End Your Carb Confusion – by Dr. Eric Westman & Amy Berger
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.
Carbs can indeed be confusing! We’ve written about it ourselves before, but there’s more to be said than fits in a single article, and sometimes a book is in order. This one is such a book.
The authors (an MD and a nutritionist) explain the ins and outs of carbohydrates of various kinds, insulin responses, and what that means for the body. They also then look at the partly-similar, partly-different processes that occur with the metabolism of fats of various kinds, and what that means for the body, too.
Ultimately they advocate for a simple and clear low-carb approach broadly consistent with keto diet macro principles, without getting too overly focused on “is this fruit/vegetable ok?” minutiae. This has the benefit of putting it well aside from the paleo diet, for example (which focuses more on pseudo-historical foods than it does on macros), and also makes it a lot easier on a practical level.
The style is very textbook-like, which makes for an easy read with plenty of information that should stick easily in most reader’s minds, rather than details getting lost in wall-of-text formatting. So, we approve of this.
There is not, by the way, a recipes section. It’s “here’s the information, now go forth and enjoy” and leaves us all to find/make our own recipes, rather than trying to guess our culinary preferences.
Bottom line: if you’d like an easy-to-read primer on understanding how carbs work, what it means for you, and what to do about it, then this is a fine book.
Click here to check out End Your Carb Confusion, and end your carb confusion!
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:
Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits?
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 spoonful of pepper makes the… Hang on, no, that’s not right…
We know that spices are the spice of life, and many have great health-giving qualities. But…
- How much is the right amount?
- What’s the minimum to get health benefits?
- What’s the maximum to avoid toxicity?
That last one always seems like a scary question, but please bear in mind: everything is toxic at a certain dose. Oxygen, water, you-name-it.
On the other hand, many things have a toxicity so low that one could not physically consume it sufficiently faster than the body eliminates it, to get a toxic build-up.
Consider, for example, the €50 banknote that was nearly withdrawn from circulation because one of the dyes used in it was found to be toxic. However, the note remained in circulation after scientists patiently explained that a person would have to eat many thousands of them to get a lethal dose.
So, let’s address these questions in reverse order:
What’s the maximum to avoid toxicity?
In the case of the spices we’ll look at today, the human body generally* has high tolerance for them if eaten at levels that we find comfortable eating.
*IMPORTANT NOTE: If you have (or may have) a medical condition that may be triggered by spices, go easier on them (or if appropriate, abstain completely) after you learn about that.
Check with your own physician if unsure, because not only are we not doctors, we’re specifically not your doctors, and cannot offer personalized health advice.
We’re going to be talking in averages and generalizations here. Caveat consumator.
For most people, unless you are taking the spice in such quantities that you are folding space and seeing the future, or eating them as the main constituents of your meal rather than an embellishment, you should be fine. Please don’t enter a chilli-eating contest and sue us.
What is the minimum to get health benefits and how much should we eat?
The science of physiology generally involves continuous rather than discrete data, so there’s not so much a hard threshold, as a point at which the benefits become significant. The usefulness of most nutrients we consume, be they macro- or micro-, will tend to have a bell curve.
In other words, a tiny amount won’t do much, the right amount will have a good result, and usefulness will tail off after that point. To that end, we’re going to look at the “sweet spot” of peaking on the graph.
Also note: the clinical dose is the dose of the compound, not the amount of the food that one will need to eat to get that dose. For example, food x containing compound y will not usually contain that compound at 100% rate and nothing else. We mention this so that you’re not surprised when we say “the recommended dose is 5mg of compound, so take a teaspoon of this spice”, for example.
Further note: we only have so much room here, so we’re going to list only the top benefits, and not delve into the science of them. You can see the related main features for more details, though!
The “big 5” health-giving spices, with their relevant active compound:
- Black pepper (piperine)
- Hot pepper* (capsaicin)
- Garlic (allicin)
- Ginger (gingerol)
- Turmeric (curcumin**)
*Cayenne pepper is very high in capsaicin; chilli peppers are also great
**not the same thing as cumin, which is a completely different plant. Cumin does have some health benefits of its own, but not in the same league as the spices above, and there’s only so much we have room to cover today.
Black pepper
- Benefits: antioxidant, anti-cancer, boosts bioavailability of other nutrients, aids digestion
- Dosage: 5–20mg for benefits
- Suggestion: ½ teaspoon of black pepper is sufficient for benefits. However, this writer’s kitchen dictum in this case is “if you can’t see the black pepper in/on the food, add more”—but that’s more about taste!
- Related main feature: Black Pepper’s Anti-Cancer Arsenal (And More)
Hot Pepper
- Benefits: anti-inflammatory, metabolism accelerator
- Dosage: 6mg gives benefits, 500mg is a common dose in capsules
- Suggestion: if not making a spicy dish, consider using a teaspoon of cayenne as part of the seasoning for rice or potatoes
- Related main feature: Capsaicin For Weight Loss And Against Inflammation
Garlic
- Benefits: heart health, blood sugar balancing, anti-cancer
- Dosage: 4–8µg for benefits
- Suggestion: 1–2 cloves daily is generally good. However, cooking reduces allicin content (and so does oxidation after cutting/crushing), so you may want to adjust accordingly if doing those things.
- Related main feature: The Many Health Benefits Of Garlic
Ginger
- Benefits: anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-nausea
- Dosage: 3–4g for benefits
- Suggestion: 1 teaspoon grated raw ginger or ½ a teaspoon powdered ginger, can be used in baking or as part of the seasoning for a stir-fry
- Related main feature: Ginger Does A Lot More Than You Think
Turmeric
- Benefits: anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer
- Dosage: 500–2000mg for benefits
- Suggestion: ¼ teaspoon per day is sufficient for benefits; ½ teaspoon dropped into the water when cooking rice will infuse the rice with turmeric (which is very water-soluble), turn the rice a pretty golden color, and not affect the flavor. Throw in some black pepper as it increases the bioavailability of curcumin up to 2000%
- Related main feature: Why Curcumin (Turmeric) Is Worth Its Weight In Gold
Closing notes
The above five spices are very healthful for most people. Personal physiology can and will vary, so if in doubt, a) check with your doctor b) start at lowest doses and establish your tolerance (or lack thereof).
Enjoy, and stay well!
Share This Post
Simply The Pits: These Underarm Myths!
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.
Are We Taking A Risk To Smell Fresh As A Daisy?
Yesterday, we asked you for your health-related view of underarm deodorants.
So, what does the science say?
They can cause (or increase risk of) cancer: True or False?
False, so far as we know. Obviously it’s very hard to prove a negative, but there is no credible evidence that deodorants cause cancer.
The belief that they do comes from old in vitro studies applying the deodorant directly to the cells in question, like this one with canine kidney tissues in petri dishes:
Antiperspirant Induced DNA Damage in Canine Cells by Comet Assay
Which means that if you’re not a dog and/or if you don’t spray it directly onto your internal organs, this study’s data doesn’t apply to you.
In contrast, more modern systematic safety reviews have found…
❝Neither is there clear evidence to show use of aluminum-containing underarm antiperspirants or cosmetics increases the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease or breast cancer.
Metallic aluminum, its oxides, and common aluminum salts have not been shown to be either genotoxic or carcinogenic.❞
(however, one safety risk it did find is that we should avoid eating it excessively while pregnant or breastfeeding)
Alternatives like deodorant rocks have fewer chemicals and thus are safer: True or False?
True and False, respectively. That is, they do have fewer chemicals, but cannot in scientific terms be qualifiably, let alone quantifiably, described as safer than a product that was already found to be safe.
Deodorant rocks are usually alum crystals, by the way; that is to say, aluminum salts of various kinds. So if it was aluminum you were hoping to avoid, it’s still there.
However, if you’re trying to cut down on extra chemicals, then yes, you will get very few in deodorant rocks, compared to the very many in spray-on or roll-on deodorants!
Soap and water is a safe, simple, and sufficient alternative: True or False?
True or False, depending on what you want as a result!
- If you care that your deodorant also functions as an antiperspirant, then no, soap and water will certainly not have an antiperspirant effect.
- If you care only about washing off bacteria and eliminating odor for the next little while, then yes, soap and water will work just fine.
Bonus myths:
There is no difference between men’s and women’s deodorants, apart from the marketing: True or False?
False! While to judge by the marketing, the only difference is that one smells of “evening lily” and the other smells of “chainsaw barbecue” or something, the real difference is…
- The “men’s” kind is designed to get past armpit hair and reach the skin without clogging the hair up.
- The “women’s” kind is designed to apply a light coating to the skin that helps avoid chafing and irritation.
In other words… If you are a woman with armpit hair or a man without, you might want to ignore the marketing and choose according to your grooming preferences.
Hopefully you can still find a fragrance that suits!
Shaving (or otherwise depilating) armpits is better for hygiene: True or False?
True or False, depending on what you consider “hygiene”.
Consistent with popular belief, shaving means there is less surface area for bacteria to live. And empirically speaking, that means a reduction in body odor:
However, shaving typically causes microabrasions, and while there’s no longer hair for the bacteria to enjoy, they now have access to the inside of your skin, something they didn’t have before. This can cause much more unpleasant problems in the long-run, for example:
❝Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic and debilitating skin disease, whose lesions can range from inflammatory nodules to abscesses and fistulas in the armpits, groin, perineum, inframammary region❞
Read more: Hidradenitis suppurativa: Basic considerations for its approach: A narrative review
And more: Hidradenitis suppurativa: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and pathogenesis
If this seems a bit “damned if you do; damned if you don’t”, this writer’s preferred way of dodging both is to use electric clippers (the buzzy kind, as used for cutting short hair) to trim hers down low, and thus leave just a little soft fuzz.
What you do with yours is obviously up to you; our job here is just to give the information for everyone to make informed decisions whatever you choose 🙂
Take care!
Share This Post
An RSV vaccine has been approved for people over 60. But what about young children?
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 Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Australia for the first time. The shot, called Arexvy and manufactured by GSK, will be available by prescription to adults over 60.
RSV is a contagious respiratory virus which causes an illness similar to influenza, most notably in babies and older adults.
So while it will be good to have an RSV vaccine available for older people, where is protection up to for the youngest children?
A bit about RSV
RSV was discovered in chimpanzees with respiratory illness in 1956, and was soon found to be a common cause of illness in humans.
There are two key groups of people we would like to protect from RSV: babies (up to about one year old) and people older than 60.
Babies tend to fill up hospitals during the RSV season in late spring and winter in large numbers, but severe infection requiring admission to intensive care is less common.
In babies and younger children, RSV generally causes a wheezing asthma-like illness (bronchiolitis), but can also cause pneumonia and croup.
Although there are far fewer hospital admissions among older people, they can develop severe disease and die from an infection.
Babies account for the majority of hospitalisations with RSV.
Prostock-studio/ShutterstockRSV vaccines for older people
For older adults, there are actually several RSV vaccines in the pipeline. The recent Australian TGA approval of Arexvy is likely to be the first of several, with other vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna currently in development.
The GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines are similar. They both contain a small component of the virus, called the pre-fusion protein, that the immune system can recognise.
Both vaccines have been shown to reduce illness from RSV by more than 80% in the first season after vaccination.
In older adults, side effects following Arexvy appear to be similar to other vaccines, with a sore arm and generalised aches and fatigue frequently reported.
Unlike influenza vaccines which are given each year, it is anticipated the RSV vaccine would be a one-off dose, at least at this stage.
Protecting young children from RSV
Younger babies don’t tend to respond well to some vaccines due to their immature immune system. To prevent other diseases, this can be overcome by giving multiple vaccine doses over time. But the highest risk group for RSV are those in the first few months of life.
To protect this youngest age group from the virus, there are two potential strategies available instead of vaccinating the child directly.
The first is to give a vaccine to the mother and rely on the protective antibodies passing to the infant through the placenta. This is similar to how we protect babies by vaccinating pregnant women against influenza and pertussis (whooping cough).
The second is to give antibodies directly to the baby as an injection. With both these strategies, the protection provided is only temporary as antibodies wane over time, but this is sufficient to protect infants through their highest risk period.
Women could be vaccinated during pregnancy to protect their baby in its first months of life.
Image Point Fr/ShutterstockAbrysvo, the Pfizer RSV vaccine, has been trialled in pregnant women. In clinical trials, this vaccine has been shown to reduce illness in infants for up to six months. It has been approved in pregnant women in the United States, but is not yet approved in Australia.
An antibody product called palivizumab has been available for many years, but is only partially effective and extremely expensive, so has only been given to a small number of children at very high risk.
A newer antibody product, nirsevimab, has been shown to be effective in reducing infections and hospitalisations in infants. It was approved by the TGA in November, but it isn’t yet clear how this would be accessed in Australia.
What now?
RSV, like influenza, is a major cause of respiratory illness, and the development of effective vaccines represents a major advance.
While the approval of the first vaccine for older people is an important step, many details are yet to be made available, including the cost and the timing of availability. GSK has indicated its vaccine should be available soon. While the vaccine will initially only be available on private prescription (with the costs paid by the consumer), GSK has applied for it to be made free under the National Immunisation Program.
In the near future, we expect to hear further news about the other vaccines and antibodies to protect those at higher risk from RSV disease, including young children.
Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
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:
Why Do We Have Pores, And Could We Not?
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? We love to hear from you!
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
❝Do we really need pores, and why are they bigger on the face?❞
Pores secrete sweat or sebum (there are different kinds of pores for each).
If we didn’t have sweat pores, we’d be unable to sweat, which superficially may seem like a bonus, but it’d make us prone to overheating (like dogs, pigs, and other mammals that cannot sweat).
If we didn’t have sebum pores (usually called hair follicles, which are supplied by a sebaceous gland), we’d be completely hairless, and also unable to supply our skin with natural oils that keep it healthy. So we’d have no hair and very unhappy skin.
Which is ironic, because to believe beauty magazines, we must at all costs minimize our pores (and indeed, interventions like botox* can kill them).
*Let’s give that its full name though:
Suffice it to say, we do not recommend getting injected with neurotoxins unless it is truly necessary to ward off a greater harm.
As for being bigger on the face, they need not be, but sebaceous glands are more active and numerous there, being most active and numerous in the face/forehead—which is why oily skin is more likely to appear there than other parts of the body.
If your facial sebaceous glands are too active for your liking…
…there are ways to reduce that, a simple and relatively gentle way (relative, for example, botox) is with retinoids, including retinols or retinoic acids. Here’s some of the science of that; the paper is about treating acne, but the mechanism of action is the same (down-regulating the sebaceous glands’ action):
The potential side-effects, however were noted as:
- Cheilitis
- Desquamation of the skin
- Pruritus
Which, in translation from sciencese, means:
- Chapped lips
- Flaky skin
- Itchiness
Which aren’t necessarily fun, which is why with retinoids are best taken in very small doses at first to see how your skin reacts.
Remember when we said what your skin would be like without pores? This is what would happen, only much worse.
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:
How To Rebuild Your Neurons’ Myelin Sheaths
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.
PS: We Love You
Phosphatidylserine, or “PS” for short, is a phospholipid found in the brain. In other words, a kind of fatty compound that is such stuff as our brains are made of.
In particular, it’s required for healthy nerve cell membranes and myelin (the protective sheath that neurons live in—basically, myelin sheaths do for neurons what telomere caps do for DNA).
For an overview that’s more comprehensive than we have room for here, check out:
Phosphatidylserine and the human brain
Many people take it as a supplement.
Does taking it as a supplement work?
This is a valid question, as a lot of supplements can’t be absorbed well, and/or can’t pass the blood-brain barrier. But, as the above-linked study notes:
❝Exogenous PS (300-800 mg/d) is absorbed efficiently in humans, crosses the blood-brain barrier, and safely slows, halts, or reverses biochemical alterations and structural deterioration in nerve cells. It supports human cognitive functions, including the formation of short-term memory, the consolidation of long-term memory, the ability to create new memories, the ability to retrieve memories, the ability to learn and recall information, the ability to focus attention and concentrate, the ability to reason and solve problems, language skills, and the ability to communicate. It also supports locomotor functions, especially rapid reactions and reflexes.❞
(“Exogenous” means “coming from outside of the body”, as opposed to “endogenous”, meaning “made inside the body”. Effectively, in this context “exogenous” means “taken as a supplement”.)
Why do people take it?
The health claims for phosphatidylserine fall into two main categories:
- Neuroprotection (helping your brain to avoid age-related decline in the long term)
- Cognitive enhancement (helping your brain work better in the short term)
What does the science say?
There’s a lot of science that’s been done on the neuroprotective properties of PS, and there are thousands of studies we could draw from here. The upshot is that regular phosphatidylserine supplementation (most often 300mg/day, but studies are also found for 100–500mg/day) is strongly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline over the course of 12 weeks (a common study duration). Here are a some spotlight studies showing this:
- Effects of phosphatidylserine in Alzheimer’s disease
- Double-blind cross-over study of phosphatidylserine vs. placebo in patients with early dementia of the Alzheimer type
- Effect of Phosphatidylserine on Cerebral Glucose Metabolism in Alzheimer’s Disease
- The effect of soybean-derived phosphatidylserine on cognitive performance in elderly with subjective memory complaints
Note: PS can be derived from various sources, with the two most common forms being bovine (i.e., from cow brains) or soy-derived.
There is no established difference in the efficacy of these.
There have been some concerns raised about the risk of CJD (the human form of BSE, as in “mad cow disease”) from consuming brain matter from cows, but studies have not found any evidence of this actually happening.
There is also some evidence that phosphatidyserine significantly boosts cognitive performance, even in young people with no extant cognitive decline, for example:
(as the title suggests, they did also test for its effect on mood and endocrine response, but found it made no difference to those, just the cognitive function—which enjoyed a boost before exercise, as well as after it, meaning that the boost wasn’t dependent on the exercise)
PS for cognitive enhancement in the young and healthy is not nearly so well-explored as its use as a later-life guard against age-related cognitive decline. However, just because the studies in younger people are dwarfed in number by the studies in older people, doesn’t detract from the validity of the studies in younger people.
Basically: its use in older people has been studied the most, but all available evidence points to it being beneficial to brain health at all ages.
Where can we get it?
We don’t sell it (or anything else), but for your convenience, here’s an example product on Amazon.
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:
