Latest news with #Turnbull
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- General
- Otago Daily Times
Changing relationships with food, compassionately
Reducing her mum to tears was not the aim of Claire Turnbull's latest book but she felt she had to lay it all on the line if she was going to be able to effectively help people, the Queenstown-based nutritionist tells Rebecca Fox. Claire Turnbull believes it is hard to help others if you have not experienced tough times yourself — so she is "brutally honest" about her own journey. "I think when you've got to the point where you didn't want to be alive any more and you've gone through the process of wanting to take your own life, I think off the back of that, where I've got to now, is, like, I've literally got nothing to lose by putting this out there because I nearly wasn't here anyway." If by "ripping off my Band-aids and just sharing it" helps her connect with people, then she is willing to do it. "Because we've all got our battle scars and I think that's where the healing is, and I think we don't need to be defined by those, but they are part of us. "And I just hope that by revealing some of my own scars that someone can feel more comfortable with theirs." She is quick to point out that she is not 100% healed and will never be. "I'm still on the journey. But I can pick up a marshmallow and be like, oh, I don't really fancy that and put it down. But I'm a person that used to, literally, if I looked at a bag of Maltesers I'd already eaten three bags of them." Turnbull, a trained dietitian and fitness instructor, details that journey in her latest book alongside insight, advice, tips and tricks on how people can change their relationship with food for the better "for free". Having practised as a dietitian for two decades she has seen a repeated pattern of people getting to the point where they are struggling with their weight and fatigued but wanting to eat better and look after themselves. "But the first thing they default to is the next diet. And what happens is people get results, and then they can't maintain it because it's unrealistic, and really they haven't got to the root of the problem for themselves." Food information can be quite subtle and sneaky these days, but anything that restricts what you eat is a diet and will be hard to maintain long-term, she says. "It's bull.... and people know it. But we all think, gosh we'll get there. Well, you know, it's not worked the 20 times we've done it before, it's still not going to work this time. It cannot be fixed in six weeks, it cannot be fixed with a pill." Many people reach for food or alcohol for comfort or due to boredom. For others it is a way to manage difficult feelings resulting from abuse and trauma, while for Turnbull it was low self-esteem and a tendency to be obsessive. "There's all these different reasons why we struggle with food, and it's this horrible cycle of self-hatred and self-blame and shame around the way that we eat and we think that the next diet is gonna be the answer, and I just want people to understand why they've got themselves into this position and then find a way through that is a lot more compassionate." If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111. She warns the book is not a "quick fix" and that people's journeys, like her own, will be ongoing. "Real life is always going to throw you curveballs and always going to throw you challenges and unfortunately all these diets that sell you the quick-fix option. Turnbull, who has a positive psychology diploma, worries that each time someone experiences that, it erodes their soul. But there is another way, she says. "We just need to realise that we are all human, we are all imperfect. We all are going to struggle with very different things. We're all going to make mistakes." She firmly believes the solution is to find the root cause of the problem and work on that as food is often the symptom of a situation — hence the use of the iceberg analogy. "So when people understand themselves, that is the first point of change. So through my 20 years of working, the biggest thing I know is that awareness is the first stage of change." The book aims to help people understanding why they struggle with food — why they eat when they are bored or tired or to manage their emotions. "We eat very habitually. People finish their food off their plate because we were told to do that when we were children. We eat when something is offered to us because it's rude to say no. We eat food when it's there at a morning tea shout or a lunch thing or picking out of our kids' lunch boxes when it's there. "There's so much eating and drinking that happens that has got absolutely nothing to do with us consciously, like, nourishing our bodies." So if people are able to eliminate what Turnbull calls "non-hungry" eating and manage those behaviours they do not need to go on a diet because a lot of the extra food and drinking they are doing is what has sent them off-track. Instead of using a restrictive or limitation method which just makes the food more appealing, she urges people to flip the way they think about food. "What I encourage people to do instead then is actually approach food from a place of what can you add in to the way that you're eating to help nourish your body better? How can you improve the way that you eat?" She also looks at sleep. How much or how little people get impacts on appetite and cravings and ability to manage emotions. It helps to look at how people grew up, their parents' relationship with food and how that influences their own behaviours, she says. Turnbull grew up when everyone's mothers were going to Weightwatchers or on a diet and watching their weight. It was one of her mother's diet books that triggered her own journey to an eating disorder including secret bingeing and throwing up. She was in her second year of university when her mental health took a turn for the worse and she decided she wanted it to be all over but luckily a friend walked in and took her to the doctor. Getting her mother to proof-read the book was very difficult. "She cried a lot because she didn't know what happened to me. I didn't go into detail of what happened, but dear God, it was a hard read." It was also hard as her mother blamed herself despite her behaviour being completely normal for that era. "It's like smoking, you know, no-one knew the implications of putting your kid on a diet or telling them they were a bit too fat, you know?" Turnbull is thankful both of them have a healthier relationship with food these days. "She's in a really good place with food, because of the work that I have done. And I said, 'Mum, if we'd not been through this journey together, this book and the work that we've done together is not going to help all the other mothers and daughters out there that have been through the same thing'." The important thing for parents to realise is that children are watching carefully their language and actions around food as it is behaviour not words that children take in, she says. "It's so difficult for children to eat well in this modern environment that we live in. But they are not listening to what you say, they are watching what you do." But what Turnbull wants people to be aware of is that they are only human and do not have to be perfect every day. She aims for a balanced lifestyle which means nothing is off limits and she enjoys the odd treat. And no, she is not judging you when she sees you in the supermarket or in a restaurant. "I would just like to always say to people, I don't care what's in your trolley. If I'm around a friend's house or out for dinner, I genuinely am not thinking about what other people are eating. They're probably thinking about it more than I am, to be honest. There's no place for judgement." The book End Your Fight With Food , Claire Turnbull. How to change your eating habits for good, Allen and Unwin, RRP $36.99. Where to get help: Lifeline: 0800-543-354 or (09) 522-2999 Suicide Prevention Helpline: 0508-828-865 (0508 TAUTOKO) Youthline: 0800-376-633 or free text 234 Samaritans: 0800-726-666
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Saints Countdown To Kickoff With The History Of Number 97
Saints Countdown To Kickoff With The History Of Number 97 originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The New Orleans Saints are only 97 days away from the official start to their 59th NFL season. On September 7, the Saints will host the Arizona Cardinals in their 2025-26 regular season opener. Advertisement Sporting uniform number 97 for the Saints this year is defensive tackle Khristian Boyd, who is in his second season with the team and in the league. Here's a look back at the other players that have worn 97 during a regular season game for the Saints. Saints History of 97 Jan 8, 2023; Carolina Panthers quarterback Sam Darnold (14) is pressured by New Orleans Saints defensive lineman Malcolm Roach (97). Mandatory Credit: Stephen Lew-Imagn Images • Jumpy Geathers, DE (1984-89) • Renaldo Turnbull, LB/DE (1990-96) • La'Roi Glover, DT (1997-2001) • Jonathan Sullivan, DT (2003-05) • Josh Cooper, DE (2006-07) • Jeff Charleston, DE (2008-11) • Glenn Foster, DE (2013-14) • Sam Barrington, LB (2016) • Al-Quadin Muhammad, DE (2017) • Mario Edwards, DE (2019) • Malcolm Roach, DT (2020-23) • Khristian Boyd, DT (2024-present) New Orleans Saints defensive lineman Jumpy Geathers tackles Los Angeles Rams running back Eric Dickerson. Credit: The first to wear 97 in Saints history was Geathers, an underrated pass rusher for one of the league's outstanding defenses in the 1980s. Geathers had 26 sacks in his six years with New Orleans, including 21.5 in his first three years. Advertisement New Orleans selected Turnbull in the first round of the 1990 NFL Draft. He had 9 sacks as a pass rush specialist in his first season, then succeeded the iconic Pat Swilling after a trade three years later in 1993. Turnbull had a team-high 13 sacks that season to earn a Pro Bowl berth, but never had the same fearsome impact of Swilling. In seven years with New Orleans, the longest to wear 97 in team history, Turnbull totaled 44.5 sacks and forced 9 fumbles. Oct 3, 1993; New Orleans Saints linebacker Renaldo Turnbull (97) sacks Los Angeles Rams quarterback Jim Everett (11). Mandatory Credit: Peter Brouillet-USA TODAY NETWORK Glover joined New Orleans in 1997 and would be a key cog in one of the NFL's most disruptive defensive lines. In his five years with the Saints, he had 50 sacks, including an NFL-best 17 in 2000 that ties him with Swilling for the single season franchise record. Advertisement Over his last three seasons with New Orleans, Glover had an eye-popping 42 tackles for loss. Glover was inducted into the Saints Hall of Fame in 2013. The sixth overall pick in the 2003 NFL Draft, Sullivan is considered one of the biggest draft busts in franchise history. He played only three seasons for the Saints before being completely out of the league. In that disappointing span, he had only 1.5 sacks and 5 stops for loss. New Orleans Saints defensive tackle La'Roi Glover (97) pressures Carolina Panthers quarterback Kerry Collins (12). Credit: After Geathers, Turnbull, and Glover, the Saints had little success with the number 97. Charleston, Foster, and Edwards all had decent stints but were unable to significantly develop. Muhammad is the forgotten member of the Saints outstanding 2017 draft class. He spent only one year with the team before having success in other stops. Advertisement Roach was a nice undrafted addition in 2020. In his four years with the team he didn't fill up a stat sheet. However, he was a solid rotational player and extremely underrated run defender. After Roach departed, the Saints plummeted to an abysmal 31st against the run last season. Now in his second year with the team, Boyd will need to showcase his interior power to improve that rush defense if he hopes to make the squad. Related: Saints Countdown To Kickoff With The History Of Number 98 Related: Saints Countdown To Kickoff With The History Of Number 98 Related: Saints Countdown To Kickoff With History Of Number 99 Related: Pro Football Focus Snubs Saints In Under-25 Rankings Related: Saints Quarterback Ranking According To Pro Football Focus Related: Trevor Penning May Have A New Home On Saints Offensive Line Related: Most Underrated Saints Player Highlighted By PFF This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 2, 2025, where it first appeared.
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
When principles fall victim to politics, voters notice
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time," wrote. T.S. Eliot in his famous 1943 poem. Ideally, now that the election is done and the various candidates have processed the verdict, we have a renewed clarity about who we are and where we are going. But has the nation embarked on a new direction of "progressive patriotism" as the prime minister has branded it, or just stuck to the old one? Are we "moving forward", as Julia Gillard once entreated, or muddling through? On one level, the answer seems obvious. Australian voters opted for the status quo, for retaining the prime minister they already had. In its banality, this invokes Malcolm Turnbull's oxymoronic request from 2016, "continuity and change" - an empty phrase adapted from the satirical HBO political drama, Veep. "Continuity and change" was designed to "handle" the electoral overhang of Turnbull's mid-term raid on Tony Abbott's premiership. A switch in which voters had been mere spectators. To adjust Eliot, ever-so-slightly, We shall not cease from exhortation, and the end of all our imploring, will be to arrive where we started... Yet it was arguably Turnbull's timorous performance as prime minister - when compared with his personal convictions on the republic, climate and marriage equality - that did him most harm. Voters struggled with the point of it all. While Gillard had carried the opprobrium for unexplainedly replacing the still popular Kevin Rudd, Turnbull's removal of Abbott seemed more like a relief following the 2014-15 budget, "chopper-gate", the knighting of Prince Philip, and endless manoeuvring against same-sex marriage. Turnbull entered the 2016 poll with a thumping majority (90 seats to Labor's 55) and yet emerged with a single-seat margin. His fate in the party room was sealed at that moment. Albanese, by contrast, achieved a narrow two-seat majority of 77 seats in 2022 but turned that into 94 seats in 2025. The emphatic nature of that outcome has brought recalibrations and recriminations in the losing parties and more than a little wackiness. Hubris is usually confined to the winners, but the Nationals managed to source plenty in the Coalition's worst-ever defeat. Overplaying their hand, they collapsed inwardly within days of the election, withdrawing from the Coalition in a fit of pique-stupidity only to slink back into the partnership last week claiming it had all been part of the plan. New Liberal Leader Sussan Ley had largely held her ground, conceding that the Coalition would support the removal of any legal moratorium against nuclear generation. That was a long way from David Littleproud's unbreakable "principle" that the policy taken to the election (for seven state-owned nuclear power plants) must be retained. Yet Ley's future tests remain epic in both number and scale. Littleproud's cartoonish frontal challenge to her authority was well-handled but she would be foolish to assume her own party does not share many of the Nats' reactionary views on climate change, reconciliation, and sundry culture war pre-occupations. She wants to steer the party towards the centre-ground of Australian politics, but how much room does she really have? And how long? The selection of a woman as Liberal leader was both a breakthrough moment for the Liberals and the bare minimum the party could do to heed the message from contemporary Australia on May 3. That "bare minimum" however, might be all the authority she is extended. Naming a frontbench containing fewer women than even Peter Dutton had was not a promising beginning. Compared to policy battles, personnel is the easy bit. As things stand, she risks being dragged into a new-old debate about net-zero by 2050. Think of this as a set of Matryoshka Russian dolls. If nuclear was the bigger doll, obscuring right-wing contempt for net-zero, the net-zero doll hides the real core of this, a conservative disbelief in climate science. For Ley's project of "meeting Australians where they are", this is problematic. Get this wrong and it is not just 2028 that remains unwinnable, but all elections beyond. Meanwhile on the Labor side, a dangerous space has opened up between rhetoric and policy. Described by Carmen Lawrence, a former WA premier and federal minister, as "the most polluting fossil fuel project approved anywhere in Australia in a decade" Labor's intergenerational commitment the ongoing operation of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project until 2070 is astonishing. Dr Lawrence warns it will "unleash more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution, equivalent to a decade of Australia's current emissions". Labor's commitment to net-zero has fallen even before the 48th Parliament convenes. Or to butcher Eliot one last time, We shall not cease from exaggeration and the end of all our explaining will be to arrive where we started... Voters might again be struggling with the point of it all. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time," wrote. T.S. Eliot in his famous 1943 poem. Ideally, now that the election is done and the various candidates have processed the verdict, we have a renewed clarity about who we are and where we are going. But has the nation embarked on a new direction of "progressive patriotism" as the prime minister has branded it, or just stuck to the old one? Are we "moving forward", as Julia Gillard once entreated, or muddling through? On one level, the answer seems obvious. Australian voters opted for the status quo, for retaining the prime minister they already had. In its banality, this invokes Malcolm Turnbull's oxymoronic request from 2016, "continuity and change" - an empty phrase adapted from the satirical HBO political drama, Veep. "Continuity and change" was designed to "handle" the electoral overhang of Turnbull's mid-term raid on Tony Abbott's premiership. A switch in which voters had been mere spectators. To adjust Eliot, ever-so-slightly, We shall not cease from exhortation, and the end of all our imploring, will be to arrive where we started... Yet it was arguably Turnbull's timorous performance as prime minister - when compared with his personal convictions on the republic, climate and marriage equality - that did him most harm. Voters struggled with the point of it all. While Gillard had carried the opprobrium for unexplainedly replacing the still popular Kevin Rudd, Turnbull's removal of Abbott seemed more like a relief following the 2014-15 budget, "chopper-gate", the knighting of Prince Philip, and endless manoeuvring against same-sex marriage. Turnbull entered the 2016 poll with a thumping majority (90 seats to Labor's 55) and yet emerged with a single-seat margin. His fate in the party room was sealed at that moment. Albanese, by contrast, achieved a narrow two-seat majority of 77 seats in 2022 but turned that into 94 seats in 2025. The emphatic nature of that outcome has brought recalibrations and recriminations in the losing parties and more than a little wackiness. Hubris is usually confined to the winners, but the Nationals managed to source plenty in the Coalition's worst-ever defeat. Overplaying their hand, they collapsed inwardly within days of the election, withdrawing from the Coalition in a fit of pique-stupidity only to slink back into the partnership last week claiming it had all been part of the plan. New Liberal Leader Sussan Ley had largely held her ground, conceding that the Coalition would support the removal of any legal moratorium against nuclear generation. That was a long way from David Littleproud's unbreakable "principle" that the policy taken to the election (for seven state-owned nuclear power plants) must be retained. Yet Ley's future tests remain epic in both number and scale. Littleproud's cartoonish frontal challenge to her authority was well-handled but she would be foolish to assume her own party does not share many of the Nats' reactionary views on climate change, reconciliation, and sundry culture war pre-occupations. She wants to steer the party towards the centre-ground of Australian politics, but how much room does she really have? And how long? The selection of a woman as Liberal leader was both a breakthrough moment for the Liberals and the bare minimum the party could do to heed the message from contemporary Australia on May 3. That "bare minimum" however, might be all the authority she is extended. Naming a frontbench containing fewer women than even Peter Dutton had was not a promising beginning. Compared to policy battles, personnel is the easy bit. As things stand, she risks being dragged into a new-old debate about net-zero by 2050. Think of this as a set of Matryoshka Russian dolls. If nuclear was the bigger doll, obscuring right-wing contempt for net-zero, the net-zero doll hides the real core of this, a conservative disbelief in climate science. For Ley's project of "meeting Australians where they are", this is problematic. Get this wrong and it is not just 2028 that remains unwinnable, but all elections beyond. Meanwhile on the Labor side, a dangerous space has opened up between rhetoric and policy. Described by Carmen Lawrence, a former WA premier and federal minister, as "the most polluting fossil fuel project approved anywhere in Australia in a decade" Labor's intergenerational commitment the ongoing operation of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project until 2070 is astonishing. Dr Lawrence warns it will "unleash more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution, equivalent to a decade of Australia's current emissions". Labor's commitment to net-zero has fallen even before the 48th Parliament convenes. Or to butcher Eliot one last time, We shall not cease from exaggeration and the end of all our explaining will be to arrive where we started... Voters might again be struggling with the point of it all. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time," wrote. T.S. Eliot in his famous 1943 poem. Ideally, now that the election is done and the various candidates have processed the verdict, we have a renewed clarity about who we are and where we are going. But has the nation embarked on a new direction of "progressive patriotism" as the prime minister has branded it, or just stuck to the old one? Are we "moving forward", as Julia Gillard once entreated, or muddling through? On one level, the answer seems obvious. Australian voters opted for the status quo, for retaining the prime minister they already had. In its banality, this invokes Malcolm Turnbull's oxymoronic request from 2016, "continuity and change" - an empty phrase adapted from the satirical HBO political drama, Veep. "Continuity and change" was designed to "handle" the electoral overhang of Turnbull's mid-term raid on Tony Abbott's premiership. A switch in which voters had been mere spectators. To adjust Eliot, ever-so-slightly, We shall not cease from exhortation, and the end of all our imploring, will be to arrive where we started... Yet it was arguably Turnbull's timorous performance as prime minister - when compared with his personal convictions on the republic, climate and marriage equality - that did him most harm. Voters struggled with the point of it all. While Gillard had carried the opprobrium for unexplainedly replacing the still popular Kevin Rudd, Turnbull's removal of Abbott seemed more like a relief following the 2014-15 budget, "chopper-gate", the knighting of Prince Philip, and endless manoeuvring against same-sex marriage. Turnbull entered the 2016 poll with a thumping majority (90 seats to Labor's 55) and yet emerged with a single-seat margin. His fate in the party room was sealed at that moment. Albanese, by contrast, achieved a narrow two-seat majority of 77 seats in 2022 but turned that into 94 seats in 2025. The emphatic nature of that outcome has brought recalibrations and recriminations in the losing parties and more than a little wackiness. Hubris is usually confined to the winners, but the Nationals managed to source plenty in the Coalition's worst-ever defeat. Overplaying their hand, they collapsed inwardly within days of the election, withdrawing from the Coalition in a fit of pique-stupidity only to slink back into the partnership last week claiming it had all been part of the plan. New Liberal Leader Sussan Ley had largely held her ground, conceding that the Coalition would support the removal of any legal moratorium against nuclear generation. That was a long way from David Littleproud's unbreakable "principle" that the policy taken to the election (for seven state-owned nuclear power plants) must be retained. Yet Ley's future tests remain epic in both number and scale. Littleproud's cartoonish frontal challenge to her authority was well-handled but she would be foolish to assume her own party does not share many of the Nats' reactionary views on climate change, reconciliation, and sundry culture war pre-occupations. She wants to steer the party towards the centre-ground of Australian politics, but how much room does she really have? And how long? The selection of a woman as Liberal leader was both a breakthrough moment for the Liberals and the bare minimum the party could do to heed the message from contemporary Australia on May 3. That "bare minimum" however, might be all the authority she is extended. Naming a frontbench containing fewer women than even Peter Dutton had was not a promising beginning. Compared to policy battles, personnel is the easy bit. As things stand, she risks being dragged into a new-old debate about net-zero by 2050. Think of this as a set of Matryoshka Russian dolls. If nuclear was the bigger doll, obscuring right-wing contempt for net-zero, the net-zero doll hides the real core of this, a conservative disbelief in climate science. For Ley's project of "meeting Australians where they are", this is problematic. Get this wrong and it is not just 2028 that remains unwinnable, but all elections beyond. Meanwhile on the Labor side, a dangerous space has opened up between rhetoric and policy. Described by Carmen Lawrence, a former WA premier and federal minister, as "the most polluting fossil fuel project approved anywhere in Australia in a decade" Labor's intergenerational commitment the ongoing operation of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project until 2070 is astonishing. Dr Lawrence warns it will "unleash more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution, equivalent to a decade of Australia's current emissions". Labor's commitment to net-zero has fallen even before the 48th Parliament convenes. Or to butcher Eliot one last time, We shall not cease from exaggeration and the end of all our explaining will be to arrive where we started... Voters might again be struggling with the point of it all. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time," wrote. T.S. Eliot in his famous 1943 poem. Ideally, now that the election is done and the various candidates have processed the verdict, we have a renewed clarity about who we are and where we are going. But has the nation embarked on a new direction of "progressive patriotism" as the prime minister has branded it, or just stuck to the old one? Are we "moving forward", as Julia Gillard once entreated, or muddling through? On one level, the answer seems obvious. Australian voters opted for the status quo, for retaining the prime minister they already had. In its banality, this invokes Malcolm Turnbull's oxymoronic request from 2016, "continuity and change" - an empty phrase adapted from the satirical HBO political drama, Veep. "Continuity and change" was designed to "handle" the electoral overhang of Turnbull's mid-term raid on Tony Abbott's premiership. A switch in which voters had been mere spectators. To adjust Eliot, ever-so-slightly, We shall not cease from exhortation, and the end of all our imploring, will be to arrive where we started... Yet it was arguably Turnbull's timorous performance as prime minister - when compared with his personal convictions on the republic, climate and marriage equality - that did him most harm. Voters struggled with the point of it all. While Gillard had carried the opprobrium for unexplainedly replacing the still popular Kevin Rudd, Turnbull's removal of Abbott seemed more like a relief following the 2014-15 budget, "chopper-gate", the knighting of Prince Philip, and endless manoeuvring against same-sex marriage. Turnbull entered the 2016 poll with a thumping majority (90 seats to Labor's 55) and yet emerged with a single-seat margin. His fate in the party room was sealed at that moment. Albanese, by contrast, achieved a narrow two-seat majority of 77 seats in 2022 but turned that into 94 seats in 2025. The emphatic nature of that outcome has brought recalibrations and recriminations in the losing parties and more than a little wackiness. Hubris is usually confined to the winners, but the Nationals managed to source plenty in the Coalition's worst-ever defeat. Overplaying their hand, they collapsed inwardly within days of the election, withdrawing from the Coalition in a fit of pique-stupidity only to slink back into the partnership last week claiming it had all been part of the plan. New Liberal Leader Sussan Ley had largely held her ground, conceding that the Coalition would support the removal of any legal moratorium against nuclear generation. That was a long way from David Littleproud's unbreakable "principle" that the policy taken to the election (for seven state-owned nuclear power plants) must be retained. Yet Ley's future tests remain epic in both number and scale. Littleproud's cartoonish frontal challenge to her authority was well-handled but she would be foolish to assume her own party does not share many of the Nats' reactionary views on climate change, reconciliation, and sundry culture war pre-occupations. She wants to steer the party towards the centre-ground of Australian politics, but how much room does she really have? And how long? The selection of a woman as Liberal leader was both a breakthrough moment for the Liberals and the bare minimum the party could do to heed the message from contemporary Australia on May 3. That "bare minimum" however, might be all the authority she is extended. Naming a frontbench containing fewer women than even Peter Dutton had was not a promising beginning. Compared to policy battles, personnel is the easy bit. As things stand, she risks being dragged into a new-old debate about net-zero by 2050. Think of this as a set of Matryoshka Russian dolls. If nuclear was the bigger doll, obscuring right-wing contempt for net-zero, the net-zero doll hides the real core of this, a conservative disbelief in climate science. For Ley's project of "meeting Australians where they are", this is problematic. Get this wrong and it is not just 2028 that remains unwinnable, but all elections beyond. Meanwhile on the Labor side, a dangerous space has opened up between rhetoric and policy. Described by Carmen Lawrence, a former WA premier and federal minister, as "the most polluting fossil fuel project approved anywhere in Australia in a decade" Labor's intergenerational commitment the ongoing operation of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project until 2070 is astonishing. Dr Lawrence warns it will "unleash more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution, equivalent to a decade of Australia's current emissions". Labor's commitment to net-zero has fallen even before the 48th Parliament convenes. Or to butcher Eliot one last time, We shall not cease from exaggeration and the end of all our explaining will be to arrive where we started... Voters might again be struggling with the point of it all. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea.
Cosmopolitan
4 days ago
- Health
- Cosmopolitan
The viral K18 repair treatment has been a staple for 6 years – why it's worth the hype
It was summer 2018, and I was working the fitting room at an Anthropologie in Chicago. A swift stride past the full-length, tri-fold mirror made me do a double-take, followed by some serious panic. The back of my head was, truly, horrendous. It wasn't just split ends or a little knotting. It was full-on breakage, right where my hair would go into a ponytail, that looked like a serious flyaway situation. I finished my shift and immediately walked to the Sephora in the mall in search of anything that would help make my hair look healthier. Little did I know at the time, this would be the love story I'd share over and over again for the K18 hair mask. You've seen it all over social media: A hair mask that promises to fix all your broken hair in four minutes. Too good to be true, right? In my experience, it freakin' works. Really well at that. But what exactly is K18, where did it come from, why is it everywhere, and will it actually change your life? Lemme get into it. K18 started with one single product: The Leave-In Molecular Repair Hair Mask. But since then, it's actually grown into a full haircare line focused on repairing damaged hair at every step (shampoo, conditioner, dry shampoo, volumising spray, oil, etc.). The mask, though, is still the most talked about product. It's a repairing treatment that's loaded with a patented peptide that helps strengthen hair (more on this below). It's actually a leave-in mask, so instead of the usual rigamarole of standing naked in the shower for 10 to 20 minutes waiting to rinse out your deep conditioner, you just smooth it onto wet hair after shampooing, then leave it on for four minutes before layering on anything else (like a leave-in conditioner or volumizing mousse). But what's most important... Here's the thing: K18 is quite different from the standard bond-building treatments that have begun popping up in its wake. "Typical bond builders work just below the surface, rinse out when hair is washed, and only work on one type of bond for a short time," says hairstylist Devante Turnbull. K18, however, works much deeper, and it's all thanks to the K18PEPTIDE, a patented peptide developed from biotech that "mimics the hair's structure at its core by reconnecting polypeptide chains at the molecular level," Turnbull explains. "This helps strengthen the hair from damage it may have endured from bleach, color, chemical, and heat services, leading to stronger hair," he says. That's not to say K18 doesn't also do the same repairing as a traditional bond-building treatment (it just does it in a much stronger way). "Bond builders help to repair the hair starting from the inside out, not just make it 'feel' better," says hairstylist Marc Ballance. "Think of them as really good strengthening treatments that help bring your hair back to life." FAQs: In general, you can use the K18 hair mask about once a week. But Turnbull recommends starting with your first four to six washes if you're looking for a hard reset on your hair. From there, you can use it as needed, up to once a week. "You'll truly see the progressive results if you follow this cadence, and then you can treat your hair as you see fit," he says. Yes, too much strengthening can potentially do the opposite, making your hair feel brittle and dry, says Ballance. Which brings us to.. Your hair can potentially feel dry after using K18 because it's not meant to add moisture, but rather repair. "K18 rebuilds the inside of the hair, but it doesn't hydrate," says Ballance. "Try using a leave-in conditioner or hydrating mask in your routine to balance it out," he adds. You can potentially see a difference after your first use of the K18 mask, says Ballance. "It's one of those rare products where you actually notice results pretty quickly," he says. But Turnbull notes that you'll really notice the biggest result after four to six uses. In general, though, "the more you use it, the more it helps rebuild your hair," Ballance adds. Olaplex is another popular strengthening treatment on the market, but the two are fairly different. First of all, Olaplex is a rinse-out mask that you should apply to wet hair before shampoo and conditioner. It's also best used in a system, not just the Olaplex No. 3 Hair Perfector, but also the No. 4 Shampoo, No. 5 Conditioner, No. 6 Leave-In, etc. Meanwhile, the leave-in aspect of K18, coupled with the fact that it only requires one product to do some damage control, makes it quite a bit simpler. One isn't necessarily "better" than the other; it really just comes down to personal preference. But... 'Having used both products extensively on multiple clients with varying hair types, I always find that K18 achieves a significant—and immediate—difference in the hair structure," hairstylist Jae Manuel Cardenas previously told Cosmo. I also personally prefer K18 for all of the reasons above (I'm lazy, sorry). Let's get into my whole experience, though... Super fine, kinda thin, extremely oily—that's the SparkNotes of my hair. I was trying to grow my hair long for months, but as it goes, it got to the top of my bra strap and refused to grow any longer. Instead, my ends looked sparse and my roots were limp. Not a vibe. In the past, I've highlighted my hair to a bright, honey-esque blonde, but currently, I'm working with basically entirely my natural color with a few rogue highlights sprinkled throughout. But! I do heat style my hair very consistently, which has damaged it a lot. I just prefer how my hair looks when Because my scalp is so oily and my hair is so fine, I don't need too much moisture. Which is why the skip-conditioner aspect of the K18 mask is legit perfect for me. Once every two weeks, I'll wash my hair in the shower, then immediately smooth a pea-sized dot of the mask all over my hair from roots to ends. (Ofc, if you have thick hair, you will likely need a bit more to cover your entire head.) While the K18 is doing its thing, I'll put my makeup on, then add on any leave-in products (usually a wave spray or some kind of volumizing product) before blow drying. But I've air-dried my hair many times after using K18, and my results are still pretty much the same. I've been using K18 since that fateful summer day in 2019, so the results over time have been the most impressive. Truth be told, my hair doesn't really sustain too much damage now that I have this in my arsenal, because of how well it has strengthened my hair strands. Immediately after I use it, my hair feels extremely soft. Like, shockingly soft. My ends are sealed, my flyaways are smoothed down, and my hair just looks like how I imagined it did before I started attacking it with box dye, bleach, and straighteners as a teenager. When I decided to give this experiment a go a second time, I knew it would need to include a haircut. K18 is amazing, but it can only do so much. Obviously, my cut took away a lot of the dead ends. But it was K18 that made my hair look this shiny, smooth, and healthy. I haven't had a hair routine without the K18 hair mask in nearly six years, and I cannot imagine ever going back. Truly, it's the best repairing product I've ever tried. Yes, it's expensive, but I use so little that a bottle lasts me quite a long time. I also have healthier hair now, so I'm never sitting in a salon chair begging my stylist to coat me with whatever hydrating, repairing treatment they have to try to fix whatever damage I've done, saving me a lot of money over time. I've also stopped bleaching my hair so often, I've switched to a shower filter, I get regular trims, I use v high-quality hair products—all of which have definitely helped make my hair healthier over time. As much as I love K18, no one product can be a cure-all for intense damage. But I definitely credit the K18 mask for kickstarting my hair-health journey. My hair might not be longer, but gosh, does it look so much better. Shop the K18 hair mask Beth Gillette is the beauty editor at Cosmopolitan with seven years of experience researching, writing, and editing hair stories that range from shampoo for oily hair to the Scandi hairline trend. She regularly tests and analyzes hair products for efficacy, while working with the industry's top experts to assess new formulas and brands. Beth Gillette is the beauty editor at Cosmopolitan, where she covers skincare, makeup, hair, nails, and more across digital and print. She can generally be found in bright eyeshadow furiously typing her latest feature or hemming and hawing about a new product you "have to try." Prior to Cosmopolitan, she wrote and edited beauty content as an Editor at The Everygirl for four years. Follow her on Instagram for makeup selfies and a new hair 'do every few months.
Cosmopolitan
5 days ago
- Health
- Cosmopolitan
K18 Hair Mask Review 2025: I Tried the Viral Repairing Treatment
It was summer 2018, and I was working the fitting room at an Anthropologie in Chicago. A swift stride past the full-length, tri-fold mirror made me do a double-take, followed by some serious panic. The back of my head was, truly, horrendous. It wasn't just split ends or a little knotting. It was full-on breakage, right where my hair would go into a ponytail, that looked like a serious flyaway situation. I finished my shift and immediately walked to the Sephora in the mall in search of anything that would help make my hair look healthier. Little did I know at the time, this would be the love story I'd share over and over again for the K18 hair mask. You've seen it all over social media: A hair mask that promises to fix all your broken hair in four minutes. Too good to be true, right? In my experience, it freakin' works. Really well at that. But what exactly is K18, where did it come from, why is it everywhere, and will it actually change your life? Lemme get into it. K18 started with one single product: The Leave-In Molecular Repair Hair Mask. But since then, it's actually grown into a full haircare line focused on repairing damaged hair at every step (shampoo, conditioner, dry shampoo, volumizing spray, oil, etc.). The mask, though, is still the most talked about product. It's a repairing treatment that's loaded with a patented peptide that helps strengthen hair (more on this below). It's actually a leave-in mask, so instead of the usual rigamarole of standing naked in the shower for 10 to 20 minutes waiting to rinse out your deep conditioner, you just smooth it onto wet hair after shampooing, then leave it on for four minutes before layering on anything else (like a leave-in conditioner or volumizing mousse). But what's most important... Here's the thing: K18 is quite different from the standard bond-building treatments that have begun popping up in its wake. "Typical bond builders work just below the surface, rinse out when hair is washed, and only work on one type of bond for a short time," says hairstylist Devante Turnbull. K18, however, works much deeper, and it's all thanks to the K18 Peptide, a patented peptide developed from biotech that "mimics the hair's structure at its core by reconnecting polypeptide chains at the molecular level," Turnbull explains. "This helps strengthen the hair from damage it may have endured from bleach, color, chemical, and heat services, leading to stronger hair," he says. That's not to say K18 doesn't also do the same repairing as a traditional bond-building treatment (it just does it in a much stronger way). "Bond builders help to repair the hair starting from the inside out, not just make it 'feel' better," says hairstylist Marc Ballance. "Think of them as really good strengthening treatments that help bring your hair back to life." FAQs: In general, you can use the K18 hair mask about once a week. But Turnbull recommends starting with your first four to six washes if you're looking for a hard reset on your hair. From there, you can use it as needed, up to once a week. "You'll truly see the progressive results if you follow this cadence, and then you can treat your hair as you see fit," he says. Yes, too much strengthening can potentially do the opposite, making your hair feel brittle and dry, says Ballance. Which brings us to.. Your hair can potentially feel dry after using K18 because it's not meant to add moisture, but rather repair. "K18 rebuilds the inside of the hair, but it doesn't hydrate," says Ballance. "Try using a leave-in conditioner or hydrating mask in your routine to balance it out," he adds. You can potentially see a difference after your first use of the K18 mask, says Ballance. "It's one of those rare products where you actually notice results pretty quickly," he says. But Turnbull notes that you'll really notice the biggest result after four to six uses. In general, though, "the more you use it, the more it helps rebuild your hair," Ballance adds. Olaplex is another popular strengthening treatment on the market, but the two are fairly different. First of all, Olaplex is a rinse-out mask that you should apply to wet hair before shampoo and conditioner. It's also best used in a system, not just the Olaplex No. 3 Hair Perfector, but also the No. 4 Shampoo, No. 5 Conditioner, No. 6 Leave-In, etc. Meanwhile, the leave-in aspect of K18, coupled with the fact that it only requires one product to do some damage control, makes it quite a bit simpler. One isn't necessarily "better" than the other; it really just comes down to personal preference. But... 'Having used both products extensively on multiple clients with varying hair types, I always find that K18 achieves a significant—and immediate—difference in the hair structure," hairstylist Jae Manuel Cardenas previously told Cosmo. I also personally prefer K18 for all of the reasons above (I'm lazy, sorry). Let's get into my whole experience, though... Super fine, kinda thin, extremely oily—that's the SparkNotes of my hair. I was trying to grow my hair long for months, but as it goes, it got to the top of my bra strap and refused to grow any longer. Instead, my ends looked sparse and my roots were limp. Not a vibe. In the past, I've highlighted my hair to a bright, honey-esque blonde, but currently, I'm working with basically entirely my natural color with a few rogue highlights sprinkled throughout. But! I do heat style my hair very consistently, which has damaged it a lot. I just prefer how my hair looks when Because my scalp is so oily and my hair is so fine, I don't need too much moisture. Which is why the skip-conditioner aspect of the K18 mask is legit perfect for me. Once every two weeks, I'll wash my hair in the shower, then immediately smooth a pea-sized dot of the mask all over my hair from roots to ends. (Ofc, if you have thick hair, you will likely need a bit more to cover your entire head.) While the K18 is doing its thing, I'll put my makeup on, then add on any leave-in products (usually a wave spray or some kind of volumizing product) before blow drying. But I've air-dried my hair many times after using K18, and my results are still pretty much the same. I've been using K18 since that fateful summer day in 2019, so the results over time have been the most impressive. Truth be told, my hair doesn't really sustain too much damage now that I have this in my arsenal, because of how well it has strengthened my hair strands. Immediately after I use it, my hair feels extremely soft. Like, shockingly soft. My ends are sealed, my flyaways are smoothed down, and my hair just looks like how I imagined it did before I started attacking it with box dye, bleach, and flat irons as a teenager. When I decided to give this experiment a go a second time, I knew it would need to include a haircut. K18 is amazing, but it can only do so much. Obviously, my cut took away a lot of the dead ends. But it was K18 that made my hair look this shiny, smooth, and healthy. I haven't had a hair routine without the K18 hair mask in nearly six years, and I cannot imagine ever going back. Truly, it's the best repairing product I've ever tried. Yes, it's expensive, but I use so little that a bottle lasts me quite a long time. I also have healthier hair now, so I'm never sitting in a salon chair begging my stylist to coat me with whatever hydrating, repairing treatment they have to try to fix whatever damage I've done, saving me a lot of money over time. I've also stopped bleaching my hair so often, I've switched to a shower filter, I get regular trims, I use v high-quality hair products—all of which have definitely helped make my hair healthier over time. As much as I love K18, no one product can be a cure-all for intense damage. But I definitely credit the K18 mask for kickstarting my hair-health journey. My hair might not be longer, but gosh, does it look so much better. Shop the K18 hair mask Beth Gillette is the beauty editor at Cosmopolitan with seven years of experience researching, writing, and editing hair stories that range from shampoo for oily hair to the Scandi hairline trend. She regularly tests and analyzes hair products for efficacy, while working with the industry's top experts to assess new formulas and brands. Beth Gillette is the beauty editor at Cosmopolitan, where she covers skincare, makeup, hair, nails, and more across digital and print. She can generally be found in bright eyeshadow furiously typing her latest feature or hemming and hawing about a new product you "have to try." Prior to Cosmopolitan, she wrote and edited beauty content as an Editor at The Everygirl for four years. Follow her on Instagram for makeup selfies and a new hair 'do every few months.
