“You Just Need to Lose Weight” And 19 Other Myths About Fat People – by Aubrey Gordon
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’ve previously reviewed another book by this author, “What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Fat”, and this time, she’s doing some important mythbusting.
The titular “you just need to lose weight” is a commonly-taken easy-out for many doctors, to avoid having to dispense actual treatment for an actual condition. Whether or not weight loss would help in a given situation is often immaterial; “kicking the can down the road” is the goal.
Most of the book is divided into 20 chapters, each of them devoted to debunking one myth. Think of it like 10almonds’ “Mythbusting Friday” edition (indeed, we did one about obesity), but with an entire book, and as much room as she needs to provide much more detail than we can ever get into in a single article.
And far from being a mere polemic, she does indeed provide that detail—this is clearly a very well-researched book, above and beyond the author’s own personal experience. Further, all the key points are illustrated and articulated clearly, making the book’s ideas very comprehensible.
The style is pop-science, but with frequent bibliographical references for relevant sources.
Bottom line: for some readers, this book will come as a great validation; for others, it may be eye-opening. Either way, it’s a very worthwhile read.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Study links microplastics with human health problems – but there’s still a lot we don’t know
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.
Mark Patrick Taylor, Macquarie University and Scott P. Wilson, Macquarie University
A recent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has linked microplastics with risk to human health.
The study involved patients in Italy who had a condition called carotid artery plaque, where plaque builds up in arteries, potentially blocking blood flow. The researchers analysed plaque specimens from these patients.
They found those with carotid artery plaque who had microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or death (compared with carotid artery plaque patients who didn’t have any micro- or nanoplastics detected in their plaque specimens).
Importantly, the researchers didn’t find the micro- and nanoplastics caused the higher risk, only that it was correlated with it.
So, what are we to make of the new findings? And how does it fit with the broader evidence about microplastics in our environment and our bodies?
What are microplastics?
Microplastics are plastic particles less than five millimetres across. Nanoplastics are less than one micron in size (1,000 microns is equal to one millimetre). The precise size classifications are still a matter of debate.
Microplastics and nanoplastics are created when everyday products – including clothes, food and beverage packaging, home furnishings, plastic bags, toys and toiletries – degrade. Many personal care products contain microsplastics in the form of microbeads.
Plastic is also used widely in agriculture, and can degrade over time into microplastics and nanoplastics.
These particles are made up of common polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride. The constituent chemical of polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride, is considered carcinogenic by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Of course, the actual risk of harm depends on your level of exposure. As toxicologists are fond of saying, it’s the dose that makes the poison, so we need to be careful to not over-interpret emerging research.
A closer look at the study
This new study in the New England Journal of Medicine was a small cohort, initially comprising 304 patients. But only 257 completed the follow-up part of the study 34 months later.
The study had a number of limitations. The first is the findings related only to asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (a procedure to remove carotid artery plaque). This means the findings might not be applicable to the wider population.
The authors also point out that while exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics has been likely increasing in recent decades, heart disease rates have been falling.
That said, the fact so many people in the study had detectable levels of microplastics in their body is notable. The researchers found detectable levels of polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride (two types of plastic) in excised carotid plaque from 58% and 12% of patients, respectively.
These patients were more likely to be younger men with diabetes or heart disease and a history of smoking. There was no substantive difference in where the patients lived.
Inflammation markers in plaque samples were more elevated in patients with detectable levels of microplastics and nanoplastics versus those without.
Microplastics are created when everyday products degrade. JS14/Shutterstock And, then there’s the headline finding: patients with microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque had a higher risk of having what doctors call “a primary end point event” (non-fatal heart attack, non-fatal stroke, or death from any cause) than those who did not present with microplastics and nanoplastics in their plaque.
The authors of the study note their results “do not prove causality”.
However, it would be remiss not to be cautious. The history of environmental health is replete with examples of what were initially considered suspect chemicals that avoided proper regulation because of what the US National Research Council refers to as the “untested-chemical assumption”. This assumption arises where there is an absence of research demonstrating adverse effects, which obviates the requirement for regulatory action.
In general, more research is required to find out whether or not microplastics cause harm to human health. Until this evidence exists, we should adopt the precautionary principle; absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence.
Global and local action
Exposure to microplastics in our home, work and outdoor environments is inevitable. Governments across the globe have started to acknowledge we must intervene.
The Global Plastics Treaty will be enacted by 175 nations from 2025. The treaty is designed, among other things, to limit microplastic exposure globally. Burdens are greatest especially in children and especially those in low-middle income nations.
In Australia, legislation ending single use plastics will help. So too will the increased rollout of container deposit schemes that include plastic bottles.
Microplastics pollution is an area that requires a collaborative approach between researchers, civil societies, industry and government. We believe the formation of a “microplastics national council” would help formulate and co-ordinate strategies to tackle this issue.
Little things matter. Small actions by individuals can also translate to significant overall environmental and human health benefits.
Choosing natural materials, fabrics, and utensils not made of plastic and disposing of waste thoughtfully and appropriately – including recycling wherever possible – is helpful.
Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University and Scott P. Wilson, Research Director, Australian Microplastic Assessment Project (AUSMAP); Honorary Senior Research Fellow, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Everything you need to know about cervical cancer
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.
Every year, around 11,500 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. While cervical cancer used to be one of the most common causes of cancer death for U.S. women, the vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV), and increased early screening and detection have resulted in a decrease in rates.
“Cervical cancer is almost always preventable and typically diagnosed in patients who have either never had a screening test or have gone many years without one,” says Fred Wyand, director of communications at the American Sexual Health Association, which includes the National Cervical Cancer Coalition.
January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, so we spoke to experts to learn more about what it is, its symptoms, and what you can do to prevent it.
What is cervical cancer?
Cervical cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the cervix—the lower part of the uterus that connects the vagina to the uterus. Cervical cancer can affect anyone with a cervix but is most frequently diagnosed in women ages 35 to 44, according to the American Cancer Society.
There are two types:
- Squamous cell carcinoma: Cervical cancer that starts in the thin squamous cells on the outside of the cervix. This is the most common type of cervical cancer.
- Adenocarcinoma: Cervical cancer that starts in glandular cells that line the inside of the cervix. This type of cervical cancer is less common.
In some cases, cervical cancer has features of both types.
What causes cervical cancer?
Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by high-risk cases of HPV, a virus that is spread through sexual activity or other close skin-to-skin contact. But don’t panic: HPV is very common, and getting HPV doesn’t always mean you’ll get cervical cancer. Around 85 percent of people in the U.S. will get an HPV infection in their lifetime, but for most people, the virus clears on its own.
However, there are many strains of HPV, and some are linked to cervical cancer. In those cases, when the virus does not clear on its own and the HPV infection persists, it can cause a range of cancers in both men and women, including cancers of the cervix, anus, penis, throat, and vagina.
That’s why HPV vaccination is so important for all people: It can help prevent many types of cancer, including cervical cancer caused by those high-risk HPV infections.
What are the symptoms of cervical cancer?
Cervical cancer doesn’t usually have symptoms in its early stages, but once cancer begins to spread, the symptoms can include:
- Vaginal bleeding between periods, after sexual intercourse, or after menopause.
- Heavier and longer menstrual periods than usual.
- Vaginal discharge that has a strong odor and is watery.
- Pelvic pain or pain during sexual intercourse.
In more advanced stages, symptoms of cervical cancer can include:
- Leg swelling.
- Difficult or painful bowel movements or bleeding during a bowel movement.
- Blood in urine or difficulty urinating.
- Back pain.
“Most women present with no symptoms,” Dr. Kristina A. Butler, gynecologic oncologist at Mayo Clinic, tells PGN. “Therefore, the checkups with visualization of the cervix, speaking with your provider, and having a Pap smear are so important.”
How can you help prevent or reduce your risk for cervical cancer?
Vaccination: Cervical cancer is highly preventable. The most effective way to help protect yourself from it is by getting the HPV vaccine. The HPV vaccine is most effective before a person is first exposed to HPV, typically before becoming sexually active.
“If we are able to vaccinate children before they become adults [and] are subsequently exposed, those individuals are maximally protected against the [worst effects] of the virus, which could ultimately be cancer,” Butler adds.
You’re eligible to get the vaccine if you’re between 9 and 45 years old, but there are specific guidelines for each age group. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends HPV vaccination for children ages 11 or 12 (though it can start at 9 years).
The CDC says that you can get catch-up doses until you’re 26 if you didn’t get vaccinated earlier, but if you’re between 26 and 45 years old, you should talk to your health care provider about your individual risk for HPV and to see if you should get the vaccine.
Screenings: This is another effective way to prevent cervical cancer.
Dr. Deanna Gerber, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, tells PGN that regular screenings can catch HPV before it has a chance to become cancer.
“Now that we’re encouraging people to see their gynecologist and get screening more regularly, we’re catching cancer at earlier stages,” she says.
Screenings for cervical cancer include:
- Pap smear: During a Pap smear, also known as a Pap test, cells are collected from your cervix to find precancerous or cervical cancer cells. Pap smears should start at 21 years old, regardless of when you start having sex.
If you’re between 21 and 29, you should get a Pap smear every three years. If you’re 30 to 65 years old, it’s recommended you get one every three years, a Pap and HPV test together every five years, or an HPV test alone every five years.
- HPV test: During an HPV test, cells are collected from your cervix to look for infection with high-risk HPV strains that can cause cervical cancer. If you’re between 21 and 30 years old, it’s only recommended that you get an HPV test if you had an abnormal Pap smear result. After 30, an HPV test is recommended with a Pap smear every five years, as long as other results were normal.
(People over 65 years old should talk to their health care provider about whether they need screening.)
Not smoking: Avoiding smoking can reduce your risk of developing cervical cancer because “HPV and smoking tobacco work together to accelerate the negative effects of HPV,” says Gerber.
Wearing condoms: Although condoms don’t completely prevent HPV infection, they provide some protection. And according to the CDC, the use of condoms has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer.
There is hope with early detection
There is hope for people diagnosed with cervical cancer. “Compared to the survival [rates] 10 years ago, women survive much longer now with the great treatments we have,” adds Butler.
Some of those treatments and advances include radiation, chemotherapy, and surgical therapy.
And while there may be some stigma surrounding sexual health, it’s important to advocate for yourself, says Gerber.
“Being comfortable and bold talking to your doctor about your health or any concerns that you have, feeling comfortable with your provider by asking all these questions is really the best thing you can do.”
For more information, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
Strawberries vs Raspberries – 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 strawberries to raspberries, we picked the raspberries.
Why?
They’re both very respectable fruits, of course! But it’s not even close, and there is a clear winner here…
In terms of macros, the biggest difference is that raspberries have moderately more carbs, and more than 3x the fiber. Technically they also have 2x the protein, but that’s a case of “two times almost nothing is still almost nothing”. All in all, and especially for the “more than 3x the fiber” (6.5g/100g to strawberries’ 2g/100g), this one’s an easy win for raspberries.
When it comes to vitamins, strawberries have more vitamin C, while raspberries have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, E, K, and choline. Another clear and easy win for raspberries.
In the category of minerals, guess what, raspberries win this hands-down, too: strawberries are higher in selenium, while raspberries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc.
Adding up all the individual wins (all for raspberries), it’s not hard to say that raspberries win the day. Still, of course, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Cows’ Milk, Bird Flu, & You
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.
When it comes to dairy products, generally speaking, fermented ones (such as most cheeses and yogurts) are considered healthy in moderation, and unfermented ones have their pros and cons that can be argued and quibbled “until the cows come home”. We gave a broad overview, here:
Furthermore, you may recall that there’s some controversy/dissent about when human babies can have cows’ milk:
When can my baby drink cow’s milk? It’s sooner than you think
So, what about bird flu now?
Earlier this year, the information from the dairy industry was that it was nothing to be worried about for the time being:
Bird Flu Is Bad for Poultry and Dairy Cows. It’s Not a Dire Threat for Most of Us — Yet.
More recently, the latest science has found:
❝We found a first-order decay rate constant of −2.05 day–1 equivalent to a T99 of 2.3 days. Viral RNA remained detectable for at least 57 days with no degradation. Pasteurization (63 °C for 30 min) reduced infectious virus to undetectable levels and reduced viral RNA concentrations, but reduction was less than 1 log10.
The prolonged persistence of viral RNA in both raw and pasteurized milk has implications for food safety assessments and environmental surveillance❞
You can find the study here:
Infectivity and Persistence of Influenza A Virus in Raw Milk
In short: raw milk keeps the infectious virus; pasteurization appears to render it uninfectious, though viral RNA remains present.
This is relevant, because of the bird flu virus being found in milk:
World Health Organization | H5N1 strain of bird flu found in milk
To this end, a moratorium has been placed on the sale of raw milk, first by the California Dept of Public Health (following an outbreak in California):
California halts sales of raw milk due to bird flu virus contamination
And then, functionally, by the USDA, though rather than an outright ban, it’s requiring testing for the virus:
USDA orders testing of milk supply for presence of bird flu virus
So, is pasteurized milk safe?
The official answer to this, per the FDA, is… Honestly, a lot of hand-wringing and shrugging. What we do know is:
- the bird flu virus has been found in pasteurized milk too
- the test for this is very sensitive, and has the extra strength/weakness that viral fragments will flag it as a positive
- it is assumed that the virus was inactivated by the pasteurization process
- it could, however, have been the entire virus, the test simply does not tell us which
In the FDA’s own words:
❝The pasteurization process has served public health well for more than 100 years. Even if the virus is detected in raw milk, pasteurization is generally expected to eliminate pathogens to a level that does not pose a risk to consumer health❞
So, there we have it: the FDA does not have a reassurance exactly, but it does have a general expectation.
Source: US Officials: Bird flu viral fragments found in pasteurized milk
Want to know more?
You might like this mythbusting edition we did a little while back:
Pasteurization: What It Does And Doesn’t Do ← this is about its effect on risks and nutrients
Take care!
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:
-
Puritans Pride Resveratrol vs Life Extension Resveratrol – 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 Puritan’s Pride Resveratrol to Life Extension Resveratrol, we picked the Life Extension Resveratrol.
Why?
It contains not only more resveratrol per serving (250mg compared to Puritan’s Pride’s 100mg), but also contains other goodies too. Specifically, each capsule also contains:
- Quercetin (150mg)
- Grape & berry blend (85mg)
- Fisetin (10mg)
Whereas the Puritan’s Pride softgels? The other top ingredients are soybean oil and gelatin.
Want to check out the products for yourself? Here they are:
Puritan’s Pride Resveratrol | Life Extension Resveratrol
Want to know more about these supplements? Check out:
Resveratrol & Healthy Aging
Fight Inflammation & Protect Your Brain, With Quercetin
Berries & Other Polyphenol-rich Foods
Fisetin: The Anti-Aging AssassinEnjoy!
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:
-
12 Foods That Fight Depression & Anxiety
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.
Food impacts mental health, and while it won’t magically cure mental illness, dietary changes can do a lot to improve mood. Here’s how:
Nutraceuticals
We’ll not keep the 12 nutraceutical foods a mystery; here’s what they are and a few words on how they work (in many cases, we could write whole articles about them; in some cases, we already have! You can find many of them by using the search function in the top-right of each page).
- Walnuts are rich in omega-3s for brain health; arguably the best nut for depression relief.
- Fermented foods because probiotics in foods like yogurt and sauerkraut support the gut-brain connection as well as serotonin production there, enhancing mood.
- Cherry tomatoes are rich in lycopene, which helps combat both depression and mood swings.
- Leafy greens reduce brain inflammation linked to depression.
- Apples and other fruit are high in fiber and antioxidants that stabilize blood sugar and mood, reducing brain inflammation.
- Beans are high in B vitamins, crucial for neurotransmitter production and mood regulation (without also being high in brain-harmful things, as red meat is).
- Berries are super-high antioxidants and cortisol-lowering anthocyanidins, promoting calmness and reducing stress.
- Oats contain the healthiest kind of fiber, β-glucan, and additionally help stabilize blood sugar and mood; they’re also rich in selenium, which boosts mood.
- Mushrooms help regulate blood sugar and act as prebiotics, supporting serotonin production in the gut.
- Avocados are famously rich in healthy fats, including omega-3s and oleic acid, which support brain health and combat depression.
- Dark chocolate contains antioxidants, magnesium, and gut-healthy prebiotics that indirectly reduce mental stress and improve brain function. Also a famous comfort food for many, of course, and that factor’s not to be overlooked either.
- Pumpkin seeds are rich in tryptophan, which boosts serotonin production. As a bonus, they also help some kinds of antidepressant to work better—check with your doctor or pharmacist to be sure in your case, though.
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:
The 6 Pillars Of Nutritional Psychiatry
Take care!
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:
