Good (Or Bad) Health Starts With Your Blood
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.
Blood Should Be Only Slightly Thicker Than Water
This is Dr. Casey Means, a physician, lecturer (mostly at Stanford), and CMO of a metabolic health company, Levels, as well as being Associate Editor of the International Journal of Diabetes Reversal and Prevention, where she serves alongside such names as Dr. Colin Campbell, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. William Li, Dr. Dean Ornish, and you get the idea: it’s a star-studded cast.
What does she want us to know?
The big blood problem:
❝We’re spending 3.8 trillion dollars a year on healthcare costs in the U.S., and the reality is that people are getting sicker, fatter, and more depressed.
Over 50% of Americans have pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes; it’s insane, that number should be close to zero.❞
~ Dr. Casey Means
Indeed, pre-diabetes and especially type 2 diabetes should be very avoidable in any wealthy nation.
Unfortunately, the kind of diet that avoids it tends to rely on having at least 2/3 of the following:
- Money
- Time
- Knowledge
For example:
- if you have money and time, you can buy lots of fresh ingredients without undue worry, and take the time to carefully prep and cook them
- if you have money and knowledge you can have someone else shop and cook for you, or at least get meal kits delivered
- if you have time and knowledge, you can actually eat very healthily on a shoestring budget
If you have all three, then the world’s your oyster mushroom steak sautéed in extra virgin olive oil with garlic and cracked black pepper served on a bed of Swiss chard and lashed with Balsamic vinegar.
However, many Americans aren’t in the happy position of having at least 2/3, and a not-insignificant portion of the population don’t even have 1/3.
As an aside: there is a food scientist and chef who’s made it her mission to educate people about food that’s cheap, easy, and healthy:
…but today is about Dr. Means, so, what does she suggest?
Know thyself thy blood sugars
Dr. Means argues (reasonably; this is well-backed up by general scientific consensus) that much of human disease stems from the diabetes and pre-diabetes that she mentioned above, and so we should focus on that most of all.
Our blood sugar levels being unhealthy will swiftly lead to other metabolic disorders:
Heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are perhaps first in line, but waiting in the wings are inflammation-mediated autoimmune disorders, and even dementia, because neuroinflammation is at least as bad as inflammation anywhere else, arguably worse, and our brain can only be as healthy as the blood that feeds it and takes things that shouldn’t be there away.
Indeed,
❝Alzheimer’s dementia is now being called type 3 diabetes because it’s so related to blood sugar❞
~ Dr. Casey Means
…which sounds like a bold claim, but it’s true, even if the name is not “official” yet, it’s well-established in professional circulation:
❝We conclude that the term “type 3 diabetes” accurately reflects the fact that AD represents a form of diabetes that selectively involves the brain and has molecular and biochemical features that overlap with both T1DM and T2DM❞
~ Dr. Suzanne M. de la Monte & Dr. Jack Wands
Read in full: Alzheimer’s Disease Is Type 3 Diabetes–Evidence Reviewed ← this is from the very respectable Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
What to do about it
Dr. Means suggests we avoid the “glucose roller-coaster” that most Americans are on, meaning dramatic sugar spikes, or to put it in sciencese: high glycemic variability.
This leads to inflammation, oxidative stress, glycation (where sugar sticks to proteins and DNA), and metabolic dysfunction. Then there’s the flipside: reactive hypoglycemia, a result of a rapid drop in blood sugar after a spike, can cause anxiety, fatigue, weakness/trembling, brain fog, and of course cravings. And so the cycle repeats.
But it doesn’t have to!
By taking it upon ourselves to learn about what causes our blood sugars to rise suddenly or gently, we can manage our diet and other lifestyle factors accordingly.
And yes, it’s not just about diet, Dr. Means tells us. While added sugar and refined carbohydrates or indeed the main drivers of glycemic variability, our sleep, movement, stress management, and even toxin exposure play important parts too.
One way to do this, that Dr. Means recommends, is with a continuous glucose monitor:
Track Your Blood Sugars For Better Personalized Health
Another way is to just apply principles that work for almost everyone:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
Want to know more from Dr. Means?
You might like her book:
Good Energy – by Dr. Casey Means
…which goes into this in far more detail than we have room to today.
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Red Lentils vs Green Lentils – 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 red lentils to green lentils, we picked the green.
Why?
Yes, they’re both great. But there are some clear distinctions!
First, know: red lentils are, secretly, hulled brown lentils. Brown lentils are similar to green lentils, just a little less popular and with (very) slightly lower nutritional values, as a rule.
By hulling the lentils, the first thing that needs mentioning is that they lose some of their fiber, since this is what was removed. While we’re talking macros, this does mean that red lentils have proportionally more protein, because of the fiber weight lost. However, because green lentils are still a good source of protein, we think the fat that green lentils have much more fiber is a point in their favor.
In terms of micronutrients, they’re quite similar in vitamins (mostly B-vitamins, of which, mostly folate / vitamin B9), and when it comes to minerals, they’re similarly good sources of iron, but green lentils contain more magnesium and potassium.
Green lentils also contain more antixoidants.
All in all, they both continue to be very respectable parts of anyone’s diet—but in a head-to-head, green lentils do come out on top (unless you want to prioritize slightly higher protein above everything else, in which case, red).
Want to get some in? Here are the specific products we featured today:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure ← incidentally, the potassium content of green lentils also helps minimize the harm done by sodium in one’s diet
Take care!
Share This Post
PCOS Repair Protocol – by Tamika Woods
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.
PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) affects about 1 in 5 women, and the general position of the medical establishment is “Oh dear, how sad; never mind”.
…which leaves a lot of people suffering with symptoms with little to no help.
This book looks to address that, and while it doesn’t claim to cure PCOS, it offers a system for managing (including: reducing) the symptoms. The author, a clinical nutritionist by academic background, tackles this in large part via being mindful about what one eats, in the context of the gut and endocrine system specifically.
It’s not just “have a gut healthy diet and eat foods with these nutrients”, though (although yes: also that). Rather, the author walks us through in-depth quizzes and lab testing advice, to advise the reader on how to understand the root cause of your PCOS symptoms, and then address each of those with an individualized management plan.
The style is on the low-end of pop-science, notwithstanding the clinically-informed content. For those who like a very chatty informal approach, you’ll find this one perfect. For those who don’t, well, you won’t find this one perfect, but you will most likely find it informative all the same.
Bottom line: if you or someone you care about (do you know 5 women?) has PCOS, the information in here could make a difference.
Click here to check out PCOS Repair Protocol, and suffer less!
Share This Post
Ham Substitute in Bean Soup
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’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
I am interested in what I can substitute for ham in bean soup?
Well, that depends on what the ham was like! You can certainly buy ready-made vegan lardons (i.e. small bacon/ham bits, often in tiny cubes or similar) in any reasonably-sized supermarket. Being processed, they’re not amazing for the health, but are still an improvement on pork.
Alternatively, you can make your own seitan! Again, seitan is really not a health food, but again, it’s still relatively less bad than pork (unless you are allergic to gluten, in which case, definitely skip this one).
Alternatively alternatively, in a soup that already contains beans (so the protein element is already covered), you could just skip the ham as an added ingredient, and instead bring the extra flavor by means of a little salt, a little yeast extract (if you don’t like yeast extract, don’t worry, it won’t taste like it if you just use a teaspoon in a big pot, or half a teaspoon in a smaller pot), and a little smoked paprika. If you want to go healthier, you can swap out the salt for MSG, which enhances flavor in a similar fashion while containing less sodium.
Wondering about the health aspects of MSG? Check out our main feature on this, from last month:
Share This Post
Related Posts
Oscar contender Poor Things is a film about disability. Why won’t more people say so?
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.
Readers are advised this article includes an offensive and outdated disability term in a quote from the film.
Poor Things is a spectacular film that has garnered critical praise, scooped up awards and has 11 Oscar nominations. That might be the problem. Audiences become absorbed in another world, so much so our usual frames of reference disappear.
There has been much discussion about the film’s feminist potential (or betrayal). What’s not being talked about in mainstream reviews is disability. This seems strange when two of the film’s main characters are disabled.
Set in a fantasy version of Victorian London, unorthodox Dr Godwin Baxter (William Dafoe) finds the just-dead body of a heavily pregnant woman in the Thames River. In keeping with his menagerie of hybrid animals, Godwin removes the unborn baby’s brain and puts it into the skull of its mother, who becomes Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).
Is Bella really disabled?
Stone has been praised for her ability to embody a small child who rapidly matures into a hypersexual person – one who has not had time to absorb the restrictive rules of gender or patriarchy.
But we also see a woman using her behaviour to express herself because she has complex communication barriers. We see a woman who is highly sensitive and responsive to the sensory world around her. A woman moving through and seeing the world differently – just like the fish-eye lens used in many scenes.
Women like this exist and they have historically been confined, studied and monitored like Bella. When medical student Max McCandless (Ramy Youssef) first meets Bella, he offensively exclaims “what a very pretty retard!” before being told the truth and promptly declared her future husband.
Even if Bella is not coded as disabled through her movements, speech and behaviour, her onscreen creator and guardian is. Godwin Baxter has facial differences and other impairments which require assistive technology.
So ignoring disability as a theme of the film seems determined and overt. The absurd humour for which the film is being lauded is often at Bella’s “primitive”, “monstrous” or “damaged” actions: words which aren’t usually used to describe children, but have been used to describe disabled people throughout history.
In reviews, Bella’s walk and speech are compared to characters like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, rather than a disabled woman. So why the resistance?
Freak shows and displays
Disability studies scholar Rosemarie Gardland-Thomson writes “the history of disabled people in the Western world is in part the history of being on display”.
In the 19th century, when Poor Things is set, “freak shows” featuring disabled people, Indigenous people and others with bodily differences were extremely popular.
Doctors used freak shows to find specimens – like Joseph Merrick (also known as the Elephant Man and later depicted on screen) who was used for entertainment before he was exhibited in lecture halls. In the mid-1800s, as medicine became a profession, observing the disabled body shifted from a public spectacle to a private medical gaze that labelled disability as “sick” and pathologised it.
Poor Things doesn’t just circle around these discourses of disability. Bella’s body is a medical experiment, kept locked away for the private viewing of male doctors who take notes about her every move in small pads. While there is something glorious, intimate and familiar about Bella’s discovery of her own sexual pleasure, she immediately recognises it as worth recording in the third person:
I’ve discovered something that I must share […] Bella discover happy when she want!
The film’s narrative arc ends with Bella herself training to be a doctor but one whose more visible disabilities have disappeared.
Framing charity and sexual abuse
Even the film’s title is an expression often used to describe disabled people. The charity model of disability sees disabled people as needing pity and support from others. Financial poverty is briefly shown at a far-off port in the film and Bella initially becomes a sex worker in Paris for money – but her more pressing concern is sexual pleasure.
Disabled women’s sexuality is usually seen as something that needs to be controlled. It is frequently assumed disabled women are either hypersexual or de-gendered and sexually innocent.
In the real world disabled people experience much higher rates of abuse, including sexual assault, than others. Last year’s Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found women with disability are nearly twice as likely as women without disability to have been assaulted. Almost a third of women with disability have experienced sexual assault by the age of 15. Bella’s hypersexual curiosity appears to give her some layer of protection – but that portrayal denies the lived experience of many.
Watch but don’t ignore
Poor Things is a stunning film. But ignoring disability in the production ignores the ways in which the representation of disabled bodies play into deep and historical stereotypes about disabled people.
These representations continue to shape lives.
Louisa Smith, Senior lecturer, Deakin University; Gemma Digby, Lecturer – Health & Social Development, Deakin University, and Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
To-Do List Formula – by Damon Zahariades
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 first part of this book is given to reviewing popular to-do list methods that are already widely “out there”. This treatment is practical and exploratory, looking at the pros and cons of each.
The second part of the book is more Zahariades’ own method, taking what he sees as the best of each, plus some tricks and practices of his own. With these, he builds (and shares!) his optimized system.
You may be wondering what you, dear reader, can expect to get out of this book. Well, that depends on where you’re coming from:
Are you new to approaching your general to-dos with a system more organized than post-it notes on your fridge? If so, this will be a great initial introduction to many systems.
Or are you, perhaps, a veteran of GTD, ToDoist, assorted Pomodoro-based systems, and more? Do you do/delegate/defer/ditch tasks more deftly and dextrously than Serena Williams despatches tennis balls?
If so, what you’re more likely to gain here is a fresh perspective on old ideas, and maybe a trick or two you didn’t know before. At the very least, a boost to your motivation, getting you fired up for doing what you know best again.
All in all, a very respectable book for anyone’s to-read list!
Pick Up Your Copy of Zahariades’ To-Do List Formula on Amazon Today!
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:
Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not there?
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.
Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not There?
Yesterday, we asked you your opinions on homeopathy. The sample size of responses was a little lower than we usually get, but of those who did reply, there was a clear trend:
- A lot of enthusiasm for “Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective”
- Near equal support for “It may help some people as a complementary therapy”
- Very few people voted for “Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works”; this is probably because people who considered voting for this, voted for the more flexible “It may help some people as a complementary therapy” instead.
- Very few people considered it a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience.
So, what does the science say?
Well, let us start our investigation by checking out the position of the UK’s National Health Service, an organization with a strong focus on providing the least expensive treatments that are effective.
Since homeopathy is very inexpensive to arrange, they will surely want to put it atop their list of treatments, right?
❝Homeopathy is a “treatment” based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself.
There’s been extensive investigation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. There’s no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.❞
The NHS actually has a lot more to say about that, and you can read their full statement here.
But that’s just one institution. Here’s what Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council had to say:
❝There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment❞
You can read their full statement here.
The American FDA, meanwhile, have a stronger statement:
❝Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations.❞
You can read their full statement here.
Homeopathy is a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience: True or False?
False and True, respectively, mostly.
That may be a confusing answer, so let’s elaborate:
- Is it dangerous? Mostly not; it’s mostly just water. However, two possibilities for harm exist:
- Careless preparation could result in a harmful ingredient still being present in the water—and because of the “like cures like” principle, many of the ingredients used in homeopathy are harmful, ranging from heavy metals to plant-based neurotoxins. However, the process of “ultra-dilution” usually removes these so thoroughly that they are absent or otherwise scientifically undetectable.
- Placebo treatment has its place, but could result in “real” treatment going undelivered. This can cause harm if the “real” treatment was critically needed, especially if it was needed on a short timescale.
- Is it a scam? Probably mostly not; to be a scam requires malintent. Most practitioners probably believe in what they are practising.
- Is it a pseudoscience? With the exception that placebo effect has been highly studied and is a very valid complementary therapy… Yes, aside from that it is a pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “like cures like” principle, and there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “water memory” idea. On the contrary, they go against the commonly understood physics of our world.
It may help some people as a complementary therapy: True or False?
True! Not only is placebo effect very well-studied, but best of all, it can still work as a placebo even if you know that you’re taking a placebo… Provided you also believe that!
Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works: True or False?
False, simply. At best, it performs as a placebo.
Placebo is most effective when it’s a remedy against subjective symptoms, like pain.
However, psychosomatic effect (the effect that our brain has on the rest of our body, to which it is very well-connected) can mean that placebo can also help against objective symptoms, like inflammation.
After all, our body, directed primarily by the brain, can “decide” what immunological defenses to deploy or hold back, for example. This is why placebo can help with conditions as diverse as arthritis (an inflammatory condition) or diabetes (an autoimmune condition, and/or a metabolic condition, depending on type).
Here’s how homeopathy measures up, for those conditions:
(the short answer is “no better than placebo”)
Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective: True or False?
False, except insofar as placebo is a valid principle and can be effective.
The stated principles of homeopathy—”like cures like” and “water memory”—have no scientific basis.
We’d love to show the science for this, but we cannot prove a negative.
However, the ideas were conceived in 1796, and are tantamount to alchemy. A good scientific attitude means being open-minded to new ideas and testing them. In homeopathy’s case, this has been done, extensively, and more than 200 years of testing later, homeopathy has consistently performed equal to placebo.
In summary…
- If you’re enjoying homeopathic treatment and that’s working for you, great, keep at it.
- If you’re open-minded to enjoying a placebo treatment that may benefit you, be careful, but don’t let us stop you.
- If your condition is serious, please do not delay seeking evidence-based medical treatment.
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: