
Robert F. Kennedy Jr says vitamin A protects you from deadly measles. Here’s what the study he cites actually says
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.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.
Kennedy mentioned updated advice from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to treat measles with vitamin A. He also cited a study he said shows vitamin A can reduce the risk of dying from measles.
Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.
Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?
Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.
Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.
Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.
The Texan health department has confirmed 150-plus cases of measles and one death of an unvaccinated child during the current outbreak. While this is by far the largest measles outbreak in the US in 2025, the CDC has reported smaller outbreaks in several other states so far this year.
Why vitamin A?
Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.
Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.
Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.
Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.
One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.
The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.
Vitamin A toxicity can cause birth defects and increase the risk of fractures in elderly people. Vitamin A and beta-carotene (which the body turns into vitamin A) from supplements may also increase your risk of cancer, especially if you smoke.
How about the study Kennedy cites?
Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.
They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.
The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.
To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:
Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.
It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.
We know what works – vaccines
The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.
The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.
But these facts were missing from Kennedy’s statement. Should we be surprised? Kennedy is well known for his vaccine sceptism and for undermining vaccination efforts, including for the measles vaccine.
As Sue Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Washington Post:
relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.
Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia
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!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Walnuts vs Pecans – 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 walnuts to pecans, we picked the walnuts.
Why?
It was very close, though, and an argument could be made for pecans! Walnuts are nevertheless always a very good bet, and so far in our This-or-That comparisons, the only nut to beat them so far as been almonds, and that was very close too.
In terms of macros, walnuts have a lot more protein, while pecans have a little more fiber (for approximately the same carbs). Both are equally fatty (near enough; technically pecans have a little more) but where the walnuts stand out in the fat category is that while pecans have mostly healthy monounsaturated fats, walnuts have mostly healthy polyunsaturated fats, including including a good balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. So, while we do love the extra fiber from pecans, we’re calling it for walnuts in the macros category, on account of the extra protein and the best lipids profile (not that pecans’ lipids profile is bad by any stretch; just, walnuts have it better).
In the vitamins category, walnuts have more of vitamins B2, B6, B9, and C, while pecans offer more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B5, E, K, and choline. The margins aren’t huge and walnuts are also excellent for all the vitamins that pecans narrowly beat them on, but still, the vitamins category is a win for pecans.
When it comes to minerals, walnuts take back the crown; walnuts offer more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while pecans have a little more manganese and zinc. Once again, the margins aren’t huge and pecans are also excellent for all the minerals that walnuts narrowly beat them on, but still, the minerals category is a win for walnuts.
In short: enjoy both of these nuts for their healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, protein, and fiber, but if you’re going to pick one, walnuts come out on top.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Should I get a weighted vest to boost my fitness? And how heavy should it be?
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.
Exercise training while wearing a weighted vest is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance. Social media posts and trainers are promoting them as a potential strategy for improving fitness and health.
Exercising with additional weight attached to the body is nothing new. This idea has been used with soldiers for many centuries if not millennia – think long hikes with a heavy pack.
The modern weighted vest comes in a range of designs that are more comfortable and can be adjusted in terms of the weight added. But could one be helpful for you?
ZR10/Shutterstock What the research says
One of the earliest research studies, reported in 1993, followed 36 older people wearing weighted vests during a weekly exercise class and at home over a 20-week period. Wear was associated with improvements in bone health, pain and physical function.
Since then, dozens of papers have evaluated the exercise effects of wearing a weighted vest, reporting a range of benefits.
Not surprisingly, exercise with a weighted vest increases physiological stress – or how hard the body has to work – as shown by increased oxygen uptake, heart rate, carbohydrate utilisation and energy expenditure.
Adding weight equal to 10% of body weight is effective. But it doesn’t appear the body works significantly harder when wearing 5% extra weight compared to body weight alone.
Does more load mean greater injury risk?
A small 2021 study suggested additional weights don’t alter the biomechanics of walking or running. These are important considerations for lower-limb injury risk.
The safety considerations of exercising with weighted vests have also been reported in a biomechanical study of treadmill running with added weight of 1% to 10% of body weight.
While physiological demand (indicated by heart rate) was higher with additional weight and the muscular forces greater, running motion was not negatively affected.
To date no research studies have reported increased injuries due to wearing weighted vests for recreational exercise. However a 2018 clinical study on weight loss in people with obesity found back pain in 25% of those wearing such vests. Whether this can be translated to recreational use in people who don’t have obesity is difficult to say. As always, if pain or discomfort is experienced then you should reduce the weight or stop vest training.
Better for weight loss or bone health?
While wearing a weighted vest increases the energy expenditure of aerobic and resistance exercise, research to show it leads to greater fat loss or retaining muscle mass is somewhat inconclusive.
One older study investigated treadmill walking for 30 minutes, three times a week in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The researchers found greater fat loss and muscle gain in the participants who wore a weighted vest (at 4–8% body weight). But subsequent research in obese older adults could not show greater fat loss in participants who wore weighted vests for an average of 6.7 hours per day.
There has been considerable interest in the use of weighted vests to improve bone health in older people. One 2003 study reported significant improvements in bone density in a group of older women over 32 weeks of weighted vest walking and strength training compared to a sedentary control group.
But a 2012 study found no difference in bone metabolism between groups of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis walking on a treadmill with or without a weighted vest.
Making progress
As with any exercise, there is a risk of injury if it is not done correctly. But the risk of weighted vest training appears low and can be managed with appropriate exercise progression and technique.
If you are new to training, then the priority should be to simply start exercising and not complicate it with wearing a weighted vest. The use of body weight alone will be sufficient to get you on the path to considerable gains in fitness.
Once you have a good foundation of strength, aerobic fitness and resilience for muscles, joints and bones, using a weighted vest could provide greater loading intensity as well as variation.
It is important to start with a lighter weight (such as 5% bodyweight) and build to no more than 10% body weight for ground impact exercises such as running, jogging or walking.
For resistance training such as squats, push-ups or chin-ups, progression can be achieved by increasing loads and adjusting the number of repetitions for each set to around 10 to 15. So, heavier loads but fewer repetitions, then building up to increase the load over time.
While weighted vests can be used for resistance training, it is probably easier and more convenient to use barbells, dumbbells, kettle bells or weighted bags.
The benefits of added weight can also be achieved by adding repetition or duration. Geert Pieters/Unsplash The bottom line
Weighted vest training is just one tool in an absolute plethora of equipment, techniques and systems. Yes, walking or jogging with around 10% extra body weight increases energy expenditure and intensity. But training for a little bit longer or at a higher intensity can achieve similar results.
There may be benefits for bone health in wearing a weighted vest during ground-based exercise such as walking or jogging. But similar or greater stimulus to bone growth can be achieved by resistance training or even the introduction of impact training such as hopping, skipping or bounding.
Exercising with a weighted vest likely won’t increase your injury risk. But it must be approached intelligently considering fitness level, existing and previous injuries, and appropriate progression for intensity and repetition.
Rob Newton, Professor of Exercise Medicine, Edith Cowan University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Can Medical Schools Funnel More Doctors Into the Primary Care Pipeline?
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.
Throughout her childhood, Julia Lo Cascio dreamed of becoming a pediatrician. So, when applying to medical school, she was thrilled to discover a new, small school founded specifically to train primary care doctors: NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine.
Now in her final year at the Mineola, New York, school, Lo Cascio remains committed to primary care pediatrics. But many young doctors choose otherwise as they leave medical school for their residencies. In 2024, 252 of the nation’s 3,139 pediatric residency slots went unfilled and family medicine programs faced 636 vacant residencies out of 5,231 as students chased higher-paying specialties.
Lo Cascio, 24, said her three-year accelerated program nurtured her goal of becoming a pediatrician. Could other medical schools do more to promote primary care? The question could not be more urgent. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 20,200 to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036. This means many Americans will lose out on the benefits of primary care, which research shows improves health, leading to fewer hospital visits and less chronic illness.
Many medical students start out expressing interest in primary care. Then they end up at schools based in academic medical centers, where students become enthralled by complex cases in hospitals, while witnessing little primary care.
The driving force is often money, said Andrew Bazemore, a physician and a senior vice president at the American Board of Family Medicine. “Subspecialties tend to generate a lot of wealth, not only for the individual specialists, but for the whole system in the hospital,” he said.
A department’s cache of federal and pharmaceutical-company grants often determines its size and prestige, he said. And at least 12 medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, don’t even have full-fledged family medicine departments. Students at these schools can study internal medicine, but many of those graduates end up choosing subspecialties like gastroenterology or cardiology.
One potential solution: eliminate tuition, in the hope that debt-free students will base their career choice on passion rather than paycheck. In 2024, two elite medical schools — the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine — announced that charitable donations are enabling them to waive tuition, joining a handful of other tuition-free schools.
But the contrast between the school Lo Cascio attends and the institution that founded it starkly illustrates the limitations of this approach. Neither charges tuition.
In 2024, two-thirds of students graduating from her Long Island school chose residencies in primary care. Lo Cascio said the tuition waiver wasn’t a deciding factor in choosing pediatrics, among the lowest-paid specialties, with an average annual income of $260,000, according to Medscape.
At the sister school, the Manhattan-based NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the majority of its 2024 graduates chose specialties like orthopedics (averaging $558,000 a year) or dermatology ($479,000).
Primary care typically gets little respect. Professors and peers alike admonish students: If you’re so smart, why would you choose primary care? Anand Chukka, 27, said he has heard that refrain regularly throughout his years as a student at Harvard Medical School. Even his parents, both PhD scientists, wondered if he was wasting his education by pursuing primary care.
Seemingly minor issues can influence students’ decisions, Chukka said. He recalls envying the students on hospital rotations who routinely were served lunch, while those in primary care settings had to fetch their own.
Despite such headwinds, Chukka, now in his final year, remains enthusiastic about primary care. He has long wanted to care for poor and other underserved people, and a one-year clerkship at a community practice serving low-income patients reinforced that plan.
When students look to the future, especially if they haven’t had such exposure, primary care can seem grim, burdened with time-consuming administrative tasks, such as seeking prior authorizations from insurers and grappling with electronic medical records.
While specialists may also face bureaucracy, primary care practices have it much worse: They have more patients and less money to hire help amid burgeoning paperwork requirements, said Caroline Richardson, chair of family medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School.
“It’s not the medical schools that are the problem; it’s the job,” Richardson said. “The job is too toxic.”
Kevin Grumbach, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, spent decades trying to boost the share of students choosing primary care, only to conclude: “There’s really very little that we can do in medical school to change people’s career trajectories.”
Instead, he said, the U.S. health care system must address the low pay and lack of support.
And yet, some schools find a way to produce significant proportions of primary care doctors — through recruitment and programs that provide positive experiences and mentors.
U.S. News & World Report recently ranked 168 medical schools by the percentage of graduates who were practicing primary care six to eight years after graduation.
The top 10 schools are all osteopathic medical schools, with 41% to 47% of their students still practicing primary care. Unlike allopathic medical schools, which award MD degrees, osteopathic schools, which award DO degrees, have a history of focusing on primary care and are graduating a growing share of the nation’s primary care physicians.
At the bottom of the U.S. News list is Yale, with 10.7% of its graduates finding lasting careers in primary care. Other elite schools have similar rates: Johns Hopkins, 13.1%; Harvard, 13.7%.
In contrast, public universities that have made it a mission to promote primary care have much higher numbers.
The University of Washington — No. 18 in the ranking, with 36.9% of graduates working in primary care — has a decades-old program placing students in remote parts of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. UW recruits students from those areas, and many go back to practice there, with more than 20% of graduates settling in rural communities, according to Joshua Jauregui, assistant dean for clinical curriculum.
Likewise, the University of California-Davis (No. 22, with 36.3% of graduates in primary care) increased the percentage of students choosing family medicine from 12% in 2009 to 18% in 2023, even as it ranks high in specialty training. Programs such as an accelerated three-year primary care “pathway,” which enrolls primarily first-generation college students, help sustain interest in non-specialty medical fields.
The effort starts with recruitment, looking beyond test scores to the life experiences that forge the compassionate, humanistic doctors most needed in primary care, said Mark Henderson, associate dean for admissions and outreach. Most of the students have families who struggle to get primary care, he said. “So they care a lot about it, and it’s not just an intellectual, abstract sense.”
Establishing schools dedicated to primary care, like the one on Long Island, is not a solution in the eyes of some advocates, who consider primary care the backbone of medicine and not a separate discipline. Toyese Oyeyemi Jr., executive director of the Social Mission Alliance at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity, worries that establishing such schools might let others “off the hook.”
Still, attending a medical school created to produce primary care doctors worked out well for Lo Cascio. Although she underwent the usual specialty rotations, her passion for pediatrics never flagged — owing to her 23 classmates, two mentors, and her first-year clerkship shadowing a community pediatrician. Now, she’s applying for pediatric residencies.
Lo Cascio also has deep personal reasons: Throughout her experience with a congenital heart condition, her pediatrician was a “guiding light.”
“No matter what else has happened in school, in life, in the world, and medically, your pediatrician is the person that you can come back to,” she said. “What a beautiful opportunity it would be to be that for someone else.”
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.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Procrastination Cure – by Jeffery Combs
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.
Why do we procrastinate? It’s not usually because we are lazy, and in fact we can often make ourselves very busy while procrastinating. And at some point, the bad feelings about procrastinating become worse than the experience of actually doing the thing. And still we often procrastinate. So, why?
Jeffery Combs notes that the reasons can vary, but generally fall into six mostly-distinct categories. He calls them:
- The neurotic perfectionist
- The big deal chaser
- The chronic worrier
- The rebellious rebel
- The drama addict
- The angry giver
These may overlap somewhat, but the differences are important when it comes to differences of tackling them.
Giving many illustrative examples, Combs gives the reader all we’ll need to know which category (or categories!) we fall into.
Then, he draws heavily on the work of Dr. Albert Ellis to find ways to change the feelings that we have that are holding us back.
Those feelings might be fear, shame, resentment, overwhelm, or something else entirely, but the tools are in this book.
A particular strength of this book is that it takes an approach that’s essentially Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) repackaged for a less clinically-inclined audience (Combs’ own background is in marketing, not pyschology). Thus, for many readers, this will tend to make the ideas more relatable, and the implementations more accessible.
Bottom line: if you’ve been meaning to figure out how to beat your procrastination, but have been putting it off, now’s the time to do it.
Click here to check out The Procrastination Cure sooner rather than later!
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:
-
How To Regrow Receding Gums
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.
One of the problems with the human form is that our teeth evolved to last us for the whole of our life, with plenty of room to spare before our eventual death at the ripe old age of about 35 on average. Dr. Ellie Phillips advises those of us who might be a bit older than that, on how we can avoid becoming “too long in the tooth”—in other words, how to keep our gums, and thus our teeth, in place and healthy.
Getting to the root of the problem
The single biggest cause of gum recession is an acidic environment in the mouth, which harms teeth and gums alike. This acidic environment is produced not merely by consuming acid foods or drinks, but also (and much more often, and more problematically) by sugary foods and drinks, which are not necessarily themselves acidic, but they feed bacteria that release acids as a by-product of their metabolism. If we consume an acidic food or drink, it’s there for a moment, but if we then salivate and/or take a drink of water, it’s pretty much gone in a few seconds. But those bacteria when we feed them sugar? They are there to stay unless we do something more about them than just drink some water.
Other contributing factors to gum recession include teeth grinding, and (ironically) certain oral care products, especially many artificial teeth whiteners.
In case you were wondering: no, brushing will not* generally cause or even worsen gum recession, but flossing can exacerbate it if it’s already underway.
*unless, of course, you are using one of the whiteners we mentioned above
What to do about it: Dr. Phillips recommends:
- use a moderately firm toothbrush to massage gums and promote blood flow
- avoid acidic oral products and homemade remedies even if they’re not acidic but can be caustic, such as baking soda
- rebuild your gums’ and teeth’s protective biofilm (yes, there are “good bacteria” that are supposed to be there) with proper brushing
- avoid cleanings that are more intensive than brushing—skip flossing until your gums have recovered, too
- adjust your diet to avoid acids and (especially) sugars
10almonds note: she also recommends the use of xylitol to promote a healthy oral environment; we don’t recommend that, as while it may be great for the teeth, studies have found it to be bad for the heart.
For more on all of her advices and a bit more of the science of it, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
- Flossing Without Flossing?
- Less Common Oral Hygiene Options ← including the miswak “chewing stick”, which even outperformed toothbrushes in clinical trials, by biochemically altering the composition of the saliva while gently cleaning like a toothbrush.
- Fluoride Toothpaste vs Non-Fluoride Toothpaste – Which is Healthier?
- Non-Alcohol Mouthwash vs Alcohol Mouthwash – Which is Healthier?
- Xylitol vs Erythritol – Which is Healthier?
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:
-
Breathe; Don’t Vent (At Least In The Moment)
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.
Zen And The Art Of Breaking Things
We’ve talked before about identifying emotions and the importance of being able to express them:
Answering The Most Difficult Question: How Are You?
However, there can be a difference between “expressing how we feel” and “being possessed by how we feel and bulldozing everything in our path”
…which is, of course, primarily a problem in the case of anger—and by extension, emotions that are often contemporaneous with anger, such as jealousy, shame, fear, etc.
How much feeling is too much?
While this is in large part a subjective matter, clinically speaking the key question is generally: is it adversely affecting daily life to the point of being a problem?
For example, if you have to spend half an hour every day actively managing a certain emotion, that’s probably indicative of something unusual, but “unusual” is not inherently bad. If you’re managing it safely and in a way that doesn’t negatively affect the rest of your life, then that is generally considered fine, unless you feel otherwise about it.
A good example of this is complicated grief and/or prolonged grief.
But what about when it comes to anger? How much is ok?
When it comes to those around you, any amount of anger can seem like too much. Anger often makes us short-tempered even with people who are not the object of our anger, and it rarely brings out the best in us.
We can express our feelings in non-aggressive ways, for example:
and
Seriously Useful Communication Skills!
Sometimes, there’s another way though…
Breathe; don’t vent
That’s a great headline, but we can’t take the credit for it, because it came from:
Breathe, don’t vent: turning down the heat is key to managing anger
…in which it was found that, by all available metrics, the popular wisdom of “getting it off your chest” doesn’t necessarily stand up to scrutiny, at least in the short term:
❝The work was inspired in part by the rising popularity of rage rooms that promote smashing things (such as glass, plates and electronics) to work through angry feelings.
I wanted to debunk the whole theory of expressing anger as a way of coping with it,” she said. “We wanted to show that reducing arousal, and actually the physiological aspect of it, is really important.❞
And indeed, he and his team did find that various arousal-increasing activities (such as hitting a punchbag, breaking things, doing vigorous exercise) did not help as much as arousal-decreasing activities, such as mindfulness-based relaxation techniques.
If you’d like to read the full paper, then so would we, but we couldn’t get full access to this one yet. However, the abstract includes representative statistics, so that’s worth a once-over:
Caveat!
Did you notice the small gap between their results and their conclusion?
In a lab or similar short-term observational setting, their recommendation is clearly correct.
However, if the source of your anger is something chronic and persistent, it could well be that calming down without addressing the actual cause is just “kicking the can down the road”, and will still have to actually be dealt with eventually.
So, while “here be science”, it’s not a mandate for necessarily suffering in silence. It’s more about being mindful about how we go about tackling our anger.
As for a primer on mindfulness, feel free to check out:
No-Frills, Evidence-Based Mindfulness
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: