logo
I regret my weight loss surgery: It was a miracle at first - but no one talks about the nightmare that can happen to your body just a few years later

I regret my weight loss surgery: It was a miracle at first - but no one talks about the nightmare that can happen to your body just a few years later

Daily Mail​a day ago
Kylie was excited. Her life was about to change.
The primary school principal was three months from undergoing a gastric sleeve, which she hoped would finally solve her decades-long struggle with weight.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The genetic factor that could impact a child's future weight, according to experts
The genetic factor that could impact a child's future weight, according to experts

The Independent

time11 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The genetic factor that could impact a child's future weight, according to experts

A mother's genes could play a role in determining a child's future weight – more so than a father's. Researchers at University College London (UCL) investigated how a parent's weight and genes influence their children's weight and diet from birth to age 17. To make the comparison, researchers used genetic and health data of 2,621 UK families in the Millennium Cohort Study, a UK birth cohort study of individuals born in 2001-2002. The study, published in the journal PLOS Genetics, looked at the BMI of parents and the birthweight of their children. They also looked at the child's diet at ages three, five, seven, 11, 14, and 17. Children's diets were assessed through self-reported records of how often and how much they consumed different food groups, including fruit, vegetables, fast food, and sugary drinks. Researchers then separated the direct effects of inherited genes from the indirect effects of genes that were not inherited. Study authors explained that non-inherited genes can still influence children's outcomes by influencing the development environment, such as conditions in the womb and parenting practices, as these are shaped by parents' genetics. Analysis revealed that while both parents' genetics influence a child's BMI, a mother's BMI continued to affect the child's weight beyond direct genetic inheritance. Researchers suggest this means genetic nurture, where a parent's genes shape the environment they create for their child, might be a big factor in a child's weight. This could be the case if a mother's genes influence her own weight, eating habits, or behaviours during pregnancy, which in turn can affect the child's development and long-term health. Dr Liam Wright, the study's lead author, said: ' Mothers ' genetics appear to play an important role in influencing their child's weight over and above the child's genetics. 'In addition to the genes mums directly pass on, our findings suggest that maternal genetics are instrumental in shaping the environment in which the child develops, therefore indirectly influencing the child's BMI too.' Almost a third of children aged two to 15 were considered to be obese or overweight in 2024, according to NHS data. However, researchers acknowledge BMI is not the most accurate way of measuring body fat, particularly among children, and so supplemented their analysis with several other adiposity-related measures, including fat mass. Dr Wright added: 'This isn't about blaming mothers, rather, supporting families to make a meaningful difference to children's long-term health. Targeted interventions to reduce maternal BMI, particularly during pregnancy, could reduce the intergenerational impacts of obesity."

Popular artificial sweetener may negatively affect cancer immunotherapy
Popular artificial sweetener may negatively affect cancer immunotherapy

Medical News Today

timean hour ago

  • Medical News Today

Popular artificial sweetener may negatively affect cancer immunotherapy

Non-sugar, or artificial, sweeteners are widely used to reduce the energy in sweetened foods and drinks, particularly those marketed as diet, or low or no concerns about their possible health effects include links to gastrointestinal problems, metabolic effects, and even increased cancer a study has found that one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, sucralose, could adversely affect cancer researchers suggest that by changing the gut microbiome, sucralose decreases the effectiveness of immunotherapy for several cancers. Health concerns regarding sucralose have mainly centered around its potential to cause systemic inflammation, metabolic diseases, disruptions in gut microbiota, liver damage, and toxic effects at the cellular a study suggests that people whose diet includes large amounts of sucralose, e.g., from diet drinks, respond less well to cancer immunotherapy than those who consume less or none of the research, which is published in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association of Cancer Research, found that sucralose changed the gut microbiota so bacteria degraded an amino acid, arginine, that immune cells need to be able to destroy cancer are experts worried about sucralose?Sucralose is one of six non-sugar sweeteners approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as additives in the food and drinks industry — the others are aspartame, advantame, neotame, saccharin, and acesulfame potassium (Ace-K).It is made by replacing 3 hydroxyl (oxygen and hydrogen) groups in sucrose (table sugar) molecules with chloride resulting sucralose is up to 650 times sweeter than sucrose and, because people cannot digest it, contains no accessible energy. Therefore, it is widely used to sweeten foods and drinks, as well as being sold as an alternative to sugar for those trying to decrease their energy intake. However, there are concerns, both about its health effects and its efficacy for helping weight loss. In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised that non-sugar sweeteners should not be used for weight control, saying that: 'Replacing free sugars with NSS [non-sugar sweeteners] does not help with weight control in the long term. […] NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.'Investigating the sucralose-cancer linkDiwakar Davar, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and a medical oncologist and hematologist at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, senior author of the study, told Medical News Today:'We think this finding is highly significant as it could have immediate positive impacts on cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. The fact that we not only identified sucralose as a potential problem for those receiving immunotherapy, but that we also found a way to fix this problem through arginine supplementation is exciting and something that could be put into clinical practice easily.'According to Jack Jacoub, MD, a board certified medical oncologist and medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast and Saddleback Medical Centers in Orange County, CA, who was not involved in this research, the findings were significant.'Frankly, this is a superb piece of scientific work,' Jacoub told MNT. 'The authors were able to study preclinical models (mice) and draw conclusions related to the effect of high sucralose intake on T-cell function tumor response to immunotherapy.''They then took this understanding and later tested it in prospective enrolled patients with lung cancer and melanoma. They showed that patients consuming sucralose greater than 0.16 mg/kg/d [milligram per kilogram per day] had inferior response to immunotherapy,' he explained.'Recognizing the significance of arginine on T cell functions they then went back to the mouse model and proved giving it restored T cell function and benefit to immunotherapy in mice. In my opinion, this is high quality evidence suggesting this absolutely needs more exploration,' added decreased immune responseIn their study, the researchers included 132 patients who had undergone immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy for advanced/metastatic melanoma or advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They also included 25 patients who had high-risk resectable melanoma. All participants had completed a Diet History Questionnaire III (DHQ III), had received at least 3 months of treatment, had at least one post-treatment imaging study evaluable for response and had been followed up for at least 6 months from the start of the diet questionnaire, researchers calculated each patient's non-nutritive sugar (NNS) intake (mg/day) and divided it by their weight in kg to get a weight-normalized average daily intake of mg/kg/ with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer who consumed high levels of sucralose (more than 0.16mg/kg/day) had a worse response to immunotherapy, and poorer survival rates, than those with diets low in the artificial whether people undergoing cancer immunotherapy should try to avoid sucralose in their diets, lead author Abby Overacre, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, told MNT:'We are working on future prospective clinical trials to ask these sorts of questions for patients undergoing immunotherapy. Based on what we know so far, we would recommend that patients minimize intake of non-nutritive sweeteners, particularly sucralose.'Jacoub agreed with this assessment, saying that: 'This is enough information for me to recommend this to my patients. Frankly, we are talking about cancer and giving up diet soda, etc. is not difficult and directly goes to the question patients and their family commonly ask every day when I see them which is 'What can I do to help treat my cancer?'.'It is important to note that the research is still in the early stages, and this may not apply to all cancer microbiota changes reduced T-cell activityThe researchers then carried out tests in two mouse models of cancer to determine how high sucralose consumption reduced the immunotherapy found that mice fed sucralose were resistant to immunotherapy, had significantly increased tumor growth, less CD8+ T cell infiltration, and were more likely to T-cells are immune cells that produce the most powerful anti-cancer response, so their reduced function meant the immunotherapy was less effective. In the sucralose-fed mice, the researchers discovered changes in the gut microbiota, with greater numbers of gram positive bacteria that degraded arginine, an amino acid that is essential for T-cell production.'Gram positive bacteria have been associated with poorer immunotherapy efficacy in previous studies. However, we are very focused and interested in the function of these bacteria in hopes to better understand how they may directly contribute to cancer growth and immunotherapy response.'— Abby Overacre, PhDArginine supplements may counteract sucralose's effectsWhen researchers fed arginine or citrulline (which is metabolized in the body to arginine) to the mice, immunotherapy became effective again. They suggest that arginine or citrulline supplements could be given to people undergoing cancer immunotherapy to counteract the effect of sucralose in their diet. But could people undergoing cancer immunotherapy get enough arginine from their diet?'While there are certainly foods that are higher in arginine, especially in diets associated with better immunotherapy responses (nuts/seeds, poultry, lentils, fruits), a supplement may help those who struggle to achieve a high amount or arginine from diet alone,' Overacre told addition to continuing their research into sucralose and immunotherapy, the researchers hope to investigate whether other non-nutritive sweeteners have similar effects.'We hope that this study can help patients currently receiving immunotherapy. Importantly, this gives patients something they can do themselves or alongside their physicians to potentially improve their overall care.'— Abby Overacre, PhD

Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk
Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk

Telegraph

time3 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk

Health emergencies rarely respect borders or budgets. As I write, the world is facing an antibiotic emergency, with bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to the treatments we depend on to counter infectious diseases. Without effective antibiotic treatments, global health and the global economy are defenceless against the likes of pneumonia and sepsis. Antibiotics are the infrastructure of modern medicine, making chemotherapy, caesarean sections and hip replacements possible. More than 1.1million people die across the world every year because of antibiotic resistance, including 35,000 in the UK alone. These trends are increasing and inter-generational, with deaths in children tripling in the last three years. For the last decade, the UK has been at the forefront of global efforts to tackle the wider threat posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While antibiotic resistance poses the single biggest threat to modern medicine, AMR points to a serious problem for all types of antimicrobial agents – antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitics – threatening to reverse all the significant gains we've made against HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The UK's Fleming Fund has been a bulwark against such threats: building laboratory capacity in 25 low- and-middle-countries to detect emerging AMR outbreaks, allowing for proactive, data-driven responses before they escalate into global crises. Among many other things, the Fleming Fund has tripled the genomic sequencing capacity across the entire African continent – which even pivoted to detect Covid-19 variants. The UK government's decision to shut down the Fleming Fund is a false economy and directly puts our national security at risk. It will cost lives, as well as precious GDP that could be spent on frontline NHS services. If we are to learn any lessons at all from Covid-19, it should be that we cannot afford to cut corners when it comes to preventing and preparing for inevitable pathogenic threats. Bold investment to protect against AMR Decisions made today will directly impact our ability to counter and contain AMR pandemics in the very near future. When I was Chancellor in 2023, the Treasury recognised the economic health ramifications of AMR, and the UK government commissioned economic studies to better understand the risks and opportunities. The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation found that if AMR resistance accelerates in line with poorer-performing countries, the world faces an additional seven million deaths globally by 2050. The Center for Global Development then estimated that economically, this would wipe $1.7 trillion annually off global GDP by 2050 and it will cost $175 billion extra a year for health systems to treat people. Country-level estimates released recently estimate that the British economy would be $59 billion smaller in this scenario and the UK would spend an additional $2.8 billion a year treating superbugs. $296 billion and $188 billion would be wiped off the US and EU economies respectively. In contrast, this research shows that there would be large economic benefits to the UK and elsewhere if we invest in improving the treatment of infections. With the UK economy facing significant challenges and the NHS workforce facing rising pressures, now is the time to act boldly and invest proactively to protect against AMR. Whilst the UK alone cannot solve AMR, the UK can and should leverage its world-leading technical expertise and diplomatic leadership through the Fleming Fund, its Special Envoy on AMR, Dame Sally Davies, and other global investments in AMR. Even in a world where only 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) is earmarked for international aid funding, there must be a budget line for AMR. If we are to drive economic growth and build resilience against health threats at home and abroad, we need decisive action with investments that put health security first. With an evolved Fleming Fund, we can mitigate against the worst effects of AMR by supporting research and development of new antibiotics, increasing access to treatments in countries where lack of access accelerates resistance, embedding large-scale education and training programmes to ensure the sustainable and responsible use of existing antibiotics, and harnessing AI for diagnostic tests and surveillance for the UK and the countries most severely impacted by AMR. A world without the Fleming Fund puts even greater pressure on UK government and the life sciences sector to find new ways to prepare for the pandemics we already detect and those we are yet to detect, to safeguard UK health and economic security. Now is the time for the government to step up.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store