F*ck You Chaos – by Dominika Choroszko

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.

We’ve all read decluttering books. Some may even have decluttering books cluttering bookshelves. This one’s a little different, though:

Dominika Choroszko looks at assessing, decluttering, and subsequently organizing:

  • Your home
  • Your mind
  • Your finances

In other words

  • she starts off like Marie Kondo, and…
  • phases through doing the jobs of Queer Eye’s “Fab Five”, before…
  • sitting us down with some CBT worksheets, and…
  • finally going through finances à la Martin Lewis.

By the time we’ve read the book, it’s as though Mary Poppins has breezed through our house, head, and bank account, leaving everything “practically perfect in every way”.

Of course, it’s on us to actually do the work, but as many of us struggle with “how” and the ever-dreaded “but where to begin”, Choroszko’s whirlwind impetus and precision guidance (many very direct practical steps to take) really grease the wheels of progress.

In short, this could be the book that kickstarts your next big “getting everything into better order” drive, with a clear step-by-step this-then-this-then-this linear process.

Get your copy of “F*ck You Chaos” from Amazon today!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Self-Care for Tough Times – by Suzy Reading
  • Avocado vs Goji Berries – Which is Healthier?
    Avocado triumphs over goji berries in the superfood showdown with more healthy fats, lower GI, and a wealth of vitamins and minerals.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Loaded Mocha Chocolate Parfait

    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.

    Packed with nutrients, including a healthy dose of protein and fiber, these parfait pots can be a healthy dessert, snack, or even breakfast!

    You will need (for 4 servings)

    For the mocha cream:

    • ½ cup almond milk
    • ½ cup raw cashews
    • ⅓ cup espresso
    • 2 tbsp maple syrup
    • 1 tsp vanilla extract

    For the chocolate sauce:

    • 4 tbsp coconut oil, melted
    • 2 tbsp unsweetened cocoa powder
    • 1 tbsp maple syrup
    • 1 tsp vanilla extract

    For the other layers:

    • 1 banana, sliced
    • 1 cup granola, no added sugar

    Garnish (optional): 3 coffee beans per serving

    Note about the maple syrup: since its viscosity is similar to the overall viscosity of the mocha cream and chocolate sauce, you can adjust this per your tastes, without affecting the composition of the dish much besides sweetness (and sugar content). If you don’t like sweetness, the maple syrup be reduced or even omitted entirely (your writer here is known for her enjoyment of very strong bitter flavors and rarely wants anything sweeter than a banana); if you prefer more sweetness than the recipe called for, that’s your choice too.

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Blend all the mocha cream ingredients. If you have time, doing this in advance and keeping it in the fridge for a few hours (or even up to a week) will make the flavor richer. But if you don’t have time, that’s fine too.

    2) Stir all the chocolate sauce ingredients together in a small bowl, and set it aside. This one should definitely not be refrigerated, or else the coconut oil will solidify and separate itself.

    3) Gently swirl the the mocha cream and chocolate sauce together. You want a marble effect, not a full mixing. Omit this step if you want clearer layers.

    4) Assemble in dessert glasses, alternating layers of banana, mocha chocolate marble mixture (or the two parts, if you didn’t swirl them together), and granola.

    5) Add the coffee-bean garnish, if using, and serve!

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Corn Chips vs Potato Chips: 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 corn chips to potato chips, we picked the corn chips.

    Why?

    First, let it be said, this was definitely a case of “lesser evil voting” as there was no healthy choice here. But as for which is relatively least unhealthy…

    Most of the macronutrient and micronutrient profile is quite similar. Both foods are high carb, moderately high fat, negligible protein, and contain some trace minerals and even some tiny amounts of vitamins. Both are unhealthily salty.

    Exact numbers will of course vary from one brand’s product to another, but you can see some indicative aggregate scores here in the USDA’s “FoodData Central” database:

    Corn Chips | Potato Chips

    The biggest health-related difference that doesn’t have something to balance it out is that the glycemic index of corn chips averages around 63, whereas the glycemic index of potato chips averages around 70 (that is worse).

    That’s enough to just about tip the scales in favor of corn chips.

    The decision thus having been made in favor of corn chips (and the next information not having been part of that decision), we’ll mention one circumstantial extra benefit to corn chips:

    Corn chips are usually eaten with some kind of dip (e.g. guacamole, sour cream, tomato salsa, etc) which can thus deliver actual nutrients. Potato chips meanwhile are generally eaten with no additional nutrients. So while we can’t claim the dip as being part of the nutritional make-up of the corn chips, we can say:

    If you’re going to have a habit of eating one or the other, then corn chips are probably the least unhealthy of the two.

    And yes, getting vegetables (e.g. in the dips) in ways that are not typically associated with “healthy eating” is still better than not getting vegetables at all!

    Check out: Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)

    Share This Post

  • A person in Texas caught bird flu after mixing with dairy cattle. Should we be worried?

    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 United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a health alert after the first case of H5N1 avian influenza, or bird flu, seemingly spread from a cow to a human.

    A farm worker in Texas contracted the virus amid an outbreak in dairy cattle. This is the second human case in the US; a poultry worker tested positive in Colorado in 2022.

    The virus strain identified in the Texan farm worker is not readily transmissible between humans and therefore not a pandemic threat. But it’s a significant development nonetheless.

    Some background on bird flu

    There are two types of avian influenza: highly pathogenic or low pathogenic, based on the level of disease the strain causes in birds. H5N1 is a highly pathogenic avian influenza.

    H5N1 first emerged in 1997 in Hong Kong and then China in 2003, spreading through wild bird migration and poultry trading. It has caused periodic epidemics in poultry farms, with occasional human cases.

    Influenza A viruses such as H5N1 are further divided into variants, called clades. The unique variant causing the current epidemic is H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b, which emerged in late 2020 and is now widespread globally, especially in the Americas.

    In the past, outbreaks could be controlled by culling of infected birds, and H5N1 would die down for a while. But this has become increasingly difficult due to escalating outbreaks since 2021.

    Wild animals are now in the mix

    Waterfowl (ducks, swans and geese) are the main global spreaders of avian flu, as they migrate across the world via specific routes that bypass Australia. The main hub for waterfowl to migrate around the world is Quinghai lake in China.

    But there’s been an increasing number of infected non-waterfowl birds, such as true thrushes and raptors, which use different flyways. Worryingly, the infection has spread to Antarctica too, which means Australia is now at risk from different bird species which fly here.

    H5N1 has escalated in an unprecedented fashion since 2021, and an increasing number of mammals including sea lions, goats, red foxes, coyotes, even domestic dogs and cats have become infected around the world.

    Wild animals like red foxes which live in peri-urban areas are a possible new route of spread to farms, domestic pets and humans.

    Dairy cows and goats have now become infected with H5N1 in at least 17 farms across seven US states.

    What are the symptoms?

    Globally, there have been 14 cases of H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus in humans, and 889 H5N1 human cases overall since 2003.

    Previous human cases have presented with a severe respiratory illness, but H5N1 2.3.4.4b is causing illness affecting other organs too, like the brain, eyes and liver.

    For example, more recent cases have developed neurological complications including seizures, organ failure and stroke. It’s been estimated that around half of people infected with H5N1 will die.

    The case in the Texan farm worker appears to be mild. This person presented with conjunctivitis, which is unusual.

    Food safety

    Contact with sick poultry is a key risk factor for human infection. Likewise, the farm worker in Texas was likely in close contact with the infected cattle.

    The CDC advises pasteurised milk and well cooked eggs are safe. However, handling of infected meat or eggs in the process of cooking, or drinking unpasteurised milk, may pose a risk.

    Although there’s no H5N1 in Australian poultry or cattle, hygienic food practices are always a good idea, as raw milk or poorly cooked meat, eggs or poultry can be contaminated with microbes such as salmonella and E Coli.

    If it’s not a pandemic, why are we worried?

    Scientists have feared avian influenza may cause a pandemic since about 2005. Avian flu viruses don’t easily spread in humans. But if an avian virus mutates to spread in humans, it can cause a pandemic.

    One concern is if birds were to infect an animal like a pig, this acts as a genetic mixing vessel. In areas where humans and livestock exist in close proximity, for example farms, markets or even in homes with backyard poultry, the probability of bird and human flu strains mixing and mutating to cause a new pandemic strain is higher.

    A visual depicting potential pathways to a novel pandemic influenza virus.
    There are a number of potential pathways to a pandemic caused by influenza. Author provided

    The cows infected in Texas were tested because farmers noticed they were producing less milk. If beef cattle are similarly affected, it may not be as easily identified, and the economic loss to farmers may be a disincentive to test or report infections.

    How can we prevent a pandemic?

    For now there is no spread of H5N1 between humans, so there’s no immediate risk of a pandemic.

    However, we now have unprecedented and persistent infection with H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in farms, wild animals and a wider range of wild birds than ever before, creating more chances for H5N1 to mutate and cause a pandemic.

    Unlike the previous epidemiology of avian flu, where hot spots were in Asia, the new hot spots (and likely sites of emergence of a pandemic) are in the Americas, Europe or in Africa.

    Pandemics grow exponentially, so early warnings for animal and human outbreaks are crucial. We can monitor infections using surveillance tools such as our EPIWATCH platform.

    The earlier epidemics can be detected, the better the chance of stamping them out and rapidly developing vaccines.

    Although there is a vaccine for birds, it has been largely avoided until recently because it’s only partially effective and can mask outbreaks. But it’s no longer feasible to control an outbreak by culling infected birds, so some countries like France began vaccinating poultry in 2023.

    For humans, seasonal flu vaccines may provide a small amount of cross-protection, but for the best protection, vaccines need to be matched exactly to the pandemic strain, and this takes time. The 2009 flu pandemic started in May in Australia, but the vaccines were available in September, after the pandemic peak.

    To reduce the risk of a pandemic, we must identify how H5N1 is spreading to so many mammalian species, what new wild bird pathways pose a risk, and monitor for early signs of outbreaks and illness in animals, birds and humans. Economic compensation for farmers is also crucial to ensure we detect all outbreaks and avoid compromising the food supply.

    C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney; Ashley Quigley, Senior Research Associate, Global Biosecurity, UNSW Sydney; Haley Stone, PhD Candidate, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney; Matthew Scotch, Associate Dean of Research and Professor of Biomedical Informatics, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, and Rebecca Dawson, Research Associate, The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Self-Care for Tough Times – by Suzy Reading
  • Early Bird Or Night Owl? Genes vs Environment

    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 Sliding Slope?

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you how much control you believe we have over our sleep schedule, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • 45% said “most people can control it; some people with sleep disorders cannot
    • 35% said “our genes predispose us to early/late, but we can slide it a bit
    • 15% said: “going against our hardwired sleep schedules is a road to ruin”
    • 5% said “anyone can adjust their sleep schedule with enough willpower”

    You may be wondering: what’s with those single-digit numbers in the graph there? And the answer is: Tuesday’s email didn’t go out at the usual time due to a scheduling mistake (sorry!), which is probably what affected the number of responses (poll response levels vary, but are usually a lot higher than this).

    Note: yes, this does mean most people who read our newsletter don’t vote. So, not to sound like a politician on the campaign trail, but… Your vote counts! We always love reading your comments when you add those, too—often they provide context that allow us to tailor what we focus on in our articles

    However, those are the responses we got, so here we are!

    What does the science say?

    Anyone can adjust their sleep with enough willpower: True or False?

    False, simply. It’s difficult for most people, but for many people with sleep disorders, it is outright impossible.

    In a battle of narcolepsy vs willpower, for example, no amount of willpower will stop the brain from switching to sleep mode when it thinks it’s time to sleep:

    ❝Narcolepsy is the most common neurological cause of chronic sleepiness. The discovery about 20 years ago that narcolepsy is caused by selective loss of the neurons producing orexins sparked great advances in the field

    [There is also] developing evidence that narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder that may be caused by a T cell-mediated attack on the orexin neurons and explain how these new perspectives can inform better therapeutic approaches.❞

    ~ Dr. Carrie Mahoney et al. (lightly edited for brevity)

    Source: The neurobiological basis of narcolepsy

    For further reading, especially if this applies to you or a loved one:

    Living with Narcolepsy: Current Management Strategies, Future Prospects, and Overlooked Real-Life Concerns

    Our genes predispose us to early/late, but we can slide it a bit: True or False?

    True! First, about our genes predisposing us:

    Genome-wide association analysis of 89,283 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with self-reporting of being a morning person

    …and also:

    Gene distinguishes early birds from night owls and helps predict time of death

    Now, as for the “can slide it a bit”, this is really just a function of the general categories of “early bird” and “night owl” spanning periods of time that allow for a few hours’ wiggle-room at either side.

    However, it is recommended to make any actual changes more gradually, with the Sleep Foundation going so far as to recommend 30 minutes, or even just 15 minutes, of change per day:

    Sleep Foundation | How to Fix Your Sleep Schedule

    Going against our hardwired sleep schedule is a road to ruin: True or False?

    False, contextually. By this we mean: our “hardwired” sleep schedule is (for most of us), genetically predisposed but not predetermined.

    Also, genetic predispositions are not necessarily always good for us; one would not argue, for example, for avoiding going against a genetic predisposition to addiction.

    Some genetic predispositions are just plain bad for us, and genes can be a bit of a lottery.

    That said, we do recommend getting some insider knowledge (literally), by getting personal genomics tests done, if that’s a viable option for you, so you know what’s really a genetic trait (and what to do with that information) and what’s probably caused by something else (and what to do with that information):

    Genetic Testing: Health Benefits & Methods

    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:

  • 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:

  • Kiwi vs Lime – 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 kiwi to lime, we picked the kiwi.

    Why?

    Looking at the macros first, kiwi has more protein, more carbs, and more fiber. As with most fruits, the fiber is the number we’re most interested in for health purposes; in this case, kiwi is just slightly ahead of lime on all three of those.

    In terms of vitamins, kiwi has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while lime has a tiny bit more vitamin B5. As in, the vitamin that’s in pretty much anything and is practically impossible to be deficient in unless you are literally starving to death. You may be thinking: aren’t limes a famously good source of vitamin C? And yes, yes they are. But kiwis have >3x more. In other big differences, kiwis also have >6x more vitamin E and >67 times more vitamin K.

    When it comes to minerals, kiwi has more calcium, copper, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while lime has more iron and selenium. Another easy win for kiwis.

    In short: enjoy both; both are good. But kiwis are the more nutritionally dense option by almost every way of measuring it.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← kiwi is top of the list; it promotes cancer cell death while sparing healthy cells

    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: