Encyclopedia Of Herbal Medicine – by Andrew Chevallier

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.

A common problem with a lot of herbal medicine is it’s “based on traditional use only”, while on the other hand, learning about the actual science of it can mean poring through stacks of Randomized Clinical Trials, half of which are paywalled.

This beautifully and clearly-illustrated book bridges that gap. It gives not just the history, but also the science, of the use of many medicinal herbs (spotlight on 100 key ones; details on 450 more).

It gives advice on growing, harvesting, processing, and using the herbs, as well as what not to do (with regard to safety). And in case you don’t fancy yourself a gardener, you’ll also find advice on places one can buy herbs, and what you’ll need to know to choose them well (controlling for quality etc).

You can read it cover-to-cover, or look up what you need by plant in its general index, or by ailment (200 common ailments listed). As for its bibliography, it does list many textbooks, but not individual papers—though it does cite 12 popular scientific journals too.

Bottom line: if you want a good, science-based, one-stop book for herbal medicine, this is a top-tier choice.

Click here to check out the Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine, and expand your home remedy repertoire!

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:

  • Three Surprising Ways Microplastics Can Enter Your Body

    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.

    How many are you and your family subject to?

    The wrong plasticity

    We’ll not keep the three ways a mystery; they are:

    • Inhalation: breathing in airborne microplastics from indoor and urban environments where particles are suspended in the air
    • Ingestion: consuming plastics through food and drink, especially from packaging, bottled water, and contaminated seafood especially
    • Absorption: absorbing tiny particles and associated chemicals through your skin from cosmetics, personal care products, and more

    This is a problem, because nanoplastics are small enough to cross cell membranes and accumulate in tissues like your liver, brain, and lungs, where your immune system triggers inflammation but cannot fully remove them.

    The futile immune response then becomes a problem of its own, as repeated immune responses mean chronic inflammation, which is a recipe for disaster in more ways than we have room to list here, but the gist is: your body will get cumulatively rundown over time.

    Another way it causes harm is that many such plastics release endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA, phthalates, and PFAS, which are well-documented to affect hormones and metabolism in humans (spoiler: the effects are not good effects).

    The science of microplastics is (for obvious reasons) young and ongoing, for example, there’s a lot that still unknown about such things as:

    • direct disease causation: while it certainly appears that microplastics cause specific diseases like cancer, dementia, and diabetes in humans, the causality has not technically been proven yet.
    • dose-response effects: scientists don’t yet know how much exposure (if any) is “safe” over a lifetime in humans
    • organ-specific damage: plastics have been found in organs (including the brain), but the the full list exact health consequences of that accumulation are still being investigated. We know it is strongly associated with increased aggregation of tau proteins, amyloid-beta, alpha-synuclein, and so forth, though, amongst other things (see the “learn more” for more on this).
    • relative importance of sources: it’s still uncertain which exposure sources (air vs food vs products) contribute most to long-term health risk.
    • long-term human outcomes: the strongest current evidence comes from in vitro or non-human animal studies, while long-term human data is still limited and evolving (simply, mouse autopsies stack up more quickly than human ones).

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    Microplastics Now, Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s Later?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Kidney Beans vs White 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 kidney beans to white beans, we picked the white.

    Why?

    It was close, and each has its strengths! Bear in mind, these are very closely-related beans. But there are distinguishing factors:

    In terms of macros, kidney beans have very slightly more fiber and white beans have very slightly more protein. But both are close enough in both of those things to call this a tie in this category.

    When it comes to vitamins, we will briefly break slightly from our usual methodology by noting that there are two ways of looking at this one:

    1. kidney beans have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and K, while white beans have more vitamin B5 and E
    2. kidney beans have slightly more of some vitamins that don’t usually see a deficiency, while white beans have 31x more vitamin E

    For scoring purposes and in the interests of reproducibility, however, we will still stand by our usual method of noting that this is a 7:2 win for kidney beans in this category; we just wanted to note that in practical health terms, an argument can be made for white beans on the vitamin front too.

    In the category of minerals, kidney beans have slightly more phosphorus, while white beans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An easy win for white beans this time.

    (In case you’re wondering about the margin on phosphorus, it was 0.2x more, so we’re not seeing a situation like white beans’ 31x more vitamin E)

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for white means, and even more so if you want to use the alternate scoring consideration for vitamins, but either way, do enjoy either or both, as diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Bamboo Shoots vs Red Cabbage – 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 bamboo to red cabbage, we picked the bamboo.

    Why?

    Both have their merits!

    In terms of macros, bamboo has slightly more fiber and protein, while red cabbage has slightly more carbs; the numbers are close though, so we could call this round a tie if not a small nominal win for bamboo.

    In the category of vitamins, bamboo has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B7, and E, while red cabbage has more of vitamins A, B9, C, and K, yielding a modest 5:4 win to bamboo here.

    Looking at minerals, bamboo has more copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while red cabbage has more calcium, iron, and magnesium, making this one a 6:3 win for bamboo.

    In other considerations, red cabbage is higher in polyphenols, so that’s a point in its favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for bamboo, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Don’t Be Bamboozled By Bamboo! ← including how to eat bamboo, for those unfamiliar with such, as we have been asked about it 🙂

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • What Happens If Your GLP-1 Supply Is Temporarily Interrupted?

    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 fairly well-known that if you take a GLP-1 receptor agonist drug (like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro etc) for weight loss and then stop, the weight will return.

    See for example: What happens when I stop taking a drug like Ozempic or Mounjaro?

    This is important to consider, as it means that starting to take a GLP-1 RA drug is something one should be prepared to then continue doing for the rest of one’s life, if one wants to keep the weight off.

    There are, of course, a lot of people who go onto GLP-1 RAs with the rationale “I’ll just use this to lose the weight, and then I’ll keep the weight off with my diet and lifestyle”.

    Which sounds reasonable, but because of the specific mechanisms of actions of GLP-1 RAs, it simply doesn’t work that way (indeed, there are even reasons that you may, after stopping taking GLP-1 RAs, be more disposed to put weight on than you were before you started*). So, by the best of current science (which admittedly is not amazing when it comes to this topic), it does seem that taking GLP-1 RAs is a lifetime commitment.

    You can read more about this here: Discontinuation and Reinitiation of Dual-Labeled GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Among US Adults With Overweight or Obesity

    *We wrote previously about how a person who has been on GLP-1 RAs may afterwards be even more inclined to put on fat than before:

    Of the four studies that actually looked at the macros (unlike most studies), they found that on average, protein intake decreased by 17.1%. Which is a big deal!

    It’s an especially big deal, because while protein’s obviously important for everyone, it’s especially important for anyone trying to lose weight, because muscle mass is a major factor in metabolic base rate—which in turn is much important for fat loss/maintenance than exercise, when it comes to how many calories we burn by simply existing.

    A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, is that one of the numerous reasons people who quit GLP-1 agonists immediately put fat back on, is because they probably lost muscle mass in amongst their weight loss, meaning that their metabolic base rate will have decreased, meaning that they end up more disposed to put on fat than before.

    And, that’s just a hypothesis and it’s a hypothesis based on very few studies, so it’s not something to necessarily take as any kind of definitive proof of anything, but it is to say—as the researchers of this review do loudly say—more research needs to be done into this, because this has been a major gap in research so far!❞

    Read in full: Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects

    So, what about short-term interruptions?

    We like to bring you hot-off-the-press science news, in this case, it’s so new that the paper in question hasn’t actually been published yet.

    However, a press release was made at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting—yesterday, at time of writing.

    The good news: they found that GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide remain effective for weight loss even when access is disrupted.

    The bad news: it’s not like the disruption didn’t have a negative impact, though; weight loss was also temporarily disrupted; temporary partial weight regain was a relevant factor (just, weight regained was then lost again upon continuing)

    In numbers: 6,392 participants in a metabolic health program were tracked over at least one year; the program combined GLP-1 RA treatment with lifestyle changes in food, exercise, sleep, and emotional health, plus one-on-one coaching. Of those, 72.5% of participants experienced at least one GLP-1 access disruption; 11.1% had multiple. Here’s how much difference that made:

    • Without access disruptions: 17% average weight loss at 12 months, 20.1% at 24 months.
    • With access disruptions: 13.7% average weight loss at 12 months, 14.9% at 24 months.
    • With only 1–4 treatments in 12 months: >10% average weight loss at 12 months, no data for 24 months (in all likelihood they regained the weight as is normal, but the data was not recorded so we can’t say that for sure)

    While we can’t link to the paper that hasn’t been published yet, we can link to the press release: Study finds patients with interrupted GLP-1 access still achieve significant weight loss

    All of which points to the idea that “some is still better than none” when it comes to drug availability, and that one probably shouldn’t become overly stressed about missing a dose (for example, due to supply problems, cost issues, bureaucratic hold-ups on a repeat prescription, that kind of thing).

    Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean things will necessarily be easy, for example:

    ❝Now that I am no longer taking the drug, unfortunately, my weight is returning to what it used to be. It felt effortless losing weight while on the trial, but now it has gone back to feeling like a constant battle with food. I hope that, if the drug can be approved for people like me, my [doctor] will be able to prescribe the drug for me in the future.❞

    ~ Jan, a trial participant at UCLH

    Source: Gamechanger drug for treating obesity cuts body weight by 20% ← University College London Hospitals (NHS)

    Want to maximize your chances of good results?

    First, you might want to make sure you’re on the best GLP-1 RA for you, and that’s probably going to change over time as new drugs are developed and rolled out.

    We wrote about that here: Better Than Ozempic? ← which finds that tirzepatide is better than semaglutide, retraglutide is better than tirzepatide, and an as yet unnamed tetra-receptor agonist drug is better than retraglutide.

    You can also improve your results whichever drug you’re on, by bearing in mind: 10 Mistakes To Sabotage Your Ozempic Progress

    Want a more natural approach?

    It is possible to get many of the effects of GLP-1 RAs without taking GLP-1RAs, by enjoying foods that increase incretin, a hormone group (the most well-known of which is GLP-1) that slows down stomach emptying, which means a gentler blood sugar curve and feeling fuller for longer. It also acts on the hypothalamus, controlling appetite via the brain too (signalling fullness and reducing hunger).

    For what foods to focus on, see:

    5 Ways To Naturally Boost The “Ozempic Effect” ← this is from Dr. Jason Fung, who is perhaps most well-known for his work in functional medicine for reversing diabetes, and he’s once again giving us sound advice about metabolic hormone-hacking with dietary tweaks!

    You can also check out: Ozempic vs Five Natural Supplements

    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:

  • Pink Himalayan Salt: Health Facts

    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!

    Q: Great article about the health risks of salt to organs other than the heart! Is pink Himalayan sea salt, the pink kind, healthier?

    Thank you! And, no, sorry. Any salt that is sodium chloride has the exact same effect because it’s chemically the same substance, even if impurities (however pretty) make it look different.

    If you want a lower-sodium salt, we recommend the kind that says “low sodium” or “reduced sodium” or similar. Check the ingredients, it’ll probably be sodium chloride cut with potassium chloride. Potassium chloride is not only not a source of sodium, but also, it’s a source of potassium, which (unlike sodium) most of us could stand to get a little more of.

    For your convenience: here’s an example on Amazon!

    Bonus: you can get a reduced sodium version of pink Himalayan salt too!

    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:

  • Avocado vs Papaya – 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 avocado to papaya, we picked the avocado.

    Why?

    It was quite one-sided today!

    In terms of macros, avocados have 4x more fiber, 4x more protein, and 45x more fats (famously healthy ones), while papaya has slightly more carbs. An easy first-round win for avocados!

    In the category of vitamins, avocados have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, E, and K, while papaya has more of vitamins A and C. Another clear win for avocados here.

    Looking at minerals, avocados have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while papayas have more calcium and selenium, meaning this one’s three rounds in a row for avocados.

    Adding up the sections makes for an overwhelming overall win for avocados, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Avocado, Coconut & Lime Crumble Pots ← an easy recipe that’s fun, delicious, and healthy!

    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: