Latest news with #NationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil
NDTV
09-07-2025
- Health
- NDTV
Move Over 'Protein Goals', 'Fibre Goals' Are New Social Media Trend. A Guide
Rockhampton: "Protein goals" have long been a thing on TikTok and Instagram. But now social media users are also talking about "fibre goals". This reflects a positive broader shift toward overall health and wellbeing rather than a narrow focus on weight loss or muscle gain. Foods high in fibre are among the healthiest we can eat. Not getting enough can lead to constipation, haemorrhoids and boost the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and bowel cancer. So what's the expert evidence say about "fibre goals" and how to hit them? Different types of fibre Dietary fibres are indigestible parts of plant foods. Unlike other carbohydrates that break down into sugar, these complex carbs pass through our digestive tract mostly unchanged. There are two main types of dietary fibre: Soluble fibres dissolve in water to form gel-like substances. You can find these in fruits such as apples and berries, vegetables such as sweet potatoes and carrots, as well a legumes and oats. Soluble fibres can slow down digestion and help us feel fuller for longer. They support heart health, lower blood cholesterol and help regulate blood sugar levels. Insoluble fibres don't dissolve in water, but add bulk to food. You can get this type of fibre from wheat bran, fruits and vegetable skins, nuts and seeds, beans and whole grain foods. Insoluble fibres add bulk to the stool and help regulate bowel movements and reduce constipation. Resistant starch is also a type of complex carb that isn't technically a fibre, but behaves like one; it resists digestion and feeds gut bacteria. These are found in legumes, cooked potato, and undercooked pasta. Unlike many fibre supplements (which often only offer one type of fibre) most sources of fibre we eat contain both soluble and insoluble forms. For example, oats, apples and avocado have both. Both soluble and insoluble fibre benefit our gut and overall health. Both can be fermented by good gut bacteria, although soluble dietary fibres (and resistant starches) tend to ferment more readily. Our gut bacteria rely on fermenting these fibres as a fuel to help digest foods, fight against pathogenic microbes such as germs and viruses, and improve physical and mental health. What should my fibre goal should be? Sadly, there's no quick lab test to measure it. A simple indicator is how well your digestion works. If you're rarely constipated, you're likely getting enough fibre. The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends daily fibre intakes vary by age and gender. But in general, adult men should have about 30 grams of fibre per day. Women should have about 25 grams. There are many apps and websites to help you calculate your current fibre intake. It's hard to have too much dietary fibre; even eating 50g per day is not considered harmful. How do I meet that goal without overthinking it? Foods rich in fibre include: fruits vegetables nuts seeds legumes beans wholegrain or wholemeal breads and cereals. Aim for variety in your diet, so you don't get bored of the same foods. The federal government's Australian Dietary Guidelines suggest a daily intake of: two serves of medium-sized fruits five serves of vegetables (one serve is half a cup of cooked veggies or one cup of salad greens) two to three serves of nuts and seeds (where one serve is about 30g or a handful) or two to three serves of legumes/beans (where one serve is a cup of cooked beans, lentils, chickpeas, split peas). What not to do Here are some important things to remember: avoid drastic changes such as cutting out entire food groups or nutrients (such as carbohydrates) unless advised by your health practitioner. Even low-fibre food groups (such as dairy or lean meats) provide important nutrients. Avoiding them can potentially cause other health problems avoid focusing on just one type of fibre (soluble or insoluble). Each has different benefits, so incorporating both is best avoid a sudden increase in fibre. It can cause abdominal pain and increased flatulence. Start by adding just one or two high-fibre foods each day and slowly increase this over a few weeks fibre needs water to work effectively, so drink plenty of fluids. Aim for at least eight to ten glasses of water per day. How do I hit my goal without being a weirdo about it? Eating well doesn't need to be a competition. It's great people are sharing ideas on social media about increasing fibre intake and setting fibre goals, but we can do it without constantly obsessing over food. Focus on gradual changes and incorporating fibre-rich foods naturally into your diet. Start by eating more fresh fruit and vegetables, and adding legumes and pulses (such as kidney beans and chickpeas) to meals. Simple switches can go a long way. For example, swap refined grain products (such as white rice or white bread) for wholemeal or wholegrain varieties. If you like breakfast cereals, choose one with at least 5g of fibre per serve (read the nutrition panel on the packet). Finally, listen to your body. If you experience any digestive discomfort or have certain conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome that requires managing your fibre intake, consult with a health-care professional. (Author: , Senior Lecturer and Head of Course Nutrition, HealthWise Research Group Lead, Appleton Institute,, CQUniversity Australia; Chris Irwin, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences & Social Work, Griffith University, and Seyed Farhang Jafari, PhD candidate of Public Health (Nutrition), CQUniversity Australia)
West Australian
25-06-2025
- Health
- West Australian
Warning as guide for toxic chemicals in water updated
A vast majority of Australia's drinking water supplies meet new "forever chemicals" safety limits, but an expert warns more research needs to be done to understand true safe levels. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of 15,000 highly toxic, synthetic chemicals used for their resistance to heat, stains and grease. They are sometimes called "forever chemicals" because they break down extremely slowly, including in humans. Emerging evidence has linked some of the chemicals to cancer, leading to tighter regulation of the substances, particularly in drinking water. Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council on Wednesday updated its guidelines, limiting perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at 200 nanograms/litre, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) at 8ng/L, perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) at 30ng/L and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) at 1000ng/L. The final values are the same as its draft guidelines except PFOS, which changed its limit from 4ng/L to 8ng/L. Industry body Water Services Association of Australia described the new guidelines as very conservative, erring on the side of safety and reflecting the latest evidence, saying recent national testing showed a "vast majority" of treated water sources would meet the new limits. Executive Director Adam Lovell said the water sector is highly regulated, and water utilities will continue to test and take immediate action to isolate, treat and protect drinking water supplies if they are near or exceed the guidelines. Chemical levels have been scrutinised in the past year after their discovery in the drinking water in Sydney's world-heritage listed Blue Mountains, home to 30,000, and at a national park downstream of a former quarry used by manufacturer 3M. Ian Wright, an environmental science professor at Western Sydney University, said data is still lacking to indicate a safe level of PFOS in Australian drinking water. "These guidelines, I can accept that they are reasonable at this point, but I don't think we've done enough research to know without doubt what the safe level is," Dr Wright told AAP. The associate professor, who is working with the Blue Mountains community, said authorities won't understand the true risks unless they study people impacted in detail. Blue Mountains anti-PFAS campaigner Jon Dee labelled the new guidelines a "national disgrace", saying Australia's standards were up to 50 times higher than the American equivalents. "This decision makes Australia a global outlier on PFAS," Mr Dee said. "Our health authorities are putting water utility convenience ahead of public health." The NSW government has confirmed all public drinking water supplied across metropolitan and regional areas meets the updated guidelines, and it is working with suppliers to equip them with long-term solutions to manage risks from the chemicals.
Perth Now
25-06-2025
- Health
- Perth Now
Warning as guide for toxic chemicals in water updated
A vast majority of Australia's drinking water supplies meet new "forever chemicals" safety limits, but an expert warns more research needs to be done to understand true safe levels. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of 15,000 highly toxic, synthetic chemicals used for their resistance to heat, stains and grease. They are sometimes called "forever chemicals" because they break down extremely slowly, including in humans. Emerging evidence has linked some of the chemicals to cancer, leading to tighter regulation of the substances, particularly in drinking water. Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council on Wednesday updated its guidelines, limiting perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at 200 nanograms/litre, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) at 8ng/L, perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) at 30ng/L and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) at 1000ng/L. The final values are the same as its draft guidelines except PFOS, which changed its limit from 4ng/L to 8ng/L. Industry body Water Services Association of Australia described the new guidelines as very conservative, erring on the side of safety and reflecting the latest evidence, saying recent national testing showed a "vast majority" of treated water sources would meet the new limits. Executive Director Adam Lovell said the water sector is highly regulated, and water utilities will continue to test and take immediate action to isolate, treat and protect drinking water supplies if they are near or exceed the guidelines. Chemical levels have been scrutinised in the past year after their discovery in the drinking water in Sydney's world-heritage listed Blue Mountains, home to 30,000, and at a national park downstream of a former quarry used by manufacturer 3M. Ian Wright, an environmental science professor at Western Sydney University, said data is still lacking to indicate a safe level of PFOS in Australian drinking water. "These guidelines, I can accept that they are reasonable at this point, but I don't think we've done enough research to know without doubt what the safe level is," Dr Wright told AAP. The associate professor, who is working with the Blue Mountains community, said authorities won't understand the true risks unless they study people impacted in detail. Blue Mountains anti-PFAS campaigner Jon Dee labelled the new guidelines a "national disgrace", saying Australia's standards were up to 50 times higher than the American equivalents. "This decision makes Australia a global outlier on PFAS," Mr Dee said. "Our health authorities are putting water utility convenience ahead of public health." The NSW government has confirmed all public drinking water supplied across metropolitan and regional areas meets the updated guidelines, and it is working with suppliers to equip them with long-term solutions to manage risks from the chemicals.
Sydney Morning Herald
17-06-2025
- Health
- Sydney Morning Herald
Choosing the sex of an IVF baby is banned. Should it be?
'I'm here to promote awareness for the availability of gender selection and to hopefully ignite some conversation so that perhaps in the future, people won't have to travel to the United States to have this done,' Potter says. What are the rules and the concerns behind them? The National Health and Medical Research Council reviewed their guidelines on assisted reproductive technology in 2017 and upheld its view that sex selection should not be used unless to reduce the risk of a genetic disease. (Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example, mostly affects males.) One of the concerns cited by the NHMRC's ethics committee was that nonmedical sex selection could lead to people favouring one sex over the other based on cultural or personal biases. What the NHMRC considered in its ban on sex selection Whether sex selection is a justifiable use of medical resources. Whether there's an ethical difference between people wanting sex-balanced families and people choosing a particular sex due to personal or cultural bias. The possibility that sex selection my validate or reinforce gender stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes, and create pressure on the person born to conform to their parents' gender expectations. The possibility that sex selection may open the way for selecting other characteristics such as eye or hair colour. Concerns that people may be terminating pregnancies as an alternative sex-selection technique. Concerns Australians seeking sex selection could be travelling to international clinics with a lower standard of care. Values inherent in Australian society that relate to freedom and autonomy, particularly in relation to reproductive choices. Read the full reasoning behind the guidelines. The imbalance of the sex ratio in China is often cited as an example of cultural bias favouring male babies; in 2004 there were 121 males to every 100 females, at least partly because sons were preferred, so female fetuses were more likely to be aborted. China's sex ratio has since evened out, but there's still a male skew. Choosing the sex of an embryo to 'balance' a family's split between male and female children is one of the most common reasons people seek out sex selection, and it's viewed as more ethically acceptable. Alex Polyakov, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne and medical director of Melbourne's Genea IVF clinic, believes couples should be able to choose the sex of their third child, as long as their first two children are of the same sex. 'I think the argument that it will skew the sex ratio is really quite nonsensical,' he added, arguing the proportion of people taking part in sex selection would have to be huge to have such an effect. 'I don't really see an ethical or moral issue if safeguards are put in place.' By the same token, Polyakov has also warned embryo testing and selection strategies can decrease chance of pregnancy or lead to the discarding of healthy embryos, which in some cases has risked parents missing out on biological parenthood altogether. 'I think we often forget that the overriding aim is to increase the pregnancy rate, to get someone pregnant as soon as possible,' he says. Do people choose more males over females? Data is mixed on whether people are more likely to choose male or female embryos. An analysis of about 2300 embryo transfers at a US IVF clinic between 2012 and 2021 found 56.5 per cent of people who opted for sex selection chose male embryos. A study on a different hospital found roughly equal rates of sex selection when it was someone's first child, but a 59 per cent preference for females on the second child. Potter said about 70 per cent of his clients request female embryos, often driven by women who wanted a mother-daughter relationship. 'This process is driven by the female partner in most cases. For a lot of women, they've been imagining having a daughter ever since they were playing with dolls and modelling parenting behaviour as a child,' he says. Sex v gender Bioethicist Dr Tamara Browne, a senior lecturer in health ethics at Deakin University, says she's sad this debate has rekindled. 'We really haven't gotten very far when it comes to counteracting gender stereotypes and achieving gender equality,' she says. 'The two are interlinked, and I've become even more convinced that if we're to achieve gender equality, we have to stop parenting children differently according to their sex.' Assuming daughters will be closer to their mothers, or that boys offer different, more 'macho' experiences such as being into sport, plays into outdated gender beliefs, Browne says. Loading 'We don't have any good scientific evidence that you can only get these sorts of parenting experiences with a child of a certain sex,' she says. She makes the point that sex selection allows people to choose the sex chromosomes and genitalia of their child. It can't decide a child's gender – the way they express that sex. How, Browne argues, do we expect more men to take up nursing or childcare roles, and women to take up STEM subjects like maths and engineering, if we reinforce the idea they're born with different traits and abilities and therefore should be parented differently? I also ask Potter if he ever discusses with his clients the chance that a child born from a sex-selected embryo could eventually embrace a different gender identity – for example, a baby born from a female embryo who grows up as a trans man. (About 5 per cent of Americans under 30 say their gender is different to the sex they were assigned at birth, according to Pew Research Centre.) 'There would be no reason to discuss that, any more than it would be to discuss with an expecting mum,' Potter says. 'It's a pretty unlikely thing and kind of a grim topic.' How much should it cost? Dr Hilary Bowman-Smart, a research fellow at the University of South Australia who has studied prenatal testing, thinks sex selection in embryos isn't a particularly valuable use of medical resources, but the current reasons to keep it illegal were not compelling. Loading Bowman-Smart is concerned, though, about companies making money from sex selection services. 'I would be concerned about this becoming an expensive service that is advertised to people during a vulnerable time in their lives who otherwise might not have cared too much either way,' she says. While Polyakov backs sex selection in some circumstances, he doesn't believe it should be covered by Medicare. If it were legalised in Australia he estimates the practice would cost about $500 to $700 per embryo. 'So if you have 10 embryos, that adds about $5000 to $7000,' on top of the existing costs, he says.
The Age
17-06-2025
- Health
- The Age
Choosing the sex of an IVF baby is banned. Should it be?
'I'm here to promote awareness for the availability of gender selection and to hopefully ignite some conversation so that perhaps in the future, people won't have to travel to the United States to have this done,' Potter says. What are the rules and the concerns behind them? The National Health and Medical Research Council reviewed their guidelines on assisted reproductive technology in 2017 and upheld its view that sex selection should not be used unless to reduce the risk of a genetic disease. (Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for example, mostly affects males.) One of the concerns cited by the NHMRC's ethics committee was that nonmedical sex selection could lead to people favouring one sex over the other based on cultural or personal biases. What the NHMRC considered in its ban on sex selection Whether sex selection is a justifiable use of medical resources. Whether there's an ethical difference between people wanting sex-balanced families and people choosing a particular sex due to personal or cultural bias. The possibility that sex selection my validate or reinforce gender stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes, and create pressure on the person born to conform to their parents' gender expectations. The possibility that sex selection may open the way for selecting other characteristics such as eye or hair colour. Concerns that people may be terminating pregnancies as an alternative sex-selection technique. Concerns Australians seeking sex selection could be travelling to international clinics with a lower standard of care. Values inherent in Australian society that relate to freedom and autonomy, particularly in relation to reproductive choices. Read the full reasoning behind the guidelines. The imbalance of the sex ratio in China is often cited as an example of cultural bias favouring male babies; in 2004 there were 121 males to every 100 females, at least partly because sons were preferred, so female fetuses were more likely to be aborted. China's sex ratio has since evened out, but there's still a male skew. Choosing the sex of an embryo to 'balance' a family's split between male and female children is one of the most common reasons people seek out sex selection, and it's viewed as more ethically acceptable. Alex Polyakov, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne and medical director of Melbourne's Genea IVF clinic, believes couples should be able to choose the sex of their third child, as long as their first two children are of the same sex. 'I think the argument that it will skew the sex ratio is really quite nonsensical,' he added, arguing the proportion of people taking part in sex selection would have to be huge to have such an effect. 'I don't really see an ethical or moral issue if safeguards are put in place.' By the same token, Polyakov has also warned embryo testing and selection strategies can decrease chance of pregnancy or lead to the discarding of healthy embryos, which in some cases has risked parents missing out on biological parenthood altogether. 'I think we often forget that the overriding aim is to increase the pregnancy rate, to get someone pregnant as soon as possible,' he says. Do people choose more males over females? Data is mixed on whether people are more likely to choose male or female embryos. An analysis of about 2300 embryo transfers at a US IVF clinic between 2012 and 2021 found 56.5 per cent of people who opted for sex selection chose male embryos. A study on a different hospital found roughly equal rates of sex selection when it was someone's first child, but a 59 per cent preference for females on the second child. Potter said about 70 per cent of his clients request female embryos, often driven by women who wanted a mother-daughter relationship. 'This process is driven by the female partner in most cases. For a lot of women, they've been imagining having a daughter ever since they were playing with dolls and modelling parenting behaviour as a child,' he says. Sex v gender Bioethicist Dr Tamara Browne, a senior lecturer in health ethics at Deakin University, says she's sad this debate has rekindled. 'We really haven't gotten very far when it comes to counteracting gender stereotypes and achieving gender equality,' she says. 'The two are interlinked, and I've become even more convinced that if we're to achieve gender equality, we have to stop parenting children differently according to their sex.' Assuming daughters will be closer to their mothers, or that boys offer different, more 'macho' experiences such as being into sport, plays into outdated gender beliefs, Browne says. Loading 'We don't have any good scientific evidence that you can only get these sorts of parenting experiences with a child of a certain sex,' she says. She makes the point that sex selection allows people to choose the sex chromosomes and genitalia of their child. It can't decide a child's gender – the way they express that sex. How, Browne argues, do we expect more men to take up nursing or childcare roles, and women to take up STEM subjects like maths and engineering, if we reinforce the idea they're born with different traits and abilities and therefore should be parented differently? I also ask Potter if he ever discusses with his clients the chance that a child born from a sex-selected embryo could eventually embrace a different gender identity – for example, a baby born from a female embryo who grows up as a trans man. (About 5 per cent of Americans under 30 say their gender is different to the sex they were assigned at birth, according to Pew Research Centre.) 'There would be no reason to discuss that, any more than it would be to discuss with an expecting mum,' Potter says. 'It's a pretty unlikely thing and kind of a grim topic.' How much should it cost? Dr Hilary Bowman-Smart, a research fellow at the University of South Australia who has studied prenatal testing, thinks sex selection in embryos isn't a particularly valuable use of medical resources, but the current reasons to keep it illegal were not compelling. Loading Bowman-Smart is concerned, though, about companies making money from sex selection services. 'I would be concerned about this becoming an expensive service that is advertised to people during a vulnerable time in their lives who otherwise might not have cared too much either way,' she says. While Polyakov backs sex selection in some circumstances, he doesn't believe it should be covered by Medicare. If it were legalised in Australia he estimates the practice would cost about $500 to $700 per embryo. 'So if you have 10 embryos, that adds about $5000 to $7000,' on top of the existing costs, he says.
