3 breakfasts adding 10 lbs of belly fat ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎




No longer interested? Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>



<[link removed]>



IT CAN MAKE YOU OVERWEIGHT



 

 






There are certain foods
<[link removed]>
that trigger weight gain.

And not just weight gain like fat...

But weight gain as in "poop that won't come out."

Yes, for real...

They act as ENABLERS for constipation and bloating.

Even the healthiest of foods can sometimes be such
triggers if things are wild in your tummy.

Many people carry an extra 10-15 lbs...

WITHOUT even suspecting it.

See if that's the case in your tummy:

How to know if you have stuck poop (and
<[link removed]>
how to lose up 10 lbs of it within 7 days)
<[link removed]>


If you'd rather not receive these emails, you can unsubscribe here
<[link removed]>
.
 


A Digital Tool and Phone Coaching Nudged More People Toward Cancer Genetic
Testing In a Michigan randomized trial of 793 adults eligible for hereditary
cancer testing, both interventions raised testing, though fewer than 1 in 10
were tested within a year.




The Capital Brief October 15
Cancer Prevention Edition
A Digital Tool and Phone Coaching Nudged More People Toward Cancer Genetic
Testing


Genetic testing can reveal inherited risks for cancers such as breast, ovarian
and colorectal cancer, allowing earlier screening and prevention. Yet most
people who qualify never get tested. Researchers led by the University of
Michigan published the MiGHT randomized trial in JAMA Network Open on October
13. They enrolled 793 adults in Michigan who met national criteria for genetic
evaluation but had never been tested, recruited from clinics, research
registries and the community. Participants were randomly assigned to a
self-directed digital program, telephone health coaching or usual care. Both
active approaches used genetics education and motivational interviewing, a
counseling style that helps people explore their own reasons for change.
Overall, testing rates were low: fewer than 5% had been tested at six months
and 9.6% at 12 months. Compared with usual care, the digital program was
associated with higher odds of testing by six months, and coaching with higher
odds by 12 months. Both raised intention to test. This was a randomized trial,
the strongest design for testing an intervention, but testing was
self-reported, absolute rates were low and the study took place in one state.
The useful idea is that information and encouragement can help, but access
barriers remain. This edition explores the evidence, not a recommendation for
any individual test. Genetic testing decisions are best made with a clinician
or genetic counselor.

01 Why genetic testing matters
Some people inherit gene changes, such as in BRCA1, BRCA2 or genes linked to
Lynch syndrome, that raise cancer risk. Knowing about these changes can lead to
earlier or more frequent screening. Some people choose preventive surgery or
medications based on results. Results can also inform relatives who may share
the same gene change. National guidelines recommend evaluation for people with
certain personal or family histories. Many eligible people are never referred
or never complete testing. Barriers include cost concerns, worry about results
and lack of information.

02 How the trial was designed
The MiGHT trial enrolled adults who met criteria for genetic evaluation and
had never had germline genetic testing. Participants were recruited from
oncology, primary care and gastroenterology practices, research registries and
the public. The median age was 64, and about 58% were women. 261 were assigned
to telephone coaching, 265 to a digital program and 267 to usual care. The
digital program let people learn at their own pace online. Coaching provided
conversations with a trained health coach. The main outcome was self-reported
completion of genetic testing by six months.

03 What was found
Fewer than 5% of participants had completed testing by six months. By 12
months, 76 participants, or 9.6%, had been tested. The digital program was
associated with about 3.9 times the odds of testing by six months compared with
usual care, though the range of uncertainty was wide. Telephone coaching was
associated with about 2.3 times the odds of testing by 12 months. Both
interventions increased intention to undergo testing. The authors said overall
testing rates were low. They called for attention to how content is delivered
and to alternative models of genetic testing care.

04 Why uptake stayed low
Even motivated people may face practical hurdles, such as finding a provider
or arranging a test. Concerns about insurance coverage and cost can deter
testing. Some people worry about what results could mean for them or their
families. Genetic counseling appointments may involve waits. Interventions
focused on motivation do not remove these structural barriers. Home testing
kits and direct referral pathways are among the alternatives being studied.
Combining education with easier access may be needed.

05 Odds versus absolute rates
Odds ratios can make effects sound large when baseline rates are low. Because
so few people in usual care got tested, even modest increases produce high odds
ratios. Absolute testing rates remained under 10% after a year. That means most
eligible participants were still untested. Both relative and absolute numbers
matter for understanding impact. Per-group testing rates are reported in the
full paper. Low-cost digital tools could still reach many people at scale.

06 Study limits
Testing completion was self-reported, not confirmed in all medical records.
The trial took place in Michigan and may not generalize to other settings.
Absolute testing rates were low in all groups. The confidence interval for the
digital program's effect was wide. Participants who enrolled may have been more
interested in testing than the general eligible population. Funding and
conflict-of-interest details should be reviewed in the full paper. Longer
follow-up and studies of cancer outcomes would be valuable.

07 What people can do
If you have a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, colorectal,
pancreatic or prostate cancer, ask your clinician whether genetic evaluation is
right for you. Collect family health history, including relatives' cancers and
ages at diagnosis. Ask whether genetic counseling is available before and after
testing. Check insurance coverage; many plans cover testing when guidelines are
met. Understand that results can affect relatives and plan how to share them.
Federal law provides some protections against genetic discrimination in health
insurance and employment. Testing is a personal decision; counseling can help
weigh benefits and concerns.

08 The long view on prevention
Genetic testing can turn hidden risk into actionable information. This trial
suggests digital tools and coaching can modestly increase testing among
eligible adults. For individuals, practical questions include: Do I qualify?
What would I do with results? Who in my family should know? For health systems,
combining outreach with easier access to testing may help close the gap. For
researchers, finding ways to reach the majority who remain untested is the
challenge. The long-view idea is that knowing your risk early creates more
options. Information helps most when the next step is easy.


The Takeaway

1 In a randomized trial of 793 adults eligible for hereditary cancer testing,
both a digital program and phone coaching increased testing compared with usual
care.
2 Overall testing rates were low: under 5% at six months and 9.6% at 12 months.
3 Both interventions also increased intention to test.
4 Testing was self-reported, and the trial took place in one state.
5 The findings support better outreach and easier access, not a test for
everyone.
Stay patient, stay curious,
T.C. Brown
Editor, True Capital Talk


Sources & Further Reading

• Digital and Coaching Interventions for Uptake of Cancer Genetic Testing —
JAMA Network Open, October 13, 2026
<[link removed]>
• Genetic Testing for Inherited Cancer Risk — National Cancer Institute
<[link removed]>
• BRCA-Related Cancer: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic
Testing —U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
<[link removed]>
• BRCA Gene Changes: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing — National Cancer
Institute
<[link removed]>
For educational and informational purposes only. Nothing here is a diagnosis,
testing recommendation, or individualized medical advice. Talk to a qualified
clinician or genetic counselor about genetic testing.  


<[link removed]>




TERMS <[link removed]> • PRIVACY
<[link removed]> • UNSUBSCRIBE
<[link removed]>



This message was delivered by True Capital Talk (TCT), a brand of TerraTrance
Technologies, LLC.

Need assistance or have a question? Simply reply to this email or reach us at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

All content in this email, including text and images, is the property of
TerraTrance Technologies, LLC and may not be copied, redistributed, or shared
without prior written permission.

© 2026 True Capital Talk (TCT). All Rights Reserved.

200 Broadway Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87102

You may unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
at any time if these emails are no longer useful to you.