Black Forest Chia Pudding
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 pudding tastes so decadent, it’s hard to believe it’s so healthy, but it is! Not only is it delicious, it’s also packed with nutrients including protein, carbohydrates, healthy fats (including omega-3s), fiber, vitamins, minerals, and assorted antioxidant polyphenols. Perfect dessert or breakfast!
You will need
- 1½ cups pitted fresh or thawed-from-frozen cherries
- ½ cup mashed banana
- 3 tbsp unsweetened cocoa powder
- 2 tbsp chia seeds, ground
- Optional: 2 pitted dates, soaked in hot water for 10 minutes and then drained (include these if you prefer a sweeter pudding)
- Garnish: a few almonds, and/or berries, and/or cherries and/or cacao nibs
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Blend the ingredients except for the chia seeds and the garnish, with ½ cup of water, until completely smooth
2) Divide into two small bowls or glass jars
3) Add 1 tbsp ground chia seeds to each, and stir until evenly distributed
4) Add the garnish and refrigerate overnight or at least for some hours. There’s plenty of wiggle-room here, so make it at your convenience and serve at your leisure.
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Cherries’ Very Healthy Wealth Of Benefits!
- If You’re Not Taking Chia, You’re Missing Out
- Cacao vs Carob – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
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:
-
State Regulators Know Health Insurance Directories Are Full of Wrong Information. They’re Doing Little to Fix It.
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.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Series: America’s Mental Barrier:How Insurers Interfere With Mental Health Care
- Extensive Errors: Many states have sought to make insurers clean up their health plans’ provider directories over the past decade. But the errors are still widespread.
- Paltry Penalties: Most state insurance agencies haven’t issued a fine for provider directory errors since 2019. When companies have been penalized, the fines have been small and sporadic.
- Ghostbusters: Experts said that stricter regulations and stronger fines are needed to protect insurance customers from these errors, which are at the heart of so-called ghost networks.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
To uncover the truth about a pernicious insurance industry practice, staffers with the New York state attorney general’s office decided to tell a series of lies.
So, over the course of 2022 and 2023, they dialed hundreds of mental health providers in the directories of more than a dozen insurance plans. Some staffers pretended to call on behalf of a depressed relative. Others posed as parents asking about their struggling teenager.
They wanted to know two key things about the supposedly in-network providers: Do you accept insurance? And are you accepting new patients?
The more the staffers called, the more they realized that the providers listed either no longer accepted insurance or had stopped seeing new patients. That is, if they heard back from the providers at all.
In a report published last December, the office described rampant evidence of these “ghost networks,” where health plans list providers who supposedly accept that insurance but who are not actually available to patients. The report found that 86% of the listed mental health providers who staffers had called were “unreachable, not in-network, or not accepting new patients.” Even though insurers are required to publish accurate directories, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t find evidence that the state’s own insurance regulators had fined any insurers for their errors.
Shortly after taking office in 2021, Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to combat provider directory misinformation, so there seemed to be a clear path to confronting ghost networks.
Yet nearly a year after the publication of James’ report, nothing has changed. Regulators can’t point to a single penalty levied for ghost networks. And while a spokesperson for New York state’s Department of Financial Services has said that “nation-leading consumer protections” are in the works, provider directories in the state are still rife with errors.
A similar pattern of errors and lax enforcement is happening in other states as well.
In Arizona, regulators called hundreds of mental health providers listed in the networks of the state’s most popular individual health plans. They couldn’t schedule visits with nearly 2 out of every 5 providers they called. None of those companies have been fined for their errors.
In Massachusetts, the state attorney general investigated alleged efforts by insurers to restrict their customers’ mental health benefits. The insurers agreed to audit their mental health provider listings but were largely allowed to police themselves. Insurance regulators have not fined the companies for their errors.
In California, regulators received hundreds of complaints about provider listings after one of the nation’s first ghost network regulations took effect in 2016. But under the new law, they have actually scaled back on fining insurers. Since 2016, just one plan was fined — a $7,500 penalty — for posting inaccurate listings for mental health providers.
ProPublica reached out to every state insurance commission to see what they have done to curb rampant directory errors. As part of the country’s complex patchwork of regulations, these agencies oversee plans that employers purchase from an insurer and that individuals buy on exchanges. (Federal agencies typically oversee plans that employers self-fund or that are funded by Medicare.)
Spokespeople for the state agencies told ProPublica that their “many actions” resulted in “significant accountability.” But ProPublica found that the actual actions taken so far do not match the regulators’ rhetoric.
“One of the primary reasons insurance commissions exist is to hold companies accountable for what they are advertising in their contracts,” said Dr. Robert Trestman, a leading American Psychiatric Association expert who has testified about ghost networks to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. “They’re not doing their job. If they were, we would not have an ongoing problem.”
Most states haven’t fined a single company for publishing directory errors since 2019. When they do, the penalties have been small and sporadic. In an average year, fewer than a dozen fines are issued by insurance regulators for directory errors, according to information obtained by ProPublica from almost every one of those agencies. All those fines together represent a fraction of 1% of the billions of dollars in profits made by the industry’s largest companies. Health insurance experts told ProPublica that the companies treat the fines as a “cost of doing business.”
Insurers acknowledge that errors happen. Providers move. They retire. Their open appointments get booked by other patients. The industry’s top trade group, AHIP, has told lawmakers that companies contact providers to verify that their listings are accurate. The trade group also has stated that errors could be corrected faster if the providers did a better job updating their listings.
But providers have told us that’s bogus. Even when they formally drop out of a network, they’re not always removed from the insurer’s lists.
The harms from ghost networks are real. ProPublica reported on how Ravi Coutinho, a 36-year-old entrepreneur from Arizona, had struggled for months to access the mental health and addiction treatment that was covered by his health plan. After nearly two dozen calls to the insurer and multiple hospitalizations, he couldn’t find a therapist. Last spring, he died, likely due to complications from excessive drinking.
Health insurance experts said that, unless agencies can crack down and issue bigger fines, insurers will keep selling error-ridden plans.
“You can have all the strong laws on the books,” said David Lloyd, chief policy officer with the mental health advocacy group Inseparable. “But if they’re not being enforced, then it’s kind of all for nothing.”
The problem with ghost networks isn’t one of awareness. States, federal agencies, researchers and advocates have documented them time and again for years. But regulators have resisted penalizing insurers for not fixing them.
Two years ago, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions began to probe the directories used by five large insurers for plans that they sold on the individual market. Regulators wanted to find out if they could schedule an appointment with mental health providers listed as accepting new patients, so their staff called 580 providers in those companies’ directories.
Thirty-seven percent of the calls did not lead to an appointment getting scheduled.
Even though this secret-shopper survey found errors at a lower rate than what had been found in New York, health insurance experts who reviewed Arizona’s published findings said that the results were still concerning.
Ghost network regulations are intended to keep provider listings as close to error-free as possible. While the experts don’t expect any insurer to have a perfect directory, they said that double-digit error rates can be harmful to customers.
Arizona’s regulators seemed to agree. In a January 2023 report, they wrote that a patient could be clinging to the “last few threads of hope, which could erode if they receive no response from a provider (or cannot easily make an appointment).”
Secret-shopper surveys are considered one of the best ways to unmask errors. But states have limited funding, which restricts how often they can conduct that sort of investigation. Michigan, for its part, mostly searches for inaccuracies as part of an annual review of a health plan. Nevada investigates errors primarily if someone files a complaint. Christine Khaikin, a senior health policy attorney for the nonprofit advocacy group Legal Action Center, said fewer surveys means higher odds that errors go undetected.
Some regulators, upon learning that insurers may not be following the law, still take a hands-off approach with their enforcement. Oregon’s Department of Consumer and Business Services, for instance, conducts spot checks of provider networks to see if those listings are accurate. If they find errors, insurers are asked to fix the problem. The department hasn’t issued a fine for directory errors since 2019. A spokesperson said the agency doesn’t keep track of how frequently it finds network directory errors.
Dave Jones, a former insurance commissioner in California, said some commissioners fear that stricter enforcement could drive companies out of their states, leaving their constituents with fewer plans to choose from.
Even so, staffers at the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions wrote in the report that there “needs to be accountability from insurers” for the errors in their directories. That never happened, and the agency concealed the identities of the companies in the report. A department spokesperson declined to provide the insurers’ names to ProPublica and did not answer questions about the report.
Since January 2023, Arizonans have submitted dozens of complaints to the department that were related to provider networks. The spokesperson would not say how many were found to be substantiated, but the department was able to get insurers to address some of the problems, documents obtained through an open records request show.
According to the department’s online database of enforcement actions, not a single one of those companies has been fined.
Sometimes, when state insurance regulators fail to act, attorneys general or federal regulators intervene in their stead. But even then, the extra enforcers haven’t addressed the underlying problem.
For years, the Massachusetts Division of Insurance didn’t fine any company for ghost networks, so the state attorney general’s office began to investigate whether insurers had deceived consumers by publishing inaccurate directories. Among the errors identified: One plan had providers listed as accepting new patients but no actual appointments were available for months; another listed a single provider more than 10 times at different offices.
In February 2020, Maura Healey, who was then the Massachusetts attorney general, announced settlements with some of the state’s largest health plans. No insurer admitted wrongdoing. The companies, which together collect billions in premiums each year, paid a total of $910,000. They promised to remove providers who left their networks within 30 days of learning about that decision. Healey declared that the settlements would lead to “unprecedented changes to help ensure patients don’t have to struggle to find behavioral health services.”
But experts who reviewed the settlements for ProPublica identified a critical shortcoming. While the insurers had promised to audit directories multiple times a year, the companies did not have to report those findings to the attorney general’s office. Spokespeople for Healey and the attorney general’s office declined to answer questions about the experts’ assessments of the settlements.
After the settlements were finalized, Healey became the governor of Massachusetts and has been responsible for overseeing the state’s insurance division since she took office in January 2023. Her administration’s regulators haven’t brought any fines over ghost networks.
Healey’s spokesperson declined to answer questions and referred ProPublica to responses from the state’s insurance division. A division spokesperson said the state has taken steps to strengthen its provider directory regulations and streamline how information about in-network providers gets collected. Starting next year, the spokesperson said that the division “will consider penalties” against any insurer whose “provider directory is found to be materially noncompliant.”
States that don’t have ghost network laws have seen federal regulators step in to monitor directory errors.
In late 2020, Congress passed the No Surprises Act, which aimed to cut down on the prevalence of surprise medical bills from providers outside of a patient’s insurance network. Since then, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the two large public health insurance programs, has reached out to every state to see which ones could handle enforcement of the federal ghost network regulations.
At least 15 states responded that they lacked the ability to enforce the new regulation. So CMS is now tasked with watching out for errors in directories used by millions of insurance customers in those states.
Julie Brookhart, a spokesperson for CMS, told ProPublica that the agency takes enforcement of the directory error regulations “very seriously.” She said CMS has received a “small number” of provider directory complaints, which the agency is in the process of investigating. If it finds a violation, Brookhart said regulators “will take appropriate enforcement action.”
But since the requirement went into effect in January 2022, CMS hasn’t fined any insurer for errors. Brookhart said that CMS intends to develop further guidelines with other federal agencies. Until that happens, Brookhart said that insurers are expected to make “good-faith” attempts to follow the federal provider directory rules.
Last year, five California lawmakers proposed a bill that sought to get rid of ghost networks around the state. If it passed, AB 236 would limit the number of errors allowed in a directory — creating a cap of 5% of all providers listed — and raise penalties for violations. California would become home to one of the nation’s toughest ghost network regulations.
The state had already passed one of America’s first such regulations in 2015, requiring insurers to post directories online and correct inaccuracies on a weekly basis.
Since the law went into effect in 2016, insurance customers have filed hundreds of complaints with the California Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees health plans for nearly 30 million enrollees statewide.
Lawyers also have uncovered extensive evidence of directory errors. When San Diego’s city attorney, Mara Elliott, sued several insurers over publishing inaccurate directories in 2021, she based the claims on directory error data collected by the companies themselves. Citing that data, the lawsuits noted that error rates for the insurers’ psychiatrist listings were between 26% and 83% in 2018 and 2019. The insurers denied the accusations and convinced a judge to dismiss the suits on technical grounds. A panel of California appeals court judges recently reversed those decisions; the cases are pending.
The companies have continued to send that data to the DMHC each year — but the state has not used it to examine ghost networks. California is among the states that typically waits for a complaint to be filed before it investigates errors.
“The industry doesn’t take the regulatory penalties seriously because they’re so low,” Elliott told ProPublica. “It’s probably worth it to take the risk and see if they get caught.”
California’s limited enforcement has resulted in limited fines. Over the past eight years, the DMHC has issued just $82,500 in fines for directory errors involving providers of any kind. That’s less than one-fifth of the fines issued in the two years before the regulation went into effect.
A spokesperson for the DMHC said its regulators continue “to hold health plans accountable” for violating ghost network regulations. Since 2018, the DMHC has discovered scores of problems with provider directories and pushed health plans to correct the errors. The spokesperson said that the department’s oversight has also helped some customers get reimbursed for out-of-network costs incurred due to directory errors.
“A lower fine total does not equate to a scaling back on enforcement,” the spokesperson said.
Dr. Joaquin Arambula, one of the state Assembly members who co-sponsored AB 236, disagreed. He told ProPublica that California’s current ghost network regulation is “not effectively being enforced.” After clearing the state Assembly this past winter, his bill, along with several others that address mental health issues, was suddenly tabled this summer. The roadblock came from a surprising source: the administration of the state’s Democratic governor.
Officials with the DMHC, whose director was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, estimated that more than $15 million in extra funding would be needed to carry out the bill’s requirements over the next five years. State lawmakers accused officials of inflating the costs. The DMHC’s spokesperson said that the estimate was accurate and based on the department’s “real experience” overseeing health plans.
Arambula and his co-sponsors hope that their colleagues will reconsider the measure during next year’s session. Sitting before state lawmakers in Sacramento this year, a therapist named Sarah Soroken told the story of a patient who had called 50 mental health providers in her insurer’s directory. None of them could see her. Only after the patient attempted suicide did she get the care she’d sought.
“We would be negligent,” Soroken told the lawmakers, “if we didn’t do everything in our power to ensure patients get the health care they need.”
Paige Pfleger of WPLN/Nashville Public Radio contributed reporting.
Share This Post
-
How Beneficial Is MCT Oil, Really?
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.
Often derived from coconuts (though it doesn’t have to be), medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) are trendy… But does the science back the hype?
First, the principle
MCTs are commonly enjoyed because unlike short- or long-chain fatty acids, they can be quickly broken down and either immediately converted quickly and easily into energy, or turned into ketones in the case of a surplus (in the case of true excess, however, it’ll simply be stored as fat).
Most of that involves the liver, so for anyone who wants a refresher on liver health:
How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver ← notwithstanding the title, this is also important knowledge even if your liver is healthy now—if you’d like it to stay healthy, anyway!
You can also read about the ins and outs of glycogen metabolism and the body’s energy-based metabolic processes in general (including the body’s energy processes that go on in the liver), here:
From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
If the liver turns the MCTs into ketones, those ketones will then be used for energy if there is insufficient glucose available (as the body will always use glucose from the blood first, if available, before moving to alternative energy sources such as ketones and/or fat reserves.)
Thus, many people look to ketones as a solution for having enough energy to function while on a very low-carb diet such as the ketogenic diet:
Ketogenic Diet: Burning Fat Or Burning Out?
…which as you’ll recall, does work for short-term weight loss, but brings long-term health risks, so should not be undertaken for long periods of time.
So, does MCT Oil help?
With regard to weight loss, the research is weak and mixed:
- Weak, because often the methodology was shoddy, often there are many factors not controlled-for, and often the sample sizes were small (and also, RCTs by their very nature tend to be quite short-term (often 6, 8, or 12 weeks), whereas heavy reliance on ketones from MCTs may fall into the same long-term problems as the ketogenic diet in general).
- Mixed, because the results varied widely (probably because of the aforementioned problems).
Rather than pick at individual studies, let’s look at this review and meta-analysis of 13 studies, with a combined sample size of 749 people (so you can imagine how small the individual RCTs were):
❝Compared with LCTs, MCTs decreased body weight (-0.51 kg [95% CI-0.80 to -0.23 kg]; P<0.001; I(2)=35%); waist circumference (-1.46 cm [95% CI -2.04 to -0.87 cm]; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), hip circumference (-0.79 cm [95% CI -1.27 to -0.30 cm]; P=0.002; I(2)=0%), total body fat (standard mean difference -0.39 [95% CI -0.57 to -0.22]; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), total subcutaneous fat (standard mean difference -0.46 [95% CI -0.64 to -0.27]; P<0.001; I(2)=20%), and visceral fat (standard mean difference -0.55 [95% CI -0.75 to -0.34]; P<0.001; I(2)=0%).
No differences were seen in blood lipid levels.
Many trials lacked sufficient information for a complete quality assessment, and commercial bias was detected.❞
So, if we’re going to take those numbers at face value, that means a net weight loss, over the course of the trial period, was…
*drumroll*
0.51kg (that’s about 1 lb).
To put that into perspective, if you did nothing else but pee 1 cup of urine before getting weighed, you’d register as having lost 0.25kg (or about ½ lb) by virtue of the bathroom trip alone.
Here’s the paper:
What about cholesterol and heart health?
With regard to cholesterol, MCT oil is touted as improving blood lipids, which means lowering LDL and increasing HDL (within a safe range, anyway).
You’ll remember that the above review concluded “No differences were seen in blood lipid levels”.
It may again be a case of individual studies cancelling each other out. For example…
This study found that it improved lipids in 40 young women as part of a calorie-controlled interventional diet:
This study found that it worsened lipids in 17 young men, worse even than taking an equivalent amount of sunflower oil:
In short, it’s a gamble.
It may be good for insulin sensitivity, though
This one seems to be specific to people with type 2 diabetes. The paper heading says it all, but we include the link in case you want to know the details (the short version is, it improved insulin sensitivity in diabetic subjects only (not others), and didn’t affect anything else that was measured:
The sample size was small (20 people total, of whom 10 had diabetes), and the next study was with 40 people, this time moderately overweight and all with type 2 diabetes:
Want to try some?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon 😎
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Flexible Dieting – by Alan Aragon
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 is the book from which we were working, for the most part, in our recent Expert Insights feature with Alan Aragon. We’ll re-iterate here: despite not being a Dr. Aragon, he’s a well-published research scientist with decades in the field of nutritional science, as well as being a personal trainer and fitness educator.
As you may gather from our other article, there’s a lot more to this book than “eat what you like”. Specifically, as the title suggests, there’s a lot of science—decades of it, and while we had room to cite a few studies in our article, he cites many many more; several citations per page of a 288-page book.
So, that sets the book apart from a lot of its genre; instead of just “here’s what some gym-bro thinks”, it’s “here’s what decades of data says”.
Another strength of this book is how clearly he explains such a lot of science—he explains terms as they come up, as well as having a generous glossary. He also explains things clearly and simply without undue dumbing down—just clarity of communication.
The style is to-the-point and instructional; it’s neither full of fitness-enthusiast hype nor dry academia, and keeps a light and friendly conversational tone throughout.
Bottom line: if you’d like to get your diet in order and you want to do it right while also knowing which things still need attention (and why) and which you can relax about (and why), then this book will get you there.
Click here to check out Flexible Dieting, and take an easy, relaxed control of yours!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Greek Yogurt vs Cottage Cheese – 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 Greek yogurt to cottage cheese, we picked the yogurt.
Why?
These are both dairy products popularly considered healthy, mostly for their high-protein, low-carb, low-fat profile. We’re going to assume that both were made without added sugars. Thus, their macro profiles are close to identical, and nothing between them there.
In the category of vitamins, both are a good source of some B vitamins, and neither are good source of much else. The B-vitamins they have most of, B2 and B12, Greek yogurt has more.
We’ll call this a small win for Greek yogurt.
As they are dairy products, you might have expected them to contain vitamin D—however (unless they have been artificially fortified, as is usually done with plant-based equivalents) they contain none or trace amounts only.
When it comes to minerals, both are reasonable sources of calcium, selenium, and phosphorus. Of these, they’re equal on the selenium, while cottage cheese has more phosphorus and Greek yogurt has more calcium.
Since it’s also a mineral (even if it’s usually one we’re more likely to be trying to get less of), it’s also worth noting here that cottage cheese is quite high in sodium, while Greek yogurt is not.
Another win for Greek yogurt.
Beyond those things, we’d be remiss not to mention that Greek yogurt contains plenty of probiotic bacteria, while cottage cheese does not.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
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:
-
Neurologists Debunk 11 Brain Myths
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.
Neuroscientists Dr. Santoshi Billakota and Dr. Brad Kamitaki debunk 11 myths about the brain. How many did you know?
From the top
Without further ado, the myths are…
- “We only use 10% of our brains”: False! We use most parts of our brain at different times, depending on the activity. PET/MRI scans show widespread usage.
- “The bigger the brain, the smarter the creature”: False! While there’s often a correlation, intelligence depends on brain complexity and development of specific regions, not overall size. For this reason get, for example, some corvids that are more intelligent than some dogs.
- “IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence”: False! IQ tests measure limited aspects of intelligence and are influenced by external factors like test conditions and education.
- “Video games rot your brain”: False! Video games can improve problem-solving, strategy, and team-building skills when played in moderation.
- “Memory gets worse as you age”: Partly false. While episodic memory may decline, semantic and procedural memory often improve with age.
- “Left-brained people are logical, and right-brained people are creative”: False! Both hemispheres work together, and personality or skills are influenced by environment and experiences, not brain hemispheres.
- “You can’t prevent a stroke”: False! Strokes can often be prevented by managing risk factors like blood pressure, cholesterol, and lifestyle choices.
- “Eating fish makes you smarter”: False! Eating fish, especially those rich in omega-3s, can support brain health but won’t increase intelligence.
- “You can always trust your senses”: False! Senses can be deceptive and influenced by emotions, memories, or neurological conditions.
- “Different sexes have different brains”: False! Structurally, brains are the same regardless of chromosomal sex; differences arise from environmental (including hormonal) and experiential factors—and even there, there’s more than enough overlap that we are far from categorizable as sexually dimorphic.
- “If you have a seizure, you have epilepsy”: False! A seizure can occur from various causes, but epilepsy is defined by recurrent unprovoked seizures and requires specific diagnosis and treatment.
For more on all of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
The Dopamine Myth ← a bonus 12th myth!
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:
-
Fast Exercise – by Dr. Michael Mosley & Peta Bee
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 written before about the benefits of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), but there’s more to say than we can fit in a short article!
Dr. Michael Mosley, who hates exercise but knows his stuff when it comes to the benefits, teamed up with Peta Bee, who loves exercise and is a science journalist with degrees in sports science and nutrition, to bring us this book.
In it, we learn a lot about:
- the science of HIIT
- what makes it so different from most kinds of exercise
- exactly what benefits one can expect
…in a very detailed clinical fashion (while still remaining very readable).
By “very detailed clinical fashion”, here we mean “one minute of this kind of exercise this many times per week over this period of time will give this many extra healthy life-years”, for example, along with lots of research to back numbers, and explanations of the mechanisms of action (e.g. reducing inflammatory biomarkers of aging, increasing cellular apoptosis, improving cardiometabolic stats for reduced CVD risk, and many things)
There’s also time/space given over to exactly what to do and how to do it, giving enough options to suit personal tastes/circumstances.
Bottom line: if you’d like to make your exercise work a lot harder for you while you spend a lot less time working out, then this book will help you do just that!
Click here to check out Fast Exercise, and enjoy the benefits!
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: