There are ‘forever chemicals’ in our drinking water. Should standards change to protect our health?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Today’s news coverage reports potentially unsafe levels of “forever chemicals” detected in drinking water supplies around Australia. These include human-made chemicals: perfluorooctane sulfonate (known as PFOS) and perflurooctanic acid (PFOA). They are classed under the broader category of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals.

The contaminants found in our drinking water are the same ones United States authorities warn can cause cancer over a long period of time, with reports warning there is “no safe level of exposure”.

In April, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sent shock waves through the water industry around the world when it announced stricter advice on safe levels of PFOS/PFOA in drinking water. This reduced limits considered safe in supplies to zero and gave the water industry five years to meet legally enforceable limits of 4 parts per trillion.

So, should the same limits be enforced here in Australia? And how worried should we be that the drinking in many parts of Australia would fail the new US standards?

What are the health risks?

Medical knowledge about the human health effects of PFOS/PFOA is still emerging. An important factor is the bioaccumulation of these chemicals in different organs in the body over time.

Increased exposure of people to these chemicals has been associated with several adverse health effects. These include higher cholesterol, lower birth weights, modified immune responses, kidney and testicular cancer.

It has been very difficult to accurately track and measure effects of different levels of PFAS exposure on people. People may be exposed to PFAS chemicals in their everyday life through waterproofing of clothes, non-stick cookware coatings or through food and drinking water. PFAS can also be in pesticides, paints and cosmetics.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (on behalf of the World Health Organization) regards PFOA as being carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

child at water fountain outdoors
Is our drinking water safe? What about long-term risks? Volodymyr TVERDOKHLIB/Shutterstock

Our guidelines

Australian drinking water supplies are assessed against national water quality standards. These Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are continuously reviewed by industry and health experts that scan the international literature and update them accordingly.

All city and town water supplies across Australia are subject to a wide range of physical and chemical water tests. The results are compared to Australian water guidelines.

Some tests relate to human health considerations, such as levels of lead or bacteria. Others relate to “aesthetic” considerations, such as the appearance or taste of water. Most water authorities across Australia make water quality information and compliance with Australian guidelines freely available.

What about Australian PFOS and PFOA standards?

These chemicals can enter our drinking water system from many potential sources, such as via their use in fire-fighting foams or pesticides.

According to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, PFOS should not exceed 0.07 micrograms per litre in drinking water. And PFOA should not exceed 0.56 micrograms per litre. One microgram is equivalent to one part per billion.

The concentration of these chemicals in water is incredibly small. And much of the advice on their concentration is provided in different units. Sometimes in micrograms or nannograms. The USEPA uses parts per trillion.

In parts per trillion (ppt) the Australian Guidelines for PFOS is 70 ppt and PFOA is 560 ppt. The USEPA’s new maximum contaminant levels (enforceable levels) are 4 ppt for both PFOS and also PFOA. Previous news reports have pointed out Australian guidelines for these chemicals in drinking water are up to 140 times higher than the USEPA permits.

Yikes! That seems like a lot

Today’s news report cites PFOS and PFOA water tests done at many different water supplies across Australia. Some water samples did not detect either chemicals. But most did, with the highest PFOS concentration 15.1–15.6 parts per trillion from Glenunga, South Australia. The highest PFOA concentration was reported from a small water supply in western Sydney, where it was detected at 5.17–9.66 parts per trillion.

Australia and the US are not alone. This is an enormous global problem.

One of the obvious challenges for the Australian water industry is that current water treatment processes may not be effective at removing PFOS or PFOA. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines provide this advice:

Standard water treatment technologies including coagulation followed by physical separation, aeration, chemical oxidation, UV irradiation, and disinfection have little or no effect on PFOS or PFOA concentrations.

Filtering with activated carbon and reverse osmosis may remove many PFAS chemicals. But no treatment systems appear to be completely effective at their removal.

Removing these contaminants might be particularly difficult for small regional water supplies already struggling to maintain their water infrastructure. The NSW Auditor General criticised the planning for, and funding of, town water infrastructure in regional NSW back in 2020.

Where to from here?

The Australian water industry likely has little choice but to follow the US lead and address PFOS/PFAS contamination in drinking water. Along with lower thresholds, the US committed US$1 billion to water infrastructure to improve detection and water treatment. They will also now require:

Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027) […]

As today’s report notes, it is very difficult to find any recent data on PFOS and PFOA in Australian drinking water supplies. Australian regulators should also require ongoing and widespread monitoring of our major city and regional water supplies for these “forever chemicals”.

The bottom line for drinking tap water is to keep watching this space. Buying bottled water might not be effective (2021 US research detected PFAS in 39 out of 100 bottled waters). The USEPA suggests people can reduce PFAS exposure with measures including avoiding fish from contaminated waters and considering home filtration systems.

Correction: this article previously listed the maximum Australian Drinking Water Guidelines PFOA level as 0.056 micrograms per litre. The figure has been updated to show the correct level of 0.56 micrograms per litre.

Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Kate Middleton is having ‘preventive chemotherapy’ for cancer. What does this mean?
  • When Age Is A Flexible Number
    Aging reversed in a week? Dr. Ellen Langer’s groundbreaking ‘Counterclockwise Study’ shows how mindset significantly impacts aging markers.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • 6 Lifestyle Factors To Measurably Reduce Biological Age

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Julie Gibson Clark competes on a global leaderboard of people actively fighting aging (including billionaire Bryan Johnson, who is famously very focused on such). She’s currently ahead of him on that leaderboard, so what’s she doing?

    Top tips

    We’ll not keep the six factors a mystery; they are:

    • Exercise: her weekly exercise includes VO2 Max training, strength training, balance work, and low-intensity cardio. She exercises outdoors on Saturdays and takes rest days on Fridays and Sundays.
    • Diet: she follows a 16-hour intermittent fasting schedule (eating between 09:00–17:00), consumes a clean omnivore diet with an emphasis on vegetables and adequate protein, and avoids junk food.
    • Brain: she meditates for 20 minutes daily, prioritizes mental health, and ensures sufficient quality sleep, helped by morning sunlight exposure and time in nature.
    • Hormesis: she engages in 20-minute sauna sessions followed by cold showers four times per week to support recovery and longevity.
    • Supplements: she takes longevity supplements and bioidentical hormones to optimize her health and aging process.
    • Testing: she regularly monitors her biological age and health markers through various tests, including DEXA scans, VO2 Max tests, lipid panels, and epigenetic aging clocks, allowing her to adjust her routine accordingly.

    For more on all of these, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Chickpeas vs Black-Eyed Peas – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing chickpeas to black-eyed peas, we picked the chickpeas.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, chickpeas have more protein, carbs, and fiber, the ratio of the latter two also giving them the lower glycemic index. An easy win for chickpeas.

    In the category of vitamins, chickpeas have more of vitamins B2, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while black-eyed peas have more of vitamins B1, B5, and B9. Another victory for chickpeas.

    When it comes to minerals, things are even more pronounced: chickpeas have more calcium, copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while black-eyed peas have (barely) more magnesium. An overwhelming win for chickpeas.

    Adding up the sections makes for a very evident overall win for chickpeas; as ever, do enjoy either or both though; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • 28-Day FAST Start Day-by-Day – by Gin Stephens

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We have previously reviewed Gin Stephens’ other book, “Fast. Feast. Repeat.”, so what’s so special about this one that it deserves reviewing too?

    This one is all about troubleshooting the pitfalls that many people find when taking up intermittent fasting.

    To be clear: the goal here is not a “28 days and yay you did it, put that behind you now”, but rather “28 days and you are now intermittently fasting easily each day and can keep it up without difficulty”. As for the difficulties that may arise early in the 28 days…

    Not just issues of willpower, but also the accidental breaks. For example, some artificial sweeteners, while zero-calorie, trigger an insulin response, which breaks the fast on the metabolic level (avoiding that is the whole point of IF). Lots of little tips like that peppered through the book help the reader to stop accidentally self-sabotaging their progress.

    The author does talk about psychological issues too, and also how it will feel different at first while the liver is adapting, than later when it has already depleted its glycogen reserves and the body must burn body fat instead. Information like that makes it easier to understand that some initial problems (hunger, getting “hangry”, feeling twitchy, or feeling light-headed) will last only a few weeks and then disappear.

    So, understanding things like that makes a big difference too.

    The style of the book is simple and clear pop-science, with lots of charts and bullet points and callout-boxes and the like; it makes for very easy reading, and very quick learning of all the salient points, of which there are many.

    Bottom line: if you’ve tried intermittent fasting but struggled to make it stick, this book can help you get to where you want to be.

    Click here to check out 28-Day FAST Start, and start!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Kate Middleton is having ‘preventive chemotherapy’ for cancer. What does this mean?
  • Pain Clinics Made Millions From ‘Unnecessary’ Injections Into ‘Human Pin Cushions’

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    McMINNVILLE, Tenn. — Each month, Michelle Shaw went to a pain clinic to get the shots that made her back feel worse — so she could get the pills that made her back feel better.

    Shaw, 56, who has been dependent on opioid painkillers since she injured her back in a fall a decade ago, said in both an interview with KFF Health News and in sworn courtroom testimony that the Tennessee clinic would write the prescriptions only if she first agreed to receive three or four “very painful” injections of another medicine along her spine.

    The clinic claimed the injections were steroids that would relieve her pain, Shaw said, but with each shot her agony would grow. Shaw said she eventually tried to decline the shots, then the clinic issued an ultimatum: Take the injections or get her painkillers somewhere else.

    “I had nowhere else to go at the time,” Shaw testified, according to a federal court transcript. “I was stuck.”

    Shaw was among thousands of patients of Pain MD, a multistate pain management company that was once among the nation’s most prolific users of what it referred to as “tendon origin injections,” which normally inject a single dose of steroids to relieve stiff or painful joints. As many doctors were scaling back their use of prescription painkillers due to the opioid crisis, Pain MD paired opioids with monthly injections into patients’ backs, claiming the shots could ease pain and potentially lessen reliance on painkillers, according to federal court documents.

    Now, years later, Pain MD’s injections have been proved in court to be part of a decade-long fraud scheme that made millions by capitalizing on patients’ dependence on opioids. The Department of Justice has successfully argued at trial that Pain MD’s “unnecessary and expensive injections” were largely ineffective because they targeted the wrong body part, contained short-lived numbing medications but no steroids, and appeared to be based on test shots given to cadavers — people who felt neither pain nor relief because they were dead.

    Four Pain MD employees have pleaded guilty or been convicted of health care fraud, including company president Michael Kestner, who was found guilty of 13 felonies at an October trial in Nashville, Tennessee. According to a transcript from Kestner’s trial that became public in December, witnesses testified that the company documented giving patients about 700,000 total injections over about eight years and said some patients got as many as 24 shots at once.

    “The defendant, Michael Kestner, found out about an injection that could be billed a lot and paid well,” said federal prosecutor James V. Hayes as the trial began, according to the transcript. “And they turned some patients into human pin cushions.”

    The Department of Justice declined to comment for this article. Kestner’s attorneys either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for an interview. At trial, Kestner’s attorneys argued that he was a well-intentioned businessman who wanted to run pain clinics that offered more than just pills. He is scheduled to be sentenced on April 21 in a federal court in Nashville.

    According to the transcript of Kestner’s trial, Shaw and three other former patients testified that Pain MD’s injections did not ease their pain and sometimes made it worse. The patients said they tolerated the shots only so Pain MD wouldn’t cut off their prescriptions, without which they might have spiraled into withdrawal.

    “They told me that if I didn’t take the shots — because I said they didn’t help — I would not get my medication,” testified Patricia McNeil, a former patient in Tennessee, according to the trial transcript. “I took the shots to get my medication.”

    In her interview with KFF Health News, Shaw said that often she would arrive at the Pain MD clinic walking with a cane but would leave in a wheelchair because the injections left her in too much pain to walk.

    “That was the pain clinic that was supposed to be helping me,” Shaw said in her interview. “I would come home crying. It just felt like they were using me.”

    ‘Not Actually Injections Into Tendons at All’

    Pain MD, which sometimes operated under the name Mid-South Pain Management, ran as many as 20 clinics in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina throughout much of the 2010s. Some clinics averaged more than 12 injections per patient each month, and at least two patients each received more than 500 shots in total, according to federal court documents.

    All those injections added up. According to Medicare data filed in federal court, Pain MD and Mid-South Pain Management billed Medicare for more than 290,000 “tendon origin injections” from January 2010 to May 2018, which is about seven times that of any other Medicare biller in the U.S. over the same period.

    Tens of thousands of additional injections were billed to Medicaid and Tricare during those same years, according to federal court documents. Pain MD billed these government programs for about $111 per injection and collected more than $5 million from the government for the shots, according to the court documents.

    More injections were billed to private insurance too. Christy Wallace, an audit manager for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, testified that Pain MD billed the insurance company about $40 million for more than 380,000 injections from January 2010 to March 2013. BlueCross paid out about $7 million before it cut off Pain MD, Wallace said.

    These kinds of enormous billing allegations are not uncommon in health care fraud cases, in which fraudsters sometimes find a legitimate treatment that insurance will pay for and then overuse it to the point of absurdity, said Don Cochran, a former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

    Tennessee alone has seen fraud allegations for unnecessary billing of urine testing, skin creams, and other injections in just the past decade. Federal authorities have also investigated an alleged fraud scheme involving a Tennessee company and hundreds of thousands of catheters billed to Medicare, according to The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources.

    Cochran said the Pain MD case felt especially “nefarious” because it used opioids to make patients play along.

    “A scheme where you get Medicare or Medicaid money to provide a medically unnecessary treatment is always going to be out there,” Cochran said. “The opioid piece just gives you a universe of compliant people who are not going to question what you are doing.”

    “It was only opioids that made those folks come back,” he said.

    The allegations against Pain MD became public in 2018 when Cochran and the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against the company, Kestner, and several associated clinics, alleging that Pain MD defrauded taxpayers and government insurance programs by billing for “tendon origin injections” that were “not actually injections into tendons at all.”

    Kestner, Pain MD, and several associated clinics have each denied all allegations in that lawsuit, which is ongoing.Scott Kreiner, an expert on spine care and pain medicine who testified at Kestner’s criminal trial, said that true tendon origin injections (or TOIs) typically are used to treat inflamed joints, like the condition known as “tennis elbow,” by injecting steroids or platelet-rich plasma into a tendon. Kreiner said most patients need only one shot at a time, according to the transcript.

    But Pain MD made repeated injections into patients’ backs that contained only lidocaine or Marcaine, which are anesthetic medications that cause numbness for mere hours, Kreiner testified. Pain MD also used needles that were often too short to reach back tendons, Kreiner said, and there was no imaging technology used to aim the needle anyway. Kreiner said he didn’t find any injections in Pain MD’s records that appeared medically necessary, and even if they had been, no one could need so many.

    “I simply cannot fathom a scenario where the sheer quantity of TOIs that I observed in the patient records would ever be medically necessary,” Kreiner said, according to the trial transcript. “This is not even a close call.”

    Jonathan White, a physician assistant who administered injections at Pain MD and trained other employees to do so, then later testified against Kestner as part of a plea deal, said at trial that he believed Pain MD’s injection technique was based on a “cadaveric investigation.”

    According to the trial transcript, White said that while working at Pain MD he realized he could find no medical research that supported performing tendon origin injections on patients’ backs instead of their joints. When he asked if Pain MD had any such research, White said, an employee responded with a two-paragraph letter from a Tennessee anatomy professor — not a medical doctor — that said it was possible to reach the region of back tendons in a cadaver by injecting “within two fingerbreadths” of the spine. This process was “exactly the procedure” that was taught at Pain MD, White said.

    During his own testimony, Kreiner said it was “potentially dangerous” to inject a patient as described in the letter, which should not have been used to justify medical care.

    “This was done on a dead person,” Kreiner said, according to the trial transcript. “So the letter says nothing about how effective the treatment is.”

    Over-Injecting ‘Killed My Hand’

    Pain MD collapsed into bankruptcy in 2019, leaving some patients unable to get new prescriptions because their medical records were stuck in locked storage units, according to federal court records.

    At the time, Pain MD defended the injections and its practice of discharging patients who declined the shots. When a former patient publicly accused the company of treating his back “like a dartboard,” Pain MD filed a defamation lawsuit, then dropped the suit about a month later.

    “These are interventional clinics, so that’s what they offer,” Jay Bowen, a then-attorney for Pain MD, told The Tennessean newspaper in 2019. “If you don’t want to consider acupuncture, don’t go to an acupuncture clinic. If you don’t want to buy shoes, don’t go to a shoe store.”

    Kestner’s trial told another story. According to the trial transcript, eight former Pain MD medical providers testified that the driving force behind Pain MD’s injections was Kestner himself, who is not a medical professional and yet regularly pressured employees to give more shots.

    One nurse practitioner testified that she received emails “every single workday” pushing for more injections. Others said Kestner openly ranked employees by their injection rates, and implied that those who ranked low might be fired.

    “He told me that if I had to feed my family based on my productivity, that they would starve,” testified Amanda Fryer, a nurse practitioner who was not charged with any crime.

    Brian Richey, a former Pain MD nurse practitioner who at times led the company’s injection rankings, and has since taken a plea deal that required him to testify in court, said at the trial that he “performed so many injections” that his hand became chronically inflamed and required surgery.

    “‘Over injecting killed my hand,’” Richey said on the witness stand, reading a text message he sent to another Pain MD employee in 2017, according to the trial transcript. “‘I was in so much pain Injecting people that didnt want it but took it to stay a patient.’”

    “Why would they want to stay there?” a prosecutor asked.

    “To keep getting their narcotics,” Richey responded, according to the trial transcript.

    Throughout the trial, defense attorney Peter Strianse argued that Pain MD’s focus on injections was a result of Kestner’s “obsession” with ensuring that the company “would never be called a pill mill.”

    Strianse said that Kestner “stayed up at night worrying” about patients coming to clinics only to get opioid prescriptions, so he pushed his employees to administer injections, too.

    “Employers motivating employees is not a crime,” Strianse said at closing arguments, according to the court transcript. “We get pushed every day to perform. It’s not fraud; it’s a fact of life.”

    Prosecutors insisted that this defense rang hollow. During the trial, former employees had testified that most patients’ opioid dosages remained steady or increased while at Pain MD, and that the clinics did not taper off the painkillers no matter how many injections were given.

    “Giving them injections does not fix the pill mill problem,” federal prosecutor Katherine Payerle said during closing arguments, according to the trial transcript. “The way to fix being a pill mill is to stop giving the drugs or taper the drugs.”

     

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    USE OUR CONTENT

    This story can be republished for free (details).

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Debunking the vitamin D fad

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Throughout the pandemic, many unproven miracle COVID-19 “cures” emerged, and vitamin D claims have been one of the most persistent. This is not new for the vitamin. It’s been touted in recent decades as a way to “boost” the immune system, improve overall health, prevent a host of diseases, and allegedly even substitute for vaccines. 

    But as with many internet-popular health “remedies,” the reality is far less flashy and far more nuanced.

    What is vitamin D, and why is it important?

    Vitamin D is a nutrient that helps the body absorb calcium, which is essential for bone health. In the sunlight, your skin naturally produces vitamin D that is then stored in fat cells until it is used.

    The skin pigment melanin absorbs the UV rays necessary for vitamin D production, meaning that more highly pigmented or darker skin produces less vitamin D than lighter skin with the same amount of sun exposure. Thus, people with darker skin are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.

    Most of our vitamin D comes from the sun. An additional 10 percent to 20 percent of our vitamin D comes from foods like fatty fish (such as salmon), eggs, and mushrooms. Vitamin D supplements are another source of the nutrient for people who are unable to get enough from sun exposure and diet.

    Vitamin D deficiency is real, but there’s no epidemic

    Some people who promote vitamin D supplements claim that vitamin D deficiency is an epidemic causing widespread health issues. There is little evidence to support this claim. A 2022 analysis of 2001-2018 data found that 2.6 percent of people in the U.S. had severe vitamin D deficiency. 

    Severe vitamin D deficiency can cause serious health issues, such as muscle weakness, bone loss in adults, and rickets (weak bones) in children. Some people are at higher risk for the deficiency, including individuals with certain disorders that prevent the body from absorbing or processing vitamin D or those with a family history of vitamin D deficiency. 

    Black Americans have the highest rates of severe vitamin D deficiency at nearly 12 percent. Severe vitamin D deficiency is also slightly higher in the U.S. during the winter when people get less sun exposure. Rates of moderate vitamin D deficiency are higher at 22 percent overall and are highest among Black Americans (49 percent) and Mexican Americans (35 percent). 

    Although severe vitamin D deficiency exists in the U.S., it is far from common. Most tellingly, conditions that are directly linked to vitamin D deficiency are not widespread. There is no epidemic of rickets, for example, or bone loss in adults. 

    There’s little evidence that vitamin D supplements improve overall health

    Vitamin D supplements have clear, proven positive effects for people with vitamin D deficiency. Other health benefits of vitamin D supplements are less certain. 

    There is some evidence that the supplement may reduce the risk of fracture in adults with osteoporosis, a condition that causes weak, fragile bones. However, the benefit appears to be limited to people who have low vitamin D levels. In adults with normal vitamin D levels, supplements have no effect on fracture risk.

    The largest randomized controlled trial of vitamin D, called VITAL, investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation in people without an existing deficiency. The study found that vitamin D supplements had no effects on the risk of cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke. The study concluded that more research is necessary to determine who may benefit from vitamin D supplements. 

    Independent analyses found that vitamin D supplementation may be associated with a long-term decrease in cancer mortality, but results are mixed and also require more investigation.

    A 2021 analysis of past vitamin D trials found no overall health benefits from vitamin D supplements in people with normal vitamin D levels. Most large-scale studies have found no link between vitamin D supplements and lower all-cause mortality (deaths from any cause), except in older adults and those with vitamin D deficiency.

    Vitamin D provides modest protection against respiratory infections

    Vitamin D is important for immune function, but this is often misconstrued as vitamin D “boosting” the immune system. 

    Some people falsely believe that taking vitamin D supplements will keep them healthy and prevent infections like the flu or COVID-19. In reality, clinical trials and large-scale studies of vitamin D have found only minimal protective effects against respiratory infections. 

    A 2021 analysis of 46 trials found that 61.3 percent of participants who took daily vitamin D supplements got respiratory infections during the study periods—compared to 62.3 percent of people who did not take the supplements. A 2024 meta-analysis of 43 trials found no overall protective effect against respiratory infections, but it detected a slight decrease in risk among people who took specific doses daily. 

    In young children, there is some evidence that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the length of respiratory infections. However, it does not affect the number or severity of infections that children have.

    Despite claims that taking vitamin D can protect against COVID-19, two clinical trials found that taking daily vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk or severity of COVID-19 infections, even at high doses. 

    Context is key when considering vitamin D’s benefits

    None of these studies contradict the well-established evidence that people with vitamin D deficiency benefit from vitamin D supplements. But it’s important to remember that many of the most popular health claims about vitamin D’s benefits are based on research in people with vitamin D deficiency.

    Research in vitamin D-deficient populations is important, but it tells us little about how vitamin D will affect people with normal or close to normal vitamin D levels. A closer look at vitamin D research in people without low levels reveals little evidence to support the idea that the general population benefits from taking vitamin D supplements. 

    For more information, or to learn about your vitamin D levels, talk to your health care provider.

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Glucose Revolution – by Jessie Inchauspé

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    While we all know that keeping balanced blood sugars is important for all us (be we diabetic, pre-diabetic, or not at all), it can be a mystifying topic!

    Beyond a generic “sugar is bad”…

    • What does it all mean and how does it all work?
    • Should we go low-carb?
    • What’s the deal with fruit?
    • Carbs or protein for breakfast?
    • Is “quick energy” ever a good thing?
    • How do starches weigh in again?

    It’s all so confusing!

    Happily, Jessie Inchauspé has the incredible trifecta of qualifications to help us: she’s a biochemist, a keen cook, and a great educator. What we mean by this latter is:

    Instead of dry textbook explanations, or “trust me” hand-waives, she explains biochemistry in a clear, simple, digestible (if you’ll pardon the pun) way with very helpful diagrams what things cause (or flatten) blood sugar spikes and how and why. If you read this book, you will understand, without guesswork or gaps, exactly what is happening on a physical level, and why and how her “10 hacks” work.

    Her “10 hacks” are explained so thoroughly that each gets a chapter of its own, but we’ll not keep them a mystery from you meanwhile, they are:

    1. Eat foods in the right order
    2. Add a green starter to your meals
    3. Stop counting calories
    4. Flatten your breakfast curve
    5. Have any type of sugar you like—they’re all the same
    6. Pick dessert over a sweet snack
    7. Reach for the vinegar before you eat
    8. After you eat, move
    9. If you have to snack, go savoury
    10. Put some clothes on your carbs

    She then finishes up with a collection of handy cheat-sheets and some of her own recipes.

    Bottom line: this isn’t just a “how-to” book. It gives the how-to, yes, but it also gives such good explanations that you’ll never be confused again by what’s going on in your glucose-related health.

    Get your copy of Jessie Inchauspé’s #1 international bestseller, “Glucose Revolution”, from Amazon today!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: