Dentists Are Pulling ‘Healthy’ and Treatable Teeth To Profit From Implants, Experts Warn

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.

Becky Carroll was missing a few teeth, and others were stained or crooked. Ashamed, she smiled with lips pressed closed. Her dentist offered to fix most of her teeth with root canals and crowns, Carroll said, but she was wary of traveling a long road of dental work.

Then Carroll saw a TV commercial for another path: ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers. The company advertises that it can give patients “a new smile in as little as one day” by surgically replacing teeth instead of fixing them.

So Carroll saved and borrowed for the surgery, she said. In an interview and a lawsuit, Carroll said that at a ClearChoice clinic in New Jersey in 2021, she agreed to pay $31,000 to replace all her natural upper teeth with pearly-white prosthetic ones. What came next, Carroll said, was “like a horror movie.”

Carroll alleged that her anesthesia wore off during implant surgery, so she became conscious as her teeth were removed and titanium screws were twisted into her jawbone. Afterward, Carroll’s prosthetic teeth were so misaligned that she was largely unable to chew for more than two years until she could afford corrective surgery at another clinic, according to a sworn deposition from her lawsuit.

ClearChoice has denied Carroll’s claims of malpractice and negligence in court filings and did not respond to requests for comment on the ongoing case.

“I thought implants would be easier, and all at once, so you didn’t have to keep going back to the dentist,” Carroll, 52, said in an interview. “But I should have asked more questions … like, Can they save these teeth?”

Dental implants have been used for more than half a century to surgically replace missing or damaged teeth with artificial duplicates, often with picture-perfect results. While implant dentistry was once the domain of a small group of highly trained dentists and specialists, tens of thousands of dental providers now offer the surgery and place millions of implants each year in the U.S.

Amid this booming industry, some implant experts worry that many dentists are losing sight of dentistry’s fundamental goal of preserving natural teeth and have become too willing to remove teeth to make room for expensive implants, according to a months-long investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News. In interviews, 10 experts said they had each given second opinions to multiple patients who had been recommended for mouths full of implants that the experts ultimately determined were not necessary. Separately, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that implant patients like Carroll have experienced painful complications that have required corrective surgery, while other lawsuits alleged dentists at some implant clinics have persuaded, pressured, or forced patients to remove teeth unnecessarily.

The experts warn that implants, for a single tooth or an entire mouth, expose patients to costs and surgery complications, plus a new risk of future dental problems with fewer treatment options because their natural teeth are forever gone.

“There are many cases where teeth, they’re perfectly fine, and they’re being removed unnecessarily,” said William Giannobile, dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. “I really hate to say it, but many of them are doing it because these procedures, from a monetary standpoint, they’re much more beneficial to the practitioner.”

Giannobile and nine other experts say they are combating a false public perception that implants are more durable and longer-lasting than natural teeth, which some believe stems in part from advertising on TV and social media. Implants require upkeep, and although they can’t get cavities, studies have shown that patients can be susceptible to infections in the gums and bone around their implants.

“Just because somebody can afford implants doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a good candidate,” said George Mandelaris, a Chicago-area periodontist and member of the American Academy of Periodontology Board of Trustees. “When an implant has infection, or when an implant has bone loss, an implant dies a much quicker death than do teeth.”

In its simplest form, implant surgery involves extracting a single tooth and replacing it with a metal post that is screwed into the jaw and then affixed with a prosthetic tooth commonly made of porcelain, also known as a crown. Patients can also use “full-arch” or “All-on-4” implants to replace all their upper or lower teeth — or all their teeth.

For this story, KFF Health News and CBS News sought interviews with large dental chains whose clinics offer implant surgery — ClearChoice, Aspen Dental, Affordable Care, and Dental Care Alliance — each of which declined to be interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Association of Dental Support Organizations, which represents these companies and others like them, also declined an interview request.

ClearChoice, which specializes in full-arch implants, did not answer more than two dozen questions submitted in writing. In an emailed statement, the company said full-arch implants “have become a well-accepted standard of care for patients with severe tooth loss and teeth with poor prognosis.”

“The use of full-arch restorations reflects the evolution of modern dentistry, offering patients a solution that restores their ability to eat, speak, and live comfortably — far beyond what traditional dentures can provide,” the company said.

Carroll said she regrets not letting her dentist try to fix her teeth and rushing to ClearChoice for implants.

“Because it was a nightmare,” she said.

‘They Are Not Teeth’

Dental implant surgery can be a godsend for patients with unsalvageable teeth. Several experts said implants can be so transformative that their invention should have contended for a Nobel Prize. And yet, these experts still worry that implants are overused, because it is generally better for patients to have their natural teeth.

Paul Rosen, a Pennsylvania periodontist who said he has worked with implants for more than three decades, said many patients believe a “fallacy” that implants are “bulletproof.”

“You can’t just have an implant placed and go off riding into the sunset,” Rosen said. “In many instances, they need more care than teeth because they are not teeth.”

Generally, a single implant costs a few thousand dollars while full-arch implants cost tens of thousands. Neither procedure is well covered by dental insurance, so many clinics partner with credit companies that offer loans for implant surgeries. At ClearChoice, for example, loans can be as large as $65,000 paid off over 10 years, according to the company’s website.

Despite the price, implants are more popular than ever. Sales increased by more than 6% on average each year since 2010, culminating in more than 3.7 million implants sold in the U.S. in 2022, according to a 2023 report produced by iData Research, a health care market research firm.

Some worry implant dentistry has gone too far. In 10 interviews, dentists and dental specialists with expertise in implants said they had witnessed the overuse of implants firsthand. Each expert said they’d examined multiple patients in recent years who were recommended for full-arch implants by other dentists despite their teeth being treatable with conventional dentistry.

Giannobile, the Harvard dean, said he had given second opinions to “dozens” of patients who were recommended for implants they did not need.

“I see many of these patients now that are coming in and saying, ‘I’ve been seen, and they are telling me to get my entire dentition — all of my teeth — extracted.’ And then I’ll take a look at them and say that we can preserve most of your teeth,” Giannobile said.

Tim Kosinski, who is a representative of the Academy of General Dentistry and said he has placed more than 19,000 implants, said he examines as many as five patients a month who have been recommended for full-arch implants that he deems unnecessary.

“There is a push in the profession to remove teeth that could be saved,” Kosinski said. “But the public isn’t aware.”

Luiz Gonzaga, a periodontist and prosthodontist at the University of Florida, said he, too, had turned away patients who wanted most or all their teeth extracted. Gonzaga said some had received implant recommendations that he considered “an atrocity.”

“You don’t go to the hospital and tell them ‘I broke my finger a couple of times. This is bothering me. Can you please cut my finger off?’ No one will do that,” Gonzaga said. “Why would I extract your tooth because you need a root canal?”

Jaime Lozada, director of an elite dental implant residency program at Loma Linda University, said he’d not only witnessed an increase in dentists extracting “perfectly healthy teeth” but also treated a rash of patients with mouths full of ill-fitting implants that had to be surgically replaced.

Lozada said in August that he’d treated seven such patients in just three months.

“When individuals just make a decision of extracting teeth to make it simple and make money quick, so to speak, that’s where I have a problem,” Lozada said. “And it happens quite often.”

When full-arch implants fail, patients sometimes don’t have enough jawbone left to anchor another set. These patients have little choice but to get implants that reach into cheekbones, said Sohail Saghezchi, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at the University of California-San Francisco.

“It’s kind of like a last resort,” Saghezchi said. “If those fail, you don’t have anywhere else to go.”

‘It Was Horrendous Dentistry’

Most of the experts interviewed for this article said their rising alarm corresponded with big changes in the availability of dental implants. Implants are now offered by more than 70,000 dental providers nationwide, two-thirds of whom are general dentists, according to the iData Research report.

Dentists are not required to learn how to place implants in dental school, nor are they required to complete implant training before performing the surgery in nearly all states. This year, Oregon started requiring dentists to complete 56 hours of hands-on training before placing any implants. Stephen Prisby, executive director of the Oregon Board of Dentistry, said the requirement — the first and only of its kind in the U.S. — was a response to dozens of investigations in the state into botched surgeries and other implant failures, split evenly between general dentists and specialists.

“I was frankly stunned at how bad some of these dentists were practicing,” Prisby said. “It was horrendous dentistry.”

Many dental clinics that offer implants have consolidated into chains owned by private equity firms that have bought out much of implant dentistry. In health care, private equity investment is sometimes criticized for overtreatment and prioritizing short-term profit over patients.

Private equity firms have spent about $5 billion in recent years to buy large dental chains that offer implants at hundreds of clinics owned by individual dentists and dental specialists. ClearChoice was bought for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2020 by Aspen Dental, which is owned by three private equity firms, according to PitchBook, a research firm focused on the private equity industry. Private equity firms also bought Affordable Care, whose largest clinic brand is Affordable Dentures & Implants, for an estimated $2.7 billion in 2021, according to PitchBook. And the private equity wing of the Abu Dhabi government bought Dental Care Alliance, which offers implants at many of its affiliated clinics, for an estimated $1 billion in 2022, according to PitchBook.

ClearChoice and Aspen Dental each said in email statements that the companies’ private equity owners “do not have influence or control over treatment recommendations.” Both companies said dentists or dental specialists make all clinical decisions.

Private equity deals involving dental practices increased ninefold from 2011 to 2021, according to an American Dental Association study published in August. The study also said investors showed an interest in oral surgery, possibly because of the “high prices” of implants.

“Some argue this is a negative thing,” said Marko Vujicic, vice president of the association’s Health Policy Institute, who co-authored the study. “On the other hand, some would argue that involvement of private equity and outside capital brings economies of scale, it brings efficiency.”

Edwin Zinman, a San Francisco dental malpractice attorney and former periodontist who has filed hundreds of dental lawsuits over four decades, said he believed many of the worst fears about private equity owners had already come true in implant dentistry.

“They’ve sold a lot of [implants], and some of it unnecessarily, and too often done negligently, without having the dentists who are doing it have the necessary training and experience,” Zinman said. “It’s for five simple letters: M-O-N-E-Y.”

Hundreds of Implant Clinics With No Specialists

For this article, journalists from KFF Health News and CBS News analyzed the webpages for more than 1,000 clinics in the nation’s largest private equity-owned dental chains, all of which offer some implants. The analysis found that more than 70% of those clinics listed only general dentists on their websites and did not appear to employ the specialists — oral surgeons, periodontists, or prosthodontists — who traditionally have more training with implants.

Affordable Dentures & Implants listed specialists at fewer than 5% of its more than 400 clinics, according to the analysis. The rest were staffed by general dentists, most of whom did not list credentialing from implant training organizations, according to the analysis.

ClearChoice, on the other hand, employs at least one oral surgeon or prosthodontist at each of its more than 100 centers, according to the analysis. But its new parent company, Aspen Dental, which offers implants in many of its more than 1,100 clinics, does not list any specialists at many of those locations.

Not everyone is worried about private equity in implant dentistry. In interviews arranged by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, which trains dentists to use implants, two other implant experts did not express concerns about private equity firms.

Brian Jackson, a former academy president and implant specialist in New York, said he believed dentists are too ethical and patients are too smart to be pressured by private equity owners “who will never see a patient.”

Jumoke Adedoyin, a chief clinical officer for Affordable Care, who has placed implants at an Affordable Dentures & Implants clinic in the Atlanta suburbs for 15 years, said she had never felt pressure from above to sell implants.

“I’ve actually felt more pressure sometimes from patients who have gone around and been told they need to take their teeth out,” she said. “They come in and, honestly, taking a look at them, maybe they don’t need to take all their teeth out.”

Still, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that dentists at implant clinics have extracted patients’ teeth unnecessarily.

For example, in Texas, a patient alleged in a 2020 lawsuit that an Affordable Care dentist removed “every single tooth from her mouth when such was not necessary,” then stuffed her mouth with gauze and left her waiting in the lobby as he and his staff left for lunch. In Maryland, a patient alleged in a 2021 lawsuit that ClearChoice “convinced” her to extract “eight healthy upper teeth,” by “greatly downplay[ing] the risks.” In Florida, a patient alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that ClearChoice provided her with no other treatment options before extracting all her teeth, “which was totally unnecessary.”

ClearChoice and Affordable Care denied wrongdoing in their respective lawsuits, then privately settled out of court with each patient. ClearChoice and Affordable Care did not respond to requests for comment submitted to the companies or attorneys. Lawyers for all three plaintiffs declined to comment on these lawsuits or did not respond to requests for comment.

Fred Goldberg, a Maryland dental malpractice attorney who said he has represented at least six clients who sued ClearChoice, said each of his clients agreed to get implants after meeting with a salesperson — not a dentist.

“Every client I’ve had who has gone to ClearChoice has started off meeting a salesperson and actually signing up to get their financing through ClearChoice before they ever meet with a dentist,” Goldberg said. “You meet with a salesperson who sells you on what they like to present as the best choice, which is almost always that they’re going to take out all your natural teeth.”

Becky Carroll, the ClearChoice patient from New Jersey, told a similar story.

Carroll said in her lawsuit that she met first with a ClearChoice salesperson referred to as a “patient education consultant.” In an interview, Carroll said the salesperson encouraged her to borrow money from family members for the surgery and it was not until after she agreed to a loan and passed a credit check that a ClearChoice dentist peered into her mouth.

“It seems way backwards,” Carroll said. “They just want to know you’re approved before you get to talk to a dentist.”

CBS News producer Nicole Keller contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health 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:

  • How Older People Are Reaping Brain Benefits From New Tech

    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.

    It started with a high school typing course.

    Wanda Woods enrolled because her father advised that typing proficiency would lead to jobs. Sure enough, the federal Environmental Protection Agency hired her as an after-school worker while she was still a junior.

    Her supervisor “sat me down and put me on a machine called a word processor,” Woods, now 67, recalled. “It was big and bulky and used magnetic cards to store information. I thought, ‘I kinda like this.’”

    Decades later, she was still liking it. In 2012 — the first year that more than half of Americans 65 and older were internet users — she started a computer training business.

    Now she is an instructor with Senior Planet in Denver, an AARP-supported effort to help older people learn and stay abreast of technology. Woods has no plans to retire. Staying involved with tech “keeps me in the know, too,” she said.

    Some neuroscientists researching the effects of technology on older adults are inclined to agree. The first cohort of seniors to have contended — not always enthusiastically — with a digital society has reached the age when cognitive impairment becomes more common.

    Given decades of alarms about technology’s threats to our brains and well-being — sometimes called “digital dementia” — one might expect to start seeing negative effects.

    The opposite appears true. “Among the digital pioneer generation, use of everyday digital technology has been associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment and dementia,” said Michael Scullin, a cognitive neuroscientist at Baylor University.

    It’s almost akin to hearing from a nutritionist that bacon is good for you.

    “It flips the script that technology is always bad,” said Murali Doraiswamy, director of the Neurocognitive Disorders Program at Duke University, who was not involved with the study. “It’s refreshing and provocative and poses a hypothesis that deserves further research.”

    Scullin and Jared Benge, a neuropsychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, were co-authors of a recent analysis investigating the effects of technology use on people over 50 (average age: 69).

    They found that those who used computers, smartphones, the internet, or a mix did better on cognitive tests, with lower rates of cognitive impairment or dementia diagnoses, than those who avoided technology or used it less often.

    “Normally, you see a lot of variability across studies,” Scullin said. But in this analysis of 57 studies involving more than 411,000 seniors, published in Nature Human Behavior, almost 90% of the studies found that technology had a protective cognitive effect.

    Much of the apprehension about technology and cognition arose from research on children, sometimes focused on adolescents, whose brains are still developing.

    “There’s pretty compelling data that difficulties can emerge with attention or mental health or behavioral problems” when young people are overexposed to screens and digital devices, Scullin said.

    Older adults’ brains are also malleable, but less so. And those who began grappling with technology in midlife had already learned “foundational abilities and skills,” Scullin said.

    Then, to participate in a swiftly evolving society, they had to learn a whole lot more.

    Years of online brain-training experiments lasting a few weeks or months have produced varying results. Often, they improve a person’s ability to perform the task in question without enhancing other skills.

    “I tend to be pretty skeptical” of their benefit, said Walter Boot, a psychologist at the Center on Aging and Behavioral Research at Weill Cornell Medicine. “Cognition is really hard to change.”

    The new analysis, however, reflects “technology use in the wild,” he said, with adults “having to adapt to a rapidly changing technological environment” over several decades. He found the study’s conclusions “plausible.”

    Analyses like this can’t determine causality. Does technology improve older people’s cognition, or do people with low cognitive ability avoid technology? Is tech adoption just a proxy for enough wealth to buy a laptop?

    “We still don’t know if it’s chicken or egg,” Doraiswamy said.

    Yet when Scullin and Benge accounted for health, education, socioeconomic status, and other demographic variables, they still found significantly higher cognitive ability among older digital technology users.

    What might explain the apparent connection?

    “These devices represent complex new challenges,” Scullin said. “If you don’t give up on them, if you push through the frustration, you’re engaging in the same challenges that studies have shown to be cognitively beneficial.”

    Even handling the constant updates, the troubleshooting, and the sometimes maddening new operating systems might prove advantageous. “Having to relearn something is another positive mental challenge,” he said.

    Still, digital technology may also protect brain health by fostering social connections, known to help stave off cognitive decline. Or its reminders and prompts could partially compensate for memory loss, as Scullin and Benge found in a smartphone study, while apps help preserve functional abilities like shopping and banking.

    Numerous studies have shown that while the number of people with dementia is increasing as the population ages, the proportion of older adults who develop dementia has been falling in the United States and several European countries.

    Researchers have attributed the decline to a variety of factors, including reduced smoking, higher education levels, and better blood pressure treatments. Possibly, Doraiswamy said, engaging with technology has been part of the pattern.

    Of course, digital technologies present risks, too. Online fraud and scams often target older adults, and while they are less apt to report fraud losses than younger people, the amounts they lose are much higher, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Disinformation poses its own hazards.

    And as with users of any age, more is not necessarily better.

    “If you’re bingeing Netflix 10 hours a day, you may lose social connections,” Doraiswamy pointed out. Technology, he noted, cannot “substitute for other brain-healthy activities” like exercising and eating sensibly.

    An unanswered question: Will this supposed benefit extend to subsequent generations, digital natives more comfortable with the technology their grandparents often labored over? “The technology is not static — it still changes,” Boot said. “So maybe it’s not a one-time effect.”

    Still, the change tech has wrought “follows a pattern,” he added. “A new technology gets introduced, and there’s a kind of panic.”

    From television and video games to the latest and perhaps scariest development, artificial intelligence, “a lot of it is an overblown initial reaction,” he said. “Then, over time, we see it’s not so bad and may actually have benefits.”

    Like most people her age, Woods grew up in an analog world of paper checks and paper maps. But as she moved from one employer to another through the ’80s and ’90s, she progressed to IBM desktops and mastered Lotus 1-2-3 and Windows 3.1.

    Along the way, her personal life turned digital, too: a home desktop when her sons needed one for school, a cellphone after she and her husband couldn’t summon help for a roadside flat, a smartwatch to track her steps.

    These days, Woods pays bills and shops online, uses a digital calendar, and group-texts her relatives. And she seems unafraid of AI, the most earthshaking new tech.

    Last year, Woods turned to AI chatbots like Google Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT to plan an RV excursion to South Carolina. Now, she’s using them to arrange a family cruise celebrating her 50th wedding anniversary.

    The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    USE OUR CONTENT

    This story can be republished for free (details).

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Share This Post

  • You Are Not Broken – by Dr. Kelly Casperson

    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.

    Many women express “I think I’m broken down there”, and it turns out simply that neither they nor their partners had the right knowledge, that’s all. The good news is: bedroom competence is an entirely learnable skill!

    Dr. Casperson is a urologist, and over the years has expanded her work into all things pelvic, including the relevant use of both systemic and topical hormones (as in, hormones to increase overall blood serum levels of that hormone, like most HRT, and also, creams and lotions to increase levels of a given hormone in one particular place).

    However, this is not 200 pages to say “take hormones”. Rather, she covers many areas of female sexual health and wellbeing, including yes, simply pleasure. From the physiological to the psychological, Dr. Casperson talks the reader through avoiding blame games and “getting out of your head and into your body”.

    Bottom line: if you (or a loved one) are one of the many women who have doubts about being entirely correctly set up down there, then this book is definitely for you.

    Click here to check out You Are Not Broken, and indeed stop “should-ing” all over your sex life!

    Share This Post

  • 6 Lifestyle Factors To Measurably Reduce Biological Age

    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.

    Julie Gibson Clark competes on a global leaderboard of people actively fighting aging (including billionaire Bryan Johnson, who is famously very focused on such). She’s currently ahead of him on that leaderboard, so what’s she doing?

    Top tips

    We’ll not keep the six factors a mystery; they are:

    • Exercise: her weekly exercise includes VO2 Max training, strength training, balance work, and low-intensity cardio. She exercises outdoors on Saturdays and takes rest days on Fridays and Sundays.
    • Diet: she follows a 16-hour intermittent fasting schedule (eating between 09:00–17:00), consumes a clean omnivore diet with an emphasis on vegetables and adequate protein, and avoids junk food.
    • Brain: she meditates for 20 minutes daily, prioritizes mental health, and ensures sufficient quality sleep, helped by morning sunlight exposure and time in nature.
    • Hormesis: she engages in 20-minute sauna sessions followed by cold showers four times per week to support recovery and longevity.
    • Supplements: she takes longevity supplements and bioidentical hormones to optimize her health and aging process.
    • Testing: she regularly monitors her biological age and health markers through various tests, including DEXA scans, VO2 Max tests, lipid panels, and epigenetic aging clocks, allowing her to adjust her routine accordingly.

    For more on all of these, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • This Mobility Test Is Linked To How Long You’ll Live

    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.

    Can you do it?

    Sit-to-rise

    The sit-to-rise (STR) or sitting-rising test (SRT) is a quick mobility assessment where you sit down on the floor and stand back up again using as little support as possible, measuring how well your strength, mobility, balance, coordination, and control work together.

    • How the test works: start with 10 points total—5 points for sitting down and 5 for standing up.
    • How points are deducted: lose 1 point every time you use a hand, knee, elbow, or another support, and lose 0.5 points for wobbling or losing your balance.
    • What higher scores suggest: scores between 8 and 10 are associated with strong physical capability, good overall function, and the lowest mortality risk in research studies.
    • What mid-range scores suggest: scores between 5 and 7.5 may indicate emerging physical limitations or reduced movement quality.
    • What lower scores suggest: scores below 5 are linked with reduced physical resilience and substantially higher mortality risk in long-term studies.

    What the science says: studies involving thousands of adults over 40 found that lower SRT scores were consistently associated with higher mortality risk over subsequent years. Indeed, each additional point on the SRT was associated with roughly a 21% improvement in life expectancy in the cited research.

    In terms of expectations, you should know that perfect scores are common in people aged 16 to 25, but fewer than 8% of adults over 55 achieve a perfect 10.

    However! The good news is that if you don’t score well, you can practice and then score better.

    You may be thinking: but I use a wheelchair and physically cannot stand at all, what does this mean for me? And the answer is: nothing, really. The research wasn’t done with your body in mind, and therefore the results may not reflect your healthy longevity. Likely a different test is needed, and the grip strength test is generally considered a good one that has similar associations (due to being inversely associated with frailty, and therefore positively associated with healthy longevity).

    For more on all of this plus demonstrations of the incorrect ways of doing it and suspiciously no demonstration of the correct way, just a slightly edited bit where she sort of teleports from sitting to standing (we suspect she cannot do it and was embarrassed to admit it and hoped nobody would notice), enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    4 Tips To Stand Without Using Hands

    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:

  • Pinto Beans vs Fava Beans – 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 pinto beans to fava beans, we picked the pinto beans.

    Why?

    It wasn’t close!

    In terms of macros, pinto beans have more protein and carbs, and much more fiber, resulting in a much lower glycemic index. We mention this, because while often the GI of two similar foods is similar, in this case pinto beans have a GI of 39 (low), while fava beans have a GI of 79 (high). In other words, not at all close, and pinto beans are the clear winner.

    When it comes to vitamins, pinto beans have more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while fava beans have more of vitamins B2 and B3. Once again, not close, and that’s before we take into account the margins of difference for those vitamins; the margins of difference are much greater on the pinto beans’ side of the scale, for example pinto beans having 47x more vitamin E, while fava beans have only 43% more vitamin B2. So, orders of magnitude less. A clear win for pinto beans in all respects.

    In the category of minerals, pinto beans have more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while fava beans have more copper and zinc. This time, the margins of difference were quite moderate across the board, and/but pinto beans win on clear strength of numbers.

    All in all, three clear wins for pinto beans add up to one big clear win for pinto beans.

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    What Matters Most For Your Heart? Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure

    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:

  • Sweet Cinnamon vs Regular Cinnamon – 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 sweet cinnamon to regular cinnamon, we picked the sweet.

    Why?

    In this case, it’s not close. One of them is health-giving and the other is poisonous (but still widely sold in supermarkets, especially in the US and Canada, because it is cheaper).

    It’s worth noting that “regular cinnamon” is a bit of a misnomer, since sweet cinnamon is also called “true cinnamon”. The other cinnamon’s name is formally “cassia cinnamon”, but marketers don’t tend to call it that, preferring to calling it simply “cinnamon” and hope consumers won’t ask questions about what kind, because it’s cheaper.

    Note: this too is especially true in the US and Canada, where for whatever reason sweet cinnamon seems to be more difficult to obtain than in the rest of the world.

    In short, both cinnamons contain cinnamaldehyde and coumarin, but:

    • Sweet/True cinnamon contains only trace amounts of coumarin
    • Regular/Cassia cinnamon contains about 250x more coumarin

    Coumarin is heptatotoxic, meaning it poisons the liver, and the recommended safe amount is 0.1mg/kg, so it’s easy to go over that with just a couple of teaspoons of cassia cinnamon.

    You might be wondering: how can they get away with selling something that poisons the liver? In which case, see also: the alcohol aisle. Selling toxic things is very common; it just gets normalized a lot.

    Cinnamaldehyde is responsible for cinnamon’s healthier properties, and is found in reasonable amounts in both cinnamons. There is about 50% more of it in the regular/cassia than in the sweet/true, but that doesn’t come close to offsetting the potential harm of its higher coumarin content.

    Want to learn more?

    You may like to read:

    • A Tale Of Two Cinnamons ← this one has more of the science of coumarin toxicity, as well as discussing (and evidencing) cinnamaldehyde’s many healthful properties against inflammation, cancer, heart disease, neurodegeneration, etc

    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: