Getting to Neutral – by Trevor Moawad

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 all know that a pessimistic outlook is self-defeating… And yet, toxic positivity can also be a set-up for failure! At some point, reckless faith in the kindly nature of the universe will get crushed, badly. Sometimes that point is a low point in life… sometimes it’s six times a day. But one thing’s for sure: we can’t “just decide everything will go great!” because the world just doesn’t work that way.

That’s where Trevor Moawad comes in. “Getting to neutral” is not a popular selling point. Everyone wants joy, abundance, and high after high. And neutrality itself is often associated with boredom and soullessness. But, Moawad argues, it doesn’t have to be that way.

This book’s goal—which it accomplishes well—is to provide a framework for being a genuine realist. What does that mean?

“I’m not a pessimist; I’m a realist” – every pessimist ever.

^Not that. That’s not what it means. What it means instead is:

  1. Hope for the best
  2. Prepare for the worst
  3. Adapt as you go

…taking care to use past experiences to inform future decisions, but without falling into the trap of thinking that because something happened a certain way before, it always will in the future.

To be rational, in short. Consciously and actively rational.

Feel the highs! Feel the lows! But keep your baseline when actually making decisions.

Bottom line: this book is as much an antidote to pessimism and self-defeat, as it is to reckless optimism and resultant fragility. Highly recommendable.

Click here to check out “Getting to Neutral” and start creating your best, most reason-based life!

PS: in this book, Moawad draws heavily from his own experiences of battling adversity in the form of cancer—of which he died, before this book’s publication. A poignant reminder that he was right: we won’t always get the most positive outcome of any given situation, so what matters the most is making the best use of the time we have.

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Zero Sugar / One Month – by Becky Gillaspy
  • Breakfasting For Health?
    Optimal breakfast time: around 10am. Late-night eating may hinder fasting benefits. Prioritize morning meals for circadian rhythm and intermittent fasting benefits.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Colloidal Gold’s Impressive Claims

    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.

    All That Glitters…

    Today we’ll be examining colloidal gold supplementation.

    This issue of 10almonds brought to you by the writer suddenly getting lots of advertisements for this supplement. It’s not a new thing though, and has been around in one form or another since pretty much forever.

    Colloidal gold is…

    • Gold, as in the yellow metal
    • Colloidal, as in “very tiny insoluble particles dispersed though another substance (such as water)”

    What are the claims made for it?

    Honestly, just about everything is claimed for it. But to go with some popular claims:

    • Reduces inflammation
    • Supports skin health
    • Boosts immune function
    • Combats aging
    • Improves cognitive function

    So, what does the science say?

    Does it do those things?

    The short and oversimplified answer is: no

    However, there is a little bit of tangential merit, so we’re going to talk about the science of it, and how the leap gets made between what the science says and what the advertisements say.

    First… What makes gold so special, in general? Historically, three things:

    1. It’s quite rare
    2. It’s quite shiny
    3. It’s quite unreactive
    • The first is about supply and demand, so that’s not very important to us in this article.
    • The second is an aesthetic quality, which actually will have a little bit of relevance, but not much.
    • The third has been important historically (because it meant that shiny gold stayed shiny, because it didn’t tarnish), and now also important industrially too, as gold can be used in many processes where we basically need for nothing to happen (i.e., a very inert component is needed)

    That third quality—its unreactivity—has become important in medicine.

    When scientists need a way to deliver something (without the delivering object getting eaten by the body’s “eat everything” tendencies), or otherwise not interact chemically with anything around, gold is an excellent choice.

    Hence gold teeth, and gold fillings, by the way. They’re not just for the bling factor; they were developed because of their unreactivity and thus safety.

    So, what about those health claims we mentioned above?

    Here be science (creative interpretations not included)

    The most-backed-by-science claim from that list is “reduces inflammation”.

    Websites selling colloidal gold cite studies such as:

    Gold nanoparticles reduce inflammation in cerebral microvessels of mice with sepsis

    A promising title!The results of the study showed:

    ❝20 nm cit-AuNP treatment reduced leukocyte and platelet adhesion to cerebral blood vessels, prevented BBB failure, reduced TNF- concentration in brain, and ICAM-1 expression both in circulating polymorphonuclear (PMN) leukocytes and cerebral blood vessels of mice with sepsis. Furthermore, 20 nm cit-AuNP did not interfere with the antibiotic effect on the survival rate of mice with sepsis.❞

    That “20 nm cit-AuNP” means “20 nm citrate-covered gold nanoparticles”

    So it is not so much the antioxidant powers of gold being tested here, as the antioxidant powers of citrate, a known antioxidant. The gold was the carrying agent, whose mass and unreactivity allowed it to get where it needed to be.

    The paper does say the words “Gold nanoparticles have been demonstrated to own important anti-inflammatory properties“ in the abstract, but does not elaborate on that, reference it, or indicate how.

    Websites selling colloidal gold also cite papers such as:

    Anti-inflammatory effect of gold nanoparticles supported on metal oxides

    Another promising title! However the abstract mentions:

    ❝The effect was dependent on the MOx NPs chemical nature

    […]

    The effect of Au/TiO2 NPs was not related to Au NPs size❞

    MOx NPs = mineral oxide nanoparticles. In this case, the gold was a little more than a carrying agent, though, because the gold is described and explained as being a catalytic agent (i.e., its presence helps the attached mineral oxides react more quickly).

    We said that was the most-backed claim, and as you can see, it has some basis but is rather tenuous since the gold by itself won’t do anything; it just helps the mineral oxides.

    Next best-backed claim builds from that, which is “supports skin health”.

    Sometimes colloidal gold is sold as a facial tonic. By itself it’ll distribute (inert) gold nanoparticles across your skin, and may “give you a healthy glow”, because that’s what happens when you put shiny wet stuff on your face.

    Healthwise, if the facial tonic also contains some of the minerals we mentioned above, then it may have an antioxidant effect. But again, no minerals, no effect.

    The claim that it “combats aging” is really a tag-on to the “antioxidant” claim.

    As for the “supports immune health” claim… Websites selling colloid gold cite studies such as:

    Efficacy and Immune Response Elicited by Gold Nanoparticle- Based Nanovaccines against Infectious Diseases

    To keep things brief: gold can fight infectious diseases in much the same way that forks can fight hunger. It’s an inert carrying agent.

    As for “improves cognitive function”? The only paper we could find cited was that mouse sepsis study again, this time with the website saying “researchers found that rats treated with colloidal gold showed improved spatial memory and learning ability“ whereas the paper cited absolutely did not claim that, not remotely, not even anything close to that. It wasn’t even rats, it was mice, and they did not test their memory or learning.

    Is it safe?

    Colloidal gold supplementation is considered very safe, precisely because gold is one of the least chemically reactive substances you could possibly consume. It is special precisely because it so rarely does anything.

    However, impurities could be introduced in the production process, and the production process often involves incredibly harsh reagents to get the gold ions, and if any of those reagents are left in the solution, well, gold is safe but sodium borohydride and chloroauric acid aren’t!

    Where can I get some?

    In the unlikely event that our research review has given you an urge to try it, here’s an example product on Amazon

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Feeding You Lies – by Vani Hari

    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.

    When it comes to advertising, we know that companies will often be as misleading as they can get away with. But just how misleading is it?

    Vani Hari, of “Food Babe” fame, is here to unravel it all.

    The book covers many areas of food and drink advertising and marketing, and gives particular attention to:

    • Sodas (with and without sugar), and how deleterious they are to the health—as well as not even helping people lose weight, but actively hindering
    • Nutritionally fortified foods, and what we may or may not actually get from them by the time the processing is done
    • Organic food, and what that may or may not mean

    She also covers a lot of what happens outside of supermarkets, way back in universities and corporate boardrooms. In short, who is crossing whose palms with silver for a seal of approval… And what that means for us as consumers.

    A strength of this book that sets it apart from many of its genre, by the way, is that while being deeply critical of certain institutions’ practices, it doesn‘t digress into tinfoil-hat pseudoscientific scaremongering, either. Here at 10almonds we love actual science, so that was good to see too.

    Bottom line: is you’d like to know “can they say that and get away with it if it’s not true?” and make decisions based on the actual nutritional value of things, this is a great book for you.

    Click here to check out “Feeding You Lies” on Amazon and make your shopping healthier!

    Share This Post

  • Quit Like a Woman – by Holly Whitaker

    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 reviewed “quit drinking” books before, so what makes this one different?

    While others focus on the science of addiction and the tips and tricks of habit breaking/forming, this one is more about environmental factors, and that because of society being as it is, we as women often face different challenges when it comes to drinking (or not). Not necessarily easier or harder than men’s in this case, but different. And that sometimes calls for different methods to deal with them. This book explores those.

    She also looks at such matters as how to quit alcohol when you’ve never stuck to a diet, and other such very down-to-earth topics, in a well-researched and non-preachy fashion.

    Bottom line: if you’ve sometimes tried to quit drinking or even just to cut back, but found the deck stacked against you and things conspire to undermine your efforts, this book will give you a clearer path forward.

    Click here to check out Quite Like A Woman, And Take Care Of Yourself!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Zero Sugar / One Month – by Becky Gillaspy
  • Pinch of Nom – by Kate Allinson & Kay Allinson

    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.

    “Home-style recipes”, because guess where most readers live!

    And: slimming, because trimming the waistline a little is a goal for many after holiday indulgences.

    The key idea here is healthy recipes that “don’t taste like diet food”—often by just switching out a couple of key ingredients, to give a significantly improved nutritional profile while remaining just as tasty, especially when flavors are enhanced with clever spicing and seasoning.

    The food is simple to prepare, while being “special” enough that it could be used very credibly for entertaining too. For that matter, a strength of the book is its potential for use as a creative springboard, if you’re so inclined—there are lots of good ideas in here.

    The recipes themselves are all you’d expect them to be, and presented clearly in an easy-to-follow manner.

    Bottom line: if you’ve ever wanted to cook healthily but you need dinner on the table in the very near future and are stuck for ideas, this book is exactly what you need.

    Click here to check out Pinch of Nom, and liven up your healthy cooking!

    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:

  • Pomegranate vs Cherries – 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 pomegranate to cherries, we picked the pomegranate.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, pomegranate is slightly higher in carbs, and/but 4x higher in fiber. That’s already a good start for pomegranates. Lest we be accused of cherry-picking, though, we’ll mention that pomegranate is also slightly higher in protein and fat, for what it’s worth—which is not a lot. As with most fruits, the protein and fat numbers are low importance next to the carb:fiber ratio.

    When it comes to vitamins, pomegranate has more of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, B9. E. K, and choline. On the other hand, cherries have more of vitamins A and B3. The two fruits are equal in vitamin C. This all makes for a clear win for pomegranate.

    In the category of minerals, pomegranate boasts more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. In contrast, cherries have slightly more calcium. Another win for pomegranate.

    Both of these fruits have beneficial polyphenols, each with a slightly different profile, but neither pressingly better than the other.

    In short: as ever with healthy foods, enjoy both—diversity is good! But if you’re going to pick on, we recommend the pomegranate.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    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:

  • When Doctors Make House Calls, Modern-Style!

    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.

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you foryour opinion of telehealth for primary care consultations*, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 46% said “It is no substitute for an in-person meeting with a doctor; let’s keep the human touch”
    • About 29% said “It means less waiting and more accessibility, while avoiding transmission of diseases”
    • And 25 % said “I find that the pros and cons of telehealth vs in-person balance out, so: no preference”

    *We specified that by “primary care” we mean the initial consultation with a non-specialist doctor, before receiving treatment or being referred to a specialist. By “telehealth” we mean by videocall or phonecall.

    So, what does the science say?

    A quick note first

    Because telehealth was barely a thing (statistically speaking) before the first stages of the COVID pandemic, compared to how it is now, most of the science for this is young, and a lot of the science simply hasn’t been done yet, and/or has not been published yet, because the process can take years.

    Because of this, some studies we do have aren’t specifically about primary care, and are sometimes about specialists. We think this should not affect the results much, but it bears highlighting.

    Nevertheless, we’ll do what we can with the science we have!

    Telehealth is more accessible than in-person consultations: True or False?

    True, for most people. For example…

    ❝Data was found from a variety of emergency and non-emergency departments of primary, secondary, and specialised healthcare.

    Satisfaction was high among recipients of healthcare, scoring 9-10 on a scale of 0-10 or ranging from 73.3% to 100%.

    Convenience was rated high in every specialty examined. Satisfaction of clinicians was high throughout the specialities despite connection failure and concerns about confidentiality of information.❞

    Dr. Wiam Alashek et al.

    whereas…

    ❝Nonetheless, studies reported perception of increased barriers to accessing care and inequalities for vulnerable patients especially in older people❞

    Ibid.

    Source: Satisfaction with telemedicine use during COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a systematic review

    Now, perception of those things does necessarily equate to an actual increased barrier, but it is reasonable that someone who thinks something is inaccessible will be less inclined to try to access it.

    The quality of care provided via telehealth is as good as in-person: True or False?

    True, ostensibly, with caveats. The caveats are:

    • We’re going offreported patient satisfactionnot objective patient health outcomes (we found little* science as yet for the relative incidence of misdiagnosis, for example—which kind of thing will take time to be revealed).
    • We’re also therefore speaking (as statistics do) for the significant majority of people. However, if we happen to be (statistically speaking) an insignificant minority, well, that just sucks for us personally.

    *we did find some, but it wasn’t very helpful yet. For example:

    An electronic trigger to detect telemedicine-related diagnostic errors

    this one does look at the incidence of diagnostic errors, but provides no control group (i.e. otherwise-comparable in-person consultations) for comparison.

    While most oft-considered demographic groups reported comparable patient satisfaction (per racegender, and socioeconomic status, for example), there was one outlier variable, which was age (as we quoted from that first study above).

    However!

    Looking under the hood of these stats, it seems that age is not the real culprit, so much as technological illiteracy, which is heavily correlated with age:

    ❝Lower eHealth literacy is associated with more negative attitudes towards I/C technology in healthcare. This trend is consistent across diverse demographics and regions. ❞

    Dr. Raghad Elgamal

    Source: Meta-analysis: eHealth literacy and attitudes towards internet/computer technology

    There are things that can be done at an in-person consultation that can’t be done by telehealth: True or False?

    True, of course. It is incredibly rare that we will cite “common sense”, (as sometimes “common sense” is actually “common mistakes” and is simply and verifiably wrong), but in this case, as one 10almonds subscriber put it:

    ❝The doctor uses his five senses to assess. This cannot be attained over the phone❞

    ~ 10almonds subscriber

    A quick note first: if your doctor is using their sense of taste to diagnose you, please get a different doctor, because they should definitely not be doing that!

    Not in this century, anyway… Once upon a time, diabetes was diagnosed by urine-tasting (and yes, that was a fairly reliable method).

    However, nowadays indeed a doctor will use sightsoundtouch, and sometimes even smell.

    In a videocall we’re down to two of those senses (sight and sound), and in a phonecall, down to one (sound) and even that is hampered. Your doctor cannot, for example, use a stethoscope over the phone.

    With this in mind, it really comes down to what you need from your doctor in that consultation.

    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is to be prescribed an antidepressant, that probably doesn’t need a full physical.
    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is a referral, chances are that’ll be fine by telehealth too.
    • If your doctor is 99% sure that what you need is a verbal check-up (e.g. “How’s it been going for you, with the medication that I prescribed for you a month ago?”, then again, a call is probably fine.

    If you have a worrying lump, or an unhappy bodily discharge, or an unexplained mysterious pain? These things, more likely an in-person check-up is in order.

    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: