Sugar Blues – by William Dufty
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 a “read it cover to cover” book. It charts the rise of sugar’s place in world diets in general and the American diet in particular, and draws many conclusions about the effect this has had on us.
This book will challenge you. Sometimes, it will change your mind. Sometimes, you’ll go “no, I’m sure that’s not right”, and you’ll go Googling. Either way, you’ll learn something.
And that, for us, is the most important measure of any informational book: did we gain something from it? In Sugar Blues, perhaps the single biggest “gain” for the reader is that it’s an eye-opener and a call-to-arms—the extent to which you heed that is up to you, but it sure is good to at least be familiar with the battlefield.
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:
-
Take Care Of Your Lymphatic System To Beat Cognitive Decline
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.
First of all, for any unfamiliar with the lymphatic system, it’s mostly the body’s clean-up system (as well as a big part of the body’s anticancer system).
See: The Lymphatic System Against Cancer & More
It may not be the most glamorous job, but it’s certainly an essential one.
There’s no lymph in the brain, but…
Because of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) that keeps the astonishingly sensitive brain as safe as it can from unwanted things, there are many aspects of our physiology that only happen inside the brain, or only happen outside of it, as the compounds in question may be too large to get through the BBB.
The lymphatic system is, in and of itself, an entirely outside-of-the-brain affair. So, how does stuff get cleaned out from the brain (such as beta-amyloid and alpha-synuclein clearance, to avoid Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, respectively)?
The glymphatic system (a portmanteau of glial cells doing the job of the lymphatic system) is the brain’s own cleanup crew, and we wrote about it here:
How To Clean Your Brain (Glymphatic Health Primer)
Why lymph still matters for the brain
Although the glymphatic system is doing a (hopefully) fine job of scrubbing up the brain, if the lymphatic system isn’t working at least as well, then this becomes the equivalent of what would happen if you at home were very attentive to taking the trash out, but the garbage disposal crews stopped doing their job, or did it much less well than they need to. Soon, you’d end up with a mountain of trash at home, even though you were doing your part correctly.
In short: the glymphatic system needs to pass the waste on somewhere, and the lymphatic system is its go-to.
You may be wondering about the role of blood in all of this, and the answer is that no part of any of the above systems can do its job without adequate oxygenation, and our blood also assists in the transport of things removed—which is one of the reasons why there are blood-based Alzheimer’s tests that can be done; they measure certain markers of neurodegeneration that become present in the blood having left the brain:
Early Dementia Screening From Your Blood & More ← the “and more” is actually quite interesting, but it’s the blood we’re interested in for this section
What can be done about it
Our first two links up above, about the lymphatic and glymphatic systems, respectively, also tell how to look after each of them, but we’ll mention a few salient pointers here.
For the lymphatic system:
- do lymphatic massage
- exercise, with a focus on maximizing movement
- eat an anti-inflammatory diet
For the glymphatic system:
- do vagal massage (Vagal! Not vaginal, which will not help! Or rather: it won’t help the glymphatic system, anyway)
- exercise, and/but also rest well (good quality sleep)
- eat omega-3 fatty acids
For more details and suggestions on each though, do check out:
Lymphatic health primer | Glymphatic health primer
How this was discovered
Until as recently as 2014, it was not known that there was any part of the lymphatic system around the brain, waiting to take things from the glymphatic system. Since then, research has slowly been done about the relationship between the two, how things work, and what affects what and how.
Most recently (the study was published two days ago, at time of writing this) it was discovered that, in mice at least, improving lymphatic function just outside of the brain (the meningeal lymphatic vessels, responsible for draining waste from the brain) improves memory.
Aged mice who underwent a process that rejuvenated the meningeal lymphatic vessels, performed better in memory tests afterwards.
How this worked, step-by-step:
- The mice were given a special protein that rejuvenated the meningeal lymphatic vessels¹
- The lymphatic vessels were then able to do their job better
- This meant that the glial cells of the glymphatic system were no longer drowning in excess stuff
- This reduced levels of a protein that says “help, too much stuff!” and starts inhibiting everything it can to try to cope²
- This meant that neural activity was no longer being suppressed, and memory improved
Technical bits for those who want it:
¹ We’re not being secretive about what this special protein was; it’s just that the special protein is called adeno-associated virus 1 cytomegalovirus murine vascular endothelial growth factor C, or “AAV1-CMV-mVEGF-C” for short, so for readability, “a special protein” does the job. Suffice it to say, a) you can’t exactly buy AAV1-CMV-mVEGF-C on Amazon, and b) you wouldn’t want it anyway, you’d want its close cousin AAV1-CMV-hVEGF-C (“m” for murine, i.e. mousey, vs “h” for human)
² This one’s just called interleukin-6 (IL-6); perhaps you’ve heard of interleukin; we’ve mentioned it sometimes before.
You can read the paper in its entirety here; if you don’t mind reading very technical stuff, it is very interesting:
Meningeal lymphatics-microglia axis regulates synaptic physiology
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Debunking the myth that vaccines cause autism
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 myth that autism is linked to childhood vaccines first appeared in a 1998 study by British physician Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The study was later retracted, and Wakefield was discredited. But nearly three decades after the study’s publication, the myth persists, championed by activists, political leaders, and even potential health officials.
There is overwhelming evidence that there is no link between vaccines and autism. “No one has any real or solid evidence that vaccines cause autism,” says Catherine Lord, a psychologist and autism researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Here are just some of the many reasons that we know vaccines don’t cause autism.
The Wakefield study has been thoroughly discredited
In 1998, the Lancet published a study describing a small group of children who reportedly had bowel inflammation and developed autism within a month of getting the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study proposed that the vaccination triggered bowel inflammation and developmental delays, including autism. Lead author Andrew Wakefield coined the term “autistic enterocolitis” to describe the condition he and his colleagues claimed to have discovered.
The study received significant media attention and immediate criticism from scientists, who pointed out the study’s small size, lack of controls, and insufficient evidence to support its conclusions.
Subsequent research published over the next few years refuted Wakefield’s findings. A 1999 Lancet study found no link between autism and the MMR vaccine, and a 2001 study found no evidence of a link or the existence of so-called autistic enterocolitis.
In 2010, the Lancet finally retracted Wakefield’s fraudulent study, noting that “several elements” of the study were “incorrect” and that the experiments carried out on children had not been approved by an ethics board. The journal’s editor called the paper’s conclusions “utterly false.”
A few months later, Wakefield was stripped of his medical license by the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council. The council deemed Wakefield “dishonest and irresponsible” and concluded that he conducted unethical experiments on children.
The committee’s investigation also revealed that, less than a year before he published his study claiming that the MMR vaccine was linked to bowel inflammation that triggered autism, Wakefield filed a patent for a standalone measles vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease treatment.
Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001—with no effect on autism rates
A 2003 study published by a conservative group known for promoting anti-science myths—including that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS—first proposed that the preservative thimerosal in childhood vaccines is linked to autism. This supposed link was subsequently disproven.
Thimerosal is added in small amounts to some vaccines to prevent dangerous bacterial and fungal contamination. The substance contains ethylmercury, a form of mercury that the body quickly and safely processes in small doses.
Ethylmercury is different from methylmercury, a far more dangerous form of mercury that is toxic at low doses. By contrast, the small amount of thimerosal in some vaccines is harmless to humans and is equal to the amount of mercury in a can of tuna.
The preservative was removed from childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure in 2001. With the exception of some flu shots, no childhood vaccine contains the preservative and hasn’t for more than two decades. Autism rates have not decreased as a result of thimerosal being removed from childhood immunization vaccines. While some types of the annual flu vaccine contain thimerosal, you can get one without it.
Extensive research also shows that neither thimerosal nor methylmercury at any dose is linked to autism. A 2008 study of statewide California data found that autism rates “increased consistently for children born from 1989 through 2003, inclusive of the period when exposure to [thimerosal-containing vaccines] has declined.”
Autism rates are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated children
Vaccine opponents often falsely claim that vaccinated children are more likely than unvaccinated children to develop autism. Decades of research disprove this false claim.
A 2002 analysis of every child born in Denmark over eight years found that children who received MMR vaccines were no more likely to be diagnosed with autism than unvaccinated children.
A 2015 study of over 95,000 U.S. siblings found that MMR vaccination is not associated with increased autism diagnosis. This was true even among the siblings of children with autism, who are seven times more likely to develop autism than children without an autistic sibling.
And a 2018 study found some evidence that children with autism—and their siblings—were more likely to be unvaccinated or under-vaccinated than children without autism.
Vaccination also has no impact on autism rates at the population level, regardless of the age at which children get vaccinated.
“In comparing countries that have different timing and levels of vaccination … there’s no difference in autism,” says Lord. “You can look at different countries with different rates of autism, and there’s no relationship between the rates of autism and vaccinations.”
Countries such as Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, and Morocco, which have some of the world’s lowest autism rates, have childhood immunization rates that are nearly identical to countries with the highest autism rates, including Sweden, Japan, Brunei, and Singapore.
Improved awareness and diagnosis play a role in rising autism rates
Autism was first described in 1911 when it was considered to be a form of severe schizophrenia. Over a century later, our understanding of autism has changed drastically, as have diagnostic standards.
A 2013 scientific article describing how medical and social perceptions of autism have evolved explains that “the diagnoses of schizophrenia, psychosis and autism in children were largely interchangeable during the 1940s and 1950s.” Beginning in the 1960s, methods of diagnosing autism improved, “increasing the number of children who were considered to display autistic traits.”
The autism diagnosis was changed to autism spectrum disorder in 2013. “This category is now very broad, which was an intentional choice to help provide services to the greatest number of people who might need them,” writes Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist and creator of the popular Health Nerd blog.
“Rather than the severe intellectual disability of the 1940s and 50s, [autism spectrum disorder] is a group of behaviours that can be any severity as long as they are persistent and impact people’s daily functioning in a significant way.”
For more information about autism, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
Chatter – by Dr. Ethan Kross
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 is about much more than just one’s internal monologue. It does tackle that, but also the many non-verbal rabbit-holes that our brains can easily disappear into.
The author is an experimental psychologist, and brings his professional knowledge and experience to bear on this problem—citing many studies, including his own studies from his own lab, in which he undertook to answer precisely the implicit questions of “How can I…” in terms of tackling these matters, from root anxiety (for example) to end-state executive dysfunction (for example).
The writing style isn’t dense science though, and is very approachable for all.
The greatest value in this book lies in its prescriptive element, that is to say, its advice, especially in the category of evidence-based things we can do to improve matters for ourselves; beyond generic things like “mindfulness-based stress reduction” to much more specific things like “observe yourself in the 3rd person for a moment” and “take a break to imagine looking back on this later” and “interrupt yourself with a brief manual task”. With these sorts of interventions and more, we can shift the voice in our head from critic to coach.
Bottom line: if you would like your brain to let you get on with the things you actually want to do instead of constantly sidetracking you, this is the book for you.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
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:
-
What will aged care look like for the next generation? More of the same but higher out-of-pocket costs
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.
Aged care financing is a vexed problem for the Australian government. It is already underfunded for the quality the community expects, and costs will increase dramatically. There are also significant concerns about the complexity of the system.
In 2021–22 the federal government spent A$25 billion on aged services for around 1.2 million people aged 65 and over. Around 60% went to residential care (190,000 people) and one-third to home care (one million people).
The final report from the government’s Aged Care Taskforce, which has been reviewing funding options, estimates the number of people who will need services is likely to grow to more than two million over the next 20 years. Costs are therefore likely to more than double.
The taskforce has considered what aged care services are reasonable and necessary and made recommendations to the government about how they can be paid for. This includes getting aged care users to pay for more of their care.
But rather than recommending an alternative financing arrangement that will safeguard Australians’ aged care services into the future, the taskforce largely recommends tidying up existing arrangements and keeping the status quo.
No Medicare-style levy
The taskforce rejected the aged care royal commission’s recommendation to introduce a levy to meet aged care cost increases. A 1% levy, similar to the Medicare levy, could have raised around $8 billion a year.
The taskforce failed to consider the mix of taxation, personal contributions and social insurance which are commonly used to fund aged care systems internationally. The Japanese system, for example, is financed by long-term insurance paid by those aged 40 and over, plus general taxation and a small copayment.
Instead, the taskforce puts forward a simple, pragmatic argument that older people are becoming wealthier through superannuation, there is a cost of living crisis for younger people and therefore older people should be required to pay more of their aged care costs.
Separating care from other services
In deciding what older people should pay more for, the taskforce divided services into care, everyday living and accommodation.
The taskforce thought the most important services were clinical services (including nursing and allied health) and these should be the main responsibility of government funding. Personal care, including showering and dressing were seen as a middle tier that is likely to attract some co-payment, despite these services often being necessary to maintain independence.
The task force recommended the costs for everyday living (such as food and utilities) and accommodation expenses (such as rent) should increasingly be a personal responsibility.
Aged care users will pay more of their share for cooking and cleaning.
Lizelle Lotter/ShutterstockMaking the system fairer
The taskforce thought it was unfair people in residential care were making substantial contributions for their everyday living expenses (about 25%) and those receiving home care weren’t (about 5%). This is, in part, because home care has always had a muddled set of rules about user co-payments.
But the taskforce provided no analysis of accommodation costs (such as utilities and maintenance) people meet at home compared with residential care.
To address the inefficiencies of upfront daily fees for packages, the taskforce recommends means testing co-payments for home care packages and basing them on the actual level of service users receive for everyday support (for food, cleaning, and so on) and to a lesser extent for support to maintain independence.
It is unclear whether clinical and personal care costs and user contributions will be treated the same for residential and home care.
Making residential aged care sustainable
The taskforce was concerned residential care operators were losing $4 per resident day on “hotel” (accommodation services) and everyday living costs.
The taskforce recommends means tested user contributions for room services and everyday living costs be increased.
It also recommends that wealthier older people be given more choice by allowing them to pay more (per resident day) for better amenities. This would allow providers to fully meet the cost of these services.
Effectively, this means daily living charges for residents are too low and inflexible and that fees would go up, although the taskforce was clear that low-income residents should be protected.
Moving from buying to renting rooms
Currently older people who need residential care have a choice of making a refundable up-front payment for their room or to pay rent to offset the loans providers take out to build facilities. Providers raise capital to build aged care facilities through equity or loan financing.
However, the taskforce did not consider the overall efficiency of the private capital market for financing aged care or alternative solutions.
Instead, it recommended capital contributions be streamlined and simplified by phasing out up-front payments and focusing on rental contributions. This echoes the royal commission, which found rent to be a more efficient and less risky method of financing capital for aged care in private capital markets.
It’s likely that in a decade or so, once the new home care arrangements are in place, there will be proportionally fewer older people in residential aged care. Those who do go are likely to be more disabled and have greater care needs. And those with more money will pay more for their accommodation and everyday living arrangements. But they may have more choice too.
Although the federal government has ruled out an aged care levy and changes to assets test on the family home, it has yet to respond to the majority of the recommendations. But given the aged care minister chaired the taskforce, it’s likely to provide a good indication of current thinking.
Hal Swerissen, Emeritus Professor, La Trobe University
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:
-
Vaccines and cancer: The myth that won’t die
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.
Two recent studies reported rising cancer rates among younger adults in the U.S. and worldwide. This prompted some online anti-vaccine accounts to link the studies’ findings to COVID-19 vaccines.
But, as with other myths, the data tells a very different story.
What you need to know
- Baseless claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have persisted online for several years and gained traction in late 2023.
- Two recent reports finding rising cancer rates among younger adults are based on pre-pandemic cancer incidence data. Cancer rates in the U.S. have been on the rise since the 1990s.
- There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk.
False claims about COVID-19 vaccines began circulating months before the vaccines were available. Chief among these claims was misinformed speculation that vaccine mRNA could alter or integrate into vaccine recipients’ DNA.
It does not. But that didn’t prevent some on social media from spinning that claim into a persistent myth alleging that mRNA vaccines can cause or accelerate cancer growth. Anti-vaccine groups even coined the term “turbo cancer” to describe a fake phenomenon of abnormally aggressive cancers allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
They used the American Cancer Society’s 2024 cancer projection—based on incidence data through 2020—and a study of global cancer trends between 1999 and 2019 to bolster the false claims. This exposed the dishonesty at the heart of the anti-vaccine messaging, as data that predated the pandemic by decades was carelessly linked to COVID-19 vaccines in viral social media posts.
Some on social media cherry-pick data and use unfounded evidence because the claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer are not true. According to the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society, there is no evidence of any link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in cancer diagnosis, progression, or remission.
Why does the vaccine cancer myth endure?
At the root of false cancer claims about COVID-19 vaccines is a long history of anti-vaccine figures falsely linking vaccines to cancer. Polio and HPV vaccines have both been the target of disproven cancer myths.
Not only do HPV vaccines not cause cancer, they are one of only two vaccines that prevent cancer.
In the case of polio vaccines, some early batches were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), a virus that is known to cause cancer in some mammals but not humans. The contaminated batches were discovered, and no other vaccine has had SV40 contamination in over 60 years.
Follow-up studies found no increase in cancer rates in people who received the SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. Yet, vaccine opponents have for decades claimed that polio vaccines cause cancer.
Recycling of the SV40 myth
The SV40 myth resurfaced in 2023 when vaccine opponents claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain the virus. In reality, a small, nonfunctional piece of the SV40 virus is used in the production of some COVID-19 vaccines. This DNA fragment, called the promoter, is commonly used in biomedical research and vaccine development and doesn’t remain in the finished product.
Crucially, the SV40 promoter used to produce COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus and is associated with cancer-causing properties in some animals. The promoter also lacks the ability to survive on its own inside the cell or interact with DNA. In other words, it poses no risk to humans.
Over 5.6 billion people worldwide have received COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020. At that scale, even the tiniest increase in cancer rates in vaccinated populations would equal hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths. The evidence for alleged vaccine-linked cancer would be observed in real incidence, treatment, and mortality data, not social media anecdotes or unverifiable reports.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
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:
