis for the 75 per cent who are diagnosed with a disability is a stark indictment of our current system. – Yours, etc READ MORE DR JOE GALLAGHER, Gorey, Co Wexford.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Drugs like Ozempic aren't changing negative narratives around diet and weight
Friends keep asking me what I think about Ozempic . I know they're asking because I've written about food history, gender and eating disorders, but until recently I wasn't sure what I thought, wasn't sure that someone who has never had metabolic disease or lived in a body that attracted comment had any business having opinions about the drugs called GLP1 agonists. I support any development that undermines the idea that bodyweight has a moral aspect, or that individuals control the size of their bodies. We are shaped in every way by environment, society and genetics far more than by the small scope of personal choice within those determinants. Health is mostly determined by heredity and wealth. So if the new drugs stop people insisting that self-discipline and self-starvation are the answer to fatness, all to the good. [ Sarah Moss: 'I'm a classic first child. A driven overachiever. Slightly neurotic' Opens in new window ] But I'm not sure they're generally helping us live better lives. I gather GLP1 agonists are good as diabetes medication – not an area in which I am qualified to opine. Their rising use for other purposes seems to be correlated to increasing media excitement about extreme thinness, particularly in women, which is demoralising to those of us who grew up with heroin chic and the worship of emaciation and have lived in the shadow of those ideals ever since. If the drugs are changing narratives about diet and weight, I'm not seeing it. There's no decline in mindless writing about and advertising of 'guilt-free' foods and 'guilty pleasures'. (What you put in your mouth has no bearing on your moral worth. The only sinful foods are those harmfully produced.) READ MORE I understand that these medications work by depriving people of pleasure in eating. I'd argue that pleasure is politically and ideologically important as well as nice, that without pleasure we fall prey to the idea that life is nothing but scarcity and survival, which leads quickly to the idea that life is a competition and weakness is failure, at which point you're well down the road to dark places we don't need to go. Taking expensive drugs to make daily life less fun so you take up less space doesn't sound to me like the kind of choice made by happy people in a functional society, though you could argue that unhappy people in a dysfunctional society – for example, fat people hoping to be paid, promoted and desired as much as their thinner colleagues in Europe today – might perfectly sensibly make such decisions. Getting thin to succeed in a fat-phobic society is still an understandable individual solution to a structural problem. And it seems to me that the big structural problem here is not that people are fat but that we have created and continue to promote a food system that makes most consumers unwell, and are now creating and promoting a regime of medication that, at great financial and personal cost, claims to counteract the effects of that food system. We're all being sold ultra-processed, intensively farmed food that makes us and our planet sick, and then being sold drugs that moderate the effect of that food on individual bodies but compound the harm to the environment. I am certain that the same shareholders profit from the manufacture and sale of the food that causes the problem and the drugs that treat it. Ozempic's popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead None of which means that I blame any individual for making whatever decisions seem necessary to cope. I only note that the troubles that show up in our bodies rarely began there, and therefore the sustainable solutions won't begin with injections. There are countries that have been able to reduce the proportions of intensively produced and processed foods consumed by their populations, especially by children. There are examples of local, regional and national governments creating and sometimes imposing healthier and more sustainable environments, but it can't happen without at least some popular demand, and the established interests and beneficiaries of harmful systems will never want such change. So what I think about Ozempic is that its popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead. We could subsidise the production and transport of a lot of fresh local produce and build a lot of playgrounds, sports facilities and bike lanes for what we lose paying pharmaceutical companies to heal us from their absence. And it would be much more fun.
