I took up running – but family members' responses shocked me
She replied, 'Great, but stay out of the sun. You don't want to get too dark.'
I would like to say this shocked me – but this isn't the first time I have heard these sorts of comments from my family, especially in the summertime.
I first began long distance running a few years ago. It was the start of the pandemic and I'd pound the streets of West London during lockdown.
I loved the freedom running gave me, and the repetitive nature of the sport felt almost like meditation, like I was physically and mentally lighter.
But then came the unwanted replies about the sun and my skin.
That family member's comments took me back to when I was growing up, in the Somali community in London, and I would routinely see members of my family – both immediate and extended – cower from the sun's rays because they didn't want their complexion to change.
Sadly, I internalised this.
When I was at school, I wouldn't take off my jumper even in the hottest of heatwaves because I didn't want my arms to tan. I remember a teacher once pulling me to one side and trying to convince me to discard my layers, to no avail.
As I grew older, I applied foundation that was definitely the wrong colour for my brown skin just so I could retain my 'winter shade'.
I was never very sporty growing up, but I discovered running in my early 20s.
Initially, I would run exclusively on an indoor treadmill at the gym to avoid being outside.
I was bored out of my mind, and frankly a bit miserable – but I stuck with the treadmill, because I didn't want to face any negative comments from friends and family.
I was tired of hearing from them how much better I looked in the winter when my skin was lighter. That growing darker meant that I would lose my 'glow,' to quote one family member.
Gradually, though, through reading other people's experiences online I began to realise that this type of prejudice is called colourism.
Colourism is a manifestation of shade bias that privileges lighter-skinned individuals, both within specific ethnic communities and in broader contexts.
In numerous ethnic communities, mine included, lighter skin is frequently seen as more desirable — a legacy of colonial influence and media-driven Western beauty ideals.
Researching colourism helped me reject the idea that I had to 'protect' my skin tone from the sun. Slowly but surely, I began to learn to enjoy the summer months.
I started taking whichever novel I was reading at the time and going to lay in the park. I'd frequent lidos and dip my feet into the water, I'd accept any and all invitations to BBQs. It was refreshing and freeing, I wished I could have bottled the feeling.
Then, in that first lockdown, I went on a few local outdoor runs in London and got a taste of what I had been missing. All the sights, the smells, the sensations – it was a far superior experience to the gym.
I wore short sleeved vests and slowly increased my distance, and before long I forgot to fear the sun.
I still experience some negative comments, of course. Last year, another family member asked me why I had been spending so much time outside, adding that 'tanning' wasn't something that 'we did'.
That comment would have previously worried me, but I simply laughed and told him that he should try it sometime and see what all the fuss is about.
Recently, I went to Cornwall and spent a lot of time outdoors. When I returned I was told by another relative to 'exfoliate' my skin.
I don't blame these family members or people from my community for their comments. I believe they have also simply heard them themselves. More Trending
But personally, I will continue my running journey and have even signed up for a half marathon in September. I am quietly confident about it and have been prioritising my fitness throughout the summer.
The comments that used to dictate almost half my year are now like water off a duck's back.
For those who feel like they are still affected by colourist doctrines, then please remember that the sunny weather should fuel your good mood.
The colour of your skin should never determine your self-worth or happiness.
Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing James.Besanvalle@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.
MORE: I went to 19 schools but I was desperate to stay still
MORE: 'Ring of steel' erected after far-right protestors clash outside migrant hotel
MORE: My mum produced a porn film – all I remember is her tears
Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientists identify bacterium behind devastating wasting disease in starfish
A decade after the onset of a sea star wasting disease (SSWD) epidemic considered the largest ever documented in the wild, researchers have identified the microbial culprit responsible: a strain of the bacterium Vibrio pectenicida. In 10 years the bacterium has ravaged sunflower sea stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides), a large sea star or starfish, along the western coast of North America, with a loss of 5.8 billion since 2013 – or 90% of the total global population. The sunflower sea star is now included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's red list of critically endangered species. Previous studies had tested for V pectenicida in tissue samples and yielded inconclusive results. Instead, by examining the sea stars' coelomic fluid, which acts like blood, researchers were able to confirm with certainty V pectenicida's role in causing SSWD due to its high abundance there. Infection with the V pectenicida strain FHCF-3 begins with exterior lesions, leading to limb loss and contortion, and ultimately kills afflicted individuals by melting their tissues into a white, mucus-like paste. Identifying the disease in afflicted sea stars was impossible without a known pathogen, as sea stars can respond with similar visual signals to other stressors such as low oxygen, salinity variation and extreme heat. The indirect link between rising ocean temperatures and SSWD remains a key area of interest, since V pectenicida is known to proliferate in warm water during seasonal variations and anomalous marine heating events. The research, published this week in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, was led by Dr Melanie Prentice and Dr Alyssa Gehman of the Hakai Institute in British Columbia, Canada, as part of a four-year international collaboration involving the University of British Columbia, the University of Washington and the Nature Conservancy, among other parties. The decline of sunflower sea stars has ramifications for marine ecosystems beyond the loss of a single species. 'Identifying the cause of SSWD is incredibly impactful,' Prentice said. 'In the absence of sunflower stars, [kelp-eating] sea urchin populations increase, which means the loss of kelp forests, and that has broad implications for all the other marine species and humans that rely on them.' Kelp forests provide a habitat for thousands of marine creatures, support local economies through fisheries and recreation, and are culturally important for First Nations and tribal communities. They also stabilise sediments, protect coastlines from storms, and are an important carbon sink for sequestering carbon dioxide. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Though the epidemic is still ongoing, the hope is that this breakthrough will aid recovery and treatment efforts for various sea star species across the world and the ecosystems affected by their decline. Methods being explored include captive breeding for resistant individuals and developing probiotic solutions which can be introduced to ecosystems. 'Now that we have found the causative agent of disease, it makes me hopeful that we might actually be able to do something for sunflower sea stars,' says Gehman. 'We can be really targeted in how we work with them, and I think that's going to help us move a lot faster and to try to tackle SSWD.'
Metro
2 days ago
- Metro
I took up running – but family members' responses shocked me
'I ran 18 kilometres today', I said proudly to a family member one summer's day, when she asked how I was. She replied, 'Great, but stay out of the sun. You don't want to get too dark.' I would like to say this shocked me – but this isn't the first time I have heard these sorts of comments from my family, especially in the summertime. I first began long distance running a few years ago. It was the start of the pandemic and I'd pound the streets of West London during lockdown. I loved the freedom running gave me, and the repetitive nature of the sport felt almost like meditation, like I was physically and mentally lighter. But then came the unwanted replies about the sun and my skin. That family member's comments took me back to when I was growing up, in the Somali community in London, and I would routinely see members of my family – both immediate and extended – cower from the sun's rays because they didn't want their complexion to change. Sadly, I internalised this. When I was at school, I wouldn't take off my jumper even in the hottest of heatwaves because I didn't want my arms to tan. I remember a teacher once pulling me to one side and trying to convince me to discard my layers, to no avail. As I grew older, I applied foundation that was definitely the wrong colour for my brown skin just so I could retain my 'winter shade'. I was never very sporty growing up, but I discovered running in my early 20s. Initially, I would run exclusively on an indoor treadmill at the gym to avoid being outside. I was bored out of my mind, and frankly a bit miserable – but I stuck with the treadmill, because I didn't want to face any negative comments from friends and family. I was tired of hearing from them how much better I looked in the winter when my skin was lighter. That growing darker meant that I would lose my 'glow,' to quote one family member. Gradually, though, through reading other people's experiences online I began to realise that this type of prejudice is called colourism. Colourism is a manifestation of shade bias that privileges lighter-skinned individuals, both within specific ethnic communities and in broader contexts. In numerous ethnic communities, mine included, lighter skin is frequently seen as more desirable — a legacy of colonial influence and media-driven Western beauty ideals. Researching colourism helped me reject the idea that I had to 'protect' my skin tone from the sun. Slowly but surely, I began to learn to enjoy the summer months. I started taking whichever novel I was reading at the time and going to lay in the park. I'd frequent lidos and dip my feet into the water, I'd accept any and all invitations to BBQs. It was refreshing and freeing, I wished I could have bottled the feeling. Then, in that first lockdown, I went on a few local outdoor runs in London and got a taste of what I had been missing. All the sights, the smells, the sensations – it was a far superior experience to the gym. I wore short sleeved vests and slowly increased my distance, and before long I forgot to fear the sun. I still experience some negative comments, of course. Last year, another family member asked me why I had been spending so much time outside, adding that 'tanning' wasn't something that 'we did'. That comment would have previously worried me, but I simply laughed and told him that he should try it sometime and see what all the fuss is about. Recently, I went to Cornwall and spent a lot of time outdoors. When I returned I was told by another relative to 'exfoliate' my skin. I don't blame these family members or people from my community for their comments. I believe they have also simply heard them themselves. More Trending But personally, I will continue my running journey and have even signed up for a half marathon in September. I am quietly confident about it and have been prioritising my fitness throughout the summer. The comments that used to dictate almost half my year are now like water off a duck's back. For those who feel like they are still affected by colourist doctrines, then please remember that the sunny weather should fuel your good mood. The colour of your skin should never determine your self-worth or happiness. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: I went to 19 schools but I was desperate to stay still MORE: 'Ring of steel' erected after far-right protestors clash outside migrant hotel MORE: My mum produced a porn film – all I remember is her tears Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Medical News Today
5 days ago
- Medical News Today
High amounts of ultra-processed foods may increase lung cancer risk by 41%
As the proportion of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the Western diet increases, concerns are growing about their health have linked UPFs with many health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and several types of a study suggests that high consumption of UPFs could increase a person's chance of developing lung cancer. While observing a link, the study cannot prove that UPFs cause lung cancer, but highlights a need for further foods (UPFs) — formulations of food substances often modified by chemical processes and then assembled into ready-to-consume hyper-palatable food and drink products using flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and many other cosmetic additives — are often in the news for their effect on our health. These products, which include carbonated soft drinks, mass-produced bread, confectionery, ice creams, sweet and savory snacks, and ready meals, make up around 60% of the energy consumed in the United suggest that high UPF consumption may increase a person's risk of several health conditions, including many types of cancer.A new study has now linked high UPF intake with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The research, published in Thorax, found that high consumption of UPFs was associated with a greater risk of both non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Nilesh Vora, MD, board-certified hematologist and medical oncologist and medical director of the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA, who was not involved in the study, found the link surprising: 'The study generates a compelling hypothesis that needs further research to validate the claim,' he told Medical News average of 2.8 servings a dayThe researchers collected data from people enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). They included 50,187 men and 51,545 women in the study. Participants had a mean age of 62.5 years at the start. At enrolment, all participants completed a baseline questionnaire, which recorded demographics, medical history, and other risk factor information, and a diet history questionnaire, to assess the frequency and portion size of food consumption and nutrient intake during the previous the diet questionnaire and four 24-hour dietary recalls, the researchers assessed how much UPF people consumed, dividing them into 4 quartiles for UPF lowest quartile consumed around 0.5 servings of UPF per day, and the highest 6.0 servings, with a mean intake of 2.8 servings per UPF intake linked to lung cancerResearchers followed up the participants for a mean of 12.2 years, during which time there were 1,706 lung cancer diagnoses. Of these, 1,473 (86.3%) were NSCLC, and 233 (13.7%) who ate more UPF had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with lung cancer. In the lowest UPF intake group, 331 out of 25,433 people (1.3%) were diagnosed with lung cancer, and in the highest UPF group, 485 out of 25,434 (1.9%) had a lung cancer researchers concluded that those who ate the most UPF had a 41% relatively higher hazard of lung cancer than those in the lowest factors may increase lung cancer riskPeople in the highest quartile for UPF consumption also had lower intake of minimally processed foods like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, which the American Institute for Cancer Research advises can lower a person's risk of many researchers suggest several possible reasons why UPF might increase lung cancer risk, including:poor nutritional quality of UPF and lower nutrient availability due to industrial of the additives commonly used in UPFs, such as glutamate and carrageenan, could increase lung cancer risk, possibly by disrupting the lung and gut contaminants from processing and packaging that could be Brown, senior cancer intelligence manager at Cancer Research UK, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that firm conclusions could not be drawn from the research:'What we'd want to see in the lung cancer space specifically, we'd want to see really, really close adjustment for smoking and for occupational exposures. Without that, in the lung cancer space, it's impossible to draw firm conclusions from research. And also more accurate measurement of diet because if you're looking at a diet study, you have to be measuring it really, really accurately. It's very difficult to do that. It's incredibly difficult to do that at scale.''There's also the possibility, I think, of shared risk factors. If you have a diet high in UPFs, are you also more likely to smoke cigarettes? Are you also more likely to be in a job where you're exposed to these other risk factors?' she UPFs cause lung cancer? More research neededThis was an observational study that relied on self-reported information about diet, so the findings cannot prove that UPFs cause lung authors highlight this and other limitations of their study, including a lack of data about smoking intensity for participants and the lack of ethnic diversity of the participants, most of whom were non-Hispanic highlighted some of these limitations:'There is adjustment for smoking in the paper, but there's nothing about how long a person smoked for, or how heavily they smoked. And we know that those are variables that are very closely associated with lung cancer incidence.' 'Also,' she added, 'the lack of adjustment for occupational exposure is a concern. There are a number of substances that can increase lung cancer risks, typically encountered at volume in occupational settings. Asbestos, silica, lots of dusts and chemicals can have quite a high relative risk for lung cancer.'Vora emphasized that to generate more significant data: 'More research should be done in a prospective fashion with controlled variables.'Limiting ultra-processed foods benefits healthThis latest study linking UPFs to lung cancer adds to the evidence of potential harms from UPFs. An umbrella review of adverse health outcomes associated with UPF exposure found direct associations with 'higher risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease-related mortality, common mental disorder outcomes, overweight and obesity, and type 2 diabetes.'Other studies have linked high intake of UPFs with increased overall cancer risk and risk of both breast and ovarian cancer, suggesting that obesity and type 2 diabetes resulting from UPFs could be increasing these cancer risks.'UPFs can be high in fat, salt and sugar, which are associated with overweight and obesity, and we know that overweight and obesity can increase cancer risk. Cutting down on these types of foods can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. When it comes to lung cancer, not smoking is the best thing people can do to reduce their cancer risk.'— Katrina Brown, Cancer Research UKWhile welcoming the study, Brown told MNT:'I don't think that we would say that this study sounds huge alarm bells. But we certainly wouldn't disagree with the core recommendation to try and reduce the amount of processed food that you consume and replace it with healthier alternatives.''It's interesting as it gets as further to knowing more about UPFs. It's that body of evidence that we need to build up, but this single study doesn't tip the balance,' she added.
