
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.
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:
-
Diet Tips for Crohn’s Disease
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
❝Doctors are great at saving lives like mine. I’m a two time survivor of colon cancer and have recently been diagnosed with Chron’s disease at 62. No one is the health system can or is prepared to tell me an appropriate diet to follow or what to avoid. Can you?❞
Congratulations on the survivorship!
As to Crohn’s, that’s indeed quite a pain, isn’t it? In some ways, a good diet for Crohn’s is the same as a good diet for most other people, with one major exception: fiber
…and unfortunately, that changes everything, in terms of a whole-foods majority plant-based diet.
What stays the same:
- You still ideally want to eat a lot of plants
- You definitely want to avoid meat and dairy in general
- Eating fish is still usually* fine, same with eggs
- Get plenty of water
What needs to change:
- Consider swapping grains for potatoes or pasta (at least: avoid grains)
- Peel vegetables that are peelable; discard the peel or use it to make stock
- Consider steaming fruit and veg for easier digestion
- Skip spicy foods (moderate spices, like ginger, turmeric, and black pepper, are usually fine in moderation)
Much of this latter list is opposite to the advice for people without Crohn’s Disease.
*A good practice, by the way, is to keep a food journal. There are apps that you can get for free, or you can do it the old-fashioned way on paper if prefer.
But the important part is: make a note not just of what you ate, but also of how you felt afterwards. That way, you can start to get a picture of patterns, and what’s working (or not) for you, and build up a more personalized set of guidelines than anyone else could give to you.
We hope the above pointers at least help you get going on the right foot, though!
Share This Post
-
Which Tea Is Best, By Science?
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.
What kind of tea is best for the health?
It’s popular knowledge that tea is a healthful drink, and green tea tends to get the popular credit for “healthiest”.
Is that accurate? It depends on what you’re looking for…
Black
Its strong flavor packs in lots of polyphenols, often more than other kinds of tea. This brings some great benefits:
As well as effects beyond the obvious:
…and its cardioprotective benefits aren’t just about lowering blood pressure; it improves triglyceride levels as well as improving the LDL to HDL ratio:
The effect of black tea on risk factors of cardiovascular disease in a normal population
Finally (we could say more, but we only have so much room), black tea usually has the highest caffeine content, compared to other teas.
That’s good or bad depending on your own physiology and preferences, of course.
White
White tea hasn’t been processed as much as other kinds, so this one keeps more of its antioxidants, but that doesn’t mean it comes out on top; in this study of 30 teas, the white tea options ranked in the mid-to-low 20s:
White tea is also unusual in its relatively high fluoride content, which is consider a good thing:
White tea: A contributor to oral health
In case you were wondering about the safety of that…
Water Fluoridation: Is It Safe, And How Much Is Too Much?
Green
Green tea ranks almost as high as black tea, on average, for polyphenols.
Its antioxidant powers have given it a considerable anti-cancer potential, too:
- Green tea consumption and breast cancer risk or recurrence: a meta-analysis
- Green tea consumption and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study
…and many others, but you get the idea. Notably:
Green Tea Catechins: Nature’s Way of Preventing and Treating Cancer
…or to expand on that:
About green tea’s much higher levels of catechins, they also have a neuroprotective effect:
Green tea of course is also a great source of l-theanine, which we could write a whole main feature about, and we did:
Red
Also called “rooibos” or (literally translated from Afrikaans to English) “redbush”, it’s quite special in that despite being a “true tea” botanically and containing many of the same phytochemicals as the other teas, it has no caffeine.
There’s not nearly as much research for this as green tea, but here’s one that stood out:
However, in the search for the perfect cup of tea (in terms of phytochemical content), another set of researchers found:
❝The optimal cup was identified as sample steeped for 10 min or longer. The rooibos consumers did not consume it sufficiently, nor steeped it long enough. ❞
Read in full: Rooibos herbal tea: an optimal cup and its consumers
Bottom line
Black, white, green, and red teas all have their benefits, and ultimately the best one for you will probably be the one you enjoy drinking, and thus drink more of.
If trying to choose though, we offer the following summary:
- 🖤 Black tea: best for total beneficial phytochemicals
- 🤍 White tea:best for your oral health
- 💚 Green tea: best for your brain
- ❤️ Red tea: best if you want naturally caffeine-free
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
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.
What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
Shockingly, we’ve not previously covered this in a main feature here at 10almonds… Mostly we tend to focus on less well-known supplements. However, in this case, the supplement may be well known, while some of its benefits, we suspect, may come as a surprise.
So…
What is it?
In this case, it’s more of a “what are they?”, because omega-3 fatty acids come in multiple forms, most notably:
- Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA)
- Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
- Docosahexanoic acid (DHA)
ALA is most readily found in certain seeds and nuts (chia seeds and walnuts are top contenders), while EPA and DHA are most readily found in certain fish (hence “cod liver oil” being a commonly available supplement, though actually cod aren’t even the best source—salmon and mackerel are better; cod is just cheaper to overfish, making it the cheaper supplement to manufacture).
Which of the three is best, or do we need them all?
There are two ways of looking at this:
- ALA is sufficient alone, because it is a precursor to EPA and DHA, meaning that the body will take ALA and convert it into EPA and DHA as required
- EPA and DHA are superior because they’re already in the forms the body will use, which makes them more efficient
As with most things in health, diversity is good, so you really can’t go wrong by getting some from each source.
Unless you have an allergy to fish or nuts, in which case, definitely avoid those!
What do omega-3 fatty acids do for us, according to actual research?
Against inflammation
Most people know it’s good for joints, as this is perhaps what it’s most marketed for. Indeed, it’s good against inflammation of the joints (and elsewhere), and autoimmune diseases in general. So this means it is indeed good against common forms of arthritis, amongst others:
Read: Omega-3 fatty acids in inflammation and autoimmune disease
Against menstrual pain
Linked to the above-referenced anti-inflammatory effects, omega-3s were also found to be better than ibuprofen for the treatment of severe menstrual pain:
Don’t take our word for it: Comparison of the effect of fish oil and ibuprofen on treatment of severe pain in primary dysmenorrhea
Against cognitive decline
This one’s a heavy-hitter. It’s perhaps to be expected of something so good against inflammation (bearing in mind that, for example, a large part of Alzheimer’s is effectively a form of inflammation of the brain); as this one’s so important and such a clear benefit, here are three particularly illustrative studies:
- Inadequate supply of vitamins and DHA in the elderly: implications for brain aging and Alzheimer-type dementia
- Fish consumption and cognitive decline with age in a large community study
- Fish consumption, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and risk of cognitive decline or Alzheimer disease
Against heart disease
The title says it all in this one:
But what about in patients who do have heart disease?
Mozaffarian and Wu did a huge meta-review of available evidence, and found that in fact, of all the studied heart-related effects, reducing mortality rate in cases of cardiovascular disease was the single most well-evidenced benefit:
How much should we take?
There’s quite a bit of science on this, and—which is unusual for something so well-studied—not a lot of consensus.
However, to summarize the position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics on dietary fatty acids for healthy adults, they recommend a minimum of 250–500 mg combined EPA and DHA each day for healthy adults. This can be obtained from about 8 ounces (230g) of fatty fish per week, for example.
If going for ALA, on the other hand, the recommendation becomes 1.1g/day for women or 1.6g/day for men.
Want to know how to get more from your diet?
Here’s a well-sourced article about different high-density dietary sources:
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Do You Believe In Magic? – by Dr. Paul Offit
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.
Here at 10almonds, we like to examine and present the science wherever it leads, so this book was an interesting read.
Dr. Offit, himself a much-decorated vaccine research scientist, and longtime enemy of the anti-vax crowd, takes aim at alternative therapies in general, looking at what does work (and how), and what doesn’t (and what harm it can cause).
The style of the book is largely polemic in tone, but there’s lots of well-qualified information and stats in here too. And certainly, if there are alternative therapies you’ve left unquestioned, this book will probably prompt questions, at the very least.
And science, of course, is about asking questions, and shouldn’t be afraid of such! Open-minded skepticism is a key starting point, while being unafraid to actually reach a conclusion of “this is probably [not] so”, when and if that’s where the evidence brings us. Then, question again when and if new evidence comes along.
To that end, Dr. Offit does an enthusiastic job of looking for answers, and presenting what he finds.
If the book has downsides, they are primarily twofold:
- He is a little quick to dismiss the benefits of a good healthy diet, supplemented or otherwise.
- His keenness here seems to step from a desire to ensure people don’t skip life-saving medical treatments in the hope that their diet will cure their cancer (or liver disease, or be it what it may), but in doing so, he throws out a lot of actually good science.
- He—strangely—lumps menopausal HRT in with alternative therapies, and does the exact same kind of anti-science scaremongering that he rails against in the rest of the book.
- In his defence, this book was published ten years ago, and he may have been influenced by a stack of headlines at the time, and a popular celebrity endorsement of HRT, which likely put him off it.
Bottom line: there’s something here to annoy everyone—which makes for stimulating reading.
Click here to check out Do You Believe In Magic, and expand your knowledge!
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:
- He is a little quick to dismiss the benefits of a good healthy diet, supplemented or otherwise.
-
Coca-Cola vs Diet Coke – 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 Coca-Cola to Diet Coke, we picked the Diet Coke.
Why?
While the Diet Coke is bad, the Coca-Cola has mostly the same problems plus sugar.
The sugar in a can of Coca-Cola is 39g high-fructose corn syrup (the worst kind of sugar yet known to humanity), and of course it’s being delivered in liquid form (the most bioavailable way to get, which in this case, is bad).
To put those 39g into perspective, the daily recommended amount of sugar is 36g for men or 25g for women, according to the AHA.
The sweetener in Diet Coke is aspartame, which has had a lot of health risk accusations made against it, most of which have not stood up to scrutiny, and the main risk it does have is “it mimics sugar too well” and it can increase cravings for sweetness, and therefore higher consumption of sugars in other products. For this reason, the World Health Organization has recommended to simply reduce sugar intake without looking to artificial sweeteners to help.
Nevertheless, aspartame has been found safe (in moderate doses; the upper tolerance level would equate to more than 20 cans of diet coke per day) by food safety agencies ranging from the FDA to the EFSA, based on a large body of science.
Other problems that Diet Coke has are present in Coca-Cola too, such as its acidic nature (bad for tooth enamel) and gassy nature (messes with leptin/ghrelin balance).
Summary: the Diet Coke is relatively less unhealthy, but is still bad in numerous ways, and remains best avoided.
Read more:
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:
-
Wildfires ignite infection risks, by weakening the body’s immune defences and spreading bugs in smoke
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.
Over the past several days, the world has watched on in shock as wildfires have devastated large parts of Los Angeles.
Beyond the obvious destruction – to landscapes, homes, businesses and more – fires at this scale have far-reaching effects on communities. A number of these concern human health.
We know fire can harm directly, causing injuries and death. Tragically, the death toll in LA is now at least 24.
But wildfires, or bushfires, can also have indirect consequences for human health. In particular, they can promote the incidence and spread of a range of infections.
Effects on the immune system
Most people appreciate that fires can cause burns and smoke inhalation, both of which can be life-threatening in their own right.
What’s perhaps less well known is that both burns and smoke inhalation can cause acute and chronic changes in the immune system. This can leave those affected vulnerable to infections at the time of the injury, and for years to come.
Burns induce profound changes in the immune system. Some parts go into overdrive, becoming too reactive and leading to hyper-inflammation. In the immediate aftermath of serious burns, this can contribute to sepsis and organ failure.
Other parts of the immune system appear to be suppressed. Our ability to recognise and fight off bugs can be compromised after sustaining burns. Research shows people who have experienced serious burns have an increased risk of influenza, pneumonia and other types of respiratory infections for at least the first five years after injury compared to people who haven’t experienced burns.
Wildfire smoke is a complex mixture containing particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ozone, toxic gases, and microbes. When people inhale smoke during wildfires, each of these elements can play a role in increasing inflammation in the airways, which can lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infections and asthma.
Research published after Australia’s Black Summer of 2019–20 found a higher risk of COVID infections in areas of New South Wales where bushfires had occurred weeks earlier.
We need more research to understand the magnitude of these increased risks, how long they persist after exposure, and the mechanisms. But these effects are thought to be due to sustained changes to the immune response.
Microbes travel in smoky air
Another opportunity for infection arises from the fire-induced movement of microbes from niches they usually occupy in soils and plants in natural areas, into densely populated urban areas.
Recent evidence from forest fires in Utah shows microbes, such as bacteria and fungal spores, can be transported in smoke. These microbes are associated with particles from the source, such as burned vegetation and soil.
There are thousands of different species of microbes in smoke, many of which are not common in background, non-smoky air.
Only a small number of studies on this have been published so far, but researchers have shown the majority of microbes in smoke are still alive and remain alive in smoke long enough to colonise the places where they eventually land.
How far specific microbes can be transported remains an open question, but fungi associated with smoke particles have been detected hundreds of miles downwind from wildfires, even weeks after the fire.
So does this cause human infections?
A subset of these airborne microbes are known to cause infections in humans.
Scientists are probing records of human fungal infections in relation to wildfire smoke exposure. In particular, they’re looking at soil-borne infectious agents such as the fungi Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii which thrive in dry soils that can be picked up in dust and smoke plumes.
These fungi cause valley fever, a lung infection with symptoms that can resemble the flu, across arid western parts of the United States.
A study of wildland firefighters in California showed high rates of valley fever infections, which spurred occupational health warnings including recommended use of respirators when in endemic regions.
A California-based study of the wider population showed a 20% increase in hospital admissions for valley fever following any amount of exposure to wildfire smoke.
However, another found only limited evidence of excess cases after smoke exposure in wildfire-adjacent populations in California’s San Joaquin Valley.
These contrasting results show more research is needed to evaluate the infectious potential of wildfire smoke from this and other fungal and bacterial causes.
Staying safe
Much remains to be learned about the links between wildfires and infections, and the multiple pathways by which wildfires can increase the risk of certain infections.
There’s also a risk people gathering together after a disaster like this, such as in potentially overcrowded shelters, can increase the transmission of infections. We’ve seen this happen after previous natural disasters.
Despite the gaps in our knowledge, public health responses to wildfires should encompass infection prevention (such as through the provision of effective masks) and surveillance to enable early detection and effective management of any outbreaks.
Christine Carson, Senior Research Fellow, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia and Leda Kobziar, Professor of Wildland Fire Science, University of Idaho
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: