upworthy
More

Cheryl Strayed on pain, letting go, and self-help for Donald Trump.

Cheryl Strayed didn’t start out to be a self-help writer.

In 2012, she was poised to be best known as the author of the forthcoming memoir "Wild", a book that sparked the return of Oprah's famed Book Club and would ultimately be turned into an Academy Award nominated film starring Reese Witherspoon.


Cheryl and Reese at the 2014 Golden Globes. Photo by Steve Granitz/Getty Images.

But one month before the book's release, the writer revealed herself to not just be a woman who had traveled the Pacific Crest Trail and written about it but also the anonymous columnist behind the wildly popular online advice column Dear Sugar. She would now forever be known as more than just a talented author. She was the woman who had helped thousands of strangers deal with some of the most intimate problems in their lives with unflinching honesty, humor, and compassion.

“Most things will be okay eventually, but not everything will be. Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go. Acceptance is a small, quiet room.”

Shortly thereafter, a selection of those columns — her responses to letters about everything from grief, marriage, and incest to addiction, money, and sex — were compiled in the the New York Times best-selling "Tiny Beautiful Things: Advice on Love and Life from Dear Sugar," a book I've read so much the cover is hanging on by a thread. New York magazine called "Tiny Beautiful Things," "the self-help book women can't stop giving to each other" and it's now the basis for an upcoming HBO series of the same name.

Whether she planned to be or not, Cheryl Strayed has become an incisive, literary life advice guru with a cult-like following. And I am a proud member.

When she agreed to an interview, I was eager to talk to her about her new book "Brave Enough," a collection of her most beloved quotes. I had no idea we would somehow end up talking about everything from her relationship with her father and forgiveness, to finding an authentic voice, and even (brace yourself) thinking differently about Donald Trump.

But that's what happens when you talk to a woman whose main job is to study life, think about its lessons, and then share them. And so she did.

"OK, Erica. Do not act like a fan."

This is what I told myself as I prepared to call Cheryl for our interview.

"Don't babble on and on about how much her books have inspired you, and don't tell her how many of her quotes you've memorized."

Once I had sufficiently ticked through the list of don'ts in my head, I cleared my throat, got into professional interviewer mode, and dialed her number.

"Hi, this is Cheryl."

"Hi-Cheryl-it's-Erica-from-Upworthy-thanks-for-talking-to-me-today-I'm-such-a-fangirl."

Welp. So much for keeping it cool.

Thankfully, Strayed was incredibly warm and approachable, radiating humility. I wanted to know how someone so humble felt confident giving life advice to thousands of people.

On what it means to be human:

I asked whether she ever suffered from self-doubt and how she, someone not trained as a therapist or a counselor or a life coach, came to feel "qualified" to teach people important life lessons based on her own experiences.

"We get great and terrible advice from all sources all the time," she answered. "From your best friend who said something really important to you one time that really altered your way of thinking and the next conversation can say something that is idiotic and doesn’t make sense. We get advice from strangers, books, our parents, friends … all sources. I'm simply one source.

I never said that people need to do what I think they should do. I very seldom focus on instruction. I don’t feel that my main role is to say do this or do that. My main role is to help illuminate the question that they’re asking by exploring various avenues of seeking the answer.

It's about asking 'What does it mean to be human?' And in particular “What does it mean to be human in this situation? In this struggle?'"

I almost missed what she said next because I was so stuck on the phrase "What does it mean to be human?" It seemed to encapsulate all of the questions that we humans ask ourselves every day (How should we behave? How should we respond? What should we think? What should we feel?) in seven words.

I feel like she could make anything sound good, meaningful. But it also made me wonder how she, or anyone for that matter, knows what the right takeaway or lesson is. What is the best decision to make at any given moment in a complex situation or in a complex life if anything can be made to sound inspirational or "right"?

She paused and thought on that for awhile.

"Right before you called me, I was on a walk with my husband. I was grappling with a negative interaction I had with an acquaintance and feeling really annoyed and angry. But then there was also this other feeling of compassion for this person because I know [what she did] totally isn’t about me. That what she said is completely about her own sense of need and sorrow and fear. And so I have two experiences of the same interaction.

One of the great struggles of my life is which one do I land on? Do I land on the one that’s like 'F--k you bitch'? Or should I land on the one that’s like 'I understand that you’re suffering so I will let it go.'

Now that seems like a small thing but apply it to a big thing — my father being a terrible father, for example. Do I stay with rage, sorrow, and absence and suffering, or do I land on forgiveness, compassion, acceptance, and moving forward? We always have that choice."

I agreed. But I also believe that we teach people how to treat us. I worry that if we offer nothing but "niceness"in response to mistreatment or cruelty, we're in some ways letting them off the hook. And if we do that, will they ever learn the lesson? Without me even asking, she had an answer for that.

"What other people go through is not up to us. What we're going through is up to us. I'm not talking about denial," she assured me. "You still have to carry the story with you when you choose forgiveness, but the decision you’re making is to carry it with you forward into whatever beauty awaits. The deal of life is that life is always going to be full of suffering and joy. And I think when you focus on the suffering, you forget how much joy there really is. Always. There’s always joy. It’s always available to us, even in the darkest days."

Even in the darkest days.

The darkest days. That phrase stuck out to me because it drew my mind not only to personal life struggles but to all the hatred and violence and oppression and fear that permeates our current social and political landscape. Mass shootings, Islamophobia, police brutality... And really. Is there any other way to describe Donald Trump's candidacy other than the phrase "dark days"?

I asked her if the themes her quotes touch on, which are so often focused on people's personal lives, could apply to those big societal issues too.

"Yes," she said. And she picked our favorite cartoon villain political candidate to illustrate how.

Him. Photo by Ralph Freso/Getty Images.

On Donald Trump and the big things:

"We forget that Donald Trump — the guy saying all that awful stuff — that’s one human and that awful stuff rises from his heart. And the only way to change the world in the grand scale is to change the hearts and minds of individuals.

So what if this guy really took a deep look at his own wounds? He’s an example of someone who has decided to stay in rage, just like I was talking about earlier. So for him, a couple of people of the Muslim faith shoot up a center and [that behavior] now applies to people of that faith. He’s decided to tell a story that is about hate and ugliness and rage.

What if he were the kind of person who could make that tiny switch I was just talking about in my life, where you say 'am I going to stay in rage or am I going to go to that other place?' I don’t think Trump has ever made that leap probably in anything in his life. So it begins as a tiny thing. I don’t know him. I don’t know what happened to him in his life. But I know that probably all along the way he chose to tell an ugly, small, rage-filled story about himself and the people around him. And then it’s like a stone you throw in the water that resonates outward and beyond. And now it's on a massive scale. That’s why it’s so dangerous to give people power, to elect someone who doesn’t have a consciousness that is steeped in compassion and love and light."

I sighed. She was right. I'm not evolved enough yet to think about Donald Trump's wounds, but I made a mental note to revisit the idea post-election.

I was about to move the conversation forward, but something in my question about what some would call the "bigger" social issues had triggered her. She jumped back in.

"Also, I hate this idea that the culturally significant stories are about 'the big things.' Women are always up against that idea — that our stories are small or unimportant.

I think writing the truth about one life is a big thing. For four years there hasn’t been one day that a whole bunch of people haven’t told me 'your book changed my life.' And when you change someone’s life, you change the world. To believe in that change that we can make in our own lives is what leads to the cultural change in our world."

That sentiment echoes the late Detroit activist Grace Lee Boggs who famously said, "To make a revolution, people must not only struggle against existing institutions. They must make a philosophical/spiritual leap and become more 'human' human beings. In order to change/transform the world, they must change/transform themselves." I shared this with Cheryl.

"Yes! Yes!" she said.

Then she thought about it for a second and said that there was a myth she wanted to dispel.

"Transforming the self can easily be construed as this incredibly narcissistic activity."

I knew exactly what she meant. The me, me, me, navel-gazing, optimize-your-life culture around being your "best self" is everywhere. And it can be pretty insufferable.

"This idea that the most important thing is whatever it is YOU need, what YOU want, because you are developing your mind and your body and whatever. That’s bullshit. That’s not what transforming yourself is.

It isn’t about having the perfect ass and a world that never blows your head open and challenges you and transforms you. It's about engagement, questioning your motivations and beliefs, your biases, and it’s about struggle. And this is the kind of self-help that I’m signing up for and that I hope to contribute to.

It’s a grittier, messier way of looking at transformation. Not just sitting in a bathtub with candles burning, but that’s where you end. It’s not the journey. The journey is a lot rougher than that. It’s about being disrupted from your complacency."

On real self-help:

But that grittiness and messiness isn't what most of us think about when we hear the term "self-help." We often think of positive affirmations and "five steps to a better life," quick fixes. As writer who's a bit insecure about the fact that my own first book will likely land on the self-help shelf also, I desperately wanted to know: Is she comfortable being lumped into that category? How does someone who grew up obsessing over "the great writers" and began her career in fiction and literary nonfiction feel about her work being stuck with the label of a genre that is so often mocked?

"Not only did I never intend to be a self-help writer," she said, "I still don’t really think of myself in that way — probably because I have the same recoil that so many people do when we hear 'self-help.'

"I think when we think of self-help negatively we’re thinking of a book that simplifies and glosses over the complexity of the real, gritty problems of life that we all have. And instead of saying 'OK let’s get down in the muck and face these things,' it sort of makes silly metaphors out of things that are deep and important and big."

I nodded in agreement. She hit the nail on the head.

"Have you ever seen that famous SNL skit with the guy who goes 'I’m OK, and you’re OK?'" she asked.

I chuckled and told her that I had but didn't admit that, at my age, I'd only ever seen a 20-second clip of it on YouTube. But I knew what she was getting at.

“That’s what we think self-help is,” she continued. "A kind of anti-intellectualism."

"And I think that’s really unfair to the genre. Because so many books, my own included, that are lumped into that genre are aspiring to do the exact opposite of that glossing over: embrace our intellects and our rational thinking when it comes to figuring out our challenges and struggles, the relationships we have with others, and the complexity of the relationship that we have with our own past, our own selves, our own lives.

So I think that what people see when they are reading my words is somebody who is willing to not turn away from that complexity.”

Ultimately, she believes that [her] readers experience work in the same way, no matter what the publisher-assigned genre: viscerally and emotionally. And they judge it simply on whether it changes their lives.

Photo by Amy Graves/Getty Images.

On authenticity:

She's a writer who isn't afraid to talk about life's complexity. That's important. But the truth is that her popularity and resonance isn't just because of what she says. It's also about how she says it.

With quotes like this...

“But the reality is we often become our kindest, most ethical selves only by seeing what it feels like to be a selfish jackass first.”

...and this...

"You don’t have to get a job that makes others feel comfortable about what they perceive as your success. You don’t have to explain what you plan to do with your life. You don’t have to justify your education by demonstrating its financial rewards. You don’t have to maintain an impeccable credit score. Anyone who expects you to do any of those things has no sense of history or economics or science or the arts. You have to pay your own electric bill. You have to be kind. You have to give it all you got. You have to find people who love you truly and love them back with the same truth. But that’s all."

...and one of her most famous...

"So write. Not like a girl. Not like a boy. Write like a motherfucker."

it's easy to see why Cheryl is known for communicating ideas in a way that is somehow equally compassionate and unmerciful, gentle and brash. And her words are both literary in their beauty but incredibly simple at the same time. It's hard to tell what has mattered matter more in her ability to connect with readers: her writing style or her big personality. So I ask her.

“It’s both,” she replied confidently. "My voice, writing style, and personality are all one and the same."

She explained: "When you’re a young writer you’re always in search of your voice, and for a long time I thought that meant conforming my voice to the great writers I love. 'I’m going to try to sound like Faulkner or Alice Munro or Toni Morrison.' But what I loved in the work of the writers that I love most is that they’re relaxing and actually speaking with their own voice on the page. And the closer I could get to doing that, the better writer I become.

Voice and authority: It’s all about speaking out of your authentic knowledge."

And she wants to make sure that her authentic knowledge is accessible to everyone.

"I’ve always hoped that what complicates my work is the thinking behind it, not the language that I use to convey ideas. I’ve always wanted my work to be accessible to people of all backgrounds, regardless of their education. I love that you don’t have to be hyper-literate to read my books. You can be, but you don't have to be."

As an example of what she called her "approachability in public persona, on the page, and in actual life," she shared a moving memory:

"At one of my readings in Santa Cruz, this woman came up to me. She was a Mexican immigrant; she was a maid at a hotel. She told me that she had been cleaning a room and someone had left a copy behind of 'Wild.' Instead of just turning it in like they usually do, she started reading it and ended up reading the whole book. At my reading, she wept and said that she’d never read a book before.

And I've heard that many times. So I’m not interested in this idea of the writer as the exalted figure who's above any other person in the world."

Photo by Joe Scarnici/Getty Images.

On her favorite quote:

Later on in our conversation, as we discussed "Brave Enough," I realized she probably wouldn't have judged me for knowing so many of them by heart. The attachment that readers have had to her words is exactly what inspired the book in the first place.

"My publisher said 'all the people on the Internet keep posting your quotes everywhere — we should collect them.' The premise wasn’t 'I’m so wise.' It was crowdsourced! I believe that the power of art is connection. It’s people taking a writer's work and making it theirs. And that’s what people have done with these quotes, and so I looked to them for what should be in the book. I love the idea that a sentence I wrote told them something that they needed to know or hold in their heart.”

I wanted to end my discussion with Cheryl by finding out which pithy line from the collection was her personal favorite, the one that she holds closest in her heart.

As it turns out, it's the one that isn't technically hers. It is her late mother's quote. Her mother is a central figure in her work, and her too-sudden, too-soon death at age 45 not only shattered Cheryl's world but also sparked the life-changing journey of "Wild." When she mentioned her now, her words practically beamed, dripping with audibly noticeable adoration.

"Put yourself in the way of beauty."

"That is something that my mother told me to do. It took me years to really understand what that meant and to learn how to do it. My mom would say, 'It doesn’t matter how miserable you are, how hard any particular day is, you can always choose to put yourself in the way of beauty. There’s always a sunrise and there’s always a sunset. And it's up to you whether you want to be there for it or not. When it’s hardest is when you need to do it the most.'

And so I trust that. It's been a guiding light."

Technology

Here’s how one nonprofit org is using Adobe to change the world

Adobe empowers nonprofits to fundraise, advocate, and further their missions.

True

In 2024, it’s practically impossible to function as a nonprofit without the right digital resources. Nonprofits use computer systems and applications for things like education, fundraising, engaging clients, and communicating with donors. However, with limited funding and expertise, it's often difficult to get the digital tools they need to fully support their missions.

The planet needs nonprofit organizations, and nonprofits need better digital tools. For decades, Adobe has provided nonprofits with the tools they need to fulfill their mission—helping them with everything from social media advocacy to educational videos to graphic design. Now, Adobe is offering the pro version of Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits, the most requested and comprehensive set of document and e-signature tools, for just $15 per user per year, which represents a 94% annual savings off the regular price. This will make it easier than ever for nonprofits to streamline business processes and increase their impact with engaging educational and fundraising assets – from annual reports, contracts and grant submissions to brochures and white papers.

Keep reading to hear more about how Adobe helped one nonprofit improve efficiencies and giveback potential – and how you can start using Adobe tools today for your organization.

A nonprofit success story

Albert Manero, a mechanical engineer and graduate of the University of Central Florida, founded Limbitless Solutions, Inc., as a passion project in a small lab. Today, Limbitless is celebrating its 10-year anniversary and has grown into an interdisciplinary team based at the University of Central Florida in Orlando that includes 50 interns with nine different fields of expertise. Their mission? To inspire and empower underserved communities through creative, accessible technology.

Manero and his team of experts create bionic, 3D-printed arms for children with limb differences. Combining visual storytelling with art and engineering, the Limbitless team wants children with limb differences to feel included and capable, while at the same time, able to express their personal identity more fully. Developing bionic arms covered in flowers or designed like Iron Man’s armor, kids with these bionic limbs can not only grip objects, hold hands and more, but can feel empowered to be themselves.

Using Adobe to make a difference

Limbitless, like many others, has utilized Adobe for Nonprofits offerings, which gives nonprofit organizations access to Adobe programs at a deeply discounted rate, including access programs like Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Express and Adobe Acrobat as well as Adobe’s 3D tools.

Adobe solutions are the oil that keeps organizations running smoothly behind the scenes. For the grant application and reporting processes, employees at Limbitless have credited Adobe Acrobat with helping the team secure funding and communicating clearly with donors and partners. With Acrobat, they’re able to create, edit, and manage PDF documents that look professional and polished. The company has also transitioned most of its internal documentation to digital formats using Acrobat. This includes everything from design blueprints, brand guidelines, intern contracts, and user manuals for bionic limbs.

Better tech for a better future

In addition to helping day-to-day operations run smoothly, Adobe has also helped bring Limbitless’ mission of inclusion and accessibility outside of office walls.

Using Adobe Express, the fast and easy create-anything app, Limbitless has been able to create quick how-to videos for young patients and their families that showcase how to use their bionic limbs, as well as a series of videos promoting STEAM (science, technology, engineering art and math) education. The company’s Operations, Advocacy, and Logistics team utilizes Express as well, developing content and visual assets for their social media accounts. Recently, Limbitless partnered with the Adobe Express’ Animate Characters team to create six unique, limb-different selectable avatar characters for their educational outreach and social media campaigns.

And Adobe is helping Limbitless empower kids with limb differences, too: Limbitless’ comic series, Bionic Kid, was created using Adobe Illustrator and features a superhero with limb differences who uses a Limbitless prosthetic arm. This inspired a fundraising concept initiated from the idea by a Limbitless prosthetic recipient Zachary Pamboukas, which has been used in fundraising efforts for more bionic arms and has already raised over $20,000.

Inside the organization and out, Adobe is enabling people to reach their full potential, contributing to better nonprofit organizations and, overall, a better world.

Learn more about the new Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits offering and explore more ways Adobe can help your organization today.

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

Animals & Wildlife

Scientists just solved the chicken-and-egg debate, so what will we argue about now?

A billion-year-old discovery has officially cracked the ultimate evolutionary mystery.

Richard Symonds

This handsome gent just got some bad news.

In the ultimate mic-drop for chicken-or-egg debaters, Chromosphaera perkinsii, a billion-year-old unicellular organism, reveals that nature had "eggs" on the menu way before chickens (or any animals) arrived. But, though the mystery has been unscrambled, the discovery has cracked open an entirely new chapter in the story of life's origins.

Meet Chromosphaera perkinsii, a single-celled organism found in marine sediments off Hawaii that threw evolutionary biologists a curveball. This tiny protist, dating back more than a billion years, does something remarkable: it organizes itself into multicellular structures that look exactly like the earliest stages of animal embryos.

A sequence of images showing Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. It looks like images you may have seen of early cell division, but this is of individual Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. © UNIGE Omaya Dudin

Nature’s OG egg

Researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), led by Omaya Dudin, have spent years studying this humble organism, and the findings are nothing short of stunning. Unlike most single-celled creatures, C. perkinsii can coordinate cell division without growing larger. Instead, it creates colonies that resemble the first steps of animal embryonic development.

"Although C. perkinsii is a unicellular species, this behaviour shows that multicellular coordination and differentiation processes are already present in the species, well before the first animals appeared on Earth."

— Omaya Dudin

Even more mind-blowing? When scientists analyzed the genetic activity within these colonies, they found it eerily similar to what happens in the embryos of modern animals. The processes that allow embryos to grow from a single cell into a multicellular organism—a hallmark of animal life—were apparently hanging out in the evolutionary toolbox long before animals even existed.

A billion years of practice

The study, published in Nature, even raises the possibility that multicellularity evolved multiple times in different lineages, meaning the transition from single-celled life to complex organisms could be less linear (and more chaotic) than previously believed.

"It’s fascinating, a species discovered very recently allows us to go back in time more than a billion years."

— Marine Olivetta

The research could also reignite debates about mysterious 600-million-year-old fossils that look like embryos. Are they early animals or ancient organisms like C. perkinsii? Either way, this tiny protist suggests that nature was testing out egg-like developmental strategies long before anything resembling a chicken—or even a jellyfish—arrived on the scene.

The egg’s ultimate win

For anyone still clinging to the chicken in this debate, it’s time to throw in the towel. The egg wins by a landslide. And while these ancient “eggs” might not have shells or yolks, they set the stage for the evolutionary leaps that eventually gave us the breakfast staple we know today.

Still not convinced? Neil deGrasse Tyson shares the evolutionary approach to the puzzle. He bluntly points out that the egg came first; it was just laid by a bird that was not a chicken.

@neildegrassetyson we've cracked the case over which came first, chicken or egg! 🐣 #scienceflex
♬ original sound - StarTalk

Discoveries like this remind us how much we still don’t know about the origins of life. If a billion-year-old protist can hold the key to one of our oldest questions, imagine what else nature has waiting for us in its archives. But one thing’s certain: we finally have our answer. The egg was here first, and it’s been waiting for us to catch up for over a billion years.

So, with that settled, we are now tasked with finding something else to argue about. Science has yet to weigh in on the tree in the woods. Perhaps that puzzle will be the next to fall.

Photo by Nati/Pexels

If you feel "old" practically overnight, there may be a good reason for that.

Aging is weird. You're trucking along, enjoying your middle-aged life, finally feeling like a real adult, when you look in the mirror one day and gasp. "Where did those wrinkles come from?" "Is that skin on my arm…crepey?!?" "Why am I aching like that?"

Somewhere in your mid-40s, you start noticing obvious signs of aging that seem to arrive overnight. You assume it was a gradual process that you just hadn't noticed, but it sure as heck felt like it happened really fast.

New research indicates that may very well be the case. A study from researchers at Stanford tracked thousands of different molecules in people age 25 to 75 and found that people tend to make two big leaps in aging—one around age 44 and another around age 60. These findings indicate that aging can actually happen in bursts.

“We’re not just changing gradually over time. There are some really dramatic changes,” said senior study author Michael Snyder, Ph.D, geneticist and director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford University. “It turns out the mid-40s is a time of dramatic change, as is the early 60s. And that’s true no matter what class of molecules you look at.”

The researchers assumed the mid-40s changes would be attributed to menopausal or perimenopausal changes in women influencing the overall numbers, but when they separated the results by sex they saw similar changes in men in their 40s.

"“This suggests that while menopause or perimenopause may contribute to the changes observed in women in their mid-40s, there are likely other, more significant factors influencing these changes in both men and women. Identifying and studying these factors should be a priority for future research,” said study author Xiaotao Shen, PhD, a former Stanford Medicine postdoctoral scholar who now teaches at Nanyang Technological University Singapore.

older couple smiling togetherAging happens in bursts, scientists find.Photo by Tristan Le/Pexels

The study included 108 participants who submitted blood and other samples every few months for several years. The scientists tracked age-related changes in 135,000 different molecules—nearly 250 billion distinct data points—to see how aging occurs.

The study may shed light on the reasons for jumps in certain diseases and maladies at certain ages. For the 40-somethings, scientists found significant changes in molecules related to alcohol, caffeine and lipid metabolism; cardiovascular disease; and skin and muscle. For those in their 60s, changes related to carbohydrate and caffeine metabolism, immune regulation, kidney function, cardiovascular disease, and skin and muscle were found.

The study authors did note that lifestyle might play a role in some of these changes. For instance, alcohol metabolism may be influenced by people drinking more heavily in their 40s, which tends to be a period of higher stress for many people. However, the researchers added that these bursts of aging in the mid-40s and early 60s indicate that people may want to pay closer attention to their health around those ages and make lifestyle changes that support greater overall health, such as increasing exercise or limiting alcohol.

The research team plans to study the drivers of these aging bursts to find out why they happen at these ages, but whatever the reasons, it's nice to know that the seemingly sudden onset of age-related woes isn't just in our imaginations.

It's understandable that worry about aging, as physical signs of aging remind us of our own mortality. We also have all kinds of social messaging that tells us youth is ideal and beautiful and old is bad and ugly, so of course we give aging the side-eye. But none of us can avoid aging altogether, so the more positive and healthy we are in our approach to aging is, the better off we'll be, no matter when and to what degree aging hits us.


This story originally appeared in August.

Amazing video shows 1950s mom of 7 without arms doing it all on her own

It may be difficult to imagine living in a world with limited technological assistance available but to do it while also physically disabled seems nearly impossible without extensive support. But that's exactly what people had to do for years and one mom made the news in the 50s for her unique experience raising children. Phyllis Lumley was born without arms and one foot six inches longer than the other in Battersea, London.

Her ability to care for her children, all seven of them, without any outside assistance is what seems to be the reason she garnered so much attention. A picture of the mom placing her baby in the bassinet along with a story of the large family made it to the Australian newspaper. Lumley's story is inspiring to others due to her sheer determination to figure out how to become a mother and homemaker successfully.

While the mom of seven didn't have arms or hands to assist her while her husband was working, in the interview conducted by British Pathé you see her utilize her feet and mouth to compensate. It's something she had become accustomed to since childhood, never letting her disability slow her down.

National Library of Australia

The many forms of technology that have become part of our daily lives simply didn't exist in the 50s. Same goes for the advancements in prosthetics and other assistive technologies, they were mere dreams for future generations to enjoy. Lumley was determined to live life on her terms and not the limited expectations of those around her. So when she and her husband decided it was time to start a family, Lumley practiced how she would care for an infant by practicing with a doll.

In 1954, she told Pix that though she faced strange looks and ill words as a child, when she became pregnant she found a clinic that treated her like any other pregnant person.

National Library of Australia

"Mrs. Lumley admits that when her first babies were very young, there were times that she seemed to be up against problems that were insoluble but she learned that if she thought hard enough she could find a way around every difficulty," Brittish Pathé narrates.

In the video, the mom uses her feet to comb her child's hair, button someone's sweater, iron clothes and thread a needle to embroider a handkerchief. Her ability to be a successful caregiver clearly caught the attention of the world at that time, especially since there weren't really any accommodations for disabled people back then, let alone robotic prosthetic arms.


Caring for 7 children isn't an easy task for able-bodied individuals but in a true sign of the times, Lumley did it with little to no help from her husband. The woman mastered managing a household at a time when childrearing and housekeeping fell solely on the mother most of the time, which is evident in the interview.

The video recently made it's rounds on social media where people were flabbergasted at Lumley's skills with someone writing, "The fact that she threaded a needle alone is mind blowing, and the fine embroidery!! That’s bonkers."

The Goldbergs Yes GIF by ABC NetworkGiphy

Another person says, "how tf does one raise seven kids with NO ARMS?? I've barely gotten by with BOTH my arms and two kids!"

"Fine motor skills with her feet is ridiculously impressive," someone else chimes in.

"I love the looks in her children’s eyes. You can see how much they adore her. This is one impressive Mama," one person shares.

Lumley clearly loved her children and stopped at nothing to make sure they were properly cared for even if she had to pave her own path to do it.

Joy

Someone asked if 80s kids really 'roamed freely.' After 40,000 answers, the truth is clear.

There is definitely some rose-colored nostalgia in these responses, though.

Were 80s childhoods really as feral as they sound?

Ah, the nostalgia of an 80s childhood. If you've ever watched "The Goonies" or "Stranger Things," you've seen how kids of all ages were largely left to their own devices most of the time, parents playing a background role if any role at all. Children went on unsupervised outdoor adventures for hours upon hours, getting into just enough trouble to learn some lessons but not enough to die (usually).

But is that really what childhood in the 80s was like? Were parents really that hands-off? Did kids really roam around freely like the movies and stereotypes portray? Were people really not worried about what the kids were up to when no one knew where they were and no one had cell phones to check in?

Someone asked that very question and the overwhelming response pointed to a clear answer.

Yes, 80s kids really did have childhoods that are hard to imagine now

"Did parents in the 80s really allow their kids to roam freely, or is that just a portrayal seen in movies?" X user OThingstodo asked. Here are the top responses:

"Really. And it was awesome."

"Facts. We are the generation who raised ourselves. There really was a commercial that came on each night asking parents if they knew where their children were. We survived off hose water & anything we perceived as food. (Berries, fruit trees, etc) We were not allowed to sit inside.. if we tried, we'd get loaded down with chores. We truly were the feral generation.. we took no guts, no glory to new heights & feared absolutely nothing. It was amazing times that still, to this day, bring forth a rush of nostalgia at the smallest memory."

"This is so true. And Sometimes we just got to cook our own TV dinners. And our parents did not constantly have to engage us or make sure we weren’t bored."

"Allowed? We were not allowed in the house during the day. We had bikes and friends. There was 3 rules 1: don't get hurt 2: don't be brought home by the police 3: see that light? If it's on you're late and grounded."

"In the summer it was get home when the streetlights come on. Raised on hose water & neglect. It was glorious."

"I used to roam the sewer drains around town with my friends. Just a handful of us and some flashlights."

"Yep. We rode our bikes all over the place exploring reality. We also had unlicensed lemonade stands, and after we sold out, we’d ride up to the store alone to buy snacks alone. We had our own house keys, we stayed home alone after school, and we cooked for ourselves. No one freaked out about it either."

"We left the house after school and they wouldn’t see us until the street lights came on. Didn’t ask us where we had been or what we did either. We were raised on hose water and neglect in the 70’s and 80’s."

"Well into the 90s. They told us to be home for dinner by ___ or before nightfall. They didn't have a clue where we were or really any way of finding out. This was just the norm. ... then cell phones."

"It’s true. Realize that back then, there weren’t cell phones, video games, 24 hour kids TV, etc. You wanted to be with your friends & that was outside, even in winter. Your bike was your prized possession & while there were bad elements then too, it wasn’t like now. Sad."

That last point, "while there were bad elements then too, it wasn't like now" sentiment came up a lot in the responses. Let's dive into that a bit.

It's easy to look at the past through rose-colored glasses

For the most part, everything people said about those 80s childhoods is true, except this: The world was not safer back then. There weren't fewer "bad elements" and there wasn't less crime.

Around the year 2015, articles started coming out about how children were statistically safer than they'd ever been.

In fact, statistically, the 80s were less safe than now by pretty much every measure. Looking at violent rime statistics from 1960 onward shows that the 80s had significantly higher violent crime rates than we've seen in the 2000s. The idea that Gen X childhoods were carefree with nothing to fear is simply wrong. We just weren't aware of everything there was to fear.

Social media and 24-hour cable news networks put scary things in front of our faces all day every day, giving us a skewed perception of reality. And that's not just conjecture—according to Pew Research, Americans tend to think crime is rising even when it's going down. "In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period."

The folks remembering their free-range childhoods as blissful and safe seem to have forgotten that we started our days pouring milk from cartons that had pictures of missing children on them. A few high-profile abductions and murders of children caused a bit of a missing children panic in the U.S, leading President Reagan to sign the Missing Children Act in 1982 and the Missing Children's Assistance Act in 1984, which founded the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

But "high-profile" in the 80s meant a spot on the nightly national news and a headline in a newspaper. Most crimes were only reported locally, there as no "going viral online" and it was easy to avoid scary news if you wanted to. We live in a totally different world today, but not in the way people think. We're safer by nearly every measure, from car accidents to infectious disease to violent crime. But we feel less safe, which directly affects how we parent our children.

There was indeed magic in our blissful ignorance

There's something to be said for being unaware of every bad thing that's happening in the world. We may have been less safe in the 80s in actuality, but not knowing that had its perks.

The question is, can we put the genie back in the bottle? Is it possible to give kids an 80s-style childhood in the age of ubiquitous screens and parents being arrested for letting their tweens walk less than a mile from home by themselves?

Societal expectations of what kids can and should do have changed drastically, as have levels of anxiety and fear in general. Parenting styles have shifted toward more involvement and greater attachment, which isn't bad in and of itself but can be taken to an extreme. The neglectful parenting style of the past wasn't ideal and neither is the overprotective style the pendulum swung to.

If we could somehow find a way to give kids the joy of unstructured outdoor exploration of the 80s and the stronger parent-child connections of the present, we might just hit the sweet spot of raising healthy kids. Perhaps the next generation of parents will figure it out.