A drug that can extend your life by 25%? Don’t hold your breath
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.
Every few weeks or months, the media reports on a new study that tantalisingly dangles the possibility of a new drug to give us longer, healthier lives.
The latest study centres around a drug involved in targeting interleukin-11, a protein involved in inflammation. Blocking this protein appeared to help mice stave off disease and extend their life by more than 20%.
If only defying the ravages of time could be achieved through such a simple and effort-free way – by taking a pill. But as is so often the case, the real-world significance of these findings falls a fair way short of the hype.
The role of inflammation in disease and ageing
Chronic inflammation in the body plays a role in causing disease and accelerating ageing. In fact, a relatively new label has been coined to represent this: “inflammaging”.
While acute inflammation is an important response to infection or injury, if inflammation persists in the body, it can be very damaging.
A number of lifestyle, environmental and societal drivers contribute to chronic inflammation in the modern world. These are largely the factors we already know are associated with disease and ageing, including poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity, stress, lack of sleep, lack of social connection and pollution.
While addressing these issues directly is one of the keys to addressing chronic inflammation, disease and ageing, there are a number of research groups also exploring how to treat chronic inflammation with pharmaceuticals. Their goal is to target and modify the molecular and chemical pathways involved in the inflammatory process itself.
What the latest research shows
This new interleukin-11 research was conducted in mice and involved a number of separate components.
In one component of this research, interleukin-11 was genetically knocked out in mice. This means the gene for this chemical mediator was removed from these mice, resulting in the mice no longer being able to produce this mediator at all.
In this part of the study, the mice’s lives were extended by over 20%, on average.
Another component of this research involved treating older mice with a drug that blocks interleukin-11.
Injecting this drug into 75-week old mice (equivalent to 55-year-old humans) was found to extend the life of mice by 22-25%.
These treated mice were less likely to get cancer and had lower cholesterol levels, lower body weight and improved muscle strength and metabolism.
From these combined results, the authors concluded, quite reasonably, that blocking interleukin-11 may potentially be a key to mitigating age-related health effects and improving lifespan in both mice and humans.
Why you shouldn’t be getting excited just yet
There are several reasons to be cautious of these findings.
First and most importantly, this was a study in mice. It may be stating the obvious, but mice are very different to humans. As such, this finding in a mouse model is a long way down the evidence hierarchy in terms of its weight.
Research shows only about 5% of promising findings in animals carry over to humans. Put another way, approximately 95% of promising findings in animals may not be translated to specific therapies for humans.
Second, this is only one study. Ideally, we would be looking to have these findings confirmed by other researchers before even considering moving on to the next stage in the knowledge discovery process and examining whether these findings may be true for humans.
We generally require a larger body of evidence before we get too excited about any new research findings and even consider the possibility of human trials.
Third, even if everything remains positive and follow-up studies support the findings of this current study, it can take decades for a new finding like this to be translated to successful therapies in humans.
Until then, we can focus on doing the things we already know make a huge difference to health and longevity: eating well, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, reducing stress and nurturing social relationships.
Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin 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:
Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”
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.
More Than A “No”
A lot of people struggle with boundary-setting, and it’s not always the way you might think.
The person who “can’t say no” to people probably comes to mind, but the problem is more far-reaching than that, and it’s rooted in not being clear over what a boundary actually is.
For example: “Don’t bring him here again!”
Pretty clear, right?
And while it is indeed clear, it’s not a boundary; it’s a command. Which may or may not be obeyed, and at the end of the day, what right have we to command people in general?
Same goes for less dramatic things like “Don’t talk to me about xyz”, which can still be important or trivial, depending on whether the topic of xyz is deeply traumatizing for you, or mildly annoying, or something else entirely.
Why this becomes a problem
It becomes a problem not because of any lack of clarity about your wishes, but rather, because it opens the floor for a debate. The listener may be given to wonder whether your right to not experience xyz is greater or lesser than their right to do/say/etc xyz.
“My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins”
…does not help here, firstly because both sides will believe themself (or nobody) to be the injured party; for the fist-swinger, the other person’s nose made a vicious assault on their freedom. Or secondly, maybe there was some higher principle at stake; a reason why violence was justified. And then ten levels of philosophical debate. We see this a lot when it comes to freedom of expression, and vigorous debate over whether this entails freedom from social consequences of one’s words/actions.
How a good boundary-setting works (if this, then that)
Consider two signs:
- No trespassing!
- Trespassers will be shot!
Superficially, the second just seems like a more violent rendition of the first. But in fact, the second is more informationally useful: it explains what will happen if the boundary is not respected, and allows the reader to make their own informed decision with regard to what to do with that information.
We can employ this method (and can even do so gently, if we so wish and hopefully we mostly do wish to be gentle) when it comes to social and interpersonal boundary-setting:
- If you bring him here again, I will refuse you entrance
- If you bring up that topic again, I will ask you to leave
- If you do that, I will never speak to you again
- If you don’t stop drinking, I will divorce you
This “if-this-then-that” model does the very first thing that any good boundary does: make itself clear.
It doesn’t rely on moral arguments; it doesn’t invite debate. For example in that last case, it doesn’t argue that the partner doesn’t have the right to drink—it simply expresses what the speaker will exercise their own right to do, in that eventuality.
(as an aside, the situation that occurs when one is enmeshed with someone who is dependent on a substance is a complex topic, and if you’re interested in that, check out: Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think)
Back on track: boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that.
We can also, in particularly personal boundary-setting (such as with sexual boundaries’ oft-claimed “gray areas”), fix an improperly-set boundary that forgot to do the above, e.g:
“How about [proposition]?”
“No thank you” ← casually worded answer; contextually reasonable, and yet not a clear boundary per what we discussed above
“Come on, I think you’d like it”
“I said no. No means no. Ask me again and I will [consequences that are appropriate and actionable]”What’s “appropriate and actionable” may vary a lot from one situation to another, but it’s important that it’s something you can do and are prepared to do and will do if the condition for doing it is met.
Anything less than that is not a boundary—it’s just a request.
Note: this does not require that we have power, by the way. If we have zero power in a situation, well, that definitely sucks, but even then we can still express what is actionable, e.g. “I will never trust you again”.
“Price of entry”
You may have wondered, upon reading “boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that”, can’t that be used to control and manipulate people, essentially coercing them to do or not do things with the threat of consequences (specifically: bad ones)?
And the answer is: yes, yes it can.
But that’s where the flipside comes into play—the other person gets to set their boundaries, too.
For all of us, if we have any boundaries at all, there is a “price of entry” and all who want to be in our lives, or be close to us, have to decide for themselves whether that price of entry is worth it.
- If a person says “do not talk about topic xyz to me or I will leave”, that is a price of entry for being close to them.
- If you are passionate about talking about topic xyz to the point that you are unwilling to shelve it when in their presence, then that is the price of entry for being close to you.
- If one or more of you is not willing to pay the price of entry, then guess what, you’re just not going to be close.
In cases of forced proximity (e.g. workplaces or families) this is likely to get resolved by the workplace’s own rules (i.e. the price of entry that you agreed to when signing a contract to work there), and if something like that doesn’t exist (such as in families), well, that forced proximity is going to reach a breaking point, and somebody may discover it wasn’t enforceable after all.
See also: Family Estrangement: More Common Than Most People Think
…which also details how to fix it, where possible.
Take care!
Share This Post
Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!
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.
YouTube Channel Wellness Check is challenging us all to do the following things. They’re framing it as a 30-day challenge, but honestly, there’s nothing here that isn’t worth doing for life
Here’s the list:
- Stop smoking (of course, smoking is bad for everything, but the lungs are one of its main areas of destruction)
- Good posture (a scrunched up chest is not the lungs’ best operating conditions!)
- Regular exercise (exercising your body in different ways exercises your lungs in different ways!)
- Monitor air quality (some environments are much better/worse than others, but don’t underestimate household air quality threats either)
- Avoid respiratory infections (shockingly, COVID is not great for your lungs, nor are the various other respiratory infections available)
- Check your O2 saturation levels (pulse oximeters like this one are very cheap to buy and easy to use)
- Prevent mucus and phlegm from accumulating (these things are there for reasons; the top reason is trapping pathogens, allergens, and general pollutants/dust etc; once those things are trapped, we don’t want that mucus there any more!)
Check out the video itself for more detail on each of these items:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to know more?
You might like our article about COPD:
Why Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Is More Likely Than You Think
Take care!
Share This Post
Skin Care Down There (Incl. Butt Acne, Hyperpigmentation, & 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.
Dr. Sam Ellis, dermatologist, gives us the low-down:
Where the sun don’t shine
Common complaints and remedies that Dr. Ellis covers in this video include:
- Butt acne/folliculitis: most butt breakouts are actually folliculitis, not traditional acne. Folliculitis is caused by friction, sitting for long periods, or wearing tight clothes. Solutions include antimicrobial washes like benzoyl peroxide and changing sitting habits (i.e. to sit less)
- Keratosis pilaris: rough bumps around hair follicles can appear on the butt, often confused with acne.
- Boils and abscesses: painful, large lumps; these need medical attention for drainage.
- Hidradenitis suppurativa: recurrent painful cysts and boils in skin creases, often in the groin and buttocks. These require medical intervention and treatment.
- Ingrown hairs: are common in people who shave or wax. Treat with warm compresses and gentle exfoliants.
- Hyperpigmentation: is often caused by hormonal changes, friction, or other irritation. Laser hair removal and gentle chemical exfoliants can help.
In the event that the sun does, in fact, shine on your genitals (for example you sunbathe nude and have little or no pubic hair), then sun protection is essential to prevent further darkening (and also, incidentally, reduce the risk of cancer).
For more on all of this, plus a general introduction to skincare in the bikini zone (i.e. if everything’s fine there right now and you’d like to keep it that way), enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
The Evidence-Based Skincare That Beats Product-Specific Hype
Take care!
Share This Post
How To Engage Your Whole Brain
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 Stroke Of Insight That Nobody Wants
This is Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. She’s a neuroanatomist, who, at the age of 37 (when she was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School), had what she refers to as her “stroke of insight”.
That is to say, she had a massive stroke, and after a major brain surgery to remove a clot the size of a golf ball, she spent the next 8 years re-learning to do everything.
Whereas previously she’d been busy mapping the brain to determine how cells communicate with each other, now she was busy mapping whether socks or shoes should go on first. Needless to say, she got an insight into neuroplasticity that few people would hope for.
What does she want us to know?
Dr. Taylor (now once again a successful scientist, lecturer, and author) advocates for “whole brain living”, which involves not taking parts of our brain for granted.
About those parts…
Dr. Taylor wants us to pay attention to all the parts regardless of size, ranging from the two hemispheres, all the way down to the billions of brain cells, and yet even further, to the “trillions of molecular geniuses”—because each brain cell is itself reliant on countless molecules of the many neurochemicals that make up our brain.
For a quick refresher on some of the key players in that latter category, see our Neurotransmitter Cheatsheet 😎
When it comes to the hemispheres, there has historically been a popular belief that these re divided into:
- The right brain: emotional, imaginative, creative, fluid feeling
- The left brain: intellectual, analytical, calculating, crystal thinking
…which is not true, anatomically speaking, because there are cells on both sides doing their part of both of these broad categories of brain processes.
However, Dr. Taylor found, while one hemisphere of her brain was much more damaged than the other, that nevertheless she could recover some functions more quickly than others, which, once she was able to resume her career, inspired her model of four distinct ways of cogitating that can be switched-between and played with or against each other:
Meet The Four Characters Inside Your Brain
Why this matters
As she was re-learning everything, the way forward was not quick or easy, and she also didn’t know where she was going, because for obvious reasons, she couldn’t remember, much less plan.
Looking backwards after her eventual full recovery, she noted a lot of things that she needed during that recovery, some of which she got and some of which she didn’t.
Most notably for her, she needed the right kind of support that would allow all four of the above “characters” as she puts it, to thrive and grow. And, when we say “grow” here we mean that literally, because of growing new brain cells to replace the lost ones (as well as the simple ongoing process of slowly replacing brain cells).
For more on growing new brain cells, by the way, see:
How To Grow New Brain Cells (At Any Age)
In order to achieve this in all of the required brain areas (i.e., and all of the required brain functions), she also wants us to know… drumroll please…
When to STFU
Specifically, the ability to silence parts of our brain that while useful in general, aren’t necessarily being useful right now. Since it’s very difficult to actively achieve a negative when it comes to brain-stuff (don’t think of an elephant), this means scheduling time for other parts of our brain to be louder. And that includes:
- scheduling time to feel (emotionally)
- scheduling time to feel (gut feelings)
- scheduling time to feel (kinesthetically)
…amongst others.
Note: those three are presented in that order, from least basic to most basic. And why? Because, clever beings that we are, we typically start from a position that’s not remotely basic, such as “overthinking”, for example. So, there’s a wind-down through thinking just the right amount, thinking through simpler concepts, feeling, noticing one’s feelings, noticing noticing one’s feelings, all the way down to what, kinesthetically, are we actually physically feeling.
❝It is interesting to note that although our limbic system fucntions throughout our lifetime, it does not mature. As a result, when our emotional “buttons” are pushed, we retain the ability to react to incoming stimulation as though we were a two-year-old, even when we are adults.❞
~ Dr. Jill Taylor
Of course, sometimes the above is not useful, which is why the ability to switch between brain modes is a very important and useful skill to develop.
And how do we do that? By practising. Which is something that it’s necessary to take up consciously, and pursue consistently. When children are at school, there are (hopefully, ideally) curricula set out to ensure they engage and train all parts of their brain. As adults, this does not tend to get the same amount of focus.
“Children’s brains are still developing”—indeed, and so are adult brains:
The Brain As A Work-In-Progress
Dr. Taylor had the uncommon experience of having to, in many ways, neurologically speaking, redo childhood. And having had a second run at it, she developed an appreciation of the process that most of us didn’t necessarily get when doing childhood just the once.
In other words: take the time to feel stuff; take the time to quiet down your chatty mind, take the time engage your senses, and take it seriously! Really notice, as though for the first time, what the texture of your carpet is like. Really notice, as though for the first time, what it feels like to swallow some water. Really notice, as though for the first time, what it feels like to experience joy—or sadness, or comfort, or anger, or peace. Exercise your imagination. Make some art (it doesn’t have to win awards; it just has to light up your brain!). Make music (again, it’s about wiring your brain in your body, not about outdoing Mozart in composition and/or performance). Make changes! Make your brain work in the ways it’s not in the habit of doing.
If you need a little help switching off parts of your brain that are being too active, so that you can better exercise other parts of your brain that might otherwise have been neglected, you might want to try:
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:
A new emergency procedure for cardiac arrests aims to save more lives – here’s how it works
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.
As of January this year, Aotearoa New Zealand became just the second country (after Canada) to adopt a groundbreaking new procedure for patients experiencing cardiac arrest.
Known as “double sequential external defibrillation” (DSED), it will change initial emergency response strategies and potentially improve survival rates for some patients.
Surviving cardiac arrest hinges crucially on effective resuscitation. When the heart is working normally, electrical pulses travel through its muscular walls creating regular, co-ordinated contractions.
But if normal electrical rhythms are disrupted, heartbeats can become unco-ordinated and ineffective, or cease entirely, leading to cardiac arrest.
Defibrillation is a cornerstone resuscitation method. It gives the heart a powerful electric shock to terminate the abnormal electrical activity. This allows the heart to re-establish its regular rhythm.
Its success hinges on the underlying dysfunctional heart rhythm and the proper positioning of the defibrillation pads that deliver the shock. The new procedure will provide a second option when standard positioning is not effective.
Using two defibrillators
During standard defibrillation, one pad is placed on the right side of the chest just below the collarbone. A second pad is placed below the left armpit. Shocks are given every two minutes.
Early defibrillation can dramatically improve the likelihood of surviving a cardiac arrest. However, around 20% of patients whose cardiac arrest is caused by “ventricular fibrillation” or “pulseless ventricular tachycardia” do not respond to the standard defibrillation approach. Both conditions are characterised by abnormal activity in the heart ventricles.
DSED is a novel method that provides rapid sequential shocks to the heart using two defibrillators. The pads are attached in two different locations: one on the front and side of the chest, the other on the front and back.
A single operator activates the defibrillators in sequence, with one hand moving from the first to the second. According to a recent randomised trial in Canada, this approach could more than double the chances of survival for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard shocks.
The second shock is thought to improve the chances of eliminating persistent abnormal electrical activity. It delivers more total energy to the heart, travelling along a different pathway closer to the heart’s left ventricle.
Evidence of success
New Zealand ambulance data from 2020 to 2023 identified about 1,390 people who could potentially benefit from novel defibrillation methods. This group has a current survival rate of only 14%.
Recognising the potential for DSED to dramatically improve survival for these patients, the National Ambulance Sector Clinical Working Group updated the clinical procedures and guidelines for emergency medical services personnel.
The guidelines now specify that if ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia persist after two shocks with standard defibrillation, the DSED method should be administered. Two defibrillators need to be available, and staff must be trained in the new approach.
Though the existing evidence for DSED is compelling, until recently it was based on theory and a small number of potentially biased observational studies. The Canadian trial was the first to directly compare DSED to standard treatment.
From a total of 261 patients, 30.4% treated with this strategy survived, compared to 13.3% when standard resuscitation protocols were followed.
The design of the trial minimised the risk of other factors confounding results. It provides confidence that survival improvements were due to the defibrillation approach and not regional differences in resources and training.
The study also corroborates and builds on existing theoretical and clinical scientific evidence. As the trial was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the researchers could recruit fewer than half of the numbers planned for the study.
Despite these and other limitations, the international group of experts that advises on best practice for resuscitation updated its recommendations in 2023 in response to the trial results. It suggested (with caution) that emergency medical services consider DSED for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard treatment.
Training and implementation
Although the evidence is still emerging, implementation of DSED by emergency services in New Zealand has implications beyond the care of patients nationally. It is also a key step in advancing knowledge about optimal resuscitation strategies globally.
There are always concerns when translating an intervention from a controlled research environment to the relative disorder of the real world. But the balance of evidence was carefully considered before making the decision to change procedures for a group of patients who have a low likelihood of survival with current treatment.
Before using DSED, emergency medical personnel undergo mandatory education, simulation and training. Implementation is closely monitored to determine its impact.
Hospitals and emergency departments have been informed of the protocol changes and been given opportunities to ask questions and give feedback. As part of the implementation, the St John ambulance service will perform case reviews in addition to wider monitoring to ensure patient safety is prioritised.
Ultimately, those involved are optimistic this change to cardiac arrest management in New Zealand will have a positive impact on survival for affected patients.
Vinuli Withanarachchie, PhD candidate, College of Health, Massey University; Bridget Dicker, Associate Professor of Paramedicine, Auckland University of Technology, and Sarah Maessen, Research Associate, Auckland University of Technology
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:
The Diabetes Code – by Dr. Jason Fung
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.
Cure this serious disease with diet!” is often a bold-claim that overreaches scientific rigor, but in this case, it’s well-established as scientifically valid.
Caveat up-front: the only known circumstance in which this won’t work is if you have comorbidities that prevent you from following the advice.
You may be wondering: is this just the Mediterranean diet again? The answer is that the Mediterreanean diet (or similar) is part of it. But there’s a lot more to this book than that.
Dr. Fung explains to us a lot of the physiology of type 2 diabetes; how insulin resistance occurs, how it becomes a vicious cycle that we get locked into, and how to escape it.
- We learn about the role of fructose, and why fruit is very healthful whereas high-fructose corn syrup and similars are very much not.
- We learn about the role of the liver in glycogen metabolism, and how to un-fatty a fatty liver. Good news: the liver has famously strong self-regenerative abilities, if we give it a break to allow it to do so!
- We learn why portion control doesn’t work, and why intermittent fasting does (here be science).
Dr. Fung’s very readable explanations are free from needless jargon while not dumbing down. The writing style is clear and direct: “this happens this way”, “do this, not that”, etc.
Bottom line: if you have type 2 diabetes and would like to not have that (or if you are pre-diabetic and would like to avoid diabetes) this is a book for you. If you are in great metabolic health and would like to stay that way as you get older, then this is a book for you too.
Click here to check out The Diabetes Code, and get/keep your metabolic health in order!
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:
