A Statin-Free Life – by Dr. Aseem Malhotra

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.

Here at 10almonds, we’ve written before about the complexities of statins, and their different levels of risk/benefit for men and women, respectively. It’s a fascinating topic, and merits more than an article of the size we write here!

So, in the spirit of giving pointers of where to find a lot more information, this book is a fine choice.

Dr. Malhotra, a consultant cardiologist and professor of evidence-based medicine, talks genes and lifestyle, drugs and blood. He takes us on a tour of the very many risk factors for heart disease, and how cholesterol levels may be at best an indicator, but less likely a cause, of heart disease, especially for women. Further and even better, he discusses various more reliable indicators and potential causes, too.

Rather than be all doom and gloom, he does offer guidance on how to reduce each of one’s personal risk factors and—which is important—keep on top of the various relevant measures of heart health (including some less commonly tested ones, like the coronary calcium score).

The style is light reading andyet with a lot of reference to hard science, so it’s really the best of both worlds in that regard.

Bottom line: if you’re considering statins, or are on statins and are reconsidering that choice, then this book will (notwithstanding its own bias in its conclusion) help you make a more-informed decision.

Click here to check out A Statin-Free Life, and make the best choice for you!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Healthy Heart, Healthy Brain – by Dr. Bradley Bale & Dr. Amy Doneen
  • An Elegant Defense – by Matt Richtel
    Immerse yourself in the fascinating world of immunology with Pulitzer-winning journalist Matt Richtel’s “Elegant Defense.” No COVID, but plenty of insight into the battle within our bodies.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Is Cutting Calories The Key To Healthy Long Life?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Caloric Restriction with Optimal Nutrition

    Yesterday, we asked you “What is your opinion of caloric restriction as a health practice?” and got the above-depicted, below-described spread of responses:

    • 48% said “It is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier”
    • 23% said “It may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully”
    • 17% said “It’s a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy”
    • 12% said “Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates”

    So… What does the science say?

    A note on terms, first

    “Caloric restriction” (henceforth: CR), as a term, sees scientific use to mean anything from a 25% reduction to a 50% reduction, compared to metabolic base rate.

    This can also be expressed the other way around, “dropping to 60% of the metabolic base rate” (i.e., a 40% reduction).

    Here we don’t have the space to go into much depth, so our policy will be: if research papers consider it CR, then so will we.

    A quick spoiler, first

    The above statements about CR are all to at least some degree True in one way or another.

    However, there are very important distinctions, so let’s press on…

    CR is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier: True or False?

    True! This has been well-studied and well-documented. There’s more science for this than we could possibly list here, but here’s a good starting point:

    ❝Calorie restriction (CR), a nutritional intervention of reduced energy intake but with adequate nutrition, has been shown to extend healthspan and lifespan in rodent and primate models.

    Accumulating data from observational and randomized clinical trials indicate that CR in humans results in some of the same metabolic and molecular adaptations that have been shown to improve health and retard the accumulation of molecular damage in animal models of longevity.

    In particular, moderate CR in humans ameliorates multiple metabolic and hormonal factors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality❞

    Source: Ageing Research Reviews | Calorie restriction in humans: an update

    See also: Caloric restriction in humans reveals immunometabolic regulators of health span

    We could devote a whole article (or a whole book, really) to this, but the super-short version is that it lowers the metabolic “tax” on the body and allows the body to function better for longer.

    CR may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully: True or False?

    True or False, contingently, depending on what’s important to you. And that depends on psychology as much as physiology, but it’s worth noting that there is often a selection bias in the research papers; people ill-suited to CR drop out of the studies and are not counted in the final data.

    Also, relevant for a lot of our readers, most (human-based) studies recruit people over 18 and under 60. So while it is reasonable to assume the same benefits will be carried over that age, there is not nearly as much data for it.

    Studies into CR and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) have been promising, and/but have caveats:

    ❝In non-obese adults, CR had some positive effects and no negative effects on HRQoL.❞

    Source: Effect of Calorie Restriction on Mood, Quality of Life, Sleep, and Sexual Function in Healthy Non-obese Adults

    ❝We do not know what degree of CR is needed to achieve improvements in HRQoL, but we do know it requires an extraordinary amount of support.

    Therefore, the incentive to offer this intervention to a low-risk, normal or overweight individual is lacking and likely not sustainable in practice.❞

    Source: Caloric restriction improves health-related quality of life in healthy normal weight and overweight individuals

    CR a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy: True or False?

    True if it is undertaken improperly, and/or without sufficient support. Many people will try CR and forget that the idea is to reduce metabolic load while still getting good nutrition, and focus solely on the calorie-counting.

    So for example, if a person “saves” their calories for the day to have a night out in a bar where they drink their calories as alcohol, then this is going to be abysmal for their health.

    That’s an extreme example, but lesser versions are seen a lot. If you save your calories for a pizza instead of a night of alcoholic drinks, then it’s not quite so woeful, but for example the nutrition-to-calorie ratio of pizza is typically not great. Multiply that by doing it as often as not, and yes, someone’s health is going to be in ruins quite soon.

    Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates: True or False?

    True if by “good health” you mean weight loss—which is rarely, if ever, what we mean by “good health” here at 10almonds (unless we clarify such), but it’s a very common association and indeed, for some people it’s a health goal. You cannot sustainably and healthily lose weight by CR alone, especially if you’re not getting optimal nutrition.

    Your body will notice that you are starving, and try to save you by storing as much fat as it can, amongst other measures that will similarly backfire (cortisol running high, energy running low, etc).

    For short term weight loss though, yes, it’ll work. At a cost. That we don’t recommend.

    ❝By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.❞

    Source: Reducing Calorie Intake May Not Help You Lose Body Weight

    See also…

    ❝Caloric restriction is a commonly recommended weight-loss method, yet it may result in short-term weight loss and subsequent weight regain, known as “weight cycling”, which has recently been shown to be associated with both poor sleep and worse cardiovascular health❞

    Source: Dieting Behavior Characterized by Caloric Restriction

    In summary…

    Caloric restriction is a well-studied area of health science. We know:

    • Practised well, it can extend not only lifespan, but also healthspan
    • Practised well, it can improve mood, energy, sexual function, and the other things people fear losing
    • Practised badly, it can be ruinous to the health—it is critical to practise caloric restriction with optimal nutrition.
    • Practised badly, it can lead to unhealthy weight loss and weight regain

    One final note…

    If you’ve tried CR and hated it, and you practised it well (e.g., with optimal nutrition), then we recommend just not doing it.

    You could also try intermittent fasting instead, for similar potential benefits. If that doesn’t work out either, then don’t do that either!

    Sometimes, we’re just weird. It can often be because of a genetic or epigenetic quirk. There are usually workarounds, and/but not everything that’s right for most people will be right for all of us.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Exercise, therapy and diet can all improve life during cancer treatment and boost survival. Here’s how

    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.

    With so many high-profile people diagnosed with cancer we are confronted with the stark reality the disease can strike any of us at any time. There are also reports certain cancers are increasing among younger people in their 30s and 40s.

    On the positive side, medical treatments for cancer are advancing very rapidly. Survival rates are improving greatly and some cancers are now being managed more as long-term chronic diseases rather than illnesses that will rapidly claim a patient’s life.

    The mainstays of cancer treatment remain surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy and hormone therapy. But there are other treatments and strategies – “adjunct” or supportive cancer care – that can have a powerful impact on a patient’s quality of life, survival and experience during cancer treatment.

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Keep moving if you can

    Physical exercise is now recognised as a medicine. It can be tailored to the patient and their health issues to stimulate the body and build an internal environment where cancer is less likely to flourish. It does this in a number of ways.

    Exercise provides a strong stimulus to our immune system, increasing the number of cancer-fighting immune cells in our blood circulation and infusing these into the tumour tissue to identify and kill cancer cells.

    Our skeletal muscles (those attached to bone for movement) release signalling molecules called myokines. The larger the muscle mass, the more myokines are released – even when a person is at rest. However, during and immediately after bouts of exercise, a further surge of myokines is secreted into the bloodstream. Myokines attach to immune cells, stimulating them to be better “hunter-killers”. Myokines also signal directly to cancer cells slowing their growth and causing cell death.

    Exercise can also greatly reduce the side effects of cancer treatment such as fatigue, muscle and bone loss, and fat gain. And it reduces the risk of developing other chronic diseases such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Exercise can maintain or improve quality of life and mental health for patients with cancer.

    Emerging research evidence indicates exercise might increase the effectiveness of mainstream treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Exercise is certainly essential for preparing the patient for any surgery to increase cardio-respiratory fitness, reduce systemic inflammation, and increase muscle mass, strength and physical function, and then rehabilitating them after surgery.

    These mechanisms explain why cancer patients who are physically active have much better survival outcomes with the relative risk of death from cancer reduced by as much as 40–50%.

    Mental health helps

    The second “tool” which has a major role in cancer management is psycho-oncology. It involves the psychological, social, behavioural and emotional aspects of cancer for not only the patient but also their carers and family. The aim is to maintain or improve quality of life and mental health aspects such as emotional distress, anxiety, depression, sexual health, coping strategies, personal identity and relationships.

    Supporting quality of life and happiness is important on their own, but these barometers can also impact a patient’s physical health, response to exercise medicine, resilience to disease and to treatments.

    If a patient is highly distressed or anxious, their body can enter a flight or fight response. This creates an internal environment that is actually supportive of cancer progression through hormonal and inflammatory mechanisms. So it’s essential their mental health is supported.

    several people are lying on recliners with IV drips in arms to receive medicine.
    Chemotherapy can be stressful on the body and emotional reserves. Shutterstock

    Putting the good things in: diet

    A third therapy in the supportive cancer care toolbox is diet. A healthy diet can support the body to fight cancer and help it tolerate and recover from medical or surgical treatments.

    Inflammation provides a more fertile environment for cancer cells. If a patient is overweight with excessive fat tissue then a diet to reduce fat which is also anti-inflammatory can be very helpful. This generally means avoiding processed foods and eating predominantly fresh food, locally sourced and mostly plant based.

    two people sit in gym and eat high protein lunch
    Some cancer treatments cause muscle loss. Avoiding processed foods may help. Shutterstock

    Muscle loss is a side effect of all cancer treatments. Resistance training exercise can help but people may need protein supplements or diet changes to make sure they get enough protein to build muscle. Older age and cancer treatments may reduce both the intake of protein and compromise absorption so supplementation may be indicated.

    Depending on the cancer and treatment, some patients may require highly specialised diet therapy. Some cancers such as pancreatic, stomach, esophageal, and lung cancer can cause rapid and uncontrolled drops in body weight. This is called cachexia and needs careful management.

    Other cancers and treatments such as hormone therapy can cause rapid weight gain. This also needs careful monitoring and guidance so that, when a patient is clear of cancer, they are not left with higher risks of other health problems such as cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome (a cluster of conditions that boost your risk of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes).

    Working as a team

    These are three of the most powerful tools in the supportive care toolbox for people with cancer. None of them are “cures” for cancer, alone or together. But they can work in tandem with medical treatments to greatly improve outcomes for patients.

    If you or someone you care about has cancer, national and state cancer councils and cancer-specific organisations can provide support.

    For exercise medicine support it is best to consult with an accredited exercise physiologist, for diet therapy an accredited practising dietitian and mental health support with a registered psychologist. Some of these services are supported through Medicare on referral from a general practitioner.

    For free and confidential cancer support call the Cancer Council on 13 11 20.

    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

  • Lose Weight (Healthily!)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What Do You Have To Lose?

    For something that’s a very commonly sought-after thing, we’ve not yet done a main feature specifically about how to lose weight, so we’re going to do that today, and make it part of a three-part series about changing one’s weight:

    1. Losing weight (specifically, losing fat)
    2. Gaining weight (specifically, gaining muscle)
    3. Gaining weight (specifically, gaining fat)

    And yes, that last one is something that some people want/need to do (healthily!), and want/need help with that.

    There will be, however, no need for a “losing muscle” article, because (even though sometimes a person might have some reason to want to do this), it’s really just a case of “those things we said for gaining muscle? Don’t do those and the muscle will atrophy naturally”.

    One reason we’ve not covered this before is because the association between weight loss and good health is not nearly so strong as the weight loss industry would have you believe:

    Shedding Some Obesity Myths

    And, while BMI is not a useful measure of health in general, it’s worth noting that over the age of 65, a BMI of 27 (which is in the high end of “overweight”, without being obese) is associated with the lowest all-cause mortality:

    BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults: a meta-analysis

    Important: the above does mean that for very many of our readers, weight loss would not actually be healthy.

    Today’s article is intended as a guide only for those who are sure that weight loss is the correct path forward. If in doubt, please talk to your doctor.

    With that in mind…

    Start in the kitchen

    You will not be able to exercise well if your body is malnourished.

    Counterintuitively, malnourishment and obesity often go hand-in-hand, partly for this reason.

    Important: it’s not the calories in your food; it’s the food in your calories

    See also: Mythbusting Calories

    The kind of diet that most readily produces unhealthy overweight, the diet that nutritional scientists often call the “Standard American Diet”, or “SAD” for short, is high on calories but low on nutrients.

    So you will want to flip this, and focus on enjoying nutrient-dense whole foods.

    The Mediterranean Diet is the current “gold standard” in this regard, so for your interest we offer:

    Four Ways To Upgrade The Mediterranean Diet

    And since you may be wondering:

    Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?

    The dining room is the next most important place

    Many people do not appreciate food enough for good health. The trick here is, having prepared a nice meal, to actually take the time to enjoy it.

    It can be tempting when hungry (or just plain busy) to want to wolf down dinner in 47 seconds, but that is the metabolic equivalent of “oh no, our campfire needs more fuel, let’s spray it with a gallon of gasoline”.

    To counter this, here’s the very good advice of Dr. Rupy Aujla, “The Kitchen Doctor”:

    Interoception & Mindful Eating

    The bedroom is important too

    You snooze, you lose… Visceral belly fat, anyway! We’ve talked before about how waist circumference is a better indicator of metabolic health than BMI, and in our article about trimming that down, we covered how good sleep is critical for one’s waistline:

    Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It

    Exercise, yes! But in one important way.

    There are various types of exercise that are good for various kinds of health, but there’s only one type of exercise that is good for boosting one’s metabolism.

    Whereas most kinds of exercise will raise one’s metabolism while exercising, and then lower it afterwards (to below its previous metabolic base rate!) to compensate, high-intensity interval training (HIIT) will raise your metabolism while training, and for two hours afterwards:

    High-Intensity Interval Training and Isocaloric Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training Result in Similar Improvements in Body Composition and Fitness in Obese Individuals

    …which means that unlike most kinds of exercise, HIIT actually works for fat loss:

    The acute effect of exercise modality and nutrition manipulations on post-exercise resting energy expenditure and respiratory exchange ratio in women: a randomized trial

    So if you’d like to take up HIIT, here’s how:

    How (And Why) To Do HIIT (Without Wrecking Your Body)

    Want more?

    Check out our previous article about specifically how to…

    Burn! How To Boost Your Metabolism

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Healthy Heart, Healthy Brain – by Dr. Bradley Bale & Dr. Amy Doneen
  • The Diabetes Drugs That Can Cut Asthma Attacks By 70%

    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.

    Asthma, obesity, and type 2 diabetes are closely linked, with the latter two greatly increasing asthma attack risk.

    While bronchodilators / corticosteroids can have immediate adverse effects due to sympathetic nervous system activation, and lasting adverse effects due to the damage it does to metabolic health, diabetes drugs, on the other hand, can improve things with (for most people) fewer unwanted side effects.

    Great! Which drugs?

    Metformin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

    Specifically, researchers have found:

    • Metformin is associated with a 30% reduction in asthma attacks
    • GLP-1RAs are associated with a 40% reduction in asthma attacks

    …and yes, they stack, making for a 70% reduction in the case of people taking both. Furthermore, the results are independent of weight, glycemic control, or asthma phenotype.

    In terms of what was counted, the primary outcome was asthma attacks at 12-month follow-up, defined by oral corticosteroid use, emergency visits, hospitalizations, or death.

    The effect of metformin on asthma attacks was not affected by BMI, HbA1c levels, eosinophil count, asthma severity, or sex.

    Of the various extra antidiabetic drugs trialled in this study, only GLP-1 receptor agonists showed a further and sustained reduction in asthma attacks.

    Here’s the study itself, hot off the press, published on Monday:

    JAMA Int. Med. | Antidiabetic Medication and Asthma Attacks

    “But what if I’m not diabetic?”

    Good news:

    More than half of all US adults are eligible for semaglutide therapy ← this is because they’ve expanded the things that semaglutide (the widely-used GLP-1 receptor agonist drug) can be prescribed for, now going beyond just diabetes and/or weight loss 😎

    And metformin, of course, is more readily available than semaglutide, so by all means speak with your doctor/pharmacist about that, if it’s of interest to you.

    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:

  • Is fluoride really linked to lower IQ, as a recent study suggested? Here’s why you shouldn’t worry

    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.

    Fluoride is a common natural element found in water, soil, rocks and food. For the past several decades, fluoride has also been a cornerstone of dentistry and public health, owing to its ability to protect against tooth decay.

    Water fluoridation is a population-based program where a precise, small amount of fluoride is added to public drinking water systems. Water fluoridation began in Australia in the 1950s. Today more than 90% of Australia’s population has access to fluoridated tap water.

    But a recently published review found higher fluoride exposure is linked to lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children. So how can we interpret the results?

    Much of the data analysed in this review is poor quality. Overall, the findings don’t give us reason to be concerned about the fluoride levels in our water supplies.

    TinnaPong/Shutterstock

    Not a new controversy

    Tooth decay (also known as caries or cavities) can have negative effects on dental health, overall health and quality of life. Fluoride strengthens our teeth, making them more resistant to decay. There is scientific consensus water fluoridation is a safe, effective and equitable way to improve oral health.

    Nonetheless, water fluoridation has historically been somewhat controversial.

    A potential link between fluoride and IQ (and cognitive function more broadly) has been a contentious topic for more than a decade. This started with reports from studies in China and India.

    But it’s important to note these studies were limited by poor methodology, and water in these countries had high levels of natural fluoride when the studies were conducted – many times higher than the levels recommended for water fluoridation programs. Also, the studies did not control for other contaminants in the water supply.

    Recent reviews focusing on the level of fluoride used in water fluoridation have concluded fluoride is not linked to lower IQ.

    Despite this, some have continued to raise concerns. The United States National Toxicology Program conducted a review of the potential link. However, this review did not pass the quality assessment by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine due to significant limitations in the conduct of the review.

    The authors followed through with their study and published it as an independent publication in the journal JAMA Paediatrics last week. This is the study which has been generating media attention in recent days.

    What the study did

    This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis, where the researchers evaluated 74 studies from different parts of the world.

    A total of 52 studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, and 64 were cross-sectional studies, which often can’t provide evidence of causal relationship.

    Most of the studies were conducted in developing countries, such as China (45), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4) and Pakistan (2). Only a few studies were conducted in developed countries with established public water systems, where regular monitoring and treatment of drinking water ensures it’s free from contaminants.

    The vast majority of studies were conducted in populations with high to very high levels of natural fluoride and without water fluoridation programs, where fluoride levels are controlled within recommended levels.

    The study concluded there was an inverse association between fluoride levels and IQ in children. This means those children who had a higher intake of fluoride had lower IQ scores than their counterparts.

    A small boy at the dentist.
    Water fluoridation programs reduce the occurrence of cavities. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Limitations to consider

    While this review combined many studies, there are several limitations that cast serious doubt over its conclusion. Scientists immediately raised concerns about the quality of the review, including in a linked editorial published in JAMA.

    The low quality of the majority of included studies is a major concern, rendering the quality of the review equally low. Importantly, most studies were not relevant to the recommended levels of fluoride in water fluoridation programs.

    Several included studies from countries with controlled public water systems (Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan) showed no negative effects. Other recent studies from comparable populations (such as Spain and Denmark) also have not shown any negative effect of fluoride on IQ, but they were not included in the meta-analysis.

    For context, the review found there was no significant association with IQ when fluoride was measured at less than 1.5mg per litre in water. In Australia, the recommended levels of fluoride in public water supplies range from 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.

    Also, the primary outcome, IQ score, is difficult to collect. Most included studies varied widely on the methods used to collect IQ data and did not specify their focus on ensuring reliable and consistent IQ data. Though this is a challenge in most research on this topic, the significant variations between studies in this review raise further doubts about the combined results.

    No cause for alarm

    Although no Australian studies were included in the review, Australia has its own studies investigating a potential link between fluoride exposure in early childhood and child development.

    I’ve been involved in population-based longitudinal studies investigating a link between fluoride and child behavioural development and executive functioning and between fluoride and IQ. The IQ data in the second study were collected by qualified, trained psychologists – and calibrated against a senior psychologist – to ensure quality and consistency. Both studies have provided strong evidence fluoride exposure in Australia does not negatively impact child development.

    This new review is not a reason to be concerned about fluoride levels in Australia and other developed countries with water fluoridation programs. Fluoride remains important in maintaining the public’s dental health, particularly that of more vulnerable groups.

    That said, high and uncontrolled levels of fluoride in water supplies in less developed countries warrant attention. There are programs underway in a range of countries to reduce natural fluoride to the recommended level.

    Loc Do, Professor of Dental Public Health, The University of Queensland

    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:

  • Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?

    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.

    Going Against The Grain?

    In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinion of grains (aside from any gluten-specific concerns), and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 69% said “They are an important cornerstone of a healthy balanced diet”
    • About 22% said “They can be enjoyed in moderation, but watch out”
    • About 8% said “They are terrible health-drainers that will kill us”

    So, what does the science say?

    They are terrible health-drainers that will kill us: True or False?

    True or False depending on the manner of their consumption!

    There is a big difference between the average pizza base and a bowl of oats, for instance. Or rather, there are a lot of differences, but what’s most critical here?

    The key is: refined and ultraprocessed grains are so inferior to whole grains as to be actively negative for health in most cases for most people most of the time.

    But! It’s not because processing is ontologically evil (in reality: some processed foods are healthy, and some unprocessed foods are poisonous). although it is a very good general rule of thumb.

    So, we need to understand the “why” behind the “key” that we just gave above, and that’s mostly about the resultant glycemic index and associated metrics (glycemic load, insulin index, etc).

    In the case of refined and ultraprocessed grains, our body gains sugar faster than it can process it, and stores it wherever and however it can, like someone who has just realised that they will be entertaining a houseguest in 10 minutes and must tidy up super-rapidly by hiding things wherever they’ll fit.

    And when the body tries to do this with sugar from refined grains, the result is very bad for multiple organs (most notably the liver, but the pancreas takes quite a hit too) which in turn causes damage elsewhere in the body, not to mention that we now have urgently-produced fat stored in unfortunate places like our liver and abdominal cavity when it should have gone to subcutaneous fat stores instead.

    In contrast, whole grains come with fiber that slows down the absorption of the sugars, such that the body can deal with them in an ideal fashion, which usually means:

    • using them immediately, or
    • storing them as muscle glycogen, or
    • storing them as subcutaneous fat

    👆 that’s an oversimplification, but we only have so much room here.

    For more on this, see:

    Glycemic Index vs Glycemic Load vs Insulin Index

    And for why this matters, see:

    Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    And for fixing it, see:

    How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver

    They can be enjoyed in moderation, but watch out: True or False?

    Technically True but functionally False:

    • Technically true: “in moderation” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. One person’s “moderation” may be another person’s “abstemiousness” or “gluttony”.
    • Functionally false: while of course extreme consumption of pretty much anything is going to be bad, unless you are Cereals Georg eating 10,000 cereals each day and being a statistical outlier, the issue is not the quantity so much as the quality.

    Quality, we discussed above—and that is, as we say, paramount. As for quantity however, you might want to know a baseline for “getting enough”, so…

    They are an important cornerstone of a healthy balanced diet: True or False?

    True! This one’s quite straightforward.

    3 servings (each being 90g, or about ½ cup) of whole grains per day is associated with a 22% reduction in risk of heart disease, 5% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a lot of benefits across a lot of disease risks:

    ❝This meta-analysis provides further evidence that whole grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and total cancer, and mortality from all causes, respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, diabetes, and all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes.

    These findings support dietary guidelines that recommend increased intake of whole grain to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and premature mortality.❞

    ~ Dr. Dagfinn Aune et al.

    Read in full: Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

    We’d like to give a lot more sources for the same findings, as well as papers for all the individual claims, but frankly, there are so many that there isn’t room. Suffice it to say, this is neither controversial nor uncertain; these benefits are well-established.

    Here’s a very informative pop-science article, that also covers some of the things we discussed earlier (it shows what happens during refinement of grains) before getting on to recommendations and more citations for claims than we can fit here:

    Harvard School Of Public Health | Whole Grains

    “That’s all great, but what if I am concerned about gluten?”

    There certainly are reasons you might be, be it because of a sensitivity, allergy, or just because perhaps you’d like to know more.

    Let’s first mention: not all grains contain gluten, so it’s perfectly possible to enjoy naturally gluten-free grains (such as oats and rice) as well as gluten-free pseudocereals, which are not actually grains but do the same job in culinary and nutritional terms (such as quinoa and buckwheat, despite the latter’s name).

    Finally, if you’d like to know more about gluten’s health considerations, then check out our previous mythbusting special:

    Gluten: What’s The Truth?

    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: