Who Told You That

49. Ditch the Bacon to Save Your Bacon?

Here’s a question for you, which 50% do you fall into?  The 50% that know that processed milk is strongly linked to our risk of developing colorectal cancer or the 50% that thinks there’s no such thing as too much ham, bacon and yum, pepperoni? More than 10 years ago, the World Health Organization categorized processed meats as a level 1 carcinogen (yes, the same category as smoking and asbestos!) yet so many of us are still unaware just how deadly that daily ham sandwich could turn out to be. Our duo considers the implications of the recent survey of American adults showing an alarming lack of understanding of the relationship between processed meat consumption and the development of colorectal cancer. Whilst reviewing the likelihood of a cancer diagnosis at different ages, they also discuss the worrying global trend of increasing colorectal cancer diagnoses in the under-50 age group. Listen in on our WTYT? duo’s conversation and let us know if it changes your mind about that BLT sandwich😉

48: Osteoporosis: a Young Person’s Disease?

Let’s be honest, when we hear the word osteoporosis, what image comes to mind? An elite athlete at the peak of their powers? No? How about a frail older lady? Is that closer to the mark? I mean osteoporosis, that’s an old person’s disease, right? Hmm. Whilst we typically experience the devastating and perhaps even fatal consequences of osteoporosis in our final decades, the seeds are planted much younger – probably before we’ve even left our twenties. Join our talkative twosome to find out how to create a healthy skeleton that will hopefully, outlast our need for it! And as always, let us know what you think about this conversation and what you’d like us to chat about next.

47. Raw Milk: Processing to the Rescue?

‍ Yes, raw milk does contain probiotic bacteria [https://www.uvahealth.com/healthy-balance/raw-milk-hype-vs-reality/], but unfortunately, they’re only the ones that give you salmonella, listeria and e-coli! [https://www.cdc.gov/food-safety/foods/raw-milk.html#:~:text=What%20to%20know,Listeria%2C%20Brucella%2C%20and%20Salmonella] No, drinking raw milk will not protect you against the ‍H5N1 virus [https://www.statnews.com/2024/04/29/bird-flu-raw-milk-h5n1-risk-us-cattle/#:~:text=The%20testing%20of%20commercial%20milk,to%20try%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20said.], responsible for bird flu and in fact, even just splashing yourself in the eye [https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/worker-safety/farm-workers.html#:~:text=At%20a%20glance,safely%20for%20each%20exposure%20level.] with raw milk could infect you with H5Ni! ‍ Here’s a good overview by the prestigious, Ivy League Brown University [https://www.brownhealth.org/be-well/raw-milk-101-benefits-risks-and-what-consider#:~:text=Pasteurized%20milk%20is%20readily%20available%20in%20grocery,certain%20allergies%20or%20providing%20beneficial%20gut%20bacteria.], on the potential benefits and risks of drinking raw milk. ‍Proponents of raw milk often suggest it might reduce childhood asthma, ignoring data that children brought up in rural areas [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4855833/#:~:text=Results,between%20rural%20and%20urban%20children] are less likely to have asthma than their urban counterparts, with pollution likely being the key difference and cause of asthma. ‍‍Here’s an example of a site promoting raw milk [https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/raw-milk-and-lactose-intolerance.] but note when it says “ ‍‍First-hand accounts and surveys show that there are many people whose lactose intolerance symptoms are improved by drinking raw milk”. Asking people what they think and getting them to report on subjective symptoms when they know what they’ve drunk i.e already believe in and have paid money for, is not science! Here’s one of the studies [https://www.foodprotection.org/files/food-protection-trends/Mar-12-Bartlett.pdf] quoted in the above link which demonstrates the poor quality of the original article’s “data”. ‍ ‍Oh dear, this influencer [https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/raw-milk-claim-is-udderly-untrue/] claimed her lactose intolerance was cured by drinking raw milk but the dieticians, nutritionists and scientists in this article easily debunk her explanation.‍ ‍ And with a truly heavy heart, WTYT? asks you to take a look at this article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdj7re9rr0o]. This story appeared just a couple of days after your WTYT? duo had their discussion about raw milk. No “told you so’s” just a desperate sadness for this poor family who we have absolutely no doubt, were absolutely doing what they thought was the right thing for their health and the health of their family. Btw: in this episode we mentioned a couple of previous episodes. Click here [https://open.spotify.com/episode/0fT4osNJFA0X3UUo9L0xDX]if you want to revisit our discussion about the gut microbiome and probiotics (ep. 14) or on the following episode numbers if you want to check out our 2-part vaccination conversation (ep. 38 [https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IQOwUszGd1wzWZryK5GHN] and 39) [https://open.spotify.com/episode/0BE0G7qNDmO1546ew9iDXs].

46. Fast Fashion: A Planet and People Disaster?

If you enjoyed today’s discussion and want to find out more, here’s a great overview [https://www.projectcece.com/blog/549/toxic-chemicals-in-clothing-and-fast-fashion/]of the toxicity of the fast fashion industry, and when you ready to go deeper, check out this scientific paper [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/5/2/84]. Take a look at the following links for more on the awfulness of microplastics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9920460/#:~:text=Exposure%20to%20microplastics%20can%20also,urgent%20action%20is%20not%20taken.] and the Toxicity of those heavy metals [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8078867/#:~:text=Mercury%2C%20lead%2C%20chromium%2C%20cadmium%2C%20and%20arsenic%20have%20been,available%20animal%20and%20human%20studies] found in dyes. And what about those waterproofing PFAS [https://levinlaw.com/newsroom/10-things-you-about-pfas-in-clothing/]? do they cross our skin [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/30/pfas-absorbed-skin-study#:~:text=Yes%2C%20toxic%20PFAS%20chemicals%20can%20be%20absorbed,proportion%20of%20the%20chemicals%20that%20were%20absorbed.] and into our circulation (clue: yes!) and what effects do they have on our health [https://Health consequences of PFAS https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7906952/](clue: nothing good!). For a few thoughts on where and what to buy, take a look at this [https://www.projectcece.com/blog/549/toxic-chemicals-in-clothing-and-fast-fashion/] blog post. And finally, remember that discussion our duo had about ultra-processed foods in episode 42? Turns out we were right on the money and yes, we should be treating those ultra-processed foods just like smoking [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/03/public-health-ultra-processed-foods-regulation-cigarettes-addiction-nutrition]! ‍

45. The Skinny on Stretching.

Episode Resources: Check out these [https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/do-we-really-need-stretch#:~:text=Take%2Dhome%20message:%20%2D%20Stretching%20before%20and/or%20after,indicate%20that%20someone%20is%20fit%20is%20%E2%80%9Cunimpressive%E2%80%9D] articles [https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/fitness/why-stretching-is-more-important-than-you-think] for more great information on the science of stretching and if you want to check your understanding of dynamic vs. static stretching then look no further than this [https://thevarsity.ca/2018/04/07/the-differences-between-static-and-dynamic-stretching/#:~:text=Some%20studies%20have%20shown%20that%20doing%20static,affect%20the%20speed%20and%20strength%20of%20athletes.] resource. Here are thoughts from the Mayo clinic [https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/nutrition-fitness/does-stretching-prevent-injuries/#:~:text=Static%20stretching%20can%20temporarily%20weaken,muscle%20groups%20for%20faster%20contractions.%E2%80%9D] and a physiotherapist [https://www.parmeliaphysio.com.au/the-stretching-debate-what-does-the-evidence-say/] (Physical Therapist in the US) as to why static stretching may be best avoided pre-exercise. Does science agree with our physiotherapist’s thoughts? Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that there’s Not really much evidence [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01058.x]that static stretching increases risk of injury but it does appear to reduce strength and power, at least temporarily. On the other hand, here’s a weighty, but interesting discussion of why some static stretching pre-exercise [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-011-1879-2] might be okay in some circumstances. Whilst dynamic stretching does seem to have benefits for range of motion, the evidence to say it reduces injury [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01847-8] is not very strong - more work is needed in this field. Not all dynamic stretching is necessarily good, data suggests avoiding ballistic [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0797-9] i.e bouncing stretches, instead, here [https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/a65910703/best-dynamic-stretches/?utm_campaign=mgu_ga_whm_md_pmx_hybd_mix_us_19616431588&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=19608417999&gclid=Cj0KCQjwuKnGBhD5ARIsAD19Rsbi8bT4NPxZGoph5efmuaJBZ1s-H5OUnM1VCXpIOcjrsbKRavfwBzcaAv3AEALw_wcB] are a few suggestions of ones to try. But how about this rather positive note to end on, what about trying yoga? This, admittedly small study, showed increased testosterone and decreased cortisol [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7675619/] (a marker of stress levels) levels after a yoga class! Forget dry January and consider trying flexible February instead!