What Loneliness Does To Your Brain And Body
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.
Spoiler: it’s nothing good (but it can be addressed!)
Not something to be ignored
Loneliness raises the risk of heart disease by 29% and the risk of stroke by 32%. It also brings about higher susceptibility to illness (flu, COVID, chronic pain, etc), as well as poor sleep quality and cognitive decline, possibly leading to dementia. Not only that, but it also promotes inflammation, and premature death (comparable to smoking).
This is because the lack of meaningful social connections activates the body’s stress response, which in turn increases paranoia, suspicion, and social withdrawal—which makes it harder to seek the social interaction needed to alleviate it.
On a neurological level, cortisol levels become imbalanced, and a faltering dopamine response leads to impulsive behaviors (e.g., drinking, gambling) to try to make up for it. Decreased serotonin, oxytocin, and natural opioids reduce feelings of happiness and negate pain relief.
As for combatting it, the first-line remedy is the obvious one: connecting with others improves emotional and physical wellbeing. However, it is recommended to aim for deep, meaningful connections that make you happy rather than just socializing for its own sake. It’s perfectly possible to be lonely in a crowd, after all.
A second-line remedy is to simply mitigate the harm by means of such things as art therapy and time in nature—they can’t completely replace human connection, but they can at least improve the neurophysiological situation (which in turn, might be enough of a stop-gap solution to enable a return to human connection).
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:
How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation
Take care!
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:
Is A Visible Six-Pack Obtainable Regardless Of Genetic Predisposition?
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.
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝Is it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder) and how much does it matter for health e.g. waist size etc?❞
Let’s break it down into two parts:
Is it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder)?
Short answer: no
First, a quick anatomy lesson: while “abs” (abdominal muscles) are considered in the plural and indeed they are, what we see as a six-pack is actually only one muscle, the rectus abdominis, which is nestled in between other abdominal muscles that are beyond the scope of our answer here.
The reason that the rectus abdominis looks like six muscles is because there are bands of fascia (connective tissue) lying over it, so we see where it bulges between those bands.
The main difference genes make are as follows:
- Number of fascia bands (and thus the reason that some people get a four-, six-, eight-, or rarely, even ten-pack). Obviously, no amount of training can change this number, any more than doing extra bicep curls will grow you additional arms.
- Density of muscle fibers. Some people have what has been called “superathlete muscle type”, which, while prized by Olympians and other athletes, is on bodybuilding forums less glamorously called being a “hard gainer”. What this means is that muscle fibers are denser, so while training will make muscles stronger, you won’t see as much difference in size. This means that size for size, the person with this muscle type will always be stronger than someone the same size without it, but that may be annoying if you’re trying to build visible definition.
- Twitch type of muscle fibers. Some people have more fast-twitch fibers, some have more slow-twitch fibers. Fast-twitch fibers are better suited for visible abs (and, as the name suggests, quick changes between contracting and relaxing). Slow-twitch fibers are better for endurance, but yield less bulky muscles.
- Inclination to subcutaneous fat storage. This is by no means purely genetic; hormones make the biggest difference, followed by diet. But, genes are an influencing factor, and if your body fat percentage is inclined to be higher than someone else’s, then it’ll take more work to see muscle definition under that fat.
The first of those items is why our simple answer is “no”; because some people are destined to, if muscle is visible, have a four-, eight, or (rarely) ten-pack, making a six-pack unobtainable.
It’s worth noting here that while a bigger number is more highly prized aesthetically, there is literally zero difference healthwise or in terms of performance, because it’s nothing to do with the muscle, and is only about the fascia layout.
The density of muscle fibers is again purely genetic, but it only makes things easier or harder; this part’s not impossible for anyone.
The inclination to subcutaneous fat storage is by far the most modifiable factor, and the thus most readily overcome, if you feel so inclined. That doesn’t mean it will necessarily be easy! But it does mean that it’s relatively less difficult than the others.
How much does it matter for health, e.g. waist size etc?
As you may have gathered from the above, having a six-pack (or indeed a differently-numbered “pack”, if that be your genetic lot) makes no important difference to health:
- The fascia layout is completely irrelevant to health
- The muscle fiber types do make a difference to athletic performance, but not general health when at rest
- The subcutaneous fat storage is a health factor, but probably not how most people think
Healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.
For most people, having clearly visible abs requires going below those healthy levels. For most people, that’s not optimally healthy. And those you see on magazine covers or in bodybuilding competitions are usually acutely dehydrated for the photo, which is of course not good. They will rehydrate after the shoot.
However, waist size (especially as a ratio, compared to hip size) is very important to health. This has less to do with subcutaneous fat, though, and is more to do with visceral belly fat, which goes under the muscles and thus does not obscure them:
Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It
One final note: fat notwithstanding, and aesthetics notwithstanding, having a strong core is very good for general health; it helps keeps one’s internal organs in place and well-protected, and improves stability, making falls less likely as we get older. Additionally, having muscle improves our metabolic base rate, which is good for our heart. Abs are just one part of core strength (the back being important too, for example), but should not be neglected.
Top-tier exercises to do include planks, and hanging leg raises (i.e. hang from some support, such as a chin-up bar, and raise your legs, which counterintuitively works your abs a lot more than your legs).
Take care!
Share This Post
How Much Does A Vegan Diet Affect Biological Aging?
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.
Slow Your Aging, One Meal At A Time
This one’s a straightforward one today, and the ““life hack” can be summed up:
Enjoy a vegan diet to enjoy younger biological age.
First, what is biological age?
Biological age is not one number, but a collection of numbers, as per different biomarkers of aging, including:
- Visual markers of aging (e.g. wrinkles, graying hair)
- Performative markers of aging (e.g. mobility tests)
- Internal functional markers of aging (e.g. tests for cognitive decline, eyesight, hearing, etc)
- Cellular markers of aging (e.g. telomere length)
We wrote more about this here:
Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?
A vegan diet may well impact multiple of those categories of aging, but today we’re highlighting a study (hot off the press; published only a few days ago!) that looks at its effect on that last category: cellular markers of aging.
There’s an interesting paradox here, because this category is:
- the most easily ignorable; because we all feel it if our knees are giving out or our skin is losing elasticity, but who notices if telomeres’ T/S ratio changed by 0.0407? ← the researchers, that’s who, as this difference is very significant
- the most far-reaching in its impact, because cellular aging in turn has an effect on all the other markers of aging
Second, how much difference does it make, and how do we know?
The study was an eight-week interventional identical twin study. This means several things, to start with:
- Eight weeks is a rather short period of time to accumulate cellular aging, let alone for an intervention to accumulate a significant difference in cellular aging—but it did. So, just imagine what difference it might make in a year or ten!
- Doing an interventional study with identical twin pairs already controlled for a lot of factors, that are usually confounding variables in population / cohort / longitudinal / observational studies.
Factors that weren’t controlled for by default by using identical twins, were controlled for in the experiment design. For example, twin pairs were rejected if one or more twin in a given pair already had medical conditions that could affect the outcome:
❝Inclusion criteria involved participants aged ≥18, part of a willing twin pair, with BMI <40, and LDL-C <190 mg/dL. Exclusions included uncontrolled hypertension, metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, heart/renal/liver disease, pregnancy, lactation, and medication use affecting body weight or energy.
Eligibility was determined via online screening, followed by an orientation meeting and in-person clinic visit. Randomization occurred only after completing baseline visits, dietary recalls, and questionnaires for both twins❞
~ Dr. Varun Dwaraka et al. ← there’s a lot of “et al.” to this one; the paper had 16 collaborating authors!
As to the difference it made over the course of the 8 weeks…
❝Various measures of epigenetic age acceleration (PC GrimAge, PC PhenoAge, DunedinPACE) were assessed, along with system-specific effects (Inflammation, Heart, Hormone, Liver, and Metabolic).
Distinct responses were observed, with the vegan cohort exhibiting significant decreases in overall epigenetic age acceleration, aligning with anti-aging effects of plant-based diets. Diet-specific shifts were noted in the analysis of methylation surrogates, demonstrating the influence of diet on complex trait prediction through DNA methylation markers.❞
~ Ibid.
You can read the whole paper here (it goes into a lot more detail than we have room to here, and also gives infographics, charts, numbers, the works):
Were they just eating more healthily, though?
Well, arguably yes, as the results show, but to be clear:
The omnivorous diet compared to the vegan diet in this study was also controlled; both groups were given a healthy meal plan for their respective diet. So this wasn’t a case of “any omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”, but rather “healthy omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”.
Again, the paper itself has the full details—a short version is that it involved a healthy meal kit delivery service, followed by ongoing dietician involvement in an equal and carefully-controlled fashion.
So, aside from that one group had an omnivorous meal plan and the other vegan, both groups received the same level of “healthy eating” support, guidance, and oversight.
But isn’t [insert your preferred animal product here] healthy?
Quite possibly! For general health, general scientific consensus is that eating at least mostly plants is best, red meat is bad, poultry is neutral in moderation, fish is good in moderation, dairy is good in moderation if fermented, eggs are good in moderation if not fried.
This study looked at the various biomarkers of aging that we listed, and not every possible aspect of health—there’s more science yet to be done, and the researchers themselves are calling for it.
It also bears mentioning that for some (relatively few, but not insignificantly few) people, extant health conditions may make a vegan diet unhealthy or otherwise untenable. Do speak with your own doctor and/or dietician if unsure.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
We would hypothesize, by the way, that the anti-aging benefits of a vegan diet are probably proportional to abstention from animal products—meaning that even if you simply have some “vegan days”, while still consuming animal products other days, you’ll still get benefit for the days you abstained. That’s just our hypothesis though.
Take care!
Share This Post
Fatty Acids For The Eyes & Brain: The Good And The 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.
Good For The Eyes; Good For The Brain
We’ve written before about omega-3 fatty acids, covering the basics and some lesser-known things:
What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
…and while we discussed its well-established benefits against cognitive decline (which is to be expected, because omega-3 is good against inflammation, and a large part of age-related neurodegeneration is heavily related to neuroinflammation), there’s a part of the brain we didn’t talk about in that article: the eyes.
We did, however, talk in another article about supplements that benefit the eyes and [the rest of the] brain, and the important links between the two, to the point that an examination of the levels of lutein in the retina can inform clinicians about the levels of lutein in the brain as a whole, and strongly predict Alzheimer’s disease (because Alzheimer’s patients have significantly less lutein), here:
Now, let’s tie these two ideas together
In a recent (June 2024) meta-analysis of high-quality observational studies from the US and around the world, involving nearly a quarter of a million people over 40 (n=241,151), researchers found that a higher intake of omega-3 is significantly linked to a lower risk of macular degeneration.
To put it in numbers, the highest intake of omega-3s was associated with an 18% reduced risk of early stage macular degeneration.
They also looked at a breakdown of what kinds of omega-3, and found that taking a blend DHA and EPA worked best of all, although of people who only took one kind, DHA was the best “single type” option.
You can read the paper in full, here:
Association between fatty acid intake and age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis
A word about trans-fatty acids (TFAs)
It was another feature of the same study that, while looking at fatty acids in general, they also found that higher consumption of trans-fatty acids was associated with a higher risk of advanced age-related macular degeneration.
Specifically, the highest intake of TFAs was associated with a more than 2x increased risk.
There are two main dietary sources of trans-fatty acids:
- Processed foods that were made with TFAs; these have now been banned in a lot of places, but only quite recently, and the ban is on the processing, not the sale, so if you buy processed foods that contain ingredients that were processed before 2021 (not uncommon, given the long life of many processed foods), the chances of them having TFAs is higher.
- Most animal products. Most notably from mammals and their milk, so beef, pork, lamb, milk, cheese, and yes even yogurt. Poultry and fish technically do also contain TFAs in most cases, but the levels are much lower.
Back to the omega-3 fatty acids…
If you’re wondering where to get good quality omega-3, well, we listed some of the best dietary sources in our main omega-3 article (linked at the top of today’s).
However, if you want to supplement, here’s an example product on Amazon that’s high in DHA and EPA, following the science of what we shared today 😎
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
Healthy sex drive In Our Fifties
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!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
Q: What’s a healthy sex drive for someone in their 50s?
A: If you’re happy with it, it’s healthy! If you’re not, it’s not.
This means… If you’re not (happy) and thus it’s not (healthy), you have two main options:
- Find a way to be happier without changing it (i.e., change your perspective)
- Find a way to change your sex drive (presumably: “increase it”, but we don’t like to assume)
There are hormonal and pharmaceutical remedies that may help (whatever your sex), so do speak with your doctor/pharmacist.
Additionally, if a boost to sex drive is what’s wanted, then almost anything that is good for your heart will help.
We wrote about heart health yesterday:
What Matters Most For Your Heart?
That was specifically about dietary considerations, so you might also want to check out:
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:
Brown Rice Protein: Strengths & Weaknesses
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!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝I had a friend mention that recent research showed Brown Rice Protein Powder can be bad for you, possibly impacting your nutrient absorption. Is this true? I’ve been using it given it’s one of the few plant-based proteins with a full essential amino acid profile!❞
Firstly: we couldn’t find anything to corroborate the “brown rice protein powder [adversely] impacts nutrient absorption” idea, but we suspect that the reason for this belief is: brown rice (not brown rice protein powder) contains phytic acid, which is something of an antinutrient, in that it indeed reduces absorption of various other nutrients.
However, two things are important to note here:
- the phytic acid is found in whole grains, not in protein isolates as found in brown rice protein powder. The protein isolates contain protein… Isolated. No phytates!
- even in the case of eating whole grain rice, the phytic acid content is greatly reduced by two things: soaking and heating (especially if those two things are combined) ← doing this the way described results in bioavailability of nutrients that’s even better than if there were just no phytic acid, albeit it requires you having the time to soak, and do so at temperature.
tl;dr = no, it’s not true, unless there truly is some groundbreaking new research we couldn’t find—it was almost certainly a case of an understandable confusion about phytic acid.
Your question does give us one other thing to mention though:
Brown rice indeed technically contains all 9 essential amino acids, but it’s very low in several of them, most notably lysine.
However, if you use our Tasty Versatile Rice Recipe, the chia seeds we added to the rice have 100x the lysine that brown rice does, and the black pepper also boosts nutrient absorption.
Because your brown rice protein powder is a rice protein powder and not simply rice, it’s possible that they’ve tweaked it to overcome rice’s amino acid deficiencies. But, if you’re looking for a plant-based protein powder that is definitely a complete protein, soy is a very good option assuming you’re not allergic to that:
Amino Acid Compositions Of Soy Protein Isolate
If you’re wondering where to get it, you can see examples of them next to each other on Amazon here:
Brown Rice Protein Powder | Soy Protein Isolate Powder
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:
Apple vs Apricot – 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 apple to apricot, we picked the apricot.
Why?
In terms of macros, there’s not too much between them; apples are higher in carbs and only a little higher in fiber, which disparity makes for a slightly higher glycemic index, but it’s not a big difference and they are both low GI foods.
Micronutrients, however, set these two fruits apart:
In the category of vitamins, apple is a tiny bit higher in choline, while apricots are higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E, and K—in most cases, by quite large margins, too. All in all, a clear and easy win for apricots.
When it comes to minerals, apples are not higher in any minerals, while apricots are higher in calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. There’s simply no contest here.
In short, if an apple a day keeps the doctor away, then an apricot will give the doctor a nice weekend break somewhere.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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:
