Here’s a fact that never fails to make me feel more connected to my fellow man: at any given time, about one in seven UK adults is struggling with constipation.

It’s believed to affect twice as many women as men (ladies have a longer colon and more variable hormones), and tends to get worse and is more likely to be chronic as we age.

Experts think that change might be partly down to factors like decreased mobility, drinking less water, slower gut transit time, weaker muscles, certain medications, and a higher likelihood of medical conditions that make getting backed up more probable.

Regardless of its cause, though, there’s lots of research to suggest a relatively simple solution: maybe we should all be trying a poop walk.

We’ve written before about “fart walks,” which involve going for a short stroll after a meal. These have been linked to better blood sugar management and even a lower cancer risk.

And research has shown that walking gets our bowels moving a minute or so after we start, helping to relieve constipation, too.

Speaking to HuffPost UK, Julie Thompson, an Information Manager at digestive system charity Guts UK, said: “One of the roles of the large bowel is to absorb water from the gut contents, so the longer poo stays in the large bowel, the drier it becomes.

“Walking stimulates bowel movements because it increases intestinal motility (increases gut muscle contractions) in people with constipation, decreasing the time it takes for the gut contents to move through.”

She added, “Walking regularly can also improve the variety of the gut microbes, compared with those who are less active, which produces health-related benefits for the large bowel and for wider health.”

Thompson told us that it can be hard to work out exactly how far or long we should walk to, er, unclog the pipes.

“Research studies use a wide variety of activity in their publications, so it is difficult to be precise about the combined recommendations, plus there is likely to be some individual variation,” she said.

Still, a little may go a long way. A 2025 paper, which included 21 healthy adults, saw great results after a 20-minute treadmill walk, noting that bowel activity increased pretty much as soon as participants got moving.

And other research from this year, which focused on older adults with Parkinson’s disease, found that increasing participants’ steps by 3,000 daily from their usual baseline “significantly improved constipation” after three months.

Thompson told us that you don’t need to be constipated to take advantage of a poop walk – “the best option is to follow the NHS general guidance on activity, which recommends adults should try to be active every day and aim to do at least 150 minutes of physical activity over a week, through a variety of activities including walking.

“If someone is able to walk, but is not active, it is best to increase the distance gradually,” she added.

The NHS says on its site that “A daily walk or run can help you poo more regularly”.

Professor Yohei Otaka, author of a study that found a 20-minute walk improved healthy adults’ gut motility, said, “Walking can serve as an effective, immediate tool for stimulating bowel function.

“The findings also point to potential underlying mechanisms, such as changes in autonomic nervous system activity or reflexes triggered by the body’s natural oscillations during movement.”

Aside from its bowel-based benefits, a stroll can “improve cardiovascular health by strengthening the heart, thereby helping circulation, lower[ing] blood pressure, [and] helping in the prevention of heart disease and stroke,” Matthew Nolan, a chief instructor at Barry’s in New York City, previously told HuffPost.

Protein is a key nutrient made up of tiny building blocks called amino acids. It provides us with energy, helps the body grow and repair, and is typically found in meat, fish, dairy, eggs, nuts, beans and lentils.

For healthy adults, the recommended daily amount of protein is about 0.75g per kg of body weight, notes the British Heart Foundation, adding that’s about 45g a day for a 60kg woman, and 55g a day for a 75kg man.

The reality is we’re easily consuming that. Helena Gibson-Moore, nutrition scientist for the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), said people in the UK are, on average, “eating more than enough protein”.

Society has become pretty obsessed with protein, evident in the protein-fortified foods popping up everywhere and popularity of protein-rich ‘carnivore’ and ‘boy kibble’ diets touted by influencers on social media.

While protein is good for you, experts have long cautioned that not all protein is created equal. And now, a new study suggests that less – not more – protein could be key to healthy ageing in people who aren’t as active.

“It’s absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals,” said study author Dudley Lamming, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences.”

The review of 350 existing papers on protein restriction and ageing, published in the journal Cell Press Blue, looked into how protein-restricted diets could improve health and promote longevity.

After analysing these studies, researchers suggested cutting protein intake may slow ageing by improving metabolism, changing how cells respond to nutrients, reducing cellular damage, and preserving healthy cell function.

One of the key players believed to be behind this is a hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), which can increase the body’s energy expenditure, improve blood sugar control, and reduce inflammation.

Researchers said levels of this hormone rise when protein intake is low. They also pointed to studies in mice, which have shown that animals with higher FGF21 levels lived longer than normal mice.

They also noted that consuming too many of a certain type of amino acid could trigger biological processes that promote growth, increasing the risk of obesity, inflammation, and other age-related diseases.

“These studies show that the amount of protein sedentary people are eating today may have negative health consequences, at least at the population level,” Lamming said.

While some people, like pregnant women and some older adults, have higher protein needs, for most sedentary adults, protein-fortified food may not provide the health benefits people expect, researchers added.

Discussing how athletes manage to consume large amounts of protein without developing metabolic diseases, the experts hypothesised that regular exercise may be protective.

Lamming ended: “We probably need to personalise protein recommendations based not just on age, but also on how physically active people are.”

Responding to the findings, Dr Will Hsu, a longevity expert and chief medical officer of L Nutra Health, who wasn’t involved in the review, told HuffPost UK that much of the conversation around protein is focused on physical performance, maintaining muscle, and preventing frailty.

“These are important goals. Protein is essential for supporting recovery, preserving physical function, and maintaining lean mass, particularly in older adults,” he said. “But the protein discussion should consider two objectives at the same time: performance and longevity.”

He stressed that protein and its amino acids “are not simply building materials, they are also biological signals that activate pathways involved in growth, metabolism, and cellular ageing”.

When we’re young, physically active, recovering from illness, or trying to maintain muscle, these pathways are essential.

However, keeping growth pathways continuously activated through a high protein diet “may not be ideal for long term metabolic health, particularly in someone who is relatively sedentary”, he added.

Protein’s effects vary depending on many elements – from the amount consumed, to the food source, to your physical activity levels and age.

“The average person should not read this research and immediately start cutting protein,” said Dr Hsu. “A better question is: How much protein do I need, from which foods, at this point in my life?”

He suggested a sedentary adult who already eats plenty of meat, protein bars, shakes, and protein-fortified foods “probably does not need to keep adding more”.

But replacing some animal protein with beans, lentils, nuts, seeds, and other plant foods “may create a more favourable amino acid balance, while also providing fibre and other protective nutrients”.

This advice would then change for an older adult at risk of muscle loss, an athlete, someone recovering from illness or surgery, or a person losing weight rapidly, he noted.

“For these individuals, adequate protein and resistance exercise are critical for protecting muscle, bone, strength, and independence. Pregnant women and people who are already underweight or frail should also not restrict protein without professional guidance,” he explained.

“This is why one protein recommendation cannot work for everyone. Two people of the same age may need very different amounts based on their muscle mass, activity level, health, and risk of frailty.”

He ended: “Ultimately, the goal is not maximum protein or minimum protein. It is enough high-quality protein to preserve strength and function, without assuming that more is automatically better.

“For many people, that means shifting toward a more plant-forward pattern and personalising protein intake based on age, activity, metabolic health, and muscle needs.”

Andy Burnham’s new plan to offer metro mayors a greater proportion of income tax to spend on their local communities has already hit a stumbling block.

In his push for devolution, the prime minister promised that “more of the taxes raised in a community will stay in that community” in plans to be outlined in his autumn Budget.

Conservative mayor of Tees Valley, Lord Houchen, then suggested giving that extra cash back to taxpayers.

But first secretary of state Louise Haigh slapped down the proposal this morning, telling Times Radio: ”Mayors have the ability to spend the money almost as they want now, especially in advanced mayoral authorities like Tees Valley.

“To my knowledge, Ben hasn’t developed a rebate scheme and it’s not in their gift to set income tax or business rates.

“So we would anticipate that the money would be invested into public services and into growth schemes that benefit the community as a whole.”

She added: “Mayors don’t have the ability and won’t have the ability under these plans to set income tax rates at a regional level …

“Those kind of schemes necessitate HMRC to set up full schemes. That’s just not possible at the moment.

“The way that the mayors are set up and to work is to reinvest the money into their public services, into their local economies.”

Houchen later replied on X claiming the proposals do not “sound much like devolution” to him.

He wrote: “So devolution means getting people’s taxes to spend but not being allowed to give it back to them.

“Last time I spoke to the PM, devolution was about Whitehall not dictating what areas can or can’t do.

“Doesn’t sound much like devolution to me? Just an excuse for a tax grab.

“They want to reward mayors for growing the economy but the best way to grow the economy is to let people keep more of what they earn.”

Chancellor John Healey later hit back at the mayor, telling broadcaster: “If mayors want to cut investment, like Ben Houchen says he wants to do, then he’s got to answer for the fact that bus services don’t improve, that jobs aren’t available…

“And I hope he’ll see, like most other mayors see, that this is a big opportunity for them, big opportunity for the businesses in their area and a big opportunity for the people in their area.”

The Conservatives also expressed concerns over the plan, as shadow local government secretary James Cleverly said it would just lead to higher taxes.

He said: “Andy Burnham is right to want to encourage growth in all communities.

“But his top-down Manchesterism will lead to higher taxes, with no guarantee of better outcomes for local people.

“Devolution cannot be imposed from above – it can only work if it’s done in cooperation with local people.

“But Labour’s regionalist approach takes power away from local communities, sidelining local councils and ignoring local identities.

“What works in Manchester won’t be the same for Essex, Cornwall or Cumbria.”

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey also claimed: “The need to move power into our communities is undeniable, but this must benefit communities right across the country — not just those with the right postcode.

“The government’s own figures show areas without a strategic mayor are already receiving a fraction of the funding available to mayoral authorities and adding income tax powers on top of that would make a bad situation worse.

“The Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for every community across the country – whether that’s in cities like Hull, seaside towns like Cromer and Torquay, or in suburbs, market towns and villages across England.”

Meawhile, the deputy leader of the Green Party Rachel Millward, said it was a “welcome step” but “fiscal devolution cannot become an excuse for the government to ignore the deep funding crisis facing local councils”.

Reform’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf said: “Burnham must fully devolve the power to stop the housing of illegal migrants in local communities by the Home Office.

“Time to find out if Burnham means what he says or is just Starmer in jeans.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.