The End of Food Allergy – by Dr. Kari Nadeau & Sloan Barnett

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 don’t usually mention author credentials beyond their occupation/title. However, in this case it bears acknowledging at least the first line of the author bio:

❝Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, is the director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University and is one of the world’s leading experts on food allergy❞

We mention this, because there’s a lot of quack medicine out there [in general, but especially] when it comes to things such as food allergies. So let’s be clear up front that Dr. Nadeau is actually a world-class professional at the top of her field.

This book is, by the way, about true allergies—not intolerances or sensitivities. It does touch on those latter two, but it’s not the main meat of the book.

In particular, most of the research cited is around peanut allergies, though the usual other common allergens are all discussed too.

The authors’ writing style is that of a science educator (Dr. Nadeau’s co-author, Sloan Barnett, is lawyer and health journalist). We get a clear explanation of the science from real-world to clinic and back again, and are left with a strong understanding, not just a conclusion.

The titular “End of Food Allergy” is a bold implicit claim; does the book deliver? Yes, actually.

The book lays out guidelines for safely avoiding food allergies developing in infants, and yes, really, how to reverse them in adults. But…

Big caveat:

The solution for reversing severe food allergies (e.g. “someone nearby touched a peanut three hours ago and now I’m in anaphylactic shock”), drug-assisted oral immunotherapy, takes 6–24 months of weekly several-hour-long clinic visits, relies on having a nearby clinic offering the service, and absolutely 100% cannot be done at home (on pain of probable death).

Bottom line: it’s by no means a magic bullet, but yes, it does deliver.

Click here to check out The End of Food Allergy to learn more!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Grain Brain – by Dr. David Perlmutter
  • Insights into Osteoporosis
    It’s Q&A Day: Your questions, big or small, answered or featured soon—like our mythbusting on osteoporosis!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • What Are The “Bright Lines” Of Bright Line Eating?

    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. Susan Thompson. She’s a cognitive neuroscientist who has turned her hand to helping people to lose weight and maintain it at a lower level, using psychology to combat overeating. She is the founder of “Bright Line Eating”.

    We’ll say up front: it’s not without some controversy, and we’ll address that as we go, but we do believe the ideas are worth examining, and then we can apply them or not as befits our personal lives.

    What does she want us to know?

    Bright Line Eating’s general goal

    Dr. Thompson’s mission statement is to help people be “happy, thin, and free”.

    You will note that this presupposes thinness as desirable, and presumes it to be healthy, which frankly, it’s not for everyone. Indeed, for people over a certain age, having a BMI that’s slightly into the “overweight” category is a protective factor against mortality (which is partly a flaw of the BMI system, but is an interesting observation nonetheless):

    When BMI Doesn’t Quite Measure Up

    Nevertheless, Dr. Thompson makes the case for the three items (happy, thin, free) coming together, which means that any miserable or unhealthy thinness is not what the approach is valuing, since it is important for “thin” to be bookended by “happy” and “free”.

    What are these “bright lines”?

    Bright Line Eating comes with 4 rules:

    1. No flour (no, not even wholegrain flour; enjoy whole grains themselves yes, but flour, no)
    2. No sugar (and as a tag-along to this, no alcohol) (sugars naturally found in whole foods, e.g. the sugar in an apple if eating an apple, is ok, but other kinds are not, e.g. foods with apple juice concentrate as a sweetener; no “natural raw cane sugar” etc is not allowed either; despite the name, it certainly doesn’t grow on the plant like that)
    3. No snacking, just three meals per day(not even eating the ingredients while cooking—which also means no taste-testing while cooking)
    4. Weigh all your food (have fun in restaurants—but more seriously, the idea here is to plan each day’s 3 meals to deliver a healthy macronutrient balance and a capped calorie total).

    You may be thinking: “that sounds dismal, and not at all bright and cheerful, and certainly not happy and free”

    The name comes from the idea that these rules are lines that one does not cross. They are “bright” lines because they should be observed with a bright and cheery demeanour, for they are the rules that, Dr. Thompson says, will make you “happy, thin, and free”.

    You will note that this is completely in opposition to the expert opinion we hosted last week:

    What Flexible Dieting Really Means

    Dr. Thompson’s position on “freedom” is that Bright Line Eating is “very structured and takes a liberating stand against moderation”

    Which may sound a bit of an oxymoron—is she really saying that we are going to be made free from freedom?

    But there is some logic to it, and it’s about the freedom from having to make many food-related decisions at times when we’re likely to make bad ones:

    Where does the psychology come in?

    Dr. Thompson’s position is that willpower is a finite, expendable resource, and therefore we should use it judiciously.

    So, much like Steve Jobs famously wore the same clothes every day because he had enough decisions to make later in the day that he didn’t want unnecessary extra decisions to make… Bright Line Eating proposes that we make certain clear decisions up front about our eating, so then we don’t have to make so many decisions (and potentially the wrong decisions) later when hungry.

    You may be wondering: ”doesn’t sticking to what we decided still require willpower?”

    And… Potentially. But the key here is shutting down self-negotiation.

    Without clear lines drawn in advance, one must decide, “shall I have this cake or not?”, perhaps reflecting on the pros and cons, the context of the situation, the kind of day we’re having, how hungry we are, what else there is available to eat, what else we have eaten already, etc etc.

    In short, there are lots of opportunities to rationalize the decision to eat the cake.

    With clear lines drawn in advance, one must decide, “shall I have this cake or not?” and the answer is “no”.

    So while sticking to that pre-decided “no” still may require some willpower, it no longer comes with a slew of tempting opportunities to rationalize a “yes”.

    Which means a much greater success rate, both in adherence and outcomes. Here’s an 8-week interventional study and 2-year follow-up:

    Bright Line Eating | Research Publications

    Counterpoint: pick your own “bright lines”

    Dr. Thompson is very keen on her 4 rules that have worked for her and many people, but she recognizes that they may not be a perfect fit for everyone.

    So, it is possible to pick and choose our own “bright lines”; it is after all a dietary approach, not a religion. Here’s her response to someone who adopted the first 3 rules, but not the 4th:

    Bright Lines as Guidelines for Weight Loss

    The most important thing for Bright Line Eating, therefore, is perhaps the action of making clear decisions in advance and sticking to them, rather than seat-of-the-pantsing our diet, and with it, our health.

    Want to know more from Dr. Thompson?

    You might like her book, which we reviewed a while ago:

    Bright Line Eating – by Dr. Susan Peirce Thompson

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • When Doctors Make House Calls, Modern-Style!

    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.

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you foryour opinion of telehealth for primary care consultations*, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 46% said “It is no substitute for an in-person meeting with a doctor; let’s keep the human touch”
    • About 29% said “It means less waiting and more accessibility, while avoiding transmission of diseases”
    • And 25 % said “I find that the pros and cons of telehealth vs in-person balance out, so: no preference”

    *We specified that by “primary care” we mean the initial consultation with a non-specialist doctor, before receiving treatment or being referred to a specialist. By “telehealth” we mean by videocall or phonecall.

    So, what does the science say?

    A quick note first

    Because telehealth was barely a thing (statistically speaking) before the first stages of the COVID pandemic, compared to how it is now, most of the science for this is young, and a lot of the science simply hasn’t been done yet, and/or has not been published yet, because the process can take years.

    Because of this, some studies we do have aren’t specifically about primary care, and are sometimes about specialists. We think this should not affect the results much, but it bears highlighting.

    Nevertheless, we’ll do what we can with the science we have!

    Telehealth is more accessible than in-person consultations: True or False?

    True, for most people. For example…

    ❝Data was found from a variety of emergency and non-emergency departments of primary, secondary, and specialised healthcare.

    Satisfaction was high among recipients of healthcare, scoring 9-10 on a scale of 0-10 or ranging from 73.3% to 100%.

    Convenience was rated high in every specialty examined. Satisfaction of clinicians was high throughout the specialities despite connection failure and concerns about confidentiality of information.❞

    Dr. Wiam Alashek et al.

    whereas…

    ❝Nonetheless, studies reported perception of increased barriers to accessing care and inequalities for vulnerable patients especially in older people❞

    Ibid.

    Source: Satisfaction with telemedicine use during COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a systematic review

    Now, perception of those things does necessarily equate to an actual increased barrier, but it is reasonable that someone who thinks something is inaccessible will be less inclined to try to access it.

    The quality of care provided via telehealth is as good as in-person: True or False?

    True, ostensibly, with caveats. The caveats are:

    • We’re going offreported patient satisfactionnot objective patient health outcomes (we found little* science as yet for the relative incidence of misdiagnosis, for example—which kind of thing will take time to be revealed).
    • We’re also therefore speaking (as statistics do) for the significant majority of people. However, if we happen to be (statistically speaking) an insignificant minority, well, that just sucks for us personally.

    *we did find some, but it wasn’t very helpful yet. For example:

    An electronic trigger to detect telemedicine-related diagnostic errors

    this one does look at the incidence of diagnostic errors, but provides no control group (i.e. otherwise-comparable in-person consultations) for comparison.

    While most oft-considered demographic groups reported comparable patient satisfaction (per racegender, and socioeconomic status, for example), there was one outlier variable, which was age (as we quoted from that first study above).

    However!

    Looking under the hood of these stats, it seems that age is not the real culprit, so much as technological illiteracy, which is heavily correlated with age:

    ❝Lower eHealth literacy is associated with more negative attitudes towards I/C technology in healthcare. This trend is consistent across diverse demographics and regions. ❞

    Dr. Raghad Elgamal

    Source: Meta-analysis: eHealth literacy and attitudes towards internet/computer technology

    There are things that can be done at an in-person consultation that can’t be done by telehealth: True or False?

    True, of course. It is incredibly rare that we will cite “common sense”, (as sometimes “common sense” is actually “common mistakes” and is simply and verifiably wrong), but in this case, as one 10almonds subscriber put it:

    ❝The doctor uses his five senses to assess. This cannot be attained over the phone❞

    ~ 10almonds subscriber

    A quick note first: if your doctor is using their sense of taste to diagnose you, please get a different doctor, because they should definitely not be doing that!

    Not in this century, anyway… Once upon a time, diabetes was diagnosed by urine-tasting (and yes, that was a fairly reliable method).

    However, nowadays indeed a doctor will use sightsoundtouch, and sometimes even smell.

    In a videocall we’re down to two of those senses (sight and sound), and in a phonecall, down to one (sound) and even that is hampered. Your doctor cannot, for example, use a stethoscope over the phone.

    With this in mind, it really comes down to what you need from your doctor in that consultation.

    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is to be prescribed an antidepressant, that probably doesn’t need a full physical.
    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is a referral, chances are that’ll be fine by telehealth too.
    • If your doctor is 99% sure that what you need is a verbal check-up (e.g. “How’s it been going for you, with the medication that I prescribed for you a month ago?”, then again, a call is probably fine.

    If you have a worrying lump, or an unhappy bodily discharge, or an unexplained mysterious pain? These things, more likely an in-person check-up is in order.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • How To Triple Your Breast Cancer Survival Chances

    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.

    Keeping Abreast Of Your Cancer Risk

    It’s the kind of thing that most people think won’t happen to them. And hopefully, it won’t!

    But…

    (The US CDC’s breast cancer “stat bite” page has more stats and interactive graphs, so click here to see those charts and get the more detailed low-down on mortality/survival rates with various different situations)

    We think that the difference between 98% and 31% survival rates is more than enough reason to give ourselves a monthly self-check at the very least! You’ve probably seen how-to diagrams before, but here are instructions for your convenience:

    (This graphic was created by the Jordan Breast Cancer Program—check them out, as they have lots of resources)

    If you don’t have the opportunity to take matters into your own hands right now, rather than just promise yourself “I’ll do that later”, take this free 4-minute Breast Health Assessment from Aurora Healthcare. Again, we think the difference early diagnosis can make to your survival chances make these tests well worth it:

    Click Here To Take The Free 4-Minute Breast Health Assessment!

    Lest we forget, men can also get breast cancer (the CDC has a page for men too), especially if over 50. But how do you check for breast cancer, when you don’t have breasts in the commonly-understood sense of the word?

    So take a moment to do this (yes, really actually do it!), and set a reminder in your calendar to repeat it monthly—there really is no reason not to!

    Take care of yourself; you’re important.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Grain Brain – by Dr. David Perlmutter
  • Garlic vs Ginger – 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 garlic to ginger, we picked the ginger.

    Why?

    Both are great, and it is close!

    Notwithstanding that (almost?) nobody eats garlic or ginger for the macros, let’s do a moment’s due diligence on that first: garlic has more than 3x the protein and about 2x the fiber (and slightly higher carbs). But, given the small quantities in which people usually consume these foods, these numbers aren’t too meaningful.

    In the category of micronutrients, garlic has a lot more vitamins and minerals. We’ll not do a full breakdown for this though, because again, unless you’re eating it by the cupful, this won’t make a huge difference.

    Which means that so far, we have two nominal wins for garlic.

    Both plants have many medicinal properties. They are both cardioprotective and anticancer, and both full of antioxidants. The benefits of both are comparable in these regards.

    Both have antidiabetic action also, but ginger’s effects are stronger when compared head-to head.

    So that’s an actual practical win for ginger.

    Each plant’s respective effects on the gastrointestinal tract sets them further apart—ginger has antiemetic effects and can be used for treating nausea and vomiting from a variety of causes. Garlic, meanwhile, can cause adverse gastrointestinal effects in some people—but it’s usually neutral for most people in this regard.

    Another win for ginger in practical terms.

    Want to learn more?

    You might 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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Pink Himalayan Salt: Health Facts

    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!

    Q: Great article about the health risks of salt to organs other than the heart! Is pink Himalayan sea salt, the pink kind, healthier?

    Thank you! And, no, sorry. Any salt that is sodium chloride has the exact same effect because it’s chemically the same substance, even if impurities (however pretty) make it look different.

    If you want a lower-sodium salt, we recommend the kind that says “low sodium” or “reduced sodium” or similar. Check the ingredients, it’ll probably be sodium chloride cut with potassium chloride. Potassium chloride is not only not a source of sodium, but also, it’s a source of potassium, which (unlike sodium) most of us could stand to get a little more of.

    For your convenience: here’s an example on Amazon!

    Bonus: you can get a reduced sodium version of pink Himalayan salt too!

    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:

  • Triple Life Threat – by Donald R. Lyman

    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 book takes a similar approach to “How Not To Die” (which we featured previously), but focussed specifically on three things, per the title: chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (CPOD), diabetes (type 2), and Alzheimer’s disease.

    Lyman strikes a great balance of being both information-dense and accessible; there’s a lot of reference material in here, and the reader is not assumed to have a lot of medical knowledge—but we’re not patronized either, and this is an informative manual, not a sensationalized scaremongering piece.

    All in all… if you have known risk factors for one or more of three diseases this book covers, the information within could well be a lifesaver.

    Get Your Copy Of “Triple Life Threat” On Amazon Today!

    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: