I frequently discuss weight management here. It is not because I am vain; it is because weight management is important.

I get that there is a growing crowd that wants to pretend that obesity is not a problem and, in fact, is normal. Unfortunately, they are wrong. The science matters, and the science is very clear: there are very few (if any) more important things you can do for your overall health than actively manage your weight. The list of risks associated with being overweight is extensive.

That being said, it is absolutely true that the number you see on a scale does not tell the tale. You have to take that number with a grain of salt. I want to go into the reasons for that, and then tell you the metric you really need to focus on.

The “noise” problem

There are a lot of misconceptions about weight gain and loss, and one of the biggest revolves around the “noise” that surrounds your body weight.

Here are examples of noise. Some of these may be obvious to you, but are not obvious to everyone.

• If you drink a liter of water and step on a scale immediately afterward, you will “weigh” 2.2 lbs more than you did before you drank the water.
• If you urinate an hour later, you will suddenly “lose” a pound or two.
• If you eat dinner at 8:00 pm, you will probably weigh more the next day than if you had eaten at 5:00 pm.
• If you eat a salty meal, you will probably weigh more the next day than if you had eaten the exact same meal with less salt. (This is due to the salt increasing your water retention.)
• If you exercise hard for an hour and sweat a lot, you may “lose” up to 3 lbs (if you are not drinking water during the workout).

As you may have noted, this noise generally involves the amount of water in your body, which comes and goes. Don’t get too excited or worried about what the scale says at one particular time. You cannot gain or lose much real weight in a day, but your scale may show a variance of 3-4 pounds a day simply due to water.

Avoid trying to fool yourself by working this noise to your advantage. For example, it is a fool’s errand to exercise for two hours without drinking anything, so that you can comfort yourself with a low weight number immediately afterward. That is not real weight loss.

The “measuring the wrong thing” problem

There is an element of truth to be found in the “obesity is normal” crowd, and that is this: The number on a scale does not mean too much anyway. BMI calculations don’t mean much either.

I am not out of shape, but my BMI is right at 25 (the border between normal and overweight). Why? Because I have a bit more muscle mass than the average person.

If I chose to buy into just trying to hit a number on the scale so that my BMI looks better, I would be making a big mistake. Here’s why: Your weight is actually a component of four primary things.

• Músculo
• Fat
• Hueso
• Agua

Weight loss management does not affect bone mass, of course, and while it does affect water mass, we have already noted that water mass is just noise.

Weight loss management affects both muscle and fat, but here is something very important: You do not want your muscle mass to shrink. Regardless of what the scale says, this is not something to celebrate. I do not want a BMI of 24 if it means I have to give up 5 pounds of muscle.

Muscle mass is extremely important as you age, and ironically, it is your muscle mass that actually helps you burn more calories. Losing weight at the expense of losing muscle is not a winning strategy. This is a big part of why protein is so popular in weight loss right now.

The only number that you want going down

So, water mass is noise, bone mass is unaffected by weight management, and muscle mass should be protected.

That means the only actual body mass you want to reduce is fat.

Ideally, your fat mass should be the only thing shrinking when you are trying to lose weight.

This is the problem with using a scale to measure your weight. A scale weight is not a measurement of your fat mass. Scales essentially measure the wrong thing.

A solution to this problem

Sadly, measuring fat mass in the human body is not easy, and if you want accuracy, can be expensive.

There are several options on the market.

• Some scales attempt to measure fat by sending signals through the body. They are not horribly expensive, but likely not very accurate.
• Body fat caliper measurement systems are unsophisticated but inexpensive. They work if you follow directions carefully.
• Some doctors and clinics have more sophisticated and accurate machines. My Orange Theory gym, for example, has a machine for this purpose. Unfortunately, there is often a charge for using them (in my case, the machine is part of the membership fee).

If you are serious about weight management, I encourage you to choose one of these methods and start measuring your fat content on a monthly or quarterly basis. You can use the scale as well to stay on track in a general way, but it’s crucial to find a way to monitor your fat intake.

Remember your goal: Lower your fat but protect your muscle. Muscle matters.

A mantra I often repeat here: If a diet is unbalanced, it is probably bad for you.

This is common sense, and it is especially true when the imbalance in diets comes from eliminating fruits and vegetables.

But, alas, even healthy people fall for these kinds of fad diets, which is why I am going to discuss the carnivore diet today.

What is the carnivore diet?

The carnivore diet involves consuming exclusively animal products while eliminating all plant foods. This typically means eating meat, fish, eggs, and sometimes dairy products, while completely avoiding vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes, and other plant-based foods.

Potential benefits

Proponents of the carnivore diet report several potential advantages:

Weight loss is possible due to the diet’s naturally low carbohydrate content and high protein intake.

The elimination of processed foods and simple carbohydrates may lead to more stable blood sugar levels, potentially benefiting individuals with insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes.

Many followers report reduced inflammation and improvement in autoimmune conditions.

The diet’s simplicity appeals to those who struggle with food choices or have multiple food sensitivities, as it eliminates most potential trigger foods.

Some people experience improved mental clarity and energy levels, possibly due to stable blood glucose and ketosis from minimal carbohydrate intake.

The high protein content supports muscle maintenance and growth, while the elimination of anti-nutrients found in some plants (like phytates and lectins) may improve nutrient absorption for certain individuals.

Animal products provide highly bioavailable forms of nutrients like vitamin B12, iron, and complete amino acid profiles.

Significant concerns

The complete elimination of plant foods means missing out on essential nutrients like vitamin C, fiber, folate, and thousands of beneficial plant compounds called phytonutrients. This nutritional restriction could lead to deficiencies over time, despite animal products being nutrient-dense.

The lack of dietary fiber is particularly problematic, as fiber supports digestive health, feeds beneficial gut bacteria, and helps regulate cholesterol levels.

Long-term adherence may negatively impact the gut microbiome diversity, which is crucial for immune function and overall health.

The diet’s high saturated fat content and absence of heart-protective plant compounds could potentially increase the risk of heart disease.

The restrictive nature makes the diet difficult to sustain both socially and practically. This is not an insignificant thing.

The elimination of potentially beneficial plant foods like berries, leafy greens, and nuts means missing out on compounds with proven anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

The verdict

While some individuals may experience short-term benefits from the carnivore diet, particularly those with specific autoimmune conditions or severe food sensitivities, the short-term benefits generally have no real science backing them, and the long-term effects are probably flat-out bleak.

Most nutrition experts recommend a more balanced approach that includes a variety of both animal and plant foods.

So do I.

The A2 milk industry has exploded in recent years, with companies like The a2 Milk Company commanding premium prices by promising easier digestion and reduced gastrointestinal discomfort. But beneath the slick marketing lies a fundamental question: is A2 milk a legitimate health innovation or an elaborate marketing scheme designed to extract more money from consumers’ wallets?

The science behind the claims

A2 milk contains only the A2 variant of beta-casein protein, while conventional milk contains both A1 and A2 proteins. Proponents argue that A1 protein breaks down during digestion to produce a peptide called BCM-7, which allegedly causes inflammation and digestive issues. This theory sounds compelling, but the scientific evidence remains frustratingly thin.
Several small studies have suggested that some individuals experience less bloating and stomach discomfort when drinking A2 milk compared to regular milk. However, these studies are limited in scope and often funded by A2 milk companies themselves, raising questions about bias. The European Food Safety Authority has stated that current evidence doesn’t support claims that A1 protein causes negative health effects in the general population.

The marketing machine

What’s undeniable is A2 milk’s marketing prowess. The industry has successfully positioned itself as a solution for people who experience discomfort after drinking milk, often targeting those who assume they’re lactose intolerant. This is particularly clever because many people who struggle with regular milk may actually be reacting to other components entirely, not specifically the A1 protein.
The premium pricing strategy is telling. A2 milk typically costs 50-100% more than conventional milk, despite coming from cows that require no special feed or care beyond genetic testing. This price premium suggests the value proposition lies more in perception than production costs.

The lactose confusion

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of A2 milk marketing is how it can mislead consumers about lactose intolerance. A2 milk contains the same amount of lactose as regular milk, yet marketing often implies it’s suitable for people with milk sensitivities. This confusion can lead genuinely lactose-intolerant individuals to waste money on an expensive product that won’t solve their underlying problem.

The verdict

Calling A2 milk an outright “scam” would be unfair. Some consumers do report feeling better when switching to A2 milk, and there’s legitimate scientific rationale behind the protein difference. However, the evidence supporting dramatic health benefits remains weak, and the marketing often oversells limited research.

The reality likely lies somewhere in the middle. A2 milk may provide modest benefits for a subset of consumers with specific sensitivities, but it’s not the revolutionary health breakthrough that marketing suggests. For most people, the premium price isn’t justified by demonstrable health advantages.

Consumers would be better served by first determining whether their milk-related discomfort stems from lactose intolerance, milk protein allergies, or other factors before assuming A2 milk is the solution. While not technically a scam, A2 milk represents a classic case of marketing outpacing science—a premium product built more on promise than proven performance.

Foto de Anita Jankovic en Unsplash

A recently published meta-analysis (essentially an analysis of multiple clinical studies) attempted to answer an important question: Can probiotics help older adults think better?

Key Research Findings
The analysis found that probiotics significantly improved cognitive performance compared to a placebo in older adults already experiencing memory and thinking difficulties. Study participants were between 60 and 82 years old, with many having cognitive impairment related to Alzheimer’s disease.

The research examined various probiotic formulations, primarily containing Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria strains. Treatment periods ranged from 4 to 52 weeks, though 12-week interventions were most common across the studies.

Why? Understanding the Gut-Brain Connection
The relationship between gut bacteria and brain function becomes increasingly important with age. Older adults typically have less diverse gut microbiota than younger people, and those in long-term care facilities show even greater reductions in bacterial diversity compared to those living independently.

Probiotics may support cognitive health through several biological mechanisms. They can reduce inflammation throughout the body, improve blood sugar regulation, and decrease oxidative stress; these are all factors that contribute to brain aging and cognitive decline. Chronic inflammation and poor glucose control have been consistently linked to increased dementia risk.

Animal research has provided additional understanding of how gut bacteria influence brain function. Studies show that probiotics can reduce stress responses and increase levels of GABA, a neurotransmitter that promotes calmness and mental clarity. Some research also suggests that certain probiotics can increase brain levels of DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid essential for proper brain function.

Two surprising results
I was particularly interested in two takeaways from the study. First, single-strain probiotics actually seemed to work better than multi-strain probiotics for improving cognitive function. Second, the best benefits appeared in situations where participants took probiotics for 12 weeks or less.

To be honest, I’m at a loss for words about these two conclusions, except that I was surprised by both of them.

Conclusion
Current evidence suggests that probiotics may offer cognitive benefits specifically for older adults who already have memory or thinking problems. The supplements may be particularly helpful for those with more significant cognitive difficulties.

Probiotics are generally considered safe with minimal side effects and have many benefits beyond just improved cognition. For those reasons, we can heartedly recommend them. We look forward to seeing further high-quality studies that will help determine the best probiotic strains, optimal dosages, and treatment duration for cognitive health.

Foto de Rohtopia.com en Unsplash

For a health newsletter, I may talk about coffee a bit too much, in glowing terms at that. There is a reason: I have a bias in that coffee is just pretty important to me.

There are two important aspects of coffee that extend beyond its taste and the presence (or absence) of health benefits.

• Coffee is my ritual during a very important part of the day for me: the 30-60 minutes after I first get up, where I intentionally try to stay unproductive and relaxed. That is important. I will go to the mat for that ritual, not just because it improves quality of life, but also because it is healthy to invest my time that way.
• Coffee is a community-building activity. I recently read a great article making a case for alcohol consumption. The gist was that alcohol is a ritual in which people get to know each other (at a local bar, etc.), and has been an important social lubricant for thousands of years. Alcohol is not a big part of my life, but I get the point, and coffee is often my substitute for alcohol in that regard. Sometimes, I just drink with Marla, and sometimes, it is with other people. However, coffee is generally a communal experience.
  For these two reasons, I will unapologetically argue that coffee makes my life better. Perhaps I could switch to a healthier drink, but I haven’t found anything that works as well.

Now, that being said, a new study recently published makes a bold claim that coffee consumption is connected to healthy aging. In other words, from a health perspective, you can “have your coffee and drink it too.” 🙂

The study examined the relationship between coffee consumption and healthy aging in over 47,000 female nurses followed for several decades starting in the 1970s. The research found that women who consumed the most caffeine (equivalent to nearly seven cups of coffee daily) between the ages of 45-60 had 13% higher odds of healthy aging compared to those consuming the least (less than one cup daily).

The study defined “healthy aging” as women who were 70 or older in 2016, reported good physical and mental health with no cognitive impairment, and were free of 11 chronic diseases, including cancer, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Only about 3,700 women met these criteria.

Importantly, the benefits were specifically linked to caffeinated coffee. Drinking tea or decaffeinated coffee showed no association with healthy aging, possibly because participants consumed less of these beverages overall, or due to their different caffeine content and chemical compounds. Interestingly, cola consumption was associated with significantly decreased odds of healthy aging.

The findings align with extensive research linking coffee to health benefits. A recent study of over 46,000 U.S. adults found that consuming one to three cups daily reduced death risk by about 15% over nine to 11 years. However, this benefit disappeared when people added more than half a teaspoon of sugar or significant amounts of saturated fat to their coffee.

Previous research has also connected regular coffee consumption to lower risks of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, liver disease, osteoporosis, and certain cancers. While these observational studies cannot prove causation, the consistency of findings across multiple studies suggests genuine benefits.

Researchers aren’t entirely certain why coffee may be protective. Caffeine appears to improve memory and protect brain cells in animal studies, while both regular and decaf coffee contain hundreds of compounds that may reduce inflammation and prevent cell damage.

Here is my advice: if you don’t drink coffee now, don’t feel any compulsion to start in the hopes of improving your health. Focus on more proven health strategies like balanced nutrition, regular exercise, adequate sleep, and social engagement.

But, if you do drink coffee and it improves your life, including in the areas of mindfulness and engagement with other people, don’t feel guilty. Drink up!

Foto de Jakub Dziubak en Unsplash

A year or so ago, I recorded this video comparing the various chlorophyll options at Caring Sunshine.

The reason I am bringing up this video again is not because of which of our chlorophyll options is the best value (Clorofila ES, by the way), but to remind you of how we think you can effectively price-shop supplements in any category.

And, let’s be real: this is a good time to talk about how you can save money. There does not seem to be a lot of extra money lying around these days 🙂

Let’s talk about this in terms of questions that we typically get at Caring Sunshine. Here are two very common ones:

• How many capsules are in the bottle?
• How much does the product cost?

The main problem with these questions is that they are focused on the wrong things. When considering the cost of supplements, your primary focus should be on a metric that few companies readily provide: the cost per day.

If a product contains 30 tablets and the instructions call for you to take one per day, that represents a 30-day supply. If the price is $30, the cost per day is $1.

Asking how many capsules are in a bottle is not helpful unless you know how many of those capsules you will be taking each day. Only when you know both numbers can you accurately calculate your actual cost.

At Caring Sunshine, we provide the cost per day for every product and even give you the ability to sort and filter products based on cost per day. It is important to us that you have that information.

I wish I could say it is that easy to price shop supplements, but it isn’t. As you hear me discuss in the video above, you sometimes need to isolate down to the active ingredient in products, normalize the amounts of active ingredients between products, and then compare the cost per day based on the quantity of those active ingredients.

And obviously, there are other factors that can complicate things as well: the quality of ingredients, the form of the ingredients, and much more.

However, if cost is your primary concern, cost per day is a metric you should consider first. Get used to looking at the cost per day on Nature’s Sunshine products if you can.

One last tip, which most of you will find obvious. With no exceptions, buying bigger sizes (when available) always saves you money. There is a big difference in the cost per day between buying the 180-count Vitamin D3 vs the 60-count Vitamin D3. You also save money buying the 2-pack of Chlorophyll ES vs the single bottle.

Foto de Corinna en Unsplash

Last week, Nature’s Sunshine launched a Liquid Vitamin D3 & K2 product. It has turned out to be the most successful product launch in recent memory, at least from our perspective. We have run out of it a few times already.

Let’s talk about why this combination is so potent. Vitamin D3 and K2 are often combined in supplements because they work synergistically to support bone health and calcium metabolism, with each vitamin addressing potential problems created by the other when taken alone.

The Calcium Connection
Vitamin D3 significantly increases calcium absorption in the intestines—sometimes by as much as 30-40%. While this enhanced absorption is beneficial for bone health, it creates a potential problem: where does all that extra calcium go? Without proper guidance, calcium can accumulate in soft tissues like arteries, kidneys, and heart valves rather than being deposited in bones where it’s needed.

This is where vitamin K2 becomes crucial. K2 activates two key proteins that direct calcium traffic in the body:

Osteocalcin: This protein acts like a calcium magnet in bones, helping to incorporate calcium into the bone matrix

Matrix Gla Protein (MGP): This protein works as a calcium traffic controller, preventing calcium from depositing in arteries and other soft tissues

The Synergistic Effect
When D3 and K2 work together, they create an efficient calcium management system. D3 ensures adequate calcium is available by enhancing absorption, while K2 ensures that calcium ends up in the right places—strengthening bones while protecting cardiovascular health.

Research suggests this combination may be particularly important for older adults, who often have both vitamin D deficiency and declining K2 status. Some studies indicate that taking high doses of vitamin D3 without adequate K2 might actually increase the risk of arterial calcification, though this remains an area of ongoing research.

Foto de Michele Blackwell en Unsplash

We have been remiss about talking about the new weight loss drugs here. Many of you are probably taking them, and if not, you know people who are on them.

Obviously, we don’t sell these drugs, but I am not necessarily opposed to them. Honestly, I have concerns for several reasons, but I try to stay open-minded. Let’s discuss the facts about these drugs, the science behind them, and the associated risks, and I will then provide a few closing opinions.

GLP-1 drugs, including popular medications like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro, are a class of diabetes and weight-loss medications that have gained significant attention for their effectiveness. Originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, these drugs are now widely prescribed for weight management as well.

How They Work

GLP-1 stands for glucagon-like peptide-1, a hormone your body naturally produces in your intestines after eating. These medications mimic this hormone’s effects. They work by slowing down how quickly food leaves your stomach, making you feel full longer after meals. They also signal your brain’s appetite control center to reduce hunger cravings. For diabetics, they help the pancreas release insulin more effectively when blood sugar rises and prevent the liver from releasing excess glucose.

Proven Effectiveness

Clinical studies have demonstrated impressive results. For weight loss, patients typically lose 15-20% of their body weight over 68 weeks, with some losing even more. In diabetes management, these drugs significantly improve blood sugar control, often allowing patients to reduce other medications. Major studies like the STEP trials for semaglutide (Wegovy) and SURMOUNT trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) involved thousands of participants and showed consistent, substantial weight loss compared to placebo groups.
Beyond weight and diabetes, emerging research suggests these drugs may offer cardiovascular benefits, potentially reducing heart attack and stroke risk. Some studies also indicate possible benefits for sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and even addiction behaviors, though more research is needed in these areas.

Risks and Side Effects

The most common side effects are gastrointestinal: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. These typically occur when starting the medication or increasing doses, and often improve over time. About 5-10% of people discontinue the drugs due to these side effects.

More serious but rare risks include pancreatitis (pancreas inflammation), gallbladder problems, and potential thyroid tumors, though the thyroid risk has only been observed in animal studies. There’s also concern about rapid weight loss potentially causing muscle loss alongside fat loss.

A significant practical consideration is cost and accessibility. These medications can cost $1,000+ monthly without insurance coverage. Additionally, weight regain often occurs if the medication is stopped, meaning most people need to continue treatment long-term.

My closing thoughts

• Again, I am not anti-GLP. GLP-1 drugs are a big deal and almost certainly help many people. I personally know people who have been helped by them.
• On the other hand, in the end of the day, people on GLP-1 drugs are going to lose weight at the same rate as a person who effectively manages their diet and exercises consistently (about one pound/week). In fact, every effective weight management yields the same one-pound/week number.
• If you can lose one pound a week without a drug that takes away your enjoyment of food, may have side effects, and costs $1000/month, why not just take a non-drug approach to weight management? I get that this will not work for some people, but for most people, it undoubtedly will. A lot of people who are using GLPs could have similar results without GLPs, and I would argue that they would be far better off.
• It is extremely concerning to me that the statistics are not great in regard to regaining weight when a person has to stop taking the drug. To be fair, this is true with most weight loss regimens. However, the best chance of long-term success in weight loss comes from teaching yourself to eat well and be active and then making it a habit for life.

In summary, eating healthy and exercising is the best way to weight loss and overall good health, not just because it is safer and less expensive, but because it improves your chances for keeping the weight off long-term. Taking a shortcut to avoid that hard work is not necessarily the best path. If all else fails, GLPs have a place, but they should not be a first choice for most of us.