How To Grow In Comfort

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.

How To Grow (Without Leaving Your Comfort Zone)

“You have to get out of your comfort zone!” we are told, from cradle to grave.

When we are young, we are advised (or sometimes more forcefully instructed!) that we have to try new things. In our middle age, we are expected to be the world’s greatest go-getters, afraid of nothing and always pushing limits. And when we are old, people bid us “don’t be such a dinosaur”.

It is assumed, unquestioned, that growth can only occur through hardship and discomfort.

But what if that’s a discomforting lie?

Butler (2023) posited an idea: “We never achieve success faster and with less effort than when we are in our comfort zone”

Her words are an obvious callback to the ideas of Csikszentmihalyi (1970) in the sense of “flow”, in the sense in which that word is used in psychology.

Flow is: when a person is in a state of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment of an activity.

As a necessary truth (i.e: a function of syllogistic logic), the conditions of “in a state of flow” and “outside of one’s comfort zone” cannot overlap.

From there, we can further deduce (again by simple logic) that if flow can be found, and/but cannot be found outside of the comfort zone, then flow can only be found within the comfort zone.

That is indeed comforting, but what about growth?

Imagine you’ve never gone camping in your life, but you want to get outside of your comfort zone, and now’s the time to do it. So, you check out some maps of the Yukon, purchase some camping gear, and off you go into the wilderness. In the event that you survive to report it, you will indeed be able to say “it was not comfortable”.

But, did growth occur? Maybe, but… it’s a folly to say “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger” as a reason to pursue such things. Firstly, there’s a high chance it may kill us. Secondly, what doesn’t kill us often leaves us incredibly weakened and vulnerable.

When Hannibal famously took his large army of mostly African mercenaries across the Alps during winter to march on Rome from the other side, he lost most of his men on the way, before proceeding to terrorize Northern Italy convincingly with the small remainder. But! Their hard experience hadn’t made them stronger; it had just removed the weaker soldiers, making the resultant formations harder to break.

All this to say, please do not inflict hardship and discomfort and danger in the hopes it’ll make you stronger; it will probably do the opposite.

But…

If, instead of wilderness trekking in the Yukon…

  • You start off with a camper van holiday, then you’ll be taking a fair amount of your comfort with you. In effect, you will be stretching and expanding your comfort zone without leaving it.
  • Then maybe another year you might try camping in a tent on a well-catered camping site.
  • Later, you might try “roughing it” at a much less well-catered camping site.
  • And so on.

Congratulations, you have tried new things and undergone growth, taking your comfort zone with you all the way!

This is more than just “easing yourself into” something

It really is about taking your comfort with you too. If you want to take up running, don’t ask “how can I run just a little bit first” or “how can I make it easier” (well, feel free to ask those things too, but) ask yourself: how can I bring my comfort with me? Comfortable shoes, perhaps, an ergonomic water bottle, shade for your head, maybe.

❝Any fool can rough it, but a good soldier can make himself comfortable in any circumstances❞

~ British Army maxim

This goes for more than just physical stuff, too

If you want to learn a new skill, the initial learning curve can be anxiety-inducing, especially if you are taking a course and worried about keeping up or “not being good enough”.

So, “secretly” study in advance, at your leisure, get yourself a head start. Find a degree of comfort in what you’ve learned so far, and then bring that comfort with you into your entry-level course that is now less intimidating.

Discomfort isn’t a badge of honor (and impedes growth)

Take that extra rest stop on the highway. Bring your favorite coffee with you. Use that walking stick, if it helps.

Whatever it takes to bring your comfort with you, bring it.

Trust us, you’ll get further that way.

Don’t Forget…

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

  • Behaving During the Holidays
    Q&A Day at 10almonds: Your guide to healthy snacking with low sodium, sugar-restricted options like unsalted nuts, air-popped popcorn, and fresh fruits!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • As Nuns Disappear, Many Catholic Hospitals Look More Like Megacorporations

    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.

    ST. LOUIS — Inside the more than 600 Catholic hospitals across the country, not a single nun can be found occupying a chief executive suite, according to the Catholic Health Association.

    Nuns founded and led those hospitals in a mission to treat sick and poor people, but some were also shrewd business leaders. Sister Irene Kraus, a former chief executive of Daughters of Charity National Health System, was famous for coining the phrase “no margin, no mission.” It means hospitals must succeed — generating enough revenue to exceed expenses — to fulfill their original mission.

    The Catholic Church still governs the care that can be delivered to millions in those hospitals each year, using religious directives to ban abortions and limit contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, and medical aid in dying.

    But over time, that focus on margins led the hospitals to transform into behemoths that operate for-profit subsidiaries and pay their executives millions, according to hospital tax filings. These institutions, some of which are for-profit companies, now look more like other megacorporations than like the charities for the destitute of yesteryear.

    The absence of nuns in the top roles raises the question, said M. Therese Lysaught, a Catholic moral theologist and professor at Loyola University Chicago: “What does it mean to be a Catholic hospital when the enterprise has been so deeply commodified?”

    The St. Louis area serves as the de facto capital of Catholic hospital systems. Three of the largest are headquartered here, along with the Catholic hospital lobbying arm. Catholicism is deeply rooted in the region’s culture. During Pope John Paul II’s only U.S. stop in 1999, he led Mass downtown in a packed stadium of more than 100,000 people.

    For a quarter century, Sister Mary Jean Ryan led SSM Health, one of those giant systems centered on St. Louis. Now retired, the 86-year-old said she was one of the last nuns in the nation to lead a Catholic hospital system.

    Ryan grew up Catholic in Wisconsin and joined a convent while in nursing school in the 1960s, surprising her family. She admired the nuns she worked alongside and felt they were living out a higher purpose.

    “They were very impressive,” she said. “Not that I necessarily liked all of them.”

    Indeed, the nuns running hospitals defied the simplistic image often ascribed to them, wrote John Fialka in his book “Sisters: Catholic Nuns and the Making of America.”

    “Their contributions to American culture are not small,” he wrote. “Ambitious women who had the skills and the stamina to build and run large institutions found the convent to be the first and, for a long time, the only outlet for their talents.”

    This was certainly true for Ryan, who climbed the ranks, working her way from nurse to chief executive of SSM Health, which today has hospitals in Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

    The system was founded more than a century ago when five German nuns arrived in St. Louis with $5. Smallpox swept through the city and the Sisters of St. Mary walked the streets offering free care to the sick.

    Their early foray grew into one of the largest Catholic health systems in the country, with annual revenue exceeding $10 billion, according to its 2023 audited financial report. SSM Health treats patients in 23 hospitals and co-owns a for-profit pharmacy benefit manager, Navitus, that coordinates prescriptions for 14 million people.

    But Ryan, like many nuns in leadership roles in recent decades, found herself confronted with an existential crisis. As fewer women became nuns, she had to ensure the system’s future without them.

    When Ron Levy, who is Jewish, started at SSM as an administrator, he declined to lead a prayer in a meeting, Ryan recounted in her book, “On Becoming Exceptional.”

    “Ron, I’m not asking you to be Catholic,” she recalled telling him. “And I know you’ve only been here two weeks. So, if you’d like to make it three, I suggest you be prepared to pray the next time you’re asked.”

    Levy went on to serve SSM for more than 30 years — praying from then on, Ryan wrote.

    In Catholic hospitals, meetings are still likely to start with a prayer. Crucifixes often adorn buildings and patient rooms. Mission statements on the walls of SSM facilities remind patients: “We reveal the healing presence of God.”

    Above all else, the Catholic faith calls on its hospitals to treat everyone regardless of race, religion, or ability to pay, said Diarmuid Rooney, a vice president of the Catholic Health Association. No nuns run the trade group’s member hospitals, according to the lobbying group. But the mission that compelled the nuns is “what compels us now,” Rooney said. “It’s not just words on a wall.”

    The Catholic Health Association urges its hospitals to evaluate themselves every three years on whether they’re living up to Catholic teachings. It created a tool that weighs seven criteria, including how a hospital acts as an extension of the church and cares for poor and marginalized patients.

    “We’re not relying on hearsay that the Catholic identity is alive and well in our facilities and hospitals,” Rooney said. “We can actually see on a scale where they are at.”

    The association does not share the results with the public.

    At SSM Health, “our Catholic identity is deeply and structurally ingrained” even with no nun at the helm, spokesperson Patrick Kampert said. The system reports to two boards. One functions as a typical business board of directors while the other ensures the system abides by the rules of the Catholic Church. The church requires the majority of that nine-member board to be Catholic. Three nuns currently serve on it; one is the chair.

    Separately, SSM also is required to file an annual report with the Vatican detailing the ways, Kampert said, “we deepen our Catholic identity and further the healing ministry of Jesus.” SSM declined to provide copies of those reports.

    From a business perspective, though, it’s hard to distinguish a Catholic hospital system like SSM from a secular one, said Ruth Hollenbeck, a former Anthem insurance executive who retired in 2018 after negotiating Missouri hospital contracts. In the contracts, she said, the difference amounted to a single paragraph stating that Catholic hospitals wouldn’t do anything contrary to the church’s directives.

    To retain tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Service rules, all nonprofit hospitals must provide a “benefit” to their communities such as free or reduced-price care for patients with low incomes. But the IRS provides a broad definition of what constitutes a community benefit, which gives hospitals wide latitude to justify not needing to pay taxes.

    On average, the nation’s nonprofit hospitals reported that 15.5% of their total annual expenses were for community benefits in 2020, the latest figure available from the American Hospital Association.

    SSM Health, including all of its subsidiaries, spent proportionately far less than the association’s average for individual hospitals, allocating roughly the same share of its annual expenses to community efforts over three years: 5.1% in 2020, 4.5% in 2021, and 4.9% in 2022, according to a KFF Health News analysis of its most recent publicly available IRS filings and audited financial statements.

    A separate analysis from the Lown Institute think tank placed five Catholic systems — including the St. Louis region’s Ascension — on its list of the 10 health systems with the largest “fair share” deficits, which means receiving more in tax breaks than what they spent on the community. And Lown said three St. Louis-area Catholic health systems — Ascension, SSM Health, and Mercy — had fair share deficits of $614 million, $235 million, and $92 million, respectively, in the 2021 fiscal year.

    Ascension, Mercy, and SSM disputed Lown’s methodology, arguing it doesn’t take into account the gap between the payments they receive for Medicaid patients and the cost of delivering their care. The IRS filings do.

    But, Kampert said, many of the benefits SSM provides aren’t reflected in its IRS filings either. The forms reflect “very simplistic calculations” and do not accurately represent the health system’s true impact on the community, he said.

    Today, SSM Health is led by longtime business executive Laura Kaiser. Her compensation in 2022 totaled $8.4 million, including deferred payments, according to its IRS filing. Kampert defended the amount as necessary “to retain and attract the most qualified” candidate.

    By contrast, SSM never paid Ryan a salary, giving instead an annual contribution to her convent of less than $2 million a year, according to some tax filings from her long tenure. “I didn’t join the convent to earn money,” Ryan said.

    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.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Asbestos in mulch? Here’s the risk if you’ve been exposed

    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.

    Mulch containing asbestos has now been found at 41 locations in New South Wales, including Sydney parks, schools, hospitals, a supermarket and at least one regional site. Tests are under way at other sites.

    As a precautionary measure, some parks have been cordoned off and some schools have closed temporarily. Fair Day – a large public event that traditionally marks the start of Mardi Gras – was cancelled after contaminated mulch was found at the site.

    The New South Wales government has announced a new taskforce to help investigate how the asbestos ended up in the mulch.

    Here’s what we know about the risk to public health of mulch contaminated with asbestos, including “friable” asbestos, which has been found in one site (Harmony Park in Surry Hills).

    What are the health risks of asbestos?

    Asbestos is a naturally occurring, heat-resistant fibre that was widely used in building materials from the 1940s to the 1980s. It can be found in either a bonded or friable form.

    Bonded asbestos means the fibres are bound in a cement matrix. Asbestos sheeting that was used for walls, fences, roofs and eaves are examples of bonded asbestos. The fibres don’t escape this matrix unless the product is severely damaged or worn.

    A lot of asbestos fragments from broken asbestos products are still considered bonded as the fibres are not released as they lay on the ground.

    Bonded asbestos
    Asbestos sheeting was used for walls and roofs.
    Tomas Regina/Shutterstock

    Friable asbestos, in contrast, can be easily crumbled by touch. It will include raw asbestos fibres and previously bonded products that have worn to the point that they crumble easily.

    The risk of disease from asbestos exposure is due to the inhalation of fibres. It doesn’t matter if those fibres are from friable or bonded sources.

    However, fibres can more easily become airborne, and therefore inhalable, if the asbestos is friable. This means there is more of a risk of exposure if you are disturbing friable asbestos than if you disturb fragments of bonded asbestos.

    Who is most at risk from asbestos exposure?

    The most important factor for disease risk is exposure – you actually have to inhale fibres to be at risk of disease.

    Just being in the vicinity of asbestos, or material containing asbestos, does not put you at risk of asbestos-related disease.

    For those who accessed the contaminated areas, the level of exposure will depend on disturbing the asbestos and how many fibres become airborne due to that disturbance.

    However, if you have been exposed to, and inhaled, asbestos fibres it does not mean you will get an asbestos-related disease. Exposure levels from the sites across Sydney will be low and the chance of disease is highly unlikely.

    The evidence for disease risk from ingestion remains highly uncertain, although you are not likely to ingest sufficient fibres from the air, or even the hand to mouth activities that may occur with playing in contaminated mulch, for this to be a concern.

    The risk of disease from exposure depends on the intensity, frequency and duration of that exposure. That is, the more you are exposed to asbestos, the greater the risk of disease.

    Most asbestos-related disease has occurred in people who work with raw asbestos (for example, asbestos miners) or asbestos-containing products (such as building tradespeople). This has been a tragedy and fortunately asbestos is now banned.

    There have been cases of asbestos-related disease, most notably mesothelioma – a cancer of the lining of the lung (mostly) or peritoneum – from non-occupational exposures. This has included people who have undertaken DIY home renovations and may have only had short-term exposures. The level of exposure in these cases is not known and it is also impossible to determine if those activities have been the only exposure.

    There is no known safe level of exposure – but this does not mean that one fibre will kill. Asbestos needs to be treated with caution.

    As far as we are aware, there have been no cases of mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related disease, that have been caused by exposure from contaminated soils or mulch.

    Has asbestos been found in mulch before?

    Asbestos contamination of mulch is, unfortunately, not new. Environmental and health agencies have dealt with these situations in the past. All jurisdictions have strict regulations about removing asbestos products from the green waste stream but, as is happening in Sydney now, this does not always happen.

    Mulch
    Mulch contamination is not new.
    gibleho/Shutterstock

    What if I’ve been near contaminated mulch?

    Exposure from mulch contamination is generally much lower than from current renovation or construction activities and will be many orders of magnitude lower than past occupational exposures.

    Unlike activities such as demolition, construction and mining, the generation of airborne fibres from asbestos fragments in mulch will be very low. The asbestos contamination will be sparsely spread throughout the mulch and it is unlikely there will be sufficient disturbance to generate large quantities of airborne fibres.

    Despite the low chance of exposure, if you’re near contaminated mulch, do not disturb it.

    If, by chance, you have had an exposure, or think you have had an exposure, it’s highly unlikely you will develop an asbestos-related disease in the future. If you’re worried, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency is a good source of information.The Conversation

    Peter Franklin, Associate Professor and Director, Occupational Respiratory Epidemiology, The University of Western Australia

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

    Share This Post

  • Wise Old Fool

    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.

    How old is this dish? Well, let’s put it this way, it used to be called “𓅮𓏏𓈖” and remnants of it have been found at neolithic burial sites in Egypt. Nowadays it’s called “فول مدمس”, which gets rendered a lot of different ways in the Latin alphabet, but “fūl mudammas” is one option. For short, it’s just called “fūl”, which is pronounced like the English word “fool”, and it’s about the beans.

    From chana masala with poori to frijoles refritos to beans on toast, lots of cultures have some version of this breakfast food, and all can be great (yes, even the beans on toast). But today we’re about this particular kind of morning protein, fiber, fats, and healthful spices.

    You will need

    • 2x 14 oz cans fava beans (other kinds of beans work as substitute; kidney beans are common substitution, but this writer prefers black beans personally if she doesn’t have fava in), drained
    • 4 garlic cloves, crushed
    • 1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil
    • 1 teaspoon sweet cinnamon (or ½ sweet cinnamon stick)
    • 1 tsp cumin seeds
    • 1 tsp chili flakes
    • 1 tsp paprika
    • 1 tsp black pepper
    • Juice of ½ lemon
    • For the relish: 1 medium tomato, finely chopped; 1 tbsp extra virgin olive oil; 2 tbsp parsley, finely chopped
    • To serve: 4 pitta breads, 2 eggs (omit if vegan), and a selection of pickled vegetables, drained

    Method

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

    1) Add the olive oil to a saucepan over a medium heat; add the garlic, cumin seeds, and cinnamon. Keep these moving for a minute or two before moving to the next step.

    2) Add the fava beans, as well as the other seasonings (chili flakes, paprika, black pepper), and mix thoroughly

    3) Add 1 cup boiling water, and keep everything on a simmer for about 20 minutes, stirring often. Add the lemon juice while it’s simmering; when the beans start to break down and the mixture starts to thicken, it’s ready.

    4) Mix the relish ingredients (finely chopped tomato, olive oil, parsley) thoroughly in a small bowl

    5) Toast the pitta breads, and if using, soft-boil the eggs.

    6) Serve! We suggest: fūl in a bowl, with one half of a soft-boiled egg per bowl, topped with the relish, and served with the pitta bread and pickled vegetables on the side.

    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

  • For people with ADHD, medication can reduce the risk of accidents, crime and suicide

    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.

    Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects around 7% of children and 2.5% of adults.

    ADHD causes difficulties holding and sustaining attention over periods of time. People with ADHD also experience hyperactivity and high levels of impulsiveness and arousal. This can make it difficult to plan, coordinate and remain engaged in tasks.

    ADHD is linked to problems at work, school and home, and to higher rates of mental illnesses such as anxiety. It’s also associated with higher rates of long-term harms.

    Stimulant medication, such as methylphenidate and dexamphetamine, is the most common treatment for managing ADHD symptoms. Most people with ADHD will respond to at least one ADHD medication.

    But, rising rates of prescriptions in recent years has prompted concern for their effectiveness and safety.

    New research published today in the journal BMJ points to additional longer-term benefits. It found people with ADHD who took medication were less likely to have suicidal behaviours, transport accidents, issues with substance misuse, or be convicted of a crime.

    What did the study do?

    The study tracked 148,581 people who received a new diagnosis of ADHD between 2007 and 2018.

    The authors used population-based data from Swedish national registers, including everyone aged six to 64 who was newly diagnosed with ADHD. The average age was 17.4 years and 41% were female.

    Participants either started or did not start medication within three months of their ADHD diagnosis.

    The authors examined the effects of drug treatment for ADHD on five critical outcomes: suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing crime. They looked at both first-time and recurrent events.

    This study used a method that uses data from health records or registries to mimic the design of a randomised controlled trial, in an attempt to reduce bias.

    The researchers accounted for age, education, other mental and physical illnesses, prior history and use of other drugs, to account for factors that may influence results.

    What did they find?

    Within three months of receiving an ADHD diagnosis, 84,282 (56.7%) of people had started drug treatment for ADHD. Methylphenidate was the most commonly prescribed drug, accounting for 88.4% of prescriptions.

    Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with reduced rates of a first occurrence for four out of the five outcomes: a 17% reduction for suicidal behaviours, 15% for substance misuse, 12% for transport accidents and 13% for committing crime.

    When the researchers looked at people with recurrent events, the rate reductions associated with ADHD medication were seen for all five outcomes (including accidental injury).

    The effect of medication was particularly strong when someone had a history of these events happening frequently. This means those with the most severe symptoms may benefit most.

    Stimulant drugs were associated with lower rates of all five outcomes compared with non-stimulant drugs.

    It’s likely these benefits are associated with improvements in attention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. People may be less likely to be distracted while driving, to self-medicate and show impacts from other mental health challenges.

    What didn’t the study do?

    The large sample size, use of national linked registers and sophisticated design give greater confidence that these findings are due to medication use and not due to other factors.

    But the study was not able to examine medication dosages or track whether people reliably took their medication as prescribed. It also had no way to track the severity of ADHD symptoms. This means it can’t tell us if this helped most people or just some people with severe symptoms.

    We know that ADHD medication helps most people, but it is not effective for everyone. So, we still need to understand why some people don’t benefit from ADHD medication, and what other treatments might also be helpful.

    Finally, even though the study was rigorous in its design and adjusted for many factors, we can’t rule out that other unaccounted factors could be associated with these effects.

    As prescribing increases, the size of the benefit decreases

    A second study, published in June, used the same Swedish national registers and self-controlled case series design.

    This study also concluded ADHD medication was associated with reduced risks for self-harm, accidental injuries, transport accidents and committing crime.

    However, this study also showed that as prescribing rates increased nearly five-fold between years 2006 to 2020, the size of the observed benefits of ADHD medications reduced.

    While remaining significant, the size of the associations between ADHD medication use and lower risks of unintentional injury, traffic crashes, and crime weakened over this time.

    This could mean people who are less likely to need ADHD medications are now receiving them.

    What are the impacts for patients and policymakers?

    People need to know that if ADHD medications are helpful for them or their children, it might also improve many other areas of life.

    These findings can also give governments confidence that their recent initiatives and efforts to increase access to ADHD support and treatment may have positive downstream impacts on broader social outcomes.

    But medications aren’t the only ADHD treatment. Medication should only represent one part of a solution, with other psychological supports for managing emotional regulation, executive and organisational skills and problem-solving also beneficial.

    Psychological therapies are effective and can be used in combination with, or separately to, medication.

    Yet research shows drug treatments are relied on more frequently in more disadvantaged communities where it’s harder to access psychological supports.

    Policymakers need to ensure medication does not become the only treatment people have access to. People with suspected ADHD need a high-quality diagnostic assessment to ensure they get the right diagnosis and the treatment most suitable for them.

    Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney and Kelsie Boulton, Senior Research Fellow in Child Neurodevelopment, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney

    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:

  • Strong Curves – by Bret Contreras & Kellie Davis

    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 title (and subtitle) is, of course, an appeal to vanity. However, the first-listed author is well-known as “The Glute Guy”, and he takes this very seriously, not just for aesthetic reasons but also for practical reasons.

    After all, when it comes to posture and stability, a lot rests on our hips, and hips, well, they rest on our butt and thighs. What’s more, the gluteus maximus is the largest muscle in the human body, so really, is it a good one to neglect? Probably not, and your lower back will definitely thank you for keeping your glutes in good order, too.

    That said, while it’s a focal point, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all, and this book does cover the whole body.

    The book takes the reader from “absolute beginner” to “could compete professionally”, with clearly-illustrated and well-described exercises. We also get a strong “crash course” in the relevant anatomy and physiology, and even a chapter on nutrition, which is a lot better than a lot of exercise books’ efforts in that regard.

    For those who like short courses, this book has several progressive 12-week workout plans that take the reader from a very clear starting point to a very clear goal point.

    Another strength of the book is that while a lot of exercises expect (and require) access to a gym, there are also whole sections of “at home / bodyweight” exercises, including 12-week workout plans for such, as described above.

    Bottom line: there’s really nothing bad that this reviewer can find to say about this one—highly recommendable to any woman who wants to get strong while keeping a feminine look.

    Click here to check out Strong Curves, and rebuild your body, your way!

    PS: at first glance, the cover art looks like an AI model; it’s not; that’s the co-author Kellie Davis, who also serves as the model through the book’s many photographic illustrations.

    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:

  • Broccoli vs Zucchini – 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 broccoli to zucchini, we picked the broccoli.

    Why?

    This one wasn’t close:

    In terms of macros, broccoli has more than 2x the fiber, 2x the carbs, and 2x the protein, winning this first round easily.

    In the category of vitamins, broccoli has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, E, and K, while zucchini is not higher in any vitamins—another easy win for broccoli.

    Looking at minerals, broccoli has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, sweeping yet another category as zucchini is not higher in any minerals.

    In other consideration, broccoli has sulforaphane, which is another point in its favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for a very clear overall win for broccoli, but still, do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Broccoli Sprouts & Sulforaphane

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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