ReportWire

Tag: middle ground

  • ‘If Exercise Could Cure This, I Would Have Been Cured So Quickly’

    ‘If Exercise Could Cure This, I Would Have Been Cured So Quickly’

    [ad_1]

    In the weeks after she caught COVID, in May 2022, Lauren Shoemaker couldn’t wait to return to her usual routine of skiing, backpacking, and pregaming her family’s eight-mile hikes with three-mile jogs. All went fine in the first few weeks after her infection. Then, in July, hours after finishing a hike, Shoemaker started to feel off; two days later, she couldn’t make it to the refrigerator without feeling utterly exhausted. Sure it was a fluke, she tried to hike again—and this time, was out of commission for months. Shoemaker, an ecologist at the University of Wyoming, couldn’t do her alpine fieldwork; she struggled to follow a movie with a complex plot. She was baffled. Exercise, the very thing that had reliably energized her before, had suddenly become a trigger for decline.

    For the majority of people, exercise is scientifically, physiologically, psychologically good. It boosts immunity, heart function, cognition, mood, energy, even life span. Doctors routinely prescribe it to patients recovering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart attacks, managing metabolic disease, or hoping to stave off cognitive decline. Conditions that worsen when people strive for fitness are very rare. Post-exertional malaise (PEM), which affects Shoemaker and most other people with long COVID, just happens to be one of them.

    PEM, first described decades ago as a hallmark of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), is now understood to fundamentally alter the body’s ability to generate and use energy. For people with PEM, just about any form of physical, mental, or emotional exertion—in some cases, activities no more intense than answering emails, folding laundry, or digesting a particularly rare steak—can spark a debilitating wave of symptoms called a crash that may take weeks or months to abate. Simply sitting upright for too long can leave Letícia Soares, a long-hauler living in Brazil, temporarily bedbound. When she recently moved into a new home, she told me, she didn’t bother buying a dining table or chairs—“it just felt useless.”

    When it comes to PEM, intense exercise—designed to boost fitness—is “absolutely contraindicated,” David Putrino, a physical therapist who runs a long-COVID clinic at Mount Sinai, in New York, told me. And yet, the idea that exertion could undo a person rather than returning them to health is so counterintuitive that some clinicians and researchers still endorse its potential benefits for those with PEM; it’s dogma that Shoemaker heard repeatedly after she first fell ill. “If exercise could cure this,” she told me, “I would have been cured so quickly.”

    The problem is, there’s no consensus about what people who have PEM should do instead. Backing off physical activity too much might start its own downward spiral, as people lose muscle mass and strength in a phenomenon called deconditioning. Navigating the middle ground between deconditioning and crashing is “where the struggle begins,” Denyse Lutchmansingh, a pulmonary specialist at Yale, told me. And as health experts debate which side to err on, millions of long-haulers are trying to strike their own balance.


    Though it’s now widely accepted that PEM rejiggers the body’s capacity for strain, scientists still aren’t sure of the precise biological causes. Some studies have found evidence of impaired blood flow, stymieing the delivery of oxygen to cells; others have discovered broken mitochondria struggling to process raw fuel into power. A few have seen hints of excessive inflammation, and immune cells aberrantly attacking muscles; others point to issues with recovery, perhaps via a slowdown in the clearance of lactate and other metabolic debris.

    The nature of the crashes that follow exertion can be varied, sprawling, and strange. They might appear hours or days after a catalyst. They can involve flu-like coughs or sore throats. They may crater a patient’s cognitive capacity or plague them with insomnia for weeks; they can leave people feeling so fatigued and pained, they’re almost unable to move. Some of Shoemaker’s toughest crashes have saddled her with tinnitus, numbness, and extreme sensitivity to sound and light. Triggers can also change over time; so can people’s symptoms—even the length of the delay before a crash.

    But perhaps the worst part is what an accumulation of crashes can do. Rob Wüst, who studies skeletal-muscle physiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, told me that his team has found an unusual amount of muscle damage after exertion in people with PEM that may take months to heal. People who keep pushing themselves past their limit could watch their baseline for exertion drop, and then drop again. “Every time you PEM yourself, you travel a little further down the rabbit hole,” Betsy Keller, an exercise physiologist at Ithaca College, told me.

    Still, the goal of managing PEM has never been to “just lay in a bed all day and don’t do anything,” Lily Chu, the vice president of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME), told me. In the 1960s, a group of scientists found that three weeks of bed rest slashed healthy young men’s capacity for exertion by nearly 30 percent. (The participants eventually trained themselves back to baseline.) Long periods of bed rest were once commonly prescribed for recovery from heart attacks, says Prashant Rao, a sports cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Massachusetts. But now too much rest is actively avoided, because “there’s a real risk of spiraling down, and symptoms worsening,” Rao told me. “I really fear for that, even for people with PEM.”

    There is no rulebook for threading this needle, which has led researchers to approach treatments and rehabilitation for long COVID in different ways. Some clinical trials that involve exercise as an intervention explicitly exclude people with PEM. “We did not feel like the exercise program we designed would be safe for those individuals,” Johanna Sick, a physiologist at the University of Vienna who is helping run one such trial, told me.

    Other researchers hold out hope that activity-based interventions may still help long-haulers, and are keeping patients with PEM in experiments. But some of those decisions have been controversial. The government-sponsored RECOVER trial was heavily criticized last year for its plan to enroll long-haulers in an exercise study. Scientists have since revised the trial’s design to reroute participants with moderate to severe PEM to another intervention, according to Adrian Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist leading the trial. The details are still being finalized, but the plan is to instead look at pacing, a strategy for monitoring activity levels to ensure that people stay below their crash threshold, Janna Friedly, a physiatrist at the University of Washington who’s involved in the trial, told me.

    Certain experimental regimens can be light enough—stretching, recumbent exercises—to be tolerable by many (though not all) people with PEM. Some researchers are trying to monitor participants’ heart rate, and having them perform only activities that keep them in a low-intensity zone. But even when patients’ limitations are taken into account, crashes can be hard to avoid, Tania Janaudis-Ferreira, a physiotherapist at McGill University, in Quebec, told me. She recently wrapped a clinical trial in which, despite tailoring the regimen to each individual, her team still documented several mild to moderate crashes among participants with PEM.

    Just how worrisome crashes are is another matter of contention. Pavlos Bobos, a musculoskeletal-health researcher at the University of Western Ontario, told me that he’d like to see more evidence of harm before ruling out exercise for long COVID and PEM. Bruno Gualano, a physiologist at the University of São Paulo, told me that even though crashes seem temporarily damaging, he’s not convinced that exercise worsens PEM in the long term. But Putrino, of Mount Sinai, is adamant that crashes set people back; most other experts I spoke with agreed. And several researchers told me that, because PEM seems to upend basic physiology, reduced activity may not be as worrisome for people with the condition as it is for those without.

    For Shoemaker, the calculus is clear. “Coming back from being deconditioned is honestly trivial compared to recovering from PEM,” she told me. She’s willing to wait for evidence-based therapies that can safely improve her PEM. “Whatever we figure out, if I could get healthy,” she told me, “then I can get back in shape.”


    At this point, several patients and researchers told me, most exercise-based trials for long COVID seem to be at best a waste of resources, and at worst a recipe for further harm. PEM is not new, nor are the interventions being tested. Decades of research on ME/CFS have already shown that traditional exercise therapy harms more often than it helps. (Some researchers insisted that more PEM studies are needed in long-haulers—just in case the condition diverges substantially from its manifestation in ME/CFS.) And although a subset of long-haulers could be helped by exercise, experts don’t yet have a great way to safely distinguish them from the rest.

    Even pacing, although often recommended for symptom management, is not generally considered to be a reliable treatment, which is where most long-COVID patient advocates say funds should be focused. Ideally, Putrino and others told me, resources should be diverted to trials investigating drugs that might address PEM’s roots, such as the antiviral Paxlovid, which could clear lingering virus from long-haulers’ tissues. Some researchers are also hopeful about pyridostigmine, a medication that might enhance the delivery of oxygen to tissues, as well as certain supplements that might support mitochondria on the fritz.

    Those interventions are still experimental—and Putrino said that no single one is likely to work for everyone. That only adds to the challenge of studying PEM, which has been shrouded in disbelief for decades. Despite years of research on ME/CFS, Chu, of the IACFS/ME, told me that many people with the condition have encountered medical professionals who suggest that they’re just anxious, even lazy. It doesn’t help that there’s not yet a blood test for PEM; to diagnose it, doctors must ask their patients questions and trust the answers. Just two decades ago, researchers and physicians speculated that PEM stemmed from an irrational fear of activity; some routinely prescribed therapy, antidepressants, and just pushing through, Chu said. One highly publicized 2011 study, since widely criticized as shoddy science, appeared to support those claims—influencing treatment recommendations from top health authorities such as the CDC.

    The CDC and other organizations have since reversed their position on exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy as PEM treatments. Even so, many people with long COVID and ME/CFS are still routinely told to blow past their limits. All of the long-haulers I spoke with have encountered this advice, and learned to ignore it. Fighting those calls to exercise can be exhausting in its own right. As Ed Yong wrote in The Atlantic last year, American society has long stigmatized people who don’t push their way through adversity—even if that adversity is a medically documented condition that cannot be pushed through. Reconceptualizing the role of exercise in daily living is already a challenge; it is made all the more difficult when being productive—even overworked—is prized above all else.

    Long-haulers know that tension intimately; some have had to battle it within themselves. When Julia Moore Vogel, a researcher at Scripps, developed long COVID in the summer of 2020, she was at first determined to grit her way through. She took up pilates and strength training, workouts she at the time considered gentle. But the results were always the same: horrific migraines that relegated her to bed. She now does physical therapy to keep herself moving in safe and supervised amounts. When Vogel, a former competitive runner, started her program, she was taken aback by how little she was asked to do—sometimes just two reps of chin tucks. “I would always laugh because I would be like, ‘These are not exercises,’” she told me. “I’ve had to change my whole mental model about what exercise is, what exertion is.”

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • You’re Probably Drinking Enough Water

    You’re Probably Drinking Enough Water

    [ad_1]

    As recently as the 1990s, Jodi Stookey, a nutrition consultant based in California, remembers hydration research being a very lonely field. The health chatter was all about fat and carbs; children routinely subsisted on a single pouch of Capri Sun a day. Even athletes were discouraged from sipping on fields and race tracks, lest the excess liquid slow them down. “I can’t tell you how many people told me I was stupid,” Stookey told me, for being one of water’s few advocates.

    But around the turn of the millennium, hydration became an American fixation. Celebrities touted water’s benefits in magazines; branded bottles overran supermarket shelves. Academic research on hydration underwent a mini-boom. After ages of being persistently parched, we were suddenly all drinking, drinking, drinking, because we felt like we should. It was an aquatic about-face—and it didn’t make total scientific sense.

    The importance of hydration, in the abstract, is indisputable. Water keeps our organs chugging and our muscles agile; it helps distribute nutrients through the body and maintains our inner thermostat. Take it away, and cells inevitably die. But the concrete specifics of adequate water intake are still, in large part, a mess. For hydration, “there are no clear numbers, or a threshold you have to maintain,” says Yasuki Sekiguchi, a sports-performance scientist at Texas Tech University. Experts don’t agree on how much water people need, or the best ways to tell when someone should drink; they differ on how to measure hydration, which beverages are adequately hydrating, and how much importance to attribute to thirst. They have yet to reach quorum on what hydration—a process that’s sustained life since its primordial inception—fundamentally is. The murkiness has left the field of hydration research, still relatively young and relatively small, rife with “vicious camps against each other,” says Tamara Hew-Butler, an exercise physiologist at Wayne State University.

    Forget, for instance, one of water’s most persistent myths: the oft-repeated advice to down eight 8-ounce glasses of water each day. No one can say for certain, but one theory is that the idea  sprouted from a misinterpretation of a nutrition document from the 1940s, which stated that 2.5 liters of water a day (that is, approximately 10 8-ounce glasses) was “a suitable allowance for adults” in “most instances.” The guidance also noted, in the very same paragraph, “Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods.” But the bigger issue is this: Probably no single number for water intake will ever suffice—not for a population of people with varying weights, genetics, diets, and activity levels, living in varying climates. Even within an individual, what’s best will change through a lifetime. The answer to How much water should I be drinking? is invariably Uh, it really depends.


    Today’s hydration zeitgeist seems to hold that no amount of water is too much. The market teems with intake-tracking smartphone apps and time-stamped bottles that cheer drinkers toward hydration goals as high as a gallon a day—a quota astronomical enough to be stressful, even dangerous, should people flood their bodies all at once. But America’s hydration hype machine “has established a narrative that we are all walking around dehydrated, and need to drink more,” Hew-Butler told me. It’s no wonder that some people have reported legitimate anxiety over falling short on water intake.

    No single source sold America on water. But a 2021 episode of the podcast Decoder Ring points to Gatorade as one of the first companies to pitch dehydration as a health problem—while simultaneously offering a cure. The company’s sports drinks were originally billed as thirst-quenchers, designed to stave off performance dips. But by the 1980s, Decoder Ring reported, the Gatorade Sports Science Institute was churning out data that supported the benefits of drinking before the mouth got parched. A decade later, the American College of Sports Medicine was recommending that athletes consume “the maximal amount” of water they could stand to keep down.

    Around the same time, during the fitness craze of the ’70s and ’80s, water was acquiring another identity: the enlightened socialite’s clean drink of choice. When European companies such as Perrier and Evian brought their bottled water to North America, they found a market among those wanting a high-end, calorie- and sweetener-free alternative to sodas, alcohol, and juice. Water “had this healthy, good-for-you halo,” says Michael Bellas, the chair and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation. “There were no negatives.” In 2016, water became the U.S.’s leading bottled beverage, a title it has maintained since.

    As water’s market share grew, so did its mythos. Companies hocked the illusion that their products could make people not just healthier but “sexier and more popular,” Peter Gleick, the author of The Three Ages of Water, told me. Hydration was so clearly vital to life that truth-adjacent ideas about its benefits, many of them pushed by prominent people, were easy to buy. Even concerns over single-use plastic bottles could not slow water’s roll: In response, the world cooked up eco-friendly Yetis, HydroFlasks, and Nalgenes, and made those trendy, too.


    It’s not that water isn’t healthy. There’s just no evidence to show that guzzling tons of water can fix all our ailments. For people prone to kidney stones and UTIs, drinking more has been shown to cut down on risks; as a swap for sugary beverages, it can also help with weight loss. But for a variety of other issues—such as heart disease, metabolic issues, and cancer—the data is often “really mixed,” Hew-Butler told me. Although researchers have sometimes found evidence that dehydration may raise certain conditions’ risks, that doesn’t automatically imply the inverse—that extra water intake then lowers risk from a typical baseline. At very rare extremes, overdoing it on water can kill us, too.

    The connections between hydration and health are shaky enough that health authorities have been reluctant to push a strict recommended daily allowance, like the ones that exist for various vitamins. Instead, the National Academy of Medicine proposes a tentative “adequate intake”: 3.7 liters of total water intake for men, and 2.7 for women (both including hydration from food). Recently, Abigail Colburn, a physiology researcher at Yale, and her colleagues ran an analysis that concluded those figures were sound. Still, the numbers came from population surveys, published in the early aughts, of the amounts that Americans were already drinking—a reflection of how things were, but not necessarily how they should be. And they represent medians within a huge range. Over the years, multiple studies have documented people living, by all appearances healthfully, on daily water budgets that span less than a liter to four, five, or six—sometimes more.

    If researchers don’t agree on how much water is good, they also differ on how little water is bad: the point at which dehydration starts to become a problem—or how long people can linger at that threshold without raising long-term health risks.

    A bit of water loss should be completely fine. Fluid status is, by design, “a constantly changing state,” Colburn told me. When the body doesn’t take in enough water to recoup the liquid it’s lost—as it naturally does throughout the day, via sweat, urine, and breath—the brain releases a hormone called vasopressin that prompts the kidneys to hold onto fluid. The urine gets darker and less voluminous; eventually, blood-salt levels rise, and the mouth and throat ache with thirst. The goal is to get the body to excrete less water out and take more in so we don’t wring our vital tissues dry. Life forms have evolved to tread carefully down this cascade of steps, and the flexibility is built in—much like a rubber band that snaps back after being stretched and released.

    But some researchers have started to worry about repeatedly asking the body to compensate for less than optimal hydration—stretching the band over and over again. The issue isn’t chronic dehydration, Colburn told me, but a subtler precursor state called underhydration, which occurs after a lack of water intake has prompted the body to conserve but before the appearance of signals such as thirst. It’s not clear how worrying teetering on that precipice is. In the same way a rubber band is “designed to stretch,” our fluid balance is built to bounce back, says Evan Johnson, a hydration expert at the University of Wyoming. Over time, though, wear and tear could add up, and resilience could drop.

    Tracking those outcomes gets even more complicated when researchers try to quantify how dehydrated individual people are—another thing that experts can’t agree on. “We really don’t have a gold standard for measuring the all-encompassing term of hydration,” Johnson told me, especially one that’s both simple and cheap, and can account for body water’s constant flux. Which leaves scientists with imperfect proxies. Broadly speaking, there’s a urine camp and a blood camp, Stookey told me. Those in the pee camp tend to be hydration conservatives. A change in urine color or volume, they argue, is an early sign—well in advance of thirst—of impending dehydration. The blood-camp crew is more laissez-faire. Diet, medications, and supplements can all alter the shade of urine, making it a fickle clue; Hew-Butler for instance, defines true dehydration as what happens when the plasma’s gotten saltier than usual, to the point where cells have started to shrink—a sign that retaining water is no longer sufficient, and that the body needs to drink.


    Which camp researchers fall into influences how bad they think America’s hydration problem is. “When you draw blood, most people are within a normal range if they’re not thirsty,” Hew-Butler told me. But Stookey, who’s firmly in the pee camp, contends that a majority of Americans are “walking around dehydrated” and should be drinking far more. Colburn, too, would rather err on the side of heeding urine’s warning signs. By the time thirst kicks in, “you’re already in a dangerous zone,” she told me.

    There can be a middle ground. Sekiguchi, of Texas Tech, told me that for most young, healthy people who are spending plenty of time in the air-conditioned indoors—as so many Americans do—it’s probably fine to just drink when thirsty. (That advice works less well for older people, because the sensation of thirst tends to dull with age.) When specific circumstances shift—a stint of heavy exercise, a week of toasty days—people can take notice, and adjust accordingly.

    But guidelines for typical water intake, under typical conditions, are quickly going out the window as heat waves get more frequent and intense. When temperatures skyrocket and humidity makes otherwise-cooling sweat stick stubbornly on skin, our bodies need more water to keep cool and functional, beyond what thirst alone might dictate. Part of the problem is that thirst vanishes more quickly than the body rehydrates, Sekiguchi told me, which means that people who drink until they think they’re sated tend to replace only a fraction of the fluids that they’ve lost.

    “We’re never going to be able to tell people an exact number,” Colburn told me, for how much to drink. But in reality, many of the healthy people most worried about fine-tuning their hydration to a perfect level are probably among those that least need to fret. The dangers of water tend to happen not in those middle grounds, but at its extremes—especially when failing infrastructure hampers access to water, or contamination makes it undrinkable. Many of the populations that are most vulnerable to dehydration’s effects also happen to be the same groups that probably aren’t getting enough to drink, Johnson told me. While bottled-water markets boom, plenty of pockets of the U.S. still lack consistent access to safe, reliable water from the tap. And the situation is even worse in many places abroad. Perhaps nothing reminds us of water’s power like dramatic deficit: Water, simply, is what keeps us alive.


    ​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Can You Have a Fun Vacation on Ozempic?

    Can You Have a Fun Vacation on Ozempic?

    [ad_1]

    At Christmas dinner, Jenny Burriss remembers eating exactly one bite of beef before feeling full. She had just upped her dose of semaglutide—the diabetes and obesity drug better known by the brand names Ozempic and Wegovy—and her appetite had plummeted. She had also lost her taste for alcohol, a side effect of the drug. So before her vacation a couple of months later, she decided to skip a dose. She was going to Disney World, and she wanted to enjoy the food—at least a little.

    She was indeed hungrier after skipping her weekly injection, but not ravenously so. At the Biergarten buffet in Epcot’s Germany pavilion—where she might have once piled her plate high, justifying to herself that, after all, this is vacation—she was satisfied by just a small taste of everything. At the French pavilion, she savored a Grand Marnier orange slush. She didn’t lose weight at Disney World, but she didn’t gain any either.

    Semaglutide works by suppressing the appetite and promoting a feeling of fullness. More fundamentally though, it works by altering one’s relationship with food. Doctors see the drug as a powerful biochemical tool to help patients build healthy long-term habits. Eating becomes a source not of comfort or pleasure, but simply of sustenance. “It takes a little bit of the enjoyment out of it,” Burriss told me. “But that’s healthy,” she added, for someone like her, who had a compulsive relationship with food. Semaglutide has helped her lose about 40 pounds. As the drug has exploded in popularity for weight loss, though, people who use semaglutide to reset their eating habits are navigating a world where food and the anticipation of it are still central to celebration. Semaglutide is meant to be taken regularly as a lifelong drug. So what to do on vacation, when enjoyment is kind of the point?

    For some, deciding to forgo the dose while traveling is just a practical consideration. Semaglutide’s side effects usually taper off as the body adjusts, but they can range from the mildly inconvenient to the terribly uncomfortable: nausea, vomiting, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, heartburn, sulfur burps. No one wants to get hit with a bout of diarrhea as a plane is taking off.

    For others, staying on the drug removes the compulsion and distraction of thinking about food. They enjoy that peace, even on vacation. Semaglutide quiets what some patients call the “food noise” in their brains: waking up in the morning and immediately wondering what to eat today. Mexican? Pizza? Oh, let me look at some menus. It can be overwhelming to experience and exhausting to constantly counter. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity-medicine doctor at Harvard, told me that her patients on semaglutide like being able to attend a wedding or a party “without having to worry about overindulging.” Janice Jin Hwang, an obesity-medicine doctor at the UNC School of Medicine, says she tells patients not to see vacations as cheat days. “I don’t like to make it a dichotomy where it’s your normal time and your vacation time,” she says, advocating instead for a more balanced approach all the time.

    People who want to skip while on vacation, though, are swapping tips and experiences online, sometimes in lieu of official medical advice. By and large, those I spoke with, like Burriss, told me that they were looking for a middle ground, not to go completely overboard on food. “I certainly didn’t want to pig out,” says Sarah, who skipped a dose for a 10-year-anniversary trip to the Bahamas. “I just didn’t want to have that weird nauseous feeling or not be able to enjoy wine.” Sarah, whose last name I’m not using to protect her medical privacy, has always loved researching the best restaurants on vacation. This time, she felt some of the thrill of anticipation, but she ate moderately and chose healthy options, such as fresh fish. Allyson Gelman, who skipped while on vacation in Mexico City, told me she still ended up canceling an eagerly awaited 12-course tasting menu. When she eats too much or too unhealthily on semaglutide, she has to vomit; she’s sometimes had to run to the bathroom after overdoing it in a nice restaurant. In Mexico City, she could still feel the drug’s effects lingering in her system, and she knew she wasn’t getting through 12 courses without throwing up.

    Semaglutide does take several weeks to clear from the body, so skipping just one dose attenuates but doesn’t eliminate the effects of the drug. Marnie, whom I’m also identifying by only her first name for medical privacy, has been regularly taking her prescribed Wegovy every other week. In the second week, she can feel her side effects start to fade and her hunger start to return. For her, skipping is largely about managing her side effects, because the drug still leaves her very tired. She’s probably losing weight more slowly this way, she says, but she’s okay with that. In certain cases, Stanford, the doctor at Harvard, told me she has instructed patients who don’t need the full dose for weight loss to go longer between injections to modulate severe side effects. (Bafflingly, she’s found that insurance won’t cover a smaller-dose injection pen.)

    The explosion of interest in semaglutide is so new, though, that doctors and patients alike are still figuring out what it means in the long term—not just in two or three years, but in 20 or 30. How long do the effects last, and how permanent are these new habits? Burriss believes that, for her, there is room for the occasional indulgence, during a special event or vacation. “It’s not an everyday thing,” she said. And indulging while on semaglutide is still nothing like bingeing without it.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link