Younger American men lonelier than counterparts in other nations: Gallup
A new study suggests young American men are lonelier than their counterparts in other nations.
One in four U.S. men under age 35 report feeling lonely, according to compiled data released Tuesday by Gallup. Overall, 25 percent of men in the U.S. said they experience bouts of loneliness in the day prior to completing the survey.
The number was 10 percentage points higher than their counterparts in 38 mostly higher-income, democratic countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
The median for OECD respondents in the 15-35 age bracket was 15 percent respectively.
Comparatively, the U.S. men felt loneliness at 7 percentage points higher than the responses recorded by U.S. women in the same age bracket.
However, statistics show at least one in five younger men across the world say they feel lonely.
Respondents in Turkey ranked the highest for feelings related to emotional isolation at 29 percent, followed by France at 24 percent, Ireland at 23 percent and Canada 22 percent.
While 20 percent of young men in Luxembourg, Australia and New Zealand said they feel lonely during large portions of the day.
Gallup based their findings on aggregated data from 2023 and 2024.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Says Seed Oils Are Poison. Here's What a Dietitian Says
Seed oils have come under fire, with Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., leading the charge, saying Americans are being "poisoned" by them While they can cause inflammation, Julia Zumpano, a registered dietitian with the Center for Human. Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic says the bigger problem is that they're used in ultra-processed food The issue is less about the seed oils themselves and more about the foods they're inSeed oils — a type of processed oil found in packaged food and used for deep-frying — have come under fire, with the secretary of health and human services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posting on X that Americans are being 'unknowingly poisoned." Wellness influencers have joined in, decrying them as the 'hateful eight": specifically, canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower, grapeseed, and rice bran oils. The real story is a bit more complicated. 'They're not poison, but we're poisoning ourselves with everything else that's ultra-processed and processed that may be cooked in seed oils," Julia Zumpano, registered dietitian with the Center for Human Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic, tells PEOPLE. 'The bigger picture is the fact that we're eating way too much of seed oils, which happen to be found in highly processed foods," she explains. "That's where I see the problem.' On their own, seed oils are high in Omega-6 fat, which Zumpano says is linked to increased inflammation. But, as she explains, 'instead of deep frying chicken in beef tallow versus the seed oil, let's just focus on the fact that fried chicken is not really that good for us.' Beef tallow, which Kennedy has touted as a healthier option, does have some benefits, Zumpano tells PEOPLE. 'There's nutrients in it, fat-soluble vitamins that are essential.' But when you're using it to cook highly processed foods, she explains, 'we're just flip-flopping between two issues that aren't necessarily better.' As she explains, 'We're heavily focused on the seed oils and not necessarily focused on the fact that the foods that they're in are so processed: sauces and dressings and baked goods and potato chips and candy bars and granola bars and protein bars. Even coffee creamers are loaded with seed oils,' she says. They're in highly processed food because they're more cost-effective to make, Zumpano explains: 'It's cheaper and quicker and easier to process it with chemicals and solvents.' But if you're cooking at home, she says, with 'cold pressed or hi-oleic sunflower seed oil, or a canola oil and you're drizzling it, pan-frying some fish with it, there are no health concerns like inflammation. Fast Food is a part of American culture. But that doesn't mean it has to be unhealthy, and that we can't make better choices. Did you know that McDonald's used to use beef tallow to make their fries from 1940 until phasing it out in favor of seed oils in 1990? This switch was… — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) October 21, 2024 'We should just focus on really eliminating highly, ultra-processed and processed foods and going back to basics. Again, if you're gonna use the beef tallow at home to cook your eggs, fine — or the canola oil. "You're using it in moderation, a small amount, just to get the job done versus deep frying a doughnut or deep frying french fries or deep frying whatever breaded food or processed fried food you're consuming.' Ultimately, 'It's not the oil itself. It's the food that's found in the oil that is more of the problem.' If someone were to ban seed oils out of their diet, 'that's great, because they're probably cutting out a bunch of junk food," she says. "But I don't think anyone needs to be very fearful if their grandma made muffins with canola oil. They're gonna be okay if they eat that.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) on FJ Research's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on OSCR. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR)'s share was trading at $14.15 as of 4th June. OSCR's trailing and forward P/E were 35.38 and 19.84 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A female doctor using the latest healthcare IT technology in her medical practice. Oscar Health represents a bold attempt to overhaul the dysfunctional infrastructure of the $4.5 trillion American healthcare industry, which is plagued by inefficiencies, misaligned incentives, and staggering administrative costs. Unlike traditional insurers or consumer-facing telehealth startups like Hims and Hers, Oscar is rebuilding the backend—the core logic layer that powers healthcare transactions. It's a fully integrated, tech-driven insurance stack spans claims processing, risk scoring, provider networks, and member engagement, all powered by proprietary software and increasingly AI. This infrastructure is not only used internally but is also being licensed externally, giving Oscar the potential to become the AWS of health insurance. The company is especially well-positioned in the rapidly evolving Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which has expanded beyond low-income households to include a broader swath of middle-income Americans, thanks to enhanced subsidies under recent legislation. As legacy insurers retreat from this complex segment, Oscar's low admin costs, member engagement capabilities, and tech adaptability put it in pole position to seize market share. Currently active in 20 states, Oscar is on a clear growth trajectory. Despite its compelling fundamentals, the market still undervalues the company, with its stock trading below IPO levels. However, Oscar's long-term vision is backed by Thrive Capital and Josh Kushner, investors with a track record of identifying transformative platforms. Their continued involvement signals deep conviction and a willingness to drive strategic execution. With structural tailwinds, scalable infrastructure, and a highly engaged investor base, Oscar Health offers a mispriced opportunity in one of America's most essential yet broken industries. Previously, we covered a on Oscar Health (OSCR) by convexititties in March 2025, focusing on political overhangs and insider buying. FJ Research's June 2025 thesis complements this by highlighting Oscar's AI-powered backend platform and ACA market leadership, reinforcing the long-term upside case. Oscar Health, Inc. (OSCR) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 41 hedge fund portfolios held OSCR at the end of the first quarter which was 43 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
