There are few things more British than fish and chips. It is the dish that sustained a nation through wartime, the meal that crosses every class boundary, and the comfort food that has been enjoyed by everyone from factory workers to royalty. But to dismiss it as merely a British institution is to miss a far more interesting story. Fish and chips is not just a national treasure; it is a global traveller, a cultural chameleon, and—believe it or not—a surprising muse for pop music. Its journey from humble beginnings to worldwide phenomenon is a tale worth telling, and it deserves to be recognised as more than just a takeaway.

Let us begin at the beginning, or rather, the contested beginning. The origin of the combined dish is genuinely unclear, and that ambiguity is part of its charm. London claims Joseph Malin, a Jewish immigrant who is said to have opened the first recorded combined fish and chip shop in the East End around 1860. Lancashire counters with John Lees, who supposedly sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in Mossley, near Oldham, around 1863. Some sources even point to Oldham as the site of the first chip shop around 1860. The honest answer is that nobody knows for sure. As one historian put it, several places popped up around the same time, and nobody realised at the time that something important was beginning. What is clear is that by the mid-19th century, fish and chips had emerged as wholesome food at an affordable price—a simple, filling meal for the working masses.

But it was never just for the masses. The dish has a remarkable ability to transcend social strata, and its encounters with the high and mighty are as entertaining as they are revealing. Queen Elizabeth II was a lifelong fan, a taste inherited from her father, King George VI, who would order fish and chips for the family while listening to the radio. Her Majesty, however, preferred a more refined preparation: hake instead of cod or haddock, oven-baked with a panko crust rather than deep-fried in batter, chips cut into perfect rectangles of equal length, and a homemade tarragon hollandaise sauce instead of the traditional tartare. In August 2002, Prince Edward and Sophie, then the Earl and Countess of Wessex, found themselves hungry after a late engagement at Holyrood Palace. With the palace chef gone for the night, they sent a chauffeur in a black limousine to Bene’s chippy on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile for two haddock suppers with plenty of salt and vinegar. And Prince William and Kate Middleton have a favourite chippy from their university days—the Anstruther Fish Bar in Fife—where they were spotted in May 2021 enjoying a £7.85 haddock and chip supper on a bench overlooking the harbour.

Winston Churchill understood the dish’s power perhaps better than anyone. He famously referred to fish and chips as “the good companions” and ensured they were not rationed during the Second World War, believing the meal was vital for national morale. A vivid anecdote from the BBC’s WW2 People’s War archive recounts that while Supreme Allied Commanders—Generals Montgomery, Bradley, and Eisenhower—and Churchill were in Tenby planning the D-Day landings, Montgomery suggested they “go for fish and chips.” They went to a local shop, and a 14-year-old girl famously told the assembled military might to move so she could clear their table—and they did. The dish even served as a recognition signal: during the D-Day landings, British soldiers reportedly used “Fish” and “Chips” as a challenge-and-response password, though the code was reportedly broken by the Germans.

Long before it was a national institution, fish and chips was already making its way into literature. Charles Dickens provides the earliest known literary references to the dish’s components: he mentions a “fried fish warehouse” in Oliver Twist (1839) and gives the first known use of the word “chips” in this context in A Tale of Two Cities (1859), writing of “husky chips of potato, fried with some reluctant drops of oil.” Hollywood legend Cary Grant, born Archibald Leach in Bristol, never lost his love for a humble bag of chips. He was a regular at the Rendezvous takeaway in his hometown, and it is said that when he returned to Bristol, he would even eat his fish and chips sitting in his Rolls-Royce. A diary entry from 1917 shows he once ate fish and chips twice in a single day. And in March 1967, after a gig in Newcastle, Jimi Hendrix bought fish and chips from Marshalls in Tynemouth and sat on a bench overlooking the sea to eat them; the shop still proudly displays a plaque commemorating the visit.

But the real story of fish and chips is not just about famous people eating it. It is about how the dish travelled the world, carried by migrants and adopted by cultures in ways that are often surprising. Australia’s first recorded fish and chip shop was opened not by a Briton but by a Greek migrant named Athanasias Comino in 1879 on Oxford Street in Sydney. Today there are an estimated 4,000 fish and chip shops across the country, using local fish like flake, barramundi, and snapper. In New Zealand, the dish was introduced by British settlers before the First World War, and its cultural impact is perhaps best captured by a famous 1980 photograph of four up-and-coming Labour Party politicians, including future Prime Minister David Lange, eating fish and chips. The image led to the group being nicknamed the “Fish and Chip Brigade,” a moniker that stuck and highlights the dish’s place in the national identity. New Zealanders are such devoted fans that they consume an estimated seven million servings each week.

Ireland’s story is a classic tale of a journey gone sideways. In the 1880s, an Italian immigrant named Giuseppe Cervi was on a ship bound for North America but mistakenly got off at Queenstown (now Cobh) in County Cork. He walked all the way to Dublin, where he began selling fish and chips from a handcart outside pubs. His wife, Palma, would reportedly ask customers, “Uno di questa, uno di quella?” (“One of this, one of that?”). This phrase became so associated with the meal that “one and one” is still a common way to order fish and chips in Dublin today.

In South Africa, fish and chips arrived not through a dedicated shop but through the ubiquitous “corner café” that sold a variety of goods. The early fish and chip shops that did exist were largely the domain of industrious Portuguese immigrants. The modern craze was sparked in 2005 when a franchise called “Old Fashioned Fish and Chips” was created, growing rapidly to 300 outlets and popularising British-style chippies across the social spectrum. Notably, they stuck with local hake rather than the traditional British cod. Other chains like Snoekies, established in Hout Bay in 1951, and Texies also have deep roots in the country.

In the United States, the dish took a different path. In the Northeast and Upper Midwest, it is more commonly known as a “fish fry,” a tradition with strong roots in Catholic communities abstaining from meat on Fridays and in Jewish immigrants who brought the technique of frying fish in oil. Fish and chips as a specific British-style meal did not widely catch on until after the Second World War. In 1969, the actor Arthur Treacher opened his first namesake fish-and-chip restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, helping popularise the concept. On the West Coast, Spud Fish & Chips was started by a British transplant, Jack Alger, in Seattle in 1935.

The global reach of the British appetite for fish and chips even had geopolitical consequences. As cod was the most popular fish for the dish, the British fishing fleet relied heavily on the rich waters around Iceland. When Iceland sought to protect its fish stocks by expanding its territorial waters in the mid-20th century, it led to a series of confrontations with the UK known as the “Cod Wars” (1958–1976). Despite its vastly superior naval power, the UK ultimately lost these conflicts. The dispute was fundamentally about access to the fish that was essential for Britain’s national dish. The dish also left marks in other corners of the world: it was introduced to Hong Kong during the British colonial era, and in the western Norwegian town of Kristiansund, fish and chips has been a local street-food tradition since the 1940s, where it is known as “fishan.”

And then there is the most unexpected chapter of all: the Punjabi song. Arif Lohar’s global hit “Aa” (sometimes referred to as “Aa tenu chips khwawan”) has an origin story tied directly to fish and chips. While rehearsing in London, Lohar casually asked his children to go and fetch some fish and chips from a shop. When they returned, he jokingly said, “Aa tenu chips khwawan” (“Come here, I’ll feed you chips”). That spontaneous, playful line became the seed for the song’s catchy tune. The song went on to amass over 101 million views and was notably featured on the official FIFA World Cup Instagram page in a post celebrating Lionel Messi’s birthday.

So what does all this tell us? It tells us that fish and chips is not merely a British dish. It is a global ambassador, a cultural chameleon, and a surprisingly powerful unifier. It has been enjoyed by queens and rock stars, by wartime leaders and Hollywood legends. It has sparked political nicknames in New Zealand, a diplomatic conflict with Iceland, and a viral Punjabi song. It has travelled with Greek migrants to Australia, Italian migrants to Ireland, and Portuguese migrants to South Africa. It has adapted to local tastes and local fish, from hake in South Africa to flake in Australia to panko-crusted hake for the Queen. It is wholesome food at an affordable price, popular with the masses, yet it has never been confined to the masses. It is the darling of the English-speaking world, but its appeal extends far beyond that. EK

---

By now, most Indians have heard the admonition at least once.

“Don’t drink water standing up.”

The warning often arrives not from a physician but from a parent, grandparent, or well-meaning elder. Sometimes the consequences are said to be severe: damage to the joints, arthritis, poor digestion, kidney problems, or improper absorption of water.

The claim is repeated so frequently that many assume it must be an established medical fact. Yet when one begins to investigate, an intriguing picture emerges: a convergence of traditional wisdom, modern physiology, and a healthy dose of myth-making.

The real question is not whether standing while drinking water is harmful. The more interesting question is why so many cultures have insisted that we sit down in the first place.

What Traditional Systems Say

Ayurveda has long emphasized mindful eating and drinking. Some popular interpretations discourage drinking water while standing, arguing that rapid intake can disturb digestion and the body’s internal balance. Similar attitudes toward calm, deliberate drinking can also be found in Siddha and Unani traditions, both of which place great importance on harmony, lifestyle regulation, and digestive health.

Yet there is an important distinction to be made.

Traditional systems frequently recommend how one should drink: calmly, attentively, and in moderation. The widely circulated claim that standing while drinking directly damages joints, however, is much harder to trace to classical texts and is often repeated today as inherited folk wisdom rather than documented doctrine.

In other words, the spirit of the advice may have survived more robustly than its original rationale.

What Modern Science Says

Modern physiology offers a simpler explanation.

When water is swallowed, it moves through the esophagus by muscular contractions known as peristalsis. The body is remarkably efficient at transporting and absorbing fluids regardless of whether a person is sitting, standing, or walking. Water absorption largely occurs in the intestines, and there is no evidence that posture significantly alters this process.

Likewise, there is no scientific evidence that drinking water while standing damages joints, causes arthritis, or impairs kidney function.

This does not mean that hydration is irrelevant to joint health. Quite the opposite.

Research on articular cartilage has shown that water plays a critical role in the mechanical properties of joints. Cartilage is composed of approximately 70 to 80 percent water and depends upon this hydration to distribute loads, absorb shock, and facilitate smooth movement.

But there is a crucial difference between saying that hydration matters and saying that standing while drinking water is harmful.

The former is supported by evidence.

The latter is not.

The Street Corner Test

Consider a familiar scene.

It is a blistering June afternoon in Delhi. A pedestrian, drenched in sweat, purchases a bottle of water from a roadside vendor. Should he refrain from drinking until he locates a chair?

Common sense suggests otherwise.

In such circumstances, the health priority is hydration, not posture.

Indeed, insisting that a thirsty person delay drinking because no seat is available elevates ritual above physiology. The body urgently needs fluid replacement; whether the person consumes that water standing beside a traffic signal or seated in a park is a secondary concern.

Sometimes the simplest examples expose the weakness of a claim better than any scientific study.

What, Then, Is the Value of Sitting?

If sitting confers no special hydraulic advantage, why has the advice endured?

Because the recommendation may never have been primarily about joints at all.

Sitting down naturally slows us.

A seated person is more likely to pause, sip, breathe, and pay attention. A standing or walking person is more likely to gulp. The distinction, therefore, may be behavioral rather than biological.

Traditional health systems emerged in worlds without hydration studies, MRI scans, or biomechanics laboratories. Their practitioners observed patterns in daily life and encoded many observations into practical rules.

“Sit before drinking water” may have functioned as a broader injunction:

Pause.

Rest.

Drink consciously.

Avoid haste.

Viewed through this lens, the advice becomes less about anatomy and more about temperament.

The Myth and the Wisdom

Modern discussions often force a false choice between tradition and science.

Either the ancients were right, or they were wrong.

Reality is usually more nuanced.

Science does not support the claim that drinking water while standing damages joints or prevents proper absorption.

At the same time, traditional advice may contain a practical insight that remains valuable today: mindful consumption is generally preferable to hurried consumption.

The wisdom survives even when the explanation changes.

So should one sit down before drinking water?

If convenient, certainly.

If it encourages slower, calmer drinking, even better.

But if you are thirsty on a summer afternoon, standing on a crowded street, water bottle in hand, do not waste time searching for a bench.

Drink the water.

Your joints will be fine. Your hydration matters far more. And perhaps the deeper lesson is not about posture at all, but about remembering, occasionally, to slow down. OT

A new study published in Circulation: Population Health and Outcomes has delivered an uncomfortable number: 79.2% of young adults, averaging just 23 years old, already show signs of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, or CKM. That means roughly four out of every five people in their early twenties are carrying at least one measurable risk factor for a disease cluster most of us associate with middle age, if we think about it at all before then.

CKM syndrome, formally defined by the American Heart Association in 2023, is built on a simple but consequential insight: obesity, diabetes, kidney disease and heart disease are not separate conditions that happen to occur together. They feed each other. Excess or poorly distributed body fat drives insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction. That dysfunction strains the kidneys, showing up as declining filtration or rising creatinine. Kidney impairment, in turn, accelerates cardiovascular damage. Each piece amplifies the others, which is why the AHA chose to name and stage them as one interconnected syndrome rather than four unrelated diagnoses.

The staging system runs from 0 to 4. Stage 0 means no risk factors at all. Stage 1 is excess or dysfunctional adiposity, often before any blood test would flag a problem. Stage 2 adds metabolic risk factors such as hypertension or early kidney disease. Stage 3 is subclinical cardiovascular disease or advanced kidney disease, meaning damage is detectable through testing even though the person feels fine. Stage 4 is clinical disease: a heart attack, a stroke, heart failure, or kidney failure that has already happened.

What makes the new study notable is not just the topline percentage but what lies underneath it. Researchers, led by Boston University cardiologist Donald Lloyd-Jones, drew on a cohort of nearly 1,300 young adults and paired CKM staging with carotid ultrasound imaging, a way of directly visualizing arterial injury rather than inferring risk from lab values alone. The staging breakdown was telling: 20.7% of participants sat at stage 0, 40.2% at stage 1, 36.2% at stage 2, and 2.8% had already progressed to stage 3, meaning measurable arterial damage. Not a single participant had reached stage 4. That last detail matters. This is not a story about young people already suffering heart attacks. It is a story about the invisible early architecture of heart disease assembling itself decades before any clinical event, in bodies that otherwise appear perfectly healthy.

That gap between early biological damage and eventual illness is exactly why the twenties deserve more attention than they currently get. Heart attacks and strokes tend to strike in the forties, fifties and sixties, so cardiovascular risk rarely enters a young adult’s thinking. But the underlying atherosclerotic process, researchers now understand, often begins accelerating well before that. A twenty-three-year-old with elevated blood pressure or early insulin resistance is not necessarily years away from consequences. Some already show the vascular fingerprints of a process already underway.

The AHA’s own answer for intervention is a framework called Life’s Essential 8, which scores cardiovascular health from 0 to 100 across eight components: diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep, body weight, blood lipids, blood glucose and blood pressure. The first five are behavioral and modifiable day to day. The last three are the biological readouts that, in effect, determine where someone falls on the CKM staging scale. A score of 80 or above is considered ideal, 50 to 79 intermediate, and below 50 poor, though because the score is an average, a strong result on one front can mask a serious problem on another.

None of this argues for alarm. It argues for attention. Stages 1 and 2, which capture the overwhelming majority of that 79%, are asymptomatic by definition. There is nothing to feel yet, which is precisely the problem, and precisely the opportunity. Routine screening in a person’s twenties, rather than a habit of waiting until something feels wrong, is what stands between a stage 1 finding and a stage 3 one. The biology, it turns out, does not wait for a diagnosis to begin. DE

We live in a world obsessed with age. From the moment we are born, our lives are measured in years, milestones, and birthdays. Yet, as science advances, it is becoming increasingly clear that calendar age is a crude and often misleading measure of human strength, resilience, and potential. A 70-year-old marathon runner and a 40-year-old struggling with chronic illness may share the similar chronological timeline, but their lived realities are worlds apart. What truly matters is not the number of candles on the cake, but the quality of the flame. This is where the concept of intrinsic capacity comes in — a multidimensional measure of physical and mental strength that offers a far more accurate picture of human vitality than age alone.

Intrinsic capacity, as defined by the World Health Organization, is the composite of all the abilities that allow us to function: cognition, locomotion, sensory perception, psychological well-being, and vitality. Think of it as a holistic profile of how well we are equipped to live, adapt, and thrive. Unlike age, which is fixed and linear, intrinsic capacity is dynamic. It can be strengthened, maintained, or eroded depending on lifestyle, environment, and interventions. This shift in perspective is revolutionary. It reframes aging not as inevitable decline, but as a process that can be managed, optimized, and even reversed in certain domains.

Research into intrinsic capacity is already underway in countries like France and the United States. France’s INSPIRE-T cohort is tracking older adults to understand how intrinsic capacity changes over time, integrating biomarkers with functional tests. In the U.S., large-scale studies like the Health and Retirement Study are embedding intrinsic capacity measures into their frameworks, while clinical trials explore how exercise, nutrition, and cognitive training can improve scores. These efforts are not just academic. They are laying the groundwork for policies that prioritize resilience over age, and for healthcare systems that treat individuals based on their functional profile rather than their birth certificate.

The WHO has gone further, scaling intrinsic capacity globally through its Decade of Healthy Ageing initiative. Thirty countries are now contributing data to establish a baseline for healthy aging worldwide. By tracking intrinsic capacity alongside functional ability and environmental factors, WHO aims to create a universal benchmark that can guide governments, clinicians, and communities. The ambition is clear: to shift the narrative from “how old are you?” to “how strong is your intrinsic capacity?” This is not just semantics. It is a profound reorientation of how societies think about health, independence, and dignity.

But intrinsic capacity is not only relevant to older adults. It matters just as much — perhaps even more — to people in their twenties and thirties. These are the decades when most domains of capacity peak. Cognitive sharpness, physical strength, and vitality are at their highest. Yet these years are also when habits are formed, stress accumulates, and resilience is tested. Young adults who invests in exercise, balanced nutrition, mental health, and sensory care are not just improving their present; they are safeguarding their future too. Intrinsic capacity is like a savings account. The deposits you make in youth — through learning, fitness, social engagement, and stress management — compound over time, protecting you against the withdrawals of aging.

Consider the five pillars of a holistic intrinsic profile: cognitive function, physical strength and mobility, sensory perception, mental health and mood, and vitality and stress tolerance. Each pillar can be strengthened with deliberate action. Lifelong learning and mindfulness sharpen cognition. Strength training and active commuting build mobility. Protecting eyes from screen strain and ears from loud music preserves sensory function. Therapy, social connections, and optimism practices bolster mental health. Balanced nutrition, sleep hygiene, and recovery routines enhance vitality. Together, these pillars form a resilient structure that can withstand the pressures of time.

The implications are enormous. For healthcare, intrinsic capacity offers a way to personalize interventions, focusing on the domains where an individual is most vulnerable. For policy, it provides a metric that can guide resource allocation, moving beyond age-based categories to capacity-based strategies. For individuals, it is empowering. Instead of being passive recipients of age, people can actively monitor and improve their intrinsic profile.

Challenges remain. Standardizing measurement across cultures and health systems is complex. Low- and middle-income countries may struggle with infrastructure. And sustaining motivation for lifestyle interventions is never easy. Yet the potential benefits far outweigh the obstacles. Intrinsic capacity is not just a scientific concept; it is a social contract. It asks us to value people not for how long they have lived, but for how well they can live.

Intrinsic capacity is about dignity. It is about recognizing that human strength is not measured in years, but in resilience, adaptability, and vitality. Whether you are 25 or 75, your intrinsic profile tells the real story of your health. And that story is one we can all shape, every day, with the choices we make. OT

Walk down the cooking oil aisle of any grocery store, and you will notice a distinct hierarchy of virtue. Extra virgin olive oil is treated like liquid gold, canola oil is marketed as the logical choice for a heart-healthy life, and palm oil is almost entirely invisible, tucked away inside the ingredient lists of processed snack foods. In food media, palm oil is routinely cast as a nutritional villain—a cheap, artery-clogging sludge that is best avoided. But if you strip away the loud geopolitical rhetoric and look strictly at the underlying biochemistry, a completely different story emerges. The relentless vilification of palm oil has far less to do with its actual impact on human health and far more to do with its unforgivable sin in the global marketplace: it is simply too inexpensive.

To truly understand palm oil, one must first look at how it compares to traditional culinary darlings like ghee or clarified butter.. For generations, clarified butter has been praised for its rich flavor and high smoke point, despite being an animal fat consisting of up to seventy-two percent saturated fat. Ghee is also heavily loaded with systemic cholesterol, containing nearly three hundred milligrams per hundred grams. Palm oil, by contrast, is a purely plant-derived lipid. It contains zero milligrams of cholesterol. More surprisingly, its saturated fat content hovers between forty-five and fifty-one percent. While it lacks the quick-burning short and medium-chain fatty acids that give ghee its rapid digestibility, palm oil cleverly compensates for this gap through its unique unsaturated structure. It balances its saturated palmitic acid with a massive volume of monounsaturated oleic acid—the exact same heart-healthy fat that dominates olive oil—and double to triple the polyunsaturated linoleic acid found in dairy fats.

When palm oil is fractionated into its liquid form, known as palm olein, it becomes an even more formidable competitor to Western seed oils. Palm olein drops its saturated fat content significantly, settling into a stable sweet spot of roughly forty percent saturated and forty-five percent monounsaturated fat. This structural blueprint gives it a profound advantage over highly unsaturated options like canola oil when exposed to intense heat. Canola oil boasts a low saturated fat profile, but its high concentration of polyunsaturated fats makes it chemically fragile. When subjected to prolonged industrial deep-frying, canola oil oxidizes rapidly, generating toxic polar compounds. Palm olein resists this degradation entirely. It behaves with the molecular stamina of an animal fat, resisting rancidity and heat damage, all while keeping its systemic cholesterol at zero. Clinical trials comparing palm olein to olive oil have shown remarkably similar outcomes regarding overall weight and metabolic markers. While palmitic acid can prompt the liver to produce more LDL cholesterol, the accompanying oleic acid concurrently stabilizes HDL cholesterol, rendering the oil’s impact on blood lipids generally neutral to mildly positive when consumed as part of a balanced diet.

Why, then, does the narrative surrounding palm oil remain so toxic? The answer lies in botanical efficiency. The oil palm is a geometric miracle of agriculture, yielding anywhere from four to ten times more oil per hectare than soy, sunflower, or canola. Because it requires a fraction of the land and labor to produce a metric ton of oil, it completely undercuts the pricing of Western-produced agricultural oils. Unable to compete on price, domestic market interests and environmental campaigns aligned, aggressively highlighting the ecological footprint of tropical deforestation. Over time, this valid environmental critique was subtly conflated with nutritional toxicity in the minds of consumers. This bias was further cemented by how palm oil arrives on Western plates. It is rarely sold as a clear, liquid bottle of cooking oil for home use; instead, it is imported as a cheap structural replacement for banned trans-fats in ultra-processed junk foods like cookies, instant noodles, and frozen pizzas. As a result, observational health studies frequently link palm oil consumption to poor cardiovascular health, failing to note that palm oil consumption is merely a proxy marker for a diet heavy in processed foods. When utilized cleanly as a domestic frying oil, palm olein is not a dietary hazard, but a stable, reliable, and perfectly healthy staple that easily holds its ground against its more expensive peers. LE

Every day, millions of South Asian households unknowingly cook with, snack on, and feed their children a substance that is part nutritional poison and part industrial heavy-metal waste. Hydrogenated Oil or Vanaspati, universally known by the brand name Dalda, is marketed as a cheap, shelf-stable alternative to desi ghee. But beneath its golden, buttery facade lies a chemical abomination that no human digestive system was ever designed to process. To call it the worst food ever produced is not alarmist rhetoric; it is a sober scientific verdict backed by decades of cardiological and toxicological research. This is not merely unhealthy food. This is edible industrial sludge, legally passed off as a cooking fat.

The creation of this ‘sludge’ begins with healthy liquid vegetable oils, such as palm or soybean oil, which are rich in unsaturated long-chain fatty acids known to support heart health. To transform these liquids into a semi-solid block that mimics the texture of ghee, manufacturers blast them with hydrogen gas at extremely high temperatures in the presence of powdered nickel catalyst. This hydrogenation process forces the oil to harden, but in doing so, it creates artificial trans fats, molecular misfits that your body does not recognize. Unlike natural fats, these trans isomers jam your metabolic machinery, raising bad LDL cholesterol while simultaneously crashing good HDL cholesterol. The World Health Organization has calculated that consuming just two grams of artificial trans fat per day, a trivial amount easily found in a single samosa fried in Dalda, increases your risk of heart disease by nearly a quarter. No other dietary component delivers such a potent cardiovascular blow at such a minuscule dose.

However, the nutritional catastrophe is only half the story. What makes Vanaspati uniquely sinister, and what separates it from other processed foods, is the toxic heavy metal that remains trapped within its fatty matrix. The nickel catalyst used to force hydrogen into the oil is never fully filtered out. Regulatory bodies like the FSSAI permit a residual nickel content of up to one part per million, but this is a legal limit, not a physiological safety threshold. Filtration is a physical process, and straining microscopic metal dust out of a thick, greasy block is commercially impossible. In practice, particularly in unregulated small-scale mills, the residual nickel can climb far higher. When you eat Vanaspati, you are not just ingesting damaged fats; you are ingesting a known carcinogenic heavy metal that slowly leaches into your body over hours of digestion. The acidic environment of the stomach releases ionic nickel from these trapped particles, generating massive oxidative stress that directly damages DNA and inhibits the body’s natural repair mechanisms.

The consequences of this chronic metal exposure are terrifyingly broad. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies nickel compounds as Group 1 carcinogens, with chronic oral intake specifically linked to gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers. But cancer is merely the endpoint of a long cascade of damage. Nickel bioaccumulates in human tissue, with a biological half-life of up to four decades. It primarily deposits in the kidneys, where it induces proximal tubular necrosis, and in the liver, leading to interstitial fibrosis over time. Dermatologists across the subcontinent frequently see patients with unexplained hand and foot eczema, a manifestation of systemic nickel allergy syndrome exacerbated by dietary intake. Respiratory irritation, chronic organ scarring, and mitochondrial dysfunction are all well-documented outcomes of low-level, long-term nickel exposure. The tragedy is that this metal residue is entirely avoidable, yet it remains a silent, invisible contaminant in millions of daily meals.

What makes this situation even more insidious is the synergistic destruction caused by the combination of trans fats and heavy metals. The artificial trans fats compromise the integrity of your cell membranes, making them more permeable and less selective. Through these weakened barriers, nickel ions slip directly into the mitochondria, the power plants of your cells. Once inside, nickel displaces essential minerals like magnesium and zinc from enzymatic sites, crippling energy production and triggering ferroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of cell death. This is not a theoretical risk; it is a daily, ongoing biological assault occurring in the bodies of millions.

Perhaps most frustrating is the regulatory charade. Food inspectors in India and Pakistan routinely test for trans-fat content but rarely, if ever, test for heavy metal residues in the final retail product, as such analysis using atomic absorption spectroscopy is expensive and time-consuming. We have created a food that is simultaneously atherogenic, carcinogenic, and hepatotoxic. It damages the heart, poisons the liver, scars the kidneys, and mutates the DNA—all in one inexpensive, widely available package. The only sane response is to treat Dalda or Vanaspati not as food, but as industrial waste.

For decades, the weighing scale has been treated almost like a health report card. Lose a few kilograms and we congratulate ourselves; gain a few and we worry. Body weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) have become familiar shorthand for judging whether someone is healthy. But a growing understanding of ageing and metabolism suggests that the scale may be telling us only half the story. The more meaningful measure of health may be not how much we weigh, but how much of that weight is muscle.

Two people can weigh exactly the same and have completely different bodies. One may have substantial muscle, relatively little visceral fat and good physical strength; the other may have less muscle and considerably more fat. Their weighing scales will show the same number, but their metabolic health, physical capacity and prospects for independent living may be very different.

Muscle is far more than the tissue that allows us to lift weights or look athletic. It is one of the body’s most important metabolic organs. After a meal, skeletal muscle accounts for the bulk of insulin-stimulated glucose disposal—often estimated at roughly 70 to 80 per cent under insulin-stimulated conditions. In simple terms, muscles act as a huge glucose sink, taking glucose out of the bloodstream to use as energy or store as glycogen. This makes healthy muscle particularly important for maintaining good glucose regulation.

Muscle is also metabolically active at rest and consumes more energy than an equivalent amount of fat. The difference should not be exaggerated: a kilogram of muscle does not burn hundreds of calories simply by sitting inside the body. But the larger metabolic importance of muscle lies in its ability to store and use glucose, support physical activity and maintain the body’s capacity to respond to nutritional and metabolic demands.

Then comes ageing. Muscle mass generally reaches its peak in early adulthood, often during the 20s and early 30s. The muscle built during those years can be thought of as a physiological reserve. The larger the reserve built before age-related decline begins, the more capacity there may be to withstand the gradual losses that accompany ageing. In that sense, building muscle in youth is rather like building up savings for retirement: the benefit may become most apparent decades later.

This does not mean, however, that the story is decided at 30. Far from it. Muscle remains remarkably responsive to resistance training throughout life. Older adults can strengthen their muscles and improve physical function even when they begin exercising relatively late. The gains may be slower than in youth, but the body’s capacity to adapt does not suddenly disappear with age.

This matters because maintaining the same body weight becomes increasingly difficult as we grow older. As muscle declines, resting energy expenditure tends to fall. Physical activity may decline as well. If food intake remains unchanged, the resulting energy surplus can gradually become body fat. The most deceptive part is that the weighing scale may barely move. A person can remain at approximately the same weight while losing muscle and gaining fat. The number has stayed constant, but the body composition has changed dramatically.

The consequences extend beyond appearance. Muscle increasingly becomes a determinant of independence in later life. Low muscle mass, particularly when accompanied by reduced muscle strength, is associated with poorer mobility and a greater risk of falls. Everyday actions that younger people take for granted—rising from a chair, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, getting out of a car or walking confidently across a street—depend upon adequate muscular strength.

That is why the real objective of healthy ageing should not simply be to remain thin or maintain an arbitrary number on the weighing scale. It should be to preserve muscle, strength and physical function. Sarcopenia—the age-related decline in muscle mass, strength and function—is not merely an aesthetic problem. It can gradually erode the physical independence that gives older life its dignity.

The good news is that muscle is an unusually forgiving investment. The 20s and 30s may be the best years to build a substantial reserve, but the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond are not too late. Resistance exercise, adequate protein, good nutrition and regular physical activity can help preserve or rebuild muscle.

Perhaps, therefore, we should stop asking only, “What do you weigh?” A better question might be, “How strong are you, and how much muscle are you carrying?” The weighing scale measures kilograms. Muscle measures capability. And as life expectancy increases, capability—not merely body weight—may prove to be the more valuable currency of healthy ageing.

In the quiet world inside our intestines lives a vast community of microorganisms that do far more than digest food. They shape immunity, metabolism, mood, and—most strikingly—the health of our hearts. What was once dismissed as digestive trivia has emerged as a central player in coronary artery disease, the leading killer worldwide. The evidence is no longer fringe; it is mechanistic, reproducible, and increasingly actionable.

The gut-heart axis operates largely through metabolites. Certain bacteria convert dietary choline and carnitine—abundant in red meat and egg yolks—into trimethylamine, which the liver oxidizes into trimethylamine N-oxide, or TMAO. Elevated TMAO drives foam-cell formation, impairs cholesterol transport, heightens platelet reactivity, and fuels vascular inflammation. At the same time, beneficial microbes ferment fiber into short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate and propionate. These molecules lower blood pressure, calm systemic inflammation, strengthen the intestinal barrier, and protect the endothelium. When the balance tips toward dysbiosis, protective species dwindle, pro-inflammatory pathways surge, and the arteries pay the price.

A 2025 metagenomic study crystallized these links. Comparing patients with coronary artery disease to matched healthy controls, researchers identified fifteen bacterial species whose abundances differed significantly. Members of the Lachnospiraceae family, some associated with TMAO production, were enriched in disease. In contrast, short-chain fatty acid producers, notably Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Slackia isoflavoniconvertens, were depleted. Pathway analysis revealed overactivation of the urea cycle and L-citrulline biosynthesis, alongside reduced capacity for beneficial fermentation. Even more telling were the strain-level differences: the same species, including Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, carried distinct genetic toolkits depending on whether they inhabited a diseased or healthy gut. One protective strain of F. prausnitzii harbored a gene that avoids producing trimethylamine, underscoring that function, not mere presence, determines risk.

These discoveries have moved the field beyond description into intervention. Scientists are testing a spectrum of gut-directed strategies. The most accessible remains diet. Mediterranean and high-fiber patterns reliably boost short-chain fatty acid producers, while limiting TMAO precursors, delivering measurable improvements in lipid profiles and inflammatory markers. Probiotics and prebiotics offer more targeted leverage. Specific strains of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Akkermansia have shown, in smaller trials, reductions in TMAO, modest cholesterol lowering, better endothelial function, and decreased inflammation. Synbiotics that combine both approaches are under active study.

Pharmacological precision is also advancing. Mechanism-based inhibitors of microbial TMA lyases—compounds such as dimethylbutanol and its more potent analogs—block the first step of TMAO generation inside the gut without killing the microbes themselves. In animal models they shrink plaques, dampen thrombosis, and lower circulating TMAO with minimal systemic exposure. Engineered probiotics coated with responsive nanoparticles take the concept further, delivering sustained local inhibition while scavenging oxidative stress. Fecal microbiota transplantation, though still limited by safety and standardization concerns for coronary disease, has demonstrated proof-of-principle benefits in metabolic syndrome and is being refined into more controlled live biotherapeutics.

None of these approaches is ready to replace statins, blood-pressure control, or smoking cessation. Most human data still rest on surrogate endpoints rather than hard clinical events. Large, adequately powered trials are essential, and individual microbiome variability demands precision rather than one-size-fits-all prescriptions. Yet the trajectory is clear. We are moving from treating the downstream consequences of atherosclerosis to interrupting upstream microbial drivers.

The implication is profound. Coronary artery disease is not solely a disease of cholesterol and blood pressure; it is also a disease of microbial ecology. Supporting a diverse, fiber-nourished gut community is no longer optional wellness advice—it is cardiovascular prevention. As research accelerates from mapping species to engineering therapies, the next decade may bring microbiome diagnostics that flag risk before plaques form and interventions that restore protective functions with the same rigor we apply to lipid-lowering drugs. The heart, it turns out, listens closely to the gut. It is time medicine did the same. OK

A team at RIKEN in Japan sequenced the immune cells of seven people who had lived past 110 in 2019 and found something that shouldn’t, by the textbook, exist in such numbers. Scattered through their blood were CD4 T cells — the “helper” cells whose job is normally to direct the immune response, not to kill anything directly — that had somehow acquired the killing machinery of their cousins, the CD8 cytotoxic T cells. In most healthy adults, these CD4 cytotoxic T lymphocytes, or CD4 CTLs, make up a few percent of the T cell population at most. In the supercentenarians, they averaged a quarter of all T cells present, with the most dominant clones alone accounting for 15 to 35 percent of the entire CD4 pool. The cells weren’t just numerous; they behaved like killers, producing the same inflammatory signalling molecules, interferon-gamma and TNF-alpha, on stimulation as classic cytotoxic T cells, and running a transcriptional program almost indistinguishable from that of CD8 CTLs, despite still carrying the CD4 marker that supposedly disqualified them from that role.

This week, the same Osaka University group, led by Kousuke Hashimoto, published a follow-up in Cell Reports that fills in the timeline and raises the stakes. Working with blood from twenty-eight Japanese adults split into three brackets — ages 70 to 99, centenarians, and supercentenarians — they tracked the CD4 CTL fraction rising steadily with age: a median of 4 percent in the youngest group, 9.6 percent in centenarians, and 17.6 percent in those past 110. The expansion, they found, is not a gradual thinning of the whole population toward cytotoxicity but the explosive growth of a handful of clones: the single largest clone in each person’s CD4 CTL pool accounted for an average of 33.3 percent of it, and in one centenarian, more than half. Crucially, these clones showed no sign of exhaustion, the state in which T cells that have been fighting the same target for too long lose their potency. Instead they remained active, cycling, and — when the researchers matched the receptor sequences of the dominant clones against a public database of cancer-associated T cell repertoires — turned up nearly three dozen matches to T cells previously found infiltrating lung, breast, and liver tumours. None of the study’s centenarians or supercentenarians had been diagnosed with those cancers, which led Hashimoto to a striking, if necessarily speculative, interpretation: that these expanded clones may be quietly recognising and suppressing malignant or abnormal cells before they ever progress to detectable disease.

It is worth being precise about what has and hasn’t been shown. The paper is explicit that it does not establish that CD4 CTLs cause longevity, or that their abundance is protective against cancer; the correlation between age and cell count is real, but the causal arrow is unproven, and the sample — twenty-eight people, all Japanese — is small enough that generalising to other populations is premature. The pattern is also not exclusive to the very old: one participant younger than 100 had a higher proportion of these cells than anyone else in the study, a reminder that whatever is driving this expansion is not simply a clock running out. Independent researchers have been similarly measured. Alon Monsonego, who studies CD4 CTLs at Ben-Gurion University and was not involved in either paper, has described the new work as useful rather than a breakthrough — a foundation for follow-up studies rather than a finished explanation.

Still, the finding sits awkwardly against a default assumption in immunology, sometimes called immunosenescence: that the immune system simply wears down with age, its cells growing fewer, less responsive, and less able to distinguish threat from self. What the two Osaka studies suggest instead is a system that, at its very extreme, is still doing something — reorganising, redeploying, converting general-purpose helper cells into what looks like a standing army of specialists tuned to whatever chronic, low-grade threats a body accumulates across eleven decades of life. Hashimoto’s own framing captures this: “immune aging is not simply a process of decline.” Whether that reorganisation is a cause of exceptional longevity, a downstream consequence of it, or simply a marker that travels alongside it, remains to be worked out. But the fact that a healthy immune system might still be actively adapting at 110 — rather than merely failing more slowly than everyone else’s — is itself worth sitting with. DE

In our fast‑paced world, sleeping less than six hours a night is often worn as a badge of productivity. Yet a growing body of evidence shows that this habit is not a neutral trade‑off but a slow, systemic stressor that quietly elevates the risk of high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, irregular heart rhythms, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. For anyone concerned about long‑term cardiovascular health—especially in midlife—chronic short sleep is one of the most modifiable yet under‑appreciated risk factors.

The cardiovascular toll begins early and compounds over time. Habitual sleep under six hours is consistently associated with higher blood pressure, greater incidence of coronary heart disease, and more arrhythmias. Large cohort analyses link short sleep to roughly a 20% increase in heart attacks and up to a 48% higher risk of developing or dying from coronary disease. Mechanistically, insufficient sleep raises sympathetic tone, cortisol, and inflammatory markers, all of which constrict blood vessels, stiffen arteries, and destabilize electrical activity in the heart. The result is a physiology primed for hypertension, atherosclerosis, and irregular rhythms.

Stroke risk follows a similar pattern. Adults who average fewer than seven hours of sleep are more likely to have a stroke, with risk rising as sleep time shortens. Meta‑analyses tie sleeping under six hours to about a 15% higher stroke risk, and in people who already have hypertension or diabetes, short sleep roughly doubles the risk of dying from stroke or heart disease. This is not merely correlation; short sleep promotes the very conditions—high blood pressure, insulin resistance, inflammation, and clotting tendency—that drive cerebrovascular events.

Perhaps the most consequential pathway is metabolic. Sleeping five to six hours a night approximately doubles the risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes compared with seven to eight hours. Dose‑response meta‑analyses show a U‑shaped curve, with the lowest diabetes risk at 7–8 hours; each hour less than seven raises risk by about 9–15%, and short sleep overall is linked to a 28–30% higher incidence of type 2 diabetes. Once diabetes is present, deviating from the 7–9 hour sleep window is associated with more cardiovascular events and higher cardiovascular mortality, independent of other risk factors. In other words, short sleep not only increases the chance of developing diabetes; it also worsens outcomes for those who already have it.

Weight gain and obesity complete the triad. Short sleep shifts appetite hormones—increasing ghrelin and decreasing leptin—while heightening cravings and reducing energy expenditure. Cross‑sectional and prospective studies consistently find that habitually short sleepers have higher body mass index and waist circumference, and meta‑analyses associate short sleep with about a 38% higher obesity risk. In one long‑term cohort, young adults sleeping under six hours were 7.5 times more likely to have an elevated BMI by age 27 after adjusting for activity and family history. Obesity then feeds back into hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and sleep apnea, creating a self‑reinforcing loop that further strains the heart.

These pathways do not operate in isolation; they interact. Short sleep promotes higher blood pressure, insulin resistance, and weight gain, which together accelerate metabolic syndrome and atherosclerosis, culminating in higher risks of heart attack, stroke, arrhythmias, and heart failure. The stakes are especially high for people with existing cardiometabolic disease. Among those with hypertension or diabetes, sleeping less than six hours doubles the risk of cardiovascular death; among those with established heart disease or stroke, short sleep triples the risk of death, including from cancer.

Recognizing this, the American Heart Association added sleep duration to its Life’s Essential 8 metrics for cardiovascular health, recommending 7–9 hours for adults. This is not a luxury; it is preventive medicine. Consistently sleeping less than seven hours raises cardiovascular mortality by about 12% and diabetes risk by roughly 38%, while short sleep is linked to a 12% higher all‑cause mortality in meta‑analyses. For most adults, moving from under six hours toward a stable 7–8 hour window can meaningfully reduce risk over time, even if perfection is not immediately achievable.

The cultural narrative that equates minimal sleep with strength needs to change. In reality, regularly sleeping under six hours is a modifiable risk factor that quietly erodes vascular health, destabilizes metabolism, and burdens the heart. Prioritizing sleep is not indulgence; it is an investment in longevity, cognitive resilience, and cardiovascular stability. For individuals and health systems alike, treating sleep as a core pillar of prevention—alongside diet, activity, and blood pressure control—is one of the highest‑yield steps we can take to reduce the burden of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.