Your Brain on Art – by Susan Magsamen & Ivy Ross
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.
The notion of art therapy is popularly considered a little wishy-washy. As it turns out, however, there are thousands of studies showing its effectiveness.
Nor is this just a matter of self-expression. As authors Magsamen and Ross explore, different kinds of engagement with art can convey different benefits.
That’s one of the greatest strengths of this book: “this form of engagement with art will give these benefits, according to these studies”
With benefits ranging from reducing stress and anxiety, to overcoming psychological trauma or physical pain, there’s a lot to be said for art!
And because the book covers many kinds of art, if you can’t imagine yourself taking paintbrush to canvas, that’s fine too. We learn of the very specific cognitive benefits of coloring in mandalas (yes, really), of sculpting something terrible in clay, or even just of repainting the kitchen, and more. Each thing has its set of benefits.
The book’s main goal is to encourage the reader to cultivate what the authors call an aesthetic mindset, which involves four key attributes:
- a high level of curiosity
- a love of playful, open-ended exploration
- a keen sensory awareness
- a drive to engage in creative activities
And, that latter? It’s as a maker and/or a beholder. We learn about what we can gain just by engaging with art that someone else made, too.
Bottom line: come for the evidence-based cognitive benefits; stay for the childlike wonder of the universe. If you already love art, or have thought it’s just “not for you”, then this book is for you.
Click here to check out Your Brain On Art, and open up whole new worlds of experience!
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:
-
Hair Growth: Caffeine and Minoxidil Strategies
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.
Questions and Answers 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!
This newsletter has been growing a lot lately, and so have the questions/requests, and we love that! 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
Hair growth strategies for men combing caffeine and minoxidil?
Well, the strategy for that is to use caffeine and minoxidil! Some more specific tips, though:
- Both of those things need to be massaged (gently!) into your scalp especially around your hairline.
- In the case of caffeine, that boosts hair growth. No extra thought or care needed for that one.
- In the case of minoxidil, it reboots the hair growth cycle, so if you’ve only recently started, don’t be surprised (or worried) if you see more shedding in the first three months. It’s jettisoning your old hairs because new ones were just prompted (by the minoxidil) to start growing behind them. So: it will get briefly worse before it gets better, but then it’ll stay better… provided you keep using it.
- If you’d like other options besides minoxidil, finasteride is a commonly prescribed oral drug that blocks the conversion of testosterone to DHT, which latter is what tells your hairline to recede.
- If you’d like other options besides prescription drugs, saw palmetto performs comparably to finasteride (and works the same way).
- You may also want to consider biotin supplementation if you don’t already enjoy that
- Consider also using a dermaroller on your scalp. If you’re unfamiliar, this is a device that looks like a tiny lawn aerator, with many tiny needles, and you roll it gently across your skin.
- It can be used for promoting hair growth, as well as for reducing wrinkles and (more slowly) healing scars.
- It works by breaking up the sebum that may be blocking new hair growth, and also makes the skin healthier by stimulating production of collagen and elastin (in response to the thousands of microscopic wounds that the needles make).
- Sounds drastic, but it doesn’t hurt and doesn’t leave any visible marks—the needles are that tiny. Still, practise good sterilization and ensure your skin is clean when using it.
See: How To Use A Dermaroller ← also explains more of the science of it
PS: this question was asked in the context of men, but the information goes the same for women suffering from androgenic alepoceia—which is a lot more common than most people think!
Share This Post
- Both of those things need to be massaged (gently!) into your scalp especially around your hairline.
-
Anti-Cholesterol Cardamom & Pistachio Porridge
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 tasty breakfast’s beta-glucan content binds to cholesterol and carries it out of the body; there are lots of other nutritional benefits too!
You will need
- 1 cup coconut milk
- ⅓ cup oats
- 4 tbsp crushed pistachios
- 6 cardamom pods, crushed
- 1 tsp rose water or 4 drops edible rose essential oil
- Optional sweetener: drizzle of honey or maple syrup
- Optional garnishes: rose petals, chopped nuts, dried fruit
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Heat the coconut milk, adding the oats and crushed cardamom pods. Simmer for 5–10 minutes depending on how cooked you want the oats to be.
2) Stir in the crushed pistachio nuts, as well as the rose water.
3) Serve in a bowl, adding any optional toppings:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- The Best Kind Of Fiber For Overall Health? ← it’s beta-glucan, which is fund abundantly in oats
- Pistachios vs Pecans – Which is Healthier? ← have a guess
- Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy? ← coconut can!
Take care!
Share This Post
-
The Sweet Truth About Diabetes
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’s A Lot Of Confusion About Diabetes!
For those readers who are not diabetic, nor have a loved one who is diabetic, nor any other pressing reason to know these things, first a quick 101 rundown of some things to understand the rest of today’s main feature:
- Blood sugar levels: how much sugar is in the blood, measured in mg/dL or mmol/L
- Hyperglycemia or “hyper” for short: too much sugar in the blood
- Hypoglycemia or “hypo” for short: too little sugar in the blood
- Insulin: a hormone that acts as a gatekeeper to allow sugar to pass, or not pass, into various parts of the body
- Type 1 diabetes (sometimes capitalized, and/or abbreviated to “T1D”) is an autoimmune disorder that prevents the pancreas from being able to supply the body with insulin. This means that taking insulin consistently is necessary for life.
- Type 2 diabetes is a matter of insulin resistance. The pancreas produces plenty of insulin, but the body has become desensitized to it, so it doesn’t work properly. Taking extra insulin may sometimes be necessary, but for many people, it can be controlled by means of a careful diet and other lifestyle factors.
With that in mind, on to some very popular myths…
Diabetes is caused by having too much sugar
While sugar is not exactly a health food, it’s not the villain of this story either.
- Type 1 diabetes has a genetic basis, triggered by epigenetic factors unrelated to sugar.
- Type 2 diabetes comes from a cluster of risk factors which, together, can cause a person to go through pre-diabetes and acquire type 2 diabetes.
- Those risk factors include:
- A genetic predisposition
- A large waist circumference
- (this is more relevant than BMI or body fat percentage)
- High blood pressure
- A sedentary lifestyle
- Age (the risk starts rising at 35, rises sharply at 45, and continues upwards with increasing age)
- Those risk factors include:
Read more: Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes
Diabetics can’t have sugar
While it’s true that diabetics must be careful about sugar (and carbs in general), it’s not to say that they can’t have them… just: be mindful and intentional about it.
- Type 1 diabetics will need to carb-count in order to take the appropriate insulin bolus. Otherwise, too little insulin will result in hyperglycemia, or too much insulin will result in hypoglycemia.
- Type 2 diabetics will often be able to manage their blood sugar levels with diet alone, and slow-release carbs will make this easier.
In either case, having quick release sugars will increase blood sugar levels (what a surprise), and sometimes (such as when experiencing a hypo), that’s what’s needed.
Also, when it comes to sugar, a word on fruit:
Not all fruits are equal, and some fruits can help maintain stable blood sugar levels! Read all about it:
Fruit Intake to Prevent and Control Hypertension and Diabetes
Artificial sweeteners are must-haves for diabetics
Whereas sugar is a known quantity to the careful diabetic, some artificial sweeteners can impact insulin sensitivity, causing blood sugars to behave in unexpected ways. See for example:
The Impact of Artificial Sweeteners on Body Weight Control and Glucose Homeostasis
If a diabetic person is hyper, they should exercise to bring their blood sugar levels down
Be careful with this!
- In the case of type 2 diabetes, it may (or may not) help, as the extra sugar may be used up.
- Type 1 diabetes, however, has a crucial difference. Because the pancreas isn’t making insulin, a hyper (above a certain level, anyway) means more insulin is needed. Exercising could do more harm than good, as unlike in type 2 diabetes, the body has no way to use that extra sugar, without the insulin to facilitate it. Exercising will just pump the syrupy hyperglycemic blood around the body, potentially causing damage as it goes (all without actually being able to use it).
There are other ways this can be managed that are outside of the scope of this newsletter, but “be careful” is rarely a bad approach.
Read more, from the American Diabetes Association:
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
What Flexible Dieting Really Means
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 Flexibility Is The Dish Of The Day
This is Alan Aragon. Notwithstanding not being a “Dr. Alan Aragon”, he’s a research scientist with dozens of peer-reviewed nutrition science papers to his name, as well as being a personal trainer and fitness educator. Most importantly, he’s an ardent champion of making people’s pursuit of health and fitness more evidence-based.
We’ll be sharing some insights from a book of his that we haven’t reviewed yet, but we will link it at the bottom of today’s article in any case.
What does he want us to know?
First, get out of the 80s and into the 90s
In the world of popular dieting, the 80s were all about calorie-counting and low-fat diets. They did not particularly help.
In the 90s, it was discovered that not only was low-fat not the way to go, but also, regardless of the diet in question, rigid dieting leads to “disinhibition”, that is to say, there comes a point (usually not far into a diet) whereby one breaks the diet, at which point, the floodgates open and the dieter binges unhealthily.
Aragon would like to bring our attention to a number of studies that found this in various ways over the course of the 90s measuring various different metrics including rigid vs flexible dieting’s impacts on BMI, weight gain, weight loss, lean muscle mass changes, binge-eating, anxiety, depression, and so forth), but we only have so much room here, so here’s a 1999 study that’s pretty much the culmination of those:
Flexible vs. Rigid Dieting Strategies: Relationship with Adverse Behavioral Outcomes
So in short: trying to be very puritan about any aspect of dieting will not only not work, it will backfire.
Next, get out of the 90s into the 00s
…which is not only fun if you read “00s” out loud as “naughties”, but also actually appropriate in this case, because it is indeed important to be comfortable being a little bit naughty:
In 2000, Dr. Marika Tiggemann found that dichotomous perceptions of food (e.g. good/bad, clean/dirty, etc) were implicated as a dysfunctional cognitive style, and predicted not only eating disorders and mood disorders, but also adverse physical health outcomes:
Dieting and Cognitive Style: The Role of Current and Past Dieting Behaviour and Cognitions
This was rendered clearer, in terms of physical health outcomes, by Dr. Susan Byrne & Dr. Emma Dove, in 2009:
❝Weight loss was negatively associated with pre-treatment depression and frequency of treatment attendance, but not with dichotomous thinking. Females who regard their weight as unacceptably high and who think dichotomously may experience high levels of depression irrespective of their actual weight, while depression may be proportionate to the degree of obesity among those who do not think dichotomously❞
Aragon’s advice based on all this: while yes, some foods are better than others, it’s more useful to see foods as being part of a spectrum, rather than being absolutist or “black and white” about it.
Next: hit those perfect 10s… Imperfectly
The next decade expanded on this research, as science is wont to do, and for this one, Aragon shines a spotlight on Dr. Alice Berg’s 2018 study with obese women averaging 69 years of age, in which…
In other words (and in fact, to borrow Dr. Berg’s words from that paper),
❝encouraging a flexible approach to eating behavior and discouraging rigid adherence to a diet may lead to better intentional weight loss for overweight and obese older women❞
You may be wondering: what did this add to the studies from the 90s?
And the key here is: rather than being observational, this was interventional. In other words, rather than simply observing what happened to people who thought one way or another, this study took people who had a rigid, dichotomous approach to food, and gave them a 6-month behavioral intervention (in other words, support encouraging them to be more flexible and open in their approach to food), and found that this indeed improved matters for them.
Which means, it’s not a matter of fate or predisposition, as it could have been back in the 90s, per “some people are just like that; who’s to say which factor causes which”. Instead, now we know that this is an approach that can be adopted, and it can be expected to work.
Beyond weight loss
Now, so far we’ve talked mostly about weight loss, and only touched on other health outcomes. This is because:
- weight loss a very common goal for many
- it’s easy to measure so there’s a lot of science for it
Incidentally, if it’s a goal of yours, here’s what 10almonds had to say about that, along with two follow-up articles for other related goals:
Spoiler: we agree with Aragon, and recommend a relaxed and flexible approach to all three of these things
Aragon’s evidence-based approach to nutrition has found that this holds true for other aspects of healthy eating, too. For example…
To count or not to count?
It’s hard to do evidence-based anything without counting, and so Aragon talks a lot about this. Indeed, he does a lot of counting in scientific papers of his own, such as:
and
The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis
…as well as non-protein-related but diet-related topics such as:
But! For the at-home health enthusiast, Aragon recommends that the answer to the question “to count or not to count?” is “both”:
- Start off by indeed counting and tracking everything that is important to you (per whatever your current personal health intervention is, so it might be about calories, or grams of protein, or grams of carbs, or a certain fat balance, or something else entirely)
- Switch to a more relaxed counting approach once you get used to the above. By now you probably know the macros for a lot of your common meals, snacks, etc, and can tally them in your head without worrying about weighing portions and knowing the exact figures.
- Alternatively, count moderately standardized portions of relevant foods, such as “three servings of beans or legumes per day” or “no more than one portion of refined carbohydrates per day”
- Eventually, let habit take the wheel. Assuming you have established good dietary habits, this will now do you just fine.
This latter is the point whereby the advice (that Aragon also champions) of “allow yourself an unhealthy indulgence of 10–20% of your daily food”, as a budget of “discretionary calories”, eventually becomes redundant—because chances are, you’re no longer craving that donut, and at a certain point, eating foods far outside the range of healthiness you usually eat is not even something that you would feel inclined to do if offered.
But until that kicks in, allow yourself that budget of whatever unhealthy thing you enjoy, and (this next part is important…) do enjoy it.
Because it is no good whatsoever eating that cream-filled chocolate croissant and then feeling guilty about it; that’s the dichotomous thinking we had back in the 80s. Decide in advance you’re going to eat and enjoy it, then eat and enjoy it, then look back on it with a sense of “that was enjoyable” and move on.
The flipside of this is that the importance of allowing oneself a “little treat” is that doing so actively helps ensure that the “little treat” remains “little”. Without giving oneself permission, then suddenly, “well, since I broke my diet, I might as well throw the whole thing out the window and try again on Monday”.
On enjoying food fully, by the way:
Mindful Eating: How To Get More Nutrition Out Of The Same Food
Want to know more from Alan Aragon?
Today we’ve been working heavily from this book of his; we haven’t reviewed it yet, but we do recommend checking it out:
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:
-
Menopause, & When Not To Let Your Guard Down
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. Jessica Shepherd, a physician Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, CEO at Sanctum Medical & Wellness, and CMO at Hers.
She’s most well-known for her expertise in the field of the menopause. So, what does she want us to know?
Untreated menopause is more serious than most people think
Beyond the famous hot flashes, there’s also the increased osteoporosis risk, which is more well-known at least amongst the health-conscious, but oft-neglected is the increased cardiovascular disease risk:
What Menopause Does To The Heart
…and, which a lot of Dr. Shepherd’s work focuses on, it also increases dementia risk; she cites that 60–80% of dementia cases are women, and it’s also established that it progresses more quickly in women than men too, and this is associated with lower estrogen levels (not a problem for men, because testosterone does it for them) which had previously been a protective factor, but in untreated menopause, was no longer there to help:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear
Treated menopause is safer than many people think
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, conducted in the 90s and published in 2002, linked HRT to breast cancer, causing fear, but it turned out that this was quite bad science in several ways and the reporting was even worse (even the flawed data did not really support the conclusion, much less the headlines); it was since broadly refuted (and in fact, it can be a protective factor, depending on the HRT regimen), but fearmongering headlines made it to mainstream news, whereas “oopsies, never mind, we take that back” didn’t.
The short version of the current state of the science is: breast cancer risk varies depending on age, HRT type, and dosage; some kinds of HRT can increase the risk marginally in those older than 60, but absolute risk is low compared to placebo, and taking estrogen alone can reduce risk at any age in the event of not having a uterus (almost always because of having had a hysterectomy; as a quirk, it is possible to be born without, though).
It’s worth noting that even in the cases where HRT marginally increased the risk of breast cancer, it significantly decreased the risk of cancers in total, as well fractures and all-cause-mortality compared to the placebo group.
In other words, it might be worth having a 0.12% risk of breast cancer, to avoid the >30% risk of osteoporosis, which can ultimately be just as fatal (without even looking at the other things the HRT is protective against).
However! In the case of those who already have (or have had) breast cancer, increasing estrogen levels can indeed make that worse/return, and it becomes more complicated in cases where you haven’t had it, but there is a family history of it, or you otherwise know you have the gene for it.
You can read more about HRT and breast cancer risk (increases and decreases) here:
…and about the same with regard to HMT, here:
The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More
Lifestyle matters, and continues to matter
Menopause often receives the following attention from people:
- Perimenopause: “Is this menopause?”
- Menopause: “Ok, choices to make about HRT or not, plus I should watch out for osteoporosis”
- Postmenopause: “Yay, that’s behind me now, back to the new normal”
The reality, Dr. Shepherd advises, is that “postmenopause” is a misnomer because if it’s not being treated, then the changes are continuing to occur in your body.
This is a simple factor of physiology; your body is always rebuilding itself, will never stop until you die, and in untreated menopause+postmenopause, it’s now doing it without much estrogen.
So, you can’t let your guard down!
Thus, she recommends: focus on maintaining muscle mass, bone health, and cardiovascular health. If you focus on those things, the rest (including your brain, which is highly dependent on cardiovascular health) will mostly take care of itself.
Because falls and fractures, particularly hip fractures, drastically reduce quality and length of life in older adults, it is vital to avoid those, and try to be sufficiently robust so that if you do go A over T, you won’t injure yourself too badly, because your bones are strong. As a bonus, the same things (especially that muscle mass we talked about) will help you avoid falling in the first place, by improving stability.
See also: Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)
And about falls specifically: Fall Special: Be Robust, Mobile, & Balanced!
Want to know more from Dr. Shepherd?
You might like this book of hers that we reviewed not long back:
Generation M – by Dr. Jessica Shepherd
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:
-
Could the shingles vaccine lower your risk of dementia?
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 recent study has suggested Shingrix, a relatively new vaccine given to protect older adults against shingles, may delay the onset of dementia.
This might seem like a bizarre link, but actually, research has previously shown an older version of the shingles vaccine, Zostavax, reduced the risk of dementia.
In this new study, published last week in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers from the United Kingdom found Shingrix delayed dementia onset by 17% compared with Zostavax.
So how did the researchers work this out, and how could a shingles vaccine affect dementia risk?
Melinda Nagy/Shutterstock From Zostavax to Shingrix
Shingles is a viral infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus. It causes painful rashes, and affects older people in particular.
Previously, Zostavax was used to vaccinate against shingles. It was administered as a single shot and provided good protection for about five years.
Shingrix has been developed based on a newer vaccine technology, and is thought to offer stronger and longer-lasting protection. Given in two doses, it’s now the preferred option for shingles vaccination in Australia and elsewhere.
In November 2023, Shingrix replaced Zostavax on the National Immunisation Program, making it available for free to those at highest risk of complications from shingles. This includes all adults aged 65 and over, First Nations people aged 50 and older, and younger adults with certain medical conditions that affect their immune systems.
What the study found
Shingrix was approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration in October 2017. The researchers in the new study used the transition from Zostavax to Shingrix in the United States as an opportunity for research.
They selected 103,837 people who received Zostavax (between October 2014 and September 2017) and compared them with 103,837 people who received Shingrix (between November 2017 and October 2020).
By analysing data from electronic health records, they found people who received Shingrix had a 17% increase in “diagnosis-free time” during the follow-up period (up to six years after vaccination) compared with those who received Zostavax. This was equivalent to an average of 164 extra days without a dementia diagnosis.
The researchers also compared the shingles vaccines to other vaccines: influenza, and a combined vaccine for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. Shingrix and Zostavax performed around 14–27% better in lowering the risk of a dementia diagnosis, with Shingrix associated with a greater improvement.
The benefits of Shingrix in terms of dementia risk were significant for both sexes, but more pronounced for women. This is not entirely surprising, because we know women have a higher risk of developing dementia due to interplay of biological factors. These include being more sensitive to certain genetic mutations associated with dementia and hormonal differences.
Why the link?
The idea that vaccination against viral infection can lower the risk of dementia has been around for more than two decades. Associations have been observed between vaccines, such as those for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and influenza, and subsequent dementia risk.
Research has shown Zostavax vaccination can reduce the risk of developing dementia by 20% compared with people who are unvaccinated.
But it may not be that the vaccines themselves protect against dementia. Rather, it may be the resulting lack of viral infection creating this effect. Research indicates bacterial infections in the gut, as well as viral infections, are associated with a higher risk of dementia.
Notably, untreated infections with herpes simplex (herpes) virus – closely related to the varicella-zoster virus that causes shingles – can significantly increase the risk of developing dementia. Research has also shown shingles increases the risk of a later dementia diagnosis.
This isn’t the first time research has suggested a vaccine could reduce dementia risk. ben bryant/Shutterstock The mechanism is not entirely clear. But there are two potential pathways which may help us understand why infections could increase the risk of dementia.
First, certain molecules are produced when a baby is developing in the womb to help with the body’s development. These molecules have the potential to cause inflammation and accelerate ageing, so the production of these molecules is silenced around birth. However, viral infections such as shingles can reactivate the production of these molecules in adult life which could hypothetically lead to dementia.
Second, in Alzheimer’s disease, a specific protein called Amyloid-β go rogue and kill brain cells. Certain proteins produced by viruses such as COVID and bad gut bacteria have the potential to support Amyloid-β in its toxic form. In laboratory conditions, these proteins have been shown to accelerate the onset of dementia.
What does this all mean?
With an ageing population, the burden of dementia is only likely to become greater in the years to come. There’s a lot more we have to learn about the causes of the disease and what we can potentially do to prevent and treat it.
This new study has some limitations. For example, time without a diagnosis doesn’t necessarily mean time without disease. Some people may have underlying disease with delayed diagnosis.
This research indicates Shingrix could have a silent benefit, but it’s too early to suggest we can use antiviral vaccines to prevent dementia.
Overall, we need more research exploring in greater detail how infections are linked with dementia. This will help us understand the root causes of dementia and design potential therapies.
Ibrahim Javed, Enterprise and NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, UniSA Clinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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: