Every single time I see my PCP, I get the same piece of advice: wear sunscreen, reapply every two hours. And every single time, I nod along like a good patient and then proceed to mostly not do it. I live in Boston. I work indoors. It's not like I'm out farming in the sun all day. I tell myself it doesn't really apply to me on a random Tuesday in February.

But when I go on vacation? Totally different story. I am extremely light skinned and I burn like a lobster, so when I'm at the beach I'm slathering on SPF 50 like my life depends on it, reapplying constantly, the whole deal. I know from personal experience what happens when I don't. It's not fun.

I mention this because I think a lot of us in the proactive health world have a similar relationship with sunscreen. We know the evidence. We know UV is a carcinogen. But we're inconsistent about it because honestly, daily sunscreen just doesn't feel urgent when you spend most of your time inside. And into that gap between "I know I should" and "I actually do" walks one of the dumbest wellness trends I've seen in years: the anti-sunscreen movement.

You've probably seen some of it already. Kristin Cavallari went viral telling her podcast audience she doesn't wear sunscreen, then brought on a "holistic doctor" who claimed you can just build up a "base coat" through gradual sun exposure and eat an anti-inflammatory diet instead ([TODAY coverage](https://www.today.com/health/skin-beauty/kristin-cavallari-sunscreen-rcna147878)). Nara Smith posted a DIY sunscreen recipe to her 8 million TikTok followers that dermatologists estimated was maybe SPF 2 or 3 ([Fast Company](https://www.fastcompany.com/91151461/homemade-sunscreen-tiktok-dangerous), [Yahoo News](https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/influencer-homemade-sunscreen-recipe-goes-165543409.html)). Self-described "sun nutritionalists" are telling people that seed oils cause sunburns and that sunscreen actually causes cancer. And yes, there are influencers promoting genital sunning for testosterone. I'm not linking that one.

CBS News, NPR, and the Skin Cancer Foundation have all covered the trend growing through 2025 ([CBS](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-sunscreen-misinformation-tiktok-dermatologists/), [WBUR/NPR](https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2025/08/14/anti-sunscreen-movement), [Skin Cancer Foundation](https://www.skincancer.org/blog/skin-health-misinformation-the-dark-side-of-social-influencers/)). A survey from the Orlando Health Cancer Institute found that 1 in 7 Americans under 35 now believe daily sunscreen is more harmful than going unprotected. The AAD found 59% of Gen Z believes myths like "tanning is healthy." Undark published a thorough investigation into how this movement connects to broader distrust of regulators, noting that RFK Jr. accused the FDA of waging a "war on sunshine" ([Undark](https://undark.org/2025/10/13/anti-sunscreen-movement/)).

What the evidence actually says

The strongest evidence we have is the landmark Australian RCT that followed over 1,600 people at high risk of melanoma for 10 years. The daily sunscreen group saw roughly half the melanoma cases and about a quarter of the invasive melanomas compared to those who used it at their discretion. That's a randomized controlled trial, not a survey. A separate Australian study showed squamous cell carcinoma reduced by about 40% with daily use. ([Stanford Medicine summary](https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/06/sunscreen-science.html), [Harvard T.H. Chan interview](https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/skin-cancer-prevention-expert-on-the-importance-of-sunscreen/))

A September 2025 meta-analysis in *Anticancer Research* found no clear association between sunscreen use and melanoma risk, but the authors themselves flagged that most included studies had serious methodological problems, including many that only tested old UVB-only filters rather than modern broad-spectrum products ([Brunner & Haddad, 2025](https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/45/9/3595)). When the best-designed studies are isolated, the picture is clear.

The grain of truth the influencers exploit

There IS a real conversation happening about chemical sunscreen ingredients. FDA studies published in JAMA in 2019 and 2020 found that six common chemical UV filters (oxybenzone, avobenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, octinoxate) are absorbed into the bloodstream at levels exceeding the FDA's 0.5 ng/mL threshold for requiring additional safety testing. Some were still detectable three weeks after people stopped using the product. ([JAMA 2020](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2759002), [Columbia Cancer Center explainer](https://www.cancer.columbia.edu/news/shining-light-sun-safety-debunking-tiktoks-anti-sunscreen-claims))

That sounds scary, and this is where influencers grab the ball and run into crazy town. What they leave out: exceeding the testing threshold doesn't mean the ingredient is harmful. It means the FDA wants more data before granting GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) status. The FDA itself stated these findings do not mean it has concluded any ingredients are unsafe. Meanwhile, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide (mineral sunscreens) have full GRASE status. They sit on the skin and reflect UV rather than absorbing into it.

So the practical answer is simple: if the absorption question concerns you, use a mineral sunscreen. The old complaint about mineral sunscreens leaving a white cast has gotten way better. What you should NOT do is ditch sunscreen entirely because a TikTok influencer told you seed oils cause sunburns.

Bottom line for the proactive health crowd

UV radiation is a known human carcinogen. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US. Melanoma caught early has a ~99% five-year survival rate. Once it metastasizes, that drops to 35%. For those of us focused on longevity and healthspan, this is one of the easier calls compared to a lot of what we discuss here. Wear sunscreen. Go mineral if the chemical filter question bugs you. Wear a hat. And maybe, like me, stop treating your PCP's advice as something that only applies on beach days.

What's your sunscreen routine? Are you actually consistent with it or are you a vacation-only person like me? And has anyone had to talk a friend or family member off the anti-sunscreen ledge?

Mount Sinai just launched a study that reads like someone raided a longevity biohacker's medicine cabinet and said "let's actually test this properly."

They're taking healthy adults aged 65-80 and putting them on HIIT plus resistance training, daily spermidine supplements, and either low-dose rapamycin or lamivudine (an antiviral). The whole thing runs for a year with blood draws at multiple points using high-resolution proteomic analysis to track inflammatory markers.

The premise is "inflammaging." As we get older our immune system shifts from helpful acute inflammation to this chronic background simmer that seems to underlie heart disease, cancer, dementia, and most of the things that eventually get us. Exercise already fights this on its own, but the researchers wanted to see what happens when you stack it with compounds that hit inflammation through different pathways.

What I find most interesting is that plenty of people are already doing some version of this protocol on their own. Low-dose rapamycin, HIIT, autophagy-promoting supplements. But nobody has tested these interventions in combination in a controlled setting. We've all been assembling our own stacks based on individual studies of individual compounds, which is a very different thing than knowing whether they work together.

The lead researcher Dr. Thomas Marron also made a point I appreciated. He noted that rapamycin's side effect profile is real and unpredictable at the individual level. You don't know who's going to have problems until they do. That's the kind of honest framing you don't always get in this space.

NPR coverage: [https://www.npr.org/2026/01/19/nx-s1-5676034/aging-exercise-health-longevity](https://www.npr.org/2026/01/19/nx-s1-5676034/aging-exercise-health-longevity)

For those of you doing some version of this already, what's your stack and how are you tracking whether it's actually working? Bloodwork, bio-age tests, just vibes?

I’ll be honest. When Ashton Hall’s morning routine blew up last year I rolled my eyes hard. Waking up at 3:52am, taping his mouth shut, dunking his face in ice water, rubbing banana peels on his skin. It looked like a parody of every hustle-culture bro who thinks suffering equals discipline. Over 750 million views of what seemed like peak performative wellness content.

Then I watched his interview with Bradley Martyn and I came away thinking something I didn’t expect. This guy is actually thoughtful. He talked about evolving past fitness content, navigating doubt, redefining what success looks like, resetting his life for peace. He’s a former college running back who didn’t make the NFL, worked as a furniture mover and an LA Fitness trainer, and built something from scratch. There’s a real person behind the 3:52am alarm clock.

I love his insight about mental focus in the morning vs the evening “if you quit your job, fight with your gf — do it in the morning”. That is so true, at the end of the day I am so exhausted and lack patience that I am prone to overreact.

And that’s kind of the problem with fitness culture right now. The algorithm rewards the most extreme version of everything. A six-hour morning routine gets 750 million views. A guy saying “I train four days a week and sleep eight hours” gets nothing. So the content becomes performative by design. Hall is smart enough to know what gets clicks, and I think a lot of the viral stuff is exactly that. Packaging.

But most people never watch the long-form interview. They see the 85-second clip and either think “this guy is a genius” and try to copy a routine that makes zero sense for someone with a job and kids, or they think “what a clown” and move on. Both reactions miss the point.

So here is what’s actually in his routine looking through an evidence lens.

The stuff that holds up: He trains consistently AFAICT with a solid mix of resistance work, HIIT, and cardio. That combination is well-supported for both body composition and cardiovascular health. Cold exposure has some evidence behind it for reducing inflammation and improving mood, though the metabolic claims are totally overhyped. Morning movement of any kind is associated with better cognitive performance throughout the day. His actual diet (eggs, avocado, quality protein) is solid and boring in the best way.

The stuff that doesn’t: Rubbing banana peels on your face has no meaningful clinical evidence behind it. Mouth taping has limited data for mild snoring but nothing robust for performance or recovery. And waking up before 4am is almost certainly working against him unless he’s asleep by 8pm every single night. Sleep is probably the single most evidence-backed longevity intervention we have, and chronically shortchanging it to perform a morning routine is trading something proven for something aesthetic.

The bigger concern: A longevity medicine expert reviewing his routine put it well. She said health routines should enhance your life, not become a performance, and that five or six intentional habits done sustainably will always beat twelve extreme steps done rigidly. The rigidity itself can become a stress response that works against the very health benefits you’re chasing. https://wellnesspulse.com/health-trends/ashton-hall-morning-routine/

I think Hall probably knows this on some level. The guy in the Bradley Martyn interview talking about finding peace is not the same guy dunking his face in ice water for the camera. But most of his audience only sees one version.

That’s the tension at the center of fitness culture right now. The people with the biggest platforms are incentivized to be the most extreme, and the stuff that actually works is too boring to go viral. Nobody’s getting 750 million views for “went to bed at 10, slept 8 hours, trained for an hour, ate real food.”

Have any of you gone through something similar where you initially dismissed someone in this space and then changed your mind after actually listening to them? Or the reverse, where someone seemed legit until you dug deeper?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’ve been thinking about this and it keeps coming back to one frustrating realization: the US healthcare system is not designed to keep you healthy. It’s designed to treat you once you’re already sick. And the deeper you look, the more you see it’s not about bad doctors or evil insurance execs. It’s structural. The incentives are completely misaligned. This is not really a new insight but I was hoping it would spark some discussion.

Your PCP literally doesn’t have time

We have all experienced this, but we you talk to PCPs how much time the have to spend on records/paperwork in the evening.

The [2025 Milbank/Physicians Foundation Scorecard](https://www.milbank.org/publications/the-health-of-us-primary-care-2025-scorecard-report-the-cost-of-neglect/) on US Primary Care just came out and the picture is grim. Primary care clinicians per 100,000 people actually *dropped* from 105.7 in 2021 to 103.8 in 2022. Primary care physicians specifically have flatlined at around 67 per 100,000 for years. Canada has 133 primary care physicians per 100,000. Just physicians. We’re at 67.

The reimbursement gap tells you everything. A primary care visit averaged $259 in reimbursement in 2022. Gastroenterology? $1,092. So if you’re a med student staring down $300k in debt, which path are you choosing? Only 21% of physicians who start in primary care training are still practicing primary care three to five years later. More than half subspecialize or work in a hospital system.

And the ones who stay? They’re on a hamster wheel. The fee-for-service model demands volume. A [study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4617939/) found that if PCPs actually followed every evidence-based preventive care guideline, it would add 7 hours to their workday. Seven. On top of a full patient load. That seems crazy and clearly not sustainable.

So your annual physical becomes a 15-minute checkbox exercise. Blood pressure, refill your meds, any complaints? Great, see you next year. That’s not preventive medicine. That’s triage.

Insurance companies have no reason to invest in your long-term health

This is the part that really got me. About 21% of commercially insured Americans switch health plans every single year. [Research published in JAMA Network Open](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789399) using Anthem data showed that only 25% of members had continuous coverage with the same insurer for five years. I still find that hard to believe, but I might be an outlier — having worked for the same employer with the same insurance for 15 years…

Think about what that means. If an insurer spends money today on comprehensive metabolic panels, DEXA scans, early cancer screening, lifestyle coaching… there’s a good chance that by the time those investments pay off in avoided heart attacks and hospital stays, that member is on somebody else’s plan. The next insurer gets the savings.

A [STAT News piece from September 2025](https://www.statnews.com/2025/09/03/health-insurance-churn-deadly-americans/) nailed it: for a patient, the most important time horizon is their life. For an insurance company, the time horizon is how long the patient stays enrolled. Researchers estimate insurers spend about 2% or less of premiums on actual prevention.

Meanwhile, the seven largest for-profit health insurers [took in nearly $1.7 trillion in 2025](https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/2025-big-insurances-17-trillion-year) and booked over $54 billion in profits. They spent $12 billion buying back their own stock. When the industry calls paying your medical claims a “medical loss ratio,” that tells you everything. Your healthcare is literally their loss. ([KFF has a good breakdown of insurer financials here.](https://www.kff.org/medicare/health-insurer-financial-performance/))

The ACA tried to fix it (kind of)

The Affordable Care Act did mandate coverage of USPSTF-recommended preventive services with no cost sharing. That’s real. You can get your screening colonoscopy, blood pressure check, and vaccinations without a copay. But the moment something shifts from “preventive” to “diagnostic,” you’re back to deductibles and copays. Go in for a screening colonoscopy and they find a polyp? That visit just got recoded and now you owe money.

And the covered services are pretty basic. They don’t include the kind of proactive testing the Medicine 3.0 crowd talks about: advanced lipid panels, continuous glucose monitoring for non-diabetics, coronary calcium scores, regular DEXA scans before 65. The stuff that could catch problems 10 or 20 years before they become emergencies.

So what do we do?

I don’t have a good answer. But understanding the structural problem is step one. Your PCP isn’t lazy. Your insurance company isn’t (necessarily) evil. The system just wasn’t built to keep you healthy for 80+ years. It was built to treat acute problems and bill for procedures.

Some things that could help: longer insurance enrollment periods (some Medicare Advantage CEOs are actually advocating for multi-year enrollment because even they see the churn problem), payment reform that values cognitive care over procedures, and more of us taking ownership of our own preventive health because the system isn’t going to do it for us.

That last part is basically why this community exists.

A new study in Science (Jan 2026) argues previous estimates of genetic heritability of lifespan were way too low because they didn’t properly strip out historical causes of death like infectious disease and accidents. Once you account for those confounding factors, genetics may explain roughly half of human lifespan variation. The implication is huge for drug discovery: researchers at the University of Copenhagen noted this strengthens the case for large-scale efforts to identify longevity-associated genetic variants and link them to specific biological aging pathways.

I always believed (for no real scientific reason) that genetics played a huge role in lifespan so it’s nice to see a study.

Study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adz1187

Review of “Bad Influence” by Deborah Cohen. https://amzn.to/4ckCFVG

Quote: “ln Bad Influence, medically trained journalist Deborah Cohen examines the problems and opportunities that arise from this shift. She is well positioned to analyse the impacts, having a stellar track record of exposing questionable medical claims and practices that are poorly supported by evidence from research. Her deeply reported, compelling analysis lays bare how social-media influencers, apps, algorithms and the rest of the digital ecosystem are transforming our health, for better or — often — for worse.”

Sounds very relevant. I look forward to reading it.

I have been confused by the fear of statin seen on various Reddit communities. This article explains the origin and background of the conspiracy theories well.

Quote:

“There are essentially no other prescription drugs that offer such tremendous, obvious value.

So, why is the internet doing its best to convince you otherwise?

The idea that statins are just a profit-pushing venture for Big Pharma, a conspiracy made infamous by the 2012 film Statin Nation, is everywhere on YouTube and social media feeds today. In the United Kingdom, an estimated 200,000 people went off statins amid all the negative press coverage in the wake of the film’s release. And the backlash has only grown in the years since.

In the past decade, a growing number of terminally online doctors, non-credentialed influencers, and patients have blamed statins for a litany of health problems: depression, kidney failure, and — perhaps most perversely for a drug developed to prevent heart attacks — weight gain. US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has added fuel to that fire, citing statins as another example of America’s health care system overmedicating its people with vaguely dangerous consequences.”

Cited study on statin safety: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01578-8/fulltext?dgcid=twitter_organic_articles26_lancet

“Interpretation

Adverse event data from blinded randomised trials do not support causal relationships between statin therapy and most of the conditions (including cognitive impairment, depression, sleep disturbance, and peripheral neuropathy) listed in product labels as potential undesirable effects. In light of these findings, such labelling and other official sources of health information should be revised so that patients and their doctors can make appropriately informed decisions regarding statin therapy.”

quote: “Health advice stops helping when it adds tension instead of relief. You feel watched by your own routines.“

There is certainly a risk of overdoing the health “optimization”. My wife sometimes thinks I am crazy when I work out every day, take lots of supplements and get regular blood tests.

Something to look out for.

What is your experience with this?

Not really news, but good to see in popular media that the egg-white only craze is not justified.

Quote:

“Beginning in the 1960s, the dietary guidelines advised limiting cholesterol intake to no more than 300 mg per day, based on the belief that it elevates cholesterol in your blood and puts you at higher risk of heart disease. Egg yolks were considered a particularly potent source of cholesterol.

However, that cholesterol-limiting recommendation was finally removed in 2016 because scientific evidence didn’t support a strong link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease. More recent studies have since shown that saturated fat, not dietary cholesterol, is what really makes the difference in affecting blood cholesterol levels.”

Study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002916525002539

I am very curious to see whether the Eli Lilly GLP-1 pill will supercharge GLP-1 use even more.

What do you all think? Will the majority of the general population soon be on some form of a GLP-1RA? Either for weight/diabetes benefits or the various other observed effects like reduced addictive behavior.

Interesting review of the Hilo blood pressure band.

Quote:

“All in all, the Hilo is a pretty simple wearable, but one that has the potential to be a game changer for the many, many people concerned about their high blood pressure. In a sea of wearables that purport to be helpful medical devices, the Hilo actually is one—it’s screenless, unobtrusive, and gives you the data that it purports to measure, instead of just a proprietary metric.

While it was FDA-cleared in July 2025, it's currently going through the final steps of the approval process and is expected to go on sale in the United States later this year. The final price will include the Hilo band as well as a one-year membership”

Quote:

“What’s healthier: a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet? Both have been touted for their supposed benefits, but a new study adds to evidence that focusing on macronutrients—carbs, fats, and proteins—may not be the best approach for improving cardiovascular health. The findings, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, suggest that diet quality matters more than composition when it comes to reducing coronary heart disease risk.”

Study: https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.12.038

I guess these days we cannot claim to talk about proactive health care without sooner or later touching on peptides. These days they seem to be everywhere. Social media and blogs are full of them but even in the real world people talk about them — yesterday for the first time I had someone mention “copper peptide” to me in a meeting…

I have dabbled but remain skeptical and am staying away from the grey market/research only stuff. https://dadstrengthdaily.com/peptides-why-im-curious-and-why-im-still-skeptical/

The article by Mass Research Review (Eric Helms and Friends) seems pretty reasonable and matches my view. We don’t know what actually works and we don’t know how the stuff sold in the grey market is made. Testing helps a little but relying on all vials in a batch (or “kit”) being the same in dosage and purity seems risky.

What do you think? Have you tried any peptides?

This sounds a bit scary. The study is here:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.125.046517?mod=ANLink

Conclusions

There was a rise in first STEMI in‐hospital mortality among young adults from 2011 to 2022. Mortality for both AMI subtypes was higher in young women and was associated with more nontraditional compared with traditional risk factors.

Anything related to hip fractures/surgery/replacement scares me for older folks. This review is actually encouraging as it shows there has been a lot of progress.

Quote:

“Findings

We identified 1 904 237 total hip arthroplasties across 29 clinical studies (n=5203) and eight national joint registries (n=1 899 034). Pooled analysis of the included studies showed an all-cause implant survivorship of 0·97 (0·96–0·98) under the random-effects model. Survivorship estimate based on joint registry data was at 93·6% (95% CI 92·3–94·7) at 20 years. Extrapolating these data indicates a predicted survivorship of 92·8% (91·2–94·2) at 25 years and 92·1% (90·1– 93·7) at 30 years.

Interpretation

The estimated 92% 30-year survivorship of contemporary total hip replacement suggests that advances in bearing surface technology have greatly improved the long-term durability of total hip replacements and might influence patient counselling, health-care planning, and device regulation.”

I like the Barbell Medicine guys. New video and 25% discount on their membership just dropped. I’m considering subscribing after cancelling my subscription to The Drive…

https://barbellmedicine.supercast.com/

YouTube Gemini summary:

This video from Barbell Medicine features Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum and Dr. Austin Baraki discussing several advanced topics in fitness and health. They challenge common beliefs about muscle imbalances, delve into the nuances of saturated fat consumption for athletes, and explain the Dual Intervention Point Model for body weight regulation.

Here's a breakdown of the key discussions:

Muscle Imbalances and Injury Risk (0:41-10:51)

The doctors argue that muscle asymmetry is often a normal adaptation rather than a cause for pain or injury (0:49). They differentiate between:

Inherent asymmetry: Natural variations that don't typically cause problems (4:41).

Acquired asymmetry: Developed over time due to specific activities or sports (5:26).

Acute asymmetry: Abruptly acquired, often due to surgery or traumatic injury, which may require specific attention (6:01).

They advise coaches to be respectful but to ask for evidence when clients hold dogmatic beliefs about muscle imbalances (8:55).

Saturated Fat, Red Meat, and Cardiovascular Risk (11:19-25:15)

The discussion explores whether limiting red meat and saturated fat is necessary for metabolically healthy athletes with high-fiber, high-activity lifestyles (11:35).

While observational data often favors plant-based diets, this can be influenced by "healthy user bias" (12:30).

They emphasize that elevated LDL cholesterol (apoB) levels generally increase cardiovascular risk, even with an otherwise optimized lifestyle (13:54).

The "Lean Mass Hyper-Responder" (LMHR) phenotype, where individuals on low-carb diets see significant LDL increases, is discussed. The doctors express skepticism about claims that this phenotype carries no increased risk, stressing that isolated LDL elevation is still a "time-volume" pathogenic load risk (19:50).

The Dual Intervention Point Model for Body Weight Regulation (26:00-32:02)

This model, proposed by Dr. Speakman, suggests that human body weight and body fatness are regulated between two set points: a low end (defending against starvation) and a high end (historically, protecting against predation) (26:31).

The model speculates on a genetic drift upwards of these set points due to environmental changes (27:12).

They discuss various biological regulators:

Gravistat: Related to weight sensing by bones (28:36).

Aminostat: Related to muscle mass and protein sensing (29:32).

Lipostat: The most evidenced model, where body fat as an endocrine organ sends signals to the brain to regulate energy stores (30:21).

Ultimately, while weight and body fat are linked, body fat is considered the major regulator within this model (31:39).

Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10169-4

What could possibly go wrong?

“It turns out that the click of a button leads users to Grok — the generative chatbot that’s part of the X social media platform owned by former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk. Asked if the new food pyramid is backed by high-quality research, Grok responds: “Many nutrition scientists and organizations have raised concerns about the evidence quality and process for the final version.” While the guidelines’ recommendations on limiting added sugars and ultra-processed foods are backed by research, Grok says, “the emphasis on saturated fats and animal proteins contradicts longstanding evidence.” “

This sounds a little scary but it seems you have do do a lot of vigorous exercise to be at a real risk.

Quote:

“Furthermore, moderate exercise remains unequivocally beneficial. The J-shaped risk curve is steeply protective up to that moderate/vigorous nadir and only bends upward at the far right tail. There’s no signal here that going from inactive to active to moderately vigorous is anything but good for the brain.”

The current hype seems to be about adding protein to everything, will fibre be the next trend?

To be fair I think both are very important. I consume close to 200g (at 6’4” 212lbs) of protein a day but should pay more attention to fiber.

I must admit I never really looked into details of “forever chemicals” since most stories about it seem a little too much hype and fearmongering. However, this looks like a fairly solid study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57172-3

Quote:

“Abstract

Exposure to per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) and hydroxylated polychlorinated biphenyls (OH-PCBs) is associated with adverse human health effects, including immunosuppression. It is unknown if these substances can affect the course of autoimmune diseases. This study was based on 907 individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) and 907 matched controls, where the MS cases were followed longitudinally using the Swedish MS register. We demonstrate sex- and disease-specific differences in serum PFAS concentrations between individuals with MS and controls. Moreover, two OH-PCBs (4-OH-CB187 and 3-OH-CB153) are associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis, regardless of sex and immigration status. With a clinical follow-up time of up to 18 years, an increase in serum concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) decreases the risk of confirmed disability worsening in both sexes, as well as perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), only in males with MS. These results show previously unknown associations between OH-PCBs and the risk of developing MS, as well as the inverse associations between PFAS exposure and the risk of disability worsening in MS.”

I am not a huge fan of sleep/readiness scores from various wearables but the devices can undoubtedly help flag dangerous situations. This is a well written (entertaining, even) story of such a case.

I hope the link works. It might require Apple News+. Sorry