Doctors warn diabetes patients to shun 'yo-yo' weight loss and gain
The danger applies regardless of a patient's weight or other diabetes-related factors, according to the researchers, whose findings were based on observations of almost 1,500 people and were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Yo-yo dieting, sometimes called body-weight cycling, is when a person repeatedly sheds and puts on weight. Often carried out for years, the prevalence of the practice could be as high as 35% in men and 55% in women, the researchers say.
"We showed that high body-weight variability is associated with increased risk of different outcomes of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) progressions in people with type 1 diabetes, independently of traditional DKD risk factors," says Marion Camoin, a doctor with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux.
The fluctuating form of dieting had earlier been shown to increase risks of "cardiovascular events" in people with and without diabetes, including the more common and less dangerous type 2.
Recent decades have seen an explosion in the number of people worldwide who have been diagnosed as having diabetes, in large part due to increasingly sedentary work and lifestyles as well as surging consumption of sweet and processed food. Related conditions such as obesity and heart disease have become more prevalent at the same time.
The journal Clinical Nutrition recently published research in which a team of Finnish scientists showed how eating too much "ultra-processed" food accelerates biological ageing even among adolescents. Unhealthy eating has separately been shown to leave young people more vulnerable to developing diabetes later in life.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
White House Tries to Shake Off Trump's Bizarre Hand Make-Up
The mysterious recurring bruise on the back of Donald Trump's right hand reappeared on Tuesday, prompting a fresh wave of concern over the president's health. Trump, 79, was spotted with a healthy dose of flesh-colored concealer on his hand as he was photographed boarding Marine One at the White House on his way to Pittsburgh. Trump was speaking to reporters about Russian President Vladimir Putin when a cameraman spotted his hand and zoomed in for a closer look. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Beast that the bruise is due to the president's serial handshaking. When asked if any medical reasons could explain the bruise, Leavitt said, 'President Trump is a man of the people and he meets more Americans and shakes their hands on a daily basis than any other President in history. His commitment is unwavering and he proves that every single day.' Leavitt made similar comments last month. The president also said the bruise was a work-related injury in Time last December. 'It's from shaking hands with thousands of people,' he said. In February, speculation over Trump's discolored hand re-emerged when it was noticed during a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. Dr. Neal H. Patel, a doctor at Providence St Joseph Hospital, told the Daily Mail earlier this year that shaking hands is unlikely to have caused the damage. 'I see a lot of patients who are businessmen, and I've never really seen them getting bruising from too much handshaking,' he said. 'I guess it's possible, but that would really not be on my list of ideas of what causes it.' Patel suggested it could be a bruise from the use of an IV needle. Other doctors have said Trump's age may be a factor, especially if he is also suffering from osteoporosis. Right-wing columnist Miranda Devine addressed the bruising last month. 'He will endure constant bruises on the back of his hands from well-wishers showing their gratitude with vigorous handshakes that he reciprocates warmly, even though he's a renowned (maybe reformed) germaphobe,' she wrote. In April, the White House released the president's health report, which claimed he had no major issues, stating he had a normal health function and 'blood flow to his extremities is unimpaired.' That same month, the bruise showed up again when Trump held a football at a Commander-in-Chief Trophy ceremony in Washington, D.C. It also stated his joints and muscles had 'no swelling,' and while his skin had some 'minor sun damage,' no 'concerning lesions or growths' were present.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The lies we've been told about cellulite
Recently, I took a long, hard look in the mirror and decided to end a lifelong relationship that hadn't been serving me well. Challenging as it would be, the effort of maintaining it just wasn't worth it any more. Something had to give – and that something was my shorts. And also my mini skirts, and any other garment that failed to conceal my peau d'orange, a condition that not even the French language can glamorise. As a Gen X-er, I grew up dreading the prospect of cellulite. That's what happens when you come of age in the 'circle of shame' era, where bodily imperfections are highlighted with a red marker pen in gossip magazines and used to discredit women (it's always women) who fail to look smooth and perfect. Cellulite, we were told, doesn't discriminate. Rich or poor, fat or thin, it was coming for you. As someone who is largely desk-bound, under-hydrated and eats a packet of crisps a day, it was definitely coming for me. Which it did, some time in my late forties. But only in my fifties did it become so 'bad' that I resolved to hide it, rather than inflict its dimpled unloveliness on the world. As a lifelong shorts wearer, this felt like a loss. But were wide-leg linen trousers so bad? Clearly not, since every midlife woman I knew seemed to own a pair. My decision lasted for two days – not because I hate wide-leg linen trousers (I do) or found a miracle cure (as if), but because I went to a music festival. This confirmed what I already suspected: that younger women are far more tolerant and accepting of their bodies than the self-critical, apologetic women of my generation. Gen Z women don't hide their cellulite: they celebrate it, even highlighting it with painted stripes of glitter. Granted, the glitter trend might largely be contained to festivals and parties. But the trend for short shorts and even shorter minis seems to be embraced by thighs of every size, shape and texture. This feels as emboldening for me as it does for my teenage daughters, as it has the knock-on effect of making other woman feel less self-critical and self-conscious. Brought up on a diet of body positivity instead of cabbage soup, for Gen Z, the idea that only the svelte and smooth of thigh should dare to bare theirs is anathema. 'I don't think my legs are perfect, but I wouldn't hide them away – I'll put some fake tan on and try not to obsess,' says Maya, 16. 'I don't massively love her music, but in terms of body diversity, I do think someone like [singer] Lola Young is a better role model than the pop stars in my mum's day. She had strong women like Madonna, but they were all the same size – tiny.' Just as Gen Z is more accepting of their bodies, they're also less accepting of spurious advertisements for products that claim to improve them. As every woman knows, no promises are more outlandish than those that pertain to the reduction and erasure of cellulite. When an ad for a product purporting to 'smooth the look of cellulite, compressing and lifting loose skin' popped up on my Instagram feed, I was horrified that someone was charging £22.50 for what was essentially two bits of see-through duct tape. But Gen Z mobilised. 'Sellotaping my legs on a hot day? No thanks,' wrote one in the comments. 'The fact that you say cellulite is normal but try to profit from women's insecurity about having cellulite is wild to me,' wrote another. 'Also, single use plastic? Really?' Regardless of your age, it always pays to separate the facts about cellulite from the increasingly outlandish fictions. Cellulite is caused when the skin overlying fat (usually on thighs, stomach, bottom and arms) is pulled downwards by fibrous connective tissue. The collagen fibres between skin and muscle separate the fat into multiple pockets, a process which can be amplified with age (the skin becomes thinner and loses elasticity), as well as by poor diet or a sedentary lifestyle. It's also genetic: if you're amongst the 10 per cent of people who won't get it, you can live as you please. Even if you do embrace cellulite but want to reduce the appearance of it, there are some things you could try. I asked Georgios Tzenichristos, a physicist and former competitive athlete who's been specialising in cellulite since 2001, whether it's possible to get rid of cellulite. His LipoTherapeia treatment, the culmination of 24 years of study, experience and research in cellulite and skin tightening, is a favourite with A-listers and billionaires for its science-based approach and its refusal to over-promise. 'There are so many myths,' he laments. 'The 'cellulite equals fat' equation is wrong: cellulite and fat are two different things. It's not all water retention, it's not all fascia, coffee doesn't cause cellulite, and the idea that you can get rid of it permanently with a couple of treatments is simply not possible. Cellulite reduction is a gradual process, not an overnight success. This means 6-12 weekly sessions for most people. In most cases, you can't eliminate all of the cellulite because by the time you show up at a clinic, permanent changes have already taken place inside your skin. Prevention is the key.' Which brings us to exercise. Can the right form of exercise prevent it, if not cure? 'Building muscle can certainly improve the look of cellulite,' says skin specialist Sophie Smith, co-founder of Grand Aesthetics. 'Strength training – especially lower-body moves like squats, lunges and glute bridges – helps add definition and firmness under the skin, which naturally reduces the appearance of dimpling. I'm also a fan of Emsculpt, which is like a supercharged muscle workout that also helps tighten the skin. It's not a magic fix, but when combined with consistent training and hydration, it can make a visible difference.' As someone who saw little change after five sessions of Endermologie, a lymphatic drainage massage performed by a therapist with a hand-held device hooked up to a machine (French women swear by it, and while it was certainly relaxing, it was also £130 for 60 minutes), I'm protective of my money and time. So what can I try at home? 'It is actually possible to dramatically reduce the appearance of cellulite, but only if you treat it at its root,' says Lucy Goff, founder of LYMA Laser Pro, an at-home device developed to smooth cellulite and tighten skin. 'Cellulite isn't a surface issue, so creams and massages won't fix it. It's caused by structural tension deep beneath the skin. Our technology is able to penetrate up to 10cm without any heat, damage or downtime. Other treatments, such as radiofrequency or microneedling, can help, but they rely on causing controlled damage. The LYMA Laser Pro does the opposite: it heals, regenerates and rebuilds.' Body Blur skin perfector, £33, Vita Liberata It sounds promising, but at £4,995, it also sounds expensive. Maybe I'll take a leaf out of 16-year-old Maya's book, and slap on some fake tan for now. Inspired by a friend, I'm going to try Vita Liberata's Body Blur (£33), a self-tan that claims to disguise imperfections and give skin a subtle glow. It certainly gave my friend (still wearing shorts at 52) the legs of a 16-year-old. If only we could bottle a 16-year-old's confidence. Or better still, their ability to not to care. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's War on Education Is Driving Academics Like Me Abroad
On a recent flight back to the U.S., I wondered if I would be stopped at passport control. It was at this moment when I thought it may be time to consider leaving America. I was returning from Marseille, France after participating in a workshop in March that I co-organized at the Iméra research institute on climate change and religious conflict during the Little Ice Age. The topic is now effectively banned from federal funding after the Trump Administration stripped support for scientific research that mentions the word 'climate,' amid a broader purge of 'woke' keywords in the federal government. Iméra leaders had asked me to attend a meeting with university administrators and government ministers on the broad crisis in research and provide an American perspective. The event was much bigger than I had imagined, and there was a press conference, where I shared my criticisms of the Trump Administration's assault on research and higher education. For months, I have watched coordinated attacks on the National Endowment for the Humanities, Smithsonian Institution, Institute for Museum and Library Services, Fulbright Program, Woodrow Wilson Institute, U.S. Institute of Peace, Kennedy Center, USAID, Department of Education, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies that support academic research and education. Read More: Inside the Chaos of Trump's Foreign-Aid Freeze I personally know many colleagues and former students who have had research funds and grants frozen or terminated, while others have lost jobs or contracts. Academic grant competitions and peer review processes are being politicized and disrupted, effectively censoring the types of research that can be pursued. When politicians—rather than professionals—can select which types of research can be funded and how that money can be spent based on their own preferences, the entire pursuit of knowledge is corrupted. So when Aix-Marseille Université (amU) decided to launch a 'Safe Place for Science' program, I became one of the 298 researchers who applied. After all, I was already due to spend one year there as a visiting professor, and the initiative promises three years of research funding. The university has invested €15 million for the program and is lobbying the French government to match that amount, so it can double its planned hires to 39 people. The program comes amid a wider European push to attract American and international researchers who are based in the U.S. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has unveiled a €500 million program to make the continent a 'safe haven' for researchers, and France has committed another €100 million. There is certainly interest state-side, as the surge in applicants for amU's program showed. Data analyzed by Nature also found that the number of applicants in the U.S. looking for jobs in Canada has climbed by 41%, in Europe by 32%, and in China by 20% compared to a year earlier. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has even called the Trump Administration's attacks on research a 'once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity.' It's a stunning development, considering that the U.S. has long been a place of refuge for researchers and academics. In 1933, when Adolf Hitler consolidated power in Germany, leading scientists such as Albert Einstein fled the country. Later, during the Second World War, other intellectuals and artists fled occupied Europe, including Hannah Arendt, who notably escaped through Marseille with the help of American journalist Varian Fry. Ever since, American research universities and laboratories have relied on an open system of international recruitment of the best and brightest from across the globe. The federal government has supported the development of this system by providing visas for faculty and students, as well as billions in funding through competitive, peer reviewed grants. Read More: The Trump Administration Is Pausing Student Visa Interviews at Embassies That approach helped turn the U.S. system of higher education into a model of excellence for the entire world. These research universities have been informally linked with a broader network of regional state universities and small private colleges that often provide higher education to the public at relatively low cost for middle- and working-class Americans. The GI Bill of 1944, the expansion of regional state universities in the 1960s, and the evolution of community colleges since the 1970s have dramatically boosted access to higher education, becoming a key form of upward social mobility for millions of Americans. These institutions have also served as a key plank in the civil rights movement and other forms of protest, meaning an assault on them will undermine free speech and assembly, as well as other democratic principles. For now, I am on the shortlist at amU's 'Safe Place for Science.' Whether I am ultimately selected for a position or not, I foresee conducting research collaborations with French academics with French or E.U. funding in the coming years, considering that the entire U.S. sector has been thrown into disarray. Packing up and relocating to France, or any other country, will be an adjustment. But it is clear that an era of U.S. brain drain is beginning, as researchers and scientists seek opportunities in places where academic freedom and research are still valued.
