How Does Alcohol Cause Blackouts?
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.
Sometimes people who have never experienced an alcoholic blackout wonder “is it real, or is it just a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility/embarrassment with regard to things done while drunk?”
In 1969 (so, still in the era of incredibly unethical psychological experiments that ranged from the 50s into the 70s), Dr. Donald Goodwin conducted a study in which intoxicated participants were asked to recall an object they had just seen. Most succeeded initially, but half were unable to remember the object just 30 minutes later, demonstrating alcohol-induced memory blackouts.
But, is it any different from regular forgetting? And the answer is: yes, it is indeed different.
The memories that never got stored
Ethanol, the active compound in alcohol, is lipophilic, enabling it to cross the blood-brain barrier and disrupt brain function. It impairs all kinds of things, including decision-making, impulse control, motor skills, and, notably, memory networks—which is what we’re looking at today.
Memory formation (beyond “working memory”, which is the kind that enables you to have an idea of what you were just doing, and carry out simple plans like “pick up this cup, raise it to my mouth, and take a sip”, without forgetting partway through) relies on a process called long-term potentiation (LTP), which strengthens neural connections to store information. Ethanol disrupts this process, preventing memory storage and causing blackouts.
In effect, this means you didn’t just forget a memory; you never stored it in the first place. For this reason, experiences from during an alcoholic blackout cannot be retrieved in the same ways we might retrieve other memories (e.g. in regular forgetting, it’s possible that a context clue jogs our memory and then we remember the experience—because in regular forgetting, the memory was in there; we just didn’t recall it until we were reminded).
Blackouts (in which the memory is never stored in the first place) typically occur when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeds 0.16, while lower levels can result in partial memory loss (brownouts) in which some things may be recalled, but not others. Factors such as dehydration, genetics, medications, food consumption, and age influence the likelihood of complete blackouts.
While alcohol’s residual effects typically subside within a day, repeated over-drinking can cause permanent neuron damage, as well as of course plenty of damage to other organs in the body (especially the liver and gut).
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:
What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Alcohol
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:
-
Tilapia vs Cod – 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 tilapia to cod, we picked the tilapia.
Why?
Another case of “that which is more expensive is not necessarily the healthier”!
In terms of macros, tilapia has more protein and fats, as well as more omega-3 (and omega-6). On the downside, tilapia does have relatively more saturated fat, but at 0.94g/100g, it’s not exactly butter.
The vitamins category sees that tilapia has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B12, D, and K, while cod has more of vitamins B6, B9, and choline. A moderate win for tilapia.
When it comes to minerals, things are most divided; tilapia has more copper, iron, phosphorus, potassium, manganese, and selenium, while cod has more magnesium and zinc. An easy win for tilapia.
One other thing to note is that both of these fish contain mercury these days (and it’s worth noting: cod has nearly 10x more mercury). Mercury is, of course, not exactly a health food.
So, excessive consumption of either is not recommended, but out of the two, tilapia is definitely the one to pick.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Farmed Fish vs Wild Caught: Know The Health Differences
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
-
Chia Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – 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 chia seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the chia.
Why?
Both are great! But chia is best.
Note: we’re going to abbreviate them both to “chia” and “pumpkin”, respectively, but we’ll still be referring to the seeds throughout.
In terms of macros, pumpkin has a little more protein and notably higher carbs, whereas chia has nearly 2x the fiber, as well as more fat, and/but they are famously healthy fats. We’ll call this category a subjective win for chia, though you might disagree if you want to prioritize an extra 2g of protein per 100g (for pumpkin) over an extra 16g of fiber per 100g (for chia). Chia is also vastly preferable for omega-3.
When it comes to vitamins, pumpkin is marginally higher in vitamin A, while chia is a lot higher in vitamins B1, B2, B3, B9, C, and E. An easy win for chia.
In the category of minerals, for which pumpkin seeds are so famously a good source, chia has a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and selenium. On the other hand, pumpkin has more potassium and zinc. Still, that’s a 7:2 win for chia.
Adding up the categories makes for a very compelling win for the humble chia seed.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
If You’re Not Taking Chia, You’re Missing Out: The Tiniest Seeds With The Most Value
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple
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.
Nearly five years into the pandemic, COVID is feeling less central to our daily lives.
But the virus, SARS-CoV-2, is still around, and for many people the effects of an infection can be long-lasting. When symptoms persist for more than three months after the initial COVID infection, this is generally referred to as long COVID.
In September, Grammy-winning Brazilian musician Sérgio Mendes died aged 83 after reportedly having long COVID.
Australian data show 196 deaths were due to the long-term effects of COVID from the beginning of the pandemic up to the end of July 2023.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,544 long-COVID-related deaths from the start of the pandemic up to the end of June 2022.
The symptoms of long COVID – such as fatigue, shortness of breath and “brain fog” – can be debilitating. But can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple.
Jan Krava/Shutterstock How could long COVID lead to death?
There’s still a lot we don’t understand about what causes long COVID. A popular theory is that “zombie” virus fragments may linger in the body and cause inflammation even after the virus has gone, resulting in long-term health problems. Recent research suggests a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the blood might explain why some people experience ongoing symptoms.
We know a serious COVID infection can damage multiple organs. For example, severe COVID can lead to permanent lung dysfunction, persistent heart inflammation, neurological damage and long-term kidney disease.
These issues can in some cases lead to death, either immediately or months or years down the track. But is death beyond the acute phase of infection from one of these causes the direct result of COVID, long COVID, or something else? Whether long COVID can directly cause death continues to be a topic of debate.
Of the 3,544 deaths related to long COVID in the US up to June 2022, the most commonly recorded underlying cause was COVID itself (67.5%). This could mean they died as a result of one of the long-term effects of a COVID infection, such as those mentioned above.
COVID infection was followed by heart disease (8.6%), cancer (2.9%), Alzheimer’s disease (2.7%), lung disease (2.5%), diabetes (2%) and stroke (1.8%). Adults aged 75–84 had the highest rate of death related to long COVID (28.8%).
These findings suggest many of these people died “with” long COVID, rather than from the condition. In other words, long COVID may not be a direct driver of death, but rather a contributor, likely exacerbating existing conditions.
The symptoms of long COVID can be debilitating. Lysenko Andrii/Shutterstock ‘Cause of death’ is difficult to define
Long COVID is a relatively recent phenomenon, so mortality data for people with this condition are limited.
However, we can draw some insights from the experiences of people with post-viral conditions that have been studied for longer, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).
Like long COVID, ME/CFS is a complex condition which can have significant and varied effects on a person’s physical fitness, nutritional status, social engagement, mental health and quality of life.
Some research indicates people with ME/CFS are at increased risk of dying from causes including heart conditions, infections and suicide, that may be triggered or compounded by the debilitating nature of the syndrome.
So what is the emerging data on long COVID telling us about the potential increased risk of death?
Research from 2023 has suggested adults in the US with long COVID were at greater risk of developing heart disease, stroke, lung disease and asthma.
Research has also found long COVID is associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation (thinking about or planning suicide). This may reflect common symptoms and consequences of long COVID such as sleep problems, fatigue, chronic pain and emotional distress.
But long COVID is more likely to occur in people who have existing health conditions. This makes it challenging to accurately determine how much long COVID contributes to a person’s death.
Research has long revealed reliability issues in cause-of-death reporting, particularly for people with chronic illness.
Determining the exact cause of someone’s death is not always easy. Pixabay/Pexels So what can we conclude?
Ultimately, long COVID is a chronic condition that can significantly affect quality of life, mental wellbeing and overall health.
While long COVID is not usually immediately or directly life-threatening, it’s possible it could exacerbate existing conditions, and play a role in a person’s death in this way.
Importantly, many people with long COVID around the world lack access to appropriate support. We need to develop models of care for the optimal management of people with long COVID with a focus on multidisciplinary care.
Dr Natalie Jovanovski, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences at RMIT University, contributed to this article.
Rose (Shiqi) Luo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University; Catherine Itsiopoulos, Professor and Dean, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University; Kate Anderson, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University; Magdalena Plebanski, Professor of Immunology, RMIT University, and Zhen Zheng, Associate Professor, STEM | Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT 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:
-
Simple Wall Pilates for Seniors – by Grace Clark
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.
While the cover illustration makes this look a little too simple, in fact there’s a lot of value in this book, with exercises ranging from things like that on the cover, to the “wall downward dog”. But the actual exercises (of which there are 29) themselves are only a part of the book (taking about 70 pages of it with clear illustrations).
There’s also a lot about important Pilates principles to apply, such as breathing, correct body alignment (if you don’t already do Pilates, you will not have this, as Pilates alignment is quite specific), flexibility, balance, stability, coordination, range of motion, isometric exercise considerations, endurance, and more.
Unlike a lot of “…for seniors” books, this is not a watered down barely-does-anything version of the “real” exercises, but rather, would present most the same challenges to a 20-year-old reader; it’s just that the focus here is more on matters that tend to concern an older rather than younger demographic. That 20-something may be busy building their butt, for instance, while the 80-year-old is building their bones. No reason both shouldn’t do both, of course, but the focus is age-specific.
The author guides us through working up from easy things to hard, breaking stuff down so that we can progress at our own pace, such that even the most cautious or enthusiastic reader can start at an appropriate point and proceed accordingly.
She also talks us through a 28-day program (as promised by the subtitle), and advice on how to keep it going without plateauing, how to set realistic goals, how to tailor it to our abilities as we go, track our progress, and so forth.
The style is clear and instructional, and one thing that sets this apart from a lot of Pilates books is that the education comes from an angle not of “trust me”, but rather from well-sourced claims with bibliography whose list spans 5 pages at the end.
Bottom line: if you’d like to progressively increase your strength, stability, and more—with no gym equipment, just a wall—then this book will have you see improvements in the 28 days it promises, and thereafter.
Click here to check out Simple Wall Pilates For Seniors, and experience the difference!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What Most People Don’t Know About Hearing Aids
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.
Dr. Juliëtte Sterkens, a doctor of audiology, makes things clearer in this TEDx talk:
The sound of the future
Half of all adults experience hearing loss by the age of 75, and by 85, that goes up to two thirds. Untreated hearing loss leads to depression, social isolation, cognitive decline, and even an increased fall risk.
It’s not just about reduced volume though; Dr. Sterkens points out that for many (like this writer!) it’s more a matter of unequal pitch perception and difficulty in speech clarity. Most hearing aids just amplify sound, and don’t fully restore clarity, especially beyond a short range.
However, technology keeps marching forwards there have been improvements in the move from analog to digital, and today’s bluetooth-enabled hearing aids often do a lot better, especially in the case of things like TV transmitters and clip-on microphones.
Out and about, you might see signs sometimes saying “Hearing Loop Enabled”, and those transmit sound directly to telecoil-equipped hearing aids—venues with public address systems are legally required to provide hearing accommodations like this. Many hearing aids include telecoils, but users often aren’t informed or don’t have them activated, which is unfortunate, because telecoils improve hearing dramatically in loop-enabled venues.
Dr. Sterkens makes a plea for us to, as applicable,
- Activate telecoils and insist on them in new hearing aids.
- Advocate for assistive listening systems in public venues.
- Use available resources like the Hearing Loss Association of America for tools and information.
- Familiarize ourselves with accessibility laws and report non-compliance.
- Aim to make the world more accessible for people with hearing loss through advocacy, technology, and awareness.
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:
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:
