Younger Next Year: The Exercise Program – by Chris Crowley & Dr. Henry Lodge
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 previously reviewed the same authors’ original “Younger Next Year”, and now here’s the more specific book about exercise for increasing healthspan and reversing markers of biological aging, going into much more detail in that regard.
How much more? Well, it’s a very hand-holding book in the sense that it walks the reader through everything step-by-step, tells not only what kind of exercise and how much, but also how to do, what things to do to prepare, how to avoid not erring in various ways, what metrics to keep an eye on to ensure you are making progress, and more.
There are also whole sections on specific common age-related issues including osteoporosis and arthritis, as well as how to train around injuries (especially of the kind that basically aren’t likely to ever fully go away).
As with the previous book, there’s a blend of motivational pep talk and science—this book is heavily weighted towards the former. It has, however, enough science to keep it on the right track throughout. Hence the two authors! Crowley for motivational pep and training tips, and Dr. Lodge for the science.
Bottom line: if you’d like to be biologically younger next year, that exercise will be an important component of that, and this book is really quite comprehensive for its relative brevity (weighing in at 176 pages).
Click here to check out Younger Next Year: The Exercise Program, and make that progress!
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:
-
The Princess of Wales wants to stay cancer-free. What does this mean?
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.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, has announced she has now completed a course of preventive chemotherapy.
The news comes nine months after the princess first revealed she was being treated for an unspecified form of cancer.
In the new video message released by Kensington Palace, Princess Catherine says she’s focused on doing what she can to stay “cancer-free”. She acknowledges her cancer journey is not over and the “path to recovery and healing is long”.
While we don’t know the details of the princess’s cancer or treatment, it raises some questions about how we declare someone fully clear of the disease. So what does being – and staying – “cancer-free” mean?
Pete Hancock/Shutterstock What’s the difference between being cancer-free and in remission?
Medically, “cancer-free” means two things. First, it means no cancer cells are able to be detected in a patient’s body using the available testing methods. Second, there is no cancer left in the patient.
These might sound basically the same. But this second aspect of “cancer-free” can be complicated, as it’s essentially impossible to be sure no cancer cells have survived a treatment.
Testing can’t completely rule out the chance some cancer cells have survived treatment. Andrewshots/Shutterstock It only takes a few surviving cells for the cancer to grow back. But these cells may not be detectable via testing, and can lie dormant for some time. The possibility of some cells still surviving means it is more accurate to say a patient is “in remission”, rather than “cancer-free”.
Remission means there is no detectable cancer left. Once a patient has been in remission for a certain period of time, they are often considered to be fully “cancer-free”.
Princess Catherine was not necessarily speaking in the strict medical sense. Nonetheless, she is clearly signalling a promising step in her recovery.
What happens during remission?
During remission, patients will usually undergo surveillance testing to make sure their cancer hasn’t returned. Detection tests can vary greatly depending on both the patient and their cancer type.
Many tests involve simply looking at different organs to see if there are cancer cells present, but at varying levels of complexity.
Some cancers can be detected with the naked eye, such as skin cancers. In other cases, technology is needed: colonoscopies for colorectal cancers, X-ray mammograms for breast cancers, or CT scans for lung cancers. There are also molecular tests, which test for the presence of cancer cells using protein or DNA from blood or tissue samples.
For most patients, testing will continue for years at regular intervals. Surveillance testing ensures any returning cancer is caught early, giving patients the best chance of successful treatment.
Remaining in remission for five years can be a huge milestone in a patient’s cancer journey. For most types of cancer, the chances of cancer returning drop significantly after five years of remission. After this point, surveillance testing may be performed less frequently, as the patients might be deemed to be at a lower risk of their cancer returning.
Skin cancer may be detected by the naked eye, but many other cancers require technology for detection and monitoring. wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock Measuring survival rates
Because it is very difficult to tell when a cancer is “cured”, clinicians may instead refer to a “five-year survival rate”. This measures how likely a cancer patient is to be alive five years after their diagnosis.
For example, data shows the five-year survival rate for bowel cancer among Australian women (of all ages) is around 70%. That means if you had 100 patients with bowel cancer, after five years you would expect 70 to still be alive and 30 to have succumbed to the disease.
These statistics can’t tell us much about individual cases. But comparing five-year survival rates between large groups of patients after different cancer treatments can help clinicians make the often complex decisions about how best to treat their patients.
The likelihood of cancer coming back, or recurring, is influenced by many factors which can vary over time. For instance, approximately 30% of people with lung cancer develop a recurrent disease, even after treatment. On the other hand, breast cancer recurrence within two years of the initial diagnosis is approximately 15%. Within five years it drops to 10%. After ten, it falls below 2%.
These are generalisations though – recurrence rates can vary greatly depending on things such as what kind of cancer the patient has, how advanced it is, and whether it has spread.
Staying cancer-free
Princess Catherine says her focus now is to “stay cancer-free”. What might this involve?
How a cancer develops and whether it recurs can be influenced by things we can’t control, such as age, ethnicity, gender, genetics and hormones.
However, there are sometimes environmental factors we can control. That includes things like exposure to UV radiation from the sun, or inhaling carcinogens like tobacco.
Lifestyle factors also play a role. Poor diet and nutrition, a lack of exercise and excessive alcohol consumption can all contribute to cancer development.
Research estimates more than half of all cancers could potentially be prevented through regular screening and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (not to mention preventing other chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes).
Recommendations to reduce cancer risk are the same for everyone, not just those who’ve had treatment like Princess Catherine. They include not smoking, eating a nutritious and balanced diet, exercising regularly, cutting down on alcohol and staying sun smart.
Amali Cooray, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering and Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) ; John (Eddie) La Marca, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) , and Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, 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.
Share This Post
-
New California Laws Target Medical Debt, AI Care Decisions, Detention Centers
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.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the nation braces for potential policy shifts under President-elect Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” mantra, the nation’s most populous state and largest health care market is preparing for a few changes of its own.
With supermajorities in both houses, Democrats in the California Legislature passed — and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed — laws taking effect this year that will erase medical debt from credit reports, allow public health officials to inspect immigrant detention centers, and require health insurance companies to cover fertility services such as in vitro fertilization.
Still, industry experts say it was a relatively quiet year for health policy in the Golden State, with more attention on a divisive presidential election and with several state legislators seeking to avoid controversial issues as they ran for Congress in competitive swing districts.
Newsom shot down some of legislators’ most ambitious health care policies, including proposals that would have regulated pharmaceutical industry middlemen and given the state more power to stop private equity deals in health care.
Health policy experts say advocates and legislators are now focused on how to defend progressive California policies such as sweeping abortion access in the state and health coverage for immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization.
“I think everyone’s just thinking about how we’re going to enter 2025,” said Rachel Linn Gish, a spokesperson with the consumer health advocacy group Health Access California. “We’re figuring out what is vulnerable, what we are exposed to on the federal side, and what do budget changes mean for our work. That’s kind of putting a cloud over everything.”
Here are some of the biggest new health care laws Californians should know about:
Medical debt
California becomes the eighth state in which medical debt will no longer affect patients’ credit reports or credit scores. SB 1061 bars health care providers and debt collectors from reporting unpaid medical bills to credit bureaus, a practice that supporters of the law say penalizes people for seeking critical care and can make it harder for patients to get a job, buy a car, or secure a mortgage.
Critics including the California Association of Collectors called the measure from Sen. Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) a “tremendous overreach” and successfully lobbied for amendments that limited the scope of the bill, including an exemption for any medical debt incurred on credit cards.
The Biden administration has finalized federal rules that would stop unpaid medical bills from affecting patients’ credit scores, but the fate of those changes remains unclear as Trump takes office.
Psychiatric hospital stays for violent offenders
Violent offenders with severe mental illness can now be held longer after a judge orders them released from a state mental hospital.
State officials and local law enforcement will now have 30 days to coordinate housing, medication, and behavioral health treatment for those parolees, giving them far more time than the five-day deadline previously in effect.
The bill drew overwhelming bipartisan support after a high-profile case in San Francisco in which a 61-year-old man was charged in the repeated stabbing of a bakery employee just days after his release from a state mental hospital. The bill’s author, Assembly member Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), called the previous five-day timeline “dangerously short.”
Cosmetics and ‘forever chemicals’
California was the first state to ban PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” in all cosmetics sold and manufactured within its borders. The synthetic compounds, found in everyday products including rain jackets, food packaging, lipstick, and shaving cream, have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and diminished immune function and have been increasingly detected in drinking water.
Industry representatives have argued that use of PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — is critical in some products and that some can be safely used at certain levels.
Immigration detention facilities
After covid-19 outbreaks, contaminated water, and moldy food became the subjects of detainee complaints and lawsuits, state legislators gave local county health officials the authority to enter and inspect privately run immigrant detention centers. SB 1132, from Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), gives public health officials the ability to evaluate whether privately run facilities are complying with state and local public health regulations regarding proper ventilation, basic mental and physical health care, and food safety.
Although the federal government regulates immigration, six federal detention centers in California are operated by the GEO Group. One of the country’s largest private prison contractors, GEO has faced a litany of complaints related to health and safety. Unlike public prisons and jails, which are inspected annually, these facilities would be inspected only as deemed necessary.
The contractor filed suit in October to stop implementation of the law, saying it unconstitutionally oversteps the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration detention centers. A hearing in the case is set for March 3, said Bethany Lesser, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The law took effect Jan. 1.
Doctors vs. insurance companies using AI
As major insurance companies increasingly use artificial intelligence as a tool to analyze patient claims and authorize some treatment, trade groups representing doctors are concerned that AI algorithms are driving an increase in denials for necessary care. Legislators unanimously agreed.
SB 1120 states that decisions about whether a treatment is medically necessary can be made only by licensed, qualified physicians or other health care providers who review a patient’s medical history and other records.
Sick leave and protected time off
Two new laws expand the circumstances under which California workers may use sick days and other leave. SB 1105 entitles farmworkers who work outdoors to take paid sick leave to avoid heat, smoke, or flooding when local or state officials declare an emergency.
AB 2499 expands the list of reasons employees may take paid sick days or use protected unpaid leave to include assisting a family member who is experiencing domestic violence or other violent crimes.
Prescription labels for the visually impaired
Starting this year, pharmacies will be required to provide drug labels and use instructions in Braille, large print, or audio for blind patients.
Advocates of the move said state law, which already required translated instructions in five languages for non-English speakers, has overlooked blind patients, making it difficult for them to monitor prescriptions and take the correct dosage.
Maternal mental health screenings
Health insurers will be required to bolster maternal mental health programs by mandating additional screenings to better detect perinatal depression, which affects 1 in 5 people who give birth in California, according to state data. Pregnant people will now undergo screenings at least once during pregnancy and then six weeks postpartum, with further screenings as providers deem necessary.
Penalties for threatening health care workers (abortion clinics)
With abortion care at the center of national policy fights, California is cracking down on those who threaten, post personal information about, or otherwise target providers or patients at clinics that perform abortions. Penalties for such behavior will increase under AB 2099, and offenders can face felony charges, up to three years in jail, and $50,000 in fines for repeat or violent offenses. Previously, state law classified many of those offenses as misdemeanors.
Insurance coverage for IVF
Starting in July, state-regulated health plans covering 50 employees or more would be required to cover fertility services under SB 729, passed and signed last year. Advocates have long fought for this benefit, which they say is essential care for many families who have trouble getting pregnant and would ensure LGBTQ+ couples aren’t required to pay more out-of-pocket costs than straight couples when starting a family.
In a signing statement, Newsom asked legislators to delay implementation of the law until 2026 as state officials consider whether to add infertility treatments to the list of benefits that insurance plans are required to cover.
It’s unclear whether legislators intend to address that this session, but a spokesperson for the governor said that Newsom “clearly stated his position on the need for an extension” and that he “will continue to work with the legislature” on the matter.
Plans under CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, would have to comply by July 2027.
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
Hormones & Health, Beyond The Obvious
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.
Wholesome Health
This is Dr. Sara Gottfried, who some decades ago got her MD from Harvard and specialized as an OB/GYN at MIT. She’s since then spent the more recent part of her career educating people (mostly: women) about hormonal health, precision, functional, & integrative medicine, and the importance of lifestyle medicine in general.
What does she want us to know?
Beyond “bikini zone health”
Dr. Gottfried urges us to pay attention to our whole health, in context.
“Women’s health” is often thought of as what lies beneath a bikini, and if it’s not in those places, then we can basically treat a woman like a man.
And that’s often not actually true—because hormones affect every living cell in our body, and as a result, while prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women (specifically, those who are not on HRT) may share a few more similarities with boys and men of similar respective ages, for most people at most ages, men and women are by default quite different metabolically—which is what counts for a lot of diseases! And note, that difference is not just “faster” or “slower””, but is often very different in manner also.
That’s why, even in cases where incidence of disease is approximately similar in men and women when other factors are controlled for (age, lifestyle, medical history, etc), the disease course and response to treatment may vary considerable. For a strong example of this, see for example:
- The well-known: Heart Attack: His & Hers ← most people know these differences exist, but it’s always good to brush up on what they actually are
- The less-known: Statins: His & Hers ← most people don’t know these differences exist, and it pays to know, especially if you are a woman or care about one
Nor are brains exempt from his…
The female brain (kinda)
While the notion of an anatomically different brain for men and women has long since been thrown out as unscientific phrenology, and the idea of a genetically different brain is… Well, it’s an unreliable indicator, because technically the cells will have DNA and that DNA will usually (but not always; there are other options) have XX or XY chromosomes, which will usually (but again, not always) match apparent sex (in about 1/2000 cases there’s a mismatch, which is more common than, say, red hair; sometimes people find out about a chromosomal mismatch only later in life when getting a DNA test for some unrelated reason), and in any case, even for most of us, the chromosomal differences don’t count for much outside of antenatal development (telling the default genital materials which genitals to develop into, though this too can get diverted, per many intersex possibilities, which is also a lot more common than people think) or chromosome-specific conditions like colorblindness…
The notion of a hormonally different brain is, in contrast to all of the above, a reliable and easily verifiable thing.
See for example:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear
Dr. Gottfried urges us to take the above seriously!
Because, if women get Alzheimer’s much more commonly than men, and the disease progresses much more quickly in women than men, but that’s based on postmenopausal women not on HRT, then that’s saying “Women, without women’s usual hormones, don’t do so well as men with men’s usual hormones”.
She does, by the way, advocate for bioidentical HRT for menopausal women, unless contraindicated for some important reason that your doctor/endocrinologist knows about. See also:
Menopausal HRT: A Tale Of Two Approaches (Bioidentical vs Animal)
The other very relevant hormone
…that Dr. Gottfried wants us to pay attention to is insulin.
Or rather, its scrubbing enzyme, the prosaically-named “insulin-degrading enzyme”, but it doesn’t only scrub insulin. It also scrubs amyloid beta—yes, the same that produces the amyloid beta plaques in the brain associated with Alzheimer’s. And, there’s only so much insulin-degrading enzyme to go around, and if it’s all busy breaking down excess insulin, there’s not enough left to do the other job too, and thus can’t break down amyloid beta.
In other words: to fight neurodegeneration, keep your blood sugars healthy.
This may actually work by multiple mechanisms besides the amyloid hypothesis, by the way:
The Surprising Link Between Type 2 Diabetes & Alzheimer’s
Want more from Dr. Gottfried?
You might like this interview with Dr. Gottfried by Dr. Benson at the IMCJ:
Integrative Medicine: A Clinician’s Journal | Conversations with Sara Gottfried, MD
…in which she discusses some of the things we talked about today, and also about her shift from a pharmaceutical-heavy approach to a predominantly lifestyle medicine approach.
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Get Rid Of Female Facial Hair Easily
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. Sam Ellis, dermatologist, explains:
Hair today; gone tomorrow
While a little peach fuzz is pretty ubiquitous, coarser hairs are less common in women especially earlier in life. However, even before menopause, such hair can be caused by main things, ranging from PCOS to genetics and more. In most cases, the underlying issue is excess androgen production, for one reason or another (i.e. there are many possible reasons, beyond the scope of this article).
Options for dealing with this include…
- Topical, such as eflornithine (e.g. Vaniqa) thins terminal hairs (those are the coarse kind); a course of 6–8 weeks continued use is needed.
- Hormonal, such as estrogen (opposes testosterone and suppresses it), progesterone (downregulates 5α-reductase, which means less serum testosterone is converted to the more powerful dihydrogen testosterone (DHT) form), and spironolactone or other testosterone-blockers; not hormones themselves, but they do what it says on the tin (block testosterone).
- Non-medical, such as electrolysis, laser, and IPL. Electrolysis works on all hair colors but takes longer; laser needs to be darker hair against paler skin* (because it works by superheating the pigment of the hair while not doing the same to the skin) but takes more treatments, and IPL is a less-effective more-convenient at-home option, that works on the same principles as laser (and so has the same color-based requirements), and simply takes even longer than laser.
*so for example:
- Black hair on white skin? Yes
- Red hair on white skin? Potentially; it depends on the level of pigmentation. But it’s probably not the best option.
- Gray/blonde hair on white skin? No
- Black hair on mid-tone skin? Yes, but a slower pace may be needed for safety
- Anything else on mid-tone skin? No
- Anything on dark skin? No
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:
Too Much Or Too Little Testosterone?
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:
-
Creamy Fortifying Cauliflower Soup
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.
As delicious as it is super-easy to make, this one is full of protein, fiber, healthy fats, and some of the most health-giving spices around.
You will need
- 1 quart low-sodium vegetable stock
- 1 large cauliflower, cut into florets
- 1 large onion, finely chopped
- 2 cans cannellini (or other white) beans, drained and rinsed
- 1 cup raw cashews, soaked in hot water for at least 5 minutes, and drained (if allergic, substitute chickpeas)
- 1 bulb (yes, a whole bulb) garlic, roughly chopped
- 5 tbsp nutritional yeast
- 10 fresh sprigs of thyme (keep them whole!)
- 1 large fresh sprig of rosemary (keep this whole too!)
- zest of 1 lemon
- 1 tbsp red chili flakes
- 1 tbsp black pepper, coarse ground
- 1 tsp MSG or 2 tsp low-sodium salt
- ½ tsp ground turmeric
- Extra virgin olive oil
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Tightly tie up the sprigs of rosemary and thyme with kitchen twine (shining a bright light on it and asking it invasive questions is optional)
2) Heat some olive oil to a medium heat in your biggest sauté pan or similar. Add the onions, and cook for about 10 minutes, stirring as necessary. We are not trying to outright caramelize them here, but we do want them browned a little.
3) Add the garlic and cook for another 2 minutes, stirring frequently.
4) Add the vegetable stock, and stir, ensuring no onion is stuck to the base of the pan. Add the cauliflower, cashews, beans, nooch, pepper, turmeric, and MSG/salt, stirring to combine. Don’t worry if the cauliflower isn’t all submerged; it’ll be fine in a little while.
5) Add the herbs, submerging them in the soup (still tied up bouquet garni style).
6) Bring to a boil, reduce to a simmer and cook for 15–20 minutes; the cauliflower will be soft when it’s ready.
7) Remove the bouquet garni, and blend the soup until thick and creamy. You can do this with an immersion blender, but to get the smoothest soup, you’ll need to use a stand blender. Either ensure yours is safe for hot liquids, or else allow to cool, blend, and reheat later. This is important, as otherwise your blender could explode.
8) Serve, using the lemon zest and chili for the garnish:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety
- Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)
- Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits?
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:
-
Shame and blame can create barriers to vaccination
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.
Understanding the stigma surrounding infectious diseases like HIV and mpox may help community health workers break down barriers that hinder access to care.
Looking back in history can provide valuable lessons to confront stigma in health care today, especially toward Black, Latine, LGBTQ+, and other historically underserved communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and HIV.
Public Good News spoke with Sam Brown, HIV prevention and wellness program manager at Civic Heart, a community-based organization in Houston’s historic Third Ward, to understand the effects of stigma around sexual health and vaccine uptake.
Brown shared more about Civic Heart’s efforts to provide free confidential testing for sexually transmitted infections, counseling and referrals, and information about COVID-19, flu, and mpox vaccinations, as well as the lessons they’re learning as they strive for vaccine equity.
Here’s what Brown said.
[Editor’s note: This content has been edited for clarity and length.]
PGN: Some people on social media have spread the myth that vaccines cause AIDS or other immune deficiencies when the opposite is true: Vaccines strengthen our immune systems to help protect against disease. Despite being frequently debunked, how do false claims like these impact the communities you serve?
Sam Brown: Misinformation like that is so hard to combat. And it makes the work and the path to overall community health hard because people will believe it. In the work that we do, 80 percent of it is changing people’s perspective on something they thought they knew.
You know, people don’t even transmit AIDS. People transmit HIV. So, a vaccine causing immunodeficiency doesn’t make sense.
With the communities we serve, we might have a person that will believe the myth, and because they believe it, they won’t get vaccinated. Then later, they may test positive for COVID-19.
And depending on social determinants of health, it can impact them in a whole heap of ways: That person is now missing work, they’re not able to provide for their family—if they have a family. It’s this mindset that can impact a person’s life, their income, their ability to function.
So, to not take advantage of something like a vaccine that’s affordable, or free for the most part, just because of misinformation or a misunderstanding—that’s detrimental, you know.
For example, when we talk to people in the community, many don’t know that they can get mpox from their pet, or that it’s zoonotic—that means that it can be transferred between different species or different beings, from animals to people. I see a lot of surprise and shock [when people learn this].
It’s difficult because we have to fight the misinformation and the stigma that comes with it. And it can be a big barrier.
People misunderstand. [They] think that “this is something that gay people or the LGBTQ+ community get,” which is stigmatizing and comes off as blaming. And blaming is the thing that leads us to be misinformed.
PGN: In the last couple years, your organization’s HIV Wellness program has taken on promoting COVID-19, flu, and mpox vaccines to the communities you serve. How do you navigate conversations between sexual health and infectious diseases? Can you share more about your messaging strategies?
S.B.: As we promoted positive sexual health and HIV prevention, we saw people were tired of hearing about HIV. They were tired of hearing about how PrEP works, or how to prevent HIV.
But, when we had an outbreak of syphilis in Houston just last year, people were more inclined to test because of the severity of the outbreak.
So, what our team learned is that sometimes you have to change the message to get people what they need.
We changed our message to highlight more syphilis information and saw that we were able to get more people tested for HIV because we correlated how syphilis and HIV are connected and how a person can be susceptible to both.
Using messages that the community wants and pairing them with what the community needs has been better for us. And we see that same thing with COVID-19, the flu, and RSV. Sometimes you just can’t be married to a message. We’ve had to be flexible to meet our clients where they are to help them move from unsafe practices to practices that are healthy and good for them and their communities.
PGN: You’ve mentioned how hard it is to combat stigma in your work. How do you effectively address it when talking to people one-on-one?
S.B.: What I understand is that no one wants to feel shame. What I see people respond to is, “Here’s an opportunity to do something different. Maybe there was information that you didn’t know that caused you to make a bad decision. And now here’s an opportunity to gain information so that you can make a better decision.”
People want to do what they want to do; they want to live how they want to live. And we all should be able to do that as long as it’s not hurting anyone, but also being responsible enough to understand that, you know, COVID-19 is here.
So, instead of shaming and blaming, it’s best to make yourself aware and understand what it is and how to treat it. Because the real enemy is the virus—it’s the infection, not the people.
When we do our work, we want to make sure that we come from a strengths-based approach. We always look at what a client can do, what that client has. We want to make sure that we’re empowering them from that point. So, even if they choose not to prioritize our message right now, we can’t take that personally. We’ll just use it as a chance to try a new way of framing it to help people understand what we’re trying to say.
And sometimes that can be difficult, even for organizations. But getting past that difficulty comes with a greater opportunity to impact someone else.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
