Does This New Machine Cure Depression?

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.

Let us first talk briefly about the slightly older tech that this may replace, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

TMS involves electromagnetic fields to stimulate the left half of the brain and inhibit the right half of the brain. It sounds like something from the late 19th century—“cure your melancholy with the mystical power of magnetism”—but the thing is, it works:

Regulatory Clearance and Approval of Therapeutic Protocols of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Psychiatric Disorders

The main barriers to its use are that the machine itself is expensive, and it has to be done in a clinic by a trained clinician. Which, if it were treating one’s heart, say, would not be so much of an issue, but when treating depression, there is a problem that depressed people are not the most likely to commit to (and follow through with) going somewhere probably out-of-town regularly to get a treatment, when merely getting out of the door was already a challenge and motivation is thin on the ground to start with.

Thus, antidepressant medications are more often the go-to for cost-effectiveness and adherence. Of course, some will work better than others for different people, and some may not work at all in the case of what is generally called “treatment-resistant depression”:

Antidepressants: Personalization Is Key!

Transcranial stimulation… At home?

Move over transcranial magnetic stimulation; it’s time for transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS).

First, what it’s not: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Rather, it uses a very low current.

What it is: a small and portable headset (as opposed to the big machine to go sit in for TMS) that one can use at home. Here’s an example product on Amazon, though there are more stylish versions around, this is the same basic technology.

In a recent study, 45% of those who received treatment with this device experienced remission in 10 weeks, significantly beating placebo (bearing in mind that placebo effect is strongest when it comes to invisible ailments such as depression).

See also: How To Leverage Placebo Effect For Yourself ← this explains more about how the placebo effect works, to the extent that it can even be an adjuvant tool to augment “real” therapies

And as for the study, here it is:

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation treatment for major depressive disorder: a fully remote phase 2 randomized sham-controlled trial

…which rather cuts through the “depressed people don’t make it to the clinic consistently, if at all” problem. Of course, it still requires adherence to its use at home, for example three 30-minute sessions per week, but honestly, “lie/sit still” is likely within the abilities of the majority of depressed people. However…

Important note: you remember we said “in 10 weeks”? That may be critical, because shorter studies (e.g. 6 weeks) have previously returned without such glowing results:

Home-Use Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Treatment of a Major Depressive Episode

This means that if you get this tech for yourself or a loved one, it’ll be necessary to persist for likely 10 weeks, certainly more than 6 weeks, and not abandon it after a few sessions when it hasn’t been life-changing yet. And that may be more of a challenge for a depressed person, so likely an “accountability buddy” of some kind is in order (partner, close friend, etc) to help ensure adherence and generally bug you/them into doing it consistently.

And then, of course, you/they might still be in the 55% of people for whom it didn’t work. And that does suck, but random antidepressant medications (i.e., not personalized) don’t fare much better, statistically.

Want something else against depression meanwhile?

Here are some strategies that not only can significantly help, but also are tailored to be actually doable while depressed:

The Mental Health First-Aid You’ll Hopefully Never Need ← written by your writer who has previously suffered extensively from depression and knows what it is like

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • 5 Things You Can Change About Your Personality (But: Should You?)
  • Breaking The Age Code – by Dr. Becca Levy
    Bust ageist myths and potentially add 7.5 years to your life with insights from social psychology and a treasure trove of scientific evidence.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing sunflower seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the pumpkin seeds.

    Why?

    Both seeds have a good spread of vitamins and minerals, but pumpkin seeds have more. Sunflower seeds come out on top for copper and manganese, but everything else that’s present in either of them (in the category of vitamins and minerals, anyway), pumpkin seeds have more.

    There is one other thing that sunflower seeds have more of than pumpkin seeds, and that’s fat. The fat is mostly of healthy varieties, so it’s not a negative factor, but it does mean that if you’re eating a calorie-controlled diet, you’ll get more bang for your buck (i.e. better micronutrient-to-calorie ratio) if you pick pumpkin seeds.

    If you’re not concerned about fat/calories, and/or you actively want to consume more of those, then sunflower seeds are still a fine choice.

    When it comes down to it, a diverse diet is best, so enjoying both might be the best option of all.

    Want to get some?

    We don’t sell them, but here for your convenience are example products on Amazon:

    Sunflower Seeds | Pumpkin Seeds

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Perfectionism, And How To Make Yours Work For You

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Harness The Power Of Your Perfectionism

    A lot of people see perfectionism as a problem—and it can be that!

    We can use perfectionism as a would-be shield against our fear of failure, by putting things off until we’re better prepared (repeat forever, or at least until the deadliniest deadline that ever deadlined), or do things but really struggle to draw a line under them and check them off as “done” because we keep tweaking and improving and improving… With diminishing returns (forever). So, that’s not helpful.

    But, if we’re mindful, we can also leverage our perfectionism to our benefit.

    Great! How?

    First we need to be able to discern the ways in which perfectionism can be bad or good for us. Or as it’s called in psychology, ways in which our perfectionism can be maladaptive or adaptive.

    • Maladaptive: describing a behavioral adaptation to our environment—specifically, a reactive behavioral adaptation that is unhealthy and really is not a solution to the problem at hand
    • Adaptive: describing a behavioral adaptation to our environment—specifically, a responsive behavioral adaptation that is healthy and helps us to thrive

    So in the case of perfectionism, one example for each might be:

    • Maladaptive: never taking up that new hobby, because you’re just going to suck at it anyway, and what’s the point if you’re not going to excel? You’re a perfectionist, and you don’t settle for anything less than excellence.
    • Adaptive: researching the new hobby, learning the basics, and recognizing that even if the results are not immediately perfect, the learning process can be… Yes, even with mistakes along the way, for they too are part of learning! You’re a perfectionist, and you’re going to be the best possible student of your new hobby.

    Did you catch the key there?

    When it comes to approaching things we do in life—either because we want to or because we must—there are two kinds of mindset: goal-oriented, and task-oriented.

    Broadly speaking, each has their merits, and as a general topic, it’s beyond the scope of today’s main feature. Here we’re looking at it in the context of perfectionism, and in that frame, there’s a clear qualitative difference:

    • The goal-oriented perfectionist will be frustrated to the point of torment, at not immediately attaining the goal. Everything short of that will be a means to an end, at best. Not fun.
    • The task-oriented perfectionist will take joy in going about the task in the best way possible, and optimizing their process as they go. The journey itself will be rewarding and a tangible product of their consistent perfectionism.

    The good news is: you get to choose! You’re not stuck in a box.

    If you’re thinking “I’m a perfectionist and I’m generally a goal-oriented person”, that’s fine. You’re just going to need to reframe your goals.

    • Instead of: my goal is to be fluent in Arabic
      • …so you never speak it, because to err is human, all too human, and you’re a perfectionist, so you don’t want that!
    • Let’s try: my goal is to study Arabic for at least 15 minutes per day, every day, without fail, covering at least some new material each time, no matter how small the increase
      • …and then you go and throw yourself into conversation way out of your depth, make mistakes, and get corrections, because that’s how you learn, and you’re a perfectionist, so you want that!

    This goes for any field of expertise, of course.

    • If you want to play the violin solo in Carnegie Hall, you have to pick up your violin and practice each day.
    • If you want to be a world-renowned pastry chef, you have to make a consistent habit of baking.
    • If you want to write a bestselling book, you have to show up at your keyboard.

    Be perfect all you want, but be the perfect student.

    And as your skills grow, maybe you’ll upgrade that to also being the perfect practitioner, and perhaps later still, the perfect teacher.

    But just remember:

    Perfection comes not from the end goal (that would be backwards thinking!) but from the process (which includes mistakes; they’re an important part of learning; embrace them and grow!), so perfect that first.

    Share This Post

  • Sesame Seeds vs Poppy Seeds – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing sesame seeds to poppy seeds, we picked the poppy seeds.

    Why?

    It’s close, and they’re both very respectable seeds!

    In terms of macros, their protein content is the same, while poppy seeds have a little less fat and more carbs, as well as slightly more fiber. A moderate win for poppy seeds on this one.

    About that fat… The lipid profiles here see poppy seeds with (as a percentage of total fat, so notwithstanding that poppy seeds have a little less fat overall) more polyunsaturated fat and less saturated fat. Another win for poppy seeds in this case.

    In the category of vitamins, poppy seeds contain a lot more vitamins B5 & E while sesame seeds contain notably more vitamins B3, B6 and choline. Marginal win for sesame this time.

    When it comes to minerals, poppy seeds contain rather more calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese, while sesame seeds contain more copper, iron, and selenium. Marginal win for poppies here.

    Note: it is reasonable to wonder about poppy seeds’ (especially unwashed poppy seeds’) opiate content. Indeed, they do contain opiates, and levels do vary, but to give you an idea: you’d need to eat, on average, 1kg (2.2lbs) of poppy seeds to get the same opiate content as a 30mg codeine tablet.

    All in all, adding up the wins in each section, this one’s a moderate win for poppy seeds, but of course, enjoy both in moderation!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • 5 Things You Can Change About Your Personality (But: Should You?)
  • Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.

    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.

    This article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.

    It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.

    We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.

    Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.

    “We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”

    Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.

    We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.

    It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?

    As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.

    One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption. 

    Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.  

    For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue. 

    One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.    

    Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination. 

    As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking. 

    Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.

    Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.

    It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.

    Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.

    This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource 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:

  • Peace Is Every Step – by Thích Nhất Hạnh

    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.

    Mindfulness is one of the few practices to make its way from religion (in this case, Buddhism) into hard science. We’ve written before about its many evidence-based benefits, and many national health information outlets recommend it. So, what does this book have to add?

    Thích Nhất Hạnh spent most of his 95 years devoted to the practice and teaching of mindfulness and compassion. In this book, the focus is on bringing mindfulness off the meditation mat and into general life.

    After all, what if we could extend that “unflappability” into situations that pressure and antagonize us? That would be some superpower!

    The author offers techniques to do just that, simple exercises to transform negative emotions, and to make us more likely to remember to do so.

    After all, “in the heat of the moment” is rarely when many of us are at our best, this book gives way to allow those moments themselves to serve as immediate triggers to be our best.

    The title “Peace Is Every Step” is not a random collection of words; the goal of this book is to enable to reader to indeed carry peace with us as we go.

    Not just “peace is always available to us”, but if we do it right: “we have now arranged for our own peace to automatically step in and help us when we need it most”.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to practice mindfulness, or practice it more consistently, this book offers some powerful tools.

    Click here to check out Peace Is Every Step, and carry yours with you!

    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:

  • Pneumonia: Prevention Is Better Than Cure

    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.

    Pneumonia: What We Can & Can’t Do About It

    Pneumonia is a significant killer of persons over the age of 65, with the risk increasing with age after that, rising very sharply around the age of 85:

    QuickStats: Death Rates from Influenza and Pneumonia Among Persons Aged ≥65 Years, by Sex and Age Group

    While pneumonia is treatable, especially in young healthy adults, the risks get more severe in the older age brackets, and it’s often the case that someone goes into hospital with one thing, then develops pneumonia, which the person was already not in good physical shape to fight, because of whatever hospitalized them in the first place:

    American Lung Association | Pneumonia Treatment and Recovery

    Other risk factors besides age

    There are a lot of things that can increase our risk factor for pneumonia; they mainly fall into the following categories:

    • Autoimmune diseases
    • Other diseases of the immune system (e.g. HIV)
    • Medication-mediated immunosuppression (e.g. after an organ transplant)
    • Chronic lung diseases (e.g. asthma, COPD, Long Covid, emphysema, etc)
    • Other serious health conditions ← we know this one’s broad, but it encompasses such things as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer

    See also:

    Why Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Is More Likely Than You Think

    Things we can do about it

    When it comes to risks, we can’t do much about our age and some of the other above factors, but there are other things we can do to reduce our risk, including:

    • Get vaccinated against pneumonia if you are over 65 and/or have one of the aforementioned risk factors. This is not perfect (it only reduces the risk for certain kinds of infection) and may not be advisable for everyone (like most vaccines, it can put the body through its paces a bit after taking it), so speak with your own doctor about this, of course.
    • Avoid contagion. While pneumonia itself is not spread person-to-person, it is caused by bacteria or viruses (there are numerous kinds) that are opportunistic and often become a secondary infection when the immune system is already busy with the first one. So, if possible avoid being in confined spaces with many people, and do wash your hands regularly (as a lot of germs are transferred that way and can get into the respiratory tract because you touched your face or such).
    • If you have a cold, or flu, or other respiratory infection, take it seriously, rest well, drink fluids, get good immune-boosting nutrients. There’s no such thing as “just a cold”; not anymore.
    • Look after your general health too—health doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and nor does disease. Every part of us affects every other part of us, so anything that can be in good order, you want to be in good order.

    This last one, by the way? It’s an important reminder that while some diseases (such as some of the respiratory infections that can precede pneumonia) are seasonal, good health isn’t.

    We need to take care of our health as best we can every day along the way, because we never know when something could change.

    Want to do more?

    Check out: Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!

    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: