Habits of a Happy Brain – by Dr. Loretta Graziano Breuning
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.
There are lots of books on “happy chemicals” and “how to retrain your brain”, so what makes this one different?
Firstly, it focuses on four “happy chemicals”, not just one:
- Serotonin
- Dopamine
- Oxytocin
- Endorphins
It also looks at the role of cortisol, and how it caps off each of those just a little bit, to keep us just a little malcontent.
Behavioral psychology tends to focus most on dopamine, while prescription pharmaceuticals for happiness (i.e., most antidepressants) tend to focus on serotonin. Here, Dr. Breuning helps us understand the complex interplay of all of the aforementioned chemicals.
She also clears up many misconceptions, since a lot of people misattribute the functions of each of these.
Common examples include “I’m doing this for the serotonin!” when the activity is dopaminergic not serotoninergic, or considering dopamine “the love molecule” when oxytocin, or even something else like phenylethylamine would be more appropriate.
The above may seem like academic quibbles and not something of practical use, but if we want to biohack our brains, we need to do better than the equivalent of a chef who doesn’t know the difference between salt and sugar.
Where things are of less practical use, she tends to skip over or at least streamline them. For example, she doesn’t really discuss the role of post-dopamine prolactin in men—but the discussion of post-happiness cortisol covers the same ground anyway, for practical purposes.
Dr. Breuning also looks at where our evolved neurochemical responses go wrong, and lays out guidelines for such challenges as overcoming addiction, or embracing delayed gratification.
Bottom line: this book is a great user-manual for the brain. If you’d like to be happier and more effective with fewer bad habits, this is the book for you.
Click here to check out Habits of a Happy Brain, and get biohacking 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:
-
Fitness Walking and Bodyweight Exercises – by Frank S. Ring
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.
A lot of exercise manuals assume that the reader has a “basic” body (nothing Olympian, but nothing damaged either). As we get older, increasingly few of us fall into the “but nothing damaged either” category!
Here’s where Ring brings to bear his decades of experience as a coach and educator, and also his personal recovery from a serious back injury.
The book covers direct, actionable exercise advice (with all manner of detail), and also offers mental health tips he’s learned along the way.
Ring, like us, is a big fan of keeping things simple, so he focusses on “the core four” of bodyweight exercises:
- Pushups
- Squats
- Lunges
- Planks
These four exercises get a whole chapter devoted to them, though! Because there are ways to make each exercise easier or harder, or have different benefits. For example, adjustments include:
- Body angle
- Points of contact
- Speed
- Pausing
- Range of motion
This, in effect, makes a few square meters of floor (and perhaps a chair or bench) your fully-equipped gym.
As for walking? Ring enjoys and extols the health benefits, and/but also uses his walks a lot for assorted mental exercises, and recommends we try them too.
A fine book for anyone who wants to gain and/or maintain good health, but doesn’t pressingly want to join a gym or start pumping iron!
Share This Post
-
Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects
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.
Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Big Research Gap
GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic, Wegovy, and other semaglutide drugs. are fast becoming a health industry standard go-to tool in the weight loss toolbox. When it comes to recommending that patients lose weight, “Have you considered Ozempic?” is the common refrain.
Sometimes, this may be a mere case of kicking the can down the road with regard to some other treatment that it can be argued (sometimes even truthfully) would go better after some weight loss:
How weight bias in health care can harm patients with obesity: Research
…which we also covered in fewer words in the second-to-last item here:
But GLP-1 agonists work, right?
Yes, albeit there’s a litany of caveats, top of which are usually:
- there are often adverse gastrointestinal side effects
- if you stop taking them, weight regain generally ensues promptly
For more details on these and more, see:
…but now there’s another thing that’s come to light:
The dark side of semaglutide’s weight loss
In academia, “dark” is often used to describe “stuff we don’t have much (or in some cases, any) direct empirical evidence of, but for reasons of surrounding things, we know it’s there”.
Well-known examples include “dark matter” in physics and the Dark Ages in (European) history.
In the case of semaglutide and weight loss, a review by a team of researchers (Drs. Sandra Christenen, Katie Robinson, Sara Thomas, and Dominique Williams) has discovered how little research has been done into a certain aspect of GLP-1 agonist’s weight loss effects, namely…
Dietary changes!
There’s been a lot of popular talk about “people taking semaglutide eat less”, but it’s mostly anecdotal and/or presumed based on parts of the mechanism of action (increasing insulin production, reducing glucagon secretions, modulating dietary cravings).
Where studies have looked at dietary changes, it’s almost exclusively been a matter of looking at caloric intake (which has been found to be a 16–39% reduction), and observations-in-passing that patients reported reduction in cravings for fatty and sweet foods.
This reduction in caloric intake, by the way, is not significantly different to the reduction brought about by counselling alone (head-to-head studies have been done; these are also discussed in the research review).
However! It gets worse. Very few studies of good quality have been done, even fewer (two studies) actually had a registered dietitian nutritionist on the team, and only one of them used the “gold standard” of nutritional research, the 24-hour dietary recall test. Which, in case you’re curious, you can read about what that is here:
Dietary Assessment Methods: What Is A 24-Hour Recall?
Of the four studies that actually looked at the macros (unlike most studies), they found that on average, protein intake decreased by 17.1%. Which is a big deal!
It’s an especially big deal, because while protein’s obviously important for everyone, it’s especially important for anyone trying to lose weight, because muscle mass is a major factor in metabolic base rate—which in turn is much important for fat loss/maintenance than exercise, when it comes to how many calories we burn by simply existing.
A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, is that one of the numerous reasons people who quit GLP-1 agonists immediately put fat back on, is because they probably lost muscle mass in amongst their weight loss, meaning that their metabolic base rate will have decreased, meaning that they end up more disposed to put on fat than before.
And, that’s just a hypothesis and it’s a hypothesis based on very few studies, so it’s not something to necessarily take as any kind of definitive proof of anything, but it is to say—as the researchers of this review do loudly say—more research needs to be done into this, because this has been a major gap in research so far!
Any other bad news?
While we’re talking research gaps, guess how many studies looked into micronutrient intake changes in people taking GLP-1 agonists?
If you guessed zero, you guessed correctly.
You can find the paper itself here:
What’s the main take-away here?
On a broad, scoping level: we need more research!
On a “what this means for individuals who want to lose weight” level: maybe we should be more wary of this still relatively new (less than 10 years old) “wonder drug”. And for most of those 10 years it’s only been for diabetics, with weight loss use really being in just the past few years (2021 onwards).
In other words: not necessarily any need to panic, but caution is probably not a bad idea, and natural weight loss methods remain very reasonable options for most people.
See also: How To Lose Weight (Healthily!)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Apple vs Pineapple – 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 apple to pineapple, we picked the pineapple.
Why?
An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but pineapples are heavier and armored and spiky and generally much more intimidating.
More seriously, apples are great but we say pineapples have the better nutritional and phytochemical properties overall:
In terms of macros, actually apples win this first round, albeit marginally; the two fruits are equal on carbs, while apple has a little more fiber and pineapple has a (very) little more protein. This makes the fiber content the deciding factor, so apples do win this one, even if by just 1g/100g difference.
When it comes to vitamins, however, apples have more of vitamins E and K, while pineapple has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline. The margins of difference are equally generous on both sides, so this is a clear and overwhelming win for pineapple (including 10x more vitamin C than apples, which are themselves considered a good source of vitamin C)
In the category of minerals, apples have slightly more phosphorus, and pineapple has a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Another easy win for pineapple.
Pineapples are not only also higher in polyphenols, but also contain bromelain, a powerful anti-inflammatory group of enzymes that are unique to pineapple—you can read about it in the link below!
Meanwhile, pineapple wins the day in our head-to-head here, but as ever when it comes to a plurality of healthy things, do enjoy either or both! Diversity is good.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Natural Remedies and Foods for Osteoarthritis
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
❝Natural solutions for osteoarthritis. Eg. Rosehip tea, dandelion root tea. Any others??? What foods should I absolutely leave alone?❞
We’ll do a main feature on arthritis (in both its main forms) someday soon, but meanwhile, we recommend eating for good bone/joint health and against inflammation. To that end, you might like these main features we did on those topics:
- We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of (collagen for bone and joint health)
- The Bare-Bones Truth About Osteoporosis (eating for bone health generally)
- Keep Inflammation At Bay (dietary tips for minimizing inflammation—also, our all-time most popular article to date!)
Of these, probably the last one is the most critical, and also will have the speediest effects if implemented.
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:
-
Red Bell Peppers vs Tomatoes – 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 red bell peppers to tomatoes, we picked the peppers.
Why?
In terms of macronutrients, these two fruits-that-get-used-as-vegetables are similar in most respects; they’re mostly water, negligible protein and fat, similar amounts of carbs, even a similar carb breakdown (mostly fructose and glucose). One thing that does set them apart is that peppers* have about 2x the fiber, which difference results in peppers having the lower Glycemic Index—though tomatoes are quite low in GI too.
*for brevity we’re just going to write “peppers”, but we are still talking about sweet red bell peppers throughout. This is important, as different color peppers have different nutrient profiles.
In the category of vitamins, peppers have much more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, and E. In contrast, tomatoes have more vitamin K. An easy win for peppers.
When it comes to minerals, the margins are narrower, but peppers have more iron, zinc, and selenium, while tomatoes have more calcium and copper. They’re approximately equal on other minerals they both contain, making this category a slight (3:2) win for peppers.
As for phytochemical benefits, both are good sources of lycopene (both better when cooked) and other carotenes (for example lutein), and both have an array of assorted flavonoids.
All in all, a win for peppers, but both are great!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
- Bell Peppers: A Spectrum Of Specialties
- Lycopene’s Benefits For The Gut, Heart, Brain, & More
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:
-
New News From The Centenarian Blue Zones
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.
From Blue To Green…
We sometimes write about supercentenarians, which word is usually used in academia to refer to people who are not merely over 100 years of age, but over 110 years. These people can be found in many countries, but places where they have been found to be most populous (as a percentage of the local population) have earned the moniker “Blue Zones”—of which Okinawa and Sardinia are probably the most famous, but there are others too.
This is in contrast to, for example “Red Zones”, a term often used for areas where a particular disease is endemic, or areas where a disease is “merely” epidemic, but particularly rife at present.
In any case, back to the Blue Zones, where people live the longest and healthiest—because the latter part is important too! See also:
- Lifespan: how long we live
- Healthspan: how long we stay healthy (portmanteau of “healthy lifespan”)
Most of our readers don’t live in a Blue Zone (in fact, many live in the US, which is a COVID Red Zone, a diabetes Red Zone, and a heart disease Red Zone), but that doesn’t mean we can’t all take tips from the Blue Zones and apply them, for example:
- The basics: The Blue Zones’ Five Pillars Of Longevity
- Going beyond: The Five Key Traits Of Healthy Aging
You may be wondering… How much good will this do me? And, we do have an answer for that:
When All’s Said And Done, How Likely Are You To Live To 100?
Now that we’re all caught-up…
The news from the Blues
A team of researchers did a big review of observational studies of centenarians and near-centenarians (aged 95+). Why include the near-centenarians, you ask? Well, most of the studies are also longitudinal, and if we’re doing an observational study of the impact of lifestyle factors on a 100-year-old, it’s helpful to know what they’ve been doing recently. Hence nudging the younger-end cutoff a little lower, so as to not begin each study with fresh-faced 100-year-olds whom we know nothing about.
Looking at thousands of centenarians (and near-centenarians, but also including some supercentenarians, up the age of 118), the researchers got a lot of very valuable data, far more than we have room to go into here (do check out the paper at the bottom of this article, if you have time; it’s a treasure trove of data), but one of the key summary findings was a short list of four factors they found contributed the most to extreme longevity:
- A diverse diet with low salt intake: in particular, a wide variety of plant diversity, including protein-rich legumes, though fish featured prominently also. On average they got 57% and 65% of their energy intake from carbohydrates, 12% to 32% from protein, and 27% to 31% from fat. As for salt, they averaged 1.6g of sodium per day, which is well within the WHO’s recommendation of averaging under 2g of sodium per day. As a matter of interest, centenarians in Okinawa itself averaged 1.1g of sodium per day.
- Low medication use: obviously there may be a degree of non-causal association here, i.e. the same people who just happened to be healthier and therefore lived longer, correspondingly took fewer medications—they took fewer medications because they were healthier; they weren’t necessarily healthier because they took fewer medications. That said, overmedication can be a big problem, especially in places with a profit motive like the US, and can increase the risk of harmful drug interactions, and side effects that then need more medications to treat the side effects, as well as direct iatrogenic damage (i.e. this drug treats your condition, but as the cost of harming you in some other way). Naturally, sometimes we really do need meds, but it’s a good reminder to do a meds review with one’s doctor once in a while, and see if everything’s still of benefit.
- Getting good sleep: not shocking, and this one’s not exactly news. But what may be shocking is that 68% of centenarians reported consistently getting enough good-quality sleep. To put that into perspective, only 35% of 10almonds readers reported regularly getting sleep in the 7–9 hours range.
- Rural living environment: more than 75% of the centenarians and near-centenarians lived in rural areas. This is not usually something touted as a Blue Zones thing on lists of Blue zones things, but this review strongly highlighted it as very relevant. In the category of things that are more obvious once it’s pointed out, though, this isn’t necessarily such a difference between “country folk” and “city folk”, so much as the ability to regularly be in green spaces has well-established health benefits physically, mentally, and both combined (such as: neurologically).
And showing that yes, even parks in cities make a significant difference:
Want to know more?
You can read the study in full here:
A systematic review of diet and medication use among centenarians and near-centenarians worldwide
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:
