Aging Backwards – by Miranda Esmonde-White
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In this book, there’s an upside and a downside to the author’s professional background:
- Upside: Miranda Esmonde-White is a ballet-dancer-turned-physical-trainer, and it shows
- Downside: Miranda Esmonde-White is not a scientist, and it shows
She cites a lot of science, but she either does not understand it or else intentionally misrepresents it. We will assume the former. But as one example, she claims:
“for every minute you exercise, you lengthen your life by 7 minutes”
…which cheat code to immortality is absolutely not backed-up by the paper she cites for it. The paper, like most papers, was much more measured in its proclamations; “there was an association” and “with these conditions”, etc.
Nevertheless, while she misunderstands lots of science along the way, her actual advice is good and sound. Her workout programs really will help people to become younger by various (important, life-changing!) metrics of biological age, mostly pertaining to mobility.
And yes, this is a workout-based approach; we won’t read much about diet and other lifestyle factors here.
Bottom line: it has its flaws, but nevertheless delivers on its premise of helping the reader to become biologically younger through exercises, mostly mobility drills.
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:
-
Broccoli vs Cauliflower – 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 broccoli to cauliflower, we picked the broccoli.
Why?
This one is quite straightforward. Superficially, they’re very similar:
Both are great cruciferous vegetables with many health benefits to offer. Even for those keen to avoid oxalates, which cruciferous vegetables in general can be high in, these ones are quite low.
However, if you have IBS, you might want to avoid both, for their raffinose content that may cause problems for you.
For pretty much everyone else, unless you have a special reason why it’s not the case for you, both are a good source of abundant vitamins and minerals, and yet…
Anything cauliflower can do, broccoli can do better!
Broccoli contains more of the vitamins they both contain, and more of the minerals they both contain.
Broccoli also beats cauliflower on amino acids (except lysine), and contains a lot more lutein and zeaxanthin, carotenoids important for healthy eyes and brain.
So by all means enjoy both, but if you’re going to pick one, pick broccoli!
Want to know more?
Check out: Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Why are tall people more likely to get cancer? What we know, don’t know and suspect
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.
People who are taller are at greater risk of developing cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund reports there is strong evidence taller people have a higher chance of of developing cancer of the:
- pancreas
- large bowel
- uterus (endometrium)
- ovary
- prostate
- kidney
- skin (melanoma) and
- breast (pre- and post-menopausal).
But why? Here’s what we know, don’t know and suspect.
A well established pattern
The UK Million Women Study found that for 15 of the 17 cancers they investigated, the taller you are the more likely you are to have them.
It found that overall, each ten-centimetre increase in height increased the risk of developing a cancer by about 16%. A similar increase has been found in men.
Let’s put that in perspective. If about 45 in every 10,000 women of average height (about 165 centimetres) develop cancer each year, then about 52 in each 10,000 women who are 175 centimetres tall would get cancer. That’s only an extra seven cancers.
So, it’s actually a pretty small increase in risk.
Another study found 22 of 23 cancers occurred more commonly in taller than in shorter people.
Why?
The relationship between height and cancer risk occurs across ethnicities and income levels, as well as in studies that have looked at genes that predict height.
These results suggest there is a biological reason for the link between cancer and height.
While it is not completely clear why, there are a couple of strong theories.
The first is linked to the fact a taller person will have more cells. For example, a tall person probably has a longer large bowel with more cells and thus more entries in the large bowel cancer lottery than a shorter person.
Scientists think cancer develops through an accumulation of damage to genes that can occur in a cell when it divides to create new cells.
The more times a cell divides, the more likely it is that genetic damage will occur and be passed onto the new cells.
The more damage that accumulates, the more likely it is that a cancer will develop.
A person with more cells in their body will have more cell divisions and thus potentially more chance that a cancer will develop in one of them.
Some research supports the idea having more cells is the reason tall people develop cancer more and may explain to some extent why men are more likely to get cancer than women (because they are, on average, taller than women).
However, it’s not clear height is related to the size of all organs (for example, do taller women have bigger breasts or bigger ovaries?).
One study tried to assess this. It found that while organ mass explained the height-cancer relationship in eight of 15 cancers assessed, there were seven others where organ mass did not explain the relationship with height.
It is worth noting this study was quite limited by the amount of data they had on organ mass.
Another theory is that there is a common factor that makes people taller as well as increasing their cancer risk.
One possibility is a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). This hormone helps children grow and then continues to have an important role in driving cell growth and cell division in adults.
This is an important function. Our bodies need to produce new cells when old ones are damaged or get old. Think of all the skin cells that come off when you use a good body scrub. Those cells need to be replaced so our skin doesn’t wear out.
However, we can get too much of a good thing. Some studies have found people who have higher IGF-1 levels than average have a higher risk of developing breast or prostate cancer.
But again, this has not been a consistent finding for all cancer types.
It is likely that both explanations (more cells and more IGF-1) play a role.
But more research is needed to really understand why taller people get cancer and whether this information could be used to prevent or even treat cancers.
I’m tall. What should I do?
If you are more LeBron James than Lionel Messi when it comes to height, what can you do?
Firstly, remember height only increases cancer risk by a very small amount.
Secondly, there are many things all of us can do to reduce our cancer risk, and those things have a much, much greater effect on cancer risk than height.
We can take a look at our lifestyle. Try to:
- eat a healthy diet
- exercise regularly
- maintain a healthy weight
- be careful in the sun
- limit alcohol consumption.
And, most importantly, don’t smoke!
If we all did these things we could vastly reduce the amount of cancer.
You can also take part in cancer screening programs that help pick up cancers of the breast, cervix and bowel early so they can be treated successfully.
Finally, take heart! Research also tells us that being taller might just reduce your chance of having a heart attack or stroke.
Susan Jordan, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, The University of Queensland and Karen Tuesley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
A Guide to Rational Living – by Drs. Albert Ellis and Robert Harper
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.
We’ve talked before about the evidence-based benefits of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and this book is indeed about CBT. In fact, it’s in many ways the book that popularized Third Wave CBT—in other words, CBT in its modern form.
Dr. Ellis’s specific branch of CBT is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, (REBT). What this means is using rationality to rewire emotions so that we’re not constantly sabotaging ourselves and our lives.
This is very much a “for the masses” book and doesn’t assume any prior knowledge of psychology, therapy, or psychotherapy. Or, for that matter, philosophy, since Stoic philosopher Epictetus had a lot to say that influenced Dr. Ellis’s work, too!
This book has also been described as “a self-help book for people who don’t like self-help books”… and certainly that Stoicism we mentioned does give the work a very different feel than a lot of books on the market.
The authors kick off with an initial chapter “How far can you go with self-therapy?”, and the answer is: quite far, even if it’s not a panacea. Everything has its limitations, and this book is no exception. On the other hand…
What the book does offer is a whole stack of tools, resources, and “How to…” chapters. In fact, there are so many “How to…” items in this book that, while it can be read cover-to-cover, it can also be used simply as a dip-in reference guide to refer to in times of need.
Bottom line: this book is highly recommendable to anyone and everyone, and if you don’t have it on your bookshelf, you should.
Click here to check out “A Guide To Rational Living” on Amazon today!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Can kimchi really help you lose weight? Hold your pickle. The evidence isn’t looking great
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.
Fermented foods have become popular in recent years, partly due to their perceived health benefits.
For instance, there is some evidence eating or drinking fermented foods can improve blood glucose control in people with diabetes. They can lower blood lipid (fats) levels and blood pressure in people with diabetes or obesity. Fermented foods can also improve diarrhoea symptoms.
But can they help you lose weight, as a recent study suggests? Let’s look at the evidence.
Remind me, what are fermented foods?
Fermented foods are ones prepared when microbes (bacteria and/or yeast) ferment (or digest) food components to form new foods. Examples include yoghurt, cheese, kefir, kombucha, wine, beer, sauerkraut and kimchi.
As a result of fermentation, the food becomes acidic, extending its shelf life (food-spoilage microbes are less likely to grow under these conditions). This makes fermentation one of the earliest forms of food processing.
Fermentation also leads to new nutrients being made. Beneficial microbes (probiotics) digest nutrients and components in the food to produce new bioactive components (postbiotics). These postbiotics are thought to contribute to the health benefits of the fermented foods, alongside the health benefits of the bacteria themselves.
What does the evidence say?
A study published last week has provided some preliminary evidence eating kimchi – the popular Korean fermented food – is associated with a lower risk of obesity in some instances. But there were mixed results.
The South Korean study involved 115,726 men and women aged 40-69 who reported how much kimchi they’d eaten over the previous year. The study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, which specialises in researching the country’s national dish.
Eating one to three servings of any type of kimchi a day was associated with a lower risk of obesity in men.
Men who ate more than three serves a day of cabbage kimchi (baechu) were less likely to have obesity and abdominal obesity (excess fat deposits around their middle). And women who ate two to three serves a day of baechu were less likely to have obesity and abdominal obesity.
Eating more radish kimchi (kkakdugi) was associated with less abdominal obesity in both men and women.
However, people who ate five or more serves of any type of kimchi weighed more, had a larger waist sizes and were more likely to be obese.
The study had limitations. The authors acknowledged the questionnaire they used may make it difficult to say exactly how much kimchi people actually ate.
The study also relied on people to report past eating habits. This may make it hard for them to accurately recall what they ate.
This study design can also only tell us if something is linked (kimchi and obesity), not if one thing causes another (if kimchi causes weight loss). So it is important to look at experimental studies where researchers make changes to people’s diets then look at the results.
How about evidence from experimental trials?
There have been several experimental studies looking at how much weight people lose after eating various types of fermented foods. Other studies looked at markers or measures of appetite, but not weight loss.
One study showed the stomach of men who drank 1.4 litres of fermented milk during a meal took longer to empty (compared to those who drank the same quantity of whole milk). This is related to feeling fuller for longer, potentially having less appetite for more food.
Another study showed drinking 200 millilitres of kefir (a small glass) reduced participants’ appetite after the meal, but only when the meal contained quickly-digested foods likely to make blood glucose levels rise rapidly. This study did not measure changes in weight.
Another study looked at Indonesian young women with obesity. Eating tempeh (a fermented soybean product) led to changes in an appetite hormone. But this did not impact their appetite or whether they felt full. Weight was not measured in this study.
A study in South Korea asked people to eat about 70g a day of chungkookjang (fermented soybean). There were improvements in some measures of obesity, including percentage body fat, lean body mass, waist-to-hip ratio and waist circumference in women. However there were no changes in weight for men or women.
A systematic review of all studies that looked at the impact of fermented foods on satiety (feeling full) showed no effect.
What should I do?
The evidence so far is very weak to support or recommend fermented foods for weight loss. These experimental studies have been short in length, and many did not report weight changes.
To date, most of the studies have used different fermented foods, so it is difficult to generalise across them all.
Nevertheless, fermented foods are still useful as part of a healthy, varied and balanced diet, particularly if you enjoy them. They are rich in healthy bacteria, and nutrients.
Are there downsides?
Some fermented foods, such as kimchi and sauerkraut, have added salt. The latest kimchi study said the average amount of kimchi South Koreans eat provides about 490mg of salt a day. For an Australian, this would represent about 50% of the suggested dietary target for optimal health.
Eating too much salt increases your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke.
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!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Breast Milk’s Benefits That Are (So Far) Not Replicable
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.
Simply The Breast 🎶
In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinion on breast vs formula milk (for babies!), and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- 80% said “Breast is best, as the slogan goes, and should be first choice”
- 20% said “They both have their strengths and weaknesses; use whatever”
- 0% said “Formula is formulated to be best, and should be first choice”
That’s the first time we’ve ever had a possible poll option come back with zero votes whatsoever! It seems this topic is relatively uncontentious amongst our readership, so we’ll keep things brief today, but there is still a little mythbusting to be done.
So, what does the science say?
[Breast milk should be the first choice] at least for the few few weeks and months for the benefit of baby’s health as breast milk has protective factors formula does not: True or False?
True! The wording here was taken from one of our readers’ responses, by the way (thank you, Robin). There are a good number of those protective factors, the most well-known of which is passing on immune cells and cell-like things; in other words, immune-related information being passed from parent* to child.
*usually the mother, though in principle it could be someone else and in practice sometimes it is; the only real requirements are that the other person be healthy, lactating, and willing.
As for immune benefits, see for example:
Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk
And for that matter, also:
(Colostrum is simply the milk that is produced for a short period after giving birth; the composition of milk will tend to change later)
In any case, immunoglobulin A is a very important component in breast milk (colostrum and later), as well as lactoferrin (has an important antimicrobial effect and is good for the newborn’s gut), and a plethora of cytokines:
As for that about the gut, lactoferrin isn’t the only breast milk component that benefits this, by far, and there’s a lot that can’t be replicated yet:
Human Breast Milk and the Gastrointestinal Innate Immune System
As long as your infant/child is nutritiously fed, it shouldn’t matter if it comes from breast or formula: True or False?
False! Formula milk will not convey those immune benefits.
This doesn’t mean that formula-feeding is neglectful; as several people who commented mentioned*, there are many reasons a person may not be able to breastfeed, and they certainly should not be shamed for that.
*(including the reader whose words we borrowed for this True/False item; the words we quoted above were prefaced with: “Not everyone is able to breastfeed for many different reasons”)
But, while formula milk is a very good second choice, and absolutely a respectable choice if breast milk isn’t an option (or an acceptable option) for whatever reason, it still does not convey all the health benefits of breast milk—yet! The day may come when they’ll find a way to replicate the immune benefits, but today is not that day.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses: True or False?
True! But formula’s strengths are only in the category of convenience and sometimes necessity—formula conveys no health benefits that breast milk could not do better, if available.
For many babies, formula means they get to eat, when without it they would starve due to non-availability of breast milk. That’s a pretty important role!
Note also: this is a health science publication, not a philosophical publication, but we’d be remiss not to mention one thing; let’s bring it in under the umbrella of sociology:
The right to bodily autonomy continues to be the right to bodily autonomy even if somebody else wants/needs something from your body.
Therefore, while there are indeed many good reasons for not being able to breastfeed, or even just not being safely* able to breastfeed, it is at the very least this writer’s opinion that nobody should be pressed to give their reason for not breastfeeding; “no” is already a sufficient answer.
*Writer’s example re safety: when I was born, my mother was on such drugs that it would have been a very bad idea for her to breastfeed me. There are plenty of other possible reasons why it might be unsafe for someone one way or another, but “on drugs that have a clear ‘do not take while pregnant or nursing’ warning” is a relatively common one.
All that said, for those who are willing and safely able, the science is clear: breast is best.
Want to read more?
The World Health Organization has a wealth of information (including explanations of its recommendations of, where possible, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months, ideally continuing some breastfeeding for the first 2 years), here:
World Health Organization | Breastfeeding
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:
-
Sensitive – by Jenn Granneman and Andre Sólo
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.
This book is written for what is called the “Highly Sensitive Person”, which makes it sound like a very rare snowflake condition, when in fact the diagnostic criteria (discussed early in the book) yield a population bell curve of 30:40:30, whereupon 30% are in the band of “high sensitivity”, 40% “normal sensitivity” and the remainder “low sensitivity”. You may note that “high” and “low” together outnumber “normal”, but statistics is like that.
So, if you’re one of the approximately one in three people who fall into the higher category, and/or you have a loved one who is in that category, then this book looks at the many advantages to a commonly stigmatized and (by cruel irony) criticized personality trait.
Those advantages range from personal life to work and even public life (yes, really), and can be grown, positively highlighted, used, and enjoyed.
In the category of criticism, the book does not usefully cover the benefit of psychological resilience. Resilience does not mean losing sensitivity, just, being able to also dry one’s tears and weather life’s slings and arrows when the world is harsher than one might like. But for the authors, they have stacked all their chips on “we must make the world a better place”. Which is a noble goal, if not always an immediately attainable one.
Bottom line: if you are more sensitive than average and would like to use that to benefit yourself and those around you, then this is the book for you!
Click here to check out Sensitive, and make the most of your strengths!
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: