Digital Minimalism – by Dr. Cal Newport
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.
There are a lot of books that advise “Unplug once in a while, and go outside”. But it doesn’t really take a book to convey that, does it? And it just leaves all the digital catching-up once we get back. Surely there must be a better way?
Rather than relying on a “digital detox”, Dr. Newport offers principles to apply to our digital lives, that allow us to reap the benefits of modern information technology without being obeisant to it.
The book’s greatest strength lies in that; having clear guidelines that can be applied to cut out the extra weight of digital media that has simply snuck in because of The Almighty Algorithm—and even tips on how to engage more mindfully with that if we still want to, for example using social media only in a web browser rather than on our phones, so that we can ringfence the time for it rather than having it spill into every spare moment.
In the category of criticism, the book sometimes lacks a little awareness when it comes to assumptions about the reader and the reader’s social circles; that (for example) nobody has any disabilities and everyone lives in the same town. But for most people most of the time, the advices will stand, and the exceptions can be managed by the reader neatly enough.
Stylistically, the book is not very minimalist, but this is not inconsistent with the advice of the book, if you’re curling up in the armchair with a physical copy, or a single-purpose ereader device.
Bottom line: if you’d like to streamline your use of digital media, but don’t want to lose out on the value it brings you, this book provides an excellent template
Click here to check out Digital Minimalism, and choose focused life in a noisy world!
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:
Eat All You Want (But Wisely)
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.
Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety
This is Dr. Barbara Rolls. She’s Professor and Guthrie Chair in Nutritional Sciences, and Director of the Laboratory for the Study of Human Ingestive Behavior at Pennsylvania State University, after graduating herself from Oxford and Cambridge (yes, both). Her “awards and honors” take up four A4 pages, so we won’t list them all here.
Most importantly, she’s an expert on hunger, satiety, and eating behavior in general.
What does she want us to know?
First and foremost: you cannot starve yourself thin, unless you literally starve yourself to death.
What this is about: any weight lost due to malnutrition (“not eating enough” is malnutrition) will always go back on once food becomes available. So unless you die first (not a great health plan), merely restricting good will always result in “yo-yo dieting”.
So, to avoid putting the weight back on and feeling miserable every day along the way… You need to eat as much as you feel you need.
But, there’s a trick here (it’s about making you genuinely feel you need less)!
Your body is an instrument—so play it
Your body is the tool you use to accomplish pretty much anything you do. It is, in large part, at your command. Then there are other parts you can’t control directly.
Dr. Rolls advises taking advantage of the fact that much of your body is a mindless machine that will simply follow instructions given.
That includes instructions like “feel hungry” or “feel full”. But how to choose those?
Volume matters
An important part of our satiety signalling is based on a physical sensation of fullness. This, by the way, is why bariatric surgery (making a stomach a small fraction of the size it was before) works. It’s not that people can’t eat more (the stomach is stretchy and can also be filled repeatedly), it’s that they don’t want to eat more because the pressure sensors around the stomach feel full, and signal the hormone leptin to tell the brain we’re full now.
Now consider:
- On the one hand, 20 grapes, fresh and bursting with flavor
- On the other hand, 20 raisins (so, dried grapes), containing the same calories
Which do you think will get the leptin flowing sooner? Of course, the fresh grapes, because of the volume.
So if you’ve ever seen those photos that show two foods side by side with the same number of calories but one is much larger (say, a small slice of pizza or a big salad), it’s not quite the cheap trick that it might have appeared.
Or rather… It is a cheap trick; it’s just a cheap trick that works because your stomach is quite a simple organ.
So, Dr. Rolls’ advice: generally speaking, go for voluminous food. Fruit is great from this, because there’s so much water. Air-popped popcorn also works great. Vegetables, too.
Water matters, but differently than you might think
A well-known trick is to drink water before and with a meal. That’s good, it’s good to be hydrated. However, it can be better. Dr. Rolls did an experiment:
The design:
❝Subjects received 1 of 3 isoenergetic (1128 kJ) preloads 17 min before lunch on 3 d and no preload on 1 d.
The preloads consisted of 1) chicken rice casserole, 2) chicken rice casserole served with a glass of water (356 g), and 3) chicken rice soup.
The soup contained the same ingredients (type and amount) as the casserole that was served with water.❞
The results:
❝Decreasing the energy density of and increasing the volume of the preload by adding water to it significantly increased fullness and reduced hunger and subsequent energy intake at lunch.
The equivalent amount of water served as a beverage with a food did not affect satiety.❞
The conclusion:
❝Consuming foods with a high water content more effectively reduced subsequent energy intake than did drinking water with food.❞
You can read the study in full (it’s a worthwhile read!) here:
Water incorporated into a food but not served with a food decreases energy intake in lean women
Protein matters
With all those fruits and vegetables and water, you may be wondering Dr. Rolls’ stance on proteins. It’s simple: protein is an appetite suppressant.
However, it takes about 20 minutes to signal the brain about that, so having some protein in a starter (if like this writer, you’re the cook of the household, a great option is to enjoy a small portion of nuts while cooking!) gets that clock ticking, to signal satiety sooner.
It may also help in other ways:
Clinical Evidence and Mechanisms of High-Protein Diet-Induced Weight Loss
As for other foods that can suppress appetite, by the way, you might like;
25 Foods That Act As Natural Appetite Suppressants
Variety matters, and in ways other than you might think
A wide variety of foods (especially: a wide variety of plants) in one’s diet is well recognized as a key to a good balanced diet.
However…
A wide variety of dishes at the table, meanwhile, promotes greater consumption of food.
Dr. Rolls did a study on this too, a while ago now (you’ll see how old it is) but the science seems robust:
Variety in a Meal Enhances Food Intake in Man
Notwithstanding the title, it wasnot about a man (that was just how scientists wrote in ye ancient times of 1981). The test subjects were, in order: rats, cats, a mixed group of men and women, the same group again, and then a different group of all women.
So, Dr. Rolls’ advice is: it’s better to have one 20-ingredient dish, than 10 dishes with 20 ingredients between them.
Sorry! We love tapas and buffets too, but that’s the science!
So, “one-pot” meals are king in this regard; even if you serve it with one side (reasonable), that’s still only two dishes, which is pretty good going.
Note that the most delicious many-ingredient stir-fries and similar dishes from around the world also fall into this category!
Want to know more?
If you have the time (it’s an hour), you can enjoy a class of hers for free:
Want to watch it, but not right now? Bookmark it for later
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Watermelon vs Cucumber – 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 watermelon to cucumber, we picked the cucumber.
Why?
Both are good! But in the battle of the “this is mostly water” salad items, cucumber wins out.
In terms of macros they both are, as we say, mostly water. However, watermelon contains more sugar for the same amount of fiber, contributing to cucumber having the lower glycemic index.
When it comes to vitamins, watermelon does a little better; watermelon has more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B6, C, and E, while cucumber has more of vitamins B2, B5, B9, K, and choline. So, a modest 6:5 win for watermelon.
In the category of minerals, it’s a different story; watermelon has more selenium, while cucumber has more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.
Both contain an array of polyphenols; mostly different ones from each other.
As ever, enjoy both. However, adding up the sections, we say cucumber enjoys a marginal win here.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
Chiropractors have been banned again from manipulating babies’ spines. Here’s what the evidence actually 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.
Chiropractors in Australia will not be able to perform spinal manipulation on children under the age of two once more, following health concerns from doctors and politicians.
But what is the spinal treatment at the centre of the controversy? Does it work? Is there evidence of harm?
We’re a team of researchers who specialise in evidence-based musculoskeletal health. I (Matt) am a registered chiropractor, Joshua is a registered physiotherapist and Giovanni trained as a physiotherapist.
Here’s what the evidence says.
Dmitry Naumov/Shutterstock Remind me, how did this all come about?
A Melbourne-based chiropractor posted a video on social media in 2018 using a spring-loaded device (known as the Activator) to manipulate the spine of a two-week-old baby suspended upside down by the ankles.
The video sparked widespread concerns among the public, medical associations and politicians. It prompted a ban on the procedure in young children. The Victorian health minister commissioned Safer Care Victoria to conduct an independent review of spinal manipulation techniques on children.
Recently, the Chiropractic Board of Australia reinstated chiropractors’ authorisation to perform spinal manipulation on babies under two years old. But this week, it backflipped, following heavy criticism from medical associations and politicians.
What is spinal manipulation?
Spinal manipulation is a treatment used by chiropractors and other health professionals such as doctors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.
It is an umbrella term that includes popular “back cracking” techniques.
It also includes more gentle forms of treatment, such as massage or joint mobilisations. These involve applying pressure to joints without generating a “cracking” sound.
Does spinal manipulation in babies work?
Several international guidelines for health-care professionals recommend spinal manipulation to treat adults with conditions such as back pain and headache as there is an abundance of evidence on the topic. For example, spinal manipulation for back pain is supported by data from nearly 10,000 adults.
For children, it’s a different story. Safer Care Victoria’s 2019 review of spinal manipulation found very few studies testing whether this treatment was safe and effective in children.
Studies were generally small and were of poor quality. Some of those small, poor-quality studies, suggest spinal manipulation provides a very small benefit for back pain, colic and potentially bedwetting – some common reasons for parents to take their child to see a chiropractor. But overall, the review found the overall body of evidence was very poor.
Spinal manipulation doesn’t seem to help young children with an ear infection. MIA Studio/Shutterstock However, for most other children’s conditions chiropractors treat – such as headache, asthma, otitis media (a type of ear infection), cerebral palsy, hyperactivity and torticollis (“twisted neck”) – there did not appear to be a benefit.
The number of studies investigating the effectiveness of spinal manipulation on babies under two years of age was even smaller.
There was one high-quality study and two small, poor quality studies. These did not show an appreciable benefit of spinal manipulation on colic, otitis media with effusion (known as glue ear) or twisted neck in babies.
Is spinal manipulation on babies safe?
In terms of safety, most studies in the review found serious complications were extremely rare. The review noted one baby or child dying (a report from Germany in 2001 after spinal manipulation by a physiotherapist). The most common complications were mild in nature such as increased crying and soreness.
However, because studies were very small, they cannot tell us anything about the safety of spinal manipulation in a reliable way. Studies that are designed to properly investigate if a treatment is safe typically include thousands of patients. And these studies have not yet been done.
Why do people see chiropractors?
Safer Care Victoria also conducted surveys with more than 20,000 people living in Australia who had taken their children under 12 years old to a chiropractor in the past ten years.
Nearly three-quarters said that was for treatment of a child aged two years or younger.
Nearly all people surveyed reported a positive experience when they took their child to a chiropractor and reported that their child’s condition improved with chiropractic care. Only a small number of people (0.3%) reported a negative experience, and this was mostly related to cost of treatment, lack of improvement in their child’s condition, excessive use of x-rays, and perceived pressure to avoid medications.
Many of the respondents had also consulted their GP or maternity/child health nurse.
What now for spinal manipulation in children?
At the request of state and federal ministers, the Chiropractic Board of Australia confirmed that spinal manipulation on babies under two years old will continue to be banned until it discusses the issue further with health ministers.
Many chiropractors believe this is unfair, especially considering the strong consumer support for chiropractic care outlined in the Safer Care Victoria report, and the rarity of serious reported harms in children.
Others believe that in the absence of evidence of benefit and uncertainty around whether spinal manipulation is safe in children and babies, the precautionary principle should apply and children and babies should not receive spinal manipulation.
Ultimately, high quality research is urgently needed to better understand whether spinal manipulation is beneficial for the range of conditions chiropractors provide it for, and whether the benefit outweighs the extremely small chance of a serious complication.
This will help parents make an informed choice about health care for their child.
Matt Fernandez, Senior lecturer and researcher in chiropractic, CQUniversity Australia; Giovanni E. Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, and Joshua Zadro, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Fibromyalgia – by Dr. R. Paul St Amand
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 core claim of the book is that guaifenesin, an over-the-counter expectorant (with a good safety profile) usually taken to treat a chesty cough, is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and is rapidly metabolized and excreted into the urine—and on the way, it lowers uric acid levels, which is a big deal for fibromyalgia sufferers.
He goes on to explain how the guaifenesin, by a similar biochemical mechanism, additionally facilitates the removal of other excess secretions that are associated with fibromyalgia.
The science for all this is… Compelling and logical, while not being nearly so well-established yet as his confidence would have us believe.
In other words, he could be completely wrong, because adequate testing has not yet been done. However, he also could be right; scientific knowledge is, by the very reality of scientific method, always a step behind hypothesis and theory (in that order).
Meanwhile, there are certainly many glowing testimonials from fibromyalgia sufferers, saying that this helped a lot.
Bottom line: if you have fibromyalgia and do not mind trying a relatively clinically untested (yet logical and anecdotally successful) protocol to lessen then symptoms (allegedly, to zero), then this book will guide you through that and tell you everything to watch out for.
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:
Sesame Oil vs Almond Oil – 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 oil to almond oil, we picked the almond.
Why?
We were curious about this one! Were you, or were you confident? You see, almonds tend to blow away all the other nuts with their nutritional density, but they’re far from the oiliest of nuts, and their greatest strengths include their big dose of protein and fiber (which don’t make it into the oil), vitamins (most of which don’t make it into the oil) and minerals (which don’t make it into the oil). So, a lot will come down to the fat profile!
On which note, looking at the macros first, it’s 100% fat in both cases, but sesame oil has more saturated fat and polyunsaturated fat, while almond oil has more monounsaturated fat. Since the mono- and poly-unsaturated fats are both healthy and each oil has more of one or the other, the deciding factor here is which has the least saturated fat—and that’s the almond oil, which has close to half the saturated fat of sesame oil. As an aside, neither of them are a source of omega-3 fatty acids.
In terms of vitamins, there’s not a lot to say here, but “not a lot” is not nothing: sesame oil has nearly 2x the vitamin K, while almond oil has 28x the vitamin E*, and 2x the choline. So, another win for almond oil.
*which is worth noting, not least of all because seeds are more widely associated with vitamin E in popular culture, but it’s the almond oil that provide much more here. Not to get too distracted into looking at the values of the actual seeds and nuts, almonds themselves do have over 102x the vitamin E compared to sesame seeds.
Now, back to the oils:
In the category of minerals, there actually is nothing to say here, except you can’t get more than the barest trace of any mineral from either of these two oils. So it’s a tie on this one.
Adding up the categories makes for a clear win for almond oil!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Avocado Oil vs Olive Oil – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Physical Sunscreen or Chemical Sunscreen – 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 physical sunscreens to chemical sunscreens, we picked the physical sunscreens.
Why?
It’s easy to vote against chemical sunscreens, because it has “chemical” in the name, which tends to be offputting PR-wise no matter how healthy something is.
But in this case, there’s actual science here too!
Physical sunscreens physically block the UV rays.
- On the simplest of levels, mud is a physical sunscreen, as you can see widely used by elephants, hippos, pigs, and other animals.
- On a more sophisticated level, modern physical sunscreens often use tiny zinc particles (or similar) to block the UV rays in a way that isn’t so obvious to the naked eye—so we can still see our skin, and it looks just like we applied an oil or other moisturizer.
Chemical sunscreens interact with the UV rays in a way that absorbs them.
- Specifically, they usually convert it into relatively harmless thermal energy (heat)
- However, this can cause problems if there’s too much heat!
- Additionally, chemical sunscreens can get “used up” in a way that physical sunscreens can’t* becoming effectively deactivated once the chemical reaction has run its course and there is no more reagent left unreacted.
- Worse, some of the reagents, when broken down by the UV rays, can potentially cause harm when absorbed by the skin.
*That said, physical sunscreens will still need “topping up” because we are a living organism and our body can’t resist redistributing and using stuff—plus, depending on the climate and our activities, we can lose some externally too.
Further reading
We wrote about sunscreens (of various kinds) here:
And you can also read specifically about today’s topic in more detail, here:
What’s The Difference Between Physical And Chemical Sunscreens?
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:
