World
Does Dry January actually work?
Every January, most of us pledge to work on ourselves. Some try to abstain from alcohol for the month. But does Dry January make us healthier?
Your social media is probably flooded with self-improvement posts right now.
Maybe even a couple of announcements from loved ones saying they’re staying sober for the whole month of January.
Around the world, the tradition is growing in popularity.
In the UK, where the campaign started in 2013, more than 8.5 million people said they planned to stay off the booze for a month this year, according to a poll run by Alcohol Change UK. In 2013, only 4,000 signed up for the challenge.
But how much difference can a teetotal month make to our health?
The dangers of alcohol consumption are well established, with alcohol abuse among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, according to The Lancet.
Almost one in five Europeans reported having heavy drinking episodes – more than six units of alcohol in one sitting – at least once a month in 2019.
Long-term excessive alcohol consumption increases your risk of:
- Cirrhosis of the liver
- Cancer, particularly breast cancer and esophageal cancer
- Heart failure
- High blood pressure
There is no safe level of drinking, say the World Health Organisation. Avoiding alcohol is the only way to avoid its damaging effects.
Observing Dry January has been shown to impart significant health benefits, according to multiple studies.
Two of them were carried out by Dr Rajiv Jalan, professor of hepatology at University College London (UCL). Although not a randomised study, Jalan said the results were striking.
“The most important one that we saw in patients was the feeling of energy, as well as increased concentration and sleep. Most of them lost weight, nearly 2 to 3 kilograms over one month,” he told Euronews referring to a study he conducted on a small group of staff from the New Scientist magazine in 2013.
In 2018, Dr Jalan completed new research on a larger group of hospital workers who decided to partake in the challenge compared to other individuals who did not.
“We followed people up after three to six months to ask what impact Dry January had on them. And in general terms, they felt so good in this month that they were more scared to drink during the week. In the following six months, their alcohol consumption stayed low,” he explained.
The only downside Jalan found was that people said: “They felt they were boring company at parties.”
A negative boomerang effect?
However, a2021 study found that Dry January could trigger a negative boomerang effect like a restrictive diet.
The British Liver Trust suggests staying off the booze two or three days every week, allowing the liver to recover regularly, rather than abstaining for one month and then going back to old habits.
But Joe Marley, Director of Communications at Alcohol Change UK, says studies have shown otherwise.
ADVERTISEMENT“It’s a little bit of a myth that people kind of boomerang when they take part in Dry January. Seven in ten people are drinking more mindfully, in a healthier way, even six months down the line. So there’s not really any evidence for that cliff edge at the end of January that people kind of fall back into old habits,” he told Euronews.
Is there anyone who shouldn’t partake in Dry January?
According to all the experts we talked to, the campaign is meant for social drinkers, not for people seeking recovery from alcohol abuse.
“If you are physically dependent on alcohol to the point where you would experience dangerous withdrawal symptoms, then Dry January isn’t right for you. It could be life-threatening. If you think that you’re in that scenario, it’s still possible to take control of your drinking, but you need to have a conversation with your GP,” warned Marley.
new video loaded: 13 Civilians Killed in Pakistani Airstrikes in Afghanistan
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 11, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey resigned Thursday after clashing with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government over military spending, dealing the British leader a setback weeks before a critical NATO summit to include President Donald Trump.
Healey’s departure stemmed from a dispute over the delayed Defense Investment Plan (DIP) — the government’s long-promised roadmap for military investment and readiness — and as NATO allies face renewed pressure from Trump to boost defense spending.
“John Healey’s resignation is a seismic moment for the government and the Ministry of Defense,” Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Senior Associate Fellow Ed Arnold told Fox News Digital.
“For the government, it creates a sequence of political headaches in terms of a replacement, and trying to get the Defense Investment Plan published.”
BRITISH PM KEIR STARMER MOVES UK MILITARY INTO ‘WAR-FIGHTING READINESS’
Britain’s Defence Secretary John Healey speaks with British and Norwegian naval personnel at the unveiling of the Atlantic Bastion programme in Portsmouth, Britain, on Dec. 4, 2025. (Peter Nicholls/Pool via Reuters)
Healey had been in intense, late-stage negotiations with Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves over the scale and timelines of the DIP.
Starmer reportedly refused to set out a timeline to reach 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense by 2035 — a promise he made to Trump at last year’s NATO summit — and would not commit to a firm date for reaching 3%.
Instead, Starmer offered Healey a deal to spend 2.68% of GDP on defense by 2030, up only marginally from 2.6% next year, Reuters reported.
“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country,” Healey wrote to Starmer in his resignation letter, warning that the financial constraints would “make the country less safe,” the outlet reported.
NATO CHIEF URGES MEMBERS TO ‘TURBOCHARGE’ DEFENSE PRODUCTION AS HE PAINTS PICTURE OF A WORLD BOUND FOR WAR
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer pose with NATO country leaders during the NATO Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. (Ben Stansall/Pool via Reuters)
“If the delay to the Defense Investment Plan was already undermining the government’s credibility on defense, John Healey’s resignation has blown a hole in its side,” Professor Kevin Rowlands of the RUSI defense and security think tank told Fox News Digital.
“The immediate consequence is not just political embarrassment for No. 10, but a significant loss of planning certainty at a time when the British Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defense, and industry really need clarity on what will be funded, and when,” he added.
The political fallout is expected to reverberate across the Atlantic, where Washington has increased pressure on European allies to fulfill their defense obligations. Trump has frequently criticized NATO alliance members as “free riders.”
On June 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the upcoming Ankara summit would be the “most important meeting” in NATO’s history because there are some things “that need to be cleared up and fixed.”
He added, “The United States is still in the NATO alliance, and we’ll be there.”
TRUMP EFFECT FORCES GERMANY TO REPRIORITIZE DEFENSE AS NATION PLAYS CATCH-UP IN MILITARY SPENDING
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer increased the military presence in Cyprus following an Iranian drone strike early Monday, Feb. 24, 2026. (Kin Cheung / POOL / AFP via Getty Images))
However, U.S. officials have made it clear that patience is wearing thin.
“Ahead of next month’s NATO summit, POTUS has been clear: Allies must fulfil their commitment to spending 5% of GDP on defense,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker posted on X this week.
Furthermore, a U.S. official noted that a U.K. funding package far lower than 18 billion pounds ($23 billion) would send a highly “negative” signal to Trump ahead of the Ankara meeting, according to The Times.
Starmer has pledged to lift spending to 3% in the next Parliament but Healey’s exit has exposed that the current strategy leaves the U.K. lagging behind key allies. By comparison, Germany plans to spend 3.7% of its GDP on defense by 2030.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Healey knows the threats we face, he knows the capabilities and shortfalls the armed forces have, and if he believes that the financial settlement is not enough to keep the country safe — to the extent that he cannot honorably stay in post — then we are in trouble,” Rowlands added.
“While the impact will mainly be felt on Whitehall, the international implications are severe with a NATO summit just three weeks away,” Arnold noted.
Published on
After two years of strong performance driven by a shift to a war economy, Russia’s economic situation is weakening, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told Euronews.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
And although the IMF raised its forecast for Russia’s 2026 growth in its April outlook from 0.8% to 1.1%, Georgieva told Euronews this did not reflect the full picture of the economic weakening.
“The higher oil prices do give a breather to Russia,” Georgieva said, arguing the hike cannot offset the bigger hit to Russia’s economy.
“They have depleted their buffers dramatically,” Georgieva said. The oil price windfall “appears to be used to rebuild buffers rather than to inject more investment into the economy,” she explained.
“Growth has slowed down significantly. Now we are projecting 1%. Before the war, their potential growth was 1.6%,” Georgieva pointed out.
The IMF managing director also told Euronews that it is important to consider other economic indicators to better understand Russia’s current economic situation.
“Inflation is high. That means that interest rates are high, almost 15%.”
The IMF does not expect to see “material impact on growth in Russia,” Georgieva said. “It is a country whose medium (and) long-term prospects have worsened significantly.”
She listed three grounds on which the prospects have worsened. The first is losing people.
“A country that was in a demographic decline to begin with now lost so many young people for a terrible reason,” Georgieva explained.
The second factor is the sanctions, specifically the way they “bite a lot on the technology front.”
“What we see in the oil and gas sector in Russia, there is a tremendous problem with lack of technological renewal that is restricting the ability of the sector to expand,” she said.
And the third is the fact that “Russia lost standing.”
“That translates into many tangible and non-tangible losses. I mean, just think of the young Russians that could have built relations with Europeans and others and did not because of the war,” Georgieva stated.
“So, on the whole, Russia is coming crippled,” she concluded.
-
Kentucky2 minutes agoKentucky Football pushes back this week’s official visits
-
Louisiana5 minutes agoLandry signs Louisiana Energy Protection Act
-
Maine10 minutes agoMaine candidates fish, fret and spin results during a ranked-choice voting lull
-
Maryland17 minutes agoFederal agents search for Maryland juvenile in connection to double shooting turned murder
-
Michigan20 minutes agoUniversity of Michigan graduate named among crew for Artemis III mission
-
Massachusetts32 minutes agoBallot proposal would allow homes on smaller lots in Mass.
-
Minnesota35 minutes agoStill above average, but Minnesota’s education lead is shrinking, annual nationwide report says
-
Mississippi40 minutes agoAn apartment rental where you can snag a HR ball? Only in Mississippi
