By age 18, my knees hurt. I didn’t know why, and they didn’t hurt a lot, but they did hurt a bit most of the time. As someone who took a lot of dance classes and played my share of netball, it was annoying, but not something I thought much about. After all, I reckoned, bad knees run in my family. But by age 20, the pain had gone from a bit annoying to definitely annoying. I decided, for the first time, to see a doctor about it.


She was a brisk woman with close-cropped grey hair, who glanced at me and told me my knee pain was due to early-onset arthritis as a result of my being overweight. My blood tests were negative for rheumatoid arthritis — but that didn’t matter, she told me. The only way to stop my pain from getting worse was by losing weight. So with the resigned sigh of anyone who has grown up fat, I accepted my fate. I was arthritic, at 20.

By 22, things were worse. My knees had gone from hurting a bit most of the time to spontaneously collapsing in blinding pain while I was doing innocuous activities like walking down the street. I went back to the doctor — a different one, because I just saw whoever was available at the student clinic. He asked me about my pre-existing medical conditions. I explained that my arthritis was a result of being overweight. He looked at me incredulously. “That’s not a thing.” No one gets non-rheumatoid arthritis in their twenties as a result of being overweight, he explained.

Instead, he decided we should figure out exactly why my knees were spontaneously collapsing. He sent me for an MRI, and I had a consultation with a specialist surgeon. “Patellae chondromalacia,” the surgeon declared. He showed me the shadows on my scan, which indicated rough patches on my knee caps. It was probably hereditary, exacerbated by my weight.

“Ok,” I said. “So what can I do about it?”

“You’re just going to have to manage the pain,” he explained. “And once it gets to be too much, you’re going to need your knees replaced. And that will probably be before you’re 30.”

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]I had eight years before I turned 30. It felt a bit like a death sentence.[/quote]

Resigned, I accepted my diagnosis. I said goodbye to yoga and dance, which aggravated the condition, and started wondering about how much two new knees might cost, and how I’d get around on crutches. I had eight years before I turned 30. It felt a bit like a death sentence.

At 24, my new housemate decided she was joining our local gym, and in a moment of optimism, I decided to go with her. This gym offered a free short session with one of their personal trainers to help newbies learn the ropes. “I’ll put you with Hao,” the receptionist said. “He’s got a physio background; he’s good with injuries.”

Hao was intimidating — really tall, super buff, thick Chinese accent that was hard to understand at first. “It says here you’ve got an injury,” he told me. “What is it?”

“I’ve got patellae chondromalacia in both knees,” I replied. “It’s-“

“Oh that,” he said, interrupting me. “I can fix that.”

What?

Hao explained to me that what I had was a pretty standard sporting injury that is usually treated successfully using exercise — a fact that none of my doctors had mentioned. I’d probably injured myself as a result of all that dance and netball I did as a teenager, and it might have been exacerbated by my family history of dodgy knees. It’s normally caught early and treated early — it’s very rare for it to get to the point of causing knees to collapse, but that can happen in serious cases with no treatment. “Work with me for 10 sessions,” said Hao. “If you don’t notice a difference, I’ll give you your money back.”

Well, after 10 sessions I noticed a pretty significant difference. After six months, the pain that had plagued me for six years was entirely gone.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]When doctors looked at me, they didn’t see a girl who danced, cycled, and played team sports. They saw a fat girl .[/quote]

I can’t help but think that there’s a whole lot of physical pain I could have avoided if any of the medical professionals I saw had considered the fact that I might have a sporting injury. And I can’t help but wonder if the reason they didn’t has to do with my weight.

When doctors looked at me, they didn’t see a girl who danced, cycled, and played team sports. They saw a fat girl — and they based their diagnosis on stereotypes about what that meant. I’m 29 now, and my knees no longer hurt. I don’t need to have them replaced — but if I’d listened to the weight-prejudiced opinions of my doctors, I might have.

This story is hardly unique.

Research shows that doctors have less respect for patients with higher body-mass indexes, which can lower the quality of care those patients receive. As one study put it:

“Many health care providers hold strong negative attitudes and stereotypes about people with obesity. There is considerable evidence that such attitudes influence person-perceptions, judgment, interpersonal behavior, and decision-making. These attitudes may impact the care they provide.”

Troublingly, many of the ideas that doctors have about fat patients aren’t even grounded in medical fact. Indeed, too often it’s forgotten that the science around weight loss and health isn’t all that settled. Does excess weight cause you to live a shorter life? Maybe, maybe not. Countless studies by BMI category have found that overweight people actually have lower rates of all-cause mortality than normal weight people.

Some researchers think that if you adjust for the increased risks caused by weight cycling (aka. yo-yo dieting) and dangerous weight-loss drugs, you’d find the same mortality rates for normal, overweight, and obese people — yes, even very obese people. And even without the adjustments, the increased risk for very obese people is only small — not the “you’ll be dead before you’re 30” nonsense often pedaled by purveyors of weight-loss surgeries.

What about serious disease? There’s certainly a correlation between being overweight and some diseases, but multiple studies suggest that the weight might actually be a symptom rather than a cause.

Then there’s the idea that excess tissue “strains” the body. Eminent obesity researcher Dr. Paul Ernsberger has been quoted as saying, “The idea that fat strains the heart has no scientific basis. As far as I can tell, the idea comes from diet books, not scientific books . . . Unfortunately, some doctors read diet books.”

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]So why, then, do doctors insist on prescribing diets and weight loss as a treatment for anything and everything?[/quote]

What about dieting? Well, there actually is some scientific consensus there :  Diets don’t lead to lasting weight loss—not even if you call them lifestyle changes. After an extensive metastudy of diet and weight loss studies, Dr Traci Mann concluded, “The benefits of dieting are simply too small and the potential harms of dieting are too large for it to be recommended as a safe and effective treatment for obesity.”

So why, then, do doctors insist on prescribing diets and weight loss as a treatment for anything and everything?

Sarah, 29 from Newcastle, Australia, had the misfortune of breaking both legs as a teenager, the result of a freak accident involving her legs falling asleep and then getting twisted to the point of breaking. Not long after learning how to walk again, she was involved in a serious car accident that left her with further damage to her legs. “I’m accident-prone,” she laughs. The multiple injuries have left Sarah with a build up of scar tissue that can make walking painful. But when she went to the doctor, her pain was blamed on her weight.

“My weight is a factor in the healing process,” she says, “But it wasn’t the cause of my injuries — and I’ve got police reports, x-rays, and specialist reports to prove it.”

Sarah changed doctors recently, and her new doctor decided to do a full medical history, checking the notes from all the physicians Sarah has seen. What she found shocked her. “She said there’s no record of my injuries with most of my previous doctors,” Sarah said. “They all had written that my leg pain was caused solely by my weight, and that meant I wasn’t getting any useful treatment for the pain. They just told me to diet.” Sarah’s new doctor promptly started her on a physical treatment plan designed for someone with compound injuries and severe internal scarring.

The difference has been immediate.

“Within two weeks I could walk nearly five kilometers. Before I started the treatment, I could only manage one kilometer or less before my knees were so swollen and painful that I couldn’t keep going,” said Sarah. “Getting actual treatment for my injuries, rather than just being told to lose weight and see what happens, has changed everything.”

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that eating healthily and exercising aren’t good for you. The problem is when doctors prescribe diets and weight loss to patients without fully considering their symptoms and other treatment options.

Stigmatization may also, problematically, stop fat people from seeking out medical care in the first place.

“I just don’t go to the doctor,” says Anita, a 28-year-old advertising executive. The last time Anita saw a doctor, it was a routine visit to discuss vaccinations and antimalarial medication for an upcoming overseas trip. The doctor prescribed the vaccines and asked a nurse to administer the jabs. It was the nurse who decided Anita had diabetes — without having spoken to her, or seeing anything pertaining to her medical history.

“He kept saying I would get a discount on the vaccines if I registered my diabetes,” Anita explained. “I haven’t got diabetes, but he wouldn’t listen. His whole attitude was like, ‘You know you’re fat, right?’ Um, yeah, I’ve noticed that, actually. Just give me the jabs.” The experience was pretty upsetting, and left Anita firmer in her resolve to avoid doctors wherever possible.

Still, Anita, Sarah, and I are relatively lucky; our experiences have caused us pain and humiliation, but no permanent damage. This is not true for everyone.

First Do No Harm is a website that chronicles the experiences of fat people with medical professionals — and it’s filled with harrowing stories.

One woman lost a lot of weight suddenly and was praised for it — with doctors missing the fact that it was a sign of the cancer that shortly killed her.

A man vomited constantly due to multiple sclerosis, but instead of viewing that as a medical red flag, doctors simply celebrated the 120-pound weight loss it caused. The vomiting led to permanent nerve damage, back pain, and tooth decay.

A woman had an emergency doctor declare that she didn’t need treatment for abdominal swelling after a serious car accident because she was just fat. She nearly died.

A woman went years just being told to lose weight to address her ongoing, multiple health problems. It turns out she has a rare neurological disorder; the diagnosis delay has led to permanent brain damage.

There’s another trove of awful stories on fat prejudice here. And of course Google’s got plenty more.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Hormonal problems? Lose weight. Broken finger? Lose weight. Migraines? Lose weight.[/quote]

A consistent narrative runs throughout these stories. Hormonal problems? Lose weight. Broken finger? Lose weight. Migraines? Lose weight. Losing weight is the consistent — sometimes only — treatment offered for every ailment imaginable.

For many, changing the narrative around weight is literally a matter of life or death. So what can be done to address the problem?

The good news is that there’s some recognition within the medical profession that this is a serious issue which must be addressed. It’s been noted that medical students don’t receive nearly enough training on obesity, and efforts are beginning to try to change that. Researchers are also working on empathy programs and raising awareness about the impact of implicit bias against patients. All of this is a promising start.

At the same time, we can all become our own health advocates. If you’re a fat person, or someone you care about is a fat person, you can develop your critical thinking skills and challenge the classic “just lose weight” prescription if it doesn’t seem to fit the symptoms.

This isn’t easy. There’s an implicit power imbalance between patient and doctor that makes challenging their statements very difficult. By working to become experts on our own health and our own situation, we stand a better chance of being able to call out something that doesn’t feel right.

Doctors are highly educated people, but they’re subject to the same biases as the rest of us, and many of them don’t stay up to date with the latest research. That’s not good enough. If obesity really is a major health concern, it’s essential that doctors stay educated on recent studies and metastudies that look at how to get the best outcomes for fat patients. If doctors really do care about their patients, they need to start looking at the overall picture of a person’s health, not simply the size of their body.

Most of all, doctors need to stop prescribing a treatment that’s proven not to work for conditions that don’t warrant that treatment in the first place.

The medical profession needs to step up. It needs to accept that diets aren’t the universal treatment option for fat people. It needs to accept that fatness isn’t the universal cause of ill health in fat people. It needs to engage with the very real damage caused by its attitudes toward fat people, and with the substandard care delivered to many people as a result of their size.

It’s not exaggerating to say that lives depend on it.

This piece is published in partnership with The Establishment.

  • Why does your brain mix up memories? A new study examines how memories are misplaced in your brain’s filing cabinets
    Photo credit: LWA/Stone via Getty Images – Older people may confuse memories rather than forgetting them altogether.
    ,

    Why does your brain mix up memories? A new study examines how memories are misplaced in your brain’s filing cabinets

    A new study explores how aging changes the way our brains store and retrieve experiences.

    Associate Professor of Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

    Old age and forgetfulness seem to go hand in hand. But my colleagues and I found that memories actually becomes less precise, not entirely forgotten. Our study, published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, shows how the brain blends related experiences as you age rather than replaying the exact one you need.

    Memory is a complicated process. Even when everything’s working as it should, the way people remember specific events has many parts.

    Say you have a conversation with a friend. The first stage of memory is when you’re experiencing, feeling and perceiving details of an event as it happens. The second stage involves storing these details in your brain’s file cabinet. The third stage covers when you need to search that file cabinet for just the right file when, a week later, you want to remember that conversation with your friend. This last retrieval stage is what many people think of as memory.

    Imagine that when your brain was retrieving information from that conversation with your friend, it accidentally combined details from that conversation with one you had with your spouse that morning. When you then try to remember the conversation with your friend, you actually pull the file for the conversation with your spouse instead. This kind of mix-up might be an example of what happens with the aging brain.

    Why it matters

    Remembering people and events is important for many social activities. Confusing people’s names can be embarrassing. The fear of confusing memories can even lead to social isolation.

    Scientists already know that confusing memories happens more often than forgetting them altogether. What’s less clear is how the brain gets confused.

    My team’s study tried to understand when in the memory process these mix-ups happen and how the brain’s memory center, called the hippocampus, plays a role.

    The hippocampus is involved in all stages of memory. The patterns of neural firing that occur during the first stage of memory – the initial experience of talking with your friend – often recur while your brain is filing that memory away and later when retrieving it.

    Watch on  YouTube
    The hippocampus is critical to memory.

    For our study, we scanned the brains of young, middle-aged and older adults while they went through those same three stages of memory. While in the scanner, they briefly saw images of a face at the top of the screen and an image of either a scene or an object, such as a forest or an apple, on the bottom of the screen.

    We told participants to imagine the person at the top interacting in the scene or with the object. Each image pair served as a separate “event.”

    They then relaxed for 20 minutes while we continued to record their brain activity. Finally, they took a memory test in which a face they had previously seen reappeared on top with four images below. Participants had to remember which of those images had previously been paired with the face. We repeated this test several times to gauge how well people remembered links between faces and scenes and objects across events.

    We found that older people had more memory mix-ups than young adults. For instance, they were more likely to falsely remember a face that was initially paired with an apple as having been paired with a forest. Older people were also less likely to repeat the same brain activity patterns seen when they first experienced, stored and retrieved a specific memory. Surprisingly, even when older adults did repeat the original brain patterns, they were even more likely to confuse their memories.

    Our study provides new evidence that the hippocampus is inappropriately changing memories between different memory phases as one gets older.

    What still isn’t known

    Research in young adults, including those in our study, suggests that the hippocampus is supposed to engage in the same neural firing patterns when remembering an event as when first experiencing it.

    But the older adults who made more memory mix-ups than younger participants showed these same neural patterns. So what is the brain signature when older adults get a memory right? Are other brain regions outside the hippocampus helping? We did not get a good answer for these questions from our study.

    What’s next

    Researchers are still learning how different brain regions talk to one another. One of the next frontiers in neuroscience is understanding how electrically stimulating the hippocampus prevents memory loss or restores lost memories.

    Future interventions might try to strengthen the hippocampus to prevent it from changing a memory after it’s stored. Researchers already have some ideas for this: intensive exercise, mindfulness training, brain stimulation and even recording memory cues on smartphones.

    But researchers still need to investigate whether changing the hippocampus can lead to stable, consistent memories over time.

    The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.
  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill – Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stress, improve mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: Canva – Researchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters