Is Chiropractic All It’s Cracked Up To Be?
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.
Is Chiropractic All It’s Cracked Up To Be?
Yesterday, we asked you for your opinions on chiropractic medicine, and got the above-depicted, below-described set of results:
- 38% of respondents said it keeps us healthy, and everyone should do it as maintenance
- 33% of respondents said it can correct some short-term skeletal issues, but that’s all
- 16% of respondents said that it’s a dangerous pseudoscience and can cause serious harm
- 13% of respondents said that it’s mostly just a combination of placebo and endorphins
Respondents also shared personal horror stories of harm done, personal success stories of things cured, and personal “it didn’t seem to do anything for me” stories.
What does the science say?
It’s a dangerous pseudoscience and can cause harm: True or False?
False and True, respectively.
That is to say, chiropractic in its simplest form that makes the fewest claims, is not a pseudoscience. If somebody physically moves your bones around, your bones will be physically moved. If your bones were indeed misaligned, and the chiropractor is knowledgeable and competent, this will be for the better.
However, like any form of medicine, it can also cause harm; in chiropractic’s case, because it more often than not involves manipulation of the spine, this can be very serious:
❝Twenty six fatalities were published in the medical literature and many more might have remained unpublished.
The reported pathology usually was a vascular accident involving the dissection of a vertebral artery.
Conclusion: Numerous deaths have occurred after chiropractic manipulations. The risks of this treatment by far outweigh its benefit.❞
Source: Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases
From this, we might note two things:
- The abstract doesn’t note the initial sample size; we would rather have seen this information expressed as a percentage. Unfortunately, the full paper is not accessible, and nor are many of the papers it cites.
- Having a vertebral artery fatally dissected is nevertheless not an inviting prospect, and is certainly a very reasonable cause for concern.
It’s mostly just a combination of placebo and endorphins: True or False?
True or False, depending on what you went in for:
- If you went in for a regular maintenance clunk-and-click, then yes, you will get your clunk-and-click and feel better for it because you had a ritualized* experience and endorphins were released.
- If you went in for something that was actually wrong with your skeletal alignment, to get it corrected, and this correction was within your chiropractor’s competence, then yes, you will feel better because a genuine fault was corrected.
*this is not implying any mysticism, by the way. Rather it means simply that placebo effect is strongest when there is a ritual associated with it. In this case it means going to the place, sitting in a pleasant waiting room, being called in, removing your shoes and perhaps some other clothes, getting the full attention of a confident and assured person for a while, this sort of thing.
With regard to its use to combat specifically spinal pain (i.e., perhaps the most obvious thing to treat by chiropractic spinal manipulation), evidence is slightly in favor, but remains unclear:
❝Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulation compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. ❞
Source: Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain
It can correct some short-term skeletal issues, but that’s all: True or False?
Probably True.
Why “probably”? The effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for things other than short-term skeletal issues has barely been studied. From this, we may wish to keep an open mind, while also noting that it can hardly claim to be evidence-based—and it’s had hundreds of years to accumulate evidence. In all likelihood, publication bias has meant that studies that were conducted and found inconclusive or negative results were simply not published—but that’s just a hypothesis on our part.
In the case of using chiropractic to treat migraines, a very-related-but-not-skeletal issue, researchers found:
❝Pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met, but deficits were remediable. Preliminary data support a definitive trial of MCC+ for migraine.❞
Translating this: “it didn’t score as well as we hoped, but we can do better. We got some positive results, and would like to do another, bigger, better trial; please fund it”
Source: Multimodal chiropractic care for migraine: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Meanwhile, chiropractors’ claims for very unrelated things have been harshly criticized by the scientific community, for example:
Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic
About that “short-term” aspect, one of our subscribers put it quite succinctly:
❝Often a skeletal correction is required for initial alignment but the surrounding fascia and muscles also need to be treated to mobilize the joint and release deep tissue damage surrounding the area. In combination with other therapies chiropractic support is beneficial.❞
This is, by the way, very consistent with what was said in the very clinically-dense book we reviewed yesterday, which has a chapter on the short-term benefits and limitations of chiropractic.
A truism that holds for many musculoskeletal healthcare matters, holds true here too:
❝In a battle between muscle and bone, muscle will always win❞
In other words…
Chiropractic can definitely help put misaligned bones back where they should be. However, once they’re there, if the cause of their misalignment is not treated, they will just re-misalign themselves shortly after you walking out of your session.
This is great for chiropractors, if it keeps you coming back for endless appointments, but it does little for your body beyond give you a brief respite.
So, by all means go to a chiropractor if you feel so inclined (and you do not fear accidental arterial dissection etc), but please also consider going to a physiotherapist, and potentially other medical professions depending on what seems to be wrong, to see about addressing the underlying cause.
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:
-
Sesame Seeds vs Poppy Seeds – 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 sesame seeds to poppy seeds, we picked the poppy seeds.
Why?
It’s close, and they’re both very respectable seeds!
In terms of macros, their protein content is the same, while poppy seeds have a little less fat and more carbs, as well as slightly more fiber. A moderate win for poppy seeds on this one.
About that fat… The lipid profiles here see poppy seeds with (as a percentage of total fat, so notwithstanding that poppy seeds have a little less fat overall) more polyunsaturated fat and less saturated fat. Another win for poppy seeds in this case.
In the category of vitamins, poppy seeds contain a lot more vitamins B5 & E while sesame seeds contain notably more vitamins B3, B6 and choline. Marginal win for sesame this time.
When it comes to minerals, poppy seeds contain rather more calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese, while sesame seeds contain more copper, iron, and selenium. Marginal win for poppies here.
Note: it is reasonable to wonder about poppy seeds’ (especially unwashed poppy seeds’) opiate content. Indeed, they do contain opiates, and levels do vary, but to give you an idea: you’d need to eat, on average, 1kg (2.2lbs) of poppy seeds to get the same opiate content as a 30mg codeine tablet.
All in all, adding up the wins in each section, this one’s a moderate win for poppy seeds, but of course, enjoy both in moderation!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Chia Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Hemp Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Is owning a dog good for your health?
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.
Australia loves dogs. We have one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, and one in two households has at least one dog.
But are they good for our health?
Mental health is the second-most common reason cited for getting a dog, after companionship. And many of us say we “feel healthier” for having a dog – and let them sleep in our bedroom.
Here’s what it means for our physical and mental health to share our homes (and doonas) with our canine companions.
Pogodina Natalia/Shutterstock Are there physical health benefits to having a dog?
Having a dog is linked to lower risk of death over the long term. In 2019, a systematic review gathered evidence published over 70 years, involving nearly four million individual medical cases. It found people who owned a dog had a 24% lower risk of dying from any cause compared to those who did not own a dog.
Having a dog may help lower your blood pressure through more physical activity. Barnabas Davoti/Pexels Dog ownership was linked to increased physical activity. This lowered blood pressure and helped reduce the risk of stroke and heart disease.
The review found for those with previous heart-related medical issues (such as heart attack), living with a dog reduced their subsequent risk of dying by 35%, compared to people with the same history but no dog.
Another recent UK study found adult dog owners were almost four times as likely to meet daily physical activity targets as non-owners. Children in households with a dog were also more active and engaged in more unstructured play, compared to children whose family didn’t have a dog.
Exposure to dirt and microbes carried in from outdoors may also strengthen immune systems and lead to less use of antibiotics in young children who grow up with dogs.
Children in households with a dog were often more active. Maryshot/Shutterstock Health risks
However, dogs can also pose risks to our physical health. One of the most common health issues for pet owners is allergies.
Dogs’ saliva, urine and dander (the skin cells they shed) can trigger allergic reactions resulting in a range of symptoms, from itchy eyes and runny nose to breathing difficulties.
A recent meta-analysis pooled data from nearly two million children. Findings suggested early exposure to dogs may increase the risk of developing asthma (although not quite as much as having a cat does). The child’s age, how much contact they have with the dog and their individual risk all play a part.
Slips, trips and falls are another risk – more people fall over due to dogs than cats.
Having a dog can also expose you to bites and scratches which may become infected and pose a risk for those with compromised immune systems. And they can introduce zoonotic diseases into your home, including ring worm and Campylobacter, a disease that causes diarrhoea.
For those sharing the bed there is an elevated the risk of allergies and picking up ringworm. It may result in lost sleep, as dogs move around at night.
On the other hand some owners report feeling more secure while co-sleeping with their dogs, with the emotional benefit outweighing the possibility of sleep disturbance or waking up with flea bites.
Proper veterinary care and hygiene practices are essential to minimise these risks.
Many of us don’t just share a home with a dog – we let them sleep in our beds. Claudia Mañas/Unsplash What about mental health?
Many people know the benefits of having a dog are not only physical.
As companions, dogs can provide significant emotional support helping to alleviate symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. Their presence may offer comfort and a sense of purpose to individuals facing mental health challenges.
Loneliness is a significant and growing public health issue in Australia.
In the dog park and your neighbourhood, dogs can make it easier to strike up conversations with strangers and make new friends. These social interactions can help build a sense of community belonging and reduce feelings of social isolation.
For older adults, dog walking can be a valuable loneliness intervention that encourages social interaction with neighbours, while also combating declining physical activity.
However, if you’re experiencing chronic loneliness, it may be hard to engage with other people during walks. An Australian study found simply getting a dog was linked to decreased loneliness. People reported an improved mood – possibly due to the benefits of strengthening bonds with their dog.
Walking a dog can make it easier to talk to people in your neighbourhood. KPegg/Shutterstock What are the drawbacks?
While dogs can bring immense joy and numerous health benefits, there are also downsides and challenges. The responsibility of caring for a dog, especially one with behavioural issues or health problems, can be overwhelming and create financial stress.
Dogs have shorter lifespans than humans, and the loss of a beloved companion can lead to depression or exacerbate existing mental health conditions.
Lifestyle compatibility and housing conditions also play a significant role in whether having a dog is a good fit.
The so-called pet effect suggests that pets, often dogs, improve human physical and mental health in all situations and for all people. The reality is more nuanced. For some, having a pet may be more stressful than beneficial.
Importantly, the animals that share our homes are not just “tools” for human health. Owners and dogs can mutually benefit when the welfare and wellbeing of both are maintained.
Tania Signal, Professor of Psychology, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
The Seven-Day Sleep Prescription – by Dr. Aric Prather
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.
You probably already know about sleep hygiene. So, what does this book have to offer?
Dr. Aric Prather offers seven days’ worth of adjustments, practices to take up, from when you get up in the morning to when you lay your head down at night.
Some you’ll surely be familiar with, like avoiding blue light and social media at night.
Others, you might not be familiar with, like scheduling 15 minutes for worrying in the daytime. The rationale for this one is that when you find yourself inclined to worry at a time that will keep you awake, you’ll know that you can put off such thoughts to your scheduled “worrying time”. That they’ll be addressed then, and that you can thus sleep soundly meanwhile.
Where the book really comes into its own is in such things as discussing how to not just manage sleep debt, but how to actually use it in your favour.
Nor does Dr. Prather shy away from the truths of our world… That the world these days is not built for us to sleep well. That there are so many other priorities; to get our work done, to succeed and achieve, to pay bills, to support our kids and partners. That so many of these things make plenty of sense in the moment, but catch up with us eventually.
Bottom line: what this book aims to give is a genuinely sustainable approach to sleeping—controlling what we can, and working with what we can’t. If you’d like to have a better relationship with sleep, this book is an excellent choice.
Click here to check out the Seven-Day Sleep Prescription, and improve yours!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Apples vs Carrots – 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 apples to carrots, we picked the carrots.
Why?
Both are sweet crunchy snacks, both rightly considered very healthy options, but one comes out clearly on top…
Both contain lots of antioxidants, albeit mostly different ones. They’re both good for this.
Looking at their macros, however, apples have more carbs while carrots have more fiber. The carb:fiber ratio in apples is already sufficient to make them very healthy, but carrots do win.
In the category of vitamins, carrots have many times more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E, K, and choline. Apples are not higher in any vitamins.
In terms of minerals, carrots have a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Apples are not higher in any minerals.
If “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”, what might a carrot a day do?
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Sugar: From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’s
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:
-
Can I take antihistamines everyday? More than the recommended dose? What if I’m pregnant? Here’s what the research says
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.
Allergies happen when your immune system overreacts to a normally harmless substance like dust or pollen. Hay fever, hives and anaphylaxis are all types of allergic reactions.
Many of those affected reach quickly for antihistamines to treat mild to moderate allergies (though adrenaline, not antihistamines, should always be used to treat anaphylaxis).
If you’re using oral antihistamines very often, you might have wondered if it’s OK to keep relying on antihistamines to control symptoms of allergies. The good news is there’s no research evidence to suggest regular, long-term use of modern antihistamines is a problem.
But while they’re good at targeting the early symptoms of a mild to moderate allergic reaction (sneezing, for example), oral antihistamines aren’t as effective as steroid nose sprays for managing hay fever. This is because nasal steroid sprays target the underlying inflammation of hay fever, not just the symptoms.
Here are the top six antihistamines myths – busted.
Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels Myth 1. Oral antihistamines are the best way to control hay fever symptoms
Wrong. In fact, the recommended first line medical treatment for most patients with moderate to severe hay fever is intranasal steroids. This might include steroid nose sprays (ask your doctor or pharmacist if you’d like to know more).
Studies have shown intranasal steroids relieve hay fever symptoms better than antihistamine tablets or syrups.
To be effective, nasal steroids need to be used regularly, and importantly, with the correct technique.
In Australia, you can buy intranasal steroids without a doctor’s script at your pharmacy. They work well to relieve a blocked nose and itchy, watery eyes, as well as improve chronic nasal blockage (however, antihistamine tablets or syrups do not improve chronic nasal blockage).
Some newer nose sprays contain both steroids and antihistamines. These can provide more rapid and comprehensive relief from hay fever symptoms than just oral antihistamines or intranasal steroids alone. But patients need to keep using them regularly for between two and four weeks to yield the maximum effect.
For people with seasonal allergic rhinitis (hayfever), it may be best to start using intranasal steroids a few weeks before the pollen season in your regions hits. Taking an antihistamine tablet as well can help.
Antihistamine eye drops work better than oral antihistamines to relieve acutely itchy eyes (allergic conjunctivitis).
Myth 2. My body will ‘get used to’ antihistamines
Some believe this myth so strongly they may switch antihistamines. But there’s no scientific reason to swap antihistamines if the one you’re using is working for you. Studies show antihistamines continue to work even after six months of sustained use.
Myth 3. Long-term antihistamine use is dangerous
There are two main types of antihistamines – first-generation and second-generation.
First-generation antihistamines, such as chlorphenamine or promethazine, are short-acting. Side effects include drowsiness, dry mouth and blurred vision. You shouldn’t drive or operate machinery if you are taking them, or mix them with alcohol or other medications.
Most doctors no longer recommend first-generation antihistamines. The risks outweigh the benefits.
The newer second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, or loratadine, have been extensively studied in clinical trials. They are generally non-sedating and have very few side effects. Interactions with other medications appear to be uncommon and they don’t interact badly with alcohol. They are longer acting, so can be taken once a day.
Although rare, some side effects (such as photosensitivity or stomach upset) can happen. At higher doses, cetirizine can make some people feel drowsy. However, research conducted over a period of six months showed taking second-generation antihistamines is safe and effective. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist if you’re concerned.
Allergies can make it hard to focus. Pexels/Edward Jenner Myth 4. Antihistamines aren’t safe for children or pregnant people
As long as it’s the second-generation antihistamine, it’s fine. You can buy child versions of second-generation antihistamines as syrups for kids under 12.
Though still used, some studies have shown certain first-generation antihistamines can impair childrens’ ability to learn and retain information.
Studies on second-generation antihistamines for children have found them to be safer and better than the first-generation drugs. They may even improve academic performance (perhaps by allowing kids who would otherwise be distracted by their allergy symptoms to focus). There’s no good evidence they stop working in children, even after long-term use.
For all these reasons, doctors say it’s better for children to use second-generation than first-generation antihistimines.
What about using antihistimines while you’re pregnant? One meta analysis of combined study data including over 200,000 women found no increase in fetal abnormalities.
Many doctors recommend the second-generation antihistamines loratadine or cetirizine for pregnant people. They have not been associated with any adverse pregnancy outcomes. Both can be used during breastfeeding, too.
Myth 5. It is unsafe to use higher than the recommended dose of antihistamines
Higher than standard doses of antihistamines can be safely used over extended periods of time for adults, if required.
But speak to your doctor first. These higher doses are generally recommended for a skin condition called chronic urticaria (a kind of chronic hives).
Myth 6. You can use antihistamines instead of adrenaline for anaphylaxis
No. Adrenaline (delivered via an epipen, for example) is always the first choice. Antihistamines don’t work fast enough, nor address all the problems caused by anaphylaxis.
Antihistamines may be used later on to calm any hives and itching, once the very serious and acute phase of anaphylaxis has been resolved.
In general, oral antihistamines are not the best treatment to control hay fever – you’re better off with steroid nose sprays. That said, second-generation oral antihistamines can be used to treat mild to moderate allergy symptoms safely on a regular basis over the long term.
Janet Davies, Respiratory Allergy Stream Co-chair, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Professor and Head, Allergy Research Group, Queensland University of Technology; Connie Katelaris, Professor of Immunology and Allergy, Western Sydney University, and Joy Lee, Respiratory Allergy Stream member, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
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:
-
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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.
Dr. Amy Dee, pharmacist and cancer survivor herself, lays out the best options for anticancer fruits:
The fruits
Without further ado, they are:
- Kiwi: promotes cancer cell death while sparing healthy cells
- Plums & peaches: an interesting choice to list these similar fruits together as one item, but they both also induce cell death in cancer cells while sparing healthy ones
- Dragon fruit: this does the same, while also inhibiting cancer cell growth
- Figs: these have antitumor effects specifically, while removing carcinogens too, and additionally sensitizing cancer cells to light therapy
- cranberries: disrupt cancer cell adhesion, breaking down tumors, while protecting non-cancerous cells against DNA damage
- citrus fruits: inhibit tumor growth and kill cancer cells; regular consumption is also associated with a lower cancer risk (be warned though, grapefruit interacts with some medications)
- cherries: induce cancer cell death; protect healthy cells against DNA damage
- tomatoes: don’t often make it into lists of fruits, but lycopene reduces cancer risk, and slows the growth of cancer cells (10almonds note: watermelon has more lycopene than tomatoes, and is more traditionally considered a fruit in all respects, so could have taken the spot here).
We would also argue that apricots could have had a spot on the list, both for their lycopene content (comparable to tomatoes) and their botanical (and this phytochemical) similarities to peaches and plums.
For more information on each of these (she also talks about the different polyphenols and other nutrients that constitute the active compounds delivering these anticancer effects), enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Food Choice & Cancer Risk: Eat To Beat Cancer
- Beat Cancer Kitchen: Deliciously Simple Plant-Based Anticancer Recipes (book)
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:
