Switchcraft – by Dr. Elaine Fox
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 do we successfully balance “a mind is like a parachute: it only works if it’s open”, with the importance of also actually having some kind of personal integrity and consistency?
Dr. Fox recommends that we focus on four key attributes:
- Mental agility
- Self-awareness
- Emotional awareness
- Situational awareness
If this sounds a little wishy-washy, it isn’t—she delineates and explains each in detail. And most importantly: how we can build and train each one.
Mental agility, for example, is not about being able to rapidly solve chess problems or “answer these riddles three”. It’s more about:
- Adaptability
- Balancing our life
- Challenging (and if appropriate, changing) our perspective
- Developing our mental competence
This sort of thing is the “meat” of the book. Meanwhile, self-awareness is more a foundational conscious knowledge of one’s own “pole star” values, while emotional awareness is a matter of identifying and understanding and accepting what we feel—anything less is self-sabotage! And situational awareness is perhaps most interesting:
Dr. Fox advocates for “trusting one’s gut feelings”. With a big caveat, though!
If we trust our gut feelings without developing their accuracy, we’re just going to go about being blindly prejudiced and often wrong. So, a whole section of the book is devoted to honing this and improving our ability to judge things as they really are—rather than as we expect.
Bottom line: this book is a great tool for not only challenging our preconceptions about how we think, but giving us the resources to be adaptable and resilient without sacrificing integrity.
Click here to check out Switchcraft on Amazon and level up your thinking!
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:
Canned Tuna vs Canned Sardines – 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 canned tuna to canned sardines, we picked the sardines.
Why?
This comparison is unfair, but practical—because both are sold next to each other in the supermarket and often used for similar things.
It’s unfair because in a can of tuna, there is tuna meat, whereas in a can of sardines, there is sardine meat, skin, and bones.
Consequently, sardines outperform tuna in almost everything, because a lot of nutrients are in the skin and bones.
To be completely unambiguous:
Sardines have more vitamins and minerals by far (special shout-out to calcium, of which sardines contain 6000% more), and more choline (which is sometimes reckoned as a vitamin, sometimes not).
Tuna does have marginally more protein, and less fat. If you are trying to limit your cholesterol intake, then that could be an argument for choosing tuna over sardines.
All in all: the sardines are more nutrient dense by far, are good sources of vitamins and minerals that tuna contains less of (and in many cases only trace amounts of), and for most people this will more than offset the difference in cholesterol, especially if having not more than one can per day.
About that skin and bones…
That’s where the real benefit for your joints lies, by the way!
See: We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Could ADHD drugs reduce the risk of early death? Unpacking the findings from a new Swedish study
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.
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can have a considerable impact on the day-to-day functioning and overall wellbeing of people affected. It causes a variety of symptoms including difficulty focusing, impulsivity and hyperactivity.
For many, a diagnosis of ADHD, whether in childhood or adulthood, is life changing. It means finally having an explanation for these challenges, and opens up the opportunity for treatment, including medication.
Although ADHD medications can cause side effects, they generally improve symptoms for people with the disorder, and thereby can significantly boost quality of life.
Now a new study has found being treated for ADHD with medication reduces the risk of early death for people with the disorder. But what can we make of these findings?
A large study from Sweden
The study, published this week in JAMA (the prestigious journal of the American Medical Association), was a large cohort study of 148,578 people diagnosed with ADHD in Sweden. It included both adults and children.
In a cohort study, a group of people who share a common characteristic (in this case a diagnosis of ADHD) are followed over time to see how many develop a particular health outcome of interest (in this case the outcome was death).
For this study the researchers calculated the mortality rate over a two-year follow up period for those whose ADHD was treated with medication (a group of around 84,000 people) alongside those whose ADHD was not treated with medication (around 64,000 people). The team then determined if there were any differences between the two groups.
What did the results show?
The study found people who were diagnosed and treated for ADHD had a 19% reduced risk of death from any cause over the two years they were tracked, compared with those who were diagnosed but not treated.
In understanding this result, it’s important – and interesting – to look at the causes of death. The authors separately analysed deaths due to natural causes (physical medical conditions) and deaths due to unnatural causes (for example, unintentional injuries, suicide, or accidental poisonings).
The key result is that while no significant difference was seen between the two groups when examining natural causes of death, the authors found a significant difference for deaths due to unnatural causes.
So what’s going on?
Previous studies have suggested ADHD is associated with an increased risk of premature death from unnatural causes, such as injury and poisoning.
On a related note, earlier studies have also suggested taking ADHD medicines may reduce premature deaths. So while this is not the first study to suggest this association, the authors note previous studies addressing this link have generated mixed results and have had significant limitations.
In this new study, the authors suggest the reduction in deaths from unnatural causes could be because taking medication alleviates some of the ADHD symptoms responsible for poor outcomes – for example, improving impulse control and decision-making. They note this could reduce fatal accidents.
The authors cite a number of studies that support this hypothesis, including research showing ADHD medications may prevent the onset of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders, and lower the risk of accidents and criminality. All this could reasonably be expected to lower the rate of unnatural deaths.
Strengths and limitations
Scandinavian countries have well-maintained national registries that collect information on various aspects of citizens’ lives, including their health. This allows researchers to conduct excellent population-based studies.
Along with its robust study design and high-quality data, another strength of this study is its size. The large number of participants – almost 150,000 – gives us confidence the findings were not due to chance.
The fact this study examined both children and adults is another strength. Previous research relating to ADHD has often focused primarily on children.
One of the important limitations of this study acknowledged by the authors is that it was observational. Observational studies are where the researchers observe and analyse naturally occurring phenomena without intervening in the lives of the study participants (unlike randomised controlled trials).
The limitation in all observational research is the issue of confounding. This means we cannot be completely sure the differences between the two groups observed were not either partially or entirely due to some other factor apart from taking medication.
Specifically, it’s possible lifestyle factors or other ADHD treatments such as psychological counselling or social support may have influenced the mortality rates in the groups studied.
Another possible limitation is the relatively short follow-up period. What the results would show if participants were followed up for longer is an interesting question, and could be addressed in future research.
What are the implications?
Despite some limitations, this study adds to the evidence that diagnosis and treatment for ADHD can make a profound difference to people’s lives. As well as alleviating symptoms of the disorder, this study supports the idea ADHD medication reduces the risk of premature death.
Ultimately, this highlights the importance of diagnosing ADHD early so the appropriate treatment can be given. It also contributes to the body of evidence indicating the need to improve access to mental health care and support more broadly.
Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Pasteurization: What It Does And Doesn’t 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.
Pasteurization’s Effect On Risks & Nutrients
In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions of raw (cow’s) milk, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 47% said “raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer”
- About 31% said “raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy”
- About 14% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally unhealthy”
- About 9% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally healthy”
Quite polarizing! So, what does the science say?
“Raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer: True or False?”
True! Coincidentally, the 47% who voted for this are mirrored by the 47% of the general US population in a similar poll, deciding between the options of whether raw milk is less safe to drink (47%), just as safe to drink (15%), safer to drink (9%), or not sure (30%):
Public Fails to Appreciate Risk of Consuming Raw Milk, Survey Finds
As for what those risks are, by the way, unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to cause 840x more illness and 45x more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.
This is because unpasteurized milk can (and often does) contain E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and other such unpleasantries, which pasteurization kills.
Source for both of the above claims:
(we know the title sounds vague, but all this information is easily visible in the abstract, specifically, the first two paragraphs)
Raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy: True or False?
False! Whether it’s a “good” source can be debated depending on other factors (e.g., if we considered milk’s inflammatory qualities against its positive nutritional content), but it’s undeniably a rich source. However, pasteurization doesn’t destroy or damage those nutrients.
Incidentally, in the same survey we linked up top, 16% of the general US public believed that pasteurization destroys nutrients, while 41% were not sure (and 43% knew that it doesn’t).
Note: for our confidence here, we are skipping over studies published by, for example, dairy farming lobbies and so forth. Those do agree, by the way, but nevertheless we like sources to be as unbiased as possible. The FDA, which is not completely unbiased, has produced a good list of references for this, about half of which we would consider biased, and half unbiased; the clue is generally in the journal names. For example, Food Chemistry and the Journal of Food Science and Journal of Nutrition are probably less biased than the International Dairy Association and the Journal of Dairy Science:
FDA | Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption
this page covers a lot of other myths too, more than we have room to “bust” here, but it’s very interesting reading and we recommend to check it out!
Notably, we also weren’t able to find any refutation by counterexample on PubMed, with the very slight exception that some studies sometimes found that in the case of milks that were of low quality, pasteurization can reduce the vitamin E content while increasing the vitamin A content. For most milks however, no significant change was found, and in all cases we looked at, B-vitamins were comparable and vitamin D, popularly touted as a benefit of cow’s milk, is actually added later in any case. And, importantly, because this is a common argument, no change in lipid profiles appears to be findable either.
In science, when something has been well-studied and there aren’t clear refutations by counterexample, and the weight of evidence is clearly very much tipped into one camp, that usually means that camp has it right.
Milk generally is good/bad for the health: True or False?
True or False, depending on what we want to look at. It’s definitely not good for inflammation, but the whole it seems to be cancer-neutral and only increases heart disease risk very slightly:
- Keep Inflammation At Bay ← short version is milk is bad, fermented milk products are fine in moderation
- Is Dairy Scary? ← short version is that milk is neither good nor terrible; fermented dairy products however are health-positive in numerous ways when consumed in moderation
You may be wondering…
…how this goes for the safety of dairy products when it comes to the bird flu currently affecting dairy cows, and the good news is, the heat of pasteurization kills it:
With all this bird flu around, how safe are eggs, chicken or milk?
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
Chair Stretch Workout Guide
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
❝The 3 most important exercises don’t work if you can’t get on the floor. I’m 78, and have knee replacements. What about 3 best chair yoga stretches? Love your articles!❞
Here are six!
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:
Top 5 Anti-Aging Exercises
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 some exercises that get called such things as “The King of Exercises!”, but how well-earned is that title and could it be that actually a mix of the top few is best?
The Exercises
While you don’t have to do all 5, your body will thank you if you are able to:
- Plank: strengthens most of the body, and can reduce back pain while improving posture.
- Squats: another core-strengthening exercise, this time with an emphasis on the lower body, which makes for strong foundations (including strong ankles, knees, and hips). Improves circulation also, and what’s good for circulation is good for the organs, including the brain!
- Push-ups: promotes very functional strength and fitness; great for alternating with planks, as despite their similar appearance, they work the abs and back more, respectively.
- Lunges: these are great for lower body strength and stability, and doing these greatly reduces the risk of falling.
- Glute Bridges: this nicely rounds off one’s core strength, increasing stability and improving posture, as well as reducing lower back pain too.
If the benefits of these seem to overlap a little, it’s because they do! But each does some things that the others don’t, so put together, they make for a very well-balanced workout.
For advice on how to do each of them, plus more about the muscles being used and the benefits, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Huperzine A: A Natural Nootropic
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.
Huperzine A: A Natural Nootropic
Huperzine A is a compound, specifically a naturally occurring sesquiterpene alkaloid, that functions as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. If that seems like a bunch of big words, don’t worry, we’ll translate in a moment.
First, a nod to its origins: it is found in certain kinds of firmoss, especially the “toothed clubmoss”, Huperzia serrata, which grows in many Asian countries.
What’s an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor?
Let’s do this step-by-step:
- An acetylcholinesterase inhibitor is a compound that inhibits acetylcholinesterase.
- Acetylcholinesterase is an enzyme that catalyzes (speeds up) the breakdown of acetylcholine.
- Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter; it’s an ester of acetic acid and choline.
- This is the main neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system, and is also heavily involved in cognitive functions including memory and creative thinking.
What this means: if you take an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like huperzine A, it will inhibit acetylcholinesterase, meaning you will have more acetylcholine to work with. That’s good.
What can I expect from it?
Huperzine A has been well-studied for a while, mostly for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease:
- New insights into huperzine A for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease
- Huperzine A: Is it an Effective Disease-Modifying Drug for Alzheimer’s Disease?
- Huperzine A and Its Neuroprotective Molecular Signaling in Alzheimer’s Disease
However, research has suggested that huperzine A is much better as a prevention than a treatment:
❝A central event in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the accumulation of senile plaques composed of aggregated amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides.
Ex vivo electrophysiological experiments showed that 10 μM of Aβ1-40 significantly decreased the effect of the AChE inhibitor huperzine A on the synaptic potential parameters. ❞
~ Dr. Irina Zueva
In other words: the answer to the titular question is “Yes, yes it can”
And, to translate Dr. Zueva’s words into simple English:
- People with Alzheimer’s have amyloid-β plaque in their brains
- That plaque reduces the effectiveness of huperzine A
So, what if we take it in advance? That works much better:
❝Pre-treatment with [huperzine A] at concentrations of 50, 100, and 150 µg/mL completely inhibited the secretion of PGE2, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β compared to post-treatment with [huperzine A].
This suggests that prophylactic treatment is better than post-inflammation treatment. ❞
~ Dr. Thu Kim Dang
Source: Anti-neuroinflammatory effects of alkaloid-enriched extract from Huperzia serrata
As you may know, neuroinflammation is a big part of Alzheimer’s pathology, so we want to keep that down. The above research suggests we should do that sooner rather than later.
Aside from holding off dementia, can it improve memory now, too?
There’s been a lot less research done into this (medicine is generally more concerned with preventing/treating disease, than improving the health of healthy people), but there is some:
^This is a small (n=68) old (1999) study for which the full paper has mysteriously disappeared and we only get to see the abstract. It gave favorable results, though.
The effects of huperzine A and IDRA 21 on visual recognition memory in young macaques
^This, like most non-dementia research into HupA, is an animal study. But we chose to spotlight this one because, unlike most of the studies, it did not chemically lobotomize the animals first; they were and remained healthy. That said, huperzine A improved the memory scores most for the monkeys that performed worst without it initially.
Where can I get it?
As ever, we don’t sell it, but here’s an example product on Amazon for your convenience
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: