Is still water better for you than sparkling water?

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.

Still or sparkling? It’s a question you’ll commonly hear in a café or restaurant and you probably have a preference. But is there any difference for your health?

If you love the fizz, here’s why you don’t have to pass on the sparkling water.

Brent Hofacker/Shutterstock

What makes my water sparkle?

This article specifically focuses on comparing still filtered water to carbonated filtered water (called “sparkling water” or “unflavoured seltzer”). Soda water, mineral water, tonic water and flavoured water are similar, but not the same product.

The bubbles in sparkling water are created by adding carbon dioxide to filtered water. It reacts to produce carbonic acid, which makes sparkling water more acidic (a pH of about 3.5) than still (closer to neutral, with a pH around 6.5-8.5).

Which drink is healthiest?

Water is the best way to hydrate our bodies. Research shows when it comes to hydration, still and sparkling water are equally effective.

Some people believe water is healthier when it comes from a sealed bottle. But in Australia, tap water is monitored very carefully. Unlike bottled water, it also has the added benefit of fluoride, which can help protect young children against tooth decay and cavities.

Sparkling or still water is always better than artificially sweetened flavoured drinks or juices.

Isn’t soda water bad for my teeth and bones?

There’s no evidence sparkling water damages your bones. While drinking a lot of soft drinks is linked to increased fractures, this is largely due to their association with higher rates of obesity.

Sparkling water is more acidic than still water, and acidity can soften the teeth’s enamel. Usually this is not something to be too worried about, unless it is mixed with sugar or citrus, which has much higher levels of acidity and can harm teeth.

However, if you grind your teeth often, the softening could enhance the damage it causes. If you’re undertaking a home whitening process, sparkling water might discolour your teeth.

In most other cases, it would take a lot of sparkling water to pass by the teeth, for a long period of time, to cause any noticeable damage.

How does drinking water affect digestion?

There is a misconception drinking water (of any kind) with a meal is bad for digestion.

While theoretically water could dilute stomach acid (which breaks down food), the practice of drinking it doesn’t appear to have any negative effect. Your digestive system simply adapts to the consistency of the meal.

Some people do find that carbonated beverages cause some stomach upset. This is due to the build-up of gases, which can cause bloating, cramping and discomfort. For people with an overactive bladder, the acidity might also aggravate the urinary system.

Interestingly, the fizzy “buzz” you feel in your mouth from sparkling water fades the more you drink it.

Is cold water harder to digest?

You’ve chosen still or sparkling water. What about its temperature?

There are surprisingly few studies about the effect of drinking cold water compared to room temperature. There is some evidence colder water (at two degrees Celsius) might inhibit gastric contractions and slow down digestion. Ice water may constrict blood vessels and cause cramping.

However other research suggests drinking cold water might temporarily boost metabolism, as the body needs to expend energy to warm it up to body temperature. This effect is minimal and unlikely to lead to significant weight loss.

Which water wins?

The bottom line is water is essential, hydrates us and has countless other health benefits. Water, with carbonated bubbles or without, will always be the healthiest drink to choose.

And if you’re concerned about any impact to teeth enamel, one trick is to follow sparkling water with a glass of still. This helps rinse the teeth and return your mouth’s acidity back to normal.

Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University and Charlotte Phelps, Senior Teaching Fellow, Medical Program, Bond 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

  • Their First Baby Came With Medical Debt. These Illinois Parents Won’t Have Another.
  • What Most People Don’t Know About HIV
    What You Need to Know About HIV This World AIDS Day. Learn about prevention methods like PrEP and PEP, and how ARVs can help manage HIV. Stay informed and stay safe.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Are You Eating AGEs?

    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.

    The Trouble of the AGEs

    Advanced Glycation End-Products (AGEs) are the result of the chemical process of glycation, which can occur in your body in response to certain foods you ate, or you can consume them directly, if you eat animal products that contained them (because we’re not special and other animals glycate too, especially mammals such as pigs, cows, and sheep).

    As a double-whammy, if you cook animal products (especially without water, such as by roasting or frying), extra AGEs will form during cooking.

    When proteinous and/or fatty food turns yellow/golden/brown during cooking, that’s generally glycation.

    If there’s starch present, some or all of that yellow/golden/brown stuff will be a Maillard Reaction Product (MRP), such as acrylamide. That’s not exactly a health food, but it’s nowhere near being even in the same ballpark of badness.

    In short, during cooking:

    • Proteinous/fatty food turns yellow/golden/brown = probably an AGE
    • Starchy food turns yellow/golden/brown = probably a MRP

    The AGEs are far worse.

    What’s so bad about AGEs?

    Let’s do a quick tour of some studies:

    We could keep going, but you probably get the picture!

    What should we do about it?

    There are three main ways to reduce serum AGE levels:

    Reduce or eliminate consumption of animal products

    Especially mammalian animal products, such as from pigs, cows, and sheep, especially their meat. Processed versions are even worse! So, steak is bad, but bacon and sausages are literally top-tier bad.

    Cook wet

    Dry cooking (which includes frying, and especially includes deep fat frying, which is worse than shallow frying which is worse than air frying) produces far more AGEs than cooking with methods that involve water (boiling, steaming, slow-cooking, etc).

    As a bonus, adding acidic ingredients (e.g. vinegar, lemon juice, tomato juice) can halve the amount of AGEs produced.

    Consume antioxidants

    Our body does have some ability to deal with AGEs, but that ability has its limits, and our body can be easily overwhelmed if we consume foods that are bad for it. So hopefully you’ll tend towards a plant-based diet, but whether you do or don’t:

    You can give your body a hand by consuming antioxidant foods and drinks (such as berries, tea/coffee, and chocolate), and/or taking supplements.

    Want to know more about the science of this?

    Check out…

    Advanced Glycation End-Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet

    Share This Post

  • Could the shingles vaccine lower your risk of dementia?

    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.

    A recent study has suggested Shingrix, a relatively new vaccine given to protect older adults against shingles, may delay the onset of dementia.

    This might seem like a bizarre link, but actually, research has previously shown an older version of the shingles vaccine, Zostavax, reduced the risk of dementia.

    In this new study, published last week in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers from the United Kingdom found Shingrix delayed dementia onset by 17% compared with Zostavax.

    So how did the researchers work this out, and how could a shingles vaccine affect dementia risk?

    Melinda Nagy/Shutterstock

    From Zostavax to Shingrix

    Shingles is a viral infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus. It causes painful rashes, and affects older people in particular.

    Previously, Zostavax was used to vaccinate against shingles. It was administered as a single shot and provided good protection for about five years.

    Shingrix has been developed based on a newer vaccine technology, and is thought to offer stronger and longer-lasting protection. Given in two doses, it’s now the preferred option for shingles vaccination in Australia and elsewhere.

    In November 2023, Shingrix replaced Zostavax on the National Immunisation Program, making it available for free to those at highest risk of complications from shingles. This includes all adults aged 65 and over, First Nations people aged 50 and older, and younger adults with certain medical conditions that affect their immune systems.

    What the study found

    Shingrix was approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration in October 2017. The researchers in the new study used the transition from Zostavax to Shingrix in the United States as an opportunity for research.

    They selected 103,837 people who received Zostavax (between October 2014 and September 2017) and compared them with 103,837 people who received Shingrix (between November 2017 and October 2020).

    By analysing data from electronic health records, they found people who received Shingrix had a 17% increase in “diagnosis-free time” during the follow-up period (up to six years after vaccination) compared with those who received Zostavax. This was equivalent to an average of 164 extra days without a dementia diagnosis.

    The researchers also compared the shingles vaccines to other vaccines: influenza, and a combined vaccine for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. Shingrix and Zostavax performed around 14–27% better in lowering the risk of a dementia diagnosis, with Shingrix associated with a greater improvement.

    The benefits of Shingrix in terms of dementia risk were significant for both sexes, but more pronounced for women. This is not entirely surprising, because we know women have a higher risk of developing dementia due to interplay of biological factors. These include being more sensitive to certain genetic mutations associated with dementia and hormonal differences.

    Why the link?

    The idea that vaccination against viral infection can lower the risk of dementia has been around for more than two decades. Associations have been observed between vaccines, such as those for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and influenza, and subsequent dementia risk.

    Research has shown Zostavax vaccination can reduce the risk of developing dementia by 20% compared with people who are unvaccinated.

    But it may not be that the vaccines themselves protect against dementia. Rather, it may be the resulting lack of viral infection creating this effect. Research indicates bacterial infections in the gut, as well as viral infections, are associated with a higher risk of dementia.

    Notably, untreated infections with herpes simplex (herpes) virus – closely related to the varicella-zoster virus that causes shingles – can significantly increase the risk of developing dementia. Research has also shown shingles increases the risk of a later dementia diagnosis.

    A woman receives a vaccination from a female nurse.
    This isn’t the first time research has suggested a vaccine could reduce dementia risk. ben bryant/Shutterstock

    The mechanism is not entirely clear. But there are two potential pathways which may help us understand why infections could increase the risk of dementia.

    First, certain molecules are produced when a baby is developing in the womb to help with the body’s development. These molecules have the potential to cause inflammation and accelerate ageing, so the production of these molecules is silenced around birth. However, viral infections such as shingles can reactivate the production of these molecules in adult life which could hypothetically lead to dementia.

    Second, in Alzheimer’s disease, a specific protein called Amyloid-β go rogue and kill brain cells. Certain proteins produced by viruses such as COVID and bad gut bacteria have the potential to support Amyloid-β in its toxic form. In laboratory conditions, these proteins have been shown to accelerate the onset of dementia.

    What does this all mean?

    With an ageing population, the burden of dementia is only likely to become greater in the years to come. There’s a lot more we have to learn about the causes of the disease and what we can potentially do to prevent and treat it.

    This new study has some limitations. For example, time without a diagnosis doesn’t necessarily mean time without disease. Some people may have underlying disease with delayed diagnosis.

    This research indicates Shingrix could have a silent benefit, but it’s too early to suggest we can use antiviral vaccines to prevent dementia.

    Overall, we need more research exploring in greater detail how infections are linked with dementia. This will help us understand the root causes of dementia and design potential therapies.

    Ibrahim Javed, Enterprise and NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, UniSA Clinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia

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

    Share This Post

  • How To Get More Nutrition From The Same Food

    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.

    How To Get More Out Of What’s On Your Plate

    Where does digestion begin? It’s not the stomach. It’s not even the mouth.

    It’s when we see and smell our food; maybe even hear it! “Sell the sizzle, not the steak” has a biological underpinning.

    At that point, when we begin to salivate, that’s just one of many ways that our body is preparing itself for what we’re about to receive.

    When we grab some ready-meal and wolf it down, we undercut that process. In the case of ready-meals, they often didn’t have much nutritional value, but even the most nutritious food isn’t going to do us nearly as much good if it barely touches the sides on the way down.

    We’re not kidding about the importance of that initial stage of our external senses, by the way:

    So, mindful eating is not just something for Instagrammable “what I eat in a day” aesthetic photos, nor is just for monks atop cold mountains. There is actual science here, and a lot of it.

    It starts with ingredients

    “Eating the rainbow” (no, Skittles do not count) is great health advice for getting a wide variety of micronutrients, but it’s also simply beneficial for our senses, too. Which, as above-linked, makes a difference to digestion and nutrient absorption.

    Enough is enough

    That phrase always sounds like an expression of frustration, “Enough is enough!”. But, really:

    Don’t overcomplicate your cooking, especially if you’re new to this approach. You can add in more complexities later, but for now, figure out what will be “enough”, and let it be enough.

    The kitchen flow

    Here we’re talking about flow in the Csikszentmihalyi sense of the word. Get “into the swing of things” and enjoy your time in the kitchen. Schedule more time than you need, and take it casually. Listen to your favourite music. Dance while you cook. Taste things as you go.

    There are benefits, by the way, not just to our digestion (in being thusly primed and prepared for eating), but also to our cognition:

    In The Zone: Flow State and Cognition in Older Adults

    Serve

    No, not just “put the food on the table”, but serve.

    Have a pleasant environment; with sensory pleasures but without too many sensory distractions. Think less “the news on in the background” and more smooth jazz or Mozart or whatever works for you. Use your favourite (small!) plates/bowls, silverware, glasses. Have a candle if you like (unscented!).

    Pay attention to presentation on the plate / in the bowl / in any “serve yourself” serving-things. Use a garnish (parsley is great if you want to add a touch of greenery without changing the flavor much). Crack that black pepper at the table. Make any condiments count (less “ketchup bottle” and more “elegant dip”).

    Take your time

    Say grace if that fits with your religious traditions, and/or take a moment to reflect on gratitude.

    In many languages there’s a pre-dinner blessing that most often translates to “good appetite”. This writer is fond of the Norwegian “Velbekommen”, and it means more like “May good come of it for you”, or “May it do you good”.

    Then, enjoy the food.

    For the most even of blood sugar levels, consider eating fiber, protein/fat, carbs, in that order.

    Why? See: 10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars

    Chew adequately and mindfully. Put your fork (or spoon, or chopsticks, or whatever) down between bites. Drink water alongside your meal.

    Try to take at least 20 minutes to enjoy your meal, and/but any time you go to reach for another helping, take a moment to check in with yourself with regard to whether you are actually still hungry. If you’re not, and are just eating for pleasure, consider deferring that pleasure by saving the food for later.

    At this point, people with partners/family may be thinking “But it won’t be there later! Someone else will eat it!”, and… That’s fine! Be happy for them. You can cook again tomorrow. You prepared delicious wholesome food that your partner/family enjoyed, and that’s always a good thing.

    Want to know more about the science of mindful eating?

    Check out Harvard’s Dr. Lilian Cheung on Mindful Eating here!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Their First Baby Came With Medical Debt. These Illinois Parents Won’t Have Another.
  • Goat Milk Greek Yogurt vs Almond Milk Greek Yogurt – 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 goat milk yogurt to almond milk yogurt, we picked the almond milk yogurt.

    Why?

    Surprised? Honestly, we were too!

    Much as we love almonds, we were fully expecting to write about how they’re very close in nutritional value, but the dairy yogurt has more probiotics, but no, as it turns out when we looked into them, they’re quite comparable in that regard.

    It’s easy to assume “goat milk yogurt is more natural and therefore healthier”, but in both cases, it was a case of taking a fermentable milk, and fermenting it (an ancient process). “But almond milk is a newfangled thing”, well, new-ish…

    So what was the deciding factor?

    In this case, the almond milk yogurt has about twice the protein per (same size) serving, compared to the goat milk; all the other macros are about the same, and the micronutrients are similar. Like many plant-based milks and yogurts, this one is fortified with calcium and vitamin D, so that wasn’t an issue either.

    In short: the only meaningful difference was the protein, and the almond came out on top.

    However!

    The almond came out on top only because it is strained; this can be done (or not) with any kind of yogurt, be it from an animal or a plant. 

    In other words: if it had been different brands, the goat milk yogurt could have come out on top!

    The take-away idea here is: always read labels, because as you’ve just seen, even we can get surprised sometimes!

    seriously if you only remember one thing from this today, make it the above

    Other thing worth mentioning: yogurts, and dairy products in general, are often made with common allergens (e.g. dairy, nuts, soy, etc). So if you are allergic or intolerant, obviously don’t choose the one to which you are allergic or intolerant.

    That said… If you are lactose-intolerant, but not allergic, goat’s milk does have less lactose than cow’s milk. But of course, you know your limits better than we can in this regard.

    Want to try some?

    Amazon is not coming up with the goods for this one (or anything even similar, at time of writing), so we recommend trying your local supermarket (and reading labels, because products vary widely!)

    What you’re looking for (be it animal- or plant-based):

    • Live culture probiotic bacteria
    • No added sugar
    • Minimal additives in general
    • Lastly, check out the amounts for protein, calcium, vitamin D, etc.

    Enjoy!

    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:

  • Hearing loss is twice as common in Australia’s lowest income groups, our research shows

    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.

    Around one in six Australians has some form of hearing loss, ranging from mild to complete hearing loss. That figure is expected to grow to one in four by 2050, due in a large part to the country’s ageing population.

    Hearing loss affects communication and social engagement and limits educational and employment opportunities. Effective treatment for hearing loss is available in the form of communication training (for example, lipreading and auditory training), hearing aids and other devices.

    But the uptake of treatment is low. In Australia, publicly subsidised hearing care is available predominantly only to children, young people and retirement-age people on a pension. Adults of working age are mostly not eligible for hearing health care under the government’s Hearing Services Program.

    Our recent study published in the journal Ear and Hearing showed, for the first time, that working-age Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at much greater risk of hearing loss than those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.

    We believe the lack of socially subsidised hearing care for adults of working age results in poor detection and care for hearing loss among people from disadvantaged backgrounds. This in turn exacerbates social inequalities.

    Population data shows hearing inequality

    We analysed a large data set called the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey that collects information on various aspects of people’s lives, including health and hearing loss.

    Using a HILDA sub-sample of 10,719 working-age Australians, we evaluated whether self-reported hearing loss was more common among people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than for those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds between 2008 and 2018.

    Relying on self-reported hearing data instead of information from hearing tests is one limitation of our paper. However, self-reported hearing tends to underestimate actual rates of hearing impairment, so the hearing loss rates we reported are likely an underestimate.

    We also wanted to find out whether people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to develop hearing loss in the long run.

    A boy wearing a hearing aid is playing.
    Hearing care is publicly subsidised for children.
    mady70/Shutterstock

    We found people in the lowest income groups were more than twice as likely to have hearing loss than those in the highest income groups. Further, hearing loss was 1.5 times as common among people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods than in the most affluent areas.

    For people reporting no hearing loss at the beginning of the study, after 11 years of follow up, those from a more deprived socioeconomic background were much more likely to develop hearing loss. For example, a lack of post secondary education was associated with a more than 1.5 times increased risk of developing hearing loss compared to those who achieved a bachelor’s degree or above.

    Overall, men were more likely to have hearing loss than women. As seen in the figure below, this gap is largest for people of low socioeconomic status.

    Why are disadvantaged groups more likely to experience hearing loss?

    There are several possible reasons hearing loss is more common among people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Noise exposure is one of the biggest risks for hearing loss and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds may be more likely to be exposed to damaging levels of noise in jobs in mining, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture.

    Lifestyle factors which may be more prevalent in lower socioeconomic communities such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and a lack of regular exercise are also related to the risk of hearing loss.

    Finally, people with lower incomes may face challenges in accessing timely hearing care, alongside competing health needs, which could lead to missed identification of treatable ear disease.

    Why does this disparity in hearing loss matter?

    We like to think of Australia as an egalitarian society – the land of the fair go. But nearly half of people in Australia with hearing loss are of working age and mostly ineligible for publicly funded hearing services.

    Hearing aids with a private hearing care provider cost from around A$1,000 up to more than $4,000 for higher-end devices. Most people need two hearing aids.

    A builder using a grinder machine at a construction site.
    Hearing loss might be more common in low income groups because they’re exposed to more noise at work.
    Dmitry Kalinovsky/Shutterstock

    Lack of access to affordable hearing care for working-age adults on low incomes comes with an economic as well as a social cost.

    Previous economic analysis estimated hearing loss was responsible for financial costs of around $20 billion in 2019–20 in Australia. The largest component of these costs was productivity losses (unemployment, under-employment and Jobseeker social security payment costs) among working-age adults.

    Providing affordable hearing care for all Australians

    Lack of affordable hearing care for working-age adults from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may significantly exacerbate the impact of hearing loss among deprived communities and worsen social inequalities.

    Recently, the federal government has been considering extending publicly subsidised hearing services to lower income working age Australians. We believe reforming the current government Hearing Services Program and expanding eligibility to this group could not only promote a more inclusive, fairer and healthier society but may also yield overall cost savings by reducing lost productivity.

    All Australians should have access to affordable hearing care to have sufficient functional hearing to achieve their potential in life. That’s the land of the fair go.The Conversation

    Mohammad Nure Alam, PhD Candidate in Economics, Macquarie University; Kompal Sinha, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Macquarie University, and Piers Dawes, Professor, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland

    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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Who you are and where you live shouldn’t determine your ability to survive 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.

    In Canada, nearly everyone has a cancer story to share. It affects one in every two people, and despite improvements in cancer survivorship, one out of every four people affected by cancer still will die from it.

    As a scientist dedicated to cancer care, I work directly with patients to reimagine a system that was never designed for them in the first place – a system in which your quality of care depends on social drivers like your appearance, your bank statements and your postal code.

    We know that poverty, poor nutrition, housing instability and limited access to education and employment can contribute to both the development and progression of cancer. Quality nutrition and regular exercise reduce cancer risk but are contingent on affordable food options and the ability to stay active in safe, walkable neighbourhoods. Environmental hazards like air pollution and toxic waste elevate the risk of specific cancers, but are contingent on the built environment, laws safeguarding workers and the availability of affordable housing.

    On a health-system level, we face implicit biases among care providers, a lack of health workforce competence in addressing the social determinants of health, and services that do not cater to the needs of marginalized individuals.

    Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, those with low income and gender diverse individuals face the most discrimination in health care, resulting in inadequate experiences, missed diagnosis and avoidance of care. One patient living in subsidized housing told me, “You get treated like a piece of garbage – you come out and feel twice as bad.”

    As Canadians, we benefit from a taxpayer funded health-care system that encompasses cancer care services. The average Canadian enjoys a life expectancy of more than 80 years and Canada boasts high cancer survival rates. While we have made incredible strides in cancer care, we must work together to ensure these benefits are equally shared amongst all people in Canada. We need to redesign systems of care so that they are:

    1. Anti-oppressive. We must begin by understanding and responding to historical and systemic racism that shapes cancer risk, access to care and quality of life for individuals facing marginalizing conditions. Without tackling the root causes, we will never be able to fully close the cancer care gap. This commitment involves undoing intergenerational trauma and harm through public policies that elevate the living and working conditions of all people.
    2. Patient-centric. We need to prioritize patient needs, preferences and values in all aspects of their health-care experience. This means tailoring treatments and services to individual patient needs. In policymaking, it involves creating policies that are informed by and responsive to the real-life experiences of patients. In research, it involves engaging patients in the research process and ensuring studies are relevant to and respectful of their unique perspectives and needs. This holistic approach ensures that patients’ perspectives are central to all aspects of health care.
    3. Socially just. We must strive for a society in which everyone has equal access to resources, opportunities and rights, and systemic inequalities and injustices are actively challenged and addressed. When redesigning the cancer care system, this involves proactive practices that create opportunities for all people, particularly those experiencing the most marginalization, to become involved in systemic health-care decision-making. A system that is responsive to the needs of the most marginalized will ultimately work better for all people.

    Who you are, how you look, where you live and how much money you make should never be the difference between life and death. Let us commit to a future in which all people have the resources and support to prevent and treat cancer so that no one is left behind.

    This article is republished from HealthyDebate 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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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