
If You’re Poor, Fertility Treatment Can Be Out of Reach
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.
Mary Delgado’s first pregnancy went according to plan, but when she tried to get pregnant again seven years later, nothing happened. After 10 months, Delgado, now 34, and her partner, Joaquin Rodriguez, went to see an OB-GYN. Tests showed she had endometriosis, which was interfering with conception. Delgado’s only option, the doctor said, was in vitro fertilization.
“When she told me that, she broke me inside,” Delgado said, “because I knew it was so expensive.”
Delgado, who lives in New York City, is enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income and disabled people. The roughly $20,000 price tag for a round of IVF would be a financial stretch for lots of people, but for someone on Medicaid — for which the maximum annual income for a two-person household in New York is just over $26,000 — the treatment can be unattainable.
Expansions of work-based insurance plans to cover fertility treatments, including free egg freezing and unlimited IVF cycles, are often touted by large companies as a boon for their employees. But people with lower incomes, often minorities, are more likely to be covered by Medicaid or skimpier commercial plans with no such coverage. That raises the question of whether medical assistance to create a family is only for the well-to-do or people with generous benefit packages.
“In American health care, they don’t want the poor people to reproduce,” Delgado said. She was caring full-time for their son, who was born with a rare genetic disorder that required several surgeries before he was 5. Her partner, who works for a company that maintains the city’s yellow cabs, has an individual plan through the state insurance marketplace, but it does not include fertility coverage.
Some medical experts whose patients have faced these issues say they can understand why people in Delgado’s situation think the system is stacked against them.
“It feels a little like that,” said Elizabeth Ginsburg, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School who is president-elect of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a research and advocacy group.
Whether or not it’s intended, many say the inequity reflects poorly on the U.S.
“This is really sort of standing out as a sore thumb in a nation that would like to claim that it cares for the less fortunate and it seeks to do anything it can for them,” said Eli Adashi, a professor of medical science at Brown University and former president of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinologists.
Yet efforts to add coverage for fertility care to Medicaid face a lot of pushback, Ginsburg said.
Over the years, Barbara Collura, president and CEO of the advocacy group Resolve: The National Infertility Association, has heard many explanations for why it doesn’t make sense to cover fertility treatment for Medicaid recipients. Legislators have asked, “If they can’t pay for fertility treatment, do they have any idea how much it costs to raise a child?” she said.
“So right there, as a country we’re making judgments about who gets to have children,” Collura said.
The legacy of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, when states passed laws that permitted poor, nonwhite, and disabled people to be sterilized against their will, lingers as well.
“As a reproductive justice person, I believe it’s a human right to have a child, and it’s a larger ethical issue to provide support,” said Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, an advocacy group.
But such coverage decisions — especially when the health care safety net is involved — sometimes require difficult choices, because resources are limited.
Even if state Medicaid programs wanted to cover fertility treatment, for instance, they would have to weigh the benefit against investing in other types of care, including maternity care, said Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “There is a recognition about the primacy and urgency of maternity care,” she said.
Medicaid pays for about 40% of births in the United States. And since 2022, 46 states and the District of Columbia have elected to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage to 12 months, up from 60 days.
Fertility problems are relatively common, affecting roughly 10% of women and men of childbearing age, according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Traditionally, a couple is considered infertile if they’ve been trying to get pregnant unsuccessfully for 12 months. Last year, the ASRM broadened the definition of infertility to incorporate would-be parents beyond heterosexual couples, including people who can’t get pregnant for medical, sexual, or other reasons, as well as those who need medical interventions such as donor eggs or sperm to get pregnant.
The World Health Organization defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system characterized by failing to get pregnant after a year of unprotected intercourse. It terms the high cost of fertility treatment a major equity issue and has called for better policies and public financing to improve access.
No matter how the condition is defined, private health plans often decline to cover fertility treatments because they don’t consider them “medically necessary.” Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring health plans to provide some fertility coverage, but those laws vary greatly and apply only to companies whose plans are regulated by the state.
In recent years, many companies have begun offering fertility treatment in a bid to recruit and retain top-notch talent. In 2023, 45% of companies with 500 or more workers covered IVF and/or drug therapy, according to the benefits consultant Mercer.
But that doesn’t help people on Medicaid. Only two states’ Medicaid programs provide any fertility treatment: New York covers some oral ovulation-enhancing medications, and Illinois covers costs for fertility preservation, to freeze the eggs or sperm of people who need medical treatment that will likely make them infertile, such as for cancer. Several other states also are considering adding fertility preservation services.
In Delgado’s case, Medicaid covered the tests to diagnose her endometriosis, but nothing more. She was searching the internet for fertility treatment options when she came upon a clinic group called CNY Fertility that seemed significantly less expensive than other clinics, and also offered in-house financing. Based in Syracuse, New York, the company has a handful of clinics in upstate New York cities and four other U.S. locations.
Though Delgado and her partner had to travel more than 300 miles round trip to Albany for the procedures, the savings made it worthwhile. They were able do an entire IVF cycle, including medications, egg retrieval, genetic testing, and transferring the egg to her uterus, for $14,000. To pay for it, they took $7,000 of the cash they’d been saving to buy a home and financed the other half through the fertility clinic.
She got pregnant on the first try, and their daughter, Emiliana, is now almost a year old.
Delgado doesn’t resent people with more resources or better insurance coverage, but she wishes the system were more equitable.
“I have a medical problem,” she said. “It’s not like I did IVF because I wanted to choose the gender.”
One reason CNY is less expensive than other clinics is simply that the privately owned company chooses to charge less, said William Kiltz, its vice president of marketing and business development. Since the company’s beginning in 1997, it has become a large practice with a large volume of IVF cycles, which helps keep prices low.
At this point, more than half its clients come from out of state, and many earn significantly less than a typical patient at another clinic. Twenty percent earn less than $50,000, and “we treat a good number who are on Medicaid,” Kiltz said.
Now that their son, Joaquin, is settled in a good school, Delgado has started working for an agency that provides home health services. After putting in 30 hours a week for 90 days, she’ll be eligible for health insurance.
One of the benefits: fertility coverage.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
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:
-
How Nature Provides Us With A Surprisingly Powerful Painkiller
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 well-known (at least to regular 10almonds-readers) that seeing nature, ideally green leaves and blue sky, improves our mood by stimulating production of serotonin.
See also: Neurotransmitter Cheatsheet
But it does a lot more.
Reducing the actual signals of pain
Researchers at the University of Vienna have discovered that viewing nature scenes (even if just on video) alleviates physical pain—not just in self-reported subjective assessments, but also by a reduction of the neural activity that signals pain:
❝Pain is like a puzzle, made up of different pieces that are processed differently in the brain. Some pieces of the puzzle relate to our emotional response to pain, such as how unpleasant we find it. Other pieces correspond to the physical signals underlying the painful experience, such as its location in the body and its intensity.
Unlike placebos, which usually change our emotional response to pain, viewing nature changed how the brain processed early, raw sensory signals of pain.
Thus, the effect appears to be less influenced by participants’ expectations, and more by changes in the underlying pain signals❞
This was tested against, varyingly, viewing an urban environment or viewing an indoor environment, neither of which gave the same benefits.
The setup of the experiment is relevant, so…
Matching soundscape accompanied each visual stimulus. The three pain runs had a total duration of 9 min each, during which one environment was accompanied by 16 painful and 16 non-painful shocks. Neuroimaging was used for all parts, and participants were exposed to all environments:
- First, a cue indicating the intensity of the next shock (red = painful, yellow = not painful) was presented for 2000 milliseconds (ms).
- Second, a variable interval of 3500 ± 1500 ms was shown.
- Third, a cue indicating the intensity of the shock was presented for 1000 ms, accompanied by an electrical shock with a duration of 500 ms.
- Fourth, a variable interval of 3500 ± 1500 ms followed.
- Fifth, after each third trial, participants rated the shock’s intensity and unpleasantness at 6000 ms each.
- Sixth, each trial ended with an intertrial interval (ITI) presented for 2000 ms.
They found that as well as the self-assessment reports being as expected (nature scenes reduced subjective experience of pain),
❝In summary, the multivoxel and region of interest analyses converged in showing that pain responses when exposed to nature as compared to urban or indoor stimuli were associated with a decrease in neural processes related to lower-level nociception-related features (NPS, thalamus), as well as in regions of descending modulatory circuitry associated with attentional alterations of pain that also encode sensory-discriminative aspects (S2, pINS).❞
In other words—to the extent that pain can be quantified objectively by neural imaging—the pain was also objectively reduced, much like with a chemical painkiller.
You can read the paper in full, here:
Nature exposure induces analgesic effects by acting on nociception-related neural processing
How to benefit from this
Well, first there is the obvious, “view nature“.
However, note the timescales involved in the testing periods: 2000 milliseconds is two seconds, and that was the intertrial interval used—the equivalent of a washout phase in an interventional trial (but a drug/supplement/diet washout is usually a number of weeks).
The fact that the test periods were a matter of seconds, and the intertrial period was also literally two seconds, this means:
It works quickly, and the effect disappears quickly, too.
In other words: if you want pain relief from nature, the good news is you can get it immediately while viewing nature, and the bad news is that you have to keep viewing nature to continue enjoying the painkilling effect.
So that’s a limitation, but it’s still clearly a very worthy option for a little respite from chronic pain now and again, for example.
Want to learn more?
We’ve written quite a bit about pain management, including:
- Before You Reach For That Tylenol…
- How To Stop Pain Spreading
- How To Dial Down Your Pain
- Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)
- Get The Right Help For Your Pain
- The 7 Approaches To Pain Management
- Science-Based Alternative Pain Relief (When Painkillers Aren’t Helping, These Things Might)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Pistachios vs Brazil Nuts – 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 pistachios to Brazil nuts, we picked the pistachios.
Why?
In terms of macros, pistachios have more protein, carbs, and fiber, while Brazil nuts have more fat. The fats are mostly healthy, although it is worth noting that Brazil nuts have not only more total saturated fat, but also more saturated fat proportionally to total fats. All in all, Brazil nuts’ macro balance isn’t bad, but we say pistachios have it better.
When it comes to vitamins, pistachios have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and C, while Brazil nuts have more vitamin E. An easy win for pistachios here.
In the category of minerals, it gets interesting: pistachios have more iron and potassium, while Brazil nuts have more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc. Sounds great, but… About that selenium:
- A cup of cashews contains 38% of the RDA of selenium. This will go towards helping your hair be luscious and shiny (also important for energy conversion).
- A cup of Brazil nuts contains 10,456% of the RDA of selenium. This is way past the point of selenium toxicity, and your (luscious, shiny) hair will fall out.
For this reason, it’s recommended to eat no more than 3–4 Brazil nuts per day.
We consider that a point against Brazil nuts.
Adding up the sections gives us an overall win for pistachios. Of course, enjoy Brazil nuts too if you will, but in careful moderation please!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Doctors Warn of a Deadly Complication From Measles Outbreaks
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The first sign came when Deepanwita Dasgupta was 5 and started stumbling more while playing at her home in Bangalore in southern India. The girl was always up to something, so her parents figured extra bumps and bruises were just symptoms of an active childhood. Maybe, they thought, it was ill-fitting shoes.
Relatives described the unicorn-loving child as smart, affectionate, and occasionally rascally. Before she learned the alphabet, she had figured out how to find her favorite show, Blippi, on a phone. She was known to sneak butter from the fridge to enjoy a few finger licks.
But then her limbs started jerking. A spinal tap revealed measles in her cerebrospinal fluid. The virus she probably had as an infant had secretly made its way to her brain. Now 8 years old, Deepanwita is paralyzed, unable to talk.
Measles causes complications — ranging from diarrhea to death — in 3 in 10 infected people, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Some are immediate, while others take weeks or months to appear. The one Deepanwita is experiencing, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, typically takes years to rear its head.
“People think, ‘Oh, you know, if we get measles, then we’ll be fine, because I know my neighbor had it and they’re fine,’” said Yasmin Khakoo, who leads the national Child Neurology Society but spoke to KFF Health News in her capacity as a New York City doctor with expertise in neurologic conditions.
Measles, though, can be dangerous: A 7-year-old in South Carolina will have to relearn how to walk after enduring one of the more immediate complications, brain swelling. And every so often, the virus plants a ticking time bomb in the nervous system. A person can recover from measles and continue life as usual, no longer contagious and without any identifiable symptoms — sometimes for a decade or more — before problems appear. While some patients end up severely disabled for a while, Khakoo said, the condition is almost always fatal.
Before the advent of widespread and effective vaccines, the complication occurred enough in the U.S. that in the 1960s a doctor created a national registry of SSPE patients. Researchers now estimate about 1 in 10,000 people who get measles will develop SSPE, but the risk is significantly higher for those who contract measles before age 5. Populous nations where the virus is endemic, including India, see cases routinely.
Now, doctors and researchers fear that as vaccination rates drop and measles spreads in the U.S., cases of this debilitating complication will also rise here. Since the start of 2025, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recorded over 3,500 measles cases — more than in the entire preceding decade — mostly people who were unvaccinated. Many were children. Last year, Connecticut doctors diagnosed a 6-year-old with SSPE, and in California, a school-age child who’d had measles as an infant died of it.
“We are likely to see SSPE cases going forward, especially if we don’t get this under control,” said Adam Ratner, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases and author of the book Booster Shots.
Concern about SSPE was great enough that in January, the Child Neurology Society published a video to educate U.S. clinicians about the condition, and doctors who have seen such cases are warning their peers.
“We don’t have a way of knowing who’s going to get it, and we don’t have a way of very effectively treating it,” said Aaron Nelson, a professor of neurology with the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. “The one best thing that we can do, ideally, is to prevent children from having to go through it in the first place.”
The recommended two-dose measles vaccine slashes an exposed person’s risk of getting the contagious virus from 90% to 3% — and thus reduces the chance of SSPE. The vaccines carry small risks of febrile seizure and a bleeding condition, but measles itself has a higher risk of causing both.
(Anindita Dasgupta) Cases in the U.S.
A 2017 study of California children who developed SSPE after a measles outbreak there years ago determined that 1 case is diagnosed for about every 1,400 known cases of measles in children under age 5, and 1 for every 600 infected babies.
The researchers also found that, over the years, doctors had missed some cases among patients who had died with undiagnosed neurologic illness.
The possibility that future cases could go undiagnosed spurred Nava Yeganeh and her colleagues to publish a news release in September when a Los Angeles County child died of SSPE.
“We’ve had very few cases of measles in the last 25 years in this country,” said Yeganeh, who is the medical director with the Vaccine Preventable Disease Control Program at the Los Angeles County public health department and has had two patients with SSPE. “Unfortunately, that’s changing, and so we wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of this long-term complication.”
The California child who died had gotten measles as an infant, Yeganeh said, before the child could receive the vaccine. Measles is highly contagious, so at least 95% of the population must be immune to it to protect vulnerable people — including babies too young to vaccinate and people who are immunocompromised — from infection.
“This is an example of someone who did everything right, wanted to protect their child against this infection, and unfortunately ended up losing their child because we didn’t have herd immunity for them,” Yeganeh said.
Shortly after Yeganeh’s group published the news release in California, Nelson was working to get the word out, too.
He had recently seen a 5-year-old whose family had traveled to the U.S. for medical care after the child started stumbling, jerking, hallucinating about bugs and animals, and having seizures. The child had contracted measles as an infant and had been too young to be vaccinated. Nelson diagnosed the child with SSPE.
“Imagine that: Having a child who is healthy and happy, moving to talking less and less, eventually not able to walk,” Nelson said. “It’s a very sad thing.”
He thought he would encounter the condition only in medical school textbooks, as a relic of the past. Instead, in October he found himself presenting the case at the Child Neurology Society’s national conference and participating in the society’s video about the condition. “I’ve now seen something I shouldn’t have ideally seen ever in my career,” he said.
Warning Signs From India
Globally, the number of measles outbreaks has increased in recent years, and physicians in places including the U.K. and Italy have recently seen clusters of SSPE.
The high human cost of measles’ spread is especially evident in India. While total cases aren’t tracked, about 200 families caring for people with SSPE, including Deepanwita’s, are in a single chat group in the Bangalore area.
In New Delhi, Sheffali Gulati studies SSPE and sees about 10 new patients a year with the condition, what she calls the “delayed echo” of measles outbreaks. The youngest she has seen was 3 years old.
“The ages are coming down, and a death or a vegetative state can develop as soon as in six months to five years of onset,” said Gulati, who leads the pediatric neurology program at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and until recently led India’s Association of Child Neurology.
Gulati hasn’t found any treatments that reverse SSPE’s course, only some that slow its progress. She’s found herself counseling parents: It’s catastrophic, it’s not their fault, and they can do nothing but accept it.
Deepanwita’s relatives try to find joy where they can. They think they noticed the girl smiling when her favorite cousin called recently. Anindita Dasgupta, her mother, said Deepanwita moves her hands and feet on her own and sometimes turns her head, especially when her father enters the room. The girl communicates with her parents through her eyes and a few sounds.
But it’s far from where she was in 2022: At a cousin’s birthday, a few months before noticeable symptoms started, Deepanwita started the birthday song and sang the loudest.
At her own 8th-birthday gathering last year, Deepanwita, wearing a pink eyelet dress and a nasal tube, could only blink and move her eyes as she sat propped up before two cakes that she would not be able to eat. She can no longer swallow, so her mom dabbed a bit of icing on her tongue.
Deepanwita and her mother enjoyed baking cookies and cakes together before the young girl was diagnosed with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, a rare complication from measles. For her 8th birthday in 2025, her mother made a cake and relatives ordered another, though Deepanwita can no longer eat solids and could be given only a taste of the icing on her tongue. (ANINDITA DASGUPTA) (Anindita Dasgupta) Research That Shouldn’t Be Needed
Roberto Cattaneo, a molecular biologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, has been studying SSPE for years. He recently used postmortem brain tissue to map how the measles virus can spread from the frontal cortex to colonize the entire brain. Still, he said it’s a “black box” what exactly measles is doing in those dormant years between the initial infection and when the symptoms of neurologic damage crop up.
It’s possible the virus replicates in the brain that whole time, undetected, killing off neurons. But with so many neurons in the human brain — 10 times as many as people living on the planet — the brain may find a way to adjust, Cattaneo said, until finally it can’t anymore.
He’s applying for funding to continue research on the disease and possible treatments, though ultimately, he wishes he didn’t have to. The tools to obliterate the condition already exist.
“The problem could be solved with vaccination,” Cattaneo said. The U.S. should have no cases of SSPE, he said. “It’s just painful.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Do You Know Which Supplements You Shouldn’t Take Together? (10 Pairs!)
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.
Dr. LeGrand Peterson wants us to get the most out of our supplements, so watch out for these…
Time to split up some pairs…
In most cases these are a matter of competing for absorption; sometimes to the detriment of both, sometimes to the detriment of one or the other, and sometimes, the problem is entirely different and they just interact in a way that could potentially cause other problems. Dr. Peterson advises as follows:
- Vitamin C and vitamin B12: taking these together can reduce the absorption of Vitamin B12, as vitamin C can overpower it.
- Vitamin C and copper: high amounts of vitamin C can decrease copper absorption, especially in those who are severely copper deficient.
- Magnesium and calcium: these two minerals compete for absorption in the intestines, potentially reducing the effectiveness of both.
- Calcium and iron: calcium can decrease iron absorption, so they should not be taken together, especially if you are iron deficient.
- Calcium and zinc: calcium also competes with zinc, reducing zinc absorption; they should be taken at different times.
- Zinc and copper: zinc and copper compete for absorption, so they should be taken at separate times.
- Iron and zinc: iron can decrease zinc absorption, and thus, they should not be taken together.
- Iron and green tea: perhaps a surprising one, but green tea can reduce iron absorption, so they should not be taken simultaneously.
- Vitamin E and vitamin K: vitamin E increases bleeding risk, while vitamin K promotes clotting, making them opposites and risky to take together.
- Fish oil and ginkgo biloba: both are anticoagulants and can increase the risk of bleeding, especially if taken with blood thinners like warfarin.
If you need to take supplements that compete (or conflict or otherwise potentially adversely interact) with each other, it’s recommended to separate them by at least 4 hours, or better yet, take one in the morning and the other at night. If in doubt, do speak with your pharmacist or doctor for personalized advice
You may be thinking: half my foods contain half of these nutrients! And yes, assuming you have a nutritionally dense diet, this is probably the case. Foods typically release nutrients more slowly than supplements, and unlike supplements, do not usually contain megadoses (although they can, such as the selenium content of Brazil nuts, or vitamin A in carrots). Basically, food is in most cases safer and gentler than supplements. If concerned, do speak with your nutritionist or doctor for personalized advice.
For more information on all of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?
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:
-
Apricots vs Peaches – 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 apricots to peaches, we picked the apricots.
Why?
Both are great! But there’s a clear winner:
In terms of macros, apricots have more fiber and, which is less important because the numbers are small, more protein. Apricots do also have more carbs, and/but carbs from whole fruit are not a problem for most people (especially because of the fiber), unless undertaking a very carb-controlled diet.
When it comes to vitamins, apricots sweep with more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, C, E, & K. Peaches meanwhile boast more vitamin B3, and that only marginally, as well as more choline.
In the category of minerals, apricots sweep again with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Peaches are not higher in any minerals.
Finally, if we consider polyphenols, apricots sweep yet again. The flavonols that peaches have, apricots have more of, and apricots have a long list of flavonols that peaches don’t.
Outside of flavonols, there is one (1) phenolic acid that peaches have more of (it’s 3-Caffeoylquinic acid), and it’s only slightly more, and it’s mostly in the skin which isn’t included if you buy your fruit ready-chopped. So in those cases, apricots would have the higher 3-Caffeoylquinic acid content anyway.
All in all, with their higher content of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols, apricots easily win the day.
Enjoy both, though! Diversity is healthy!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Dried Apricots vs Dried Prunes – Which is Healthier?
- Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same? ← we know we link this one a lot, but we think it’s important for everyone to know how fruit is good and juice isn’t (and why, less that seem bizarrely arbitrary)
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:
-
Healthy Heart, Healthy Brain – by Dr. Bradley Bale & Dr. Amy Doneen
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 often written that “what’s good for your heart is good for your brain”, because the former feeds the latter and takes away detritus. You cannot have a healthy brain without a healthy heart.
This book goes into that in more detail than we have ever had room to here! This follows from their previous book “Beat The Heart Attack Gene”, but we’re jumping in here because that book doesn’t really contain anything not also included in this one.
The idea is the same though: it is the authors’ opinion that far too many interventions are occurring far too late, and they want to “wake everyone up” (including their colleagues in the field) to encourage earlier (and broader!) testing.
Fun fact: that also reminded this reviewer that she had a pending invitation for blood tests to check these kinds of things—phlebotomy appointment now booked, yay!
True the spirit of such exhortation to early testing, this book does include diagnostic questionnaires, to help the reader know where we might be at. And, interestingly, while the in-book questionnaire format of “so many points for this answer, so many for that one”, etc is quite normal, what they do differently in the diagnostics is that in cases of having to answer “I don’t know”, it assigns the highest-risk point value, i.e. the test will err on the side of assume the worst, in the case of a reader not knowing, for example, what our triglycerides are like. Which, when one thinks about it, is probably a very sensible reasoning.
There’s a lot of advice about specific clinical diagnostic tools and things to ask for, and also things that may raise an alarm that most people might overlook (including doctors, especially if they are only looking for something else at the time).
You may be wondering: do they actually give advice on what to actually do to improve heart and brain health, or just how to be aware of potential problems? And the answer is that the latter is a route to the former, and yes they do offer comprehensive advice—well beyond “eat fiber and get some exercise”, and even down to the pros and cons of various supplements and medications. When it comes to treating a problem that has been identified, or warding off a risk that has been flagged, the advice is a personalized, tailored, approach. Obviously there’s a limit to how much they can do that in the book, but even so, we see a lot of “if this then that” pointers to optimize things along the way.
The style is… a little salesy for this reviewer’s tastes. That is to say, while it has a lot of information of serious value, it’s also quite padded with self-congratulatory anecdotes about the many occasions the authors have pulled a Dr. House and saved the day when everyone else was mystified or thought nothing was wrong, the wonders of their trademarked methodology, and a lot of hype for their own book, as in, the book that’s already in your hands. Without all this padding, the book could have been cut by perhaps a third, if not more. Still, none of that takes away from the valuable insights that are in the book too.
Bottom line: if you’d like to have a healthier heart and brain, and especially if you’d like to avoid diseases of those two rather important organs, then this book is a treasure trove of information.
Click here to check out Healthy Heart, Healthy Brain, and secure your good health now, for later!
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:








