Try This - 4 Shares For Your Week

This week I’m sharing four things I’ve been paying attention to. 

1. The avocado oil I’m using, since most avocado oil contains PFAS 

2. 85% of personal care products tested positive for a concerning ingredient 

3. Are GLP-1 agonists causing blindness? 

4. The test that predicts risk of dying within seven years (for 65+)

Let’s get into it. 

Number 1: How I’m Handling the Avocado Oil Drama

Avocado oil has been all over the news lately, and honestly, it's confusing as a consumer. 

First came independent testing raising concerns about phthalates; then a UC Davis study found that some avocado oils on the market weren't actually pure avocado oil. Even brands I've trusted, like Primal Kitchen, took a while to respond, and when they did, a lot of people still had questions.

I use avocado oil a lot in my house, so until some of my go-to brands provide more transparency, I've personally switched to Marianne's 100% Organic Avocado Oil (not an ad). Marianne's oil was used as a purity benchmark in the UC Davis research, and it's also certified by the independent Clean Label Project, which tests products for contaminants and other quality measures.

Hopefully, all this attention pushes the industry toward better testing and transparency. In the meantime, my approach is simple: seek out brands willing to go the extra mile to prove what's actually in their products.

Number 2: 85% of Personal Care Products Tested Had a Concerning Ingredient

ThSpeaking of toxins, a new study published in the American Chemical Society journal Environment & Health raised some pretty big questions about the personal care and cleaning products many of us use every day.

Researchers took 113 products across 12 categories (including shampoo, sunscreen, lotion, baby products, toothpaste, deodorant, intimate care, and household cleaners) and did something most of us can't do as consumers. Instead of trusting the ingredient label, they used sophisticated laboratory testing to create a chemical fingerprint of what was actually inside the finished product.

Here’s what they found: 

Products listed an average of 16 ingredients on their labels but contained an average of 51 detectable chemicals when tested. 

Ninety-eight percent contained at least one potentially harmful chemical that wasn't disclosed on the label, 85 percent contained at least one unlabeled chemical with a known or suspected health hazard, and 57.5 percent failed the researchers' contamination criteria. Researchers detected compounds including phthalates, parabens, siloxanes, and other chemicals linked to endocrine disruption or other health concerns.

Even more concerning, 26 percent of products contained chemicals that directly contradicted their own marketing claims. Researchers found examples of products labeled "phthalate-free" that contained phthalates, "100% natural" products containing synthetic chemicals, and products marketed as "nontoxic" or "free from harmful chemicals" that contained chemicals the researchers classified as hazardous.

And buying something labeled "clean," "natural," or "nontoxic" didn't necessarily solve the problem. Those products showed contamination too. 

Interestingly, every oral-care product tested passed, which the researchers speculate could be related to some toothpastes and other oral-care products being regulated as over-the-counter drugs and therefore subject to stricter manufacturing standards—although only six oral-care products were tested, so we shouldn't read too much into that finding yet.

There are some important caveats. This was a relatively small, non-representative sample, so it doesn't mean 98 percent of all products on store shelves contain undisclosed chemicals. And the researchers performed a hazard screen, not a risk assessment. Detecting a chemical with a potential hazard doesn't tell us whether the amount in a particular product is enough to harm someone. 

The products were also purchased in 2021–2022, and the study was supported in part by the Million Marker Research Institute, an organization involved in endocrine-disrupting chemical testing. The authors declared no competing financial interests.

Still, I think there's an important lesson here. Reading ingredient labels isn't always enough. Dr. Rhonda Patrick said it best: You can't avoid something you don't know is there.

It's another reminder to seek out brands that go above and beyond when it comes to transparency—especially companies willing to test their finished products, not just vet the ingredients they're intentionally putting into them. Independent third-party testing and rigorous certification programs can give consumers another layer of information beyond what's printed on the bottle.

Ultimately, the burden shouldn't be entirely on us to become amateur chemists every time we buy shampoo or baby lotion. Hopefully research like this pushes the industry toward better finished-product testing and much greater transparency about what's actually inside the products we use every day.

Number 3: WTF—Are GLP-1 Drugs Making People Blind?

David Sinclair recently went on Joe Rogan's podcast and made a pretty alarming statement, claiming GLP-1 drugs have "doubled sudden blindness in the population."

I can't tell you how many people sent me that clip, especially after my recent podcast with Dr. William Li, where we discussed some of the fascinating emerging research around GLP-1 drugs, including their potential relationship with cancer risk.

So I wanted to know: Is this actually true?

I came across a great breakdown from Dr. Brad Stanfield, a previous guest on my podcast, who dug into the research behind the claim. The short version? The science is much less certain, and much less scary, than that sound bite makes it seem.

The concern centers on a rare eye condition called nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), where reduced blood flow to the optic nerve can cause sudden vision loss. A 2024 observational study found an association between semaglutide use and a higher risk of NAION. But this was a retrospective study from a single neuro-ophthalmology center, and the researchers themselves emphasized that it couldn't establish that semaglutide caused the condition.

There's another huge complication: Many people taking GLP-1 drugs already have diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol—conditions that themselves increase the risk of NAION. Subsequent studies have produced mixed results, so there's still a lot we don't know.

Is this a potential side effect worth investigating? Absolutely. But saying GLP-1 drugs have "doubled sudden blindness" makes the evidence sound much more definitive than it currently is.

None of this means GLP-1s are perfect. They're powerful medications, and powerful medications come with trade-offs. But the more I've learned about these drugs (and the more open-minded I've become about them), the more impressed I am by the profound improvements I'm seeing in many people's health. I know several people personally who have had incredible results.

And the thing I keep hearing from experts over and over is this: If you’re taking these drugs, do everything you can to preserve muscle. 

That means prioritizing resistance training and adequate protein while working with a knowledgeable doctor to find the lowest effective dose for the individual, rather than assuming everyone needs to work their way up to the maximum dose.

There are other questions we're still sorting out too. Some people report changes in pleasure, motivation, or sexual desire while taking these drugs. Given that GLP-1 signaling interacts with brain pathways involved in reward, researchers are actively trying to understand these effects. But here again, we should be careful not to get ahead of the evidence.

My bigger point is this: GLP-1 drugs shouldn't be treated as either miracle drugs or dangerous drugs. They're tools.

Like any tool, the outcome depends partly on how they're used. With thoughtful dosing, strength training, adequate nutrition, attention to side effects, and good medical supervision, these medications appear to be dramatically improving health for many people.

We should absolutely keep investigating their risks. But we should be just as careful about sensationalizing those risks as we are about overselling their benefits.

Number 4: The 30-Second Balance Test That Predicts Older Adults’ Risk of Dying Within Seven Years

Stand up, lift one foot off the ground, and see how long you can hold it.

It sounds almost too simple, but a new study published in JAMA Network Open suggests tests like this may reveal something important about how well we're aging.

Researchers followed 13,423 adults aged 65 and older in Taiwan for a median of seven years. Instead of just asking how often people exercised, they actually tested what their bodies could do: balance, agility, lower- and upper-body strength, cardiovascular endurance, and flexibility.

People in the top fifth for one-leg balance had about half the risk of dying during the study compared with those in the bottom fifth. For the eight-foot up-and-go test (stand up from a chair, walk eight feet around a cone, return, and sit down), the highest-performing group had a 59 percent lower mortality risk.

Lower-body strength and cardiovascular fitness weren't far behind. Those who performed best on the chair-stand test had a 45 percent lower risk, while the top performers on a two-minute stepping test had a 42 percent lower risk. And when researchers combined all seven fitness tests into one overall score, the fittest group had a 61 percent lower risk of dying than the least fit.

We tend to assess aging by looking at diagnoses and biomarkers like blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, kidney function, and weight. Those things absolutely matter. But these relationships remained even after researchers adjusted for BMI, socioeconomic factors, self-reported physical activity, and participants' medical histories.

In other words, measuring what your body can actually do may capture something a list of diagnoses can't: your physiological reserve.

There's an important caveat. This was observational research. People who are already healthier may simply have better balance, strength, and endurance. Fitness was also measured only once.

But here's the part I find really motivating for everyone: You don't necessarily need to be an elite athlete. Much of the difference in mortality risk was concentrated between the lowest-performing group and everyone above it.

If you have aging parents, or if you’re over 65, try the one-leg stand and chair test with them this weekend. They take a couple of minutes, cost nothing, and may tell you something about their health that a blood panel can't.

And if they're struggling? Don't just accept it as "getting older." Balance, strength, agility, and cardiovascular fitness are all things we can work on, no matter what age. 

That’s it for this week. 

Much love,
Dhru Purohit

The information in this newsletter is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice; please consult a qualified healthcare professional before making any health-related decisions.