I'm A Burnout Expert ― These Personality Traits Put You At Highest Risk
The issue is not the same as stress ― it's recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as an 'occupational phenomenon', meaning it has to do with the pressures, stresses and demands of work.
It's said to affect about 34% of adults in the UK. And while it might be dismissed as 'normal' work stress, the condition is linked to depression and (per a 2024 study) even heart disease.
On the podcast Motherkind, Dr Claire Ashley ― also known as The Burnout Doctor ― said some personality traits can affect your risk of developing the condition, too.
Dr Ashley said that she didn't realise until after experiencing burnout herself that she was 'very high risk' because of her personality.
'It's that caregiver personality, it's that high-achieving type-A personality, it's imposter syndrome, it's perfectionism, it's people-pleasing,' she explained.
Imposter syndrome happens when a person thinks they don't deserve, or aren't qualified for, their job. It can lead to fears of being 'found out'.
'All of these things are... a brutal cocktail' and provide a breeding ground for burnout, Dr Ashley continued.
'I didn't realise that it was such a heady cocktail, and that it primed me for burnout. And I know that a lot of mothers are also in that situation.'
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by ZOE BLASKEY | MOTHERKIND (@zoeblaskey)
According to Nuffield Health, some signs of burnout are:
Physical exhaustion
Digestive issues
Detachment or isolation
Increased irritability
Avoiding social interactions
Brain fog
Negative expectations of the future
Feeling hopeless
Increased anxiety
Feeling cynical or apathetic
Not enjoying your personal or professional life, no matter what you do.
If you suspect you have burnout, talking to your colleagues and loved ones, taking time off, taking care of your mental health, and speaking to a professional can all help.
, open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm on 0300 123 3393.
offers a listening service which is open 24 hours a day, on 116 123 (UK and ROI - this number is FREE to call and will not appear on your phone bill).
(the Campaign Against Living Miserably) offer a helpline open 5pm-midnight, 365 days a year, on 0800 58 58 58, and a webchat service.
is a free support service for people under 25. Call 0808 808 4994 or email help@themix.org.uk
offers practical help through its advice line which can be reached on 0808 801 0525 (Monday to Friday 10am-4pm). More info can be found on rethink.org.
4 Specific Signs You May Be Experiencing Parental Burnout
I'm A Burnout Expert – This Simple Roadmap Can Help You Bounce Back
I Binged Ted Lasso – And It Gave Me A Pep Talk I Didn't Know I Needed
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Is Red Meat Bad for You? The Proof Is in the Processing
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Is red meat bad for you? On the one hand, meat makes you strong, and it's every American's God-given right to grill a steak on his barbecue during the summer. I believe this came up in a church synod at some point… But on the other hand, the WHO (World Health Organization) has declared red meat a carcinogen, with a hot dog being as bad as cigarette. Yes, that was headline when the report came out. So, how do we reconcile these opposing ideas? Part of the solution is realizing the WHO organization in question is based in France. Maybe they're still angry about the "freedom fries" thing, but actually examining the nuances of the French language will help us understand what's going on. If you don't speak French, don't worry I got you covered. Ce n'est pas si difficile de tout n'inquiétez vous pas. Vous allez voir . Sit back, grab a baguette, and let's find out how dangerous red meat really is. I'm Christopher Labos, and this is Medscape's On Second Thought . Bonjour, tout le monde! Now, meat doesn't seem like it should be a complex topic to study, but it is. Many people around the world eat animals, but we don't all eat the same animals. For example, this is a cow, often used to make hamburger and steak. And this is Tobi, God's perfect angel who gets a more elaborate birthday party than I do each year. He is my son, and I would throw myself in front of a moving car for him. By necessity, when we do medical research on meat, we are lumping together a whole lot of a different human behavior, with people eating different types of animals based on where they live. There's no real alternative, and frankly, you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Most credible research will at least separate out red meat from white meat. But most people don't really know what the difference is. If you thought pork was white meat, you're wrong. You think that because of a marketing slogan. In 1987, the National Pork Board paid for the marketing campaign "Pork. The Other White Meat." They were basically trying to position pork as an alternative to chicken. People also usually think veal or deer is white meat. They think the difference between white and red meat has something to do the age of the animal, whether its free range, or the color of the meat. But it doesn't. Chefs and restaurants say all kinds of things, but the real definition is simple: Mammals are red meat, and birds are white meat. Now, there's another thing we need to explain. We have red meat, but we also have processed red meat. Processed red meat is when red meat is transformed in some way — and that doesn't mean cooking. If you just take a piece of steak and cook it on your barbecue or in the oven, that's not processed meat. Processing is doing things like salting the meat, smoking it, or curing it. Processed meat includes items like bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corn beef, and smoked meat. So, when we talk about red meat and health risks, we are primarily talking about processed red meat. And the people talking about this are the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC). IARC is a WHO organization, and their mandate is to promote international research on cancer — particularly its cause. One of their programs is a monograph program that evaluates the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific exposures. Here's where a knowledge of French is going to come in handy. IARC likes to look at something called the hazard, rather than the risk. In fact, every time they have a press conference, they spend about 5 minutes explaining the difference to people, which begs the question: Why not just study risk and be done with it? In English, those words seem pretty much like synonyms. And with the way most people use them, they essentially are. But in French, they are slightly different. Le risque et le hasard don't quite mean the same thing in French. To be fair, their definitions are technically different in English, as well — as those of you who read the dictionary for fun already know. A risk is the probability that something harmful will happen. A hazard is a potential source of harm. For example, a grenade is a hazardous thing to have on your desk, but the risk of it exploding is quite low… unless you pull the pin. IARC is researching hazard. They are evaluating whether something is associated with cancer, not how risky that something is. IARC categorizes everything into groups: carcinogenic to humans, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, or not classifiable. There is technically a "not carcinogenic" group, but there's nothing in there. Well, there was one substance in there for a bit, but they removed it. Comment below if you know what that substance is. Here's a hint: You find it in yoga pants. So, IARC has never found anything that doesn't cause cancer. When they go hunting for heffalumps and woozles, they find heffalumps and woozles. To be fair, which I am under no contractual obligation to be, they are a WHO agency, and they are tasked to review substances that are of interest to world governments. As such, they are not going to review stuff that is clearly unrelated to cancer… but still. They put a lot of stuff in Group 1, the (definitely) carcinogenic group. Tamoxifen is in Group 1, and as most of you know, tamoxifen treats breast cancer. It has saved countless lives. Calling it a carcinogen sounds a bit daft, but it is associated with abnormal uterine bleeding and an increased risk of uterine cancer. And the data is pretty uncontroversial, right? Thus, IARC says, 'We are certain this association is true, therefore it goes in Group 1.' But what's the risk of tamoxifen causing uterine cancer? It's 0.3% on the absolute risk scale. It's basically zero and a heck of a lot lower than the breast cancer risk. Clearly, you should take the drug if you have ER-positive breast cancer. So, this is the problem. IARC is saying how certain they are that something is dangerous, but not how dangerous something is. Conclusive data will land a substance into Group 1: carcinogenic. Strong but not conclusive data goes into Group 2a: probably carcinogenic. If there's only some evidence, contradictory evidence, or maybe just animal data, you get sorted into Group 2b: possibly carcinogenic. And Group 3 is used when there's not much data to work off of. Generally, their system works okay. They put tobacco, asbestos, and gamma radiation in Group 1, which makes sense. But then also put stuff like birth control pills, estrogen, and tamoxifen in Group 1. Sure, there is a small increased risk of breast cancer with birth control pills if you have a family history, but it's a pretty small risk and frankly negligible for the general population — plus, it's largely outweighed by the decrease in ovarian cancer risk that comes with using birth control pills. But IARC isn't doing that type of nuanced calculation. They say, 'Estrogen causes breast cancer. The pill has estrogen. The link is proven. The pill goes into Group 1.' So, it was IARC that reviewed all the data about processed red meat and declared it a Group 1 carcinogen. Fun fact: Unprocessed red meat was only put in Group 2A because the data was less solid. For anybody grilling a steak right now, this doesn't apply to you. But not everybody agreed with IARC. The Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium was a group of researchers who also reviewed the data on red meat and came to a completely different conclusion. Their analysis was motivated by two things: 1) the funding they received from the beef industry (this is why we can't have nice things), and 2) they dismissed much of the research because it comes from observational cohorts, not randomized controlled trials. In food science, randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct, because telling people what to eat is often met with "make me." Regardless, the NutriRECS Consortium conclusion was, 'Keep eating meat, as the data is uncertain because most of it is observational.' This conclusion is a bit reductionist to me, because we have a lot of observational data pointing toward health risks associated with processed red meat, and I have a hard time believing all the stuff added to processed red meat is doing us any favors. But let's take the IARC assessment at face value. They are convinced by the hazard or the hasard. But what's the risk? The cancer risk is most clear cut for colon cancer, which is pretty logical. Your lifetime risk of colon cancer is about 4%, assuming you're of general risk with no family history or genetic risk factors. It's actually 4.2% for males and 4.0% for females, according to the 2022 Cancer Statistics from the American Cancer Society. But let's say 4% for everyone — just for simplicity. The IARC report estimated that eating an extra 50 g of processed meat per day, every day, increased your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Take 4%, multiply it by 1.18, and you get 4.72%. So, let's say 5% if we're rounding. All this to say, if you eat hot dogs every day of your life, your risk of getting colon cancer goes up by 1 percentage point on the absolute scale. Now, on first instinct you might say, "Pfff, that's nothing. Pass the bratwurst." But 1% on the absolute scale is not trivial. That's thousands of cases per year. Millions of cases over the course of your lifetime in a country of 300 million people. It has some important public health implications. Is the risk high enough for us to stop killing and eating Bambi's mother? Hard to say. It's not negligible, but it's not astronomical either. And there are economic and environmental factors to keep in mind — issues that are often forgotten when we talk about medicine. I will stress one point, though. The IARC estimates of 1% absolute risk increase are about daily consumption of processed meat. You don't need to eat jerky every day of your life. For Medscape, I'm Dr Christopher Labos… with Tobi.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Jillian Michaels breaks silence on 'Biggest Loser' Netflix doc, co-star Bob Harper
Jillian Michaels is slamming Netflix's docuseries about "The Biggest Loser" and is showing the receipts to back it up. The celebrity fitness trainer took to Instagram on Aug. 19 in a series of posts to slam claims from "Fit for TV: The Reality of the Biggest Loser" (now streaming), which gave former fans a second course of the small moments and big missteps from NBC's 18-season competition series that aired from 2004-16. Though many lost weight throughout the series, the tactics at times posed a risk to participants and their esteem. Tracey Yukich suffered a near-death experience during a challenge to kick off Season 8. Michaels supplied some contestants with caffeine pills, though caffeine was banned by the show's physician, Robert Huizenga. And competitors were asked to participate in sometimes humiliating temptation challenges, when they were enticed with high-calorie treats or building towers made of bread using their mouths. In a series of lengthy statements, Michaels took aim at a range of allegations about her, including one that she said "you're going to make me a millionaire" to a contestant (a claim she said is false), plied contestants with caffeine pills and encouraged calorie restriction. A post shared by Jillian Michaels (@jillianmichaels) "With respect to the allegation that I restricted contestants from eating enough calories: I have an example of a direct written correspondence with a contestant, while she was home for the holidays during filming, in which I explicitly instructed her to consume 1,600 calories per day," Michaels said in one Instagram caption. She continued: "Additionally, the two other emails posted here are standard communications with the show's producers and medical staff, emphasizing the ongoing priority of ensuring contestants were adequately nourished and the need to provide a steady supply of fresh food in the BL house to guarantee ready access to calories." Michaels – who said that "caffeine was NEVER banned" on the show – added that the show's medical advisor, Dr. Robert Huzienga, "did approve caffeine pills on many seasons of 'Biggest Loser.'" Bob Harper accuses Jillian Michaels of not reaching out after his 2017 heart attack The trainer turned conservative commentator added that "Bob Harper not only knew about the caffeine pills the 'stackers fat burner' were actually his suggestion. I wanted to use my brand instead because they were cleaner and had no more than 200mg of caffeine." Both Harper and Huzienga appeared in the documentary, while Michaels did not. On social media, Michaels also spoke about rampant speculation surrounding her relationship with former costar Harper. In a screenshot shared in one carousel, Michaels said that "the last image is my second to last text ever to Bob Harper. Take from it what you will." The message from Michaels to Harper allegedly said, "I really think it's (bad) of you to not even respond to my texts. It's this kind of thing that always makes me so disappointed (in) our relationship." Her comments raise new questions about her relationship with Harper after years of rift rumors. In February 2017, Harper suffered a heart attack during a workout in New York City. He told TMZ at the time that after he collapsed at the gym, a doctor who was there performed CPR on him. In a recent interview in The Guardian, Harper claimed that while many of his "Biggest Loser" colleagues reached out after his medical ordeal, Michaels notably did not. "We weren't besties, but we were partners on a television show for a very long time," Harper told the outlet, adding that the silence "spoke volumes to me." Contributing: Edward Segarra, Erin Jensen, USA TODAY
Business Wire
9 hours ago
- Business Wire
WHO and UNICEF to Launch Polio Vaccination Campaign in Afghanistan with PharmaJet
GOLDEN, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- PharmaJet ®, a company that strives to improve the performance and outcomes of injectables with its enabling needle-free injection technology, today announced that the WHO prequalified Tropis ID delivery system will be used to support a polio eradication campaign sponsored by the National Emergency Operation Center (NEOC) Afghanistan, UNICEF, WHO, and other GPEI partners starting in August 2025. Focused on the Eastern region of Afghanistan, the campaign will deploy Tropis ID to administer 1.3 million fractional doses of inactivated polio vaccine (fIPV) to children ages 5 and under in parallel to oral polio vaccine (OPV) administration as part of a WHO-recommended strategy to boost humoral and mucosal immunity. Poliovirus has been eliminated in most parts of the world due to widespread vaccination campaigns, but it continues to circulate in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2024, wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) transmission rose significantly in Afghanistan. The use of Tropis ID enables site-to-site immunization, a strategy where vaccination services are offered at multiple, convenient locations. This approach is expected to help increase immunization coverage, particularly in high-risk areas. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on polio eradication endorsed the Afghanistan program's 'Strategic Reset' to optimize site-to-site vaccination, while stressing the need for stronger leadership, community acceptance, and broad government engagement. Including Tropis ID fIPV in this immunization program supports Afghanistan's polio eradication goals to eliminate persistent virus lineages in the East, prevent new WPV1 cases in the East and South Regions, and prevent local transmission in other parts of the country. 1 'We are pleased to be partnering with UNICEF, WHO, and NEOC Afghanistan in their continued efforts to eradicate polio,' said Paul LaBarre, Senior Vice President Global Business Development, PharmaJet. 'We aim to achieve high impact in the fight against poliovirus, including increased coverage, decreased costs, and high acceptability 2 previously seen with Tropis ID delivered fIPV in Pakistan, 2 Somalia, 3 and Nigeria 4.' Refer to Instructions for Use to ensure safe injections and to review risks. About PharmaJet The PharmaJet mission is to improve the performance and outcomes of injectables with our enabling technology that better activates the immune system. We are committed to helping our partners realize their research and commercialization goals while making an impact on public health. PharmaJet Precision Delivery Systems™ can improve vaccine effectiveness, allow for a preferred patient and caregiver experience, and offer a proven path to commercialization. They are also safe, fast, and easy-to-use. The Stratis ® System has U.S. FDA 510(k) marketing clearance, CE Mark, and WHO PQS certification to deliver medications and vaccines either intramuscularly or subcutaneously. The Tropis ® System has CE Mark and WHO PQS certification for intradermal injections. They are both commercially available for global immunization programs. For more information or if you are interested in partnering with PharmaJet visit or contact PharmaJet here. Follow us on LinkedIn. About the NEOC Afghanistan NEOC Afghanistan is led by the Ministry of Public Health and the core members are WHO, UNICEF, BMGF, CDC, Rotary International, Core Group of Polio Project (CGPP), EPI manager and the National Polio Focal Point. About the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) 5 The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is a public-private partnership led by national governments with six partners – the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Gates Foundation and Gavi, the vaccine alliance. Its goal is to eradicate polio worldwide. Launched in 1988 after the World Health Assembly passed a resolution to eradicate polio, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, along with its partners, has helped countries to make huge progress in protecting the global population from this debilitating disease. As a result, the global incidence of polio has decreased by 99.9% since GPEI's foundation. An estimated 20 million people today are walking who would otherwise have been paralyzed by the disease, and more than 1.5 million people are alive, whose lives would otherwise have been lost. Now the task remains to tackle polio in its last few strongholds and get rid of the final 0.1% of polio cases including the two remaining endemic countries: Pakistan and Afghanistan.
