Black Bean Hummus Panini

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.

A recipe for a sandwich? Try it once, and you’ll see why. Welcome to your new favorite!

You will need

Method

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

1) Grill the eggplant slices until soft.

2) Spread hummus generously on one side of both slices of bread.

2) Add the black beans on top of one slice (the hummus will help them stay in place), followed by the sun-dried tomatoes and then the eggplant. Top with the other slice of bread, hummus-side down.

3) Coat (carefully, please) the inside of the panini press (both interior sides) with olive oil. If you don’t have sprayable oil, using a sheet of kitchen roll to apply the oil is a good way to do it without making a mess.

4) Grill the assembled sandwich, until the bread starts to brown and the insides are warm; this should take about 4 minutes.

Enjoy!

Want to learn more?

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

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:

  • Mastering Gut Health for Women – by Karín Feltman

    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, a registered nurse, has a focus on holistic health, and in this book it’s all about wellness from the inside out.

    To effect this, she lays out a 12-week program of transformations:

    • Week 1: transform your knowledge
    • Week 2: transform your brain
    • Week 3: transform your digestion
    • Week 4: transform your immunity
    • Week 5: transform your emotions
    • Week 6: transform your sleep
    • Week 7: transform your energy/vitality
    • Week 8: transform your activity
    • Week 9: transform your hormones
    • Week 10: transform your diet
    • Week 11: transform your weight
    • Week 12: transform your habits

    Which all adds up to quite a comprehensive overall transformation!

    Of course, it’s possible you might want to implement everything at once; an exciting prospect for sure, but oftentimes it really is best to just change one thing at once before moving on; that way it’s a lot more likely to stick, and that’s why she presents it in this format.

    On the other hand, maybe you might want to take longer than the 12 weeks, if for example it takes you more than a week to do a certain part. That’s fine too, though for most people without serious constraints (or suffering some unexpected major interruption to your usual life), the 12-week program should be quite doable as-is.

    The style is personable and friendly, albeit with frequent references to science and appropriate citations.

    Bottom line: the title centers gut health, and so does the book itself, but this is truly a holistic approach that goes far beyond the gut, which makes it even more worthwhile.

    Click here to check out Mastering Gut Health For Women, and master gut health for yourself!

    Share This Post

  • The Not-So-Sweet Science Of Sugar Addiction

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

    One Lump Mechanism Of Addiction Or Two?

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you to what extent, if any, you believe sugar is addictive; we got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 47% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to alcohol”
    • About 34% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to cocaine”
    • About 11% said “Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole”
    • About 9% said “Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming”

    So what does the science say?

    Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole: True or False?

    False, by broad scientific consensus. As ever, the devil’s in the details definitions, but while there is still discussion about how best to categorize the addiction, the scientific consensus as a whole is generally: sugar is addictive.

    That doesn’t mean scientists* are a hive mind, and so there will be some who disagree, but most papers these days are looking into the “hows” and “whys” and “whats” of sugar addiction, not the “whether”.

    *who are also, let us remember, a diverse group including chemists, neurobiologists, psychologists, social psychologists, and others, often collaborating in multidisciplinary teams, each with their own focus of research.

    Here’s what the Center of Alcohol and Substance Use Studies has to say, for example:

    Sugar Addiction: More Serious Than You Think

    Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to alcohol: True or False?

    True, broadly, with caveats—for this one, the crux lies in “comparable to”, because the neurology of the addiction is similar, even if many aspects of it chemically are not.

    In both cases, sugar triggers the release of dopamine while also (albeit for different chemical reasons) having a “downer” effect (sugar triggers the release of opioids as well as dopamine).

    Notably, the sociology and psychology of alcohol and sugar addictions are also similar (both addictions are common throughout different socioeconomic strata as a coping mechanism seeking an escape from emotional pain).

    See for example in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs:

    Sweet Preference, Sugar Addiction and the Familial History of Alcohol Dependence: Shared Neural Pathways and Genes

    On the other hand, withdrawal symptoms from heavy long-term alcohol abuse can kill, while withdrawal symptoms from sugar are very much milder. So there’s also room to argue that they’re not comparable on those grounds.

    Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to cocaine: True or False?

    False, broadly. There are overlaps! For example, sugar drives impulsivity to seek more of the substance, and leads to changes in neurobiological brain function which alter emotional states and subsequent behaviours:

    The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors

    However!

    Cocaine triggers a release of dopamine (as does sugar), but cocaine also acts directly on our brain’s ability to remove dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine:

    The Neurobiology of Cocaine Addiction

    …meaning that in terms of comparability, they (to use a metaphor now, not meaning this literally) both give you a warm feeling, but sugar does it by turning up the heating a bit whereas cocaine does it by locking the doors and burning down the house. That’s quite a difference!

    Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming: True or False?

    True, with the caveat that this a “yes and” situation.

    There are behavioral aspects of sugar addiction that can reasonably be compared to those of video gaming, e.g. compulsion loops, always the promise of more (without limiting factors such as overdosing), anxiety when the addictive element is not accessible for some reason, reduction of dopaminergic sensitivity leading to a craving for more, etc. Note that the last is mentioning a chemical but the mechanism itself is still behavioral, not chemical per se.

    So, yes, it’s a behavioral addiction [and also arguably chemical in the manners we’ve described earlier in this article].

    For science for this, we refer you back to:

    The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors

    Want more?

    You might want to check out:

    Beating Food Addictions: When It’s More Than “Just” Cravings

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Is Fast Food Really All That Bad?

    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.

    Yes, yes it is. However, most people misunderstand the nature of its badness, which is what causes problems. The biggest problem is not the acute effects of one afternoon’s burger and fries; the biggest problem is the gradual slide into regularly eating junk food, and the long-term effects of that habit as our body changes to accommodate it (of which, people tend to focus on subcutaneous fat gain as it’s usually the most visible, but that’s really the least of our problems).

    Cumulative effects

    There are, of course, immediate negative effects too, and they’re not without cause for concern. Because of the composition of most junk food, it will almost by definition result in immediate blood sugar spikes, rising insulin levels, and a feeling of fatigue not long afterwards.

    • Within a week of regularly consuming junk food, gut bacteria will change, resulting in moderate cravings, as well as a tendency towards depression and anxiety. Mood swings are likely, as are the gastrointestinal woes associated with any gut microbiota change.
    • Within two weeks, those effects will be greater, the cravings will increase, energy levels will plummet, and likely skin issues may start to show up (our skin mostly works on a 3-week replacement cycle; some things can show up in the skin more quickly or slowly than that, though).
    • Within three weeks, the rest of our blood metrics (e.g. beyond blood sugar imbalances) will start to stray from safe zones. Increased LDL, decreased HDL, and the beginnings of higher cardiovascular disease risk and diabetes risk.
    • Within a month, we will likely see the onset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and chronic inflammation sets in, raising the risk of a lot of other diseases, especially immune disorders and cancer.

    If that seems drastic, along the lines of “eat junk food for a month and get cancer”, well, it’s an elevated risk, not a scheduled diagnosis, but the body is constantly rebuilding itself, for better or for worse, and if we sabotage its efforts by consuming a poor diet, then it will be for worse.

    The good news is: this works both ways, and we can get our body back on track in fairly short order too, by enjoying a healthier diet; our body will be thrilled to start repairing itself. And of course, all these effects, good and bad, are proportional to how well or badly we eat. There’s a difference between doing a “Supersize Me” month-long 100% junk food diet, and “merely” getting a junk food breakfast each day and eating healthily later.

    In short, if your diet is only moderately bad, then you will only be moderately unwell.

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Is it safe to use cake decorating dusts and dyes? 2 experts explain

    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.

    Have you ever baked or decorated a birthday cake?

    Interest in elaborate cakes is booming, driven by social media trends and television shows such as Is It Cake?.

    This means products such as edible glitter and colourful dyes are becoming increasingly common at children’s parties and other social events.

    But a recent incident, where a young boy from Queensland was hospitalised after inhaling cake decorating powder, has raised concerns about the safety of these products.

    And authorities have now announced a nationwide recall of the product in question.

    Klaus Vedfelt/Getty

    What is ‘cake dust’?

    “Cake dust” refers to many different products used to decorate cakes. This includes edible glitter, metallic-looking powders, coloured dusts that are brushed on to decorations, and liquid colours that are sprayed on to cakes using airbrushes.

    These products are made of various substances. Some are a mixture of food colourings and sugar or starch. Some also contain pigments that give them a metallic or glitter-like appearance. These pigments may contain small amounts of aluminium, copper or zinc that, when eaten in large amounts, can be toxic to humans.

    Many also contain amorphous silicon dioxide, which helps stop powders from clumping together. This is not to be confused with crystalline silica dust, which has been shown to cause a long-term lung disease called silicosis.

    These substances aren’t inherently harmful, but can be dangerous if you are exposed to large amounts. However, how you consume them matters. For example, eating tiny amounts on the surface of a cake is very different to inhaling a concentrated cloud of fine powder.

    This is because your lungs don’t process particles in the same way as your digestive system. Fine particles can travel deep into your airways, where your body then absorbs them. These particles may irritate lung tissue or trigger inflammation in both small and large airways. They may also block airways and reduce oxygen intake.

    This can cause persistent coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. If you have any of these symptoms, or notice your lips turning blue, visit the emergency department immediately.

    ‘Non-toxic’ doesn’t mean edible

    Some cake decorating products are labelled “non-toxic” rather than “edible”. You might assume these terms are interchangeable, but they are not.

    In the recent Queensland case, the metallic cake dust was reportedly labelled “non-toxic” and intended only “for use on removable parts” of cakes. However, it was sold next to other edible cake decorating products.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time such dusts have put people’s health at risk. Between 2018 and 2019, United States health authorities investigated multiple poisonings linked to metallic “luster dust” cake decorations. These products contained high levels of metals, including copper and zinc. The child from Queensland inhaled cake dust that also contained these metals.

    Are they more harmful to kids?

    Yes. This is because children have much smaller airways than adults, which can become blocked or irritated more easily. They also breathe more quickly relative to their body size, meaning they may inhale more potentially toxic substances at a time.

    Children are often drawn to these metallic-looking cake products because they appear to be sparkly. They are also more likely to accidentally inhale cake dusts, for example while helping decorate cakes or blowing out candles.

    In the Queensland case, the child inhaled about one tablespoon of gold cake dust before he started coughing, became unresponsive and ultimately spent days in an induced coma. It’s likely the inhaled dust entered the boy’s lungs, where it blocked his airways.

    This case shows the importance of keeping toddlers away from anything they could swallow, or that may settle in their lungs.

    It also underscores the need for more research and tighter regulation. Research should focus on what metals, pigments and fine particles are actually in cake decorating products. Companies must make labels clearer and more comprehensive, adding warnings – such as “avoid inhalation” or “keep away from children” – if appropriate. Regulators should also reconsider how these products are marketed and sold, particularly if they are commonly used around children.

    So, can I still use these products?

    Parents and keen bakers can still use cake decorating products safely, by taking some simple precautions.

    Check the label

    Always check the label on any cake decorating products, to ensure the product is edible and intended for food-related use.

    Avoid imports

    Some imported products may not meet local food safety standards, meaning their labels may be unclear or inaccurate. And it’s best to avoid buying products sold through overseas online marketplaces, as they are generally less regulated.

    Use and store them with care

    When using cake decorating products, you should always follow the directions for use and only apply small amounts in well-ventilated areas. It’s best to keep them away from children, especially if they have allergies or lung conditions such as asthma or cystic fibrosis. Remember to close or secure any open products, and store them where young children won’t reach them.

    William Alexander Donald, Professor of Chemistry, UNSW Sydney and Deborah Yates, Conjoint Professor, Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney

    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:

  • Longans vs Lychees – 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 longans to lychees, we picked the lychees.

    Why?

    These two fruits are more closely related than they look from the outside, both being members of the soapberry family. However, there are some differences:

    In terms of macros, longans have more protein while lychees have more carbs, and they are equal on fiber, giving longans the lower glycemic index. They’re both good, but longans nominally take the win on this one.

    When it comes to vitamins, longans have more of vitamins B1, B2, and C, while lychees have more of vitamins B3, B6, B9, E, K, and choline, making for a respectable win for lychees in this category.

    In the category of minerals, longans have more copper and potassium, while lychees have more calcium, iron, manganese phosphorus, and zinc. Thus, a win for lychees here too.

    It’s worth looking at polyphenols too—lychees have around 10x more, which is notable.

    Adding up the categories makes for an overall win for lychees, but by all means enjoy either or both! Diversity is good.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Replacing Sugar: Top 10 Anti-Inflammatory Sweet Foods ← longans and lychees both make the list

    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:

  • A cartoon of a woman nurse working at a desk with health insurance rejections.

    Woman Petitions Health Insurer After Company Approves — Then Rejects — Her Infusions

    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.

    When KFF Health News published an article in August about the “prior authorization hell” Sally Nix said she went through to secure approval from her insurance company for the expensive monthly infusions she needs, we thought her story had a happy ending.

    That’s because, after KFF Health News sent questions to Nix’s insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, it retroactively approved $36,000 worth of treatments she thought she owed. Even better, she also learned she would qualify for the infusions moving forward.

    Good news all around — except it didn’t last for long. After all, this is the U.S. health care system, where even patients with good insurance aren’t guaranteed affordable care.

    To recap: For more than a decade, Nix, of Statesville, North Carolina, has suffered from autoimmune diseases, chronic pain, and fatigue, as well as a condition called trigeminal neuralgia, which is marked by bouts of electric shock-like pain that’s so intense it’s commonly known as the “suicide disease.”

    “It is a pain that sends me to my knees,” Nix said in October. “My entire family’s life is controlled by the betrayal of my body. We haven’t lived normally in 10 years.”

    Late in 2022, Nix started receiving intravenous immunoglobulin infusions to treat her diseases. She started walking two miles a day with her service dog. She could picture herself celebrating, free from pain, at her daughter’s summer 2024 wedding.

    “I was so hopeful,” she said.

    But a few months after starting those infusions, she found out that her insurance company wouldn’t cover their cost anymore. That’s when she started “raising Cain about it” on Instagram and Facebook.

    You probably know someone like Sally Nix — someone with a chronic or life-threatening illness whose doctor says they need a drug, procedure, or scan, and whose insurance company has replied: No.

    Prior authorization was conceived decades ago to rein in health care costs by eliminating duplicative and ineffective treatment. Not only does overtreatment waste billions of dollars every year, but doctors acknowledge it also potentially harms patients.

    However, critics worry that prior authorization has now become a way for health insurance companies to save money, sometimes at the expense of patients’ lives. KFF Health News has heard from hundreds of people in the past year relating their prior authorization horror stories.

    When we first met Nix, she was battling her insurance company to regain authorization for her infusions. She’d been forced to pause her treatments, unable to afford $13,000 out-of-pocket for each infusion.

    Finally, it seemed like months of her hard work had paid off. In July, Nix was told by staff at both her doctor’s office and her hospital that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois would allow her to restart treatment. Her balance was marked “paid” and disappeared from the insurer’s online portal.

    But the day after the KFF Health News story was published, Nix said, she learned the message had changed. After restarting treatment, she received a letter from the insurer saying her diagnoses didn’t actually qualify her for the infusions. It felt like health insurance whiplash.

    “They’re robbing me of my life,” she said. “They’re robbing me of so much, all because of profit.”

    Dave Van de Walle, a spokesperson for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, said the company would not discuss individual patients’ cases.

    “Prior authorization is often a requirement for certain treatments,” Van de Walle said in a written statement, “and BCBSIL administers benefits according to medical policy and the employer’s benefit.”

    But Nix is a Southern woman of the “Steel Magnolia” variety. In other words, she’s not going down without a fight.

    In September, she called out her insurance company’s tactics in a http://change.org/ campaign that has garnered more than 21,000 signatures. She has also filed complaints against her insurance company with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, Illinois Department of Insurance, and Illinois attorney general.

    Even so, Nix said, she feels defeated.

    Not only is she still waiting for prior authorization to restart her immunoglobulin infusions, but her insurance company recently required Nix to secure preapproval for another treatment — routine numbing injections she has received for nearly 10 years to treat the nerve pain caused by trigeminal neuralgia.

    “It is reprehensible what they’re doing. But they’re not only doing it to me,” said Nix, who is now reluctantly taking prescription opioids to ease her pain. “They’re doing it to other patients. And it’s got to stop.”

    Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? Click here to tell your story.

    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.

    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: