Are Brain Chips Safe?

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.

Ready For Cyborgization?

A bar chart showing the percentage of people who use social media, emphasizing its safety.

In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your views on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), such as the Utah Array and Neuralink’s chips on/in brains that allow direct communication between brains and computers, so that (for example) a paralysed person can use a device to communicate, or manipulate a prosthetic limb or two.

We didn’t get as many votes as usual; it’s possible that yesterday’s newsletter ended up in a lot of spam filters due to repeated use of a word in “extra ______ olive oil” in its main feature!

However, of the answers we did get…

  • About 54% said “It’s bad enough that our phones spy on us, without BCI monitoring our thoughts as well!”
  • About 23% said “Sounds great in principle, but I don’t think we’re there yet safetywise”
  • About 19% said “Sign me up for technological telepathy! I am ready for assimilation”
  • One (1) person said “Electrode outside the skull are good; chips on the brain are bad”

But what does the science say?

We’re not there yet safetywise: True or False?

True, in our opinion, when it comes to the latest implants, anyway. While it’s very difficult to prove a negative (it could be that everything goes perfectly in human trials), “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far this seems to be lacking.

The stage before human trials is usually animal trials, starting with small creatures and working up to non-human primates if appropriate, before finally humans.

  • Good news: the latest hot-topic BCI device (Neuralink) was tested on animals!
  • Bad news: to say it did not go well would be an understatement

The Gruesome Story of How Neuralink’s Monkeys Actually Died

The above is a Wired article, and we tend to go for more objective sources, however we chose this one because it links to very many objective sources, including an open letter from the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine, which basically confirms everything in the Wired article. There are lots of links to primary (medical and legal) sources, too.

Electrodes outside the skull are good; chips on/in the brain are bad: True or False?

True or False depending on how they’re done. The Utah Array (an older BCI implant, now 20 years old, though it’s been updated many times since) has had a good safety record, after being used by a few dozen people with paralysis to control devices:

How the Utah Array is advancing BCI science

The Utah Array works on the same general principle as Neuralink, but the mechanics of its implementation are very different:

  • The Utah Array involves a tiny bundle of microelectrodes (held together by a rigid structure that looks a bit like a nanoscale hairbrush) put in place by a brain surgeon, and that’s that.
  • The Neuralink has a dynamic web of electrodes, implanted by a little robot that acts like a tiny sewing machine to implant many polymer threads, each containing its own a bunch of electrodes.

In theory, the latter is much more advanced. In practice, so far, the former has a much better safety record.

I am right to be a little worried about giving companies access to my brain: True or False?

True or False, depending on the nature of your concern.

For privacy: current BCI devices have quite simple switches operated consciously by the user. So while technically any such device that then runs its data through Bluetooth or WiFi could be hacked, this risk is no greater than using a wireless mouse and/or keyboard, because it has access to about the same amount of information.

For safety: yes, probably there is cause to be worried. Likely the first waves of commercial users of any given BCI device will be severely disabled people who are more likely to waive their rights in the hope of a life-changing assistance device, and likely some of those will suffer if things go wrong.

Which on the one hand, is their gamble to make. And on the other hand, makes rushing to human trials, for companies that do that, a little more predatory.

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Guinness Is Good For You*
  • Beyond Balancing The Books – by George Marino, CPA, CFP
    Cut out stress without sacrificing performance. Practical advice for mindfully engaging with the business world. Improve health and productivity.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?

    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.

    Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?

    Out of the subscribers who engaged in the poll, it looks like we have a lot of confidence in at least some detox approaches being useful!

    Celery juice is most people’s go-to, and indeed it was the only one to get mentioned in the comments added. So let’s take a look at that first…

    Celery juice

    Celery juice is enjoyed by many people, with many health benefits in mind, including to:

    • reduce inflammation
    • lower blood pressure
    • heal the liver
    • fight cancer
    • reduce bloating
    • support the digestive system
    • increase energy
    • support weight loss
    • promote good mental health

    An impressive list! With such an impressive list, we would hope for an impressive weight of evidence, so regular readers might be wondering why those bullet-pointed items aren’t all shiny hyperlinks to studies backing those claims. The reason is…

    There aren’t any high-quality studies that back any of those claims.

    We found one case study (so, a study with a sample size of one; not amazing) that observed a blood pressure change in an elderly man after drinking celery juice.

    Rather than trawl up half of PubMed to show the lacklustre results in a way more befitting of Research Review Monday, though, here’s a nice compact article detailing the litany of disappointment that is science’s observations regards celery juice:

    Why Are People Juicing Their Celery? – by Allison Webster, PhD, RD

    A key take-away is: juicing destroys the fiber that is celery’s biggest benefit, and its phytochemicals are largely unproven to be of use.

    If you enjoy celery, great! It (when not juiced) is a great source of fiber and water. If you juice it, it’s a great source of water.

    Activated Charcoal

    Unlike a lot of greenery—whose “cleansing” benefits mostly come from fiber and disappear when juiced—activated charcoal has a very different way of operating.

    Activated charcoal is negatively charged on a molecular level*, and that—along with its porous nature—traps toxins. It really is a superpowered detox that actually works very well indeed.

    But…

    It works very well indeed. It will draw out toxins so well, that it’s commonly used to treat poisonings. “Wait”, we hear you say, “why was that a but”?

    It doesn’t know what a toxin is. It just draws out all of the things. You took medicine recently? Not any more you didn’t. You didn’t even take that medication orally, you took it some other way? Activated charcoal does not care:

    Does this mean that activated charcoal can be used to “undo” a night of heavy drinking?

    Sadly not. That’s one of the few things it just doesn’t work for. It won’t work for alcohol, salts, or metals:

    The Use of Activated Charcoal to Treat Intoxications

    *Fun chemistry mnemonic about ions:

    Cations are pussitive

    Anions (by process of elimination) are negative

    Onions taste good in salad (remember also: Cole’s Law)

    Bottom line on detox foods/drinks:

    • Fiber is great; juicing removes fiber. Eat your greens (don’t drink them)!
    • Activated charcoal is the heavy artillery of detoxing
    • Sometimes it will remove things you didn’t want removed, though
    • It also won’t help against alcohol, sadly

    Share This Post

  • A Therapeutic Journey – by Alain de Botton

    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 often featured The School of Life’s videos here on 10almonds, and most of those are written by (and often voiced by) Alain de Botton.

    This book lays out the case for mental health being also just health, that no person is perfectly healthy all the time, and sometimes we all need a little help. While he does suggest seeking help from reliable outside sources, he also tells a lot about how we can improve things for ourselves along the way, whether by what we can control in our environment, or just what’s between our ears.

    In the category of limitations, the book is written with the assumption that you are in a position to have access to a therapist of your choice, and in a sufficiently safe and stable life situation that there is a limit to how bad things can get.

    The style is… Alain de Botton’s usual style. Well-written, clear, decisive, instructive, compassionate, insightful, thought-provoking.

    Bottom line: this isn’t a book for absolutely everyone, but if your problems are moderate and your resources are comfortable, then this book has a lot of insights that can make your life more easy-going and joyful, without dropping the seriousness when appropriate.

    Click here to check out A Therapeutic Journey, and perhaps begin one of your own!

    Share This Post

  • The “Five Tibetan Rites” & Why To Do Them!

    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.

    Spinning Around

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinion of the “Five Tibetan Rites”, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 41% said “I have never heard of these before”
    • About 27% said “they restore youth by adjusting internal vortexes”
    • About 22% said “they are basically yoga, by a different name”
    • About 11% said “they are a pseudoscience popular in the US”

    So what does the science say?

    The Five Tibetan Rites are five Tibetan rites: True or False?

    False, though this is more question of social science than of health science, so we’ll not count it against them for having a misleading name.

    The first known mentioning of the “Five Tibetan Rites” is by an American named Peter Kelder, who in 1939 published, through a small LA occult-specialized publishing house, a booklet called “The Eye of Revelation”. This work was then varyingly republished, repackaged, and occasionally expanded upon by Kelder or other American authors, including Chris Kilham’s popular 1994 book “The Five Tibetans”.

    The “Five Tibetan Rites” are unknown as such in Tibet, except for what awareness of them has been raised by people asking about them in the context of the American phenomenon.

    Here’s a good history book, for those interested:

    The Secret of the Five Rites: In Search of a Lost Western Tradition of Inner Alchemy – by John Michael Greer

    The author didn’t originally set out to “debunk” anything, and is himself a keen spiritualist (and practitioner of the five rites), but he was curious about the origins of the rites, and ultimately found them—as a collection of five rites, and the other assorted advices given by Kelder—to be an American synthesis in the whole, each part inspired by various different physical practices (some of them hatha yoga, some from the then-popular German gymnastics movement, some purely American spiritualism, all available in books that were popular in California in the early 1900s).

    You may be wondering: why didn’t Kelder just say that, then, instead of telling stories of an ancient Tibetan tradition that empirically does not exist? The answer to this lies again in social science not health science, but it’s been argued that it’s common for Westerners to “pick ‘n’ mix” ideas from the East, champion them as inscrutably mystical, and (since they are inscrutable) then simply decide how to interpret and represent them. Here’s an excellent book on this, if you’re interested:

    Orientalism – by Edward Said

    (in Kelder’s case, this meant that “there’s a Tibetan tradition, trust me” was thus more marketable in the West than “I read these books in LA”)

    They are at least five rites: True or False?

    True! If we use the broad definition of “rite” as “something done repeatedly in a solemn fashion”. And there are indeed five of them:

    1. Spinning around (good for balance)
    2. Leg raises (this one’s from German gymnastics)
    3. Kneeling back bend (various possible sources)
    4. Tabletop (hatha yoga, amongst others)
    5. Pendulum (hatha yoga, amongst others) ← you may recognize this one from the Sun Salutation

    You can see them demonstrated here:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically

    Kelder also advocated for what was basically the Hay Diet (named not for the substance but for William Hay; it involved separating foods into acid and alkali, not necessarily according to the actual pH of the foods, and combining only “acid” foods or only “alkali” foods at a time), which was popular at the time, but has since been rejected as without scientific merit. Kelder referred to this as “the sixth rite”.

    The Five Rites restore youth by adjusting internal vortexes: True or False?

    False, in any scientific sense of that statement. Scientifically speaking, the body does not have vortexes to adjust, therefore that is not the mechanism of action.

    Spiritually speaking, who knows? Not us, a humble health science publication.

    The Five Rites are a pseudoscience popular in the US: True or False?

    True, if 27% of those who responded of our mostly North American readership can be considered as representative of what is popular.

    However…

    “Pseudoscience” gets thrown around a lot as a bad word; it’s often used as a criticism, but it doesn’t have to be. Consider:

    A small child who hears about “eating the rainbow” and mistakenly understands that we are all fuelled by internal rainbows that need powering-up by eating fruits and vegetables of different colors, and then does so…

    …does not hold a remotely scientific view of how things are happening, but is nevertheless doing the correct thing as recommended by our best current science.

    It’s thus a little similar with the five rites. Because…

    The Five Rites are at least good for our health: True or False?

    True! They are great for the health.

    The first one (spinning around) is good for balance. Science would recommend doing it both ways rather than just one way, but one is not bad. It trains balance, trains our stabilizing muscles, and confuses our heart a bit (in a good way).

    See also: Fall Special (How To Not Fall, And Not Get Injured If You Do)

    The second one (leg raises) is excellent for core strength, which in turn helps keep our organs where they are supposed to be (this is a bigger health issue than most people realise, because “out of sight, out of mind”), which is beneficial for many aspects of our health!

    See also: Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose Itvisceral fat is the fat that surrounds your internal organs; too much there becomes a problem!

    The third, fourth, and fifth ones stretch our spine (healthily), strengthen our back, and in the cases of the fourth and fifth ones, are good full-body exercises for building strength, and maintaining muscle mass and mobility.

    See also: Building & Maintaining Mobility

    So in short…

    If you’ve been enjoying the Five Rites, by all means keep on doing them; they might not be Tibetan (or an ancient practice, as presented), and any mystical aspect is beyond the scope of our health science publication, but they are great for the health in science-based ways!

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Guinness Is Good For You*
  • The Immunostimulant Superfood

    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.

    Eat These Greens!

    Chlorella vulgaris, henceforth “chlorella”, is a simple green algae that has a lot of health benefits.

    Note: most of the studies here are for Chlorella vulgaris specifically. However, some are for other species of the Chlorella genus, of which Chlorella vulgaris is by far the most common, hence the name (vulgaris = common). The relevant phytochemical properties appear to be the same regardless.

    Superfood

    While people generally take it as a supplement rather than a food item in any kind of bulk, it is more than 50% protein and contains all 9 essential amino acids.

    As you might expect of a green superfood, it’s also full of many antioxidants, most of them carotenoids, and these pack a punch, for example against cancer:

    Antiproliferative effects of carotenoids extracted from Chlorella ellipsoidea and Chlorella vulgaris on human colon cancer cells

    It also has a lot of vitamins and minerals, and even omega-3.

    Which latter also means it helps improve lipids and is thus particularly…

    Heart healthy

    ❝Daily consumption of Chlorella supplements provided the potential of health benefits reducing serum lipid risk factors, mainly triglycerides and total cholesterol❞

    ~ Dr. Na Hee Ryu et al.

    Read more: Impact of daily Chlorella consumption on serum lipid and carotenoid profiles in mildly hypercholesterolemic adults: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study

    Its heart-healthy benefits don’t stop at lipids though, and include blood pressure management, as in this study that found…

    ❝GABA-rich Chlorella significantly decreased high-normal blood pressure and borderline hypertension, and is a beneficial dietary supplement for prevention of the development of hypertension. ❞

    ~ Dr. Morio Shimada et al.

    Read more: Anti-hypertensive effect of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-rich Chlorella on high-normal blood pressure and borderline hypertension in placebo-controlled double blind study

    About that GABA, if you’re curious about that, check out:

    GABA Against Stress, Anxiety, & More

    May remove heavy metals

    We’re going with “may” for this one as we could only find animal studies so far (probably because most humans don’t have megadoses of heavy metals in them, which makes testing harder).

    Here’s an example animal study, though:

    Enhanced elimination of tissue methyl mercury in [Chlorella]-fed mice

    Immunostimulant

    This one’s clearer, for example in this 8-week study (with humans) that found…

    ❝Serum concentrations of interferon-γ (p<0.05) and interleukin-1β (p<0.001) significantly increased and that of interleukin-12 (p<0.1) tended to increase in the Chlorella group.

    The increments of these cytokines after the intervention were significantly bigger in the Chlorella group than those in the placebo group. In addition, NK cell activities (%) were significantly increased in Chlorella group, but not in Placebo group.

    The increments of NK cell activities (%) were also significantly bigger in the Chlorella group than the placebo group.

    Additionally, changed levels of NK cell activity were positively correlated with those of serum interleukin-1β (r=0.280, p=0.047) and interferon-γ (r=0.271, p<0.005).❞

    ~ Dr. Jung Hyun Kwak et al.

    tl;dr = it boosts numerous different kinds of immune cells

    Read more: Beneficial immunostimulatory effect of short-term Chlorella supplementation: enhancement of natural killer cell activity and early inflammatory response (randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial)

    PS, if you click though to the study, you may be momentarily alarmed by the first paragraph of the abstract that says “However, there were no direct evidences for the effect of Chlorella supplementation on immune/inflammation response in healthy humans“

    this is from the “Background” section of the abstract, so what they are saying is “before we did this study, nobody had done this yet”.

    So, be assured that the results are worthwhile and compelling.

    Is it safe?

    Based on the studies, it has a good safety profile. However, as it boosts the immune system, you may want to check with your doctor if you have an autoimmune disorder, and/or you are on immunosuppressants.

    And in general, of course always check with your doctor/pharmacist if unsure about any potential drug interactions.

    Want some?

    We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon

    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:

  • How anti-vaccine figures abuse data to trick you

    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 anti-vaccine movement is nearly as old as vaccines themselves. For as long as humans have sought to harness our immune system’s incredible ability to recognize and fight infectious invaders, critics and conspiracy theorists have opposed these efforts. 

    Anti-vaccine tactics have advanced since the early days of protesting “unnatural” smallpox inoculation, and the rampant abuse of scientific data may be the most effective strategy yet. 

    Here’s how vaccine opponents misuse data to deceive people, plus how you can avoid being manipulated.

    Misappropriating raw and unverified safety data

    Perhaps the oldest and most well-established anti-vaccine tactic is the abuse of data from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration maintain VAERS as a tool for researchers to detect early warning signs of potential vaccine side effects. 

    Anyone can submit a VAERS report about any symptom experienced at any point after vaccination. That does not mean that these symptoms are vaccine side effects.

    VAERS was not designed to determine if a specific vaccine caused a specific adverse event. But for decades, vaccine opponents have misinterpreted, misrepresented, and manipulated VAERS data to convince people that vaccines are dangerous. 

    Anyone relying on VAERS to draw conclusions about vaccine safety is probably trying to trick you. It isn’t possible to determine from VAERS data alone if a vaccine caused a specific health condition.

    VAERS isn’t the only federal data that vaccine opponents abuse. Originally created for COVID-19 vaccines, V-safe is a vaccine safety monitoring system that allows users to report—via text message surveys—how they feel and any health issues they experience up to a year after vaccination. Anti-vaccine groups have misrepresented data in the system, which tracks all health experiences, whether or not they are vaccine-related.

    The U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) has also become a target of anti-vaccine misinformation. Vaccine opponents have falsely claimed that DMED data reveals massive spikes in strokes, heart attacks, HIV, cancer, and blood clots among military service members since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The spike was due to an updated policy that corrected underreporting in the previous years

    Misrepresenting legitimate studies

    A common tactic vaccine opponents use is misrepresenting data from legitimate sources such as national health databases and peer-reviewed studies. For example, COVID-19 vaccines have repeatedly been blamed for rising cancer and heart attack rates, based on data that predates the pandemic by decades. 

    A prime example of this strategy is a preliminary FDA study that detected a slight increase in stroke risk in older adults after a high-dose flu vaccine alone or in combination with the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. The study found no “increased risk of stroke following administration of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccines.”

    Yet vaccine opponents used the study to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines were uniquely harmful, despite the data indicating that the increased risk was almost certainly driven by the high-dose flu vaccine. The final peer-reviewed study confirmed that there was no elevated stroke risk following COVID-19 vaccination. But the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines cause strokes persists.

    Similarly, the largest COVID-19 vaccine safety study to date confirmed the extreme rarity of a few previously identified risks. For weeks, vaccine opponents overstated these rare risks and falsely claimed that the study proves that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe. 

    Citing preprint and retracted studies

    When a study has been retracted, it is no longer considered a credible source. A study’s retraction doesn’t deter vaccine opponents from promoting it—it may even be an incentive because retracted papers can be held up as examples of the medical establishment censoring so-called “truthtellers.” For example, anti-vaccine groups still herald Andrew Wakefield nearly 15 years after his study falsely linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism was retracted for data fraud. 

    The COVID-19 pandemic brought the lasting impact of retracted studies into sharp focus. The rush to understand a novel disease that was infecting millions brought a wave of scientific publications, some more legitimate than others. 

    Over time, the weaker studies were reassessed and retracted, but their damage lingers. A 2023 study found that retracted and withdrawn COVID-19 studies were cited significantly more frequently than valid published COVID-19 studies in the same journals. 

    In one example, a widely cited abstract that found that ivermectin—an antiparasitic drug proven to not treat COVID-19—dramatically reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients exemplifies this phenomenon. The abstract, which was never peer reviewed, was retracted at the request of its authors, who felt the study’s evidence was weak and was being misrepresented. 

    Despite this, the study—along with the many other retracted ivermectin studies—remains a touchstone for proponents of the drug that has shown no effectiveness against COVID-19.

    In a more recent example, a group of COVID-19 vaccine opponents uploaded a paper to The Lancet’s preprint server, a repository for papers that have not yet been peer reviewed or published by the prestigious journal. The paper claimed to have analyzed 325 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, finding COVID-19 vaccines were linked to 74 percent of the deaths. 

    The paper was promptly removed because its conclusions were unsupported, leading vaccine opponents to cry censorship. 

    Applying animal research to humans

    Animals are vital to medical research, allowing scientists to better understand diseases that affect humans and develop and screen potential treatments before they are tested in humans. Animal research is a starting point that should never be generalized to humans, but vaccine opponents do just that.

    Several animal studies are frequently cited to support the claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous during pregnancy. These studies found that pregnant rats had adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are unsurprising given that they were injected with doses equal to or many times larger than the dose given to humans rather than a dose that is proportional to the animal’s size. 

    Similarly, a German study on rat heart cells found abnormalities after exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine opponents falsely insinuated that this study proves COVID-19 vaccines cause heart damage in humans and was so universally misrepresented that the study’s author felt compelled to dispute the claims. 

    The author noted that the study used vaccine doses significantly higher than those administered to humans and was conducted in cultured rat cells, a dramatically different environment than a functioning human heart. 

    How to avoid being misled

    The internet has empowered vaccine opponents to spread false information with an efficiency and expediency that was previously impossible. Anti-vaccine narratives have advanced rapidly due to the rampant exploitation of valid sources and the promotion of unvetted, non-credible sources. 

    You can avoid being tricked by using multiple trusted sources to verify claims that you encounter online. Some examples of credible sources are reputable public health entities like the CDC and World Health Organization, personal health care providers, and peer-reviewed research from experts in fields relevant to COVID-19 and the pandemic. 

    Read more about anti-vaccine tactics:

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    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:

  • Fitness Freedom for Seniors – by Jackie Jacobs

    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.

    Exercise books often assume that either we are training for the Olympics, and most likely also that we are 20 years old. This one doesn’t.

    Instead, we see a well-researched, well-organized, clearly-illustrated fitness plan with age in mind. Author Jackie Jacobs offers tips and advice for all levels, and a progressive week-by-week plan of 15-minute sessions. This way, we’re neither overdoing it nor slacking off; it’s a perfect balance.

    The exercises are aimed at “all areas”, that is to say, improving cardiovascular fitness, balance, flexibility, and strength. It also gives some supplementary advice with regard to diet and suchlike, but the workouts are the real meat of the book.

    Bottom line: if you’d like a robust, science-based exercise regime that’s tailored to seniors, this is the book for you.

    Click here to check out Fitness Freedom for Seniors, and get yours!

    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: