The Mindgym: Wake Your Mind Up – by Dr. Sebastian Bailey and Octavius Black
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.
Since this reviewer got her copy, the subtitle and marketing of the book have changed, but the content has not. It’s now being marketed as “achieve more by thinking differently” like a pop-psychology business book. But it’s not that. What, then, is it?
It’s 20 chapters of exercises for different kinds of thinking. And yes, the exercises will help those hungry 25–35-year-old MBAs too, but it’s more of a complete how-to-think overhaul.
Its exercises cover psychology and philosophy, creativity and communication, logic and relaxation, cognition and motivation, and lots more.
The style of the book is that of a workbook, and as such, it’s very clearly laid-out; one can go through them methodically, or get an overview and then dive in to whatever one wants/needs most at the moment.
Bottom line: if you’d like a book that’s a one-stop shop for honing many different kinds of thinking, this is the book for you.
Click here to check out The Mindgym, and get training yours!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Focusing On Health In Our Sixties
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? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
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
❝What happens when you age in your sixties?❞
The good news is, a lot of that depends on you!
But, speaking on averages:
While it’s common for people to describe being over 50 as being “over the hill”, halfway to a hundred, and many greetings cards and such reflect this… Biologically speaking, our 60s are more relevant as being halfway to our likely optimal lifespan of 120. Humans love round numbers, but nature doesn’t care for such.
- In our 60s, we’re now usually the “wrong” side of the menopausal metabolic slump (usually starting at 45–55 and taking 5–10 years), or the corresponding “andropause” where testosterone levels drop (usually starting at 45 and a slow decline for 10–15 years).
- In our 60s, women will now be at a higher risk of osteoporosis, due to the above. The risk is not nearly so severe for men.
- In our 60s, if we’re ever going to get cancer, this is the most likely decade for us to find out.
- In our 60s, approximately half of us will suffer some form of hearing loss
- In our 60s, our body has all but stopped making new T-cells, which means our immune defenses drop (this is why many vaccines/boosters are offered to over-60s, but not to younger people)
While at first glance this does not seem a cheery outlook, knowledge is power.
- We can take HRT to avoid the health impact of the menopause/andropause
- We can take extra care to look after our bone health and avoid osteoporosis
- We can make sure we get the appropriate cancer screenings when we should
- We can take hearing tests, and if appropriate find the right hearing aids for us
- We can also learn to lip-read (this writer relies heavily on lip-reading!)
- We can take advantage of those extra vaccinations/boosters
- We can take extra care to boost immune health, too
Your body has no idea how many times you’ve flown around the sun and nor does it care. What actually makes a difference to it, is how it has been treated.
See also: Milestone Medical Tests You Should Take in Your 60s, 70s, and Beyond
Share This Post
-
How Much Can Hypnotherapy Really Do?
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.
Sit Back, Relax, And…
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinions of hypnotherapy, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 58% said “It is a good, evidenced-based practice that can help alleviate many conditions”
- Exactly 25% said “It is a scam and sham and/or wishful thinking at best, and should be avoided by all”
- About 13% said “It works only for those who are particularly suggestible—but it does work for them”
- One (1) person said “It is useful only for brain-centric conditions e.g. addictions, anxiety, phobias, etc”
So what does the science say?
Hypnotherapy is all in the patient’s head: True or False?
True! But guess which part of your body controls much of the rest of it.
So while hypnotherapy may be “all in the head”, its effects are not.
Since placebo effect, nocebo effect, and psychosomatic effect in general are well-documented, it’s quite safe to say at the very least that hypnotherapy thus “may be useful”.
Which prompts the question…
Hypnotherapy is just placebo: True or False?
False, probably. At the very least, if it’s placebo, it’s an unusually effective placebo.
And yes, even though testing against placebo is considered a good method of doing randomized controlled trials, some placebos are definitely better than others. If a placebo starts giving results much better than other placebos, is it still a placebo? Possibly a philosophical question whose answer may be rooted in semantics, but happily we do have a more useful answer…
Here’s an interesting paper which: a) begins its abstract with the strong, unequivocal statement “Hypnosis has proven clinical utility”, and b) goes on to examine the changes in neural activity during hypnosis:
Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis
It works only for the very suggestible: True or False?
False, broadly. As with any medical and/or therapeutic procedure, a patient’s expectations can affect the treatment outcome.
And, especially worthy of note, a patient’s level of engagement will vastly affect it treatment that has patient involvement. So for example, if a doctor prescribes a patient pills, which the patient does not think will work, so the patient takes them intermittently, because they’re slow to get the prescription refilled, etc, then surprise, the pills won’t get as good results (since they’re often not being taken).
How this plays out in hypnotherapy: because hypnotherapy is a guided process, part of its efficacy relies on the patient following instructions. If the hypnotherapist guides the patient’s mind, and internally the patient is just going “nope nope nope, what a lot of rubbish” then of course it will not work, just like if you ask for directions in the street and then ignore them, you won’t get to where you want to be.
For those who didn’t click on the above link by the way, you might want to go back and have a look at it, because it included groups of individuals with “high/low hypnotizability” per several ways of scoring such.
It works only for brain-centric things, e.g. addictions, anxieties, phobias, etc: True or False?
False—but it is better at those. Here for example is the UK’s Royal College of Psychiatrists’ information page, and if you go to “What conditions can hypnotherapy help to treat”, you’ll see two broad categories; the first is almost entirely brain-stuff; the second is more varied, and includes pain relief of various kinds, burn care, cancer treatment side effects, and even menopause symptoms. Finally, warts and other various skin conditions get their own (positive) mention, per “this is possible through the positive effects hypnosis has on the immune system”:
RCPsych | Hypnosis And Hypnotherapy
Wondering how much psychosomatic effect can do?
You might like this previous article; it’s not about hypnotherapy, but it is about the difference the mind can make on physical markers of aging:
Aging, Counterclockwise: When Age Is A Flexible Number
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Peach vs Papaya – 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 peach to papaya, we picked the peach.
Why?
It was close!
In terms of macros, there’s not much between them; they are close to identical on protein, carbs, and fiber. Technically peach has slightly more protein (+0.4g/100g) and papaya has slightly more carbs and fiber (+1.28g/100g carbs, +0.2g/100g fiber), but since the differences are so tiny, we’re calling this section a tie—bearing in mind, these numbers are based on averages, which means that when they’re very close, they’re meaningless—one could easily, for example, pick up a peach that has more fiber than a papaya, because that 0.2g/100g is well within the margin of variation. So, as we say: a tie.
When it comes to vitamins, things are also close; peaches have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, and E, while papaya has more of vitamins A, B6, B9, and C. This is a 4:4 tie, but since the most notable margin of difference is vitamin C (of which papayas have 9x more) while the others are much closer, we’ll call this a tie-breaker win for papaya.
The category of minerals sets things apart more: peaches have more copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while papaya has more calcium, magnesium, and selenium. That’s already a 6:3 win for peaches, before we take into account that the numbers for papaya’s calcium and selenium are tiny, so adding this to the already 6:3 win for peaches makes for a clear and easy win for peaches in this category.
Adding up the sections is 1W/1D/1L for both fruits, but looking at the win/loss for each, it’s clear which won/lost on a tiebreaker, and which won/lost by a large margin, so peaches get the victory here.
Of course, enjoy either or both, though! And see below for a bonus feature of peaches:
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← peaches are high on this list! They kill cancer cells while sparing healthy ones 🙂
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Plum vs Nectarine – 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 plums to nectarines, we picked the nectarines.
Why?
Both are great! But nectarines win at least marginally in each category we look at.
In terms of macros, plums have more carbs while nectarines have more fiber, resulting of course in a lower glycemic index. Plums do have a low GI also; just, nectarines have it better.
When it comes to vitamins, plums have more of vitamins A, B6, C, and K, while nectarines have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, E, and choline.
In the category of minerals, plums are great but not higher in any mineral than nectarines; nectarines meanwhile have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.
All in all, enjoy both. And if having dried fruit, then prunes (dried plums) are generally more widely available than dried nectarines. But if you’re choosing one fruit or the other, nectarine is the way to go.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Replacing Sugar: Top 10 Anti-Inflammatory Sweet Foods
- Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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:
-
Intuitive Eating – by Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch
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.
You may be given to wonder: if this is about intuitive eating, and an anti-diet approach, why a whole book?
There’s a clue in the other part of the title: “4th Edition”.
The reason there’s a 4th edition (and before it, a 3rd and 2nd edition) is because this book is very much full of science, and science begets more science, and the evidence just keeps on rolling in.
While neither author is a doctor, each has a sizeable portion of the alphabet after their name (more than a lot of doctors), and this is an incredibly well-evidenced book.
The basic premise from many studies is that restrictive dieting does not work well long-term for most people, and instead, better is to make use of our bodies’ own interoceptive feedback.
You see, intuitive eating is not “eat randomly”. We do not call a person “intuitive” because they speak or act randomly, do we? Same with diet.
Instead, the authors give us ten guiding principles (yes, still following the science) to allow us a consistent “finger on the pulse” of what our body has to say about what we have been eating, and what we should be eating.
Bottom line: if you want to be a lot more in tune with your body and thus better able to nourish it the way it needs, this book is literally on the syllabus for many nutritional science classes, and will stand you in very good stead!
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:
-
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science
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.
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science (Without Being Itself Rooted in Scientific Method)
Yesterday, we asked you for your opinions on ayurveda, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses. Of those who responded…
- A little over 41% said “I don’t know what ayurveda is without looking it up”
- A little over 37% said “It is a fine branch of health science with millennia of evidence”
- A little over 16% said “It gets some things right, but not by actual science”
- A little over 4% said “It is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience”
So, what does the science say?
Ayurveda is scientific: True or False?
False, simply. Let’s just rip the band-aid off in this case. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily without merit, though!
Let’s put it this way:
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because scientific method has discerned that caffeine has vasoconstrictive and adenosine-blocking effects while also promoting dopaminergic activity, then your consumption of coffee is evidence-based and scientific. Great!
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because somebody told you that that somebody told them that it energizes you by balancing the elements fire (the heat of the coffee), air (the little bubbles on top), earth (the coffee grinds), water (the water), and ether (steam), then that is neither evidence-based nor scientific, but it will still work exactly the same.
Ayurveda is a little like that. It’s an ancient traditional Indian medicine, based on a combination of anecdotal evidence and supposition.
- The anecdotal evidence from ayurveda has often resulted in herbal remedies that, in modern scientific trials, have been found to have merit.
- Ayurvedic meditative practices also have a large overlap with modern mindfulness practices, and have also been found to have merit
- Ayurveda also promotes the practice of yoga, which is indeed a very healthful activity
- The supposition from ayurveda is based largely in those five elements we mentioned above, as well as a “balancing of humors” comparable to medieval European medicine, and from a scientific perspective, is simply a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
Note: while ayurveda is commonly described as a science by its practitioners in the modern age, it did not originally claim to be scientific, but rather, wisdom handed down directly by the god Dhanvantari.
Ayurveda gets some things right: True or False?
True! Indeed, we covered some before in 10almonds; you may remember:
Bacopa Monnieri: A Well-Evidenced Cognitive Enhancer
(Bacopa monnieri is also known by its name in ayurveda, brahmi)
There are many other herbs that have made their way from ayurveda into modern science, but the above is a stand-out example. Others include:
- Ashwagandha: The Root of All Even-Mindedness?
- Boswellia serrata (Frankincense) Against Pain and Depression/Anxiety
Yoga and meditation are also great, and not only that, but great by science, for example:
- NCCIH | Yoga for Health: Clinical Guidelines, Scientific Literature, Info for Patients
- The Neuroscience of Mindfulness: How Mindfulness Alters the Brain and Facilitates Emotion Regulation
Ayurveda is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience: True or False?
Also True! We covered why it’s a pseudoscience above, but that doesn’t make it potentially dangerous, per se (you’ll remember our coffee example).
What does, however, make it potentially dangerous (dose-dependent) is its use of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic:
Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
Some final thoughts…
Want to learn more about the sometimes beneficial, sometimes uneasy relationship between ayurveda and modern science?
A lot of scholarly articles trying to bridge (or further separate) the two were very biased one way or the other.
Instead, here’s one that’s reasonably optimistic with regard to ayurveda’s potential for good, while being realistic about how it currently stands:
Development of Ayurveda—Tradition to trend
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:
