The Biggest Cause Of Back Pain
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.
Will Harlow, specialist over-50s physiotherapist, shares the most common cause (and its remedy) in this video:
The seat of the problem
The issue (for most people, anyway) is not in the back itself, nor the core in general, but rather, in the glutes. That is to say: the gluteus maximus, medius, and minimus. They assist in bending forwards (collaborating half-and-half with your back muscles), and help control pelvic alignment while walking.
Sitting for long periods weakens the glutes, causing the back to overcompensate, leading to pain. So, obviously don’t do that, if you can help it. Weak glutes shift the work to your back muscles during bending and walking, increasing strain and—as a result—back pain.
The solution (besides “sit less”) is to do specific exercises to strengthen the glutes. When you do, focus on good form and do not try to push through pain. If the exercises themselves all cause pain, then stop and consult a local physiotherapist to figure out your next step.
With that in mind, the five exercises recommended in this video to strengthen glutes and reduce back pain are:
- Hip abduction (isometric): use a heavy resistance band or belt around legs above the knees, push outwards.
- The clam: lie on your side, bend your knees 90°, and lift your top knee while keeping your body forward. Focus on glute engagement.
- Clam with resistance band: use a light resistance band above your knees and perform the same clam exercise.
- Hip abduction (straight leg): lie on your side, keep legs straight, lift your top leg diagonally backward. Lead with your heel to target your glutes and avoid back strain.
- Hip abduction with resistance band: place a resistance band around your ankles, and lift leg as in the previous exercise.
For more on all these, plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- 6 Ways To Look After Your Back
- Strong Curves: A Woman’s Guide To Building A Better Butt And Body – by Bret Contreras & Kellie Davis
- How To Stop Pain From Spreading
Take care!
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:
-
How they did it: STAT reporters expose how ailing seniors suffer when Medicare Advantage plans use algorithms to deny care
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 a call with a long-time source, what stood out most to STAT reporters Bob Herman and Casey Ross was just how viscerally frustrated and angry the source was about an algorithm used by insurance companies to decide how long patients should stay in a nursing home or rehab facility before being sent home.
The STAT stories had a far-reaching impact:
- The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs took a rare step of launching a formal investigation into the use of algorithms by the country’s three largest Medicare Advantage insurers.
- Thirty-two House members urged the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to increase the oversight of algorithms that health insurers use to make coverage decisions.
- In a rare step, CMS launched its own investigation into UnitedHealth. It also stiffened its regulations on the use of proprietary algorithms and introduced plans to audit denials across Medicare Advantage plans in 2024.
- Based on STAT’s reporting, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries filed two class-action lawsuits against UnitedHealth and its NaviHealth subsidiary, the maker of the algorithm, and against Humana, another major health insurance company that was also using the algorithm.
- Amid scrutiny, UnitedHealth renamed NaviHealth.
The companies never allowed an on-the-record interview with their executives, but they acknowledged that STAT’s reporting was true, according to the news organization.
Ross and Herman spoke with The Journalist’s Resource about their project and shared the following eight tips.
1. Search public comments on proposed federal rules to find sources.
Herman and Ross knew that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had put out a request for public comments, asking stakeholders within the Medicare Advantage industry how the system could improve.
There are two main ways to get Medicare coverage: original Medicare, which is a fee-for-service health plan, and Medicare Advantage, which is a type of Medicare health plan offered by private insurance companies that contract with Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have increasingly become popular in recent years.
Under the Social Security Act, the public has the opportunity to submit comments on Medicare’s proposed national coverage determinations. CMS uses public comments to inform its proposed and final decisions. It responds in detail to all public comments when issuing a final decision.
The reporters began combing through hundreds of public comments attached to a proposed Medicare Advantage rule that was undergoing federal review. NaviHealth, the UnitedHealth subsidiary and the maker of the algorithm, came up in many of the comments, which include the submitters’ information.
“These are screaming all-caps comments to federal regulators about YOU NEED TO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT’S DISGUSTING,” Ross says.
“The federal government is proposing rules and regulations all the time,” adds Herman, STAT’s business of health care reporter. “If someone’s going to take the time and effort to comment on them, they must have at least some knowledge of what’s going on. It’s just a great tool for any journalist to use to figure out more and who to contact.”
The reporters also found several attorneys who had complained in the comments. They began reaching out to them, eventually gaining access to confidential documents and intermediaries who put them in touch with patients to show the human impact of the algorithm.
2. Harness the power of the reader submission box.
At the suggestion of an editor, the reporters added a reader submission box at the bottom of their first story, asking them to share their own experiences with Medicare Advantage denials.
The floodgates opened. Hundreds of submissions arrived.
By the end of their first story, Herman and Ross had confidential records and some patients, but they had no internal sources in the companies they were investigating, including Navihealth. The submission box led them to their first internal source.
(Screenshot of STAT’s submission box.) The journalists also combed through LinkedIn and reached out to former and current employees, but the response rate was much lower than what they received via the submission box.
The submission box “is just right there,” Herman says. “People who would want to reach out to us can do it right then and there after they read the story and it’s fresh in their minds.”
3. Mine podcasts relevant to your story.
The reporters weren’t sure if they could get interviews with some of the key figures in the story, including Tom Scully, the former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who drew up the initial plans for NaviHealth years before UnitedHealth acquired it.
But Herman and another colleague had written previously about Scully’s private equity firm and they had found a podcast where he talked about his work. So Herman went back to the podcast — where he discovered Scully had also discussed NaviHealth.
The reporters also used the podcast to get Scully on the phone for an interview.
“So we knew we had a good jumping off point there to be like, ‘OK, you’ve talked about NaviHealth on a podcast, let’s talk about this,’” Herman says. “I think that helped make him more willing to speak with us.”
4. When covering AI initiatives, proceed with caution.
“A source of mine once said to me, ‘AI is not magic,’” Ross says. “People need to just ask questions about it because AI has this aura about it that it’s objective, that it’s accurate, that it’s unquestionable, that it never fails. And that is not true.”
AI is not a neutral, objective machine, Ross says. “It’s based on data that’s fed into it and people need to ask questions about that data.”
He suggests several questions to ask about the data behind AI tools:
- Where does the data come from?
- Who does it represent?
- How is this tool being applied?
- Do the people to whom the tool is being applied match the data on which it was trained? “If racial groups or genders or age of economic situations are not adequately represented in the training set, then there can be an awful lot of bias in the output of the tool and how it’s applied,” Ross says.
- How is the tool applied within the institution? Are people being forced to forsake their judgment and their own ability to do their jobs to follow the algorithm?
5. Localize the story.
More than half of all Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare Advantage and there’s a high likelihood that there are multiple Medicare Advantage plans in every county across the nation.
“So it’s worth looking to see how Medicare Advantage plans are growing in your area,” Herman says.
Finding out about AI use will most likely rely on shoe-leather reporting of speaking with providers, nursing homes and rehab facilities, attorneys and patients in your community, he says. Another source is home health agencies, which may be caring for patients who were kicked out of nursing homes and rehab facilities too soon because of a decision by an algorithm.
The anecdote that opens their first story involves a small regional health insurer in Wisconsin, which was using NaviHealth and a contractor to manage post-acute care services, Ross says.
“It’s happening to people in small communities who have no idea that this insurer they’ve signed up with is using this tool made by this other company that operates nationally,” Ross says.
There are also plenty of other companies like NaviHealth that are being used by Medicare Advantage plans, Herman says. “So it’s understanding which Medicare Advantage plans are being sold in your area and then which post-acute management companies they’re using,” he adds.
Some regional insurers have online documents that show which contractors they use to evaluate post-acute care services.
6. Get familiar with Medicare’s appeals databases
Medicare beneficiaries can contest Medicare Advantage denials through a five-stage process, which can last months to years. The appeals can be filed via the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals.
“Between 2020 and 2022, the number of appeals filed to contest Medicare Advantage denials shot up 58%, with nearly 150,000 requests to review a denial filed in 2022, according to a federal database,” Ross and Herman write in their first story. “Federal records show most denials for skilled nursing care are eventually overturned, either by the plan itself or an independent body that adjudicates Medicare appeals.”
There are several sources to find appeals data. Be mindful that the cases themselves are not public to protect patient privacy, but you can find the number of appeals filed and the rationale for decisions.
CMS has two quality improvement organizations, or QIOs, Livanta and Kepro, which are required to file free, publicly-available annual reports, about the cases they handle, Ross says.
Another company, Maximus, a Quality Improvement Contractor, also files reports on prior authorization cases it adjudicates for Medicare. The free annual reports include data on raw numbers of cases and basic information about the percentage denials either overturned or upheld on appeal, Ross explains.
CMS also maintains its own database on appeals for Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage plans) and Part D, which covers prescription drugs, although the data is not complete, Ross explains.
7. Give your editor regular updates.
“Sprinkle the breadcrumbs in front of your editors,” Ross says.
“If you wrap your editors in the process, you’re more likely to be able to get to the end of [the story] before they say, ‘That’s it! Give me your copy,’” Ross says.
8. Get that first story out.
“You don’t have to know everything before you write that first story,” Ross says. “Because with that first story, if it has credibility and it resonates with people, sources will come forward and sources will continue to come forward.”
Read the stories
Denied by AI: How Medicare Advantage plans use algorithms to cut off care for seniors in need
UnitedHealth pushed employees to follow an algorithm to cut off Medicare patients’ rehab care
UnitedHealth used secret rules to restrict rehab care for seriously ill Medicare Advantage patients
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers – by Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky
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 book does kick off with a section that didn’t age well—he talks of the stress induced globally by the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, and how that kind of thing just doesn’t happen any more. Today, we have much less existentially dangerous stressors!
However, the fact we went and had another pandemic really only adds weight to the general arguments of the book, rather than detracting.
We are consistently beset by “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” as Shakespeare would put it, and there’s a reason (or twenty) why many people go grocery-shopping with the cortisol levels of someone being hunted for sport.
So, why don’t zebras get ulcers, as they actually are hunted for food?
They don’t have rent to pay or a mortgage, they don’t have taxes, or traffic, or a broken washing machine, or a project due in the morning. Their problems come one at a time. They have a useful stress response to a stressful situation (say, being chased by lions), and when the danger is over, they go back to grazing. They have time to recover.
For us, we are (usually) not being chased by lions. But we have everything else, constantly, around the clock. So, how to fix that?
Dr. Sapolsky comprehensively describes our physiological responses to stress in quite different terms than many. By reframing stress responses as part of the homeostatic system—trying to get the body back into balance—we find a solution, or rather: ways to help our bodies recover.
The style is “pop-science” and is very accessible for the lay reader while still clearly coming from a top-level academic who is neck-deep in neuroendocrinological research. Best of both worlds!
Bottom line: if you try to take very day at a time, but sometimes several days gang up on you at once, and you’d like to learn more about what happens inside you as a result and how to fix that, this book is for you!
Click here to check out “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers” and give yourself a break!
Share This Post
-
Antihistamines for Runny Nose?
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.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝Do you have any articles about using Anti-Histamines? My nose seems to be running a lot. I don’t have a cold or any allergies that I know of. I tried a Nasal spray Astepro, but it doesn’t do much.?❞
Just for you, we wrote such an article yesterday in response to this question!
The Astepro that you tried, by the way, is a brand name of the azelastine we mentioned near the end, before we got to talking about systemic corticosteroids such as beclometasone dipropionate—this latter might help you if antihistamines haven’t, and if your doctor advises there’s no contraindication (for most people it is safe for there are exceptions, such as if you are immunocompromised and/or currently fighting some infection).
You can find more details on all this in yesterday’s article, which in case you missed it, can be found at:
Antihistamines’ Generation Gap: Are You Ready For Allergy Season?
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics
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 Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinions on the medicinal use of psychedelics, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- 32% said “This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders”
- 32% said “There are some benefits, but they don’t outweigh the risks”
- 20% said “This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority”
- 16% said “This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best”
Quite a spread of answers, so what does the science say?
This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best! True or False?
False! We’re tackling this one first, because it’s easiest to answer:
There are some moderately-well established [usually moderate] clinical benefits from some psychedelics for some people.
If that sounds like a very guarded statement, it is. Part of this is because “psychedelics” is an umbrella term; perhaps we should have conducted separate polls for psilocybin, MDMA, ayahuasca, LSD, ibogaine, etc, etc.
In fact: maybe we will do separate main features for some of these, as there is a lot to say about each of them separately.
Nevertheless, looking at the spread of research as it stands for psychedelics as a category, the answers are often similar across the board, even when the benefits/risks may differ from drug to drug.
To speak in broad terms, if we were to make a research summary for each drug it would look approximately like this in each case:
- there has been research into this, but not nearly enough, as “the war on drugs” may well have manifestly been lost (the winner of the war being: drugs; still around and more plentiful than ever), but it did really cramp science for a few decades.
- the studies are often small, heterogenous (often using moderately wealthy white student-age population samples), and with a low standard of evidence (i.e. the methodology often has some holes that leave room for reasonable doubt).
- the benefits recorded are often small and transient.
- in their favor, though, the risks are also generally recorded as being quite low, assuming proper safe administration*.
*Illustrative example:
Person A takes MDMA in a club, dances their cares away, has had only alcohol to drink, sweats buckets but they don’t care because they love everyone and they see how we’re all one really and it all makes sense to them and then they pass out from heat exhaustion and dehydration and suffer kidney damage (not to mention a head injury when falling) and are hospitalized and could die;
Person B takes MDMA in a lab, is overwhelmed with a sense of joy and the clarity of how their participation in the study is helping humanity; they want to hug the researcher and express their gratitude; the researcher reminds them to drink some water.
Which is not to say that a lab is the only safe manner of administration; there are many possible setups for supervised usage sites. But it does mean that the risks are often as much environmental as they are risks inherent to the drug itself.
Others are more inherent to the drug itself, such as adverse cardiac events for some drugs (ibogaine is one that definitely needs medical supervision, for example).
For those who’d like to see numbers and clinical examples of the bullet points we gave above, here you go; this is a great (and very readable) overview:
NIH | Evidence Brief: Psychedelic Medications for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders
Notwithstanding the word “brief” (intended in the sense of: briefing), this is not especially brief and is rather an entire book (available for free, right there!), but we do recommend reading it if you have time.
This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority: True or False?
True, technically, insofar as the evidence points to these drugs being useful for such things as depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, etc, and estimates of people who struggle with mental health issues in general is often cited as being 1 in 4, or 1 in 5. Of course, many people may just have moderate anxiety, or a transient period of depression, etc; many, meanwhile, have it worth.
In short: there is a very large minority of people who suffer from mental health issues that, for each issue, there may be one or more psychedelic that could help.
This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders: True or False?
True if and only if we’re willing to accept the so far weak evidence that we discussed above. False otherwise, while the jury remains out.
One thing in its favor though is that while the evidence is weak, it’s not contradictory, insofar as the large preponderance of evidence says such therapies probably do work (there aren’t many studies that returned negative results); the evidence is just weak.
When a thousand scientists say “we’re not completely sure, but this looks like it helps; we need to do more research”, then it’s good to believe them on all counts—the positivity and the uncertainty.
This is a very different picture than we saw when looking at, say, ear candling or homeopathy (things that the evidence says simply do not work).
We haven’t been linking individual studies so far, because that book we linked above has many, and the number of studies we’d have to list would be:
n = number of kinds of psychedelic drugs x number of conditions to be treated
e.g. how does psilocybin fare for depression, eating disorders, anxiety, addiction, PTSD, this, that, the other; now how does ayahuasca fare for each of those, and so on for each drug and condition; at least 25 or 30 as a baseline number, and we don’t have that room.
But here are a few samples to finish up:
- Psilocybin as a New Approach to Treat Depression and Anxiety in the Context of Life-Threatening Diseases—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
- Therapeutic Use of LSD in Psychiatry: A Systematic Review of Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trials
- Efficacy of Psychoactive Drugs for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review of MDMA, Ketamine, LSD and Psilocybin
- Changes in self-rumination and self-compassion mediate the effect of psychedelic experiences on decreases in depression, anxiety, and stress.
- Psychedelic Treatments for Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Patient Experiences in Qualitative Studies
- Repeated lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) reverses stress-induced anxiety-like behavior, cortical synaptogenesis deficits and serotonergic neurotransmission decline
In closing…
The general scientific consensus is presently “many of those drugs may ameliorate many of those conditions, but we need a lot more research before we can say for sure”.
On a practical level, an important take-away from this is twofold:
- drugs, even those popularly considered recreational, aren’t ontologically evil, generally do have putative merits, and have been subject to a lot of dramatization/sensationalization, especially by the US government in its famous war on drugs.
- drugs, even those popularly considered beneficial and potentially lifechangingly good, are still capable of doing great harm if mismanaged, so if putting aside “don’t do drugs” as a propaganda of the past, then please do still hold onto “don’t do drugs alone”; trained professional supervision is a must for safety.
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:
-
Not quite an introvert or an extrovert? Maybe you’re an ambivert
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 personalities are generally thought to consist of five primary factors: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, with each of us ranking low to high for each.
Extroversion is one of the Big Five personality traits. Big 5 personality traits graphic Those who rank high in extroversion, known as extroverts, typically focus on their external world. They tend to be more optimistic, recharge by socialising and enjoy social interaction.
On the other end of the spectrum, introverts are more likely to be quiet, deep thinkers, who recharge by being alone and learn by observing (but aren’t necessarily shy).
But what if you’re neither an introvert or extrovert – or you’re a bit of both? Another category might fit better: ambiverts. They’re the middle of the spectrum and are also called “social introverts”.
What exactly is an ambivert?
The term ambivert emerged in 1923. While it was not initially embraced as part of the introvert-extrovert spectrum, more recent research suggests ambiverts are a distinct category.
Ambiverts exhibit traits of both extroverts and introverts, adapting their behaviour based on the situation. It may be that they socialise well but need solitude and rest to recharge, and they intuitively know when to do this.
Ambiverts seems to have the following characteristics:
- good communication skills, as a listener and speaker
- ability to be a peacemaker if conflict occurs
- leadership and negotiation skills, especially in teams
- compassion and understanding for others.
Some research suggests ambiverts make up a significant portion of the population, with about two-thirds of people falling into this category.
What makes someone an ambivert?
Personality is thought to be 50% inherited, with the remaining being influenced by environmental factors and individual experiences.
Emerging research has found physical locations of genes on chromosomes closely aligned with extroversion-introversion traits.
So, chances are, if you are a blend of the two styles as an ambivert, one of your parents may be too.
What do ambiverts tend to be good at?
Ambiverts are flexible with talking and also listening. Cotton Bro Studios/Pexels One area of research focus in recent decades has been personality type and job satisfaction. One study examined 340 introverts, extroverts and ambiverts in sales careers.
It has always been thought extroverts were more successful with sales. However, the author found ambiverts were more influential and successful.
They may have a sales advantage because of their ability to read the situation and modify their behaviour if they notice a customer is not interested, as they’re able to reflect and adapt.
Ambiverts stress less than introverts
Generally, people lower in extroversion have higher stress levels. One study found introverts experience more stress than both ambiverts and extroverts.
It may be that highly sensitive or introverted individuals are more susceptible to worry and stress due to being more perfectionistic.
Ambiverts are adept at knowing when to be outgoing and when to be reflective, showcasing a high degree of situational awareness. This may contribute to their overall wellbeing because of how they handle stress.
What do ambiverts tend to struggle with?
Ambiverts may overextend themselves attempting to conform or fit in with many social settings. This is termed “overadaptation” and may force ambiverts to feel uncomfortable and strained, ultimately resulting in stress or burnout.
Ambiverts tend to handle stress well but feel strained when overadapting. Cottonbro Studios/Pexels But personality traits aren’t fixed
Regardless of where you sit on the scale of introversion through to extroversion, the reality is it may not be fixed. Different situations may be more comfortable for introverts to be social, and extroverts may be content with quieter moments.
And there are also four other key personality traits – openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism – which we all possess in varying levels, and are expressed in different ways, alongside our levels of extroversion.
There is also evidence our personality traits can change throughout our life spans are indeed open to change.
Peta Stapleton, Associate Professor in Psychology, 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!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Does intermittent fasting increase or decrease our risk of 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.
Research over the years has suggested intermittent fasting has the potential to improve our health and reduce the likelihood of developing cancer.
So what should we make of a new study in mice suggesting fasting increases the risk of cancer?
Stock-Asso/Shutterstock What is intermittent fasting?
Intermittent fasting means switching between times of eating and not eating. Unlike traditional diets that focus on what to eat, this approach focuses on when to eat.
There are lots of commonly used intermittent fasting schedules. The 16/8 plan means you only eat within an eight-hour window, then fast for the remaining 16 hours. Another popular option is the 5:2 diet, where you eat normally for five days then restrict calories for two days.
In Australia, poor diet contributes to 7% of all cases of disease, including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancers of the bowel and lung. Globally, poor diet is linked to 22% of deaths in adults over the age of 25.
Intermittent fasting has gained a lot of attention in recent years for its potential health benefits. Fasting influences metabolism, which is how your body processes food and energy. It can affect how the body absorbs nutrients from food and burns energy from sugar and fat.
What did the new study find?
The new study, published in Nature, found when mice ate again after fasting, their gut stem cells, which help repair the intestine, became more active. The stem cells were better at regenerating compared with those of mice who were either totally fasting or eating normally.
This suggests the body might be better at healing itself when eating after fasting.
However, this could also have a downside. If there are genetic mutations present, the burst of stem cell-driven regeneration after eating again might make it easier for cancer to develop.
Polyamines – small molecules important for cell growth – drive this regeneration after refeeding. These polyamines can be produced by the body, influenced by diet, or come from gut bacteria.
The findings suggest that while fasting and refeeding can improve stem cell function and regeneration, there might be a tradeoff with an increased risk of cancer, especially if fasting and refeeding cycles are repeated over time.
While this has been shown in mice, the link between intermittent fasting and cancer risk in humans is more complicated and not yet fully understood.
What has other research found?
Studies in animals have found intermittent fasting can help with weight loss, improve blood pressure and blood sugar levels, and subsequently reduce the risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Research in humans suggests intermittent fasting can reduce body weight, improve metabolic health, reduce inflammation, and enhance cellular repair processes, which remove damaged cells that could potentially turn cancerous.
However, other studies warn that the benefits of intermittent fasting are the same as what can be achieved through calorie restriction, and that there isn’t enough evidence to confirm it reduces cancer risk in humans.
What about in people with cancer?
In studies of people who have cancer, fasting has been reported to protect against the side effects of chemotherapy and improve the effectiveness of cancer treatments, while decreasing damage to healthy cells.
Prolonged fasting in some patients who have cancer has been shown to be safe and may potentially be able to decrease tumour growth.
On the other hand, some experts advise caution. Studies in mice show intermittent fasting could weaken the immune system and make the body less able to fight infection, potentially leading to worse health outcomes in people who are unwell. However, there is currently no evidence that fasting increases the risk of bacterial infections in humans.
So is it OK to try intermittent fasting?
The current view on intermittent fasting is that it can be beneficial, but experts agree more research is needed. Short-term benefits such as weight loss and better overall health are well supported. But we don’t fully understand the long-term effects, especially when it comes to cancer risk and other immune-related issues.
Since there are many different methods of intermittent fasting and people react to them differently, it’s hard to give advice that works for everyone. And because most people who participated in the studies were overweight, or had diabetes or other health problems, we don’t know how the results apply to the broader population.
For healthy people, intermittent fasting is generally considered safe. But it’s not suitable for everyone, particularly those with certain medical conditions, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and people with a history of eating disorders. So consult your health-care provider before starting any fasting program.
Amali Cooray, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering and Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)
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:
