Coconut vs Avocado – 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 coconut to avocado, we picked the avocado.

Why?

In terms of macros, avocado is lower in carbs and also in net carbscoconut’s a little higher in fiber, but not enough to make up for the difference in carbs nor, when it comes to glycemic index and insulin index, the impact of coconut’s much higher fat content on insulin responses too. On which note, while coconut’s fats are broadly considered healthy (its impressive saturated fat content is formed of medium-chain triglycerides which, in moderation, are heart-healthy), avocado’s fats are even healthier, being mostly monounsaturated fat with some polyunsaturated (and about 15x less saturated fat). All in all, a fair win for avocado on the macros front, but coconut isn’t bad in moderation.

When it comes to vitamins, avocados are higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E, K, and choline. Most of those differences are by very large margins. Coconuts are not higher in any vitamins. A huge, easy, “perfect score” win for avocados.

In the category of minerals, however, it’s coconut’s turn to sweep with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, zinc, and selenium—though the margins are mostly not nearly as impressive as avocado’s vitamin margins. Speaking of avocados, they do have more potassium than coconuts do, but the margin isn’t very large. A compelling win for coconut’s mineral content.

Adding up the sections, we get to a very credible win for avocados, but coconuts are also very respectable. So, as ever, enjoy both (although we do recommend exercising moderation in the case of coconuts, mainly because of the saturated fat content), and if you’re choosing between them for some purpose, then avocado will generally be the best option.

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!

Recommended

  • Apricots vs Peaches – Which is Healthier?
  • When “Normal” Health Is Not What You Want
    The article discusses common sleep issues and offers solutions. It mentions mouth taping as a method to promote nose-breathing and addresses waking up during the night.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • When Age Is A Flexible Number

    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.

    Aging, Counterclockwise!

    In the late 1970s, Dr. Ellen Langer hypothesized that physical markers of aging could be affected by psychosomatic means.

    Note: psychosomatic does not mean “it’s all in your head”.

    Psychosomatic means “your body does what your brain tells it to do, for better or for worse”

    She set about testing that, in what has been referred to since as…

    The Counterclockwise Study

    A small (n=16) sample of men in their late 70s and early 80s were recruited in what they were told was a study about reminiscing.

    Back in the 1970s, it was still standard practice in the field of psychology to outright lie to participants (who in those days were called “subjects”), so this slight obfuscation was a much smaller ethical aberration than in some famous studies of the same era and earlier (cough cough Zimbardo cough Milgram cough).

    Anyway, the participants were treated to a week in a 1950s-themed retreat, specifically 1959, a date twenty years prior to the experiment’s date in 1979. The environment was decorated and furnished authentically to the date, down to the food and the available magazines and TV/radio shows; period-typical clothing was also provided, and so forth.

    • The control group were told to spend the time reminiscing about 1959
    • The experimental group were told to pretend (and maintain the pretense, for the duration) that it really was 1959

    The results? On many measures of aging, the experimental group participants became quantifiably younger:

    ❝The experimental group showed greater improvement in joint flexibility, finger length (their arthritis diminished and they were able to straighten their fingers more), and manual dexterity.

    On intelligence tests, 63 percent of the experimental group improved their scores, compared with only 44 percent of the control group. There were also improvements in height, weight, gait, and posture.

    Finally, we asked people unaware of the study’s purpose to compare photos taken of the participants at the end of the week with those submitted at the beginning of the study. These objective observers judged that all of the experimental participants looked noticeably younger at the end of the study.❞

    ~ Dr. Ellen Langer

    Remember, this was after one week.

    Her famous study was completed in 1979, and/but not published until eleven years later in 1990, with the innocuous title:

    Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult growth

    You can read about it much more accessibly, and in much more detail, in her book:

    Counterclockwise: A Proven Way to Think Yourself Younger and Healthier – by Dr. Ellen Langer

    We haven’t reviewed that particular book yet, so here’s Linda Graham’s review, that noted:

    ❝Langer cites other research that has made similar findings.

    In one study, for instance, 650 people were surveyed about their attitudes on aging. Twenty years later, those with a positive attitude with regard to aging had lived seven years longer on average than those with a negative attitude to aging.

    (By comparison, researchers estimate that we extend our lives by four years if we lower our blood pressure and reduce our cholesterol.)

    In another study, participants read a list of negative words about aging; within 15 minutes, they were walking more slowly than they had before.❞

    ~ Linda Graham

    Read the review in full:

    Aging in Reverse: A Review of Counterclockwise

    The Counterclockwise study has been repeated since, and/but we are still waiting for the latest (exciting, much larger sample, 90 participants this time) study to be published. The research proposal describes the method in great detail, and you can read that with one click over on PubMed:

    PubMed | Ageing as a mindset: a study protocol to rejuvenate older adults with a counterclockwise psychological intervention

    It was approved, and has now been completed (as of 2020), but the results have not been published yet; you can see the timeline of how that’s progressing over on ClinicalTrials.gov:

    Clinical Trials | Ageing as a Mindset: A Counterclockwise Experiment to Rejuvenate Older Adults

    Hopefully it’ll take less time than the eleven years it took for the original study, but in the meantime, there seems to be nothing to lose in doing a little “Citizen Science” for ourselves.

    Maybe a week in a 20 years-ago themed resort (writer’s note: wow, that would only be 2004; that doesn’t feel right; it should surely be at least the 90s!) isn’t a viable option for you, but we’re willing to bet it’s possible to “microdose” on this method. Given that the original study lasted only a week, even just a themed date-night on a regular recurring basis seems like a great option to explore (if you’re not partnered then well, indulge yourself how best you see fit, in accord with the same premise; a date-night can be with yourself too!).

    Just remember the most important take-away though:

    Don’t accidentally put yourself in your own control group!

    In other words, it’s critically important that for the duration of the exercise, you act and even think as though it is the appropriate date.

    If you instead spend your time thinking “wow, I miss the [decade that does it for you]”, you will dodge the benefits, and potentially even make yourself feel (and thus, potentially, if the inverse hypothesis holds true, become) older.

    This latter is not just our hypothesis by the way, there is an established potential for nocebo effect.

    For example, the following study looked at how instructions given in clinical tests can be worded in a way that make people feel differently about their age, and impact the results of the mental and/or physical tests then administered:

    ❝Our results seem to suggest how manipulations by instructions appeared to be more largely used and capable of producing more clear performance variations on cognitive, memory, and physical tasks.

    Age-related stereotypes showed potentially stronger effects when they are negative, implicit, and temporally closer to the test of performance. ❞

    ~ Dr. Francesco Pagnini

    Read more: Age-based stereotype threat: a scoping review of stereotype priming techniques and their effects on the aging process

    (and yes, that’s the same Dr. Francesco Pagnini whose name you saw atop the other study we cited above, with the 90 participants recreating the Counterclockwise study)

    Want to know more about [the hard science of] psychosomatic health?

    Check out Dr. Langer’s other book, which we reviewed recently:

    The Mindful Body: Thinking Our Way to Chronic Health – by Dr. Ellen Langer

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Breakfasting For 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.

    Breakfast Time!

    In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions on the timings of meals.

    But what does the science say?

    Quick recap on intermittent fasting first:

    Today’s article will rely somewhat on at least a basic knowledge of intermittent fasting, what it is, and how and why it works.

    Armed with that knowledge, we can look at when it is good to break the fast (i.e. breakfast) and when it is good to begin the fast (i.e. eat the last meal of the day).

    So, if you’d like a quick refresher on intermittent fasting, here it is:

    Intermittent Fasting: We Sort The Science From The Hype

    And now, onwards!

    One should eat breakfast first thing: True or False?

    True! Give or take one’s definition of “first thing”. We did a main feature about this previously, and you can read a lot about the science of it, and see links to studies:

    The Circadian Rhythm: Far More Than Most People Know

    In case you don’t have time to read that now, we’ll summarize the most relevant-to-today’s-article conclusion:

    The optimal time to breakfast is around 10am (this is based on getting sunlight around 8:30am, so adjust if this is different for you)

    It doesn’t matter when we eat; calories are calories & nutrients are nutrients: True or False?

    Broadly False, for practical purposes. Because, indeed calories are calories and nutrients are nutrients at any hour, but the body will do different things with them depending on where we are in the circadian cycle.

    For example, this study in the Journal of Nutrition found…

    ❝Our results suggest that in relatively healthy adults, eating less frequently, no snacking, consuming breakfast, and eating the largest meal in the morning may be effective methods for preventing long-term weight gain.

    Eating breakfast and lunch 5-6 h apart and making the overnight fast last 18-19 h may be a useful practical strategy.❞

    ~ Dr. Hana Kahleova et al.

    Read in full: Meal Frequency and Timing Are Associated with Changes in Body Mass Index

    We should avoid eating too late at night: True or False?

    False per se, True in the context of the above. Allow us to clarify:

    There is nothing inherently bad about eating late at night; there is no “bonus calorie happy hour” before bed.

    However…

    If we are eating late at night, that makes it difficult to breakfast in the morning (as is ideal) and still maintain a >16hr fasting window as is optimal, per:

    ❝the effects of the main forms of fasting, activating the metabolic switch from glucose to fat and ketones (G-to-K), starting 12-16 h after cessation or strong reduction of food intake

    ~ Dr. Françoise Wilhelmi de Toledo et al.

    Read in full: Unravelling the health effects of fasting: a long road from obesity treatment to healthy life span increase and improved cognition

    So in other words: since the benefits of intermittent fasting start at 12 hours into the fast, you’re not going to get them if you’re breakfasting at 10am and also eating in the evening.

    Summary:

    • It is best to eat breakfast around 10am, generally (ideally after some sunlight and exercise)
    • While there’s nothing wrong with eating in the evening per se, doing so means that a 10am breakfast will eliminate any fasting benefits you might otherwise get
    • If a “one meal a day, and that meal is breakfast” lifestyle doesn’t suit you, then one possible good compromise is to have a large breakfast, and then a smaller meal in the late afternoon / early evening.

    One last tip: the above is good, science-based information. Use it (or don’t), as you see fit. We’re not the boss of you:

    • Maybe you care most about getting the best circadian rhythm benefits, in which case, prioritizing breakfast being a) in the morning and b) the largest meal of the day, is key
    • Maybe you care most about getting the best intermittent fasting benefits, in which case, for many people’s lifestyle, a fine option is skipping eating in the morning, and having one meal in the late afternoon / early evening.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Statins: His & Hers?

    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 Hidden Complexities of Statins and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

    This is Dr. Barbara Roberts. She’s a cardiologist and the Director of the Women’s Cardiac Center at one of the Brown University Medical School teaching hospitals. She’s an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and takes care of patients, teaches medical students, and does clinical research. She specializes in gender-specific aspects of heart disease, and in heart disease prevention.

    We previously reviewed Dr. Barbara Roberts’ excellent book “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs”. It prompted some requests to do a main feature about Statins, so we’re doing it today. It’s under the auspices of “Expert Insights” as we’ll be drawing almost entirely from Dr. Roberts’ work.

    So, what are the risks of statins?

    According to Dr. Roberts, one of the biggest risks is not just drug side-effects or anything like that, but rather, what they simply won’t treat. This is because statins will lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, without necessarily treating the underlying cause.

    Imagine you got Covid, and it’s one of the earlier strains that’s more likely deadly than “merely” debilitating.

    You’re coughing and your throat feels like you gargled glass.

    Your doctor gives you a miracle cough medicine that stops your coughing and makes your throat feel much better.

    (Then a few weeks later, you die, because this did absolutely nothing for the underlying problem)

    You see the problem?

    Are there problematic side-effects too, though?

    There can be. But of course, all drugs can have side effects! So that’s not necessarily news, but what’s relevant here is the kind of track these side-effects can lead one down.

    For example, Dr. Roberts cites a case in which a woman’s LDL levels were high and she was prescribed simvastatin (Zocor), 20mg/day. Here’s what happened, in sequence:

    1. She started getting panic attacks. So, her doctor prescribed her sertraline (Zoloft) (a very common SSRI antidepressant) and when that didn’t fix it, paroxetine (Paxil). This didn’t work either… because the problem was not actually her mental health. The panic attacks got worse…
    2. Then, while exercising, she started noticing progressive arm and leg weakness. Her doctor finally took her off the simvastatin, and temporarily switched to ezetimibe (Zetia), a less powerful nonstatin drug that blocks cholesterol absorption, which change eased her arm and leg problem.
    3. As the Zetia was a stopgap measure, the doctor put her on atorvastatin (Lipitor). Now she got episodes of severe chest pressure, and a skyrocketing heart rate. She also got tremors and lost her body temperature regulation.
    4. So the doctor stopped the atorvastatin and tried rosovastatin (Crestor), on which she now suffered exhaustion (we’re not surprised, by this point) and muscle pains in her arms and chest.
    5. So the doctor stopped the rosovastatin and tried lovastatin (Mevacor), and now she had the same symptoms as before, plus light-headedness.
    6. So the doctor stopped the lovastatin and tried fluvastatin (Lescol). Same thing happened.
    7. So he stopped the fluvastatin and tried pravastatin (Pravachol), without improvement.
    8. So finally he took her off all these statins because the high LDL was less deleterious to her life than all these things.
    9. She did her own research, and went back to the doctor to ask for cholestyramine (Questran), which is a bile acid sequestrent and nothing to do with statins. She also asked for a long-acting niacin. In high doses, niacin (one of the B-vitamins) raises HDL (good) cholesterol, lowers LDL, and lowers tryglycerides.
    10. Her own non-statin self-prescription (with her doctor’s signature) worked, and she went back to her life, her work, and took up running.

    Quite a treatment journey! Want to know more about the option that actually worked?

    Read: Bile Acid Resins or Sequestrants

    What are the gender differences you/she mentioned?

    A lot of this is still pending more research—basically it’s a similar problem in heart disease to one we’ve previously talked about with regard to diabetes. Diabetes disproportionately affects black people, while diabetes research disproportionately focuses on white people.

    In this case, most heart disease research has focused on men, with women often not merely going unresearched, but also often undiagnosed and untreated until it’s too late. And the treatments, if prescribed? Assumed to be the same as for men.

    Dr. Roberts tells of how medicine is taught:

    ❝When I was in medical school, my professors took the “bikini approach” to women’s health: women’s health meant breasts and reproductive organs. Otherwise the prototypical patient was presented as a man.❞

    There has been some research done with statins and women, though! Just, still not a lot. But we do know for example that some statins can be especially useful for treating women’s atherosclerosis—with a 50% success rate, rather than 31% for men.

    For lowering LDL, it can work but is generally not so hot in women.

    Fun fact:

    In men:

    • High total cholesterol
    • High non-HDL cholesterol
    • High LDL cholesterol
    • Low HDL cholesterol

    …are all significantly associated with an increased risk of death from CVD.

    In women:

    …levels of LDL cholesterol even more than 190 were associated with only a small, statistically insignificant increased risk of dying from CVD.

    So…

    The fact that women derive less benefit from a medicine that mainly lowers LDL cholesterol, may be because elevated LDL cholesterol is less harmful to women than it is to men.

    And also: Treatment and Response to Statins: Gender-related Differences

    And for that matter: Women Versus Men: Is There Equal Benefit and Safety from Statins?*

    Definitely a case where Betteridge’s Law of Headlines applies!

    What should women do to avoid dying of CVD, then?

    First, quick reminder of our general disclaimer: we can’t give medical advice and nothing here comprises such. However… One particularly relevant thing we found illuminating in Dr. Roberts’ work was this observation:

    The metabolic syndrome is diagnosed if you have three (or more) out of five of the following:

    1. Abdominal obesity (waist >35″ if a woman or >40″ if a man)
    2. Fasting blood sugars of 100mg/dl or more
    3. Fasting triglycerides of 150mg/dl or more
    4. Blood pressure of 130/85 or higher
    5. HDL <50 if a woman or <40 if a man

    And yet… because these things can be addressed with exercise and a healthy diet, which neither pharmaceutical companies nor insurance companies have a particular stake in, there’s a lot of focus instead on LDL levels (since there are a flock of statins that can be sold be lower them)… Which, Dr. Roberts says, is not nearly as critical for women.

    So women end up getting prescribed statins that cause panic attacks and all those things we mentioned earlier… To lower our LDL, which isn’t nearly as big a factor as the other things.

    In summary:

    Statins do have their place, especially for men. They can, however, mask underlying problems that need treatment—which becomes counterproductive.

    When it comes to women, statins are—in broad terms—statistically not as good. They are a little more likely to be helpful specifically in cases of atherosclerosis, whereby they have a 50/50 chance of helping.

    For women in particular, it may be worthwhile looking into alternative non-statin drugs, and, for everyone: diet and exercise.

    Further reading: How Can I Safely Come Off Statins?

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Apricots vs Peaches – Which is Healthier?
  • Running: Getting Started – by Jeff Galloway

    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.

    Superficially, running is surely one of the easiest sports to get into, for most people. You put one foot in front of the other, repeat, and pick up the pace.

    However, many people do not succeed. They head out of the door (perhaps on January the first), push themselves a little, experience runner’s high, think “this is great”, and the next day wake up with some minor aches and no motivation. This book is here to help you bypass that stage.

    Jeff Galloway has quite a series of books, but the others seem derivative of this one. So, what makes this one special?

    It’s quite comprehensive; it covers (as the title promises) getting started, setting yourself up for success, finding what level your ability is at safely rather than guessing and overdoing it, and building up from there.

    He also talks about what kit you’ll want; this isn’t just about shoes, but even “what to wear when the weather’s not good” and so forth; he additionally shares advice about diet, exercise on non-running days, body maintenance (stretching and strengthening), troubleshooting aches and pains, and running well into one’s later years.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to take up running but it seems intimidating (perhaps for reasons you can’t quite pin down), this book will take care of all those things, and indeed get you “up and running”.

    Click here to check out Running: Getting Started, and get started!

    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:

  • 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Rebalancing Dopamine (Without “Dopamine Fasting”)

    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.

    Rebalancing Dopamine (Without “Dopamine Fasting”)

    Listen to Dr. Anna Lembke's podcast focusing on rebalancing the brain's dopamine levels through fasting.
    Credit Steve Fisch

    This is Dr. Anna Lembke. She’s a professor of psychiatry at Stanford, and chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic—as well as running her own clinical practice, and serving on the board of an array of state and national addiction-focused organizations.

    Today we’re going to look at her work on dopamine management…

    Getting off the hedonic treadmill

    For any unfamiliar with the term, the “hedonic treadmill” is what happens when we seek pleasure, enjoy the pleasure, the pleasure becomes normalized, and now we need to seek a stronger pleasure to get above our new baseline.

    In other words, much like running on a reciprocal treadmill that just gets faster the faster we run.

    What Dr. Lembke wants us to know here: pleasure invariably leads to pain

    This is not because of some sort of extrinsic moral mandate, nor even in the Buddhist sense. Rather, it is biology.

    Pleasure and pain are processed by the same part of the brain, and if we up one, the other will be upped accordingly, to try to keep a balance.

    Consequently, if we recklessly seek “highs”, we’re going to hit “lows” soon enough. Whether that’s by drugs, sex, or just dopaminergic habits like social media overuse.

    Dr. Lembke’s own poison of choice was trashy romance novels, by the way. But she soon found she needed more, and more, and the same level wasn’t “doing it” for her anymore.

    So, should we just give up our pleasures, and do a “dopamine fast”?

    Not so fast!

    It depends on what they are. Dopamine fasting, per se, does not work. We wrote about this previously:

    Short On Dopamine? Science Has The Answer

    However, when it comes to our dopaminergic habits, a short period (say, a couple of weeks) of absence of that particular thing can help us re-find our balance, and also, find insight.

    Lest that latter sound wishy-washy: this is about realizing how bad an overuse of some dopaminergic activity had become, the better to appreciate it responsibly, going forwards.

    So in other words, if your poison is, as in Dr. Lembke’s case, trashy romance novels, you would abstain from them for a couple of weeks, while continuing to enjoy the other pleasures in life uninterrupted.

    Substances that create a dependency are a special case

    There’s often a popular differentiation between physical addictions (e.g. alcohol) and behavioral addictions (e.g. video games). And that’s fair; physiologically speaking, those may both involve dopamine responses, but are otherwise quite different.

    However, there are some substances that are physical addictions that do not create a physical dependence (e.g. sugar), and there are substances that create a physical dependence without being addictive (e.g. many antidepressants)

    See also: Addiction and physical dependence are not the same thing

    In the case of anything that has created a physical dependence, Dr. Lembke does not recommend trying to go “cold turkey” on that without medical advice and supervision.

    Going on the counterattack

    Remember what we said about pleasure and pain being processed in the same part of the brain, and each rising to meet the other?

    While this mean that seeking pleasure will bring us pain, the inverse is also true.

    Don’t worry, she’s not advising us to take up masochism (unless that’s your thing!). But there are very safe healthy ways that we can tip the scales towards pain, ultimately leading to greater happiness.

    Cold showers are an example she cites as particularly meritorious.

    As a quick aside, we wrote about the other health benefits of these, too:

    A Cold Shower A Day Keeps The Doctor Away?

    Further reading

    Want to know more? You might like her book:

    Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence

    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: