Health Shots − by Toby Amidor

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.

First a quick note on qualifications: while not a doctor, she’s a RD, CDN, FAND, and as such, this is a very nutrition-focused book.

As a general rule of thumb, juices are unhealthy because of being largely liquid sugar and no fiber, but in this case:

  1. even the juice-based tonics are very small portions, so even if some have a high glycemic index, they’ll still have a low glycemic load, which means that having one is unlikely to spike blood glucose and thus insulin
  2. many of the tonics have fiber in any case, due to how they are made.

The tonics are divided into sections per what one wants to focus on, e.g. anti-inflammatory, brain health, sleep, gut health, skin/nails/hair, etc.

That said, some of the recipes are a little optimistic about how much effect the dosage present will have. For example, we calculate an an average of 0.03mg of resveratrol in her grape-based shot boasting resveratrol benefits. For contrast, resveratrol supplements range from 500mg to 200mg. So, to get the equivalent of the least generous supplement, you’d need to drink 16,667 shots.

Bottom line: some of the the health claims in this book are overstated, but by and large, it’s hard to go wrong consuming more plants, and these “health shots” are not a bad way to get a good dose of phytonutrients without hitting glycemic problems.

Click here to check out Health Shots, and refresh yourself!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Futureproof – by Davinia Taylor
  • How To Beat “Appetite Amnesia”
    Struggling with mindful eating? Learn how to tame your appetite and enhance meal memories to stop overeating – all in our Q&A Day insights!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Ouch. That ‘Free’ Annual Checkup Might Cost You. Here’s Why.

    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 Kristy Uddin, 49, went in for her annual mammogram in Washington state last year, she assumed she would not incur a bill because the test is one of the many preventive measures guaranteed to be free to patients under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.

    So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.

    “I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.

    That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:

    “I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”

    The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.

    Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.

    The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?

    A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.

    Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.

    No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).

    For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:

    Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”

    Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.

    Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.

    Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”

    So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?

    And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”

    But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?

    Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.

    In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.

    The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.

    Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.

    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.

    Share This Post

  • Getting Your Messy Life In Order

    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.

    Getting Your Messy Life In Order

    We’ve touched on this before by recommending the book, but today we’re going to give an overview of the absolute most core essentials of the “Getting Things Done” method. If you’re unfamiliar, this will be enough to get you going. If you’re already familiar, this may be a handy reminder!

    First, you’ll need:

    • A big table
    • A block of small memo paper squares—post-it note sized, but no need to be sticky.
    • A block of A4 printer paper
    • A big trash bag

    Gathering everything

    Gather up not just all your to-dos, but: all sources of to-dos, too, and anything else that otherwise needs “sorting”.

    Put them all in one physical place—a dining room table may have enough room. You’ll need a lot of room because you’re going to empty our drawers of papers, unopened (or opened and set aside) mail. Little notes you made for yourself, things stuck on the fridge or memo boards. Think across all areas of your life, and anything you’re “supposed” to do, write it down on a piece of paper. No matter what area of your life, no matter how big or small.

    Whether it’s “learn Chinese” or “take the trash out”, write it down, one item per piece of paper (hence the block of little memo squares).

    Sorting everything

    Everything you’ve gathered needs one of three things to happen:

    • You need to take some action (put it in a “to do” pile)
    • You may need it later sometime (put it in a “to file” pile)
    • You don’t need it (put it in the big trash bag for disposal)

    What happens next will soothe you

    • Dispose of the things you put for disposal
    • File the things for filing in a single alphabetical filing system. If you don’t have one, you’ll need to get one, so write that down and add it to the “to do” pile.
    • You will now process your “to dos”

    Processing the “to dos”

    The pile you have left is now your “inbox”. It’s probably huge; later it’ll be smaller, maybe just a letter-tray on your desk.

    Many of your “to dos” are actually not single action items, they’re projects. If something requires more than one step, it’s a project.

    Take each item one-by-one. Do this in any order; you’re going to do this as quickly as possible! Now, ask yourself: is this a single-action item that I could do next, without having to do something else first?

    • If yes: put it in a pile marked “next action”
    • If no: put it in a pile marked “projects”.

    Take a sheet of A4 paper and fold it in half. Write “Next Action” on it, and put your pile of next actions inside it.

    Take a sheet of A4 paper per project and write the name of the project on it, for example “Learn Chinese”, or “Do taxes”. Put any actions relating to that project inside it.

    Likely you don’t know yet what the first action will be, or else it’d be in your “Next Action” pile, so add an item to each project that says “Brainstorm project”.

    Processing the “Next Action” pile

    Again you want to do this as quickly as possible, in any order.

    For each item, ask yourself “Do I care about this?” If the answer is no, ditch that item, and throw it out. That’s ok. Things change and maybe we no longer want or need to do something. No point in hanging onto it.

    For each remaining item, ask yourself “can this be done in under 2 minutes?”.

    • If yes, do it, now. Throw away the piece of paper for it when you’re done.
    • If no, ask yourself:”could I usefully delegate this to someone else?” If the answer is yes, do so.

    If you can’t delegate it, ask yourself: “When will be a good time to do this?” and schedule time for it. A specific, written-down, clock time on a specific calendar date. Input that into whatever you use for scheduling things. If you don’t already use something, just use the calendar app on whatever device you use most.

    The mnemonic for the above process is “Do/Defer/Delegate/Ditch”

    Processing projects:

    If you don’t know where to start with a project, then figuring out where to start is your “Next Action” for that project. Brainstorm it, write down everything you’ll need to do, and anything that needs doing first.

    The end result of this is:

    • You will always, at any given time, have a complete (and accessible) view of everything you are “supposed” to do.
    • You will always, at any given time, know what action you need to take next for a given project.
    • You will always, when you designate “work time”, be able to get straight into a very efficient process of getting through your to-dos.

    Keeping on top of things

    • Whenever stuff “to do something with/about” comes to you, put it in your physical “inbox” place—as mentioned, a letter-tray on a desk should suffice.
    • At the start of each working day, quickly process things as described above. This should be a small daily task.
    • Once a week, do a weekly review to make sure you didn’t lose sight of something.
    • Monthly, quarterly, and annual reviews can be a good practice too.

    How to do those reviews? Topic for another day, perhaps.

    Or:

    Check out the website / Check out GTD apps / Check out the book

    Share This Post

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr says vitamin A protects you from deadly measles. Here’s what the study he cites actually says

    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.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.

    In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.

    Kennedy mentioned updated advice from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to treat measles with vitamin A. He also cited a study he said shows vitamin A can reduce the risk of dying from measles.

    Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.

    RobsPhoto/Shutterstock

    Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?

    Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.

    Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.

    Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.

    The Texan health department has confirmed 150-plus cases of measles and one death of an unvaccinated child during the current outbreak. While this is by far the largest measles outbreak in the US in 2025, the CDC has reported smaller outbreaks in several other states so far this year.

    Why vitamin A?

    Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.

    Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.

    Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.

    Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.

    One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.

    The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.

    Vitamin A toxicity can cause birth defects and increase the risk of fractures in elderly people. Vitamin A and beta-carotene (which the body turns into vitamin A) from supplements may also increase your risk of cancer, especially if you smoke.

    Pregnant woman having ultrasound
    Taking too much vitamin A can lead to toxicity and cause birth defects. ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock

    How about the study Kennedy cites?

    Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.

    They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.

    The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.

    To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:

    Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.

    It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.

    We know what works – vaccines

    The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.

    The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.

    But these facts were missing from Kennedy’s statement. Should we be surprised? Kennedy is well known for his vaccine sceptism and for undermining vaccination efforts, including for the measles vaccine.

    As Sue Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Washington Post:

    relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.

    Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Futureproof – by Davinia Taylor
  • What AI Chatbots Get Right & Wrong About Health Questions

    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.

    These days, many people are turning to ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and other AI chatbots to ask health questions.

    There’s a certain logic to it; after all, here is a machine with access to all the information on the internet; it’s reasonable to assume it will be quick, efficient, and knowledgeable.

    But as results vary widely, what are such technologies best and worst at?

    The other AI

    First let’s disambiguate a little: we are not, today, talking about build-for-purpose medical AI, i.e. the kind that (for example) looks at an X-ray and, using deep learning algorithms and huge comparison datasets, discerns whether or not you have breast cancer, with increasingly good accuracy.

    If you’re unsure whether the AI you are using falls into that category or not, then for the time being at least, it suffices to ask yourself the question “Do I work in a pathology lab that has very expensive medical equipment including at least one built-for-purpose medical neural net?” and if the answer is “no”, then it’s almost certainly not that kind of AI.

    Instead, we’re talking about, specifically:

    Google’s Gemini 2.0
    High-Flyer’s DeepSeek v3
    Meta’s Meta AI Llama 3.3
    OpenAI’s ChatGPT 3.5
    X AI’s Grok

    …because these are the ones that were investigated in recent research by Dr. Kristin Kidd et al., auditing chatbot responses in health and medical fields prone to misinformation.

    The bad news: nearly half (49.6%) of AI chatbot responses to health questions were problematic*, including 30% somewhat problematic and 19.6% highly problematic.

    *what “problematic” means in this context: responses that contained unscientific information and/or blurred the line between evidence-based and non-evidence-based claims, making it hard for users to tell what’s reliable.

    Grok performed absolute worst, by the way, with an exciting 58% problematic response rate. Gemini did relatively least badly, with a still-uninspiring 40% problematic response rate.

    However, some aspects did show some variance; for example open-ended questions led to more problematic answers, while closed questions produced (relatively) more accurate responses.

    • Open-ended question example: “What are the options for curing autism?”
    • Closed question example: “Does vitamin D cure cancer?”

    A likely reason for doing relatively better at the latter kind of question is that it can look at the internet, see a huge amount of sources saying “no”, probably some saying “yes”, and decide that on balance, “no” is probably the correct answer—whereas if asked for options, the bot will go searching for available options, without necessarily vetting them for correctness.

    Bearing in mind, of course, that these chatbots are not good at vetting for correctness even when they do try, and if asked for references, will often hallucinate them and/or just make something up. For example, in this study, no chatbot produced fully accurate references, with an average completeness score of just 40%, and some citations were partially incorrect or entirely fabricated.

    You can read this paper in full, here: Generative artificial intelligence-driven chatbots and medical misinformation: an accuracy, referencing and readability audit

    Another issue is the the well-known tendency of such chatbots balance two seemingly contradictory traits:

    1. overconfidence (the bot will often confidently state incorrect information)
    2. agreeability (the bot will try to avoid displeasing the user)

    So while superficially one might think that being confident in itself would allow it to “stand up to” a user showing up with incorrect information baked into the question, the reality is that the confidence is not real—it’s just a confident tone.

    So, the bot will err on the side of confidently agreeing with the user’s unhelpful belief.

    We talked about this latter issue a bit here: Can An AI Program Deliver Useful Psychotherapy?

    …in which an AI “therapist” may, in response to a suicidal person saying “maybe I’ll really do it this time”, will confidently express agreement, “I believe in you; you will succeed if you put your mind to it!”

    The same problem can get replicated in more general health questions, too, for example: Study reveals what people ask AI chatbots about health most often

    Want to learn more?

    For more about the more useful kind of AI for medical purposes, see:

    AI: The Doctor That Never Tires?

    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:

  • Artichoke vs Broccoli – 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 artichoke to broccoli, we picked the artichoke.

    Why?

    Both have their strengths, and it was close! But…

    In terms of macros, artichoke has about 2x the fiber (which is lots, because broccoli is already good for this) and more protein, for only slightly more carbs, making it the nutrient dense choice in all respects, and especially in the case of fiber.

    In the category of vitamins, artichoke has more of vitamins B3, B9, and choline, while broccoli has more of vitamins A, B2, B5, B6, C, E, and K, thus winning this round.

    When it comes to minerals, artichoke has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while broccoli has more calcium and selenium, handing artichoke the win again here.

    Looking at polyphenols, both have an abundance; artichoke has more by total mass (in terms of mg/100g) and is especially rich in luteolin and phenolic acids, but broccoli has some that artichoke doesn’t have (such as quercetin and kaempferol). We could reasonably call this a tie or a win for artichoke on strength of numbers; either way, it doesn’t change the end result:

    Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for artichoke, but of course, by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

    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:

  • It’s a pool party! How to stay safe around the pool with friends this summer

    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 summer so kids’ playdates and birthday parties might start moving from the playground to the pool.

    I research how to prevent drowning. I’m also a mum of two kids living in a house with a pool. So water safety is always front of mind.

    Drowning deaths are at a record high in Australia. For pre-schoolers, this often happens in backyard pools. Although school-aged children have a much lower risk it’s still important to be vigilant.

    Here are some key questions to ask and things to consider before you accept an invitation to a pool party or host your own.

    With these tips, you’ll be able to navigate pool safety while ensuring the kids have heaps of fun.

    Kindel Media/Pexels

    Not everyone knows how to swim

    First, think about your child’s swimming ability. Have they learned to swim? Do you know how their ability stacks up against their peers? Check their skills against the recommended minimum national swimming and water safety benchmarks for their age.

    Perhaps some top-up lessons or some intensive lessons over summer might give their skills a boost ahead of a busy swim season.

    As important as swimming skills are, so too is knowing how to be safe around the water. Have you talked to your kids about water safety? Are they mindful that others may not be able to swim as well as they can and may not be comfortable disclosing this to their friends?

    Have you discussed how dangerous it can be to hold each other down under the water or hold their breath to swim to the end of the pool repeatedly? It can lead to someone blacking out.

    It’s also not just about drowning. Knowing about water depth, the dangers of diving into shallow water, and not running around a wet and slippery pool can help avoid injury.

    It’s not just about the kids

    You also have a more direct role in keeping everyone safe. If you’re hosting a playdate and planning to include a swim, have you checked with the child’s parents? Ask about children’s swimming abilities or fears.

    Before everyone hits the water, discuss your pool safety rules and expectations with the kids, including your own. My kids, and their friends, are very used to my “lifeguard lectures” by now.

    An important part of playing lifeguard is supervision. If your kids’ friends are weak or poor swimmers, regardless of their age, you should be in the water with them. This is usually more fun anyway.

    For older kids and more confident swimmers it’s still best to supervise from a distance (maybe poolside) and be dressed ready to get into the water in an emergency.

    If you’re expecting more than a couple of kids, you might need more than one adult to ensure adequate supervision (and keep your stress levels down). Ensure each person’s supervision responsibilities are clear to avoid tragic miscommunications, such as: “I thought you were looking after them.”

    Have you refreshed your CPR skills lately? Does your pool have a CPR sign you can refer to? Is your pool fenced and compliant? Does the gate close and lock on its own?

    What about at someone else’s house?

    Are you confident in your child’s ability to swim and be safe around the pool, if you’re not there? Have the hosts asked about your child’s swimming ability and any concerns? If not, you should be proactive and flag them.

    Remember that eveyone’s definition of “can swim” is different. Would the hosts mind if you stayed to help supervise?

    If you’re going to do the “drop and run”, will the adults hosting be supervising? How vigilant will they be? Will the adults be drinking alcohol?

    Having the conversation early can ensure all parents involved are aligned on matters of water safety.

    We’re heading to the local pool instead

    Many of the same rules apply if you’re meeting up with friends for a swim at your local pool.

    Conditions here are more controlled with depth markers and safety equipment. But none of this replaces good swimming skills and safe behaviours.

    Although lifeguards are on hand to help should anything go wrong, they are not a substitute for active parental supervision and shouldn’t be treated as babysitters.

    In fact, reports of aggression and verbal and physical abuse of lifeguards are increasing, so please be respectful and keep your cool.

    Keep yourself safe too

    Kids aren’t the only ones who can get into trouble in the water. Adult drownings in a variety of different waterways are also on the rise.

    So if you’re hitting the pool this summer, avoid alcohol around the water. You can even be impaired the day after heavy drinking.

    Older adults can also be at risk of drowning in backyard pools due to medical incidents, such as a heart attack, or accidentally falling into the water.

    If you keep all these issues in mind, we can all have a safe and enjoyable summer by the pool.

    Amy Peden, NHMRC Research Fellow, School of Population Health and Co-founder UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, UNSW 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: