10,000 Steps, 30 Days, 4 Changes

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Ariel wasn’t the most active person, and took on a “30 day challenge” to do the commonly-prescribed 10,000 steps per day—without adjusting her diet or doing any other exercise. How much of a difference does it make, really?

Stepping onwards

The 4 main things that she found changed for her weren’t all what she expected:

  • Weight loss yes, but only marginally: she lost 3 lbs in a month, which did nevertheless make a visible difference. We might hypothesize that part of the reason for the small weight loss and yet visible difference is that she gained a little muscle, and the weight loss was specifically shifting away from a cortisol-based fat distribution, to a more healthy fat distribution.
  • Different eating habits: she felt less hungry and craved less sugar. This likely has less to do with calorie consumption, and more to do with better insulin signalling.
  • Increased energy and improved mood: these are going together in one item, because she said “4 things”, but really they are two related things. So, consider one of them a bonus item! In any case, she felt more energized and productive, and less reliant on caffeine.
  • Improved sleep: or rather, at first, disrupted sleep, and then slept better and stayed better. A good reminder that changes for the better don’t always feel better in the first instance!

To hear about it in her own words, and see the before and after pictures, enjoy:

Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

Want to learn more?

You might also like to read:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

    • Tilapia vs Cod – Which is Healthier?
      In the fish face-off, tilapia trumps cod with superior protein, fats, and vitamins, though watch out for mercury levels!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

    • The Stress-Proof Brain – by Dr. Melanie Greenberg

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      The premise of the book is as stated in the subtitle: using mindfulness and neuroplasticity to manage our stress response.

      As such, it’s divided into three parts:

      1. Understanding your stress (and different types of stressors)
      2. Calming your amygdalae (thus, dealing with your stress response while the stressor is stressing you)
      3. Moving forward with your prefrontal cortex (and thus, gradually improving automatic stress responses over time, as we learn new, better responses to do automatically)

      The content ranges from the neurophysiological to “therapist’s couch” stuff; Dr. Greenberg having her PhD in psychology has prepared her to write both of those different-but-touching fields with equal competence. In-line citations are given throughout, for those who want to look up studies.

      The style is direct and informative, with little to no attention given to making it an entertaining read. As a result, it’s information dense (which is good), and/but not necessarily a “couldn’t put it down” page-turner.

      Bottom line: if you’d like to improve your ability to deal with stress, this book is as good as any.

      Click here to check out The Stress-Proof Brain, and stress-proof yours!

      Share This Post

    • A Hospital Kept a Brain-Damaged Patient on Life Support to Boost Statistics. His Sister Is Now Suing for Malpractice.

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

      In 2018, Darryl Young was hoping for a new lease on life when he received a heart transplant at a New Jersey hospital after years of congestive heart failure. But he suffered brain damage during the procedure and never woke up.

      The following year, a ProPublica investigation revealed that Young’s case was part of a pattern of heart transplants that had gone awry at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in 2018. The spate of bad outcomes had pushed the center’s percentage of patients still alive one year after surgery — a key benchmark — below the national average. Medical staff were under pressure to boost that metric. ProPublica published audio recordings from meetings in which staff discussed the need to keep Young alive for a year, because they feared another hit to the program’s survival rate would attract scrutiny from regulators. On the recordings, the transplant program’s director, Dr. Mark Zucker, cautioned his team against offering Young’s family the option of switching from aggressive care to comfort care, in which no lifesaving efforts would be made. He acknowledged these actions were “very unethical.”

      ProPublica’s revelations horrified Young’s sister Andrea Young, who said she was never given the full picture of her brother’s condition, as did the findings of a subsequent federal regulator’s probe that determined that the hospital was putting patients in “immediate jeopardy.” Last month, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and members of her brother’s medical team.

      The lawsuit alleges that Newark Beth Israel staff were “negligent and deviated from accepted standards of practice,” leading to Young’s tragic medical outcome.

      Defendants in the lawsuit haven’t yet filed responses to the complaint in court documents. But spokesperson Linda Kamateh said in an email that “Newark Beth Israel Medical Center is one of the top heart transplant programs in the nation and we are committed to serving our patients with the highest quality of care. As this case is in active litigation, we are unable to provide further detail.” Zucker, who is no longer on staff at Newark Beth Israel, didn’t respond to requests for comment. His attorney also didn’t respond to calls and emails requesting comment.

      Zucker also didn’t respond to requests for comment from ProPublica in 2018; Newark Beth Israel at the time said in a statement, made on behalf of Zucker and other staff, that “disclosures of select portions of lengthy and highly complex medical discussions, when taken out of context, may distort the intent of conversations.”

      The lawsuit alleges that Young suffered brain damage as a result of severely low blood pressure during the transplant surgery. In 2019, when the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services scrutinized the heart transplant program following ProPublica’s investigation, the regulators found that the hospital had failed to implement corrective measures even after patients suffered, leading to further harm. For example, one patient’s kidneys failed after a transplant procedure in August 2018, and medical staff made recommendations internally to increase the frequency of blood pressure measurement during the procedure, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the hospital didn’t implement its own recommendations and that one month later, “these failures were repeated” in Young’s surgery, leading to brain damage.

      The lawsuit also alleges that Young wasn’t asked whether he had an advance directive, such as a preference for a do-not-resuscitate order, despite a hospital policy stating that patients should be asked at the time of admission. The lawsuit also noted that CMS’ investigation found that Andrea Young was not informed of her brother’s condition.

      Andrea Young said she understands that mistakes can happen during medical procedures, “however, it’s their duty and their responsibility to be honest and let the family know exactly what went wrong.” Young said she had to fight to find out what was going on with her brother, at one point going to the library and trying to study medical books so she could ask the right questions. “I remember as clear as if it were yesterday, being so desperate for answers,” she said.

      Andrea Young said that she was motivated to file the lawsuit because she wants accountability. “Especially with the doctors never, from the outset, being forthcoming and truthful about the circumstances of my brother’s condition, not only is that wrong and unethical, but it took a lot away from our entire family,” she said. “The most important thing to me is that those responsible be held accountable.”

      ProPublica’s revelation of “a facility putting its existence over that of a patient is a scary concept,” said attorney Jonathan Lomurro, who’s representing Andrea Young in this case with co-counsel Christian LoPiano. Besides seeking damages for Darryl Young’s children, “we want to call attention to this so it doesn’t happen again,” Lomurro said.

      The lawsuit further alleges that medical staff at Newark Beth Israel invaded Young’s privacy and violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, more commonly known as HIPAA, by sharing details of his case with the media without his permission. “We want people to be whistleblowers and want information out,” but that information should be told to patients and their family members directly, Lomurro said.

      The 2019 CMS investigation determined that Newark Beth Israel’s program placed patients in “immediate jeopardy,” the most serious level of violation, and required the hospital to implement corrective plans. Newark Beth Israel did not agree with all of the regulator’s findings and in a statement at the time said that the CMS team lacked the “evidence, expertise and experience” to assess and diagnose patient outcomes.

      The hospital did carry out the corrective plans and continues to operate a heart transplant program today. The most recent federal data, based on procedures from January 2021 through June 2023, shows that the one year probability of survival for a patient at Newark Beth is lower than the national average. It also shows that the number of graft failures, including deaths, in that time period was higher than the expected number of deaths for the program.

      Andrea Young said she’s struggled with a feeling of emptiness in the years after her brother’s surgery. They were close and called each other daily. “There’s nothing in the world that can bring my brother back, so the only solace I will have is for the ones responsible to be held accountable,” she said. Darryl Young died on Sept 12, 2022, having never woken up after the transplant surgery.

      A separate medical malpractice lawsuit filed in 2020 by the wife of another Newark Beth Israel heart transplant patient who died after receiving an organ infected with a parasitic disease is ongoing. The hospital has denied the allegations in court filing. The state of New Jersey, employer of the pathologists named in the case, settled for $1.7 million this month, according to the plaintiff’s attorney Christian LoPiano. The rest of the case is ongoing.

      Share This Post

    • Who will look after us in our final years? A pay rise alone won’t solve aged-care workforce shortages

      10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

      Aged-care workers will receive a significant pay increase after the Fair Work Commission ruled they deserved substantial wage rises of up to 28%. The federal government has committed to the increases, but is yet to announce when they will start.

      But while wage rises for aged-care workers are welcome, this measure alone will not fix all workforce problems in the sector. The number of people over 80 is expected to triple over the next 40 years, driving an increase in the number of aged care workers needed.

      How did we get here?

      The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which delivered its final report in March 2021, identified a litany of tragic failures in the regulation and delivery of aged care.

      The former Liberal government was dragged reluctantly to accept that a total revamp of the aged-care system was needed. But its weak response left the heavy lifting to the incoming Labor government.

      The current government’s response started well, with a significant injection of funding and a promising regulatory response. But it too has failed to pursue a visionary response to the problems identified by the Royal Commission.

      Action was needed on four fronts:

      • ensuring enough staff to provide care
      • building a functioning regulatory system to encourage good care and weed out bad providers
      • designing and introducing a fair payment system to distribute funds to providers and
      • implementing a financing system to pay for it all and achieve intergenerational equity.

      A government taskforce which proposed a timid response to the fourth challenge – an equitable financing system – was released at the start of last week.

      Consultation closed on a very poorly designed new regulatory regime the week before.

      But the big news came at end of the week when the Fair Work Commission handed down a further determination on what aged-care workers should be paid, confirming and going beyond a previous interim determination.

      What did the Fair Work Commission find?

      Essentially, the commission determined that work in industries with a high proportion of women workers has been traditionally undervalued in wage-setting. This had consequences for both care workers in the aged-care industry (nurses and Certificate III-qualified personal-care workers) and indirect care workers (cleaners, food services assistants).

      Aged-care staff will now get significant pay increases – 18–28% increase for personal care workers employed under the Aged Care Award, inclusive of the increase awarded in the interim decision.

      Older person holding a stabilising bar
      The commission determined aged care work was undervalued.
      Shutterstock/Toa55

      Indirect care workers were awarded a general increase of 3%. Laundry hands, cleaners and food services assistants will receive a further 3.96% on the grounds they “interact with residents significantly more regularly than other indirect care employees”.

      The final increases for registered and enrolled nurses will be determined in the next few months.

      How has the sector responded?

      There has been no push-back from employer groups or conservative politicians. This suggests the uplift is accepted as fair by all concerned.

      The interim increases of up to 15% probably facilitated this acceptance, with the recognition of the community that care workers should be paid more than fast food workers.

      There was no criticism from aged-care providers either. This is probably because they are facing difficulty in recruiting staff at current wage rates. And because government payments to providers reflect the actual cost of aged care, increased payments will automatically flow to providers.

      When the increases will flow has yet to be determined. The government is due to give its recommendations for staging implementation by mid-April.

      Is the workforce problem fixed?

      An increase in wages is necessary, but alone is not sufficient to solve workforce shortages.

      The health- and social-care workforce is predicted to grow faster than any other sector over the next decade. The “care economy” will grow from around 8% to around 15% of GDP over the next 40 years.

      This means a greater proportion of school-leavers will need to be attracted to the aged-care sector. Aged care will also need to attract and retrain workers displaced from industries in decline and attract suitably skilled migrants and refugees with appropriate language skills.

      Nursing students practise their skills
      Aged care will need to attract workers from other sectors.
      nastya_ph/Shutterstock

      The caps on university and college enrolments imposed by the previous government, coupled with weak student demand for places in key professions (such as nursing), has meant workforce shortages will continue for a few more years, despite the allure of increased wages.

      A significant increase in intakes into university and vocational education college courses preparing students for health and social care is still required. Better pay will help to increase student demand, but funding to expand place numbers will ensure there are enough qualified staff for the aged-care system of the future. The Conversation

      Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne

      This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

      Share This Post

    Related Posts

      • What’s the difference between ADD and ADHD?

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        Around one in 20 people has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It’s one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and often continues into adulthood.

        ADHD is diagnosed when people experience problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that negatively impacts them at school or work, in social settings and at home.

        Some people call the condition attention-deficit disorder, or ADD. So what’s the difference?

        In short, what was previously called ADD is now known as ADHD. So how did we get here?

        Let’s start with some history

        The first clinical description of children with inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity was in 1902. British paediatrician Professor George Still presented a series of lectures about his observations of 43 children who were defiant, aggressive, undisciplined and extremely emotional or passionate.

        Since then, our understanding of the condition evolved and made its way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM. Clinicians use the DSM to diagnose mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.

        The first DSM, published in 1952, did not include a specific related child or adolescent category. But the second edition, published in 1968, included a section on behaviour disorders in young people. It referred to ADHD-type characteristics as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood or adolescence”. This described the excessive, involuntary movement of children with the disorder.

        Kids in the 60s playing
        It took a while for ADHD-type behaviour to make in into the diagnostic manual. Elzbieta Sekowska/Shutterstock

        In the early 1980s, the third DSM added a condition it called “attention deficit disorder”, listing two types: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and attention deficit disorder as the subtype without the hyperactivity.

        However, seven years later, a revised DSM (DSM-III-R) replaced ADD (and its two sub-types) with ADHD and three sub-types we have today:

        • predominantly inattentive
        • predominantly hyperactive-impulsive
        • combined.

        Why change ADD to ADHD?

        ADHD replaced ADD in the DSM-III-R in 1987 for a number of reasons.

        First was the controversy and debate over the presence or absence of hyperactivity: the “H” in ADHD. When ADD was initially named, little research had been done to determine the similarities and differences between the two sub-types.

        The next issue was around the term “attention-deficit” and whether these deficits were similar or different across both sub-types. Questions also arose about the extent of these differences: if these sub-types were so different, were they actually different conditions?

        Meanwhile, a new focus on inattention (an “attention deficit”) recognised that children with inattentive behaviours may not necessarily be disruptive and challenging but are more likely to be forgetful and daydreamers.

        Woman daydreams
        People with inattentive behaviours may be more forgetful or daydreamers. fizkes/Shutterstock

        Why do some people use the term ADD?

        There was a surge of diagnoses in the 1980s. So it’s understandable that some people still hold onto the term ADD.

        Some may identify as having ADD because out of habit, because this is what they were originally diagnosed with or because they don’t have hyperactivity/impulsivity traits.

        Others who don’t have ADHD may use the term they came across in the 80s or 90s, not knowing the terminology has changed.

        How is ADHD currently diagnosed?

        The three sub-types of ADHD, outlined in the DSM-5 are:

        • predominantly inattentive. People with the inattentive sub-type have difficulty sustaining concentration, are easily distracted and forgetful, lose things frequently, and are unable to follow detailed instructions
        • predominantly hyperactive-impulsive. Those with this sub-type find it hard to be still, need to move constantly in structured situations, frequently interrupt others, talk non-stop and struggle with self control
        • combined. Those with the combined sub-type experience the characteristics of those who are inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive.

        ADHD diagnoses continue to rise among children and adults. And while ADHD was commonly diagnosed in boys, more recently we have seen growing numbers of girls and women seeking diagnoses.

        However, some international experts contest the expanded definition of ADHD, driven by clinical practice in the United States. They argue the challenges of unwanted behaviours and educational outcomes for young people with the condition are uniquely shaped by each country’s cultural, political and local factors.

        Regardless of the name change to reflect what we know about the condition, ADHD continues to impact educational, social and life situations of many children, adolescents and adults.

        Kathy Gibbs, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education, Griffith University

        This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

      • No Bad Parts – by Dr. Richard Schwartz

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        We’ve previously reviewed Dr. Schwartz’s “You Are The One You’ve Been Waiting For” and whereas that book doesn’t require having read this one, this one would be an excellent place to start, as it focuses on perhaps the most important core issues of IFS therapy.

        We all have different aspects that have developed within us for different reasons, and can generally “become as though a different person when…” and some condition that is met. Those are our “parts”, per IFS.

        This book makes the case that even the worst of our parts arose for reasons, that they often looked after us when no other part could or would, and at the very least, they tried. Rather than arguing for “so, everything’s just great”, though, Dr. Schwartz talks the reader through making peace with those parts, and then, where appropriate, giving them the retirement they deserve—of if that’s not entirely practical, arranging for them to at least take a seat and wait until called on, rather than causing problems in areas of life to which they are not well-suited.

        Throughout, there is a good balance of compassion and no-bullshit, both of which are really necessary in order to make this work.

        Bottom line: if there are parts of you you’re not necessarily proud of, this book can help you to put them peacefully to rest.

        Click here to check out No Bad Parts, and take care of yours!

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

      • Lemon vs Lime – Which is Healthier?

        10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

        Our Verdict

        When comparing lemons to limes, we picked the lemons.

        Why?

        This one’s simple today. They’re both comparable fruits in most ways, and their macro profiles are almost identical. When it comes to vitamins, however, they stand apart a little.

        Both are most well-known for their vitamin C content, but lemons contain about 2x the vitamin C of limes.

        In other vitamins, they’re not too far apart. Technically limes have 2x the vitamin A, but this doesn’t count for much because it’s a case of “two times almost nothing is still almost nothing”.

        In the category of minerals, neither fruit is a very good source of most minerals, and the minerals they do have, are mostly more or less the same.

        Both are acidic, and this can have blood sugar benefits in both cases (and, if not careful, damage tooth enamel in both cases). Nothing to set either apart from the other here.

        So, it comes down to the vitamin C! In which category, lemons take the prize with their higher content.

        Want to learn more?

        You might like to read:

        10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars ← where it talks about the use of vinegar here, it’s about the acidity, so lemon juice or lime juice is an option too!

        Take care!

        Don’t Forget…

        Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

        Learn to Age Gracefully

        Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: