Neurologists Debunk 11 Brain Myths
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.
Neuroscientists Dr. Santoshi Billakota and Dr. Brad Kamitaki debunk 11 myths about the brain. How many did you know?
From the top
Without further ado, the myths are…
- “We only use 10% of our brains”: False! We use most parts of our brain at different times, depending on the activity. PET/MRI scans show widespread usage.
- “The bigger the brain, the smarter the creature”: False! While there’s often a correlation, intelligence depends on brain complexity and development of specific regions, not overall size. For this reason get, for example, some corvids that are more intelligent than some dogs.
- “IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence”: False! IQ tests measure limited aspects of intelligence and are influenced by external factors like test conditions and education.
- “Video games rot your brain”: False! Video games can improve problem-solving, strategy, and team-building skills when played in moderation.
- “Memory gets worse as you age”: Partly false. While episodic memory may decline, semantic and procedural memory often improve with age.
- “Left-brained people are logical, and right-brained people are creative”: False! Both hemispheres work together, and personality or skills are influenced by environment and experiences, not brain hemispheres.
- “You can’t prevent a stroke”: False! Strokes can often be prevented by managing risk factors like blood pressure, cholesterol, and lifestyle choices.
- “Eating fish makes you smarter”: False! Eating fish, especially those rich in omega-3s, can support brain health but won’t increase intelligence.
- “You can always trust your senses”: False! Senses can be deceptive and influenced by emotions, memories, or neurological conditions.
- “Different sexes have different brains”: False! Structurally, brains are the same regardless of chromosomal sex; differences arise from environmental (including hormonal) and experiential factors—and even there, there’s more than enough overlap that we are far from categorizable as sexually dimorphic.
- “If you have a seizure, you have epilepsy”: False! A seizure can occur from various causes, but epilepsy is defined by recurrent unprovoked seizures and requires specific diagnosis and treatment.
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 Dopamine Myth ← a bonus 12th myth!
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:
-
The Princess of Wales wants to stay cancer-free. What does this mean?
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.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, has announced she has now completed a course of preventive chemotherapy.
The news comes nine months after the princess first revealed she was being treated for an unspecified form of cancer.
In the new video message released by Kensington Palace, Princess Catherine says she’s focused on doing what she can to stay “cancer-free”. She acknowledges her cancer journey is not over and the “path to recovery and healing is long”.
While we don’t know the details of the princess’s cancer or treatment, it raises some questions about how we declare someone fully clear of the disease. So what does being – and staying – “cancer-free” mean?
What’s the difference between being cancer-free and in remission?
Medically, “cancer-free” means two things. First, it means no cancer cells are able to be detected in a patient’s body using the available testing methods. Second, there is no cancer left in the patient.
These might sound basically the same. But this second aspect of “cancer-free” can be complicated, as it’s essentially impossible to be sure no cancer cells have survived a treatment.
It only takes a few surviving cells for the cancer to grow back. But these cells may not be detectable via testing, and can lie dormant for some time. The possibility of some cells still surviving means it is more accurate to say a patient is “in remission”, rather than “cancer-free”.
Remission means there is no detectable cancer left. Once a patient has been in remission for a certain period of time, they are often considered to be fully “cancer-free”.
Princess Catherine was not necessarily speaking in the strict medical sense. Nonetheless, she is clearly signalling a promising step in her recovery.
What happens during remission?
During remission, patients will usually undergo surveillance testing to make sure their cancer hasn’t returned. Detection tests can vary greatly depending on both the patient and their cancer type.
Many tests involve simply looking at different organs to see if there are cancer cells present, but at varying levels of complexity.
Some cancers can be detected with the naked eye, such as skin cancers. In other cases, technology is needed: colonoscopies for colorectal cancers, X-ray mammograms for breast cancers, or CT scans for lung cancers. There are also molecular tests, which test for the presence of cancer cells using protein or DNA from blood or tissue samples.
For most patients, testing will continue for years at regular intervals. Surveillance testing ensures any returning cancer is caught early, giving patients the best chance of successful treatment.
Remaining in remission for five years can be a huge milestone in a patient’s cancer journey. For most types of cancer, the chances of cancer returning drop significantly after five years of remission. After this point, surveillance testing may be performed less frequently, as the patients might be deemed to be at a lower risk of their cancer returning.
Measuring survival rates
Because it is very difficult to tell when a cancer is “cured”, clinicians may instead refer to a “five-year survival rate”. This measures how likely a cancer patient is to be alive five years after their diagnosis.
For example, data shows the five-year survival rate for bowel cancer among Australian women (of all ages) is around 70%. That means if you had 100 patients with bowel cancer, after five years you would expect 70 to still be alive and 30 to have succumbed to the disease.
These statistics can’t tell us much about individual cases. But comparing five-year survival rates between large groups of patients after different cancer treatments can help clinicians make the often complex decisions about how best to treat their patients.
The likelihood of cancer coming back, or recurring, is influenced by many factors which can vary over time. For instance, approximately 30% of people with lung cancer develop a recurrent disease, even after treatment. On the other hand, breast cancer recurrence within two years of the initial diagnosis is approximately 15%. Within five years it drops to 10%. After ten, it falls below 2%.
These are generalisations though – recurrence rates can vary greatly depending on things such as what kind of cancer the patient has, how advanced it is, and whether it has spread.
Staying cancer-free
Princess Catherine says her focus now is to “stay cancer-free”. What might this involve?
How a cancer develops and whether it recurs can be influenced by things we can’t control, such as age, ethnicity, gender, genetics and hormones.
However, there are sometimes environmental factors we can control. That includes things like exposure to UV radiation from the sun, or inhaling carcinogens like tobacco.
Lifestyle factors also play a role. Poor diet and nutrition, a lack of exercise and excessive alcohol consumption can all contribute to cancer development.
Research estimates more than half of all cancers could potentially be prevented through regular screening and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (not to mention preventing other chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes).
Recommendations to reduce cancer risk are the same for everyone, not just those who’ve had treatment like Princess Catherine. They include not smoking, eating a nutritious and balanced diet, exercising regularly, cutting down on alcohol and staying sun smart.
Amali Cooray, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering and Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) ; John (Eddie) La Marca, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) , and Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Walking can prevent low back pain, a new study shows
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.
Do you suffer from low back pain that recurs regularly? If you do, you’re not alone. Roughly 70% of people who recover from an episode of low back pain will experience a new episode in the following year.
The recurrent nature of low back pain is a major contributor to the enormous burden low back pain places on individuals and the health-care system.
In our new study, published today in The Lancet, we found that a program combining walking and education can effectively reduce the recurrence of low back pain.
The WalkBack trial
We randomly assigned 701 adults who had recently recovered from an episode of low back pain to receive an individualised walking program and education (intervention), or to a no treatment group (control).
Participants in the intervention group were guided by physiotherapists across six sessions, over a six-month period. In the first, third and fifth sessions, the physiotherapist helped each participant to develop a personalised and progressive walking program that was realistic and tailored to their specific needs and preferences.
The remaining sessions were short check-ins (typically less than 15 minutes) to monitor progress and troubleshoot any potential barriers to engagement with the walking program. Due to the COVID pandemic, most participants received the entire intervention via telehealth, using video consultations and phone calls.
The program was designed to be manageable, with a target of five walks per week of roughly 30 minutes daily by the end of the six-month program. Participants were also encouraged to continue walking independently after the program.
Importantly, the walking program was combined with education provided by the physiotherapists during the six sessions. This education aimed to give people a better understanding of pain, reduce fear associated with exercise and movement, and give people the confidence to self-manage any minor recurrences if they occurred.
People in the control group received no preventative treatment or education. This reflects what typically occurs after people recover from an episode of low back pain and are discharged from care.
What the results showed
We monitored the participants monthly from the time they were enrolled in the study, for up to three years, to collect information about any new recurrences of low back pain they may have experienced. We also asked participants to report on any costs related to their back pain, including time off work and the use of health-care services.
The intervention reduced the risk of a recurrence of low back pain that limited daily activity by 28%, while the recurrence of low back pain leading participants to seek care from a health professional decreased by 43%.
Participants who received the intervention had a longer average period before they had a recurrence, with a median of 208 days pain-free, compared to 112 days in the control group.
Overall, we also found this intervention to be cost-effective. The biggest savings came from less work absenteeism and less health service use (such as physiotherapy and massage) among the intervention group.
This trial, like all studies, had some limitations to consider. Although we tried to recruit a wide sample, we found that most participants were female, aged between 43 and 66, and were generally well educated. This may limit the extent to which we can generalise our findings.
Also, in this trial, we used physiotherapists who were up-skilled in health coaching. So we don’t know whether the intervention would achieve the same impact if it were to be delivered by other clinicians.
Walking has multiple benefits
We’ve all heard the saying that “prevention is better than a cure” – and it’s true. But this approach has been largely neglected when it comes to low back pain. Almost all previous studies have focused on treating episodes of pain, not preventing future back pain.
A limited number of small studies have shown that exercise and education can help prevent low back pain. However, most of these studies focused on exercises that are not accessible to everyone due to factors such as high cost, complexity, and the need for supervision from health-care or fitness professionals.
On the other hand, walking is a free, accessible way to exercise, including for people in rural and remote areas with limited access to health care.
Walking also delivers many other health benefits, including better heart health, improved mood and sleep quality, and reduced risk of several chronic diseases.
While walking is not everyone’s favourite form of exercise, the intervention was well-received by most people in our study. Participants reported that the additional general health benefits contributed to their ongoing motivation to continue the walking program independently.
Why is walking helpful for low back pain?
We don’t know exactly why walking is effective for preventing back pain, but possible reasons could include the combination of gentle movements, loading and strengthening of the spinal structures and muscles. It also could be related to relaxation and stress relief, and the release of “feel-good” endorphins, which block pain signals between your body and brain – essentially turning down the dial on pain.
It’s possible that other accessible and low-cost forms of exercise, such as swimming, may also be effective in preventing back pain, but surprisingly, no studies have investigated this.
Preventing low back pain is not easy. But these findings give us hope that we are getting closer to a solution, one step at a time.
Tash Pocovi, Postdoctoral research fellow, Department of Health Sciences, Macquarie University; Christine Lin, Professor, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney; Mark Hancock, Professor of Physiotherapy, Macquarie University; Petra Graham, Associate Professor, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, and Simon French, Professor of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Macquarie University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Strategic Wellness
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.
Strategic Wellness: planning ahead for a better life!
This is Dr. Michael Roizen. With hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and 14 US patents, his work has been focused on the importance of lifestyle factors in healthy living. He’s the Chief Wellness Officer at the world-famous Cleveland Clinic, and is known for his “RealAge” test and related personalized healthcare services.
If you’re curious about that, you can take the RealAge test here.
(they will require you inputting your email address if you do, though)
What’s his thing?
Dr. Roizen is all about optimizing health through lifestyle factors—most notably, diet and exercise. Of those, he is particularly keen on optimizing nutritional habits.
Is this just the Mediterranean Diet again?
Nope! Although: he does also advocate for that. But there’s more, he makes the case for what he calls “circadian eating”, optimally timing what we eat and when.
Is that just Intermittent Fasting again?
Nope! Although: he does also advocate for that. But there’s more:
Dr. Roizen takes a more scientific approach. Which isn’t to say that intermittent fasting is unscientific—on the contrary, there’s mountains of evidence for it being a healthful practice for most people. But while people tend to organize their intermittent fasting purely according to convenience, he notes some additional factors to take into account, including:
- We are evolved to eat when the sun is up
- We are evolved to be active before eating (think: hunting and gathering)
- Our insulin resistance increases as the day goes on
Now, if you’ve a quick mind about you, you’ll have noticed that this means:
- We should keep our eating to a particular time window (classic intermittent fasting), and/but that time window should be while the sun is up
- We should not roll out of bed and immediately breakfast; we need to be active for a bit first (moderate exercise is fine—this writer does her daily grocery-shopping trip on foot before breakfast, for instance… getting out there and hunting and gathering those groceries!)
- We should not, however, eat too much later in the day (so, dinner should be the smallest meal of the day)
The latter item is the one that’s perhaps biggest change for most people. His tips for making this as easy as possible include:
- Over-cater for dinner, but eat only one portion of it, and save the rest for an early-afternoon lunch
- First, however, enjoy a nutrient-dense protein-centric breakfast with at least some fibrous vegetation, for example:
- Salmon and asparagus
- Scrambled tofu and kale
- Yogurt and blueberries
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
More research shows COVID-19 vaccines are safe for young adults
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.
What you need to know
- Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, is most commonly caused by a viral infection like COVID-19, not by vaccination.
- In line with previous research, a recent CDC study found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and sudden cardiac death in previously healthy young people.
- A COVID-19 infection is much more likely to cause inflammation of the heart muscle than a COVID-19 vaccine, and those cases are typically more severe.
Since the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccines, anti-vaccine advocates have raised concerns about heart muscle inflammation, also called myocarditis, after vaccination to suggest that vaccines are unsafe. They’ve also used concerns about myocarditis to spread false claims that vaccines cause sudden deaths, which is not true.
Research has consistently shown that cases of myocarditis after vaccination are extremely rare and usually mild, and a new study from the CDC found no association between sudden cardiac death and COVID-19 vaccination in young adults.
Read on to learn more about myocarditis and what the latest research says about COVID-19 vaccine safety.
What is myocarditis?
Myocarditis is inflammation of the myocardium, or the middle muscular layer of the heart wall. This inflammation weakens the heart’s ability to pump blood. Symptoms may include fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, rapid or irregular heartbeat, and flu-like symptoms.
Myocarditis may resolve on its own. In rare cases, it may lead to stroke, heart failure, heart attack, or death.
What causes myocarditis?
Myocarditis is typically caused by a viral infection like COVID-19. Bacteria, parasites, fungi, chemicals, and certain medications can also cause myocarditis.
In very rare cases, some people develop myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, but these cases are usually mild and resolve on their own. In contrast, a COVID-19 infection is much more likely to cause myocarditis, and those cases are typically more severe.
Staying up to date on vaccines reduces your risk of developing myocarditis from a COVID-19 infection.
Are COVID-19 vaccines safe for young people?
Yes. COVID-19 vaccines have been rigorously tested and monitored over the past three years and have been determined to be safe for everyone 6 months and older. A recent CDC study found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and sudden cardiac death in previously healthy young adults.
The benefits of vaccination outweigh any potential risks. Staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines reduces your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, death, long COVID, and COVID-19-related complications, such as myocarditis.
The CDC recommends people 65 and older and immunocompromised people receive an additional dose of the updated COVID-19 vaccine this spring—if at least four months have passed since they received a COVID-19 vaccine.
For more information, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good News 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:
-
Stickers and wristbands aren’t a reliable way to prevent mosquito bites. Here’s why
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.
Protecting yourself and family from mosquito bites can be challenging, especially in this hot and humid weather. Protests from young children and fears about topical insect repellents drive some to try alternatives such as wristbands, patches and stickers.
These products are sold online as well as in supermarkets, pharmacies and camping stores. They’re often marketed as providing “natural” protection from mosquitoes.
But unfortunately, they aren’t a reliable way to prevent mosquito bites. Here’s why – and what you can try instead.
Why is preventing mosquito bites important?
Mosquitoes can spread pathogens that make us sick. Japanese encephalitis and Murray Valley encephalitis viruses can have potentially fatal outcomes. While Ross River virus won’t kill you, it can cause potentially debilitating illnesses.
Health authorities recommend preventing mosquito bites by: avoiding areas and times of the day when mosquitoes are most active; covering up with long sleeved shirts, long pants, and covered shoes; and applying a topical insect repellent (a cream, lotion, or spray).
I don’t want to put sticky and smelly repellents on my skin!
While for many people, the “sting” of a biting mosquitoes is enough to prompt a dose of repellent, others are reluctant. Some are deterred by the unpleasant feel or smell of insect repellents. Others believe topical repellents contain chemicals that are dangerous to our health.
However, many studies have shown that, when used as recommended, these products are safe to use. All products marketed as mosquito repellents in Australia must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority; a process that provides recommendations for safe use.
How do topical repellents work?
While there remains some uncertainty about how the chemicals in topical insect repellents actually work, they appear to either block the sensory organs of mosquitoes that drive them to bite, or overpower the smells of our skin that helps mosquitoes find us.
Diethytolumide (DEET) is a widely recommended ingredient in topical repellents. Picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus are also used and have been shown to be effective and safe.
How do other products work?
“Physical” insect-repelling products, such as wristbands, coils and candles, often contain a botanically derived chemical and are often marketed as being an alternative to DEET.
However, studies have shown that devices such as candles containing citronella oil provide lower mosquito-bite prevention than topical repellents.
A laboratory study in 2011 found wristbands infused with peppermint oil failed to provide full protection from mosquito bites.
Even as topical repellent formulations applied to the skin, these botanically derived products have lower mosquito bite protection than recommended products such as those containing DEET, picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus.
Wristbands infused with DEET have shown mixed results but may provide some bite protection or bite reduction. DEET-based wristbands or patches are not currently available in Australia.
There is also a range of mosquito repellent coils, sticks, and other devices that release insecticides (for example, pyrethroids). These chemicals are primarily designed to kill or “knock down” mosquitoes rather than to simply keep them from biting us.
What about stickers and patches?
Although insect repellent patches and stickers have been available for many years, there has been a sudden surge in their marketing through social media. But there are very few scientific studies testing their efficacy.
Our current understanding of the way insect repellents work would suggest these small stickers and patches offer little protection from mosquito bites.
At best, they may reduce some bites in the way mosquito coils containing botanical products work. However, the passive release of chemicals from the patches and stickers is likely to be substantially lower than those from mosquito coils and other devices actively releasing chemicals.
One study in 2013 found a sticker infused with oil of lemon eucalyptus “did not provide significant protection to volunteers”.
Clothing impregnated with insecticides, such as permethrin, will assist in reducing mosquito bites but topical insect repellents are still recommended for exposed areas of skin.
Take care when using these products
The idea you can apply a sticker or patch to your clothing to protect you from mosquito bites may sound appealing, but these devices provide a false sense of security. There is no evidence they are an equally effective alternative to the topical repellents recommended by health authorities around the world. It only takes one bite from a mosquito to transmit the pathogens that result in serious disease.
It is also worth noting that there are some health warnings and recommendations for their use required by Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Some of these products warn against application to the skin (recommending application to clothing only) and to keep products “out of reach of children”. This is a challenge if attached to young children’s clothing.
Similar warnings are associated with most other topical and non-topical mosquito repellents. Always check the labels of these products for safe use recommendations.
Are there any other practical alternatives?
Topical insect repellents are safe and effective. Most can be used on children from 12 months of age and pose no health risks. Make sure you apply the repellent as a thin even coat on all exposed areas of skin.
But you don’t need “tropical strength” repellents for short periods of time outdoors; a range of formulations with lower concentrations of repellent will work well for shorter trips outdoors. There are some repellents that don’t smell as strong (for example, children’s formulations, odourless formulations) or formulations that may be more pleasant to use (for example, pump pack sprays).
Finally, you can always cover up. Loose-fitting long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and covered shoes will provide a physical barrier between you and mosquitoes on the hunt for your or your family’s blood this summer.
Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney
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:
-
What Weston Price Got Right (And Wrong)
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.
Weston Price: What Stood The Test of Time?
This is Dr. Weston Price, a dentist. You may guess from the photo, or perhaps already knew, his work is not new in 2023. We usually feature current health experts here, but we’re taking a day to do a blast from the past, because his ideas endure today, and inform a lot of people’s health views. So, he’s a good one to at least know about.
What was his deal?
Dr. Price (1870–1948) wanted to study focal infection theory—the idea that repairing root canals allowed bacterial infections that caused everything from heart disease to arthritis. His solution was that the teeth should be extracted instead.
This theory was popular in the 1920s, was challenged in the 1930s, ignored in the 1940s (the world was a bit busy), and by broad medical consensus anyway, rejected in the 1950s. But, while it was being challenged in the 1930s, Dr. Price decided to find more evidence for its support.
The result was his famous world tour of peoples living traditional lifestyles without the influence of “modern” diet. His findings, and the conclusions he drew from them, extended to far more than just dental health.
What did he find?
Dr. Price found that people living traditional lifestyles, with their traditional diets based on locally-sourced foods, had much better overall health. Of course, he was a dentist and not a general practitioner, so aside from examining their teeth, he largely relied on self-reported diagnoses of illness, or lack thereof.
In short: he found that people in places without modern medical institutions had fewer diagnoses of disease. From this, he concluded that incidence of disease was much lower.
There was also an unexamined element of survivorship bias—an undiagnosed disease is more likely to be fatal, and he questioned only living people, which skewed the stats rather. Nor did he examine infant mortality rate nor adult life expectancy, both of which were not great.
Was it all useless, then?
Actually no! He did hit upon some observations that have stood the test of time:
- He correctly concluded that modern diets with sugar and white flour were ruinous to the health.
- He correctly concluded that locally-sourced food, and grass-fed in the case of pastoral farming, tended to have much more nutritional value than the mass-produced results of intensive farming.
- He correctly concluded that many modern preservation methods robbed foods of their nutrients.
- He correctly concluded that many grains and seeds are more nutritions when fermented/soaked/sprouted.
About that “locally-sourced food”: the reason locally-sourced food tends to be more nutritious is that it has required less in the way of preservation for a long trip around the world, and will also tend to be fresher.
On the other hand, this does mean a lot of the foods that Dr. Price recommends are very much subject to availability. It may well be true that the Inuit people do not eat a lot of fruit and veg (which mostly do not grow there), but if you live in Nevada, maybe locally-sourced whale fat is just as difficult to find.
One person’s “this fatty organ meat contains the vitamin C we need” may be another person’s “that’s great; I have an apple tree in my garden though”.
Want to learn more?
Dr. Price’s most influential work is his magnum opus, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”. It’s a fascinating book, but do be warned, it was written by a rich white man in 1939 and the writing is as racist as you might expect. Even when making favourable comparisons, the tone is very much “and here is what these savages are doing well”.
If you don’t fancy reading all that, here are two other sources about Weston Price’s work and conclusions, presented for balance:
- The Weston A. Price Foundation (Official Website)
- Weston Price’s Appalling Legacy (Science-Based Medicine.org)
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: