Latest news with #Spector
Daily Record
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Record
Tim Spector says eating at specific time of day is 'worst thing you can do' for weight loss
The leading nutritionist has urged against snacking after a certain time, as it could wreak havoc on your metabolism and cholesterol. Leading nutritionist Tim Spector has warned against late night snacking, deeming it the 'worst thing you can do' for weight loss. Sitting down with fellow Zoe nutritionist Dr Sarah Berry on the Better Brain podcast, the scientists discussed the importance of timing when to eat, and how eating after a certain time in the evening can damage your health. Tim Spector is one of the world's top 100 most-cited scientists, boasting over 702K followers on Instagram. Speaking to Dr Berry, he emphasised the science behind the timing of when we eat, and how late night snacking, particularly eating after 9pm, can be damaging to cholesterol levels and metabolic health. Dr Berry explained: "If you are eating later, typically after about eight or nine o'clock at night, you tend to wake up the next day more hungry, which is really counter-intuitive. And it's associated with poorer metabolic health, so higher cholesterol, higher waist circumference, and poorer insulin." Spector added: "Late night snacking is the worst thing you can do in terms of timing." The way our bodies process food changes with our circadian rhythm, which is a 24-hour cycle that regulates biological processes such as sleep, temperature and hormonal activity. At night, our insulin sensitivity drops and our digestive system winds down, meaning that our bodies have a harder time breaking down food and managing glucose and fat. As Dr Berry explained, eating after 9pm can disrupt this rhythm, which can have negative effects on our metabolic health, cholesterol levels- and our waistlines. Intermittent fasting is one way many people choose to regulate their eating times to improve their metabolic health and lose weight. This diet involves eating during a certain window of time every day, and fasting for the rest. The late Dr Michael Mosley was a driving force in the popularity of this regime. Some people choose to eat only for an eight-hour window per day, and fast for 16 hours- for example, eating breakfast at 11am and dinner at 7pm, with lunch in between. However, some take this diet to the extreme, and set themselves an eating window as small as six hours, which Spector and Berry wouldn't necessarily recommend. Berry said: "You don't need to go to these like, crazy regimes. You see people doing these regimes where they're eating within six hours. That might work for some people, but I want to go out in the evening." These diets can impact our social lives, for example, if we have plans to go out for a meal after our 'eating window' has closed for the day. The scientist continued: "You never have a social life, you can never have a meal with friends and family." Spector added that these extreme intermittent fasting regimes are often not sustainable. He explained: "There's the ultimate scientific time [of when you choose to eat], but what's really important is the time you can sustain this." So, while we should be conscious of the times of day we choose to eat, and should avoid eating after 9pm, it's important to follow a sustainable regime that suits your lifestyle, social life and body clock. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘Eureka Day' playwright Jonathan Spector talks vaccine debates, vicious comment sections, and ‘the failure of a utopia'
Playwright Jonathan Spector describes his arrival on Broadway as a "wild" and "out of body" experience. Not only did he make his mainstream debut with Eureka Day, a comedy about vaccine mandates at an elementary school, he also became a Tony nominee. Speaking to Gold Derby, Spector describes the creation of that infamous Zoom live-stream scene, and why he believes that the play is actually about "the failure of a utopia." More from GoldDerby 'The worst has already happened, so now I have everything to gain': Meagan Good on love, loss, and empowering women in 'Forever' Breakout star Owen Cooper admits 'Adolescence' was 'very out of my comfort zone' Keanu Reeves gets his wings in 'Good Fortune' teaser, Taron Egerton sees 'Smoke,' and today's other top stories Gold Derby: was first produced in 2018. So much has happened in the world since then, especially as it relates to the core topic of this play, including a worldwide pandemic. How do you think the play lands now versus that 2018 production? Jonathan Spector: We were in rehearsal during the election and I guess I, probably naively, thought it was going to go the other way. So I had one idea about what I thought the play was going to mean in that context of opening with incoming President Kamala Harris. And then I have a different idea about how it landed now. It almost feels more like a document of how we got here, of the way in which caretaking and thoughtfulness and all of these tools of liberalism are just not quite up to meeting certain kinds of challenges, as evidenced by our failure to prevent [Donald] Trump from being reelected. Now [vaccines] are an issue that people have a much stronger personal connection to. Before the pandemic, people could engage with the metaphor of the play more easily as a sort of metaphor for democracy, or how you create a society with people when you can't agree on what's true. And then, coming out of the pandemic, it was hard for anybody to see anything but COVID in the play. And I think now it's a little more of a balance. The live-stream scene, although it's changed very little from what it was before, is very different for the audience because now everybody in the audience has lived through that experience many times. There's a much more visceral response to it. Did you ever want to alter the script in any way considering those changes in the world? There were a couple of very minor changes I made of just taking out a line here or there. Before COVID, I had to explain things a little more but now everybody knows what herd immunity is, so we don't need a character to explain that. Obviously the last line of the play is new, of looking forward to the 2019-2020 school year. Beyond that, all the changes I made were less about the pandemic and more about continuing to work on the play and just make it the best version of itself. That live-stream moment you mentioned gets the entire audience laughing with such recognition as we see these vicious comments projected on screen. What was the impetus behind that scene? When I was researching the play, I spent a lot of time on internet message boards where people would fight about vaccines and they would get so vicious with each other. So much of how we live now, how we engage with an issue, is online. So there was something that would be missing if I wrote a play about [vaccines], but left out that big part of how we engage with this. I also didn't want to make my characters be as nasty as people get online. The other part was just a desire to bring more of the school community into the play and not have it just be these five people who are representing everybody. The first production in Berkeley, that theater has a very old subscriber base. I think when they had done plays in the past with text projection, they found that people didn't really pay a lot of attention to it. So our expectation was that maybe most people wouldn't pay attention to it. But the first time we had an audience, you couldn't hear a word on stage because people were laughing so much. So I used to have continuous comments all the way through the scene. Then after realizing how people react, I then went through and I had to sculpt it much more to make sure that the things that are important to hear come in the clear, so the focus can shift back to the actors and then go back to the comments. The five main characters all have these very different views, and yet they are all firmly committed to creating this ideal world for the kids and families. Why was that sense of empathy important to include within the main characters? I think it's much more interesting if you're going to have any play with any kind of political valence or issue, that it's hard for people to be dismissive of each other. Prior to COVID, vaccines and vaccine skepticism was not particularly politicized. Knowing someone didn't vaccinate their kids didn't actually tell you if they were Democrat or Republican in the way that it now is very correlated, but back then it was maybe the only contentious issue that was not correlated with your politics. People on the right and left were both skeptical of vaccines for different reasons. So that then allowed it to be about people who all basically had the same worldview and the same values and wanted the same things, and it was just this one thing that they lived in different realities about. To me, the play is really about the failure of a utopia. They had this thing that worked really well for a really long time, until it finally came up against something that it couldn't overcome. The skepticism side of the argument is highlighted quite beautifully in Jessica Hecht's monologue. Her character Suzanne reveals a heartbreaking loss of a child, which led her down the path of vaccine denialism. What went into creating that moment? When I was writing that, my daughter was less than 1. That first year, you're so paranoid, you're always going in and checking if they're breathing constantly. So, when I listen to that monologue now, I think that's a very visceral fear. It's so distant from my life now, but at the time you could really touch it. And then I feel like it's always the most interesting, sometimes the most fun, to be writing from the point of view of the character who you disagree with, and trying to find the most truthful and empathetic way that they got there. The other thing that informed that monologue is I watched this documentary created by Andrew Wakefield, who's the discredited doctor who put forward the link between autism and vaccines and lost his medical license in the U.K. He is kind of a charlatan, but he put out this documentary about vaccines, and they have these parents whose kids have really severe developmental disabilities that they believe are caused by vaccines. And the thing is, even though that guy is clearly just a fraud, when you see these parents, even if I think they're wrong about the reason their kids are like this, the pain they're feeling about their kids is very real. I wanted to somehow hold onto it as well. Just because you might not be right about what's happening doesn't mean that there's not real suffering there. After the show ended, I heard a lot of audience members remarking that they unexpectedly felt for Suzanne. Have you heard positive reactions from audience members on both sides of this issue? I wanted to be really careful about feeling like you're being fair and truthful about where people are coming from, but not just ethically. If I felt like if somebody walks out of the play and feels like, oh no, maybe I shouldn't vaccinate my kids now, that would be like I was doing some real harm. I don't think that's where the play comes down. And all the research is that it's actually extremely difficult to change someone's mind about vaccines, and so it's not going to happen with a play. I mostly found that people have responded pretty positively. I guess a handful of pretty committed people that I've talked to who have seen the play, felt like their point of view was represented fairly. Somebody said they feel like everybody's ganging up on them all the time, and that's what was shown in the play. And so I was like, okay, well, I'm glad that they felt that. But, it's a tricky line to walk. That's what's so great about having these wonderful actors like Jess and Amber [Gray], who can hold such nuance in their performances. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. SIGN UP for Gold Derby's free newsletter with latest predictions Best of GoldDerby Who Needs a Tony to Reach EGOT? Sadie Sink on her character's 'emotional rage' in 'John Proctor Is the Villain' and her reaction to 'Stranger Things: The First Shadow' 'It should be illegal how much fun I'm having': Lea Salonga on playing Mrs. Lovett and more in 'Stephen Sondheim's Old Friends' Click here to read the full article.
Daily Record
20-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Record
Tim Spector names health issue that is costing the NHS more than smoking
While tobacco kills someone in Britain every five minutes, another issue is costing the NHS even more. It's widely acknowledged that smoking is a huge public health problem in the UK. In fact, Cancer Research explains that tobacco kills one person every five minutes, and roughly 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking -related health issues every year. But Professor Tim Spector has shed light on another public health problem that costs the government and the NHS more money than smoking. Health issues related to poor nutrition cost more than that of smoking, and take up a worrying majority of the NHS's budget, according to a video the scientist recently posted on Instagram. Tim Spector is one of the top 100 most-cited scientists in the world, and is a leading expert on food health and nutrition. He boasts a huge following of more than 697,000 on Instagram, where he often shares his extensive knowledge on nutrition and the food industry. A recent video on the expert's Instagram showed a clip of Professor Spector in conversation with NYU Professor Dr Brian Elbel, where they discussed the health effects of smoking versus poor nutrition. Dr Elbel said: "In most western countries, it was smoking that was the number one killer, and the number one contribution to healthcare cost. Now, it's really shifted to being diet and nutrition, and metabolic diseases like that." Poor nutrition can indeed lead to several metabolic diseases, according to Mayo Clinic. These include type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Other metabolic disorders like metabolic syndrome, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and chronic kidney disease can be linked to poor diet and nutritional deficiencies. The doctor then explained how the two public health problems of smoking and poor nutrition can have different effects on health. He continued: "One of the things about smoking is that it kills you quickly and pretty dramatically. "For something like nutrition, a lot of these things are slowly building over time. And once you're at these points, and have these health conditions, treating them is actually quite difficult." Many metabolic diseases require lifelong management, and can be difficult to treat due to their wide range of symptoms and complications. Spector chimed in, explaining the difference in NHS healthcare costs for each of these issues. He said: "We know that food companies are making around £30billion worth of profit in the UK, and it's probably costing between £90billion and £140billion in healthcare costs directly, which is getting close to the NHS budget. So these are massive numbers that are potentially preventable." Last year, research found that the UK's nutrition crisis and addiction to unhealthy food costs £268billion a year in total, including healthcare costs, social care costs, and welfare. It was found that total healthcare costs caused by poor nutrition added up to £67.5billion a year, which as Spector suggested, far outstrips the budget for the whole of the NHS. Previous research has shown that health problems related to poor nutrition do indeed cost the NHS more than what they spend on smoking-related issues. In fact, in 2022, reports found that NHS England spent £2.6billion a year on smoking-related healthcare. While this figure excludes the rest of the UK, it is significantly less than what the NHS is spending on nutrition. And the pattern is similar for Scotland. The Scottish Government's 2018 report indicated a £5.8billion economic burden from poor diet, whereas the cost of smoking is estimated to be in the range of £300m to £500m. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Daily Record
20-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Record
Poor nutrition is costing the NHS more than smoking, claims Tim Spector
The NHS spends more money on health problems caused by poor nutrition than it does for smoking-related health issues. It's widely acknowledged that smoking is a huge public health problem in the UK. In fact, Cancer Research explains that tobacco kills one person every five minutes, and roughly 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking -related health issues every year. But Professor Tim Spector has shed light on another public health problem that costs the government and the NHS more money than smoking. Health issues related to poor nutrition cost more than that of smoking, and take up a worrying majority of the NHS's budget, according to a video the scientist recently posted on Instagram. Tim Spector is one of the top 100 most-cited scientists in the world, and is a leading expert on food health and nutrition. He boasts a huge following of more than 697,000 on Instagram, where he often shares his extensive knowledge on nutrition and the food industry. A recent video on the expert's Instagram showed a clip of Professor Spector in conversation with NYU Professor Dr Brian Elbel, where they discussed the health effects of smoking versus poor nutrition. Dr Elbel said: "In most western countries, it was smoking that was the number one killer, and the number one contribution to healthcare cost. Now, it's really shifted to being diet and nutrition, and metabolic diseases like that." Poor nutrition can indeed lead to several metabolic diseases, according to Mayo Clinic. These include type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Other metabolic disorders like metabolic syndrome, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and chronic kidney disease can be linked to poor diet and nutritional deficiencies. The doctor then explained how the two public health problems of smoking and poor nutrition can have different effects on health. He continued: "One of the things about smoking is that it kills you quickly and pretty dramatically. "For something like nutrition, a lot of these things are slowly building over time. And once you're at these points, and have these health conditions, treating them is actually quite difficult." Many metabolic diseases require lifelong management, and can be difficult to treat due to their wide range of symptoms and complications. Spector chimed in, explaining the difference in NHS healthcare costs for each of these issues. He said: "We know that food companies are making around £30billion worth of profit in the UK, and it's probably costing between £90billion and £140billion in healthcare costs directly, which is getting close to the NHS budget. So these are massive numbers that are potentially preventable." Last year, research found that the UK's nutrition crisis and addiction to unhealthy food costs £268billion a year in total, including healthcare costs, social care costs, and welfare. It was found that total healthcare costs caused by poor nutrition added up to £67.5billion a year, which as Spector suggested, far outstrips the budget for the whole of the NHS. Previous research has shown that health problems related to poor nutrition do indeed cost the NHS more than what they spend on smoking-related issues. In fact, in 2022, reports found that NHS England spent £2.6billion a year on smoking-related healthcare. While this figure excludes the rest of the UK, it is significantly less than what the NHS is spending on nutrition. And the pattern is similar for Scotland. The Scottish Government's 2018 report indicated a £5.8billion economic burden from poor diet, whereas the cost of smoking is estimated to be in the range of £300m to £500m. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Zendaya Undergoes Another Major Hair Change For Latest Campaign
Zendaya fronts Louis Vuitton's third and final Murakami re-edition campaign. The actress's new hairstyle resembled one of Ronnie Spector's famous looks. Zendaya will portray The Ronettes frontwoman in an upcoming debuted bangs in her latest Louis Vuitton campaign. In honor of the brand's third and final Murakami re-edition drop, the Challengers star posed with a plethora of cherry-printed accessories, wearing a new hairstyle that nodded to one of her upcoming roles. Zendaya's bouncy blowout was styled with full fringe, reminiscent of one of Ronnie Spector's signature hairdos. The actress has been cast as The Ronettes frontwoman in an upcoming biopic directed by Barry Jenkins. Zendaya has been attached to the project for years and got to know Spector before she passed away in 2022. It wasn't until March that Deadline announced the film finally would go into production. Based on Spector's memoir Be My Baby, the film will likely cover her turbulent relationship with music producer Phil Spector. Following Spector's passing, Zendaya paid her respects to the singer on Instagram, posting a never-before-seen polaroid of the pair in 2018. "This news just breaks my heart," she wrote. "There's not a time I saw her without her iconic red lips and full teased hair, a true rockstar through and through. Ronnie, being able to know you has been one of the greatest honors of my life." "Thank you for sharing your life with me," Zendaya continued. "Rest in great power Ronnie. I hope to make you proud." In January, Louis Vuitton revealed the first of three Murakami re-edition collections in honor of the collaboration's 20th anniversary. In the early 2000s, the brand's former creative director Marc Jacobs teamed up with the Japanese artist to create handbags and accessories featuring Murakami's anime-inspired graphics. Read the original article on InStyle
