52 Small Changes – by Brett Blumenthal

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 see a lot of books that exhort us to get a six-pack in a month, change our life in 7 days, learn Japanese in 24 hours. The reality is, things take time!

Brett Blumenthal is more realistic while being just as motivational:

The idea is simple… Make one small change per week for 52 weeks, and at the end of the year, you’ll be healthier and happier.

At 10almonds, we’re big fans of small changes that add up (or rather: compound!) to make big differences, so this one’s absolutely our style!

Best of all, she offers us not just “do this” advice, but also “and here’s the information and resources you’ll need to make this change work the best it can for you”

The advices range in topic from nutrition to exercise to sleep to mental wellness to interpersonal stuff and more. The biggest focus is on personal health, though, with small changes to exercise and nutrition making up the lion’s share of the changes.

Bottom line: this is a book you’ll want to grab once a week. Consider setting a reminder on your phone to check in with it each Sunday, for example!

Take the first step and order “52 Small Changes” from Amazon today!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Smarter Tomorrow – by Elizabeth Ricker
  • The Oh She Glows Cookbook – by Angela Liddon
    Critique to Consider: With 80 recipes, some lack complexity, yet the cookbook thrives on versatility, comfort food twists, and health-conscious variations for the plant-based cook.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • What’s Keeping the US From Allowing Better Sunscreens?

    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.

    When dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson sees people spritzing sunscreen as if it’s cologne at the pool where he lives in Austin, Texas, he wants to intervene. “My wife says I shouldn’t,” he said, “even though most people rarely use enough sunscreen.”

    At issue is not just whether people are using enough sunscreen, but what ingredients are in it.

    The Food and Drug Administration’s ability to approve the chemical filters in sunscreens that are sold in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and France is hamstrung by a 1938 U.S. law that has required sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world. So Americans are not likely to get those better sunscreens — which block the ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer and lead to wrinkles — in time for this summer, or even the next.

    Sunscreen makers say that requirement is unfair because companies including BASF Corp. and L’Oréal, which make the newer sunscreen chemicals, submitted safety data on sunscreen chemicals to the European Union authorities some 20 years ago.

    Steven Goldberg, a retired vice president of BASF, said companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a consumer backlash in the European Union, which bans animal testing of cosmetics, including sunscreen. The companies are asking Congress to change the testing requirements before they take steps to enter the U.S. marketplace.

    In a rare example of bipartisanship last summer, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) thanked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for urging the FDA to speed up approvals of new, more effective sunscreen ingredients. Now a bipartisan bill is pending in the House that would require the FDA to allow non-animal testing.

    “It goes back to sunscreens being classified as over-the-counter drugs,” said Carl D’Ruiz, a senior manager at DSM-Firmenich, a Switzerland-based maker of sunscreen chemicals. “It’s really about giving the U.S. consumer something that the rest of the world has. People aren’t dying from using sunscreen. They’re dying from melanoma.”

    Every hour, at least two people die of skin cancer in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in America, and 6.1 million adults are treated each year for basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nation’s second-most-common cancer, breast cancer, is diagnosed about 300,000 times annually, though it is far more deadly.

    Dermatologists Offer Tips on Keeping Skin Safe and Healthy

    – Stay in the shade during peak sunlight hours, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daylight time.– Wear hats and sunglasses.– Use UV-blocking sun umbrellas and clothing.– Reapply sunscreen every two hours.You can order overseas versions of sunscreens from online pharmacies such as Cocooncenter in France. Keep in mind that the same brands may have different ingredients if sold in U.S. stores. But importing your sunscreen may not be affordable or practical. “The best sunscreen is the one that you will use over and over again,” said Jane Yoo, a New York City dermatologist.

    Though skin cancer treatment success rates are excellent, 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer by age 70. The disease costs the health care system $8.9 billion a year, according to CDC researchers. One study found that the annual cost of treating skin cancer in the United States more than doubled from 2002 to 2011, while the average annual cost for all other cancers increased by just 25%. And unlike many other cancers, most forms of skin cancer can largely be prevented — by using sunscreens and taking other precautions.

    But a heavy dose of misinformation has permeated the sunscreen debate, and some people question the safety of sunscreens sold in the United States, which they deride as “chemical” sunscreens. These sunscreen opponents prefer “physical” or “mineral” sunscreens, such as zinc oxide, even though all sunscreen ingredients are chemicals.

    “It’s an artificial categorization,” said E. Dennis Bashaw, a retired FDA official who ran the agency’s clinical pharmacology division that studies sunscreens.

    Still, such concerns were partly fed by the FDA itself after it published a study that said some sunscreen ingredients had been found in trace amounts in human bloodstreams. When the FDA said in 2019, and then again two years later, that older sunscreen ingredients needed to be studied more to see if they were safe, sunscreen opponents saw an opening, said Nadim Shaath, president of Alpha Research & Development, which imports chemicals used in cosmetics.

    “That’s why we have extreme groups and people who aren’t well informed thinking that something penetrating the skin is the end of the world,” Shaath said. “Anything you put on your skin or eat is absorbed.”

    Adamson, the Austin dermatologist, said some sunscreen ingredients have been used for 30 years without any population-level evidence that they have harmed anyone. “The issue for me isn’t the safety of the sunscreens we have,” he said. “It’s that some of the chemical sunscreens aren’t as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.”

    Ultraviolet radiation falls between X-rays and visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the UV rays that people come in contact with are UVA rays that can penetrate the middle layer of the skin and that cause up to 90% of skin aging, along with a smaller amount of UVB rays that are responsible for sunburns.

    The sun protection factor, or SPF, rating on American sunscreen bottles denotes only a sunscreen’s ability to block UVB rays. Although American sunscreens labeled “broad spectrum” should, in theory, block UVA light, some studies have shown they fail to meet the European Union’s higher UVA-blocking standards.

    “It looks like a number of these newer chemicals have a better safety profile in addition to better UVA protection,” said David Andrews, deputy director of Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in consumer products. “We have asked the FDA to consider allowing market access.”

    The FDA defends its review process and its call for tests of the sunscreens sold in American stores as a way to ensure the safety of products that many people use daily, rather than just a few times a year at the beach.

    “Many Americans today rely on sunscreens as a key part of their skin cancer prevention strategy, which makes satisfactory evidence of both safety and effectiveness of these products critical for public health,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, wrote in an email.

    D’Ruiz’s company, DSM-Firmenich, is the only one currently seeking to have a new over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient approved in the United States. The company has spent the past 20 years trying to gain approval for bemotrizinol, a process D’Ruiz said has cost $18 million and has advanced fitfully, despite attempts by Congress in 2014 and 2020 to speed along applications for new UV filters.

    Bemotrizinol is the bedrock ingredient in nearly all European and Asian sunscreens, including those by the South Korean brand Beauty of Joseon and Bioré, a Japanese brand.

    D’Ruiz said bemotrizinol could secure FDA approval by the end of 2025. If it does, he said, bemotrizinol would be the most vetted and safest sunscreen ingredient on the market, outperforming even the safety profiles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

    As Congress and the FDA debate, many Americans have taken to importing their own sunscreens from Asia or Europe, despite the risk of fake products.

    “The sunscreen issue has gotten people to see that you can be unsafe if you’re too slow,” said Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University. “The FDA is just incredibly slow. They’ve been looking at this now literally for 40 years. Congress has ordered them to do it, and they still haven’t done it.”

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Share This Post

  • Colloidal Gold’s Impressive Claims

    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.

    All That Glitters…

    Today we’ll be examining colloidal gold supplementation.

    This issue of 10almonds brought to you by the writer suddenly getting lots of advertisements for this supplement. It’s not a new thing though, and has been around in one form or another since pretty much forever.

    Colloidal gold is…

    • Gold, as in the yellow metal
    • Colloidal, as in “very tiny insoluble particles dispersed though another substance (such as water)”

    What are the claims made for it?

    Honestly, just about everything is claimed for it. But to go with some popular claims:

    • Reduces inflammation
    • Supports skin health
    • Boosts immune function
    • Combats aging
    • Improves cognitive function

    So, what does the science say?

    Does it do those things?

    The short and oversimplified answer is: no

    However, there is a little bit of tangential merit, so we’re going to talk about the science of it, and how the leap gets made between what the science says and what the advertisements say.

    First… What makes gold so special, in general? Historically, three things:

    1. It’s quite rare
    2. It’s quite shiny
    3. It’s quite unreactive
    • The first is about supply and demand, so that’s not very important to us in this article.
    • The second is an aesthetic quality, which actually will have a little bit of relevance, but not much.
    • The third has been important historically (because it meant that shiny gold stayed shiny, because it didn’t tarnish), and now also important industrially too, as gold can be used in many processes where we basically need for nothing to happen (i.e., a very inert component is needed)

    That third quality—its unreactivity—has become important in medicine.

    When scientists need a way to deliver something (without the delivering object getting eaten by the body’s “eat everything” tendencies), or otherwise not interact chemically with anything around, gold is an excellent choice.

    Hence gold teeth, and gold fillings, by the way. They’re not just for the bling factor; they were developed because of their unreactivity and thus safety.

    So, what about those health claims we mentioned above?

    Here be science (creative interpretations not included)

    The most-backed-by-science claim from that list is “reduces inflammation”.

    Websites selling colloidal gold cite studies such as:

    Gold nanoparticles reduce inflammation in cerebral microvessels of mice with sepsis

    A promising title!The results of the study showed:

    ❝20 nm cit-AuNP treatment reduced leukocyte and platelet adhesion to cerebral blood vessels, prevented BBB failure, reduced TNF- concentration in brain, and ICAM-1 expression both in circulating polymorphonuclear (PMN) leukocytes and cerebral blood vessels of mice with sepsis. Furthermore, 20 nm cit-AuNP did not interfere with the antibiotic effect on the survival rate of mice with sepsis.❞

    That “20 nm cit-AuNP” means “20 nm citrate-covered gold nanoparticles”

    So it is not so much the antioxidant powers of gold being tested here, as the antioxidant powers of citrate, a known antioxidant. The gold was the carrying agent, whose mass and unreactivity allowed it to get where it needed to be.

    The paper does say the words “Gold nanoparticles have been demonstrated to own important anti-inflammatory properties“ in the abstract, but does not elaborate on that, reference it, or indicate how.

    Websites selling colloidal gold also cite papers such as:

    Anti-inflammatory effect of gold nanoparticles supported on metal oxides

    Another promising title! However the abstract mentions:

    ❝The effect was dependent on the MOx NPs chemical nature

    […]

    The effect of Au/TiO2 NPs was not related to Au NPs size❞

    MOx NPs = mineral oxide nanoparticles. In this case, the gold was a little more than a carrying agent, though, because the gold is described and explained as being a catalytic agent (i.e., its presence helps the attached mineral oxides react more quickly).

    We said that was the most-backed claim, and as you can see, it has some basis but is rather tenuous since the gold by itself won’t do anything; it just helps the mineral oxides.

    Next best-backed claim builds from that, which is “supports skin health”.

    Sometimes colloidal gold is sold as a facial tonic. By itself it’ll distribute (inert) gold nanoparticles across your skin, and may “give you a healthy glow”, because that’s what happens when you put shiny wet stuff on your face.

    Healthwise, if the facial tonic also contains some of the minerals we mentioned above, then it may have an antioxidant effect. But again, no minerals, no effect.

    The claim that it “combats aging” is really a tag-on to the “antioxidant” claim.

    As for the “supports immune health” claim… Websites selling colloid gold cite studies such as:

    Efficacy and Immune Response Elicited by Gold Nanoparticle- Based Nanovaccines against Infectious Diseases

    To keep things brief: gold can fight infectious diseases in much the same way that forks can fight hunger. It’s an inert carrying agent.

    As for “improves cognitive function”? The only paper we could find cited was that mouse sepsis study again, this time with the website saying “researchers found that rats treated with colloidal gold showed improved spatial memory and learning ability“ whereas the paper cited absolutely did not claim that, not remotely, not even anything close to that. It wasn’t even rats, it was mice, and they did not test their memory or learning.

    Is it safe?

    Colloidal gold supplementation is considered very safe, precisely because gold is one of the least chemically reactive substances you could possibly consume. It is special precisely because it so rarely does anything.

    However, impurities could be introduced in the production process, and the production process often involves incredibly harsh reagents to get the gold ions, and if any of those reagents are left in the solution, well, gold is safe but sodium borohydride and chloroauric acid aren’t!

    Where can I get some?

    In the unlikely event that our research review has given you an urge to try it, here’s an example product on Amazon

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Lifestyle vs Multiple Sclerosis & More

    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.

    This is Dr. Saray Stancic. She’s another from the ranks of “doctors who got a serious illness and it completely changed how they view the treatment of serious illness”.

    In her case, Stancic was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and wasn’t impressed with the results from the treatments offered, so (after 8 years of pain, suffering, and many medications, only for her condition to worsen) she set about doing better with an evidence-based lifestyle medicine approach.

    After 7 years of her new approach, she would go on to successfully run a marathon and live symptom-free.

    All this to say: her approach isn’t a magic quick fix, but it is a serious method for serious results, and after all, while it’d be nice to be magically in perfect health tomorrow, what’s important is being in good health for life, right?

    If you’re interested in her impressive story, check out:

    Doctor With Multiple Sclerosis On The Collapse Of US Healthcare

    If you want to know what she did, then read on…

    Six key lifestyle changes

    Dr. Stancic credits her recovery to focus on the following evidence-based approaches:

    The plant-centered plate

    This is critical, and is the one she places most emphasis on. Most chronic diseases are exacerbated, if not outright caused, by chronic inflammation, and one cannot fix that without an anti-inflammatory diet.

    An anti-inflammatory diet doesn’t have to be 100% plant-based, but broadly speaking, plants are almost always anti-inflammatory to a greater or lesser degree, while animal products are often pro-inflammatory—especially red meat and unfermented dairy.

    For more details, see:

    Anti-Inflammatory Diet 101 (What to Eat to Fight Inflammation)

    Movement every day

    While “exercise is good for you” is in principle not a shocker, remember that her starting point was being in terrible condition with badly flared-up MS.

    Important to understand here is that excessive exercise can weaken the immune system and sometimes cause flare-ups of various chronic diseases.

    Moving thoroughly and moving often, however, is best. So walking yes, absolutely, but also don’t neglect the rest of your body, do some gentle bodyweight squats (if you can; if you can’t, work up to them), stretch your arms as well as your legs, take all your joints through a full range of motion.

    See also:

    The Doctor Who Wants Us To Exercise Less, & Move More

    Mindful stress management

    Stress in life is unavoidable, but how we manage it is up to us. Bad things will continue to happen, great and small, but we can take a deep breath, remember that those things aren’t the boss of us, and deal with it calmly and conscientiously.

    Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction is of course the evidence-based “gold standard” for this, but whatever (not substance-based) method works for you, works for you!

    About MBSR:

    No-Frills, Evidence-Based Mindfulness

    Good sleeping habits

    Getting good sleep can be hard for anyone, let alone if you have chronic pain. However, Dr. Stancic advocates for doing whatever we can to get good sleep—which means not just duration (the famous “7–9 hours”), but also quality.

    Learn more:

    The 6 Dimensions Of Sleep (And Why They Matter)

    Substance intake awareness

    This one’s not so much of a “don’t do drugs, kids” as the heading makes it look. Dr. Stancic assumes we already know, for example, that smoking is bad for us in a long list of ways, and alcohol isn’t much better.

    However, she also advises us that in our eagerness to do that plant-based diet, we would do better to go for whole foods plant-based, rather than the latest processed meat substitutes, for example.

    And supplements? She bids us exercise caution, and to make sure to get good quality, as poor quality supplements can be worse than taking nothing (looking at you, cheap turmeric supplements that contain heavy metals).

    And of course, that nutrients gained from diet will almost always be better than nutrients gained from supplements, as our body can usually use them better.

    And see also, some commonly-made supplements mistakes:

    Do You Know Which Supplements You Shouldn’t Take Together? (10 Pairs!)

    Human connection

    Lastly, we humans are a social species by evolution; as individuals, we may enjoy relatively more or less social contact, but having access to such is important not just for our mental health, but our physical health too—we will tend to deteriorate much more quickly when we have to deal with everything alone, all other things being equal.

    It doesn’t mean you need a busy social life if that’s not in your nature, but it does mean it’s incredibly beneficial to have at least a small number of people that you trust and whose company you enjoy, at least relatively accessible to you (i.e., their life need not revolve around you, but they are the kind of people who will generally happily spend time with you and provide support when needed if they can).

    As for how:

    How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation

    Want to know more from Dr. Stancic?

    We recently reviewed this very good book of hers, which goes over each of these six things in much more detail than we have room for here:

    What’s Missing from Medicine – by Dr. Saray Stancic

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Smarter Tomorrow – by Elizabeth Ricker
  • Do We Need Sunscreen In Winter, Really?

    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.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small 😎

    ❝I keep seeing advice that we shoudl wear sunscreen out in winter even if it’s not hot or sunny, but is there actually any real benefit to this?❞

    Short answer: yes (but it’s indeed not as critical as it is during summer’s hot/sunny days)

    Longer answer: first, let’s examine the physics of summer vs winter when it comes to the sun…

    In summer (assuming we live far enough from the equator to have this kind of seasonal variation), the part of the planet where we live is tilted more towards the sun. This makes it closer, and more importantly, it’s more directly overhead during the day. The difference in distance through space isn’t as big a deal as the difference in distance through the atmosphere. When the sun is more directly overhead, its rays have a shorter path through our atmosphere, and thus less chance of being blocked by cloud cover / refracted elsewhere / bounced back off into space before it even gets that far.

    In winter, the opposite of all that is true.

    Morning/evening also somewhat replicate this compared to midday, because the sun being lower in the sky has a similar effect to seasonal variation causing it to be less directly overhead.

    For this reason, even though visually the sun may be just as bright on a winter morning as it is on a summer midday, the rays have been filtered very differently by the time they get to us.

    This is one reason why you’re much less likely to get sunburned in the winter, compared to the summer (others include the actual temperature difference, your likely better hydration, and your likely more modest attire protecting you).

    However…

    The reason it is advisable to wear sunscreen in winter is not generally about sunburn, and is rather more about long-term cumulative skin damage (ranging from accelerated aging to cancer) caused by the UV rays—specifically, mostly UVA rays, since UVB rays (with their higher energy but shorter wavelength) have nearly all been blocked by the atmosphere.

    Here’s a good explainer of that from the American Cancer Society:

    UV (Ultraviolet) Radiation and Cancer Risk

    👆 this may seem like a no-brainer, but there’s a lot explained here that demystifies a lot of things, covering ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation, x-rays and gamma-rays, the very different kinds of cancer caused by different things, and what things are dangerous vs which there’s no need to worry about (so far as best current science can say, at least).

    Consequently: yes, if you value your skin health and avoidance of cancer, wearing sunscreen when out even in the winter is a good idea. Especially if your phone’s weather app says the UV index is “moderate” or above, but even if it’s “low”, it doesn’t hurt to include it as part of your skincare routine.

    But what if sunscreens are dangerous?

    Firstly, not all sunscreens are created equal:

    Learn more: Who Screens The Sunscreens?

    Secondly: consider putting on a protective layer of moisturizer first, and then the sunscreen on top. Bear in mind, this is winter we’re talking about, so you’re probably not going out in a bikini, so this is likely a face-neck-hands job and you’re done.

    What about vitamin D?

    Humans evolved to have more or less melanin in our skin depending on where we lived, and white people evolved to wring the most vitamin D possible out of the meagre sun far from the equator. Black people’s greater melanin, on the other hand, offers some initial protection against the sun (but any resultant skin cancer is then more dangerous than it would be for white people if it does occur, so please do use sunscreen whatever your skintone).

    Nowadays many people live in many places which may or may not be the places we evolved for, and so we have to take that into account when it comes to sun exposure.

    Here’s a deeper dive into that, for those who want to learn:

    The Sun Exposure Dilemma

    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:

  • How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver

    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.

    How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver

    In Greek mythology, Prometheus suffered the punishment of being chained to a rock, where he would have his liver eaten by an eagle, whereupon each day his liver would grow back, only to be eaten again the next day.

    We mere humans who are not Greek gods might not be able to endure quite such punishment to our liver, but it is an incredibly resilient and self-regenerative organ.

    In fact, provided at least 51% of the liver is still present and correct, the other 49% will regrow. Similarly, damage done (such as by trying to store too much fat there due to metabolic problems, as in alcoholic or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) will reverse itself in time, given the chance.

    The difference between us and Prometheus

    In the myth, Prometheus had his liver regrow overnight every night. Ours don’t recover quite so quickly.

    Indeed, the science has good and bad news for us:

    ❝Liver recolonization models have demonstrated that hepatocytes have an unlimited regenerative capacity. However, in normal liver, cell turnover is very slow.❞

    ~ Michalopoulos and Bhusan (2020)

    Read more: Liver regeneration: biological and pathological mechanisms and implications

    If it regenerates, why do people need transplants, and/or die of liver disease?

    There are some diseases of the liver that inhibit its regenerative abilities, or (as in the case of cancer) abuse them to our detriment. However, in the case of fatty liver disease, the reason is usually simple:

    If the lifestyle factors that caused the liver to become fatty are still there, then its regenerative abilities won’t be able to keep up with the damage that is still being done.

    Can we speed it up at all?

    Yes! The first and most important thing is to minimize how much ongoing harm you are still doing to it, though.

    • If you drink alcohol, stop. According to the WHO, the only amount of alcohol that is safe for you is zero.
    • Consider your medications, and find out which place a strain on the liver. Many medications are not optional; you’re taking them for an important reason, so don’t quit things without checking with your doctor. Medications that strain the liver include, but are by no means limited to:
      • Many painkillers, including acetaminophen/paracetamol (e.g. Tylenol), and ibuprofen
      • Some immunosuppresent drugs, including azathioprine
      • Some epilepsy drugs, including phenytoin
      • Some antibiotics, including amoxicillin
      • Statins in general

    Note: we are not pharmacists, nor doctors, let alone your doctors.

    Check with yours about what is important for you to take, and what alternatives might be safe for you to consider.

    Dietary considerations

    While there are still things we don’t know about the cause(s) of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, there is a very strong association with a diet that is:

    • high in salt
    • high in refined carbohydrates
      • e.g. white flour and white flour products such as white bread and white pasta; also the other main refined carbohydrate: sugar
    • high in red meat
    • high in non-fermented dairy
    • high in fried foods.

    So, consider minimizing those, and instead getting plenty of fiber, and plenty of lean protein (not from red meat, but poultry and fish are fine iff not fried; beans and legumes are top-tier, though).

    Also, hydrate. Most people are dehydrated most of the time, and that’s bad for all parts of the body, and the liver is no exception. It can’t regenerate if it’s running on empty!

    Read more: Foods To Include (And Avoid) In A Healthy Liver Diet

    How long will it take to heal?

    In the case of alcoholic fatty liver disease, it should start healing a few days after stopping drinking. Then, how long it takes to fully recover depends on the extent of the damage; it could be weeks or months. In extreme cases, years, but that is rare. Usually if the damage is that severe, a transplant is needed.

    In the case of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, again it depends on the extent of the damage, but it is usually a quicker recovery than the alcoholic kind—especially if eating a Mediterranean diet.

    Read more: How Long Does It Take For Your Liver To Repair Itself?

    Take good care of yourself!

    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:

  • Chickpeas vs Black-Eyed Peas – 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 chickpeas to black-eyed peas, we picked the chickpeas.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, chickpeas have more protein, carbs, and fiber, the ratio of the latter two also giving them the lower glycemic index. An easy win for chickpeas.

    In the category of vitamins, chickpeas have more of vitamins B2, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while black-eyed peas have more of vitamins B1, B5, and B9. Another victory for chickpeas.

    When it comes to minerals, things are even more pronounced: chickpeas have more calcium, copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while black-eyed peas have (barely) more magnesium. An overwhelming win for chickpeas.

    Adding up the sections makes for a very evident overall win for chickpeas; as ever, do enjoy either or both though; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

    Enjoy!

    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: