Our bodies—and guts, specifically—depend on a balance of bacteria to “maintain healthy blood sugar and cholesterol levels,” but “you gotta feed the bacteria.” So said Dr. Mehmet Oz—heart surgeon turned daytime TV host, ardent RFK Jr. supporter, believer in disproven COVID treatment hydroxychloroquine, and now possible head of Medicaid and Medicare for the Trump administration—who began his Senate confirmation process on Friday. 

To aid in that gut-balancing process, Oz has pushed the benefits of both prebiotics and probiotics, including in his role as global advisor for the iHerb brand of supplements. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Dr. Oz (@dr_oz)

Both have come under scrutiny recently, including through this week’s Washington Post opinion piece by Harvard medical school instructor and physician Trisha Pasricha, who called probiotics “a waste of money,” instead recommending a high-fiber diet. 

So which doctor is right? Here’s what science tells us. 

What are probiotics?

The human gastrointestinal tract is colonized by a range of microorganisms, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, fungi, and protozoa, explains the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Dietary Supplements. And the activity and composition of those microorganisms (often known as the gut microbiome) can affect human health and disease.

Probiotics, according to the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, are “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts,” may benefit that gut microbiome composition. 

While they are naturally present in fermented foods—including the homemade turmeric sauerkraut Dr. Oz mentions in his Instagram post (above) about probiotics—they can also be added to food products, and are available as dietary supplements. 

“However,” notes the NIH, “not all foods and dietary supplements labeled as probiotics on the market have proven health benefits.”

That’s where a range of varied opinions come into play.

Who says what about probiotic supplements?

As Pasricha points out, of the over 1,000 clinical trials of probiotic supplements, there have been too many different strains tested and results found to reliably say they can be universally helpful. 

A 2024 review of existing evidence, published in the Advances in Nutrition journal, concluded that, on one hand, “there is sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety for clinicians and consumers to consider using specific probiotics for some indications—such as the use of probiotics to support gut function during antibiotic use or to reduce the risk of respiratory tract infections—for certain people.”

However, those researchers concluded, “we did not find a sufficiently high level of evidence to support unconditional, population-wide recommendations for other preventive endpoints we reviewed for healthy people. Although evidence for some indications is suggestive of the preventive benefits of probiotics, additional research is needed.”

When looking at the body of scientific evidence regarding effect of probiotics on seven different health issues, the NIH reports the following:

Atopic dermatitis

Numerous studies have looked at the effect of probiotics on this most common form of eczema. Overall, the evidence suggests that the use of probiotics might reduce the risk of developing atopic dermatitis, but also might provide only limited relief. The effects also depend on the strain used, the timing of administration, and the patient’s age.

Pediatric acute diarrhea

While one large review found that single- and multi-strain probiotics significantly shortened the duration of symptoms, another found it was no better than a placebo. 

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea

Overall, the available evidence suggests that starting probiotic treatment with strains LGG (Lactobacillus) or Saccharomyces boulardii within 2 days of the first antibiotic dose helps reduce the risk of diarrhea in patients between 18 and 64, but not in elderly adults.

Inflammatory bowel disease

IBD is a chronic inflammatory disease that includes ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, for which no cure exists. In the many reviews that have looked at the effects of probiotics, researchers reached similar conclusions—that certain probiotics might have modestly beneficial effects on ulcerative colitis but not on Crohn’s disease.

Irritable bowel syndrome

IBS is a common functional disorder of the gastrointestinal tract that’s been linked to both stress and gut microbiomes. Overall, the available evidence shows that probiotics might reduce some symptoms, but stresses that additional clinical trials are needed to confirm the specifics of strain, dose, and duration of treatment.

High cholesterol

Researchers have studied the use of probiotics to improve lipid profiles. And while, overall, research suggests that using multiple probiotic strains might reduce total and LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, more research is needed.

Obesity

Again: More research is needed. The results, the NIH concludes, “indicate that the effects of probiotics on body weight and obesity might depend on several factors, including the probiotic strain, dose, and duration as well as certain characteristics of the user, including age, sex, and baseline body weight.” 

Bottom line: The jury is still out. Whether you opt to try the supplements or not (as they are generally believed to be harmless, though long-term safety studies are still needed), make sure to eat plenty of fiber as well as fermented foods. That includes yogurt, kefir, fermented cottage cheese, kimchi and other fermented vegetables (as endorsed by Oz), and kombucha tea, which were shown by Stanford University researchers to increase microbial diversity and lower inflammation.

More on supplements:

• This gastroenterologist says probiotics are ‘a waste of money.’ Here’s what you should be doing instead
• An expert says don’t waste your money on beetroot supplements—try this instead
• Coca-Cola is Olipop’s and Poppi’s latest prebiotic soda competitor. But are ‘healthy’ sodas actually good for you?

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

California’s top insurance regulator on Friday said he would approve an emergency request by State Farm to raise premiums 22% on home insurance for about a million customers if the insurance giant could justify the hike at a public hearing.

State Farm, the state’s largest insurer with roughly 1 million home insurance policies in California, said the emergency rate would help the company rebuild its capital following the Los Angeles wildfires that destroyed more than 16,000 buildings, mostly homes. The company is trying to prevent a “dire” financial situation that executives said could push homeowners into the state’s last-resort insurance option.

California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said that other California insurers won’t be able to absorb State Farm’s customers if the insurance giant stops doing business in California, but that he wanted more data on how the company manages its finances and calculates risks. He asked the company to present its argument publicly on April 8 to a judge, who will then give a proposed decision. Lara will then make a final decision.

“State Farm claims it is committed to its California customers and aims to restore financial stability. I expect both State Farm and its parent company to meet their responsibilities and not shift the burden entirely onto their customers,” Lara said in a statement. “The facts will be revealed in an open, transparent hearing.”

Lara also called on the company to request a $500 million capital infusion from its parent company to help stabilize its finances in a private meeting this week, according to transcript of the meeting.

At the same meeting, State Farm said it would halt cancelling and not renewing policies for “at least one year” if it gets the rate increase approval. The company last year announced it discontinued coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California after saying it would not issue new home policies in the state in 2023.

Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that opposed State Farm’s request, said the 22% increase could equate to an additional $600 annually for homeowners. The group previously said it would challenge the approval if Lara goes through with it.

State Farm and Consumer Watchdog didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The emergency rates include a 22% rate increase for homeowners, 38% for rental owners and 15% for tenants. They will go into effect in June if Lara ultimately approves it. The decision comes as California is undergoing a yearslong effort to entice insurers to continue doing business in the state as wildfires increasingly destroy entire neighborhoods. In 2023, several major companies, including State Farm, stopped issuing residential policies due to high fire risk. Lara last year unveiled a slate of regulations all aiming at giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for more policies in high-risk areas. Those rules kick in this year.

State Farm executives told state officials the company was already struggling before the LA fires. The company received a financial rating downgrade last year and has seen a decline of $5 billion in its surplus account over the last decade. Last year, the company asked the state for a 30% rate increase, which state officials are still considering.

The LA fires, which are now estimated to be the costliest natural disasters in the U.S. history, have made things worse, State Farm executives said. The company last month paid out roughly $1.75 billion to 9,500 claims and estimated the total loss to reach more than $7 billion. Its surplus also dropped from $1.04 billion at the end of 2024 to $400 million after the fires, according to State Farm. The company is using its surplus and reinsurance to settle the claims.

State Farm said it plans to refund the emergency rates if California later approves lower rates through the company’s request last year. The insurer last received state approval for a 20% rate increase in December 2023.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Younger Americans don’t have enough saved to cover a single month of spending, showcasing their vulnerability should the economy head into a downturn.

Members of the Gen Z generation — people born after 1995 — were spending twice the amount they had in savings on average in February, according to Bank of America Institute analysis of internal account and card data released Friday. The ratio has increased in the past two years, and is much higher than for other generations.

In part that’s because Gen Z consumers, many of whom still hold entry-level positions and make less than their older peers, tend to spend a bigger share of their incomes on necessities including rent and utilities. But they’re also more likely to shell out on discretionary categories like travel and entertainment. Spending in non-essentials among that cohort is up more than 25% from a year ago — substantially above the overall rate.

While the report noted that Gen Z workers are still garnering robust pay gains compared to older groups, it showcases a point of vulnerability as households’ views of the economy dim.

After years of stubborn inflation, higher borrowing costs and waning pandemic savings, views of their current financial situation have sharply declined this year. Among all US households, expectations for finances a year from now have dropped to an all-time low, according to a University of Michigan report out Friday.

Career concerns

Economists and policymakers are paying close attention to how this growing pessimism will impact consumption — the main engine of the US economy. Americans took a breather on spending at the start of the year, and some retailers are already warning of weaker demand ahead.

The Bank of America report also pointed to a worsening labor market for younger Americans. The number of Gen Z households receiving unemployment benefits rose by nearly a third in the past year — the most of any generation. It also noted that, with underemployment on the rise, that could have long-term career effects for that cohort.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com