Beginner Stretches: 6 Easy Alternatives That Actually Work

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.

Sometimes, it can seem that all the stretches that “everyone” does are actually kinda hard to get into.

Here’s a better way to get where you want to be:

Easing into it

Six ways to stretch the same muscles as popular stretches, much more easily and just as effectively:

  1. Forward fold: avoid rounding your back and bouncing to touch the floor; instead, lie on your back, use a strap or towel, pull your leg towards you, holding for 30 seconds
  2. Hip flexor couch stretch: skip the advanced couch stretch that can strain your knee, and instead do a kneeling or standing hip flexor stretch, focusing on tucking your pelvis in for an equally effective but safer stretch
  3. Overhead shoulder stretch: avoid the classic ineffective version; instead, put your arms on a chair and lean forwards or use the child’s pose to stretch both shoulders, thoracic spine, hamstrings, and glutes at once
  4. Standing quad stretch: instead of standing versions where hips shift and pelvis misaligns, lie on your stomach with a strap around your foot to keep your hips and pelvis aligned, and safely stretch your quads from there
  5. Pigeon stretch: skip the advanced hip opener that may cause hip pain; instead, do a lying figure-4 stretch to target your hips and glutes with less intensity, pressing your elbow to your knee for a deeper stretch if you like
  6. Butterfly stretch: avoid bouncing your knees up and down which doesn’t stretch adductors effectively; instead try the frog stretch (hips relax under gravity) or a lying butterfly stretch (feet together, knees drop with gravity, cushions optional) for safer and deeper hip flexibility

For more on each of these plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:

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

Want to learn more?

You might also like:

How To Do A Forward Fold For The First Time

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:

  • Sunflower Corn Burger

    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.

    Burgers are rarely a health food, but in this case, everything in the patty is healthy, and it’s packed with protein, fiber, and healthy fats.

    You will need

    • 1 can chickpeas
    • ¾ cup frozen corn
    • ½ cup chopped fresh parsley
    • ⅓ cup sunflower seeds
    • ⅓ cup cornichon pickles
    • ⅓ cup wholegrain bread crumbs (gluten-free, if desired/required)
    • ¼ bulb garlic (or more if you want a stronger flavor)
    • 1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil, plus more for frying
    • 1 tbsp nutritional yeast (or 1 tsp yeast extract)
    • 2 tsp ground cumin
    • 2 tsp red pepper flakes
    • 2 tsp black pepper, coarse ground
    • 1 tsp Dijon mustard
    • To serve: 4 burger buns; these are not usually healthy, so making your own is best, but if you don’t have the means/time, then getting similarly shaped wholegrain bread buns works just fine.
    • Optional: your preferred burger toppings, e.g. greenery, red onion, tomato slices, avocado, jalapeños, whatever does it for you

    Note: there is no need to add salt; there is enough already in the pickles.

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Combine all the ingredients except the buns (and any optional toppings) in a food processor, pulsing a few times for a coarse texture (not a purée).

    2) Shape the mixture into 4 burger patties, and let them chill in the fridge for at least 30 minutes.

    3) Heat a skillet over a medium-high heat with some olive oil, and fry the burgers on both sides until they develop a nice golden crust; this will probably take about 4 minutes per side.

    4) Assemble in the buns with any toppings you want, and serve:

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Hashimoto’s Food Pharmacology – by Dr. Izabella Wentz

    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 author is a doctor of pharmacology, and we’ve featured her before as an expert on Hashimoto’s, which she has. She has recommendations about specific blood tests and medications, but in this book she’s mainly focussing on what she calls the “three Rs” of managing hypothyroidism:

    1. Remove the causes and triggers of your hypothyroidism, so far as possible
    2. Repair the damage caused to your body, especially your gut
    3. Replace the thyroid hormones and related things in which your body has become deficient

    To this end, she provides recipes that avoid processed meats and unfermented dairy, and include plenty of nutrient-dense whole foods specifically tailored to meet the nutritional needs of someone with hypothyroidism.

    A nice bonus of the presentation of recipes (of which there are 125, if we include things like “mint tea” and “tomato sauce” and “hot lemon water” as recipes) is explaining the thyroid-supporting elements of each recipe.

    A downside for some will be that if you are vegetarian/vegan, this book is very much not, and since many recipes are paleo-style meat dishes, substitutions will change the nutritional profile completely.

    Bottom line: if you have hypothyroidism (especially if: Hashimoto’s) and like meat, this will be a great recipe book for you.

    Click here to check out Hashimoto’s Food Pharmacology, and get cooking!

    Share This Post

  • Natural Alternatives for Depression Treatment

    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.

    Questions and Answers at 10almonds

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    This newsletter has been growing a lot lately, and so have the questions/requests, and we love that! In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    Natural alternatives to medication for depression?

    Great question! We did a mean feature a while back, but we definitely have much more to say! We’ll do another main feature soon, but in the meantime, here’s what we previously wrote:

    See: The Mental Health First-Aid That You’ll Hopefully Never Need

    ^This covers not just the obvious, but also why the most common advice is not helpful, and practical tips to actually make manageable steps back to wellness, on days when “literally just survive the day” is one’s default goal.

    Share This Post

  • Vaping: A Lot Of Hot Air?

    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.

    Vaping: A Lot Of Hot Air?

    Yesterday, we asked you for your (health-related) opinions on vaping, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • A little over a third of respondents said it’s actually more dangerous than smoking
    • A little under a third of respondents said it’s no better nor worse, just different
    • A little over 10% of respondents said it’s marginally less harmful, but still very bad
    • A little over 10% of respondents said it’s a much healthier alternative to smoking

    So what does the science say?

    Vaping is basically just steam inhalation, plus the active ingredient of your choice (e.g. nicotine, CBD, THC, etc): True or False?

    False! There really are a lot of other chemicals in there.

    And “chemicals” per se does not necessarily mean evil green glowing substances that a comicbook villain would market, but there are some unpleasantries in there too:

    So, the substrate itself can cause irritation, and flavorings (with cinnamaldehyde, the cinnamon flavoring, being one of the worst) can really mess with our body’s inflammatory and oxidative responses.

    Vaping can cause “popcorn lung”: True or False?

    True and False! Popcorn lung is so-called after it came to attention when workers at a popcorn factory came down with it, due to exposure to diacetyl, a chemical used there.

    That chemical was at that time also found in most vapes, but has since been banned in many places, including the US, Canada, the EU and the UK.

    Vaping is just as bad as smoking: True or False?

    False, per se. In fact, it’s recommended as a means of quitting smoking, by the UK’s famously thrifty NHS, that absolutely does not want people to be sick because that costs money:

    NHS | Vaping To Quit Smoking

    Of course, the active ingredients (e.g. nicotine, in the assumed case above) will still be the same, mg for mg, as they are for smoking.

    Vaping is causing a health crisis amongst “kids nowadays”: True or False?

    True—it just happens to be less serious on a case-by-case basis to the risks of smoking.

    However, it is worth noting that the perceived harmlessness of vapes is surely a contributing factor in their widespread use amongst young people—decades after actual smoking (thankfully) went out of fashion.

    On the other hand, there’s a flipside to this:

    Flavored vape restrictions lead to higher cigarette sales

    So, it may indeed be the case of “the lesser of two evils”.

    Want to know more?

    For a more in-depth science-ful exploration than we have room for here…

    BMJ | Impact of vaping on respiratory health

    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:

  • Toxic Gas That Sterilizes Medical Devices Prompts Safety Rule Update

    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.

    Over the past two years, Madeline Beal has heard frustration and even bewilderment during public meetings about ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing gas that is used to sterilize half of the medical devices in the U.S.

    Beal, senior risk communication adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency, has fielded questions about why the agency took so long to alert people who live near facilities that emit the chemical about unusually high amounts of the carcinogenic gas in their neighborhoods. Residents asked why the EPA couldn’t close those facilities, and they wanted to know how many people had developed cancer from their exposure.

    “If you’re upset by the information you’re hearing tonight, if you’re angry, if it scares you to think about risk to your family, those are totally reasonable responses,” Beal told an audience in Laredo, Texas, in September 2022. “We think the risk levels near this facility are too high.”

    There are about 90 sterilizing plants in the U.S. that use ethylene oxide, and for decades companies used the chemical to sterilize medical products without drawing much attention. Many medical device-makers send their products to the plants to be sterilized before they are shipped, typically to medical distribution companies.

    But people living around these facilities have been jolted in recent years by a succession of warnings about cancer risk from the federal government and media reports, an awareness that has also spawned protests and lawsuits alleging medical harm.

    The EPA is expected to meet a March 1 court-ordered deadline to finalize tighter safety rules around how the toxic gas is used. The proposed changes come in the wake of a 2016 agency report that found that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide is more dangerous than was previously thought.

    But the anticipated final rules — the agency’s first regulatory update on ethylene oxide emissions in more than a decade — are expected to face pushback. Medical device-makers worry stricter regulation will increase costs and may put patients at higher risk of infection from devices, ranging from surgical kits to catheters, due to deficient sterilization. The new rules are also not likely to satisfy the concerns of environmentalists or members of the public, who already have expressed frustration about how long it took the federal government to sound the alarm.

    “We have been breathing this air for 40 years,” said Connie Waller, 70, who lives with her husband, David, 75, within two miles of such a sterilizing plant in Covington, Georgia, east of Atlanta. “The only way to stop these chemicals is to hit them in their pocketbook, to get their attention.”

    The EPA says data shows that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide can increase the risk of breast cancer and cancers of the white blood cells, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. It can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and has been linked to damage to the brain and nervous and reproductive systems. Children are potentially more vulnerable, as are workers routinely exposed to the chemical, EPA officials say. The agency calculates the risk based on how much of the gas is in the air or near the sterilizing facility, the distance a person is from the plant, and how long the person is exposed.

    Waller said she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004 and that her husband was found to have non-Hodgkin lymphoma eight years later.

    A 2022 study of communities living near a sterilization facility in Laredo found the rates of acute lymphocytic leukemia and breast cancer were greater than expected based on statewide rates, a difference that was statistically significant.

    Beal, the EPA risk adviser, who regularly meets with community members, acknowledges the public’s concerns. “We don’t think it’s OK for you to be at increased risk from something that you have no control over, that’s near your house,” she said. “We are working as fast as we can to get that risk reduced with the powers that we have available to us.”

    In the meantime, local and state governments and industry groups have scrambled to defuse public outcry.

    Hundreds of personal injury cases have been filed in communities near sterilizing plants. In 2020, New Mexico’s then-attorney general filed a lawsuit against a plant in Santa Teresa, and that case is ongoing. In a case that settled last year in suburban Atlanta, a company agreed to pay $35 million to 79 people who alleged ethylene oxide used at the plant caused cancer and other injuries.

    In Cook County, Illinois, a jury in 2022 awarded $363 million to a woman who alleged exposure to ethylene oxide gas led to her breast cancer diagnosis. But, in another Illinois case, a jury ruled that the sterilizing company was not liable for a woman’s blood cancer claim.

    Greg Crist, chief advocacy officer for the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical device trade group that says ethylene oxide is an effective and reliable sterilant, attributes the spate of lawsuits to the litigious nature of trial attorneys.

    “If they smell blood in the water, they’ll go after it,” Crist said.

    Most states have at least one sterilizing plant. According to the EPA, a handful, like California and North Carolina, have gone further than the agency and the federal Clean Air Act to regulate ethylene oxide emissions. After a media and political firestorm raised awareness about the metro Atlanta facilities, Georgia started requiring sterilizing plants that use the gas to report all leaks.

    The proposed rules the EPA is set to finalize would set lower emissions limits for chemical plants and commercial sterilizers and increase some safety requirements for workers within these facilities. The agency is expected to set an 18-month deadline for commercial sterilizers to come into compliance with the emissions rules.

    That would help at facilities that “cut corners,” with lax pollution controls that allow emissions of the gas into nearby communities, said Richard Peltier, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Stronger regulation also prevents the plants from remaining under the radar. “One of the dirty secrets is that a lot of it is self-regulated or self-policed,” Peltier added.

    But the proposed rules did not include protections for workers at off-site warehouses that store sterilized products, which can continue to emit ethylene oxide. They also did not require air testing around the facilities, prompting debate about how effective they would be in protecting the health of nearby residents.

    Industry officials also don’t expect an alternative that is as broadly effective as ethylene oxide to be developed anytime soon, though they support researching other methods. Current alternatives include steam, radiation, and hydrogen peroxide vapor.

    Increasing the use of alternatives can reduce industry dependence on “the crutch of ethylene oxide,” said Darya Minovi, senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

    But meeting the new guidelines will be disruptive to the industry, Crist said. He estimates companies will spend upward of $500 million to comply with the new EPA rules and could struggle to meet the agency’s 18-month timetable. Sterilization companies will also have difficulty adjusting to new rules on how workers handle the gas without a dip in efficiency, Crist said.

    The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates drugs and medical devices, is also watching the regulatory moves closely and worries the updated emissions rule could “present some unique challenges” if implemented as proposed, said Audra Harrison, an FDA spokesperson. “The FDA is concerned about the rule’s effects on the availability of medical devices,” she added.

    Other groups, like the American Chemistry Council and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, assert that ethylene oxide use isn’t as dangerous as the EPA says. The EPA’s toxicity assessment has “severe flaws” and is “overly conservative,” the council said in an emailed statement. Texas, which has several sterilizing plants, has said ethylene oxide isn’t as high a cancer risk as the agency claims, an assessment that the EPA has rejected.

    Tracey Woodruff, a researcher at the University of California-San Francisco who previously worked at the EPA, said it can be hard for the agency to keep up with regulating chemicals like ethylene oxide because of constrained resources, the technical complications of rulemaking, and industry lobbying.

    But she’s hopeful the EPA can strike a balance between its desire to reduce exposure and the desire of the FDA not to disrupt medical device sterilization. And scrutiny can also help the device sterilization industry think outside the box.

    “We continue to discover these chemicals that we’ve already been exposed to were toxic, and we have high exposures,” she said. “Regulation is an innovation forcer.”

    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.

    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 Surprising Sugar Source In Your Toothpaste

    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.

    Oftentimes, headlines suggest that experts are either wrong about something or have been hiding something, when the reality is a little different, e.g:

    • Scientists won’t tell you this! (…because it’s not true)
    • Doctors hate this weight loss trick! (…because it is dangerous and the weight lost is not fat)
    • Etc

    Our headline today, however, is more a matter of “scientists have been saying one thing, and now it turns out that’s not entirely correct”.

    If a chemical ends in -ose, it’s a sugar

    Sometimes, that has obvious implications for our metabolism, as with glucose, fructose, or the disaccharide of those, sucrose.

    You can read more about those, here: From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Sometimes, it’s a “sugar that doesn’t behave like a sugar”, such as sucralose, which is chemically a sugar, and is sweet, and has been considered to not get metabolized as a sugar, and instead pass through as fiber (though that may now be up for review, in light of what we will share today).

    Sucralose does have other potential drawbacks, in any case: The Sucralose News: Scaremongering Or Serious?

    And indeed, sweeteners in general have their problems just by virtue of being sweet to the taste: The Problem With Sweeteners

    That goes for resistant starches, too

    “Resistant” here means that they are resistant to digestion, and pass through as fiber.

    “Starch”, however, means that indeed this is a chain of sugars. For example, guar gum, a commonly-used natural thickening agent, is in large part (the galactomannan part) chemically a polymer of d-galactose and d-mannose.

    We wrote about it here: The Food Additive You Do Want

    What, then, of cellulose, being another -ose chemical, and specifically, a polysaccharide of β(1→4) glucan-linked d-glucose units in a big chain?

    Researchers (Dr. Deepesh Panwar et al.) found that cellulose-based thickeners (found in toothpaste, and many food products), previously believed to be indigestible, can be broken down by gut bacteria when enzymes are activated by adjacent natural dietary polysaccharides:

    • Previous work: bacteria (Bacteroides and Segatella/Prevotella strains) could not grow on cellulose alone.
    • New discovery: when “primed” with natural plant polysaccharides (cereal mixed-linkage β-glucan or dicot xyloglucan), certain strains could metabolize the cellulose.

    In other words, previous in vitro lab work had carefully recreated gut conditions including a microbiome, but then added the cellulose alone as a testing agent, without adding anything else (because after all, they didn’t want anything to contaminate the results).

    But the reality is, there’s never normally nothing else in our gut!

    As for what triggers the breakdown of this “unbreakdownable” cellulose, it turns out that many natural fibers in fruits, vegetables and cereals prime the bacterial enzymes that then also act on the cellulose (including: artificial cellulose derivatives).

    So, in other words: the cellulose-based thickener in your toothpaste and many food products is, if ingested, getting broken down as sugar after all, if you have a healthy gut, in any case.

    You can read their paper in full, here: Artificial cellulose derivatives are metabolized by select human gut Bacteroidota upon priming with common plant β-glucans

    What does this mean for my health?

    Must you throw out your toothpaste, and start going through the condiment cupboard?

    No, these things are fine, and this discovery doesn’t really change that.

    And in particular, there is no threat to your teeth from cellulose-thickened toothpaste, nor from cellulose-based “sugar-free” gum, for that matter.

    Technically yes, it may mean that something advertised as containing zero calories technically has a small calorie value, but just how much toothpaste/gum are you eating, really?

    And even with that in mind, your teeth themselves remain, as we say, unaffected. After all, the oral microbiome is very different from that of your colon (well, it certainly should be, at least!), so those same strains are not there to digest it.

    In fact, the β-glucan mentioned in the study? The kind that, if present in your gut, enables the bacteria to digest the cellulose?

    We wrote about it here: The Best Kind Of Fiber For Overall Health? ← it’s β-glucan! Oats are a great source.

    See also: What Do The Different Kinds Of Fiber Do? 30 Foods That Rank Highest

    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: