The Emperor’s New Klotho, Or Something More?
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.
Unzipping The Genes Of Aging?
Klotho is an enzyme encoded in humans’ genes—specifically, in the KL gene.
It’s found throughout all living parts of the human body (and can even circulate about in its hormonal form, or come to rest in its membranaceous form), and its subgroups are especially found:
- α-klotho: in the brain
- β-klotho: in the liver
- γ-klotho: in the kidneys
Great! Why do we care?
Klotho, its varieties and variants, its presence or absence, are very important in aging.
Almost every biological manifestation of aging in humans has some klotho-related indicator; usually the decrease or mutation of some kind of klotho.
Which way around the cause and effect go has been the subject of much debate and research: do we get old because we don’t have enough klotho, or do we make less klotho because we’re getting old?
Of course, everything has to be tested per variant and per system, so that can take a while (punctuated by research scientists begging for more grants to do the next one). Given that it’s about aging, testing in humans would take an incredibly long while, so most studies so far have been rodent studies.
The general gist of the results of rodent studies is “reduced klotho hastens aging; increased klotho slows it”.
(this can be known by artificially increasing or decreasing the level of klotho expression, again something easier in mice as it is harder to arrange transgenic humans for the studies)
Here’s one example of many, of that vast set of rodent studies:
Suppression of Aging in Mice by the Hormone Klotho
Relevance for Alzheimer’s, and a science-based advice
A few years ago (2020), an Alzheimer’s study was undertaken; they noted that the famous apolipoprotein E4 (apoE4) allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s, and that klotho may be another. FGF21 (secreted by the liver, mostly during fasting) binds to its own receptor (FGFR1) and its co-receptor β-klotho. Since this is a known neuroprotective factor, they wondered whether klotho itself may interact with β-amyloid (Aβ), and found:
❝Aβ can enhance the ability of klotho to draw FGF21 to regions of incipient neurodegeneration in AD❞
In other words: β-amyloid, the substance whose accumulation is associated with neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease, is a mediator in klotho bringing a known neuroprotective factor, FGF21, to the areas of neurodegeneration
In fewer words: klotho calls the firefighters to the scene of the fire
Read more: Alignment of Alzheimer’s disease amyloid β-peptide and klotho
The advice based on this? Consider practicing intermittent fasting, if that is viable for you, as it will give your liver more FGF21-secreting time, and the more FGF21, the more firefighters arrive when klotho sounds the alarm.
See also: Intermittent Fasting: What’s the truth?
…and while you’re at it:
Does intermittent fasting have benefits for our brain?
A more recent (2023) study with a slightly different (but connected) purpose, found results consistent with this:
Longevity factor klotho enhances cognition in aged nonhuman primates
…and, for that matter this (2023) study that found:
Associations between klotho and telomere biology in high stress caregivers
…which looks promising, but we’d like to see it repeated with a sounder method (they sorted caregiving into “high-stress” and “low-stress” depending on whether a child was diagnosed with ASD or not, which is by no means a reliable way of sorting this). They did ask for reported subjective stress levels, but to be more objective, we’d like to see clinical markers of stress (e.g. cortisol levels, blood pressure, heart rate changes, etc).
A very recent (April 2024) study found that it has implications for more aspects of aging—and this time, in humans (but using a population-based cohort study, rather than lab conditions):
Can I get it as a supplement?
Not with today’s technology and today’s paucity of clinical trials, you can’t. Maybe in the future!
However… The presence of senescent (old, badly copied, stumbling and staggering onwards when they should have been killed and eaten and recycled already) cells actively reduces klotho levels, which means that taking supplements that are senolytic (i.e., that kill those senescent cells) can increase serum klotho levels:
Orally-active, clinically-translatable senolytics restore α-Klotho in mice and humans
Ok, what can I take for that?
We wrote about a senolytic supplement that you might enjoy, recently:
Fisetin: The Anti-Aging Assassin
Want to know more?
If you have the time, Dr. Peter Attia interviews Dr. Dena Dubal (researcher in several of the above studies) here:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically
Enjoy!
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:
Feminist narratives are being hijacked to market medical tests not backed by evidence
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.
Corporations have used feminist language to promote their products for decades. In the 1980s, companies co-opted messaging about female autonomy to encourage women’s consumption of unhealthy commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol.
Today, feminist narratives around empowerment and women’s rights are being co-opted to market interventions that are not backed by evidence across many areas of women’s health. This includes by commercial companies, industry, mass media and well-intentioned advocacy groups.
Some of these health technologies, tests and treatments are useful in certain situations and can be very beneficial to some women.
However, promoting them to a large group of asymptomatic healthy women that are unlikely to benefit, or without being transparent about the limitations, runs the risk of causing more harm than good. This includes inappropriate medicalisation, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
In our analysis published today in the BMJ, we examine this phenomenon in two current examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.
The AMH test
The AMH test is a blood test associated with the number of eggs in a woman’s ovaries and is sometimes referred to as the “egg timer” test.
Although often used in fertility treatment, the AMH test cannot reliably predict the likelihood of pregnancy, timing to pregnancy or specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists therefore strongly discourages testing for women not seeking fertility treatment.
Despite this, several fertility clinics and online companies market the AMH test to women not even trying to get pregnant. Some use feminist rhetoric promising empowerment, selling the test as a way to gain personalised insights into your fertility. For example, “you deserve to know your reproductive potential”, “be proactive about your fertility” and “knowing your numbers will empower you to make the best decisions when family planning”.
The use of feminist marketing makes these companies appear socially progressive and champions of female health. But they are selling a test that has no proven benefit outside of IVF and cannot inform women about their current or future fertility.
Our recent study found around 30% of women having an AMH test in Australia may be having it for these reasons.
Misleading women to believe that the test can reliably predict fertility can create a false sense of security about delaying pregnancy. It can also create unnecessary anxiety, pressure to freeze eggs, conceive earlier than desired, or start fertility treatment when it may not be needed.
While some companies mention the test’s limitations if you read on, they are glossed over and contradicted by the calls to be proactive and messages of empowerment.
Breast density notification
Breast density is one of several independent risk factors for breast cancer. It’s also harder to see cancer on a mammogram image of breasts with high amounts of dense tissue than breasts with a greater proportion of fatty tissue.
While estimates vary, approximately 25–50% of women in the breast screening population have dense breasts.
Stemming from valid concerns about the increased risk of cancer, advocacy efforts have used feminist language around women’s right to know such as “women need to know the truth” and “women can handle the truth” to argue for widespread breast density notification.
However, this simplistic messaging overlooks that this is a complex issue and that more data is still needed on whether the benefits of notifying and providing additional screening or tests to women with dense breasts outweigh the harms.
Additional tests (ultrasound or MRI) are now being recommended for women with dense breasts as they have the ability to detect more cancer. Yet, there is no or little mention of the lack of robust evidence showing that it prevents breast cancer deaths. These extra tests also have out-of-pocket costs and high rates of false-positive results.
Large international advocacy groups are also sponsored by companies that will financially benefit from women being notified.
While stronger patient autonomy is vital, campaigning for breast density notification without stating the limitations or unclear evidence of benefit may go against the empowerment being sought.
Ensuring feminism isn’t hijacked
Increased awareness and advocacy in women’s health are key to overcoming sex inequalities in health care.
But we need to ensure the goals of feminist health advocacy aren’t undermined through commercially driven use of feminist language pushing care that isn’t based on evidence. This includes more transparency about the risks and uncertainties of health technologies, tests and treatments and greater scrutiny of conflicts of interests.
Health professionals and governments must also ensure that easily understood, balanced information based on high quality scientific evidence is available. This will enable women to make more informed decisions about their health.
Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney and Tessa Copp, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
12 Foods That Fight Depression & Anxiety
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.
Food impacts mental health, and while it won’t magically cure mental illness, dietary changes can do a lot to improve mood. Here’s how:
Nutraceuticals
We’ll not keep the 12 nutraceutical foods a mystery; here’s what they are and a few words on how they work (in many cases, we could write whole articles about them; in some cases, we already have! You can find many of them by using the search function in the top-right of each page).
- Walnuts are rich in omega-3s for brain health; arguably the best nut for depression relief.
- Fermented foods because probiotics in foods like yogurt and sauerkraut support the gut-brain connection as well as serotonin production there, enhancing mood.
- Cherry tomatoes are rich in lycopene, which helps combat both depression and mood swings.
- Leafy greens reduce brain inflammation linked to depression.
- Apples and other fruit are high in fiber and antioxidants that stabilize blood sugar and mood, reducing brain inflammation.
- Beans are high in B vitamins, crucial for neurotransmitter production and mood regulation (without also being high in brain-harmful things, as red meat is).
- Berries are super-high antioxidants and cortisol-lowering anthocyanidins, promoting calmness and reducing stress.
- Oats contain the healthiest kind of fiber, β-glucan, and additionally help stabilize blood sugar and mood; they’re also rich in selenium, which boosts mood.
- Mushrooms help regulate blood sugar and act as prebiotics, supporting serotonin production in the gut.
- Avocados are famously rich in healthy fats, including omega-3s and oleic acid, which support brain health and combat depression.
- Dark chocolate contains antioxidants, magnesium, and gut-healthy prebiotics that indirectly reduce mental stress and improve brain function. Also a famous comfort food for many, of course, and that factor’s not to be overlooked either.
- Pumpkin seeds are rich in tryptophan, which boosts serotonin production. As a bonus, they also help some kinds of antidepressant to work better—check with your doctor or pharmacist to be sure in your case, though.
For more on all of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
The 6 Pillars Of Nutritional Psychiatry
Take care!
Share This Post
I’m iron deficient. Which supplements will work best for me and how should I take them?
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.
Iron deficiency is common and can be debilitating. It mainly affects women. One in three premenopausal women are low in iron compared to just 5% of Australian men. Iron deficiency particularly affects teenage girls, women who do a lot of exercise and those who are pregnant.
The body needs iron to make new red blood cells, and to support energy production, the immune system and cognitive function. If you’re low, you may experience a range of symptoms including fatigue, weakness, shortness of breath, headache, irregular heartbeat and reduced concentration.
If a blood test shows you’re iron deficient, your doctor may recommend you start taking an oral iron supplement. But should you take a tablet or a liquid? With food or not? And when is the best time of day?
Here are some tips to help you work out how, when and what iron supplement to take.
How do I pick the right iron supplement?
The iron in your body is called “elemental iron”. Choosing the right oral supplement and dose will depend on how much elemental iron it has – your doctor will advise exactly how much you need.
The sweet spot is between 60-120 mg of elemental iron. Any less and the supplement won’t be effective in topping up your iron levels. Any higher and you risk gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, cramping and stomach pain.
In Australia, iron salts are the most common oral supplements because they are cheap, effective and come in different delivery methods (tablets, capsules, liquid formulas). The iron salts you are most likely to find in your local chemist are ferrous sulfate (~20% elemental iron), ferrous gluconate (~12%) and ferrous fumarate (~33%).
These formulations all work similarly, so your choice should come down to dose and cost.
Many multivitamins may look like an iron supplement, but it’s important to note they usually have too little iron – usually less than 20 mg – to correct an iron deficiency.
Should I take tablets or liquid formulas?
Iron contained within a tablet is just as well absorbed as iron found in a liquid supplement. Choosing the right one usually comes down to personal preference.
The main difference is that liquid formulas tend to contain less iron than tablets. That means you might need to take more of the product to get the right dose, so using a liquid supplement could work out to be more expensive in the long term.
What should I eat with my iron supplement?
Research has shown you will absorb more of the iron in your supplement if you take it on an empty stomach. But this can cause more gastrointestinal issues, so might not be practical for everyone.
If you do take your supplement with meals, it’s important to think about what types of food will boost – rather than limit – iron absorption. For example, taking the supplement alongside vitamin C improves your body’s ability to absorb it.
Some supplements already contain vitamin C. Otherwise you could take the supplement along with a glass of orange juice, or other vitamin C-rich foods.
On the other hand, tea, coffee and calcium all decrease the body’s ability to absorb iron. So you should try to limit these close to the time you take your supplement.
Should I take my supplement in the morning or evening?
The best time of day to take your supplement is in the morning. The body can absorb significantly more iron earlier in the day, when concentrations of hepcidin (the main hormone that regulates iron) are at their lowest.
Exercise also affects the hormone that regulates iron. That means taking your iron supplement after exercising can limit your ability to absorb it. Taking your supplement in the hours following exercise will mean significantly poorer absorption, especially if you take it between two and five hours after you stop.
Our research has shown if you exercise every day, the best time to take your supplement is in the morning before training, or immediately after (within 30 minutes).
My supplements are upsetting my stomach. What should I do?
If you experience gastrointestinal side effects such as diarrhoea or cramps when you take iron supplements, you may want to consider taking your supplement every second day, rather than daily.
Taking a supplement every day is still the fastest way to restore your iron levels. But a recent study has shown taking the same total dose can be just as effective when it’s taken on alternate days. For example, taking a supplement every day for three months works as well as every second day for six months. This results in fewer side effects.
Oral iron supplements can be a cheap and easy way to correct an iron deficiency. But ensuring you are taking the right product, under the right conditions, is crucial for their success.
It’s also important to check your iron levels prior to commencing iron supplementation and do so only under medical advice. In large amounts, iron can be toxic, so you don’t want to be consuming additional iron if your body doesn’t need it.
If you think you may be low on iron, talk to your GP to find out your best options.
Alannah McKay, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sports Nutrition, Australian Catholic University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
How To Avoid Self-Hatred & Learn To Love Oneself More
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.
Alain de Botton gives a compassionate, but realistic, explanation in this video:
The enemy within
Or rather, the collaborator within. Because there’s usually first an enemy without—those who are critical of us, who consider that we are bad people in some fashion, and may indeed get quite colorful in their expressions of this.
Sometimes, their words will bounce straight off us; sometimes, their words will stick. So what’s the difference, and can we do anything about it?
The difference is: when their words stick, it’s usually because on some level we believe their words may be true. That doesn’t mean they necessarily are true!
They could be (and it would be a special kind of hubris to assume no detractor could ever find a valid criticism of us), but very often the reason we have that belief, or at least that fear/insecurity, is simply because it was taught to us at an early age, often by harsh words/actions of those around us; perhaps our parents, perhaps our schoolteachers, perhaps our classmates, and so forth.
The problem—and solution—is that we learn emotions much the same way that we learn language; only in part by reasoned thought, and rather for the most part, by immersion and repetition.
It can take a lot of conscious self-talk to undo the harm of decades of unconscious self-talk based on what was probably a few years of external criticisms when we were small and very impressionable… But, having missed the opportunity to start fixing this sooner, the next best time to do it is now.
We cannot, of course, simply do what a kind friend might do and expect any better results; if a kind friend tells us something nice that we do not believe is true, then however much they mean it, we’re not going to internalize it. So instead, we must simply chip away at those unhelpful longstanding counterproductive beliefs, and simply build up the habit of viewing ourselves in a kinder light.
For more on all this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Escape From The Clutches Of Shame
- To Err Is Human; To Forgive, Healthy
- How To Get Your Brain On A More Positive Track (Without Toxic Positivity)
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:
Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.
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 article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.
It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.
We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.
Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.
“We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”
Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.
We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.
It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?
As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.
One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption.
Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.
For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue.
One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.
Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination.
As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking.
Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.
Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.
It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.
Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource 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:
7 Invisible Eating Disorders
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 easy to assume that anyone with an eating disorder can be easily recognized by the resultantly atypical body composition, but it’s often not so.
Beyond the obvious
We’ll not keep them a mystery; the 7 invisible eating disorders discussed by therapist Kati Morton in this video are:
- OSFED (Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder): a catch-all diagnosis for those who don’t meet the criteria for more specific eating disorders but still have significant eating disorder behaviors.
- Atypical Anorexia: characterized by all the symptoms of anorexia nervosa (especially: intense fear of gaining weight, and body image distortion) except that the individual’s weight remains in a normal range.
- Atypical Bulimia: similar to bulimia nervosa, but the frequency or duration of binge-purge behaviors does not meet the usual diagnostic criteria and thus can fly under the radar.
- Atypical Binge-Eating Disorder: has episodes of consuming large amounts of food without compensatory behaviors (e.g. purging), but the episodes are less frequent and/or intense than typical binge-eating disorder.
- Purging Disorder: purging behaviors such as self-induced vomiting or laxative abuse without having binge-eating episodes (thus, this not being binging, and nothing obvious is happening outside of the bathroom).
- Night Eating Syndrome: consuming excessive amounts of food during the night while being fully aware of the nature of the eating episodes, which disrupts sleep and leads to guilt.
- Rumination Disorder: repeatedly regurgitating food, which may be rechewed, reswallowed, or spat out, without nausea or involuntary retching, often as a self-soothing mechanism.
For more on each of these, along with a case study-style example of each, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Eating Disorders: More Varied (And Prevalent) Than People Think
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: