Complex PTSD – by Pete Walker
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.
We’ve written before about Complex PTSD, but there’s a lot more to be said than we can fit into an article or two.
Pete Walker, a licensed marriage and family therapist, does an excellent job and pulls no punches, starting from the book’s dedication and carrying the hard-hitting seriousness all the way through to the Appendices.
To this end, it absolutely may not be an easy book to read at times (emotionally speaking), especially if you have C-PTSD. On the other hand, you may also find it a very validating 300-odd pages of “Yes, he is telling my life story in words, now this makes sense!”
That said, it’s mostly not an anecdotes-based book and nor is it just a feelsy ride; it’s also a textbook and a how-to manual. It’s a textbook of how and why things come about the way they do, and a manual of how to effectively manage C-PTSD, and find peace. There’s no silver bullet here, but there is a very comprehensive guide, and chapters full of tools to use (and no, not the same CBT things you’ve probably read a hundred times, this is C-PTSD-specific stuff).
Bottom line: this is the C-PTSD book; if you buy only one book on the topic, make it this one.
Click here to check out Complex PTSD: From Surviving To Thriving, and indeed thrive!
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:
Kale vs Watercress – 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 kale to watercress, we picked the kale.
Why?
It was very close! If ever we’ve been tempted to call something a tie, this has been the closest so far.
Their macros are close; watercress has a tiny amount more protein and slightly lower carbs, but these numbers are tiny, so it’s not really a factor. Nevertheless, on macros alone we’d call this a slight nominal win for watercress.
In terms of vitamins, they’re even. Watercress has higher vitamin E and choline (sometimes considered a vitamin), as well as being higher in some B vitamins. Kale has higher vitamins A and K, as well as being higher in some other B vitamins.
In the category of minerals, watercress has higher calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium, while kale has higher copper, iron, manganese, and zinc. The margins are slightly wider for kale’s more plentiful minerals though, so we’ll call this section a marginal win for kale.
When it comes to polyphenols, kale takes and maintains the lead here, with around 2x the quercetin and 27x the kaempferol. Watercress does have some lignans that kale doesn’t, but ultimately, kale’s strong flavonoid content keeps it in the lead.
So of course: enjoy both if both are available! But if we must pick one, it’s kale.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Fight Inflammation & Protect Your Brain, With Quercetin
- Spinach vs Kale – Which is Healthier?
- Thai-Style Kale Chips (recipe)
Take care!
Share This Post
Is Cutting Calories The Key To Healthy Long Life?
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.
Caloric Restriction with Optimal Nutrition
Yesterday, we asked you “What is your opinion of caloric restriction as a health practice?” and got the above-depicted, below-described spread of responses:
- 48% said “It is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier”
- 23% said “It may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully”
- 17% said “It’s a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy”
- 12% said “Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates”
So… What does the science say?
A note on terms, first
“Caloric restriction” (henceforth: CR), as a term, sees scientific use to mean anything from a 25% reduction to a 50% reduction, compared to metabolic base rate.
This can also be expressed the other way around, “dropping to 60% of the metabolic base rate” (i.e., a 40% reduction).
Here we don’t have the space to go into much depth, so our policy will be: if research papers consider it CR, then so will we.
A quick spoiler, first
The above statements about CR are all to at least some degree True in one way or another.
However, there are very important distinctions, so let’s press on…
CR is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier: True or False?
True! This has been well-studied and well-documented. There’s more science for this than we could possibly list here, but here’s a good starting point:
❝Calorie restriction (CR), a nutritional intervention of reduced energy intake but with adequate nutrition, has been shown to extend healthspan and lifespan in rodent and primate models.
Accumulating data from observational and randomized clinical trials indicate that CR in humans results in some of the same metabolic and molecular adaptations that have been shown to improve health and retard the accumulation of molecular damage in animal models of longevity.
In particular, moderate CR in humans ameliorates multiple metabolic and hormonal factors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality❞
Source: Ageing Research Reviews | Calorie restriction in humans: an update
See also: Caloric restriction in humans reveals immunometabolic regulators of health span
We could devote a whole article (or a whole book, really) to this, but the super-short version is that it lowers the metabolic “tax” on the body and allows the body to function better for longer.
CR may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully: True or False?
True or False, contingently, depending on what’s important to you. And that depends on psychology as much as physiology, but it’s worth noting that there is often a selection bias in the research papers; people ill-suited to CR drop out of the studies and are not counted in the final data.
Also, relevant for a lot of our readers, most (human-based) studies recruit people over 18 and under 60. So while it is reasonable to assume the same benefits will be carried over that age, there is not nearly as much data for it.
Studies into CR and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) have been promising, and/but have caveats:
❝In non-obese adults, CR had some positive effects and no negative effects on HRQoL.❞
❝We do not know what degree of CR is needed to achieve improvements in HRQoL, but we do know it requires an extraordinary amount of support.
Therefore, the incentive to offer this intervention to a low-risk, normal or overweight individual is lacking and likely not sustainable in practice.❞
CR a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy: True or False?
True if it is undertaken improperly, and/or without sufficient support. Many people will try CR and forget that the idea is to reduce metabolic load while still getting good nutrition, and focus solely on the calorie-counting.
So for example, if a person “saves” their calories for the day to have a night out in a bar where they drink their calories as alcohol, then this is going to be abysmal for their health.
That’s an extreme example, but lesser versions are seen a lot. If you save your calories for a pizza instead of a night of alcoholic drinks, then it’s not quite so woeful, but for example the nutrition-to-calorie ratio of pizza is typically not great. Multiply that by doing it as often as not, and yes, someone’s health is going to be in ruins quite soon.
Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates: True or False?
True if by “good health” you mean weight loss—which is rarely, if ever, what we mean by “good health” here at 10almonds (unless we clarify such), but it’s a very common association and indeed, for some people it’s a health goal. You cannot sustainably and healthily lose weight by CR alone, especially if you’re not getting optimal nutrition.
Your body will notice that you are starving, and try to save you by storing as much fat as it can, amongst other measures that will similarly backfire (cortisol running high, energy running low, etc).
For short term weight loss though, yes, it’ll work. At a cost. That we don’t recommend.
❝By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.❞
Source: Reducing Calorie Intake May Not Help You Lose Body Weight
See also…
❝Caloric restriction is a commonly recommended weight-loss method, yet it may result in short-term weight loss and subsequent weight regain, known as “weight cycling”, which has recently been shown to be associated with both poor sleep and worse cardiovascular health❞
Source: Dieting Behavior Characterized by Caloric Restriction
In summary…
Caloric restriction is a well-studied area of health science. We know:
- Practised well, it can extend not only lifespan, but also healthspan
- Practised well, it can improve mood, energy, sexual function, and the other things people fear losing
- Practised badly, it can be ruinous to the health—it is critical to practise caloric restriction with optimal nutrition.
- Practised badly, it can lead to unhealthy weight loss and weight regain
One final note…
If you’ve tried CR and hated it, and you practised it well (e.g., with optimal nutrition), then we recommend just not doing it.
You could also try intermittent fasting instead, for similar potential benefits. If that doesn’t work out either, then don’t do that either!
Sometimes, we’re just weird. It can often be because of a genetic or epigenetic quirk. There are usually workarounds, and/but not everything that’s right for most people will be right for all of us.
Take care!
Share This Post
Brain Maker – by Dr. David Perlmutter
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.
Regular 10almonds readers probably know about the gut-brain connection already, so what’s new here?
Dr. David Perlmutter takes us on a tour of gut and brain health, specifically, the neuroprotective effect of healthy gut microbiota.
This seems unlikely! After all, vagus nerve or no, the gut microbiota are confined to the gut, and the brain is kept behind the blood-brain barrier. So how does one thing protect the other?
Dr. Perlmutter presents the relevant science, and the honest answer is, we’re not 100% sure how this happens! We do know part of it: that bad gut microbiota can result in a “leaky gut”, and that may in turn lead to such a thing as a “leaky brain”, where the blood-brain barrier has been compromised and some bad things can get in with the blood.
When it comes to gut-brain health…
Not only is the correlation very strong, but also, in tests where someone’s gut microbiota underwent a radical change, e.g. due to…
- antibiotics (bad)
- fasting (good)
- or a change in diet (either way)
…their brain health changed accordingly—something we can’t easily check outside of a lab, but was pretty clear in those tests.
We’re also treated to an exposé on the links between gut health, brain health, inflammation, and dementia… Which links are extensive.
In closing, we’ll mention that throughout this book we’re also given many tips and advices to improve our gut/brain health, reverse damage done already, and set ourselves up well for the future.
Click here to check out “Brain Maker” on Amazon and take care of this important part of your health!
Share This Post
Related Posts
Guinness Is Good 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.
Guinness Is Good For You*
*This is our myth-buster edition, so maybe best not take that at face value!
To this day, writing the words “Guinness is” into Google will autocomplete to “Guinness is good for you”. The ad campaign proclaiming such launched about a hundred years ago, and was based on Guinness as it was when it was launched another hundred years before that.
Needless to say, none of this was based on modern science.
Is there any grain of truth?
Perhaps its strongest health claim, in terms of what stands up to modern scrutiny, is that it does contain some B vitamins. Famously (as it was once given to pregnant women in Ireland on the strength of such) it contains folate (also known as Vitamin B9). How much?
A 15oz glass of Guinness contains 12.8µg of folate, which is 3.2% of the RDA. In other words, you could get all the folate your body needs by drinking just 32 glasses of Guinness per day.
With that in mind, you might want to get the non-alcoholic version!
“I heard you could live on just Guinness and oranges, because it contains everything but vitamin C?”
The real question is: how long could you live? Otherwise, a facetious answer here could be akin to the “fun fact” that you can drink lava… once.
Guinness is missing many essential amino acids and fatty acids, several vitamins, and many minerals. Exactly what it’s missing may vary slightly from region to region, as while the broad recipe is the same, some processes add or remove some extra micronutrients.
As to what you’d die of first, for obvious reasons there have been no studies done on this, but our money would be on liver failure.
It would also wreak absolute havoc with your kidneys, but kidneys are tricky beasts—you can be down to 10% functionality and unaware that anything’s wrong yet. So we think liver failure would get you first.
(Need that 0.0% alcohol Guinness link again? Here it is)
Fun fact: Top contender in the category of “whole food” is actually seaweed (make sure you don’t get too much iodine, though)!
Or, should we say, top natural contender. Because foods that have been designed by humans to contain everything we need and more for optimized health, such as Huel, do exactly what they say on the tin.
And in case you’re curious…
Read: what bare minimum nutrients do you really need, to survive?
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:
Is Fast Food Really All That Bad?
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.
Yes, yes it is. However, most people misunderstand the nature of its badness, which is what causes problems. The biggest problem is not the acute effects of one afternoon’s burger and fries; the biggest problem is the gradual slide into regularly eating junk food, and the long-term effects of that habit as our body changes to accommodate it (of which, people tend to focus on subcutaneous fat gain as it’s usually the most visible, but that’s really the least of our problems).
Cumulative effects
There are, of course, immediate negative effects too, and they’re not without cause for concern. Because of the composition of most junk food, it will almost by definition result in immediate blood sugar spikes, rising insulin levels, and a feeling of fatigue not long afterwards.
- Within a week of regularly consuming junk food, gut bacteria will change, resulting in moderate cravings, as well as a tendency towards depression and anxiety. Mood swings are likely, as are the gastrointestinal woes associated with any gut microbiota change.
- Within two weeks, those effects will be greater, the cravings will increase, energy levels will plummet, and likely skin issues may start to show up (our skin mostly works on a 3-week replacement cycle; some things can show up in the skin more quickly or slowly than that, though).
- Within three weeks, the rest of our blood metrics (e.g. beyond blood sugar imbalances) will start to stray from safe zones. Increased LDL, decreased HDL, and the beginnings of higher cardiovascular disease risk and diabetes risk.
- Within a month, we will likely see the onset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and chronic inflammation sets in, raising the risk of a lot of other diseases, especially immune disorders and cancer.
If that seems drastic, along the lines of “eat junk food for a month and get cancer”, well, it’s an elevated risk, not a scheduled diagnosis, but the body is constantly rebuilding itself, for better or for worse, and if we sabotage its efforts by consuming a poor diet, then it will be for worse.
The good news is: this works both ways, and we can get our body back on track in fairly short order too, by enjoying a healthier diet; our body will be thrilled to start repairing itself. And of course, all these effects, good and bad, are proportional to how well or badly we eat. There’s a difference between doing a “Supersize Me” month-long 100% junk food diet, and “merely” getting a junk food breakfast each day and eating healthily later.
In short, if your diet is only moderately bad, then you will only be moderately unwell.
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Fix Chronic Fatigue & Regain Your Energy, By Science
- How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver
- How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation
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:
If you’re worried about inflammation, stop stressing about seed oils and focus on the basics
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.
You’ve probably seen recent claims online seed oils are “toxic” and cause inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. But what does the research say?
Overall, if you’re worried about inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease there are probably more important things to worry about than seed oils.
They may or may not play a role in inflammation (the research picture is mixed). What we do know, however, is that a high-quality diet rich in unprocessed whole foods (fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains and lean meats) is the number one thing you can to do reduce inflammation and your risk of developing diseases.
Rather than focusing on seed oils specifically, reduce your intake of processed foods more broadly and focus on eating fresh foods. So don’t stress out too much about using a bit of seed oils in your cooking if you are generally focused on all the right things.
What are seed oils?
Seed oils are made from whole seeds, such as sunflower seeds, flax seeds, chia seeds and sesame seeds. These seeds are processed to extract oil.
The most common seed oils found at grocery stores include sesame oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, flaxseed oil, corn oil, grapeseed oil and soybean oil.
Seed oils are generally affordable, easy to find and suitable for many dishes and cuisines as they often have a high smoke point.
However, most people consume seed oils in larger amounts through processed foods such as biscuits, cakes, chips, muesli bars, muffins, dipping sauces, deep-fried foods, salad dressings and margarines.
These processed foods are “discretionary”, meaning they’re OK to have occasionally. But they are not considered necessary for a healthy diet, nor recommended in our national dietary guidelines, the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Seed oils often have a high smoke point.
Gleb Usovich/ShutterstockI’ve heard people say seed oils ‘promote inflammation’. Is that true?
There are two essential types of omega fatty acids: omega-3 and omega-6. These are crucial for bodily functions, and we must get them through our diet since our bodies cannot produce them.
While all oils contain varying levels of fatty acids, some argue an excessive intake of a specific omega-6 fatty acid in seed oils called “linoleic acid” may contribute to inflammation in the body.
There is some evidence linoleic acid can be converted to arachidonic acid in the body and this may play a role in inflammation. However, other research doesn’t support the idea reducing dietary linoleic acid affects the amount of arachidonic acid in your body. The research picture is not clear cut.
But if you’re keen to reduce inflammation, the best thing you can do is aim for a healthy diet that is:
- high in antioxidants (found in fruits and vegetables)
- high in “healthy”, unsaturated fatty acids (found in fatty fish, some nuts and olive oil, for example)
high in fibre (found in carrots, cauliflower, broccoli and leafy greens) and prebiotics (found in onions, leeks, asparagus, garlic and legumes)
low in processed foods.
If reducing inflammation is your goal, it’s probably more meaningful to focus on these basics than on occasional use of seed oils.
Choose foods high in fibre (like many vegetables) and prebiotics (like legumes).
Kiian Oksana/ShutterstockWhat about seed oils and heart disease, cancer or diabetes risk?
Some popular arguments against seed oils come from data from single studies on this topic. Often these are observational studies where researchers do not make changes to people’s diet or lifestyle.
To get a clearer picture, we should look at meta-analyses, where scientists combine all the data available on a topic. This helps us get a better overall view of what’s going on.
A 2022 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the relationship between supplementation with omega-6 fatty acid (often found in seed oils) and cardiovascular disease risk (meaning disease relating to the heart and blood vessels).
The researchers found omega-6 intake did not affect the risk for cardiovascular disease or death but that further research is needed for firm conclusions. Similar findings were observed in a 2019 review on this topic.
The World Health Organization published a review and meta-analysis in 2022 of observational studies (considered lower quality evidence compared to randomised controlled trials) on this topic.
They looked at omega-6 intake and risk of death, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, mental health conditions and type 2 diabetes. The findings show both advantages and disadvantages of consuming omega-6.
The findings reported that, overall, higher intakes of omega-6 were associated with a 9% reduced risk of dying (data from nine studies) but a 31% increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (data from six studies).
One of the key findings from this review was about the ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids. A higher omega 6:3 ratio was associated with a greater risk of cognitive decline and ulcerative colitis (an inflammatory bowel condition).
A higher omega 3:6 ratio was linked to a 26% reduced risk of depression. These mixed outcomes may be a cause of confusion among health-conscious consumers about the health impact of seed oils.
Overall, the evidence suggests that a high intake of omega-6 fatty acids from seed oils is unlikely to increase your risk of death and disease.
However, more high-quality intervention research is needed.
The importance of increasing your omega-3 fatty acids
On top of the mixed outcomes, there is clear evidence increasing the intake of omega-3 fatty acids (often found in foods such as fatty fish and walnuts) is beneficial for health.
While some seed oils contain small amounts of omega-3s, they are not typically considered rich sources.
Flaxseed oil is an exception and is one of the few seed oils that is notably high in alpha-linolenic acid (sometimes shortened to ALA), an omega-3 fatty acid.
If you are looking to increase your omega-3 intake, it’s better to focus on other sources such as fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines), chia seeds, hemp seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements. These foods are known for their higher omega-3 content compared to seed oils.
The bottom line
At the end of the day, it’s probably OK to include small quantities of seed oils in your diet, as long as you are mostly focused on eating fresh, unprocessed foods.
The best way to reduce your risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer or diabetes is not to focus so much on seed oils but rather on doing your best to follow the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Lecturer, Southern Cross 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:
