BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM Cold plunges have become a staple in many wellness routines. From viral TikToks to health retreats, everyone seems to be diving into icy tubs for muscle recovery, mental clarity, and stress relief. But a growing number of experts are urging women to approach the trend with a bit more caution. Recently, acupuncturist Katie Pedrick went viral for her Instagram video proclaiming, “Cold plunges are not great for women.” Her reasoning? A study she cited found no major benefits for women as well as a few surprising drawbacks, including elevated cortisol levels. “Our bodies are not the same,” Pedrick emphasized, “and wellness advice needs to reflect that.” So, is this a case of misapplied data, or a genuinely important difference that’s been overlooked? Here’s what the latest science, women’s health experts, and sports medicine doctors say. What happens in a woman’s body during a cold plunge The initial shock of a cold plunge is real. Submerging yourself in water at or below 59°F triggers a stress response in anyone, no matter the gender. Your heart rate spikes, blood vessels constrict, and adrenaline floods your system. “You might start to breathe faster or gasp suddenly,” explains Ron Clijsen, PhD, head of research at the Rehabilitation and Exercise Science Laboratory (RESlab). “This triggers your body’s stress response, releasing chemicals that cause your heart to beat faster and your blood pressure to rise.” Vanessa Wellauer, co-author on the study Pedrick referenced, adds that this vasoconstriction helps your body preserve core temperature but it’s also what makes the experience feel so intense. Then, thermogenesis kicks in. “The body starts to produce its own heat by shivering and activating brown fat tissue,” says Michael Swartzon, MD, a sports medicine physician at Baptist Health Orthopedic Care. And yes, stress hormones spike. Cortisol and catecholamines go up temporarily, activating your immune system and energy reserves. So, what’s different for women? The physiological response to cold plunges is similar in men and women, but there are some key differences. “Women have more body fat, which acts as insulation, but they also tend to have a more intense sensitivity to cold,” says Sherry Ross, MD, a women’s health expert. “This means they might feel discomfort sooner and more sharply than men.” Hormonal shifts also play a role. After ovulation, women’s baseline core body temperature rises. “This may affect cold tolerance and shivering threshold,” Dr. Clijsen says. Dr. Stacy Sims, an exercise physiologist, points out that extremely cold plunges may provoke a stronger stress response in women. So much so that it may send the body into a protective “shutdown” mode. She suggests 55°F as a more comfortable temperature for most women. The study behind the buzz Let’s be clear: the study that sparked this viral moment didn’t claim that cold plunges are harmful to women. What it found was that cold water immersion didn’t offer the same recovery benefits for women as seen in men. “The absence of objective benefits does not imply that cold water immersion is harmful,” Dr. Clijsen emphasizes. “That’s a very different question—one our study wasn’t designed to answer.” So why the alarm bells? Likely because many wellness trends are based on studies that primarily include men. When women are finally studied, the results often challenge one-size-fits-all assumptions. When cold plunges might not be a great idea While cold plunges aren’t necessarily “bad” for women, there are situations when they should be avoided: If you have heart disease, poor circulation, or are pregnant If you’re extremely sensitive to cold or prone to anxiety If the plunge leaves you feeling stressed, rather than energized “Short-term cortisol spikes aren’t harmful in a healthy person,” Dr. Swartzon says, “but if you’re already under a lot of stress, it may not feel good.” Dr. Ross adds that the risks like elevated heart rate or hypothermia could outweigh benefits like muscle recovery or mood boosts for some women. So, should women stop cold plunging? Not necessarily. Like most wellness practices, it depends on your body. If cold plunges leave you feeling refreshed, and you’re otherwise healthy, there’s no strong reason to stop. “If you enjoy them, ease in gradually,” Dr. Swartzon advises. “Start with shorter durations or higher temperatures and work your way down.” You may want to time your plunges around your menstrual cycle, avoid extremes during high-stress weeks, and track how your body responds over time. As always, check in with your physician if you have underlying health concerns. Bottom line  Cold plunges aren’t inherently harmful for women, but they’re not a cure-all either. Tune into your body, stay informed, and don’t be afraid to warm up your approach if the cold just isn’t working for you.  The post Should women rethink cold plunges? What science says about gender, stress, and ice baths first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM After years of negotiations and national approvals, a landmark World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement aimed at reducing overfishing officially took effect on September 15. The deal requires countries to scale back subsidies that encourage unsustainable fishing practices, with the goal of protecting dwindling marine life and promoting global food security. The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies marks a first on multiple fronts: it is the organization’s first treaty centered on environmental protection and the first broad, binding multilateral pact dedicated to safeguarding the world’s oceans. Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who has long championed the effort, called the agreement a critical step toward “ensuring sustainability of wildlife in the world’s seas and oceans.” Building global momentum The pact cleared its final hurdle when Brazil, Kenya, Tonga, and Vietnam formally adopted it, bringing the total number of supporting countries to 112; That’s just over the two-thirds threshold required from WTO’s 166 members. Major powers including China, the United States, and the European Union are on board, though key players such as India and Indonesia remain holdouts. The Pew Charitable Trust highlighted the agreement’s impact on the estimated 22 billion dollars in annual subsidies that fuel overfishing worldwide. Under the deal, a portion of those funds will be restricted, and a dedicated “fish fund” will help developing nations implement the changes. What the agreement covers (and what it doesn’t) For now, the rules apply to subsidies tied to illegal fishing and already overfished stocks. A second, unfinished phase would go further by curbing subsidies that lead to overcapacity in industrial fishing fleets, such as funds that support the construction of new vessels. The economic stakes are high. As experts note, the more ships global fleets can build, the cheaper and more attractive large-scale fishing becomes. This encourages a dynamic that threatens to drive fish stocks to collapse. Advocates hope that early progress on the first phase will generate momentum for the second. Why overfishing matters now Ocean conservation groups stress that the urgency could not be greater. One such organization, Oceana, points out that fish populations were already declining more than a generation ago, and today “the situation is even more dire,” with an estimated 38 percent of global stocks overfished. Rashid Sumaila, an Oceana board member and head of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at the University of British Columbia, emphasized the human cost: “Without fish, it’s game over for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on the ocean.” Sumaila also cautioned that while the agreement is historic, it is not sufficient on its own. “The first phase won’t stop the billions in subsidies that fuel overfishing and overcapacity,” he said. “But it does create a foundation that must be built on further.” A foundation for the future The WTO’s fisheries agreement represents a fragile but hopeful step in tackling one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. For conservationists, policymakers, and coastal communities, the measure is not an endpoint but a beginning. A beginning that underscores how international cooperation can still make waves in protecting shared resources.The post World Trade Organization launches first global agreement to curb overfishing first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

If you should die today, or tomorrow, or next week, do you know where you will spend eternity? If not, you can settle your eternal destination right now by receiving Jesus’ gift of Salvation, received through His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave.

[View Article at Source]How did we get to this terrible point? The post The Normalization of Assassination appeared first on The American Conservative.

[View Article at Source]The moving ideology behind hug-a-thug law enforcement is down, but not yet out. The post Quo Vadis, Legal Realism? appeared first on The American Conservative.

[View Article at Source]Trump derangement syndrome shouldn’t get in the way of facts. The post A Letter to a Friend appeared first on The American Conservative.

Paid offers an interesting contribution to the AI agentic world: a platform for so-called "results-based" billing.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs The Normalization of Assassination How did we get to this terrible point? Credit: Isaac Brekken/Getty Images/AFP via Getty Images The news has been filled with reports of assassinations, attempted assassinations, and shootings targeted against law enforcement. The spate of political violence has seriously eroded America’s legitimacy as a moral and decent state. How did we get here? U.S. state violence on the world stage may help explain the rise of political violence here at home. The idea of political assassination gained traction with the U.S. intelligence services during World War II, which was viewed (somewhat understandably) as an existential struggle that justified any act, however illegal, that was necessary for the cause. During the Cold War, that mindset continued, but the illegal killing was hidden because it was inconsistent with the shining-city-on-the-hill propaganda. Certain intelligence agencies secretly supported a number of high-profile political assassinations, such as the 1961 killing of Prime Minister Patrice Lamumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the 1963 killing of President Diem of South Vietnam, not to mention a number of attempts to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba. These killings were presented as organic local forces rising up against “corrupt” leaders. Then and now, any leader who was disobedient to the U.S. regime was by definition “corrupt.” Because of embarrassing press reports of the CIA and FBI’s illegal operations in and out of the United States, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed in 1975 to investigate the abuses of power and direct harm to U.S. citizens. It was conveniently called the Church Committee after the chairman, Frank Church of Idaho. The nation was shocked by what was revealed, including operations such as MKULTRA, a mind control experiment on unwitting U.S. citizens who were subjected to destabilizing drug exposure and other abuse. It is believed that much of the really appalling MKULTRA information was hidden and destroyed. Americans also learned about COINTELPRO (acronym for Counter Intelligence Program), a series of  FBI operations aimed to disrupt and harm American anti-war and civil rights groups. The committee also uncovered operations performing illegal assassinations. For two years, the Church Committee uncovered many disgusting abuses and recommended oversight and controls to end them. But it was not long before the oversight and controls faded. In 1986, the Iran–Contra scandal exploded and exposed the Reagan administration, which had funneled arms through Israel to our “enemy” Iran to provide funds for anti-communist guerrilla  operations in Central America. It was a huge scandal, and there were indications that it was also a money laundering operation to support other illegal behavior by intel agencies. These embarrassing revelations caused the agencies to be more careful. The first Gulf War led to the U.S. stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a long term goal of the ZioCons and a provocation to many Muslims in the region.  Then came the big enchilada: The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington birthed the Global War on Terror. The previous existential threat of the Cold War had fizzled out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This new existential threat provided the excuse to invade and wreck a number of nations the ZioCons had had in their sights for decades. Who could argue against fighting terrorists? Since the GWOT was deemed existential, the George W. Bush administration saw fit to torture and kill suspected terrorists without any due process. Not wanting to be accused of sympathy for terrorists, many politicians and media figures held their tongues or even actively supported the White House. As a result, the U.S. regime’s policy morphed from secretly murdering people to bragging about the number of suspected terrorists killed.  Even though many of the terror organizations were financed by the U.S. and/or friends of the U.S., the vast propaganda characterized them as terrorists so dastardly they must be eradicated at all costs. If we had to blow up a house full of people, a whole wedding party, a whole funeral party, or a school to get one suspect, the innocent bystanders were just “collateral damage.” If anyone complained about the illegal killings, they were accused of being supporters of terrorist causes. This is the same technique used today against people who object to the genocide in Gaza. When Barack Obama, after campaigning against dumb wars, came to power (winning the Nobel Peace Prize in the first year of his presidency), he had to prove he wasn’t soft on terrorists, so he upped the rate of killing of suspected terrorists. President Donald Trump continued the practice and still brags about the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, which was another turning point. Soleimani, the top Iranian general, was killed near Baghdad airport on his way to a diplomatic conference. The U.S. regime’s excuse was that he was a terrorist. (Note: According to research by Larry Johnson, it appears that most of the terrorism in the Middle East is committed by Sunni groups, including those backed by Israel and the U.S., not Iranian-backed Shia militants). The American people have been conditioned by decades of Zionist propaganda about terrorists, so there has been no establishment resistance to these illegal assassinations. Recently, Israel has been more brazen and public about assassinations targeting the leadership of its opponents. In September 2024, the Israelis executed the horrific exploding pager operation against Hezbollah in which thousands of pagers exploded in Lebanon and Syria. Hundreds of civilians including children were killed or maimed. Upon Israel’s Prime Minister Neranyahu’s next visit to the U.S., he presented Trump with a golden pager as a trophy. Trump’s acceptance indicated his approval of this ghastly act (though he reportedly was disturbed by the gift). On June 13, Israel attempted a decapitation strike against Iran just days before a planned diplomatic meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators. Trump demonstrated his complicity by bragging about it and bombing Iran shortly afterward. On August 28, the Israelis killed the prime minister and 10 civilian cabinet members of the Yemeni government.  A September 9 attack targeting Hamas negotiators gathering in Doha (to prepare for negotiation with U.S. diplomats) caused real alarm among the Gulf states. Washington’s obvious support for this and other assassinations demonstrates to the world that it is not only Israel which is disinterested in diplomacy, but also the U.S. regime. Israel has had a long history of assassinating people they do not like, including many members of the press, diplomats, and civilian officials. Now the U.S. (as Israel’s largest weapons supplier and financier) is closely associated with and openly supportive of the current wave of killings. The U.S. regime’s legitimacy as a world leader is completely eroded by its support for the genocide in Gaza and Israel’s assassinations. The recent policy to illegally vaporize small boats off the coast of Venezuela has added to the sense that the U.S. is a violent and lawless aggressor. Do any countries believe negotiations with the current U.S. regime can be serious? If the U.S. regime is unable to engage in honest diplomacy, how can it be trusted to honor any agreement? Many young people in America see through the regime’s propaganda. To them, the shining city on the hill looks pretty shabby. An honest and thorough examination of recent gross abuses of power could go a long way to stop the killing and other illegal behavior in order to restore the credibility, security, and peace-loving nature of our nation. But for now, the American people have become habituated to their government’s grotesque and reckless violence abroad. Is anyone surprised that political violence is becoming more frequent here at home? The post The Normalization of Assassination appeared first on The American Conservative.