Healthy Kids, Happy Kids – by Dr. Elisa Song
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.
If you have young children or perhaps grandchildren, you probably care deeply about those children and their wellbeing, but there can often be a lot more guesswork than would be ideal, when it comes to ensuring they be and remain healthy.
Nevertheless, a lot of common treatments for children are based (whether parents know it or not—and often they dont) on what is most convenient for the parent, not necessarily what is best for the child. Dr. Song looks to correct that.
Rather than dosing kids with acetaminophen or even antibiotics, assuming eczema can be best fixed with a topical cream (treating the symptom rather than the cause, much?), and that some things like asthma “just are”, and “that’s unfortunate”, Dr. Song takes us on a tour of pediatric health, centered around the gut.
Why the gut? Well, it’s pretty central to us as adults, and it’s the same for kids, except one difference: their gut microbiome is changing even more quickly than ours (along with the rest of their body), and as such, is even more susceptible to little nudges for better or for worse, having a big impact in either direction. So, might as well make it a good one!
After an explanatory overview, most of the book is given over to recognizing and correcting what things can go wrong, including the top 25 acute childhood conditions, and the most critical chronic ones, and how to keep things on-track as a team (the child is part of the team! An important part!).
The style of the book is very direct and instructional; easy to understand throughout. It’s a lot like being in a room with a very competent pediatrician who knows her stuff and explains it well, thus neither patronizing nor mystifying.
Bottom line: if there are kids in your life, be they yours or your grandkids or someone else, this is a fine book for giving them the best foundational health.
Click here to check out Healthy Kids, Happy Kids, and take care of yours!
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:
Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects
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.
Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Big Research Gap
GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic, Wegovy, and other semaglutide drugs. are fast becoming a health industry standard go-to tool in the weight loss toolbox. When it comes to recommending that patients lose weight, “Have you considered Ozempic?” is the common refrain.
Sometimes, this may be a mere case of kicking the can down the road with regard to some other treatment that it can be argued (sometimes even truthfully) would go better after some weight loss:
How weight bias in health care can harm patients with obesity: Research
…which we also covered in fewer words in the second-to-last item here:
But GLP-1 agonists work, right?
Yes, albeit there’s a litany of caveats, top of which are usually:
- there are often adverse gastrointestinal side effects
- if you stop taking them, weight regain generally ensues promptly
For more details on these and more, see:
…but now there’s another thing that’s come to light:
The dark side of semaglutide’s weight loss
In academia, “dark” is often used to describe “stuff we don’t have much (or in some cases, any) direct empirical evidence of, but for reasons of surrounding things, we know it’s there”.
Well-known examples include “dark matter” in physics and the Dark Ages in (European) history.
In the case of semaglutide and weight loss, a review by a team of researchers (Drs. Sandra Christenen, Katie Robinson, Sara Thomas, and Dominique Williams) has discovered how little research has been done into a certain aspect of GLP-1 agonist’s weight loss effects, namely…
Dietary changes!
There’s been a lot of popular talk about “people taking semaglutide eat less”, but it’s mostly anecdotal and/or presumed based on parts of the mechanism of action (increasing insulin production, reducing glucagon secretions, modulating dietary cravings).
Where studies have looked at dietary changes, it’s almost exclusively been a matter of looking at caloric intake (which has been found to be a 16–39% reduction), and observations-in-passing that patients reported reduction in cravings for fatty and sweet foods.
This reduction in caloric intake, by the way, is not significantly different to the reduction brought about by counselling alone (head-to-head studies have been done; these are also discussed in the research review).
However! It gets worse. Very few studies of good quality have been done, even fewer (two studies) actually had a registered dietitian nutritionist on the team, and only one of them used the “gold standard” of nutritional research, the 24-hour dietary recall test. Which, in case you’re curious, you can read about what that is here:
Dietary Assessment Methods: What Is A 24-Hour Recall?
Of the four studies that actually looked at the macros (unlike most studies), they found that on average, protein intake decreased by 17.1%. Which is a big deal!
It’s an especially big deal, because while protein’s obviously important for everyone, it’s especially important for anyone trying to lose weight, because muscle mass is a major factor in metabolic base rate—which in turn is much important for fat loss/maintenance than exercise, when it comes to how many calories we burn by simply existing.
A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, is that one of the numerous reasons people who quit GLP-1 agonists immediately put fat back on, is because they probably lost muscle mass in amongst their weight loss, meaning that their metabolic base rate will have decreased, meaning that they end up more disposed to put on fat than before.
And, that’s just a hypothesis and it’s a hypothesis based on very few studies, so it’s not something to necessarily take as any kind of definitive proof of anything, but it to say—as the researchers of this review do loudly say—more research needs to be done into this, because this has been a major gap in research so far!
Any other bad news?
While we’re talking research gaps, guess how many studies looked into micronutrient intake changes in people taking GLP-1 agonists?
If you guessed zero, you guessed correctly.
You can find the paper itself here:
What’s the main take-away here?
On a broad, scoping level: we need more research!
On a “what this means for individuals who want to lose weight” level: maybe we should be more wary of this still relatively new (less than 10 years old) “wonder drug”. And for most of those 10 years it’s only been for diabetics, with weight loss use really being in just the past few years (2021 onwards).
In other words: not necessarily any need to panic, but caution is probably not a bad idea, and natural weight loss methods remain very reasonable options for most people.
See also: How To Lose Weight (Healthily!)
Take care!
Share This Post
Are Brain Chips Safe?
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.
Ready For Cyborgization?
In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your views on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), such as the Utah Array and Neuralink’s chips on/in brains that allow direct communication between brains and computers, so that (for example) a paralysed person can use a device to communicate, or manipulate a prosthetic limb or two.
We didn’t get as many votes as usual; it’s possible that yesterday’s newsletter ended up in a lot of spam filters due to repeated use of a word in “extra ______ olive oil” in its main feature!
However, of the answers we did get…
- About 54% said “It’s bad enough that our phones spy on us, without BCI monitoring our thoughts as well!”
- About 23% said “Sounds great in principle, but I don’t think we’re there yet safetywise”
- About 19% said “Sign me up for technological telepathy! I am ready for assimilation”
- One (1) person said “Electrode outside the skull are good; chips on the brain are bad”
But what does the science say?
We’re not there yet safetywise: True or False?
True, in our opinion, when it comes to the latest implants, anyway. While it’s very difficult to prove a negative (it could be that everything goes perfectly in human trials), “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far this seems to be lacking.
The stage before human trials is usually animal trials, starting with small creatures and working up to non-human primates if appropriate, before finally humans.
- Good news: the latest hot-topic BCI device (Neuralink) was tested on animals!
- Bad news: to say it did not go well would be an understatement
The Gruesome Story of How Neuralink’s Monkeys Actually Died
The above is a Wired article, and we tend to go for more objective sources, however we chose this one because it links to very many objective sources, including an open letter from the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine, which basically confirms everything in the Wired article. There are lots of links to primary (medical and legal) sources, too.
Electrodes outside the skull are good; chips on/in the brain are bad: True or False?
True or False depending on how they’re done. The Utah Array (an older BCI implant, now 20 years old, though it’s been updated many times since) has had a good safety record, after being used by a few dozen people with paralysis to control devices:
How the Utah Array is advancing BCI science
The Utah Array works on the same general principle as Neuralink, but the mechanics of its implementation are very different:
- The Utah Array involves a tiny bundle of microelectrodes (held together by a rigid structure that looks a bit like a nanoscale hairbrush) put in place by a brain surgeon, and that’s that.
- The Neuralink has a dynamic web of electrodes, implanted by a little robot that acts like a tiny sewing machine to implant many polymer threads, each containing its own a bunch of electrodes.
In theory, the latter is much more advanced. In practice, so far, the former has a much better safety record.
I am right to be a little worried about giving companies access to my brain: True or False?
True or False, depending on the nature of your concern.
For privacy: current BCI devices have quite simple switches operated consciously by the user. So while technically any such device that then runs its data through Bluetooth or WiFi could be hacked, this risk is no greater than using a wireless mouse and/or keyboard, because it has access to about the same amount of information.
For safety: yes, probably there is cause to be worried. Likely the first waves of commercial users of any given BCI device will be severely disabled people who are more likely to waive their rights in the hope of a life-changing assistance device, and likely some of those will suffer if things go wrong.
Which on the one hand, is their gamble to make. And on the other hand, makes rushing to human trials, for companies that do that, a little more predatory.
Take care!
Share This Post
ADHD For Smart Ass Women – by Tracy Otsuka
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 books about ADHD in adults before, what makes this one different? It’s the wholly female focus. Which is not to say some things won’t apply to men too, they will.
But while most books assume a male default unless it’s “bikini zone” health issues, this one is written by a woman for women focusing on the (biological and social) differences in ADHD for us.
A strength of the book is that it neither seeks to:
- over-medicalize things in a way that any deviation from the norm is inherently bad and must be fixed, nor
- pretend that everything’s a bonus, that we are superpowered and beautiful and perfect and capable and have no faults that might ever need addressing actually
…instead, it gives a good explanation of the ins and outs of ADHD in women, the strengths and weaknesses that this brings, and good solid advice on how to play to the strengths and reduce (or at least work around) the weaknesses.
Bottom line: this book has been described as “ADHD 2.0 (a very popular book that we’ve reviewed previously), but for women”, and it deserves that.
Click here to check out ADHD for Smart Ass Women, and fall in love with your neurodivergent brain!
Share This Post
Related Posts
Kidney Beans vs White Beans – 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 kidney beans to white beans, we picked the white.
Why?
It was close, and each has its strengths! Bear in mind, these are very closely-related beans. But as we say, there are distinguishing factors…
In terms of macros, kidney beans have very slightly more fiber and white beans have very slightly more protein. But both are close enough in both of those things to call this a tie in this category.
When it comes to vitamins, there are two ways of looking at this:
- kidney beans have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and K, while white beans have more vitamin B5, E, and choline
- kidney beans have slightly more of some vitamins that don’t usually see a deficiency, while white beans have 31x more vitamin E
Nevertheless, we’re sticking by our usual method of noting that this is a 7:3 win for kidney beans in this category; we just wanted to note that in practical health terms, an argument can be made for white beans on the vitamin front too.
In the category of minerals, kidney beans have slightly more phosphorus, while white beans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An easy win for white beans this time.
(In case you’re wondering about the margin on phosphorus, it was 0.2x more, so we’re not seeing a situation like white beans’ 31x more vitamin E)
In short: both are great and both have their strengths. Enjoy both, together if you like! But if we have to pick one, we’re going with white beans.
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:
What’s the difference between miscarriage and stillbirth?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.
Former US First Lady Michelle Obama revealed in her memoir she had a miscarriage. UK singer-songwriter and actor Lily Allen has gone on the record about her stillbirth.
Both miscarriage and stillbirth are sadly familiar terms for pregnancy loss. They can be traumatic life events for the prospective parents and family, and their impacts can be long-lasting. But the terms can be confused.
Here are some similarities and differences between miscarriage and stillbirth, and why they matter.
christinarosepix/Shutterstock Let’s start with some definitions
In broad terms, a miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends while the fetus is not yet viable (before it could survive outside the womb).
This is the loss of an “intra-uterine” pregnancy, when an embryo is implanted in the womb to then develop into a fetus. The term miscarriage excludes ectopic pregnancies, where the embryo is implanted outside the womb.
However, stillbirth refers to the end of a pregnancy when the fetus is normally viable. There may have been sufficient time into the pregnancy. Alternatively, the fetus may have grown large enough to be normally expected to survive, but it dies in the womb or during delivery.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare defines stillbirth as a fetal death of at least 20 completed weeks of gestation or with a birthweight of at least 400 grams.
Internationally, definitions of stillbirth vary depending on the jurisdiction.
How common are they?
It is difficult to know how common miscarriages are as they can happen when a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant. There may be no obvious symptoms or something that looks like a heavier-than-normal period. So miscarriages are likely to be more common than reported.
Studies from Europe and North America suggest a miscarriage occurs in about one in seven pregnancies (15%). More than one in eight women (13%) will have a miscarriage at some time in her life.
Around 1–2% of women have recurrent miscarriages. In Australia this is when someone has three or more miscarriages with no pregnancy in between.
Australia has one of the lowest rates of stillbirth in the world. The rate has been relatively steady over the past 20 years at 0.7% or around seven per 1,000 pregnancies.
Who’s at risk?
Someone who has already had a miscarriage or stillbirth has an increased risk of that outcome again in a subsequent pregnancy.
Compared with women who have had a live birth, those who have had a stillbirth have double the risk of another. For those who have had recurrent miscarriages, the risk of another miscarriage is four-fold higher.
Some factors have a u-shaped relationship, with the risk of miscarriage and stillbirth lowest in the middle.
For instance, maternal age is a risk factor for both miscarriage and stillbirth, especially if under 20 years old or older than 35. Increasing age of the male is only a risk factor for stillbirth, especially for fathers over 40.
An older dad can be a risk factor for stillbirth, but not miscarriage. Elizaveta Galitckaia/Shutterstock Similarly for maternal bodyweight, women with a body mass index or BMI in the normal range have the lowest risk of miscarriage and stillbirth compared with those in the obese or underweight categories.
Lifestyle factors such as smoking and heavy alcohol drinking while pregnant are also risk factors for both miscarriage and stillbirth.
So it’s important to not only avoid smoking and alcohol while pregnant, but before getting pregnant. This is because early in the pregnancy, women may not know they have conceived and could unwittingly expose the developing fetus.
Why do they happen?
Miscarriage often results from chromosomal problems in the developing fetus. However, genetic conditions or birth defects account for only 7-14% of stillbirths.
Instead, stillbirths often relate directly to pregnancy complications, such as a prolonged pregnancy or problems with the umbilical cord.
Maternal health at the time of pregnancy is another contributing factor in the risk of both miscarriage and stillbirths.
Chronic diseases, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), polycystic ovary syndrome, problems with the immune system (such as an autoimmune disorder), and some bacterial and viral infections are among factors that can increase the risk of miscarriage.
Similarly mothers with diabetes, high blood pressure, and untreated infections, such as malaria or syphilis, face an increased risk of stillbirth.
In many cases, however, the specific cause of pregnancy loss is not known.
How about the long-term health risks?
Miscarriage and stillbirth can be early indicators of health issues later in life.
For instance, women who have had recurrent miscarriages or recurrent stillbirths are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke).
Our research has also looked at the increased risk of stroke. Compared with women who had never miscarried, we found women with a history of three or more miscarriages had a 35% higher risk of non-fatal stroke and 82% higher risk of fatal stroke.
Women who had a stillbirth had a 31% higher risk of a non-fatal stroke, and those who had had two or more stillbirths were at a 26% higher risk of a fatal stroke.
We saw similar patterns in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, a progressive lung disease with respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness and coughing.
Our data showed women with a history of recurrent miscarriages or stillbirths were at a 36% or 67% higher risk of COPD, respectively, even after accounting for a history of asthma.
Long-term health risks of recurrent miscarriages or stillbirths include developing lung disease later in life. PRPicturesProduction/Shutterstock Why is all this important?
Being well-informed about the similarities and differences between these two traumatic life events may help explain what has happened to you or a loved one.
Where risk factors can be modified, such as smoking and obesity, this information can be empowering for individuals who wish to reduce their risk of miscarriage and stillbirth and make lifestyle changes before they become pregnant.
More information and support about miscarriage and stillbirth is available from SANDS and Pink Elephants.
Gita Mishra, Professor of Life Course Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland; Chen Liang, PhD student, reproductive history and non-communicable diseases in women, The University of Queensland, and Jenny Doust, Clinical Professorial Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland
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:
The Power of Fun – by Catherine Price
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 said that nobody’s dying regret is to wish they’d spent more time at the office, yet many of don’t make enough time for fun.
This book has been published with two different subtitles:
- Why fun is the key to a happy and healthy life
- How to feel alive again
One offers a sensible reason to read this book; the other offers a deeply emotional reason. Both are entirely valid.
Catherine Price sets out in this work to identify what fun actually is (she puts it at the intersection of playfulness, connection and flow) and how to have more of it (she gives a five-step method to build and integrate it into life).
In the category of criticism, this 334-page book is (in this reviewer’s opinion) a little padded and could have been an article instead. But the advice contained within it is sound, and the impact it can have might be profound.
Bottom line: if you find you’ve settled into a routine that’s perhaps comfortable, but not actually that much fun, this book will help you to liven things up.
Click here to check out The Power Of Fun, and feel more alive!
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:
