9 Little Habits To Have A Better Day

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.

Practically gift-wrapped, here are 9 key things to improve any day!

Mindfully does it

These are all things that seem obvious when you read them, but take a moment to consider: how many do you actually do on a daily basis, really? And could you implement the others?

  1. Remember to be thankful: train your brain to focus on the good in life, either in the morning to start the day positively or at night to unload stress. Or both!
  2. Change your scenery: visiting new places, even just a walk in the park, can refresh your mind and improve your mood.
  3. Do one thing at a time: multitasking leads to unfinished, low-quality work. Focusing on one task at a time all but ensures better results.
  4. Laugh: laughter releases feel-good hormones of various kinds, spreads joy, and relieves tension, making the day more enjoyable. It has longevity-boosting effects too!
  5. Help someone: helping others boosts happiness, enhances self-worth, and might even provide insights into your own problems. As a bonus, it actually helps the other person, too—so “pay it forward” and all that 🙂
  6. Prepare the night before: prepping ahead prevents morning stress, making for a smoother and more confident start to the day—which sets the tone of the rest of the day.
  7. Hype yourself up: even temporary self-belief can boost confidence and its effects are incrementally cumulative over time.
  8. Relaxation: establish an evening routine (like reading or listening to calming music) to de-stress and improve sleep quality.
  9. Take your time: being present in the moment enhances enjoyment, improves focus, and cultivates gratitude—which takes us back to #1!

For more on each of these, enjoy:

Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

Want to learn more?

You might also like:

Are You Flourishing? (There’s a Scale)

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • How Tight Are Your Hips? Test (And Fix!) With This
  • Which Magnesium? (And: When?)
    Q&A at 10almonds: Assessing Magnesium Supplements for Bioavailability and Health Impact—Your Queries Answered!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Black Tea or Green Tea – 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 black tea to green tea, we picked the black tea.

    Why?

    It was close! Ultimately we picked the black tea as the “best all-rounder”.

    Both teas are great for the health, insofar as tea in general is a) a very good way to hydrate (better absorption than plain water) and b) an excellent source of beneficial phytochemicals—mostly antioxidants of various kinds, but there’s a lot in there.

    We did a run-down previously of the relative benefits of each of four kinds of tea (black, white, green, red):

    Which Tea Is Best, By Science?

    Which concluded in its final summary:

    Black, white, green, and red teas all have their benefits, and ultimately the best one for you will probably be the one you enjoy drinking, and thus drink more of.

    If trying to choose though, we offer the following summary:

    • Black tea: best for total beneficial phytochemicals
    • White tea:best for your oral health
    • Green tea: best for your brain
    • ❤️ Red tea: best if you want naturally caffeine-free

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Our ‘food environments’ affect what we eat. Here’s how you can change yours to support healthier eating

    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.

    In January, many people are setting new year’s resolutions around healthy eating. Achieving these is often challenging – it can be difficult to change our eating habits. But healthy diets can enhance physical and mental health, so improving what we eat is a worthwhile goal.

    One reason it’s difficult to change our eating habits relates to our “food environments”. This term describes:

    The collective physical, economic, policy and sociocultural surroundings, opportunities and conditions that influence people’s food and beverage choices and nutritional status.

    Our current food environments are designed in ways that often make it easier to choose unhealthy foods than healthy ones. But it’s possible to change certain aspects of our personal food environments, making eating healthier a little easier.

    Unhealthy food environments

    It’s not difficult to find fast-food restaurants in Australian cities. Meanwhile, there are junk foods at supermarket checkouts, service stations and sporting venues. Takeaway and packaged foods and drinks routinely come in large portion sizes and are often considered tastier than healthy options.

    Our food environments also provide us with various prompts to eat unhealthy foods via the media and advertising, alongside health and nutrition claims and appealing marketing images on food packaging.

    At the supermarket, unhealthy foods are often promoted through prominent displays and price discounts.

    We’re also exposed to various situations in our everyday lives that can make healthy eating challenging. For example, social occasions or work functions might see large amounts of unhealthy food on offer.

    Not everyone is affected in the same way

    People differ in the degree to which their food consumption is influenced by their food environments.

    This can be due to biological factors (for example, genetics and hormones), psychological characteristics (such as decision making processes or personality traits) and prior experiences with food (for example, learned associations between foods and particular situations or emotions).

    People who are more susceptible will likely eat more and eat more unhealthy foods than those who are more immune to the effects of food environments and situations.

    Those who are more susceptible may pay greater attention to food cues such as advertisements and cooking smells, and feel a stronger desire to eat when exposed to these cues. Meanwhile, they may pay less attention to internal cues signalling hunger and fullness. These differences are due to a combination of biological and psychological characteristics.

    These people might also be more likely to experience physiological reactions to food cues including changes in heart rate and increased salivation.

    Two young women sitting on a couch eating chips.
    It’s common to eat junk food in front of the TV.
    PR Image Factory/Shutterstock

    Other situational cues can also prompt eating for some people, depending on what they’ve learned about eating. Some of us tend to eat when we’re tired or in a bad mood, having learned over time eating provides comfort in these situations.

    Other people will tend to eat in situations such as in the car during the commute home from work (possibly passing multiple fast-food outlets along the way), or at certain times of day such as after dinner, or when others around them are eating, having learned associations between these situations and eating.

    Being in front of a TV or other screen can also prompt people to eat, eat unhealthy foods, or eat more than intended.

    Making changes

    While it’s not possible to change wider food environments or individual characteristics that affect susceptibility to food cues, you can try to tune into how and when you’re affected by food cues. Then you can restructure some aspects of your personal food environments, which can help if you’re working towards healthier eating goals.

    Although both meals and snacks are important for overall diet quality, snacks are often unplanned, which means food environments and situations may have a greater impact on what we snack on.

    Foods consumed as snacks are often sugary drinks, confectionery, chips and cakes. However, snacks can also be healthy (for example, fruits, nuts and seeds).

    Try removing unhealthy foods, particularly packaged snacks, from the house, or not buying them in the first place. This means temptations are removed, which can be especially helpful for those who may be more susceptible to their food environment.

    Planning social events around non-food activities can help reduce social influences on eating. For example, why not catch up with friends for a walk instead of lunch at a fast-food restaurant.

    Creating certain rules and habits can reduce cues for eating. For example, not eating at your desk, in the car, or in front of the TV will, over time, lessen the effects of these situations as cues for eating.

    You could also try keeping a food diary to identify what moods and emotions trigger eating. Once you’ve identified these triggers, develop a plan to help break these habits. Strategies may include doing another activity you enjoy such as going for a short walk or listening to music – anything that can help manage the mood or emotion where you would have typically reached for the fridge.

    Write (and stick to) a grocery list and avoid shopping for food when hungry. Plan and prepare meals and snacks ahead of time so eating decisions are made in advance of situations where you might feel especially hungry or tired or be influenced by your food environment.The Conversation

    Georgie Russell, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University and Rebecca Leech, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Saffron For The Brain (& 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.

    Saffron For The Brain (& More)

    In yesterday’s edition of 10almonds, one of the items in the “health news from around the world” section was:

    Clinical trial finds herbal medicine Sailuotong effective for brain health in older people

    But, what is it?

    ❝SaiLuoTong (SLT) is a modern compound Chinese herbal medicine preparation in capsule form containing standardized extracts of Panax ginseng, Ginkgo biloba, and Crocus sativus L❞

    Source: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 12-week pilot phase II trial of SaiLuoTong (SLT) for cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment

    We’ve written previously about ginseng and ginkgo biloba:

    So, what’s this about Crocus sativus L.?

    That is the plant better known as saffron. And, for all its wide availability (your local supermarket probably has at least a tiny amount in the spice section), there’s a reason we don’t see much of it:

    ❝Saffron blooms only once a year and should be collected within a very short duration. It is picked during 3–4 weeks in October-November. The method for the cultivation of saffron contributes greatly to its high price. According to some reports, this species is a sterile triploid and so does not produce fertile seeds. Germination can take 1–6 months at 18°C. It takes 3 years for plants to flower from seed.❞

    Source: Crocus sativus L.: A comprehensive review

    That’s fascinating, but what does it do for us?

    Well, in the words of El Midaoui et al. (2022):

    ❝In the frame of a double-blind-placebo-controlled study, 30 mg per day supplementation with saffron for 16 weeks resulted in improved cognitive function in patients suffering from mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

    Moreover, the follow-up of this study in which the authors evaluated the effects of saffron (30 mg/day) for 22 weeks showed that saffron was as effective as donepezil in the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease❞

    Read the full review: Saffron (Crocus sativus L.): A Source of Nutrients for Health and for the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric and Age-Related Diseases

    Not just that, but it also has powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties beyond the brain (though the brain is where research has been most focused, due to its neuroprotective effects).

    See: Antioxidant Properties of Crocus Sativus L. and Its Constituents and Relevance to Neurodegenerative Diseases; Focus on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Disease

    (this, too, is a full research review in its own right; we’re getting a lot of “bang for buck” on papers today)

    And more?

    Yes, and more. Lots more. To bullet-pointify even just the abstract from another research review:

    • Saffron has been suggested to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of disorders including coronary artery diseases, hypertension, stomach disorders, dysmenorrhea and learning and memory impairments.
    • In addition, different studies have indicated that saffron has anti-inflammatory, anti-atherosclerotic, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activities. (This is all good; the cytotoxic activities are about killing cancer cells)
    • Antitussive effects of stigmas and petals of C. sativus and its components, safranal and crocin have also been demonstrated.
    • The anticonvulsant and anti-Alzheimer properties of saffron extract were shown in human and animal studies.
    • The efficacy of C. sativus in the treatment of mild to moderate depression was also reported in clinical trial.
    • Administration of C. sativus and its constituents increased glutamate and dopamine levels in the brain in a dose-dependent manner.
    • It also interacts with the opioid system to reduce withdrawal syndrome.
    • C. sativus and its components can be considered as promising agents in the treatment of nervous system disorders.

    For more details on any of those items, see:

    The effects of Crocus sativus (saffron) and its constituents on nervous system: a review

    Is it safe?

    The effective dose is 30mg/kg and the LD50 is more than 20g/kg, so yes, it’s very safe. Given the price of it, this also means that if you’re the size of this writer (a little over 70kg, or a little over 150lbs) to poison yourself effectively you’d need to consume about 1.4kg of saffron at a time, which would cost well over $6,000.

    Where can I get it?

    Your local supermarket probably has a tiny amount in the spice section, or you can get better prices buying it in “bulk” online. Here’s an example product on Amazon, for your convenience

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • How Tight Are Your Hips? Test (And Fix!) With This
  • A short history of sunscreen, from basting like a chook to preventing skin cancer

    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.

    Australians have used commercial creams, lotions or gels to manage our skin’s sun exposure for nearly a century.

    But why we do it, the preparations themselves, and whether they work, has changed over time.

    In this short history of sunscreen in Australia, we look at how we’ve slathered, slopped and spritzed our skin for sometimes surprising reasons.

    At first, suncreams helped you ‘tan with ease’

    Advertisement for Hamilton's Sunburn Vanishing Cream
    This early sunscreen claimed you could ‘tan with ease’.
    Trove/NLA

    Sunscreens have been available in Australia since the 30s. Chemist Milton Blake made one of the first.

    He used a kerosene heater to cook batches of “sunburn vanishing cream”, scented with French perfume.

    His backyard business became H.A. Milton (Hamilton) Laboratories, which still makes sunscreens today.

    Hamilton’s first cream claimed you could “
    Sunbathe in Comfort and TAN with ease”. According to modern standards, it would have had an SPF (or sun protection factor) of 2.

    The mirage of ‘safe tanning’

    A tan was considered a “modern complexion” and for most of the 20th century, you might put something on your skin to help gain one. That’s when “safe tanning” (without burning) was thought possible.

    Coppertone advertisement showing tanned woman in bikini
    This 1967 Coppertone advertisement urged you to ‘tan, not burn’.
    SenseiAlan/Flickr, CC BY-SA

    Sunburn was known to be caused by the UVB component of ultraviolet (UV) light. UVA, however, was thought not to be involved in burning; it was just thought to darken the skin pigment melanin. So, medical authorities advised that by using a sunscreen that filtered out UVB, you could “safely tan” without burning.

    But that was wrong.

    From the 70s, medical research suggested UVA penetrated damagingly deep into the skin, causing ageing effects such as sunspots and wrinkles. And both UVA and UVB could cause skin cancer.

    Sunscreens from the 80s sought to be “broad spectrum” – they filtered both UVB and UVA.

    Researchers consequently recommended sunscreens for all skin tones, including for preventing sun damage in people with dark skin.

    Delaying burning … or encouraging it?

    Up to the 80s, sun preparations ranged from something that claimed to delay burning, to preparations that actively encouraged it to get that desirable tan – think, baby oil or coconut oil. Sun-worshippers even raided the kitchen cabinet, slicking olive oil on their skin.

    One manufacturer’s “sun lotion” might effectively filter UVB; another’s merely basted you like a roast chicken.

    Since labelling laws before the 80s didn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients, it was often hard for consumers to tell which was which.

    At last, SPF arrives to guide consumers

    In the 70s, two Queensland researchers, Gordon Groves and Don Robertson, developed tests for sunscreens – sometimes experimenting on students or colleagues. They printed their ranking in the newspaper, which the public could use to choose a product.

    An Australian sunscreen manufacturer then asked the federal health department to regulate the industry. The company wanted standard definitions to market their products, backed up by consistent lab testing methods.

    In 1986, after years of consultation with manufacturers, researchers and consumers, Australian Standard AS2604 gave a specified a testing method, based on the Queensland researchers’ work. We also had a way of expressing how well sunscreens worked – the sun protection factor or SPF.

    This is the ratio of how long it takes a fair-skinned person to burn using the product compared with how long it takes to burn without it. So a cream that protects the skin sufficiently so it takes 40 minutes to burn instead of 20 minutes has an SPF of 2.

    Manufacturers liked SPF because businesses that invested in clever chemistry could distinguish themselves in marketing. Consumers liked SPF because it was easy to understand – the higher the number, the better the protection.

    Australians, encouraged from 1981 by the Slip! Slop! Slap! nationwide skin cancer campaign, could now “slop” on a sunscreen knowing the degree of protection it offered.

    How about skin cancer?

    It wasn’t until 1999 that research proved that using sunscreen prevents skin cancer. Again, we have Queensland to thank, specifically the residents of Nambour. They took part in a trial for nearly five years, carried out by a research team led by Adele Green of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Using sunscreen daily over that time reduced rates of squamous cell carcinoma (a common form of skin cancer) by about 60%.

    Follow-up studies in 2011 and 2013 showed regular sunscreen use almost halved the rate of melanoma and slowed skin ageing. But there was no impact on rates of basal cell carcinoma, another common skin cancer.

    By then, researchers had shown sunscreen stopped sunburn, and stopping sunburn would prevent at least some types of skin cancer.

    What’s in sunscreen today?

    An effective sunscreen uses one or more active ingredients in a cream, lotion or gel. The active ingredient either works:

    • “chemically” by absorbing UV and converting it to heat. Examples include PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and benzyl salicylate, or

    • “physically” by blocking the UV, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

    Physical blockers at first had limited cosmetic appeal because they were opaque pastes. (Think cricketers with zinc smeared on their noses.)

    With microfine particle technology from the 90s, sunscreen manufacturers could then use a combination of chemical absorbers and physical blockers to achieve high degrees of sun protection in a cosmetically acceptable formulation.

    Where now?

    Australians have embraced sunscreen, but they still don’t apply enough or reapply often enough.

    Although some people are concerned sunscreen will block the skin’s ability to make vitamin D this is unlikely. That’s because even SPF50 sunscreen doesn’t filter out all UVB.

    There’s also concern about the active ingredients in sunscreen getting into the environment and whether their absorption by our bodies is a problem.

    Sunscreens have evolved from something that at best offered mild protection to effective, easy-to-use products that stave off the harmful effects of UV. They’ve evolved from something only people with fair skin used to a product for anyone.

    Remember, slopping on sunscreen is just one part of sun protection. Don’t forget to also slip (protective clothing), slap (hat), seek (shade) and slide (sunglasses).The Conversation

    Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National 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:

  • Junk Food Turns Public Villain as Power Shifts in Washington

    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.

    The new Trump administration could be coming for your snacks.

    For years, the federal government has steered clear of regulating junk food, fast food, and ultra-processed food.

    Now attitudes are changing. Some members of President-elect Donald Trump’s inner circle are gearing up to battle “Big Food,” or the companies that make most of the food and beverages consumed in the United States. Nominees for top health agencies are taking aim at ultra-processed foods that account for an estimated 70% of the nation’s food supply. Based on recent statements, a variety of potential politically charged policy options to regulate ultra-processed food may land on the Trump team menu, including warning labels, changes to agribusiness subsidies, and limits on which products consumers can buy with government food aid.

    The push to reform the American diet is being driven largely by conservatives who have taken up the cause that has long been a darling of the left. Trump supporters such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose controversial nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services still faces Senate confirmation, are embracing a concept that champions natural foods and alternative medicine. It’s a movement they’ve dubbed “MAHA,” or Make America Healthy Again. Their interest has created momentum because their goals have fairly broad bipartisan support even amid a bitterly divided Congress in which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle focused on the issue last year.

    It’s likely to be a pitched battle because the food industry wields immense political influence and has successfully thwarted previous efforts to regulate its products or marketing. The category of “food processing and sales companies,” which includes Tyson Foods and Nestle SA, tallied $26.7 million in spending on lobbying in 2024, according to OpenSecrets. That’s up from almost $10 million in 1998.

    “They have been absolutely instrumental and highly, highly successful at delaying any regulatory effectiveness in America,” said Laura Schmidt, a health policy professor at the University of California-San Francisco. “It really does feel like there needs to be a moment of reckoning here where people start asking the question, ‘Why do we have to live like this?’”

    Ultra-processed food” is a widely used term that means different things to different people and is used to describe items ranging from sodas to many frozen meals. These products often contain added fats, starches, and sugars, among other things. Researchers say consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked — in varying levels of intensity — to chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer, mental health problems, and early death.

    Nutrition and health leaders are optimistic that a reckoning is already underway. Kennedy has pledged to remove processed foods from school lunches, restrict certain food additives such as dyes in cereal, and shift federal agricultural subsidies away from commodity crops widely used in ultra-processed foods.

    The intensifying focus in Washington has triggered a new level of interest on the legal front as lawyers explore cases to take on major foodmakers for selling products they say result in chronic disease.

    Bryce Martinez, now 18, filed a lawsuit in December against almost a dozen foodmakers such as Kraft Heinz, The Coca-Cola Co., and Nestle USA. He developed diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by age 16, and is seeking to hold them accountable for his illnesses. According to the suit, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the companies knew or should have known ultra-processed foods were harmful and addictive.

    The lawsuit noted that Martinez grew up eating heavily advertised, brand-name foods that are staples of the American diet — sugary soft drinks, Cheerios and Lucky Charms, Skittles and Snickers, frozen and packaged dinners, just to name a few.

    Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Kraft Heinz didn’t return emails seeking comment for this article. The Consumer Brands Association, a trade association for makers of consumer packaged goods, disputed the allegations.

    “Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,” said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy, in a statement.

    Other law firms are on the hunt for children or adults who believe they were harmed by consuming ultra-processed foods, increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.

    One Indiana personal injury firm says on its website that “we are actively investigating ultra processed food (UPF) cases.” Trial attorneys in Texas also are looking into possible legal action against the federal regulators they say have failed to police ultra-processed foods.

    “If you or your child have suffered health problems that your doctor has linked directly to the consumption of ultra-processed foods, we want to hear your story,” they say on their website.

    Meanwhile, the FDA on Jan. 14 announced it is proposing to require a front-of-package label to appear on most packaged foods to make information about a food’s saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content easily visible to consumers.

    And on Capitol Hill, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are sounding the alarm over ultra-processed food. Sanders introduced legislation in 2024 that could lead to a federal ban on junk food advertising to children, a national education campaign, and labels on ultra-processed foods that say the products aren’t recommended for children. Booker cosigned the legislation along with Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

    The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a December hearing examining links between ultra-processed food and chronic disease during which FDA Commissioner Robert Califf called for more funding for research.

    Food companies have tapped into “the same neural circuits that are involved in opioid addiction,” Califf said at the hearing.

    Sanders, who presided over the hearing, said there’s “growing evidence” that “these foods are deliberately designed to be addictive,” and he asserted that ultra-processed foods have driven epidemics of diabetes and obesity, and hundreds of billions of dollars in medical expenses.

    Research on food and addiction “has accumulated to the point where it’s reached a critical mass,” said Kelly Brownell, an emeritus professor at Stanford who is one of the editors of a scholarly handbook on the subject.

    Attacks from three sides — lawyers, Congress, and the incoming Trump administration, all seemingly interested in taking up the fight — could lead to enough pressure to challenge Big Food and possibly spur better health outcomes in the U.S., which has the lowest life expectancy among high-income countries.

    “Maybe getting rid of highly processed foods in some things could actually flip the switch pretty quickly in changing the percentage of the American public that are obese,” said Robert Redfield, a virologist who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the previous Trump administration, in remarks at a December event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

    Claims that Big Food knowingly manufactured and sold addictive and harmful products resemble the claims leveled against Big Tobacco before the landmark $206 billion settlement was reached in 1998.

    “These companies allegedly use the tobacco industry’s playbook to target children, especially Black and Hispanic children, with integrated marketing tie-ins with cartoons, toys, and games, along with social media advertising,” Rene Rocha, one of the lawyers at Morgan & Morgan representing Martinez, told KFF Health News.

    The 148-page Martinez lawsuit against foodmakers draws from documents made public in litigation against tobacco companies that owned some of the biggest brands in the food industry.

    Similar allegations were made against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers before they agreed to pay tens of billions of dollars in a 2021 settlement with states.

    The FDA ultimately put restrictions on the labeling and marketing of tobacco, and the opioid epidemic led to legislation that increased access to lifesaving medications to treat addiction.

    But the Trump administration’s zeal in taking on Big Food may face unique challenges.

    The ability of the FDA to impose regulation is hampered in part by funding. While the agency’s drug division collects industry user fees, its division of food relies on a more limited budget determined by Congress.

    Change can take time because the agency moves at what some critics call a glacial pace. Last year, the FDA revoked a regulation allowing brominated vegetable oil in food products. The agency determined in 1970 that the additive was not generally recognized as safe.

    Efforts to curtail the marketing of ultra-processed food could spur lawsuits alleging that any restrictions violate commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. And Kennedy — if he is confirmed as HHS secretary — may struggle to get support from a Republican-led Congress that champions less federal regulation and a president-elect who during his previous term served fast food in the White House.

    “The question is, will RFK be able to make a difference?” said David L. Katz, a doctor who founded True Health Initiative, a nonprofit group that combats public health misinformation. “No prior administration has done much in this space, and RFK is linked to a particularly anti-regulatory administration.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. population is recognized as among the most obese in the world and has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions among high-income countries.

    “There is a big grassroots effort out there because of how sick we are,” said Jerold Mande, who served as deputy undersecretary for food safety at the Department of Agriculture from 2009 to 2011. “A big part of it is people shouldn’t be this sick this young in their lives. You’re lucky if you get to 18 without a chronic disease. It’s remarkable.”

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health 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:

  • Get On It! – by Jane Aronovitch, Miriane Taylor, & Colleen Craig

    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.

    Balance is important; without it, we die early. That’s quite a strong selling point for improving one’s balance, but why this book in particular?

    This is—with one drawback—the best book of balance ball exercises we’ve seen. Notwithstanding the cover photo, many exercises do, by the way, involve standing on it with one or both feet, doing various kinds of squats, lunges, get-ups, and so forth. The ball (it’s not really a ball so much as an oblate hemisphere) can also be flipped and used the other way around, with a flat platform that will now wobble per your weight distribution, and train balance in different ways (dome-up trains large stabilizing muscles more; platform-up trains smaller stabilizing muscles more).

    Indeed, that’s where the brand name Bosu, often stylized “BOSU”, comes from: both sides up!

    So, what’s the drawback? Alas, the photos are black and white, which means in some cases they’re not as clear as they could be. Nothing that will prevent understanding the exercises, which are well-explained in any case, but it does mean that sometimes it’s necessary to look closely to see which leg is in front of the other for a given exercise, for example.

    Still, with 80 different exercises it really does cover the whole body, and even gives workout program varieties for those who want that, including targeted to particular areas, e.g. lower body, core, upper body, or complete.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to improve your balance (and have, or are willing to acquire, a balance ball like the Bosu), then this book will give you everything else you need in that regard.

    Click here to check out Get On It!, and get on it!

    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: