Fitness Experts Are Absolutely Dragging The Mel Robbins Podcast For Claiming Women Need To Be Able To Do 11 Push-Ups
If you aren't familiar, Robbins is a motivational author, speaker and podcast host who regularly talks about mental health topics such as anxiety, stress and confidence, as well as physical health topics such as disease prevention and women's fitness.
Her podcast episodes often inspire lots of conversations and even lifestyle changes, and a March episode of the podcast was no different.
On the episode, podcast guest Dr. Vonda Wright, who is an orthopedic surgeon and longevity expert, shared with Robbins the weekly exercise regimen that all women should follow: It included walking a total of three hours each week (broken up over at least four days), lifting heavy weights at least twice a week, and learning 'to lift your own bodyweight' — which according to Wright means all women should be able to do 11 push-ups. Robbins asked if those push-ups could be done on your knees, and Wright replied, 'No.'
The 11 push-up idea quickly caught the attention of women across the country, who took to social media to try the challenge. But do all women really need to be able to do 11 push-ups? Or are there better measures of fitness?
Below, trainers share their honest thoughts on this 11 push-up challenge:
No, all women should not be able to do 11 push-ups.
Related: A New Study Has Found That 'Eldest Daughter Syndrome' Is A Real Thing, So Call Your Sister And Let Her Know
According to Katie Gould, the founder of KG Strong, a strength-training gym in Philadelphia, the idea that all women should be able to do 11 push-ups likely comes from a 2019 study of 1,100 male firefighters that found that men who could do more than 40 push-ups had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to men who could do fewer than 10 push-ups.
'So, these findings aren't really directly ... applicable to women,' Gould noted.
Danielle Repetti, the founder and head coach at Iron and Mettle, a women's strength training gym in San Francisco, agreed and said the 11 push-up number feels arbitrary.
Gould also questioned how fast people were doing the push-ups, which can make them easier to do, or if they were doing them with resistance, which can make them tougher, and if they even had proper form.
'If you're doing three super slow push-ups, to me, I would say that that's an even greater indicator of strength than doing 11 improper form fast push-ups,' Gould said.
'I've had clients that can bench press 100, 125 pounds, and they aren't able to do 11 push-ups on their toes, and that doesn't mean that they're not strong, and it doesn't really mean anything about them as people in a body,' Repetti said.
Both Repetti and Gould said there are many reasons why a fit, strong person can't do a chest-to-floor push-up. Maybe they just had a baby, have wrist issues, have larger bodies or are older, Repetti said.
'I'm not going to ask them to do a full-range push-up. It doesn't feel good, it hurts. So that's not how we're necessarily going to strengthen their upper body,' said Gould.
'We're going to do single-arm floor press, or we're going to do a plank and hold that. There's so many other exercises that can build your upper body if a full-range hands-on-floor push-up isn't accessible to you,' Gould noted.
Your strength goals should be personal and should make you feel good.
Related: "I Had To Be Held Down By Two Nurses": Women Are Sharing Their Absolute Worst Experience In A Doctor's Office
While it's important to have benchmarks when it comes to bettering your health and fitness, it doesn't mean one across-the-board benchmark is right for everyone, noted Gould.
'Your personal goals are really going to be the determining factor for what your benchmark should be. Not everybody's goal is going to be to do 11 push-ups,' Gould said.
'Strength goals should be personalized, and while push-ups are a really valuable measure of upper body and core strength, they're not the only indicator of fitness, and they're not a sole indicator of health conditions,' Gould added.
Plus, your strength goal shouldn't make you feel bad. That will only discourage you from returning to a workout class or personal training session in the future.
'Any time we embark on a strength journey, I think it's really important to feel good about your body while you're doing it, and not look at it from the lens of 'Oh, I failed and that means something about me and my body,'' Repetti added.
An 11 push-up challenge is a fast-track way to feel discouraged if you can't hit the number.
Everyone expresses strength in different ways, and everyone has different places where they excel and where they struggle, Repetti said.
'If you go and do the push-ups and you can't do it ... I just really want women to know that doesn't mean anything about you and your own strength,' Repetti noted.
In strength training, you'll find the movements that you're great at and not so great at. 'It's important that women don't think of the push-up as being the end all be all,' Repetti added.
But push-ups do have benefits when it comes to healthy aging and building strength.
'So, push-ups work pretty much all the muscles in the upper body — chest shoulders, triceps, those are all parts of the horizontal pressing motion, and then push-ups also challenge our core,' Repetti said.
Push-ups benefit your posture, your functional strength, and can help with daily activities like lifting things, pushing things away, pulling yourself up and even boosts your bone density (which is crucial for women as they age and bone density drops), said Gould.
Push-ups can also help you have the strength to push yourself off the ground, whether you're playing with your grandkids, your pets, or if you fall down, both experts said.
Like all strength training, push-ups can help you continue to do the things you want to do as you get older, such as move around your home, go up and down stairs, even dance.
'How you feel in 50 years is kind of dependent on some of the things you're doing now,' Repetti said. 'We really want to build as much strength as we can so that ... we don't have to be one of those people who are like, 'Oh, I used to do that, and now I don't anymore because my body doesn't feel good when I do that.''
If you do want to be able to do push-ups, there are steps you can take to get there.
So, not being able to do a push-up (nonetheless 11) on your toes doesn't mean anything about you or your fitness, but if you do have a goal to be able to do some push-ups, the trainers who spoke with HuffPost have some tips.
First, you can try to do push-ups on your knees, but Gould said she prefers an incline push-up as a way to build your upper body strength.
For this type of push-up, you'll want to put your hands on an elevated surface like a bench or box, said Repetti. Or, you can even do it with your hands on your couch.
This way, you're moving less of your body weight while still maintaining a push-up position. You can also see your progress as you move to lower and lower surfaces, said Gould, 'and that is a big thing for me with my clients.'
These modifications allow you to 'train the full range of motion and get the most out of learning that movement,' noted Repetti.
'So, once you strengthen some of those muscles, then the push-ups in and of themselves get easier,' Repetti said. 'We want to essentially make the movement easier at first, so that our body can learn how to do it, and then slowly and gradually over time, make that movement more and more challenging.'
'I would consider a push-up on your toes one of the more challenging variations of the push-up,' Repetti said ― and noted that you can make a push-up even harder by adding weight.
'But, for most people, I think learning some of the easier variations and then slowly building up to push-ups on your toes is the best way to get better at push-ups,' she said.
And, if you find that you can't hit 11 push-ups even with some additional training, that's OK. There are other ways to get strong and stay strong — what matters most is that you find a sustainable strength regimen that makes you feel good and keeps you moving.This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Also in Goodful: 19 Wholesome Posts I Saw This Week That Were So Cute, They Legitimately Put Me In A Happier Mood
Also in Goodful: 19 Wholesome Posts I Found On The Internet This Week That Are So Urgently Needed Right Now
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
7 hours ago
- Vox
The surprising origins of the 'wellness' boom
is the host of Explain It to Me, your hotline for all your unanswered questions. She joined Vox in 2022 as a senior producer and then as host of The Weeds, Vox's policy podcast. 'Wellness' is a word influencers use as a hashtag on videos of them pouring collagen into smoothies and as the theme of a celebrity chef's new cookbook. It's even an obsession of the US health secretary. But what does it mean to be well? That's the question we answer this week on Explain It to Me, Vox's call-in podcast that answers the questions that matter to you most. While the multibillion-dollar industry feels new, it's been over a century in the making. Jonathan Stea, a clinical psychologist and author of Mind the Science: Saving Your Mental Health From the Wellness Industry, says that a lot of wellness trends fill in gaps in health care. That cold plunge or super food may be harmless, but often the science behind the trends can be iffy. 'The problem is that one of the ways in which wellness promoters market their materials is by promoting quote-unquote 'science' or 'research' to support their claims,' he says. 'When you do a deeper dive into that research, what people will often find is that you can find a study to promote or to support any kind of treatment or claim.' How did the wellness trend even begin in the first place? And how should we be thinking about our health overall? Below is an excerpt of our conversation with Stea, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If you'd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@ or call 1-800-618-8545. Where did wellness originate? We can trace the modern wellness industry back to about the late 19th century. That's when two prominent figures really played a role in shaping the modern wellness industry we see today. One of those players was a guy named John Harvey Kellogg. And what he and his brother Will Keith did is, they built something called the Battle Creek Sanitarium, which was a really huge famous medical center. It was a spa, it was a grand hotel, and it attracted a lot of wealthy, highly influential people. And what John ended up doing in that center was promoting a lot of his ideas about health and about how to treat diseases. They tended to really blend a lot of what he called Biologic Living, which is really just a kind of virtuous way of approaching our health and kind of blending that with some religious Christian beliefs. When I hear the name Kellogg, I admit that I think of my breakfast cereal. Was John Kellogg a scientist or an inventor of some kind? Kind of, yes. So his brother Will Keith actually started the cereal company. John was a physician, and he was a bestselling author. He had a magazine; he did lectures. His magazine was followed by millions of people. So was he the inventor of wellness as we know it today? Not quite. When he was promoting his ideas, it was before the term wellness as we use it today was formed. He was promoting a precursor to wellness called Biologic Living, which essentially promoted the idea that all diseases in all health conditions can be treated with basically a trifecta recipe of good sleep, good exercise, and eating a specific diet: vegetables and fruits, etc. Exercise, diet, sleep, eating fruits and veggies — that feels like something I hear from my doctor. Totally. That's a part of evidence-based care, and that's really foundational to what we do in the hospital. The problem is that what we see even in the modern wellness industry is when people sell these things as a cure-all, as a panacea for all health conditions. John had a lot of ideas that [suggested] if we weren't following a trifecta recipe of sleep, eating well, and exercise, and we were doing other things like drinking alcohol or eating meat or sugar, or even if people were overweight — he considered that to be non-virtuous, and essentially really bad behaviors. And he would view it in a very punitive way. Even masturbation was considered self-abuse by John Kellogg, and he thought that it would lead to things like mental illness and cancer and moral destitution. He would advocate treating people who would masturbate — in boys, he would recommend circumcision or bandaging their hands together, and in girls, he would recommend [applying] pure carbolic acid to the clitoris. And even its removal. Was John Kellogg the only person like this of his time, or was this more widespread? It was more widespread, and I would say that he was one of the most prominent ones. There was another huge player that played a role in the birth of the modern wellness industry: He was a guy named Bernarr MacFadden, who some consider the 20th century's first celebrity health influencer. This guy was equally eccentric to John. Macfadden would strut around New York barefoot so that his soles could absorb the earth's energy, and he would sleep on the floor so that his energy would align with the earth's natural magnetic rhythm. And he was very hostile to vaccines. So you're telling me that an anti-vaxx wellness influencer is not a new phenomenon. Very old, over a century old. Similar to Kellogg, you know, Macfadden would also sell this idea of health as a moral virtue, where it's all about virtuous eating. It's all about virtuous exercise. And the problem with these ideas is that health is not a moral virtue. What these ideas do is they promote an idea about health that ignores the science. And then they downplay the role of other important things that we know play a role in health, like genetics, social factors, and just plain old bad luck. It's very interesting that all of this happened in the 19th century. I think of that as a time with a lot of advancements in science and in health. Totally. Around the same time that these wellness ideas were percolating, there was also something called the Flexner Report of 1910, and that really ushered in the dawn of modern medicine. What that report did was it essentially wanted medicine and medical schools to get their act together and make them much more scientific. It would encourage schools to either get rid of alternative medicine from their curriculum or just shut these schools down altogether. At the same time, [the report] really disadvantaged folks who were economically underprivileged. And what that did is it opened [a space] for alternative medicine or wellness to step in and to take on the role of listening, humanizing, and comfort. What about the term wellness specifically, though? When did that officially become a thing? Some consider the father of the modern wellness industry to be Halbert Dunn. He was a biostatistician, and he first used the term wellness as we use it today, publishing an article in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1959. What Dunn did is he distinguished good health, which he defined as freedom from illness, from what he dubbed high-level wellness, which is a kind of optimal functioning in one's environment. And I think his definition was quite thoughtful, but it really didn't stick.
The Intercept
4 days ago
- The Intercept
'A Purely Manmade Famine': How Israel Is Starving Gaza
As the Israeli government weighs, once again, expanding its genocidal military campaign in Gaza, the enclave is sliding into a full-scale famine. 'We're seeing a purely manmade famine,' says Bob Kitchen, vice president of emergencies at the International Rescue Committee. 'The Gaza Strip is surrounded by very fertile farming territory. All of the countries around Gaza have more than enough food.' This week on the Intercept Briefing, Intercept reporter Jonah Valdez speaks with Kitchen about what U.N.-backed hunger experts have called a 'worst-case scenario.' Kitchen lays out how Israel's ongoing war, combined with severe restrictions on humanitarian aid and commercial access, has created near-impossible conditions for food and medical supplies to enter Gaza — accelerating a crisis that could soon be irreversible. 'The only thing that's changed is the war, the restrictions on humanitarian aid, the restrictions on the market economy where commercial traffic can't get in,' says Kitchen. 'That's the only thing that is driving the hunger right now.' Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Transcript Jonah Valdez: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I'm Jonah Valdez. Since Israel began choking off aid to Gaza nearly six months ago, U.N.-backed hunger experts issued their gravest warning yet: that a worst-case famine scenario was unfolding. There are three criteria that must be met for a famine to be officially declared: widespread extreme food shortages, high levels of acute malnutrition, and the extent of malnutrition related-mortality. The first two are evident — the third is hard to confirm. But Palestinians in Gaza did not need this confirmation. At least 18,000 children have been hospitalized for acute malnutrition since the beginning of this year. Though officials say the vast majority of malnourished children can't reach medical care. At least 175 people — 92 children and 82 adults — have died of hunger in Gaza in recent weeks, according to Gaza health officials. And over 1500 people have been killed in the last few months while trying to access food — many near distribution sites that were supposed to provide safety. This is a crisis created by Israel's policy — one that aid organizations say could be solved. To help us understand what's happening on the ground and what it would take to address this crisis, we're joined by Bob Kitchen from the International Rescue Committee. He is the vice president of global emergency and humanitarian actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Bob, thanks for joining us. Bob Kitchen: Thanks for having me. Jonah Valdez: So we're speaking on Wednesday, August 6th, and you've worked in humanitarian crises around the world for over two decades. How does what you're seeing in Gaza compare to other famines you've witnessed and what makes this situation unique? Bob Kitchen: Well, I was just gonna say unprecedented, 'unique' is a good term. When we see famines normally, it's normally as a result of the intersection of conflict and then some form of natural disaster, natural hazard where the man-made conflict turbocharges the effects of climate — where whether it's a drought, where food has failed, the crop has failed, where farmers can't get to market because of insecurity. What we're seeing now is not that. We're seeing a purely manmade famine where Gaza, the Gaza Strip, is surrounded by very fertile farming territory. All of the countries around Gaza have more than enough food. So the only thing that's changed is the war, the restrictions on humanitarian aid, the restrictions on the market economy where commercial traffic can't get in. That's the only thing that is driving the hunger right now. JV: And I want to ask you more about those conditions specifically. But first, could you tell us more about the work IRC is doing on the ground to help alleviate hunger and malnutrition? BK: People very rarely die of just hunger. As people get more and more hungry, their system becomes more and more prone to communicable diseases. People normally die of dehydration as a result of dirty water. So our primary focus is on distributing clean water, helping with the sanitation system — so installing and maintaining latrines, cleaning up solid waste and sewers. And then as a secondary priority that is urgent in and of itself, we're looking at nutritional screenings. So we're doing massive screening campaigns to identify particularly children who are themselves slipping into acute malnutrition, and then either helping them or referring them into inpatient care so they can try and stabilize and recover. JV: And as you alluded to, aid organizations, as you know, have been clear that this isn't a supply problem and there's enough food and medical supplies available elsewhere, but the crisis stems from the conditions that the Israeli government has created that prevent aid from reaching people who need it. Can you walk us through the specific logistical barriers your team is facing? BK: It starts with the fact that there's tens of thousands of tons of food waiting to go into Gaza — prepositioned in Jordan, in Egypt, all around, ready to go in. But before any aid is allowed into Gaza, we all have to ask for permission with the government of Israel. It's a long, bureaucratic process. And at the moment, a lot of aid is turned down. It's rejected. It's not allowed in. So for us, for example, we have multiple trucks of what's called RUTF, reinforced therapeutic feeding supplies, that we use to help particularly children, as I said, stabilize and begin the process of recovery from acute malnutrition. We have trucks full of it. We have pharmaceutical supplies ready to go, and we've been asking for permission for almost six months to bring these trucks across the border from Jordan and in through Israel, into the Gaza Strip. It would help thousands of people, particularly children, and we have not been given that permission, so they're just sitting waiting. And that is our situation, but it's mirrored across the tens, hundreds of U.N. agencies and international and local organizations that are trying to provide assistance to the 2 million civilians on the ground who have run out of food. JV: And I want to zoom in a little bit on what you said about these trucks just sitting there and you've been asking for permission for six months, you said. It's worth mentioning the Israeli government, its defenders, and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have all propagated this line that aid restrictions are necessary to prevent Hamas from stealing aid and they have to do this for security purposes and that the United Nations is refusing to actually distribute the aid, there's no blockage — despite ever providing evidence to back any of these claims. What do you and IRC make of these explanations and justification for the ongoing blockade? BK: Well, not to put too blunt a point on it, I think they're incorrect. I think they're wrong. I think the humanitarian community, comprised of the United Nations and international organizations like the IRC, have decades of experience working in complex war zones where resources are scant and parties to the conflict frequently try and get their hands on aid. And we have a history of being able to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance, food, water, medicines to civilians. We are audited all of the time, all around the world. And what's called aid diversion, where food supplies is stolen by parties to the conflict, is a big issue for auditors. They look at it and take it very seriously, and we pass with flying colors, all of these audits because we know what we're doing. What's more ironic is that we have collectively decades of experience of doing this inside Gaza. I was particularly struck in the last couple of weeks by a New York Times report where a government of Israel, an IDF person, spoke to the fact that based on their assessment there's no evidence of aid diversion. There's no evidence of aid being stolen, of it benefiting Hamas. That seems to be a pretty clear statement to the fact that the previous system run by the United Nations, run by international NGOs, were successful in getting aid through to civilians. And that has now, not completely but almost stopped and has been replaced by another system run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation that is struggling to feed less than a quarter of the population. And while they do it, many people are being killed. JV: Right. Right. And thanks for mentioning other coverage disputing some of the lines coming from the Israeli government. I'm wondering if there's anything else, as far as what you would want people to understand about this crisis, that isn't getting through in most media coverage. BK: I think the starting point for me is the fear of providing material support to a terror group is legitimate. But we have a proven track record that the military of Israel has said that — in its own words — is not providing material support to Hamas. And the one thing I know for sure is that you don't create terrorists by feeding very hungry children — it's the inverse. If you don't feed children, if you don't feed a population to the point where they're starving, that's where anger really festers, that's where resistance really builds. So in the overarching theory of change of defeating Hamas, this is not going to work. JV: The IRC website says, 'Gaza is not just experiencing hunger — it is enduring a slow, systematic death by starvation.' The IRC [is] also warning the Israeli government that its 'tactical pause and limited humanitarian corridors will not meaningfully alleviate Gaza's catastrophic hunger crisis.' Could you talk more again about the role the Israeli government is playing in creating and perpetuating this crisis? BK: I will do, but let me just say some things about that statement. JV: Please. BK: It's not just about food. If you reflect on what I said to start with — that people very rarely die of just hunger, it's normally complications that come alongside that. It therefore is not just food that is urgently required. It's food. It's medicine. It's oral rehydration salts to help people recover. It's IVs. It's the materials that we require to be able to give people jerry cans so they can safely store water. It's getting money, cash in to pay our staff and to buy things. Delivering aid to 2 million people who have suffered nearly two years of real violence — it takes everything that a society needs because there's nothing left inside Gaza. So under international humanitarian law, states are obliged to ensure the provision of food, medicine, and water. They're failing to do that at the moment. We're collectively failing to do that because of the restrictions that have been placed on us. But it takes a lot more than that to mitigate the risks that this population is facing after such a long time. And it's the bureaucratic impediments that we have to navigate are broad and well-seated. So requesting aid, getting aid across the primary checkpoint, close to Rafah, getting it — everything is searched, offloaded and searched, put back onto trucks. That's the first major hurdle. But then getting it into Gaza, moving it away from the 'border,' from the checkpoint, and across the territory to where so many people are still based itself is complex because there is a war going on. The pauses that have been declared are short-term. They're focused primarily in the west of the territory, which is on the opposite side of the strip from where the majority of aid is crossing. 'The only solution is an overwhelming amount of aid to go in.' So getting in through an active war zone is possible, but it's not straightforward. And then we're distributing and moving within a population of 2 million that we spent the last 15 minutes talking about extreme levels of hunger — so there is matching levels of desperation. So it is an increasingly insecure place where it is difficult to move around in trucks that have aid in with people surrounding you that are desperate, without them trying to access the aid themselves. So it is a multilayered and complex situation and frankly, the only solution is an overwhelming amount of aid to go in, in a way that is sustained. It will take months of unimpeded and free-flowing aid to catch up with the needs of people so that things can settle down. JV: Right. And you know, you mentioned the desperation. I'm wondering if you could walk us through more of those logistical challenges on the ground that continue in getting aid delivered to Palestinians. There was a stat published by the United Nations that since May, 2,604 U.N. aid trucks have entered the strip, but only a small fraction of those have actually reached their destination. And of course, I think it's worth mentioning that GHF and the Israeli government has said, well, this looting is more evidence that Hamas is doing the looting, that they're stealing aid. Talk about the desperation, the logistical challenges that these aid groups are facing. BK: So it's the right question to ask, and my answer is going to be both understandable and unacceptable at the same time. We don't tolerate crime, we don't tolerate the theft of humanitarian aid — but that's what we're facing right now. As you cross into Gaza — I was there last year, went into Gaza during the war and saw it firsthand — that as soon as the trucks cross the Israeli checkpoint and go into Gaza, they're entering a territory that no longer has law enforcement. What was provided, the police were Hamas. They have been killed. They've taken the uniforms off, they're hiding. They're no longer on the streets for sure. So what you are then faced with as a truck driver, whether you work for the commercial sector or whether you work for NGOs and U.N. agencies, is a very large number of people that are desperate, who will do almost anything to get their hands on food and other aid supplies. Whether to feed their family — that's the majority now — or whether to sell onto the market to make some food, to make some money. Now, the reality is that that crowd that I'm discussing is made up of both criminals who have organized themselves into gangs, unknown armed elements — I don't know their identity. But then there is also civilians, who are taking desperate actions because of the desperation they feel. So, writ large, it's a dangerous situation. High number of aid convoys that have gone in have been looted and others have just not been able to get into the territory because it's so dangerous. So they're able to cross the checkpoint and then they're parked up. So when [the] government of Israel say X number of trucks have passed through the checkpoint — there is a large number of trucks on any given day that are waiting to try and seek some safety before they proceed along one road that is preyed upon on a daily basis by criminals and civilians and other armed elements that are looting the trucks. So it's a very difficult situation, but I will say you can track it back to there is nothing in Gaza. There is no food, there is no commercial traffic coming in, so there's nothing on the market. Inflation is something like 700 percent. Bags of flour sell at close to a hundred dollars at the moment. People don't have any money. There's no work, they have no food. So it is both understandable and unacceptable at the same time. And the only solution is to open multiple gates so it's not just one gate and one road; and flood the Gaza Strip with food and water and medicine. So the level of desperation, the level of criminal opportunity goes down because there's things on the market and people are getting the aid they need. [BREAK] JV: Could you tell me about the major disparity between what's accessible now versus other points of the conflict, specifically during the ceasefire? We're talking GHF, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, is operating, I believe, four aid sites right now, which is dwarfed by — BK: A drop in the ocean. JV: Right, right. BK: That's the word you're looking for — a drop in the ocean. JV: A drop in the ocean. How many aid sites were there previously? I mean, hundreds right? BK: Hundreds. UNRWA, the U.N. office for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, operated more than 100 sites for distribution. And then alongside them, organizations like the IRC and many other international groups and then Palestinian organizations had their own distribution sites. So there's a number of very bad, worrying things going on here. Number one, it is no longer an issue of the cost of food and other supplies being prohibitive on the market. It's just the fact that there is nothing on the market anymore. No matter how much money you have, you can't readily buy food off the market. So, for example, my staff on the ground in Gaza, we employ just less than 60 Palestinians on the ground — they can't find food. Their children are now starving. Two things that I have never done in the 25 years I've been in the humanitarian industry is number one: I am now serving one meal a day in the office to try desperately to give my staff some food for them to be able to survive. So I'm finding ways to afford and to import food into the Gaza Strip, specifically for my staff. I have done that in other locations where there is no food because of a natural disaster. I've done that when we're just right out in the middle of the desert. I've never done that when there is plentiful food within 25 kilometers. The other thing I'm doing is I'm opening my nutritional programs to the children of my staff. These are well-paid professionals, highly educated, receiving an NGO salary. But they can no longer find the food to be able to feed their children, and their children are officially falling into acute malnutrition. So we're having to open up our programs to our own staff children. We've never done that before. And it speaks to the desperation of the situation and how unacceptable the situation we face is. So in addition to my staff, this is being faced by people across the Gaza Strip. So you asked about the GHF distribution sites, there's some very important things that you should be aware of. Number one, we've seen a decrease from what I was just saying about there being hundreds of distribution sites to only four — which in itself is crazy to try and serve that number of people from just four sites. No wonder they have crowd control issues, no wonder it's a very dangerous situation. What is more worrying is that all of those four sites are in the south of the Gaza Strip, so people are being forced to either move permanently from the north of the Garza Strip down into the south, so there's a greater concentration of desperation, mouths to feed. There's no resources, but whatever resources there are, they're now stretched even further because of the density of the population who have walked down. And if they do try and travel down and then return, they're crossing multiple checkpoints that the government of Israel has installed, which themselves are very dangerous. So either the profile of the population is being forced to change, where people are traveling to the south to find food. Or people are taking double risks by moving down north, south across the strip, across multiple checkpoints before they even take on the danger of going to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sites, which themselves are extremely dangerous. JV: Could you talk more about from a health care standpoint of the actual physical toll and the health toll on the body that something like malnutrition has in the short term, in the long term, up until someone's death, or if they happen to survive it? BK: I will flag that I am neither a doctor or a nutritionist. I am proudly a generalist. So I'll tell you what I know, and this is born of working in some of the most severe food security situations around the world, but I'm not a doctor. So there's two groups that we are most concerned about. Obviously under 5s are where we really focus a lot of our attention on because of two pressures. Number one, when you've yet to reach the age of 5, your system is developing in an accelerated fashion and requires nutrition to be able to do so. So if you are starved of nutrients — of food — your development is profoundly and irreversibly impacted, so that results in wasting and stunting. So you may not be able to fulfill your potential of growth. Your organs will not develop in the way they're supposed to. So there is a chance of long-term illness. So that is profoundly serious for this population in the long term, given the number of children who are still in that developmental phase. The other pressure that young kids face is that they're so much more vulnerable to food security. They have less reserves. So if a kid under 5 doesn't get the food they need, they more rapidly move toward the danger zone of severe acute malnutrition where intervention is urgently required, and without it, they will pass away. So what that looks like for them and in a slower way for older children and then adults because of the reserves that we develop as we grow older, is that your system starts to close down. So the body prioritizes getting nutrition, nutrients to your brain. So your major organs start to close down, you are very susceptible to outbreaks and diseases that are sadly common in this type of environment. So, as I said earlier, people rarely die of just acute hunger. What they normally die of is diarrhea — acute watery diarrhea — where they're eating in unsanitary environments. The food is dirty, their hands are dirty as they're eating, or they're drinking contaminated water. That gives them — what we would see as an upset stomach — what they see is a life-threatening disease because as soon as you get acute watery diarrhea or diarrhea of any form, your system is rapidly becoming dehydrated. And that is a cause of death when you're that hungry. JV: Not to mention individuals who may have preexisting conditions. BK: Oh, for sure. JV: I'm wondering if you could say more about people with injuries from airstrikes or military operations. How it's even more— I've seen reporting [say] that it's more difficult to recover from those injuries when malnourished or lacking food. BK: I'm not a doctor, but this is not brain surgery. This is simple math. Your body requires more good nutrients to recover from injury, to rebuild bones or heal wounds, or recover even just from trauma. So when you don't have those, the healing process is slow or non-existent. And because of the trauma that your body's trying to handle and trying to keep the systems running, you have less resilience and therefore things start closing down more rapidly. It's terrible for the individuals who have already suffered violence and injuries to now not get the nutrients they need to recover. JV: Right. And in preparing for this interview, one of your colleagues mentioned that there's a real potential for a lost generation in Gaza. What does that mean? BK: They're probably referring to what I was referring to before: the children who [are] unable to develop in the way they need to, whether that's physical or brain power. Brain function is affected by lack of nutrition, lack of growth — developmental. So there's a real risk of physical constraints. But it doesn't need to be even that. It can be: We're now two years into there not being any schools. So there is a generation of children who are not only deeply traumatized, but they also don't have access to education. They don't have the ability to continue to develop, have normal relationships with other kids, [and] have normal relationships with anyone because of the violence that they're surrounded by. JV: Thanks for that. So last month, as I'm sure you know, more than 100 humanitarian aid and human rights organizations signed a letter urging for governments to act — to push the Israeli government for an immediate ceasefire and to end the siege, and immediate flood of aid. Things we've talked about here in this conversation. And I noticed that IRC was notably absent from the letter, which included other notable organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, MedGlobal, CARE. I'm wondering, I just want to give you a chance to explain IRC's thinking around this issue and why IRC didn't join other aid groups in making these calls in that letter at least. BK: Yeah, it's a simple answer. Much of that letter is right on the money. We agree with it completely, but as an organization, we prioritize the continuation of delivery of services on the ground. So we've chosen to prioritize staff safety and program continuity over signing joint letters such as that one. JV: On a similar topic, as you know, some humanitarian organizations, a growing number of organizations are using the word 'genocide' to describe what's happening in Gaza. I'm wondering where does IRC stand on that? BK: We stand as a humanitarian organization. We [are] approaching 100 years of experience helping communities affected by conflict around the world. But we're a humanitarian organization rather than a human rights organization. We don't feel as though we have the mandate or expertise to be able to define, to make that decision ourselves. We'll leave that to the responsible courts and member states who have to judge that. I hope they do soon. JV: Yeah. And speaking of courts and this shift in the past week that we've been seeing in tone across the globe from the U.K., France, and Canada signaling they're ready to accept Palestinian statehood to a U.S. Senate vote last week where a record number of Democrats voted against a weapons deal with Israel. And new polls showing the majority of Americans disapprove of Israel's offensive in Gaza. I'm wondering in terms of accountability, who has the power to change the situation that we laid out, that you laid out in the conversation today, and what pressure points exist to make that happen? And more specifically, what can the U.S. government and other western governments as well as average Americans do in this moment? BK: Yeah, I think it's going to take — a very American sports term — but a full court press from all member states, international governments, to convey to the government of Israel that it's enough that 2 million civilians are suffering and are dying. And the violence on October 7 was unforgivable. But more violence is not the answer. More death is not the answer. So the only route forward is a ceasefire and the release of all of the hostages immediately. And, as we discussed before, an overwhelming flood of humanitarian aid going into Gaza to protect against more loss of life. JV: And to close, are there any final thoughts that you wanted to share? BK: Only to say thank you for your interest. It is part of what we were just discussing. The whole world needs to convey through their governments, through their elected officials, that there's been enough suffering, there's been enough loss of life, and the way forward is a ceasefire, and that needs to happen now. That won't happen unless elected officials hear from people — interested members of the population — saying enough. So they can then turn around. I think your question earlier about the U.S. government, I think the U.S. government is one of the only governments in the world that has the influence still to say to the government of Israel that we understand your suffering. We understand the need to get your people back, the hostages back, but the route forward is the ceasefire and it needs to happen now. JV: Well, thanks for joining me on the Intercept Briefing. BK: Thank you for having me. JV: That does it for this episode of The Intercept Briefing. We want to hear from you. Share your story with us at 530-POD-CAST. That's 530-763-2278. You can also email us at podcasts at the intercept dot com. This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Sumi Aggarwal is our executive producer. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by Shawn Musgrave. And transcript by Anya Mehta. Slip Stream provided our theme music. You can support our work at Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. If you haven't already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell all of your friends about us, and better yet, leave us a rating or review to help other listeners find us. Until next time, I'm Jonah Valdez. Thanks for listening.
Newsweek
27-07-2025
- Newsweek
Woman With Type 1 Diabetes Makes Chilling Realization About Viral Milkshake
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A diabetic woman has gone viral for calculating how much insulin she would have to take if she drank a viral milkshake with a whopping 2,600 calories. Addy Tayler, 26 and from Glendale, Arizona, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2022, and now has to carefully watch what she eats and drinks. She told Newsweek: "I see a lot of videos on TikTok about crazy foods people eat," but "never thought twice about them" until her diagnosis. "Now that I have to count carbs and be aware of nutrition facts, I'm so intrigued by those kinds of videos," she said. Type 1 diabetes is also known as insulin-dependent diabetes, and is a chronic condition where the pancreas makes little or no insulin, the hormone which allows sugar to enter cells to produce energy, according to the Mayo Clinic. Complications from type 1 diabetes can include heart disease, nerve damage, kidney, eye and foot damage, and complications in pregnancy, however the condition can be treated by managing the amount of sugar in the blood using insulin, diet and lifestyle. Recently, Tayler came across the "extreme" nutritional facts of a drink offered by Baskin-Robbins in 2009: a chocolate Oreo milkshake, where a 32 fluid ounce serving contains 2,600 calories, 59 grams of saturated fat, 185 mg of cholesterol, and 333 grams of carbohydrates. The drink went viral at the time due to its nutrition information, and has since been discontinued. And, imagining what would happen if she drank it, on May 3 she shared a video to her Instagram account @addytayler_t1d, where she regularly shares about her life with the condition. Newsweek has contacted Baskin-Robbins for comment on this story. Addy Tayler discusses the nutritional facts in the milkshake. Addy Tayler discusses the nutritional facts in the milkshake. Instagram @addytayler_t1d In the video, Tayler shows the viral drink alongside a list of its nutrition facts. "This shake has 333 grams of carbs," she said, and calculated that if she drank it, she would have to take a "bare minimum" of 33 units of insulin. The fat content—135 grams—would cause a delayed blood sugar spike so high she couldn't "even imagine," and predicted her blood sugar would be high for a week. She then calculated how much it would cost her, as a type one diabetic, to consume the drink. Her brand of insulin is $312.50 without insurance, or around 32 cents per unit. Having that drink would force her to take 50 units of insulin, meaning drinking the shake would cost her $15.625—on top of the cost of buying the drink itself. Instagram users were shocked, awarding the video more than 82,000 likes, one commenter writing: "My blood sugar would be high for the rest of my life." Another added the tongue-in-cheek comment: "You forgot to add the cost of the ambulance." One user pointed out: "You were giving yourself anxiety just saying this out loud. It was on your face." And as one summed it up: "Holy cow." According to nutrition website Nutritionix, a drink offered by Baskin-Robbins in 2024, a large Caramel Cappucino Blast, contained 1,040 calories per serving, including 32 grams of fat, 176 grams of total carbohydrates and 430 mg of sodium, a drop from the earlier product but still not something which would be healthy to eat every day. Read more Foods that may increase kids' risk of type 1 diabetes revealed Foods that may increase kids' risk of type 1 diabetes revealed Tayler told Newsweek she hopes people realize how bad certain foods can be for your health, but admitted she believes "most people are totally unaware of what they're consuming." "I think that most people are probably unaware of nutrition facts and have no idea how to read them. It's not something that is taught in school," she said, adding: "And to be fair, I was the same exact way until I couldn't be!" As a type 1 diabetic, Tayler is still able to mostly what she wants "as long as I take the proper amount of insulin for it," but she said something like the Baskin-Robbins chocolate Oreo shake would be "very dangerous" for her. "That much insulin at one time probably just isn't a great idea," she explained. "Insulin can be unpredictable because it doesn't all work at once. It works over about four hours, and you have to account for how long the shake—or any food—takes to digest. "High-fat content items are even trickier as they take a long time, and typically have a very delayed reaction on the blood sugar, even a few hours later." As she put it: "So yes, I very well could drink that shake—but personally I never would. It would not be worth it to me!"
