
Why do some people get bad ‘hangxiety’ after a night of drinking and others don’t?
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.
You wake up after a night out. Your head’s pounding and a wave of unease hits before you’ve even looked at your phone. Restlessness, self-doubt and flashes of regret creep in as last night’s conversations start to replay.
“Hangxiety” is not a clinical term but the anxious, uneasy feeling that follows drinking is widely recognised. Most people expect a headache, but the emotional comedown can hit just as hard.
Alcohol disrupts brain systems that regulate mood and stress. It boosts gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), a calming chemical, and suppresses glutamate, which keeps you alert. That’s why confidence rises and worries fade.
As your body processes alcohol, this balance flips. Calming signals drop, excitatory ones surge and your nervous system swings into overdrive.
Alcohol also disrupts the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis – the body’s stress system – spiking cortisol, our main stress hormone.
Combine that with poor sleep, dehydration and low blood sugar, and you’ve got the perfect recipe for feeling on edge.
To understand how common these feelings are, we analysed 22 studies spanning four decades and involving more than 6,000 adults worldwide. Our systematic review published today included lab experiments, surveys and interviews capturing real-world experiences.
Despite differences in study designs and the challenge of asking hungover people to accurately recall their experiences, the results were consistent: hangovers triggered higher levels of anxiety, stress, guilt, irritability and sadness.

Certain traits make hangxiety hit harder
People prone to anxiety or low mood, or those who drink to cope with stress, experience hangxiety more intensely – not because hangovers create new problems, but because alcohol temporarily dulls negative emotions.
When the effects wear off, those feelings return in sharper focus, which can amplify stress and worry.
Hangxiety also hits harder when people act out of character while drunk. Saying or doing things that clash with personal values can trigger embarrassment or shame the next day, fuelling harsh self-criticism and intensifying emotional distress.
People who struggle with emotional regulation – recognising and managing your emotions in healthy ways – face particular challenges.
Good emotional regulation might mean noticing stress and choosing to go for run or call a friend, rather than reaching straight for a drink. It’s pausing to ask “what do I actually need right now?”
Without these skills, people get stuck in cycles of self-blame, amplifying the emotional rebound.
What traits make it less bothersome?
Not everyone experiences hangxiety the same way. People with higher emotional resilience – the ability to adapt to stress and keep perspective – tend to cope more effectively.
Reframing “I’m falling apart” into “my body’s recovering” shifts hangxiety from crisis into something temporary.
Social support helps too. Sharing a laugh about the night before or talking it through eases isolation and shame. Knowing you’re not alone makes the experience less overwhelming.
Bad hangxiety doesn’t stop people drinking
You might assume a brutal hangover would deter future drinking, but most people in our review saw hangovers as a routine inconvenience or rite of passage.
Rather than reducing their alcohol intake, people relied on short-term fixes such as, drinking water or eating beforehand to lessen the severity of their hangover.
When alcohol becomes a coping tool for stress, hangxiety can actually reinforce the cycle. Alcohol dulls discomfort, but when it wears off, the same feelings return, prompting another drink for relief.
This loop helps explain why even frequent hangovers rarely lead to meaningful behaviour change.
If you’re experiencing hangxiety, aside from planning to drink less next time, to get through the day:
- hydrate, rest and eat well to support your body’s recovery
- skip the “hair of the dog”. More alcohol only delays the crash
- ground yourself with slow breaths or a short walk to calm the nervous system
- reach out to friends or loved ones. Connection eases both guilt and anxiety.
In the longer term, reflect on why you drink and whether it’s become a way to manage stress.
If you’re drinking daily to manage emotions, if hangxiety disrupts your work or relationships, or if anxiety lingers long after the hangover fades, it’s time to seek professional help. A GP or a psychologist can assess whether underlying anxiety or problematic drinking patterns need support.
Hangxiety is more than a bad mood after drinking – it’s your brain and body recalibrating after chemical turbulence, where brain chemistry, personality and coping strategies interact.
Some people feel it mildly, others more deeply, depending on levels of emotional awareness, resilience and support. Understanding this can help replace self-criticism with self-compassion, and perhaps rethink what the “morning after” really means.
Rebecca Rothman, PhD Candidate in Clinical Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology and Blair Aitken, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University of Technology
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
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains
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.
If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”.
But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning?
What’s the difference anyway?
Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock What’s gastroenteritis?
Gastroenteritis, or gastro for short, is a gut infection caused by a virus, bacterium or other microbe.
The gut is teeming with cells including healthy microbes and the cells lining the gut. But when viruses, bacteria and other microbes start to invade your gut, they colonise, build up in large numbers and eventually cause the cells lining the gut to inflame. The “-itis” at the end of gastroenteritis means inflammation.
Gastroenteritis is extremely common. In Australia there are an estimated 17.2 million cases a year.
So where do these gastro-causing microbes come from? Eating contaminated food is often the source.
However you can acquire these microbes in other ways. For example, if you touch a surface where someone sick from viral gastroenteritis had vomited on, that virus could transfer to your hands. And if your hands touched your mouth, you in turn could contract viral gastroenteritis.
What’s food poisoning?
Food poisoning refers to getting sick from eating food contaminated with chemicals, microbes or toxins.
For example if you ate food contaminated with insecticides or methyl alcohol (methanol) that would count as food poisoning. If you ate puffer fish or poisonous mushrooms that would count too. But food poisoning doesn’t include the effects of eating a food you’re allergic to.
The vast majority of food poisonings are as a result of food contaminated by microbes and their toxins. When you eat or drink them it’s like a missile strike. The toxins in particular can rapidly cause inflammation and damage the lining of the gut.
To add to the confusion, food poisoning is often referred to as foodborne gastroenteritis.
Food poisoning (or foodborne gastroenteritis) is also common in Australia. It accounts for about one-third of all cases of gastroenteritis or an estimated 5.4 million cases every year.
How can we tell the two apart?
Both gastroenteritis and food poisoning have symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever and headaches. But these symptoms can come on in different ways.
Viral gastroenteritis, such as with norovirus, usually causes symptoms 24–48 hours after exposure, which can last for one to two days.
But food poisoning after eating microbial toxins can come on very quickly. For example, toxins from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus can cause symptoms within 30 minutes of eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat. Fortunately, symptoms usually get better within 24 hours.
Symptoms don’t always come on so quickly in all cases of bacterial food poisoning. For example, it can take as long as 70 days between exposure to Listeria and symptoms occurring, although, on average it’s about three weeks. This long incubation period can make it difficult to work out if a particular food is responsible for someone getting sick.
As a general guide food poisoning occurs quite quickly (within hours of eating contaminated food) while gastroenteritis can take a day or more after eating to get sick. But there is no hard and fast rule.
It can take weeks from eating soft cheese contaminated with Listeria before you have symptoms. In Green/Shutterstock How do I prevent them?
The same precautions when handling food apply to preventing both gastroenteritis and food poisoning. These steps not only lower your risk of being affected in the first place, they lower your risk of you infecting others.
Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before preparing food. Use separate cutting boards and utensils for raw and cooked foods to help avoid cross-contamination. Cook food thoroughly and store it at safe temperatures.
Gastroenteritis can involve transmission of microbes through means other than food, for instance, via poo on your hands if you don’t wash your hands after using the toilet or after changing a child’s nappy. So wash your hands afterwards.
To prevent others from becoming sick, make sure you quickly disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. First, put on gloves and wash surfaces with hot water and a detergent. Then disinfect using household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite.
How can I get better?
Treating both gastroenteritis and food poisoning focuses on preventing dehydration and relieving symptoms.
To avoid dehydration, drink plenty of fluids. For moderate or severe cases, you can buy commercial oral rehydration solution from a pharmacy.
You can also make your own oral rehydration solution by adding 6 teaspoons of sugar, ½ teaspoon of salt and ½ teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to a litre of water. You can splash in some cordial for taste.
If symptoms are severe or persist you should see your GP or go to the emergency department.
Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Unbroken – by Dr. MaryCatherine McDonald
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 reviewed books about trauma before, so what makes this one different? Mostly, it’s the different framing.
Dr. McDonald advocates for a neurobiological understanding of trauma, which really levels the playing field when it comes to different types of trauma that are often treated very differently, when the end result in the brain is more or less the same.
Does this mean she proposes a “one-size fits all” approach? Kind of!
Insofar as she offers a one-size fits all approach that is then personalized by the user, but most of her advices will go for most kinds of trauma in any case. This is particularly useful for any of us who’ve ever hit a wall with therapists when they expect a person to only be carrying one major trauma.
Instead, with Dr. McDonald’s approach, we can take her methods and use them for each one.
After an introduction and overview, each chapter contains a different set of relevant psychological science explored through a case study, and then at the end of the chapter, tools to use and try out.
The style is very light and readable, notwithstanding the weighty subject matter.
Bottom line: if you’ve been trying to deal with (or avoid dealing with) some kind(s) of trauma, this book will doubtlessly contain at least a few new tools for you. It did for this reviewer, who reads a lot!
Click here to check out Unbroken, because it’s never too late to heal!
Share This Post
-
Clean Needles Save Lives. In Some States, They Might Not Be Legal.
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.
Kim Botteicher hardly thinks of herself as a criminal.
On the main floor of a former Catholic church in Bolivar, Pennsylvania, Botteicher runs a flower shop and cafe.
In the former church’s basement, she also operates a nonprofit organization focused on helping people caught up in the drug epidemic get back on their feet.
The nonprofit, FAVOR ~ Western PA, sits in a rural pocket of the Allegheny Mountains east of Pittsburgh. Her organization’s home county of Westmoreland has seen roughly 100 or more drug overdose deaths each year for the past several years, the majority involving fentanyl.
Thousands more residents in the region have been touched by the scourge of addiction, which is where Botteicher comes in.
She helps people find housing, jobs, and health care, and works with families by running support groups and explaining that substance use disorder is a disease, not a moral failing.
But she has also talked publicly about how she has made sterile syringes available to people who use drugs.
“When that person comes in the door,” she said, “if they are covered with abscesses because they have been using needles that are dirty, or they’ve been sharing needles — maybe they’ve got hep C — we see that as, ‘OK, this is our first step.’”
Studies have identified public health benefits associated with syringe exchange services. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says these programs reduce HIV and hepatitis C infections, and that new users of the programs are more likely to enter drug treatment and more likely to stop using drugs than nonparticipants.
This harm-reduction strategy is supported by leading health groups, such as the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the International AIDS Society.
But providing clean syringes could put Botteicher in legal danger. Under Pennsylvania law, it’s a misdemeanor to distribute drug paraphernalia. The state’s definition includes hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used for injecting banned drugs. Pennsylvania is one of 12 states that do not implicitly or explicitly authorize syringe services programs through statute or regulation, according to a 2023 analysis. A few of those states, but not Pennsylvania, either don’t have a state drug paraphernalia law or don’t include syringes in it.
Those working on the front lines of the opioid epidemic, like Botteicher, say a reexamination of Pennsylvania’s law is long overdue.
There’s an urgency to the issue as well: Billions of dollars have begun flowing into Pennsylvania and other states from legal settlements with companies over their role in the opioid epidemic, and syringe services are among the eligible interventions that could be supported by that money.
The opioid settlements reached between drug companies and distributors and a coalition of state attorneys general included a list of recommendations for spending the money. Expanding syringe services is listed as one of the core strategies.
But in Pennsylvania, where 5,158 people died from a drug overdose in 2022, the state’s drug paraphernalia law stands in the way.
Concerns over Botteicher’s work with syringe services recently led Westmoreland County officials to cancel an allocation of $150,000 in opioid settlement funds they had previously approved for her organization. County Commissioner Douglas Chew defended the decision by saying the county “is very risk averse.”
Botteicher said her organization had planned to use the money to hire additional recovery specialists, not on syringes. Supporters of syringe services point to the cancellation of funding as evidence of the need to change state law, especially given the recommendations of settlement documents.
“It’s just a huge inconsistency,” said Zoe Soslow, who leads overdose prevention work in Pennsylvania for the public health organization Vital Strategies. “It’s causing a lot of confusion.”
Though sterile syringes can be purchased from pharmacies without a prescription, handing out free ones to make drug use safer is generally considered illegal — or at least in a legal gray area — in most of the state. In Pennsylvania’s two largest cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, officials have used local health powers to provide legal protection to people who operate syringe services programs.
Even so, in Philadelphia, Mayor Cherelle Parker, who took office in January, has made it clear she opposes using opioid settlement money, or any city funds, to pay for the distribution of clean needles, The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported. Parker’s position signals a major shift in that city’s approach to the opioid epidemic.
On the other side of the state, opioid settlement funds have had a big effect for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, a harm reduction organization. Allegheny County reported spending or committing $325,000 in settlement money as of the end of last year to support the organization’s work with sterile syringes and other supplies for safer drug use.
“It was absolutely incredible to not have to fundraise every single dollar for the supplies that go out,” said Prevention Point’s executive director, Aaron Arnold. “It takes a lot of energy. It pulls away from actual delivery of services when you’re constantly having to find out, ‘Do we have enough money to even purchase the supplies that we want to distribute?’”
In parts of Pennsylvania that lack these legal protections, people sometimes operate underground syringe programs.
The Pennsylvania law banning drug paraphernalia was never intended to apply to syringe services, according to Scott Burris, director of the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University. But there have not been court cases in Pennsylvania to clarify the issue, and the failure of the legislature to act creates a chilling effect, he said.
Carla Sofronski, executive director of the Pennsylvania Harm Reduction Network, said she was not aware of anyone having faced criminal charges for operating syringe services in the state, but she noted the threat hangs over people who do and that they are taking a “great risk.”
In 2016, the CDC flagged three Pennsylvania counties — Cambria, Crawford, and Luzerne — among 220 counties nationwide in an assessment of communities potentially vulnerable to the rapid spread of HIV and to new or continuing high rates of hepatitis C infections among people who inject drugs.
Kate Favata, a resident of Luzerne County, said she started using heroin in her late teens and wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for the support and community she found at a syringe services program in Philadelphia.
“It kind of just made me feel like I was in a safe space. And I don’t really know if there was like a come-to-God moment or come-to-Jesus moment,” she said. “I just wanted better.”
Favata is now in long-term recovery and works for a medication-assisted treatment program.
At clinics in Cambria and Somerset Counties, Highlands Health provides free or low-cost medical care. Despite the legal risk, the organization has operated a syringe program for several years, while also testing patients for infectious diseases, distributing overdose reversal medication, and offering recovery options.
Rosalie Danchanko, Highlands Health’s executive director, said she hopes opioid settlement money can eventually support her organization.
“Why shouldn’t that wealth be spread around for all organizations that are working with people affected by the opioid problem?” she asked.
In February, legislation to legalize syringe services in Pennsylvania was approved by a committee and has moved forward. The administration of Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, supports the legislation. But it faces an uncertain future in the full legislature, in which Democrats have a narrow majority in the House and Republicans control the Senate.
One of the bill’s lead sponsors, state Rep. Jim Struzzi, hasn’t always supported syringe services. But the Republican from western Pennsylvania said that since his brother died from a drug overdose in 2014, he has come to better understand the nature of addiction.
In the committee vote, nearly all of Struzzi’s Republican colleagues opposed the bill. State Rep. Paul Schemel said authorizing the “very instrumentality of abuse” crossed a line for him and “would be enabling an evil.”
After the vote, Struzzi said he wanted to build more bipartisan support. He noted that some of his own skepticism about the programs eased only after he visited Prevention Point Pittsburgh and saw how workers do more than just hand out syringes. These types of programs connect people to resources — overdose reversal medication, wound care, substance use treatment — that can save lives and lead to recovery.
“A lot of these people are … desperate. They’re alone. They’re afraid. And these programs bring them into someone who cares,” Struzzi said. “And that, to me, is a step in the right direction.”
At her nonprofit in western Pennsylvania, Botteicher is hoping lawmakers take action.
“If it’s something that’s going to help someone, then why is it illegal?” she said. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
This story was co-reported by WESA Public Radio and Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania.
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.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
How To Triple Your Chances Of Getting The “Razorblade Throat” COVID Variant Or Long COVID
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.
Well, that sounds like fun, doesn’t it? More formally known as variant NB.1.8.1, also called Nimbus (after the “NB” in its official name), comes under the Omicron variant umbrella, and is generally not nice.
Along with all the usual COVID symptoms, it is characterized by usually causing a razorblade sensation in the throat, along with gastrointestinal upset, including nausea and vomiting, which latter is probably the last thing you want if you have a “razorblade throat”.
Stats we know: in the US, it’s currently (at time of writing) the most popular variant, accounting for 43% of cases
Stats we don’t know: in the US, it’s currently (at time of writing) responsible for:
- a 21% increase in infections since the previous week
- a 40% increase in hospitalizations since the previous week
- a 36% decrease in deaths since the previous month
You may be wondering how we are giving numbers for what we said we don’t know. The answer is that COVID reporting is increasingly suffering from considerable reporting bias, that is to say, “it doesn’t count if we don’t count it”; low numbers look better for the government.
It’s the statistical equivalent of the old “if you need to use our accessible bathroom for disabled customers, please ask for the key at the desk upstairs” and then reporting that there was very low demand for it since almost nobody went upstairs to ask for the key.
Indeed, the above infection rate is generally being reported as, for example:
❝More of an uptick than a surge, the COVID case weekly positivity rate increased to 5.1% as of July 19, compared to 4.2% the week before, representing an increase of 0.3%, according to the CDC.❞
…and, that is mathematically very incorrect! A jump from 4.2 to 5.1 is not a 0.3% increase! It’s not even a 0.3 percentage points increase, it’s a 0.9 percentage points increase. Frankly, we don’t know where they got the 0.3% figure from, since the 0.9 percentage points increase can be arrived at easily by counting on one’s fingers.
As for the actual percentage increase:
- 4.2 is (of course) 100% of 4.2
- 5.1 is (grabbing a calculator) 121% of 4.2
- That is a 21% increase
…which is very different from the 0.3% increase claimed.
One important thing to understand before we get to tripling your chances of getting it
Remember when we said:
- a 40% increase in hospitalizations since the previous week
- a 36% decrease in deaths since the previous month
It’s easy to read that and think “ok, so, it’s less deadly, that’s at least one good thing”, and while there’s a logic to that… We would suggest that the death rate has gone down because the hospitalization rate has gone up, not because the variant is less deadly per se. Consider:
- You get a cough, it’s annoying, but whatever, you’re pretty sure it’s nothing. Then you can’t breathe, go to hospital, but it’s too late and you die.
- You get a cough, and nausea, and vomiting, and a razorblade throat. You go to hospital, get diagnosed, get treated, and you live.
So, the very unpleasant symptoms themselves are a protective factor, because it means you are more likely to go get treatment.
On which note…
How to triple your chances of getting it
Firstly we’ll note, the two (Omicron variant NB1.8.1, and long COVID) are linked, because higher survivorship rates mean higher long COVID rates (can’t get long COVID if you’re dead).
With that in mind, we’re going to talk about some long COVID research; just keep in mind that this new(ish) variant is more likely to produce long COVID than previous ones.
Researchers (Dr. Candace Feldman et al.) investigated social determinants of health that contribute both to infection rates and long COVID rates.
In few words: people facing financial hardship, food insecurity, limited healthcare access, low social/community support, crowded living conditions, or social disadvantages (e.g. being part of some socially marginalized demographic) are two to three times more likely to develop long COVID (it was already established that they were commensurately more likely to get infected in the first place).
This was arrived at by looking at 3,700 adults infected during the Omicron wave, tracking social risk factors at infection, and long COVID symptoms six months later. The significance of the data was high, and more social risk factors correlated with higher long COVID risk, even after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, disease severity, vaccination, and pregnancy status.
The researchers concluded that addressing social risk factors—like improving access to food, healthcare, and safe housing—may be essential to reducing long COVID burden.
You can read the paper here: Social Determinants of Health and Risk for Long COVID in the U.S. RECOVER-Adult Cohort
What this means for you: let us imagine that you, dear reader, are financially secure with good healthcare access, and generally not subject to most of the problems above.
You have to act like it!
So…
If you want to triple your chances of getting infected with the latest variant, if you want to triple your chances of getting long COVID, here’s how to do it:
- Do not get updated vaccinations, even if you have good healthcare access
- Spend time in crowded places, even if you can afford not to
- Eat unhealthily, even if you are not in food insecurity
It’s easy, but a lot of people don’t think about it!
Want to learn more?
Check out:
Why Some People Get Sick More (And How To Not Be One Of Them)
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:
-
Why Fibromyalgia Is Not An Acceptable Diagnosis
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.
Dr. Efrat Lamandre makes the case that fibromyalgia is less of a useful diagnosis and more of a rubber stamp, much like the role historically often fulfilled by “heart failure” as an official cause of death (because certainly, that heart sure did stop beating). It’s a way of answering the question without answering the question.
…and what to look for instead
Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic pain, tenderness, sleep disturbances, fatigue, and other symptoms. It’s often considered an “invisible” illness, because it’s the kind that’s easy to dismiss if you’re not the one carrying it. A broken leg, one can point at and see it’s broken; a respiratory infection, one can see its effects and even test for presence of the pathogen and/or its antigens. But fibromyalgia? “It hurts and I’m tired” doesn’t quite cut it.
Much like “heart failure” as a cause of death when nothing else is implicated, fibromyalgia is a diagnosis that gets applied when known causes of chronic pain have been ruled out.
Dr. Lamandre advocates for functional medicine and seeking the underlying causes of the symptoms, rather than the industry standard approach, which is to just manage the symptoms themselves with medications (of course, managing the symptoms with medications has its place; there is no need to suffer needlessly if pain relief can be used; it’s just not a sufficient response).
She notes that potential triggers for fibromyalgia include microbiome imbalances, food sensitivities, thyroid issues, nutrient deficiencies, adrenal fatigue, mitochondrial dysfunction, mold toxicity, Lyme disease, and more. Is this really just one illness? Maybe, but quite possibly not.
In short… If you are given a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, she advises that you insist doctors keep on looking, because that’s not an answer.
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)
- How To Eat To Beat Chronic Fatigue ← yes, including how to do so when you are chronically fatigued. In other words, this isn’t just dietary advice, but rather practical advice too
- When Painkillers Aren’t Helping, These Things Might
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:
-
Intermittent fasting doesn’t have an edge for weight loss, but might still work for some
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.
Intermittent fasting has become a buzzword in nutrition circles, with many people looking to it as a way to lose weight or improve their health.
But new research from the Cochrane Collaboration shows intermittent fasting is no more effective for weight loss than receiving traditional dietary advice or even doing nothing at all.
In this international review, researchers assessed 22 studies involving 1,995 adults who were classified as overweight (with a body mass index of 25–29.9 kg/m²) or obese (with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or above) to assess the effectiveness of intermittent fasting for up to 12 months.
The authors found, when compared to energy restricted dieting, intermittent fasting doesn’t seem to work for people who are overweight or obese and are trying to lose weight. However they note intermittent fasting may still be a reasonable option for some people.
fcafotodigital/Getty Images Remind me, what’s intermittent fasting?
Intermittent fasting is a tool for weight management, which includes three main strategies:
- alternate day fasting, where every second day is reduced to low or no energy intake
- periodic fasting or the 5:2 diet, where one or two days of the week are spent with low or no energy intake
- time-restricted eating or the 16:8 diet, where daily energy intake is reduced to a shorter window, usually between eight and ten waking hours.
What did previous research show?
Previous reviews have found differences between types of intermittent fasting.
Alternate day fasting, for example, resulted in more weight loss when compared to time-restricted eating.
This is because participants who fasted every second day consumed about 20% less energy than those following time-restricted eating.
What did the Cochrane review find?
Cochrane review use gold-standard techniques to give an objective overview of the evidence. This review looked at 22 individual randomised controlled trials published between 2016 and 2024 from North America, Europe, China, Australia and South America.
The trials compared the outcomes of almost 2,000 adults who were classified as being overweight or obese. These participants either:
- received standard dietary advice, such as restricting calories or eating different types of foods
- practised intermittent fasting
- received either regular dietary advice, no intervention or were on a wait list.
The authors found:
1. Intermittent fasting was no better than getting dietary advice
The researchers found intermittent fasting and receiving dietary advice to restrict energy intake led to similar levels of weight loss.
This finding was based on 21 studies involving 1,713 people, with the researchers measuring the change from the participants’ starting weight.
Dietary advice (from registered dietitians or trained researchers) could include an eating plan focused on fruit, vegetables, whole grains and seafood, restricting calories, or any specific dietary advice for weight loss.
The amount of weight the participants lost ranged from a 10% loss to a 1% gain, with either intermittent fasting or dietary advice.
These findings are similar to several recent meta-analyses which found intermittent fasting is no better than dieting.
Previous research has found most of the alternate day fasting and periodic diet studies leads to about 6% to 7% weight loss. This is compared to very low energy “shake” diets (about 10%), GLP-1 medications (15% to 20%) and surgery (above 20%).
The review also found intermittent fasting likely makes little difference to a person’s quality of life, based on only three studies.
2. Intermittent fasting was no better than doing nothing
The researchers found intermittent fasting and no intervention led to similar levels of weight loss. This finding was based on six studies involving 448 people.
In the intermittent fasting studies, participants experienced about 5% weight loss. The “no intervention” or control group lost about 2% of their original weight.
In research, a 3% difference in weight loss is not considered clinically meaningful. That’s why the authors of this review concluded intermittent fasting is no more effective for weight loss than doing nothing at all.
However, the result for the “no intervention” condition could be due to the Hawthorne effect: the tendency for people to behave differently because they know they are being watched, such as in a clinical trial.
What are the review’s limitations?
There were few large, high-quality randomised controlled trials to draw on.
Only six studies were included in the part of the review which compared intermittent fasting and doing nothing. Two of these focused on time-restricted eating, which is arguably the least effective weight-loss strategy. One looked at the effects of fasting for one day per week. The other three were intermittent fasting studies, each with varying control groups, where some received guidance and others did not.
Also, the review only looked at studies where the interventions lasted between six and 12 months. It’s possible intermittent fasting strategies could be a long-term tool for weight maintenance. So we need to do more research, and ideally studies of longer duration.
What about the other health benefits of fasting?
Studies have found intermittent fasting can lower blood pressure, improve fertility, and reduce the incidence of metabolic syndrome which refers to a group of conditions that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
In one 2024 study, researchers found intermittent fasting may lead to changes in metabolism and the gut that restrict how cancer develops. Another study from 2025 found intermittent fasting could improve the metabolic health of shift workers.
So if you’re practising or considering intermittent fasting, the current evidence suggests it can be a safe and effective way to manage your weight.
But for any weight loss strategy to work, it needs to align with your personal preferences. And it’s best to consult a health-care professional before starting any new diet, especially if you have any underlying health conditions.
Evelyn Parr, Research Fellow in Exercise Metabolism and Nutrition, Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic 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:










