Move – by Caroline Williams

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.

  • Get 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week, says the American Heart Association
  • There are over 10,000 minutes per week, says the pocket calculator

Is 150/10,000 really the goal here? Really?

For Caroline Williams, the answer is no.

In this book that’s practically a manifesto, she outlines the case that:

  • Humans evolved to move
  • Industrialization and capitalism scuppered that
  • We now spend far too long each day without movement

Furthermore, for Williams this isn’t just an anthropological observation, it’s a problem to be solved, because:

  • Our lack of movement is crippling us—literally
  • Our stagnation affects not just our bodies, but also our minds
    • (again literally—there’s a direct correlation with mental health)
  • We urgently need to fix this

So, what now, do we need to move in to the gym and become full-time athletes to clock up enough hours of movement? No.

Williams convincingly argues the case (using data from supercentenarian “blue zones” around the world) that even non-exertive movement is sufficient. In other words, you don’t have to be running; walking is great. You don’t have to be lifting weights; doing the housework or gardening will suffice.

From that foundational axiom, she calls on us to find ways to build our life around movement… rather than production-efficiency and/or convenience. She gives plenty of tips for such too!

Bottom line: some books are “I couldn’t put it down!” books. This one’s more of a “I got the urge to get up and get moving!” book.

Get your get-up-and-go up and going with “Move”—order yours from Amazon today!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • The Worry Trick – by Dr. David Carbonell
  • Food for Life – by Dr. Tim Spector
    Get the latest science on food and nutrition in this accessible book. Personalized nutrition and valuable information make it a must-read.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • ‘Sleep tourism’ promises the trip of your dreams. Beyond the hype plus 5 tips for a holiday at home

    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.

    Imagine arriving at your hotel after a long flight and being greeted by your own personal sleep butler. They present you with a pillow menu and invite you to a sleep meditation session later that day.

    You unpack in a room kitted with an AI-powered smart bed, blackout shades, blue light-blocking glasses and weighted blankets.

    Holidays are traditionally for activities or sightseeing – eating Parisian pastry under the Eiffel tower, ice skating at New York City’s Rockefeller Centre, lying by the pool in Bali or sipping limoncello in Sicily. But “sleep tourism” offers vacations for the sole purpose of getting good sleep.

    The emerging trend extends out of the global wellness tourism industry – reportedly worth more than US$800 billion globally (A$1.2 trillion) and expected to boom.

    Luxurious sleep retreats and sleep suites at hotels are popping up all over the world for tourists to get some much-needed rest, relaxation and recovery. But do you really need to leave home for some shuteye?

    RossHelen/Shutterstock

    Not getting enough

    The rise of sleep tourism may be a sign of just how chronically sleep deprived we all are.

    In Australia more than one-third of adults are not achieving the recommended 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and the estimated cost of this inadequate sleep is A$45 billion each year.

    Inadequate sleep is linked to long-term health problems including poor mental health, heart disease, metabolic disease and deaths from any cause.

    Can a fancy hotel give you a better sleep?

    Many of the sleep services available in the sleep tourism industry aim to optimise the bedroom for sleep. This is a core component of sleep hygiene – a series of healthy sleep practices that facilitate good sleep including sleeping in a comfortable bedroom with a good mattress and pillow, sleeping in a quiet environment and relaxing before bed.

    The more people follow sleep hygiene practices, the better their sleep quality and quantity.

    When we are staying in a hotel we are also likely away from any stressors we encounter in everyday life (such as work pressure or caring responsibilities). And we’re away from potential nighttime disruptions to sleep we might experience at home (the construction work next door, restless pets, unsettled children). So regardless of the sleep features hotels offer, it is likely we will experience improved sleep when we are away.

    A do not disturb tag hangs on hotel door handle
    Being away from home also means being away from domestic disruptions. Makistock/Shutterstock

    What the science says about catching up on sleep

    In the short-term, we can catch up on sleep. This can happen, for example, after a short night of sleep when our brain accumulates “sleep pressure”. This term describes how strong the biological drive for sleep is. More sleep pressure makes it easier to sleep the next night and to sleep for longer.

    But while a longer sleep the next night can relieve the sleep pressure, it does not reverse the effects of the short sleep on our brain and body. Every night’s sleep is important for our body to recover and for our brain to process the events of that day. Spending a holiday “catching up” on sleep could help you feel more rested, but it is not a substitute for prioritising regular healthy sleep at home.

    All good things, including holidays, must come to an end. Unfortunately the perks of sleep tourism may end too.

    Our bodies do not like variability in the time of day that we sleep. The most common example of this is called “social jet lag”, where weekday sleep (getting up early to get to work or school) is vastly different to weekend sleep (late nights and sleep ins). This can result in a sleepy, grouchy start to the week on Monday. Sleep tourism may be similar, if you do not come back home with the intention to prioritise sleep.

    So we should be mindful that as well as sleeping well on holiday, it is important to optimise conditions at home to get consistent, adequate sleep every night.

    man looks at mobile phone in dark surroundings
    Good sleep hygiene doesn’t require a passport. Maridav/Shutterstock

    5 tips for having a sleep holiday at home

    An AI-powered mattress and a sleep butler at home might be the dream. But these features are not the only way we can optimise our sleep environment and give ourselves the best chance to get a good night’s sleep. Here are five ideas to start the night right:

    1. avoid bright artificial light in the evening (such as bright overhead lights, phones, laptops)

    2. make your bed as comfortable as possible with fresh pillows and a supportive mattress

    3. use black-out window coverings and maintain a cool room temperature for the ideal sleeping environment

    4. establish an evening wind-down routine, such as a warm shower and reading a book before bed or even a “sleepy girl mocktail

    5. use consistency as the key to a good sleep routine. Aim for a similar bedtime and wake time – even on weekends.

    Charlotte Gupta, Senior postdoctoral research fellow, Appleton Institute, HealthWise research group, CQUniversity Australia and Dean J. Miller, Adjunct Research Fellow, Appleton Institute of Behavioural Science, CQUniversity Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Walnuts vs Brazil Nuts – 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 walnuts to Brazil nuts, we picked the walnuts.

    Why?

    Talking macros first, they are about equal in protein, carbs, fats, and fiber; their composition is almost identical in this regard. However, looking a little more closely at the fats, Brazil nuts have more than 2x the saturated fat, while walnuts have nearly 2x the polyunsaturated fat. So, we’ll declare the macros category a moderate win for walnuts.

    The category of vitamins is not balanced; walnuts have more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, and choline, while Brazil nuts have more of vitamins B1 and E. A clear and easy win for walnuts.

    The category of minerals is interesting, because of one mineral in particular. First let’s mention: walnuts have more iron and manganese, while Brazil nuts have more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium. Taken at face value, this is a clear win for Brazil nuts. However…

    About that selenium… Specifically, it’s more than 391x higher, and a cup of Brazil nuts would give nearly 10,000x the recommended daily amount of selenium. Now, selenium is an essential mineral (needed for thyroid hormone production, for example), and at the RDA it’s good for good health. Your hair will be luscious and shiny. However, go much above that, and selenium toxicity becomes a thing, you may get sick, and it can cause your (luscious and shiny) hair to fall out. For this reason, it’s recommended to eat no more than 3–4 Brazil nuts per day.

    There is one last consideration, and this is oxalates; walnuts are moderately high in oxalates (>50mg/100g) while Brazil nuts are very high in oxalates (>500mg/100g). This won’t affect most people at all, but if you have pre-existing kidney problems (including a history of kidney stones), you might want to go easy on oxalate-containing foods.

    For most people, however, walnuts are a very healthy choice, and outshine Brazil nuts in most ways.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Which Osteoporosis Medication, If Any, Is Right For You?

    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.

    Which Osteoporosis Medication, If Any, Is Right For You?

    We’ve written about osteoporosis before, so here’s a quick recap first in case you missed these:

    All of those look and diet and/or exercise, with “diet” including supplementation. But what of medications?

    So many choices (not all of them right for everyone)

    The UK’s Royal Osteoporosis Society says of the very many osteoporosis meds available:

    ❝In terms of effectiveness, they all reduce your risk of broken bones by roughly the same amount.

    Which treatment is right for you will depend on a number of things.❞

    …before then going on to list a pageful of things it will depend on, and giving no specific information about what prescriptions or proscriptions may be made based on those factors.

    Source: Royal Osteoporosis Society | Which medication should I take?

    We’ll try to do better than that here, though we have less space. So let’s get down to it…

    First line drug offerings

    After diet/supplementation and (if applicable) hormones, the first line of actual drug offerings are generally biphosphates.

    Biphosphates work by slowing down your osteoclasts—the cells that break down your bones. They may sound like terrible things to have in the body at all, but remember, your body is always rebuilding itself and destruction is a necessary act to facilitate creation. However, sometimes things can get out of balance, and biphosphates help tip things back into balance.

    Common biphosphates include Alendronate/Fosamax, Risedronate/Actonel, Ibandronate/Boniva, and Zolendronic acid/Reclast.

    A common downside is that they aren’t absorbed well by the stomach (despite being mostly oral administration, though IV versions exist too) and can cause heartburn / general stomach upset.

    An uncommon downside is that messing with the body’s ability to break down bones can cause bones to be rebuilt-in-place slightly incorrectly, which can—paradoxically—cause fractures. But that’s rare and is more common if the drugs are taken in much higher doses (as for bone cancer rather than osteoporosis).

    Bone-builders

    If you already have low bone density (so you’re fighting to rebuild your bones, not just slow deterioration), then you may need more of a boost.

    Bone-building medications include Teriparatide/Forteo, Abaloparatide/Tymlos, and Romosozumab/Evenity.

    These are usually given by injection, usually for a course of one or two years.

    Once the bone has been built up, it’ll probably be recommended that you switch to a biphosphate or other bone-stabilizing medication.

    Estrogen-like effects, without estrogen

    If your osteoporosis (or osteoporosis risk) comes from being post-menopausal, estrogen is a very common (and effective!) prescription. However, some people may wish to avoid it, if for example you have a heightened breast cancer risk, which estrogen can exacerbate.

    So, medications that have estrogen-like effects post-menopause, but without actually increasing estrogen levels, include: Raloxifene/Evista, and also all the meds we mentioned in the bone-building category above.

    Raloxifene/Evista specifically mimics the action of estrogen on bones, while at the same time blocking the effect of estrogen on other tissues.

    Learn more…

    Want a more thorough grounding than we have room for here? You might find the following resource useful:

    List of 82 Osteoporosis Medications Compared (this has a big table which is sortable by various variables)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Worry Trick – by Dr. David Carbonell
  • MSG vs. Salt: Sodium Comparison

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Q: Is MSG healthier than salt in terms of sodium content or is it the same or worse?

    Great question, and for that matter, MSG itself is a great topic for another day. But your actual question, we can readily answer here and now:

    • Firstly, by “salt” we’re assuming from context that you mean sodium chloride.
    • Both salt and MSG do contain sodium. However…
    • MSG contains only about a third of the sodium that salt does, gram-for-gram.
    • It’s still wise to be mindful of it, though. Same with sodium in other ingredients!
    • Baking soda contains about twice as much sodium, gram for gram, as MSG.

    Wondering why this happens?

    Salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) is equal parts sodium and chlorine, by atom count, but sodium’s atomic mass is lower than chlorine’s, so 100g of salt contains only 39.34g of sodium.

    Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO₃) is one part sodium for one part hydrogen, one part carbon, and three parts oxygen. Taking each of their diverse atomic masses into account, we see that 100g of baking soda contains 27.4g sodium.

    MSG (monosodium glutamate, C₅H₈NO₄Na) is only one part sodium for 5 parts carbon, 8 parts hydrogen, 1 part nitrogen, and 4 parts oxygen… And all those other atoms put together weigh a lot (comparatively), so 100g of MSG contains only 12.28g sodium.

    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:

  • California Is Investing $500M in Therapy Apps for Youth. Advocates Fear It Won’t Pay Off.

    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.

    With little pomp, California launched two apps at the start of the year offering free behavioral health services to youths to help them cope with everything from living with anxiety to body acceptance.

    Through their phones, young people and some caregivers can meet BrightLife Kids and Soluna coaches, some who specialize in peer support or substance use disorders, for roughly 30-minute virtual counseling sessions that are best suited to those with more mild needs, typically those without a clinical diagnosis. The apps also feature self-directed activities, such as white noise sessions, guided breathing, and videos of ocean waves to help users relax.

    “We believe they’re going to have not just great impact, but wide impact across California, especially in places where maybe it’s not so easy to find an in-person behavioral health visit or the kind of coaching and supports that parents and young people need,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom’s health secretary, Mark Ghaly, during the Jan. 16 announcement.

    The apps represent one of the Democratic governor’s major forays into health technology and come with four-year contracts valued at $498 million. California is believed to be the first state to offer a mental health app with free coaching to all young residents, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which operates the program.

    However, the rollout has been slow. Only about 15,000 of the state’s 12.6 million children and young adults have signed up for the apps, school counselors say they’ve never heard of them, and one of the companies isn’t making its app available on Android phones until summer.

    Advocates for youth question the wisdom of investing taxpayer dollars in two private companies. Social workers are concerned the companies’ coaches won’t properly identify youths who need referrals for clinical care. And the spending is drawing lawmaker scrutiny amid a state deficit pegged at as much as $73 billion.

    An App for That

    Newsom’s administration says the apps fill a need for young Californians and their families to access professional telehealth for free, in multiple languages, and outside of standard 9-to-5 hours. It’s part of Newsom’s sweeping $4.7 billion master plan for kids’ mental health, which was introduced in 2022 to increase access to mental health and substance use support services. In addition to launching virtual tools such as the teletherapy apps, the initiative is working to expand workforce capacity, especially in underserved areas.

    “The reality is that we are rarely 6 feet away from our devices,” said Sohil Sud, director of Newsom’s Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. “The question is how we can leverage technology as a resource for all California youth and families, not in place of, but in addition to, other behavioral health services that are being developed and expanded.”

    The virtual platforms come amid rising depression and suicide rates among youth and a shortage of mental health providers. Nearly half of California youths from the ages of 12 to 17 report having recently struggled with mental health issues, with nearly a third experiencing serious psychological distress, according to a 2021 study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. These rates are even higher for multiracial youths and those from low-income families.

    But those supporting youth mental health at the local level question whether the apps will move the needle on climbing depression and suicide rates.

    “It’s fair to applaud the state of California for aggressively seeking new tools,” said Alex Briscoe of California Children’s Trust, a statewide initiative that, along with more than 100 local partners, works to improve the social and emotional health of children. “We just don’t see it as fundamental. And we don’t believe the youth mental health crisis will be solved by technology projects built by a professional class who don’t share the lived experience of marginalized communities.”

    The apps, BrightLife Kids and Soluna, are operated by two companies: Brightline, a 5-year-old venture capital-backed startup; and Kooth, a London-based publicly traded company that has experience in the U.K. and has also signed on some schools in Kentucky and Pennsylvania and a health plan in Illinois. In the first five months of Kooth’s Pennsylvania pilot, 6% of students who had access to the app signed up.

    Brightline and Kooth represent a growing number of health tech firms seeking to profit in this space. They beat out dozens of other bidders including international consulting companies and other youth telehealth platforms that had already snapped up contracts in California.

    Although the service is intended to be free with no insurance requirement, Brightline’s app, BrightLife Kids, is folded into and only accessible through the company’s main app, which asks for insurance information and directs users to paid licensed counseling options alongside the free coaching. After KFF Health News questioned why the free coaching was advertised below paid options, Brightline reordered the page so that, even if a child has high-acuity needs, free coaching shows up first.

    The apps take an expansive view of behavioral health, making the tools available to all California youth under age 26 as well as caregivers of babies, toddlers, and children 12 and under. When KFF Health News asked to speak with an app user, Brightline connected a reporter with a mother whose 3-year-old daughter was learning to sleep on her own.

    ‘It’s Like Crickets’

    Despite being months into the launch and having millions in marketing funds, the companies don’t have a definitive rollout timeline. Brightline said it hopes to have deployed teams across the state to present the tools in person by midyear. Kooth said developing a strategy to hit every school would be “the main focus for this calendar year.”

    “It’s a big state — 58 counties,” Bob McCullough of Kooth said. “It’ll take us a while to get to all of them.”

    So far BrightLife Kids is available only on Apple phones. Brightline said it’s aiming to launch the Android version over the summer.

    “Nobody’s really done anything like this at this magnitude, I think, in the U.S. before,” said Naomi Allen, a co-founder and the CEO of Brightline. “We’re very much in the early innings. We’re already learning a lot.”

    The contracts, obtained by KFF Health News through a records request, show the companies operating the two apps could earn as much as $498 million through the contract term, which ends in June 2027, months after Newsom is set to leave office. And the state is spending hundreds of millions more on Newsom’s virtual behavioral health strategy. The state said it aims to make the apps available long-term, depending on usage.

    The state said 15,000 people signed up in the first three months. When KFF Health News asked how many of those users actively engaged with the app, it declined to say, noting that data would be released this summer.

    KFF Health News reached out to nearly a dozen California mental health professionals and youths. None of them were aware of the apps.

    “I’m not hearing anything,” said Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors. “It’s like crickets.”

    Whitson said she doesn’t think the apps are on “anyone’s” radar in schools, and she doesn’t know of any schools that are actively advertising them. Brightline will be presenting its tool to the counselor association in May, but Whitson said the company didn’t reach out to plan the meeting; she did.

    Concern Over Referrals

    Whitson isn’t comfortable promoting the apps just yet. Although both companies said they have a clinical team on staff to assist, Whitson said she’s concerned that the coaches, who aren’t all licensed therapists, won’t have the training to detect when users need more help and refer them to clinical care.

    This sentiment was echoed by other school-based social workers, who also noted the apps’ duplicative nature — in some counties, like Los Angeles, youths can access free virtual counseling sessions through Hazel Health, a for-profit company. Nonprofits, too, have entered this space. For example, Teen Line, a peer-to-peer hotline operated by Southern California-based Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, is free nationwide.

    While the state is also funneling money to the schools as part of Newsom’s master plan, students and school-based mental health professionals voiced confusion at the large app investment when, in many school districts, few in-person counseling roles exist, and in some cases are dwindling.

    Kelly Merchant, a student at College of the Desert in Palm Desert, noted that it can be hard to access in-person therapy at her school. She believes the community college, which has about 15,000 students, has only one full-time counselor and one part-time bilingual counselor. She and several students interviewed by KFF Health News said they appreciated having engaging content on their phone and the ability to speak to a coach, but all said they’d prefer in-person therapy.

    “There are a lot of people who are seeking therapy, and people close to me that I know. But their insurances are taking forever, and they’re on the waitlist,” Merchant said. “And, like, you’re seeing all these people struggle.”

    Fiscal conservatives question whether the money could be spent more effectively, like to bolster county efforts and existing youth behavioral health programs.

    Republican state Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, noted that California is forecasted to face deficits for the next three years, and taxpayer watchdogs worry the apps might cost even more in the long run.

    “What starts as a small financial commitment can become uncontrollable expenses down the road,” said Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

    This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    USE OUR CONTENT

    This story can be republished for free (details).

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    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:

  • Salmon vs Tuna – 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 salmon to tuna, we picked the tuna.

    Why?

    It’s close, and there are merits and drawbacks to both!

    In terms of macros, tuna is higher in protein, while salmon is higher in fats. How healthy are the fats, you ask? Well, it’s a mix, because while there are plenty of “good” fats in salmon, salmon is also 10x higher in saturated fat and 150% higher in cholesterol.

    So when it comes to fats, if you want to eat fish and have the healthiest fats, one option is to skip the salmon, and instead serve tuna with some extra virgin olive oil.

    We’ll call this section a clear win for tuna.

    On the vitamin front, they are close to equal. Salmon has more of some vitamins, tuna has more of others; all in all we’d say the balance is in salmon’s favor, but by the time a portion of salmon is giving you 350% of your daily requirement, does it really matter that the same portion of tuna is “only” giving you 294% of the daily requirement? It goes like that for a lot of the vitamins they both contain.

    Still, we’ll call this section a nominal win for salmon.

    In the category of minerals, tuna is much higher in iron while salmon is higher in calcium. The rest of the minerals they both have, tuna is comfortably higher—and since the “% of RDA in a portion” figures are double-digit here rather than triple, those margins are relevant this time.

    We’ll call this section a moderate win for tuna.

    Both fish carry a risk of mercury poisoning, but this varies more by location than by fish, so it hasn’t been a consideration in this head-to-head.

    Totting up the sections, this a modest but clear win for tuna.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Farmed Fish vs Wild-Caught: Important Differences!

    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: