data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/884a9/884a9a7f80a44a73f666f4110eb52518e2e36579" alt=""
Heart-Healthy Gochujang Noodles
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.
Soba noodles are a good source of rutin, which is great for the heart and blood. Additionally, buckwheat (as soba noodles are made from) is healthier in various ways than rice, and certainly a lot healthier than wheat (remember that despite the name, buckwheat is about as related to wheat as a lionfish is to a lion). This dish is filled with more than just fiber though; there are a lot of powerful phytochemicals at play here, in the various kinds of cabbage, plus of course things like gingerol, capsaicin, allicin, and piperine.
You will need
- 14 oz “straight to wok” style soba noodles
- 3 bok choi (about 7 oz)
- 3½ oz red cabbage, thinly sliced
- 10 oz raw and peeled large shrimp (if you are vegan, vegetarian, allergic to shellfish/crustaceans, or observant of a religion that does not eat such, substitute with small cubes of firm tofu)
- 1 can (8 oz) sliced water chestnuts, drained (drained weight about 5 oz)
- 2 tbsp gochujang paste
- 2 tbsp low-sodium soy sauce
- 1 tbsp sesame oil
- 2 tsp garlic paste
- 2 tsp ginger paste
- 1 tbsp chia seeds
- Avocado oil for frying (or another oil suitable for high temperatures—so, not olive oil)
Note: ideally you will have a good quality gochujang paste always in your cupboard, as it’s a great and versatile condiment. However, you can make your own approximation, by blending 5 pitted Medjool dates, 1 tbsp rice wine vinegar, 2 tbsp tomato purée, 2 tsp red chili flakes, 1 tsp garlic granules, and ¼ tsp MSG or ½ tsp low-sodium salt. This is not exactly gochujang, but unless you want to go shopping for ingredients more obscure in Western stores than gochujang, it’s close enough.
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Mix together the gochujang paste with the sesame oil, soy sauce, garlic paste, and ginger paste, in a small bowl. Whisk in ¼ cup hot water, or a little more if it seems necessary, but go easy with it. This will be your stir-fry sauce.
2) Slice the base of the bok choi into thin disks; keep the leaves aside.
3) Heat the wok to the highest temperature you can safely muster, and add a little avocado oil followed by the shrimp. When they turn from gray to pink (this will take seconds, so be ready) add the sliced base of the bok choi, and also the sliced cabbage and water chestnuts, stirring frequently. Cook for about 2 minutes; do not reduce the heat.
4) Add the sauce you made, followed 1 minute later by the noodles, stirring them in, and finally the leafy tops of the bok choi.
5) Garnish with the chia seeds (or sesame seeds, but chia pack more of a nutritional punch), and serve:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- What Matters Most For Your Heart?
- Red Cabbage vs White Cabbage – Which is Healthier?
- Ginger Does A Lot More Than You Think
- The Many Health Benefits Of Garlic
- Capsaicin For Weight Loss And Against Inflammation
- Black Pepper’s Impressive Anti-Cancer Arsenal (And More)
- If You’re Not Taking Chia, You’re Missing Out
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How old’s too old to be a doctor? Why GPs and surgeons over 70 may need a health check to practise
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.
A growing number of complaints against older doctors has prompted the Medical Board of Australia to announce today that it’s reviewing how doctors aged 70 or older are regulated. Two new options are on the table.
The first would require doctors over 70 to undergo a detailed health assessment to determine their current and future “fitness to practise” in their particular area of medicine.
The second would require only general health checks for doctors over 70.
A third option acknowledges existing rules requiring doctors to maintain their health and competence. As part of their professional code of conduct, doctors must seek independent medical and psychological care to prevent harming themselves and their patients. So, this third option would maintain the status quo.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Haven’t we moved on from set retirement ages?
It might be surprising that stricter oversight of older doctors’ performance is proposed now. Critics of mandatory retirement ages in other fields – for judges, for instance – have long questioned whether these rules are “still valid in a modern society”.
However, unlike judges, doctors are already required to renew their registration annually to practise. This allows the Medical Board of Australia not only to access sound data about the prevalence and activity of older practitioners, but to assess their eligibility regularly and to conduct performance assessments if and when they are needed.
What has prompted these proposals?
This latest proposal identifies several emerging concerns about older doctors. These are grounded in external research about the effect of age on doctors’ competence as well as the regulator’s internal data showing surges of complaints about older doctors in recent years.
Studies of medical competence in ageing doctors show variable results. However, the Medical Board of Australia’s consultation document emphasises studies of neurocognitive loss. It explains how physical and cognitive impairment can lead to poor record-keeping, improper prescribing, as well as disruptive behaviour.
The other issue is the number of patient complaints against older doctors. These “notifications” have surged in recent years, as have the number of disciplinary actions against older doctors.
In 2022–2023, the Medical Board of Australia took disciplinary action against older doctors about 1.7 times more often than for doctors under 70.
In 2023, notifications against doctors over 70 were 81% higher than for the under 70s. In that year, patients sent 485 notifications to the Medical Board of Australia about older doctors – up from 189 in 2015.
While older doctors make up only about 5.3% of the doctor workforce in Australia (less than 1% over 80), this only makes the high numbers of complaints more starkly disproportionate.
It’s for these reasons that the Medical Board of Australia has determined it should take further regulatory action to safeguard the health of patients.
So what distinguishes the two new proposed options?
The “fitness to practise” assessment option would entail a rigorous assessment of doctors over 70 based on their specialisation. It would be required every three years after the age of 70 and every year after 80.
Surgeons, for example, would be assessed by an independent occupational physician for dexterity, sight and the ability to give clinical instructions.
Importantly, the results of these assessments would usually be confidential between the assessor and the doctor. Only doctors who were found to pose a substantial risk to the public, which was not being managed, would be obliged to report their health condition to the Medical Board of Australia.
The second option would be a more general health check not linked to the doctor’s specific role. It would occur at the same intervals as the “fitness to practise” assessment. However, its purpose would be merely to promote good health-care decision-making among health practitioners. There would be no general obligation on a doctor to report the results to the Medical Board of Australia.
In practice, both of these proposals appear to allow doctors to manage their own general health confidentially.
Older surgeons could be independently assessed for dexterity, sight and the ability to give clinical instructions. worradirek/Shutterstock The law tends to prioritise patient safety
All state versions of the legal regime regulating doctors, known as the National Accreditation and Registration Scheme, include a “paramountcy” provision. That provision basically says patient safety is paramount and trumps all other considerations.
As with legal regimes regulating childcare, health practitioner regulation prioritises the health and safety of the person receiving the care over the rights of the licensed professional.
Complicating this further, is the fact that a longstanding principle of health practitioner regulation has been that doctors should not be “punished” for errors in practice.
All of this means that reforms of this nature can be difficult to introduce and that the balance between patient safety and professional entitlements must be handled with care.
Could these proposals amount to age discrimination?
It is premature to analyse the legal implications of these proposals. So it’s difficult to say how these proposals interact with Commonwealth age- and other anti-discrimination laws.
For instance, one complication is that the federal age discrimination statute includes an exemption to allow “qualifying bodies” such as the Medical Board of Australia to discriminate against older professionals who are “unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the profession, trade or occupation because of his or her age”.
In broader terms, a licence to practise medicine is often compared to a licence to drive or pilot an aircraft. Despite claims of discrimination, New South Wales law requires older drivers to undergo a medical assessment every year; and similar requirements affect older pilots and air traffic controllers.
Where to from here?
When changes are proposed to health practitioner regulation, there is typically much media attention followed by a consultation and behind-the-scenes negotiation process. This issue is no different.
How will doctors respond to the proposed changes? It’s too soon to say. If the proposals are implemented, it’s possible some older doctors might retire rather than undergo these mandatory health assessments. Some may argue that encouraging more older doctors to retire is precisely the point of these proposals. However, others have suggested this would only exacerbate shortages in the health-care workforce.
The proposals are open for public comment until October 4.
Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
The Art and Science of Connection – by Kasley Killam, MPH
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 can eat well, exercise well, and even sleep well, and we’ll still have a +53% increased all-cause mortality if we lack social connection—even if we technically have support and access to social resources, just not the real human connection itself. And as we get older, it gets increasingly easy to find ourselves isolated.
The author is a social scientist by profession, and it shows. None of what she shares in the book is wishy-washy; it has abundant scientific references coming thick and fast, and a great deal of clarity with regard to terms, something often not found in books of this genre that lean more towards the art than the science.
On which note, for the reader who may be thinking “I am indeed quite alone”, she also offers proven techniques for remedying that; not in the way that many books use the word “proven” to mean “we got some testimonials”, but rather, proven in the sense of “we did science to it and based on these 17 large population-based retrospective cohort studies, we can say with 99% confidence that this is an effective tool to mediate improved social bonds and social health outcomes”.
To this end, it’s a very practical book also, and should bestow upon any isolated reader a sense of confidence that in fact, things can be better. A particular strength is that it also looks at many different scenarios, so for the “what if I…” people with clear reasons why social connection is not abundantly available, yes, she has such cases covered too.
Bottom line: if you’d like to live more healthily for longer, social health is an underrated and oft-forgotten way of greatly increasing those things, by science.
Click here to check out The Art And Science Of Social Connection, and get connected!
Share This Post
-
CBD Against Diabetes!
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 Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝CBD for diabetes! I’ve taken CBD for body pain. Did no good. Didn’t pay attention as to diabetes. I’m type 1 for 62 years. Any ideas?❞
Thanks for asking! First up, for reference, here’s our previous main feature on the topic of CBD:
CBD Oil: What Does The Science Say?
There, we touched on CBD’s effects re diabetes:
in mice / in vitro / in humans
In summary, according to the above studies, it…
- lowered incidence of diabetes in non-obese diabetic mice. By this they mean that pancreatic function improved (reduced insulitis and reduced inflammatory Th1-associated cytokine production). Obviously this has strong implications for Type 1 Diabetes in humans—but so far, just that, implications (because you are not a mouse).
- attenuated high glucose-induced endothelial cell inflammatory response and barrier disruption. Again, this is promising, but it was an in vitro study in very controlled lab conditions, and sometimes “what happens in the Petri dish, stays in the Petri dish”—in order words, these results may or may not translate to actual living humans.
- Improved insulin response ← is the main take-away that we got from reading through their numerical results, since there was no convenient conclusion given. Superficially, this may be of more interest to those with type 2 diabetes, but then again, if you have T1D and then acquire insulin resistance on top of that, you stand a good chance of dying on account of your exogenous insulin no longer working. In the case of T2D, “the pancreas will provide” (more or less), T1D, not so much.
So, what else is there out there?
The American Diabetes Association does not give a glowing review:
❝There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies. ❞
~ American Diabetes Association
Source: ADA | CBD & Diabetes
Of course, that’s type 2, but most research out there is for type 2, or else have been in vitro or rodent studies (and not many of those, at that).
Here’s a relatively more recent study that echoes the results of the previous mouse study we mentioned; it found:
❝CBD-treated non-obese diabetic mice developed T1D later and showed significantly reduced leukocyte activation and increased FCD in the pancreatic microcirculation.
Conclusions: Experimental CBD treatment reduced markers of inflammation in the microcirculation of the pancreas studied by intravital microscopy. ❞
~ Dr. Christian Lehmann et al.
Read more: Experimental cannabidiol treatment reduces early pancreatic inflammation in type 1 diabetes
…and here’s a 2020 study (so, more recent again) that was this time rats, and/but still more promising, insofar as it was with rats that had full-blown T1D already:
Read in full: Two-weeks treatment with cannabidiol improves biophysical and behavioral deficits associated with experimental type-1 diabetes
Finally, a paper in July 2023 (so, since our previous article about CBD), looked at the benefits of CBD against diabetes-related complications (so, applicable to most people with any kind of diabetes), and concluded:
❝CBDis of great value in the treatment of diabetes and its complications. CBD can improve pancreatic islet function, reduce pancreatic inflammation and improve insulin resistance. For diabetic complications, CBD not only has a preventive effect but also has a therapeutic value for existing diabetic complications and improves the function of target organs❞
…before continuing:
❝However, the safety and effectiveness of CBD are still needed to prove. It should be acknowledged that the clinical application of CBD in the treatment of diabetes and its complications has a long way to go.
The dissecting of the pharmacology and therapeutic role of CBD in diabetes would guide the future development of CBD-based therapeutics for treating diabetes and diabetic complications❞
~ Ibid.
Now, the first part of that is standard ass-covering, and the second part of that is standard “please fund more studies please”. Nevertheless, we must also not fail to take heed—little is guaranteed, especially when it comes to an area of research where the science is still very young.
In summary…
It seems well worth a try, and with ostensibly nothing to lose except the financial cost of the CBD.
If you do, you might want to keep careful track of a) your usual diabetes metrics (blood sugar levels before and after meals, insulin taken), and b) when you took CBD, what dose, etc, so you can do some citizen science here.
Lastly: please remember our standard disclaimer; we are not doctors, let alone your doctors, so please do check with your endocrinologist before undertaking any such changes!
Want to read more?
You might like our previous main feature:
How To Prevent And Reverse Type 2 Diabetes ← obviously this will not prevent or reverse Type 1 Diabetes, but avoiding insulin resistance is good in any case!
If you’re not diabetic and you’ve perhaps been confused throughout this article, then firstly thank you for your patience, and secondly you might like this quick primer:
The Sweet Truth About Diabetes: Debunking Diabetes Myths! ← this gives a simplified but fair overview of types 1 & 2
(for space, we didn’t cover the much less common types 3 & 4; perhaps another time we will)
Meanwhile, take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Calculate (And Enjoy) The Perfect Night’s Sleep
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.
This is Dr. Michael Breus, a clinical psychologist and sleep specialist, and he wants you to get a good night’s sleep, every night.
First, let’s assume you know a lot of good advice about how to do that already in terms of environment and preparation, etc. If you want a recap before proceeding, then we recommend:
Get Better Sleep: Beyond The Basics
Now, what does he want to add?
Wake up refreshed
Of course, how obtainable this is will depend on the previous night’s sleep, but there is something important we can do here regardless, and it’s: beat sleep inertia.
Sleep inertia is what happens when we wake up groggy (for reasons other than being ill, drugged, etc) rather than refreshed. It’s not actually related to how much sleep we have, though!
Rather, it pertains to whether we woke up during a sleep cycle, or between cycles:
- If we wake up between sleep cycles, we’ll avoid sleep inertia.
- If we wake up during a sleep cycle, we’ll be groggy.
Deep sleep generally occurs in 90-minute blocks, albeit secretly that is generally 3× 20 minute blocks in a trenchcoat, with transition periods between, during which the brainwaves change frequency.
REM sleep generally occurs in 20 minute blocks, and will usually arrive in series towards the end of our natural sleep period, to fit neatly into the last 90-minute cycle.
Sometimes these will appear a little out of order, because we are complicated organic beings, but those are the general trends.
In any case, the take-away here is: interrupt them at your peril. You need to wake up between cycles. There are two ways you can do this:
- Carefully calculate everything, and set a very precise alarm clock (this will work so long as you are correct in guessing how long it will take you to fall asleep)
- Use a “sunrise” lamp alarm clock, that in the hour approaching your set alarm time, will gradually increase the light. Because the body will not naturally wake up during a cycle unless a threat is perceived (loud noise, physical rousing, etc), the sunrise lamp method means that you will wake up between sleep cycles at some point during that hour (towards the beginning or end, depending on what your sleep balance/debt is like).
Do not sleep in (even if you have a sleep debt); it will throw everything out.
Caffeine will not help much in the morning
Assuming you got a reasonable night’s sleep, your brain has been cleansed of adenosine (a sleepy chemical), and if you are suffering from sleep inertia, the grogginess is due to melatonin (a different sleepy chemical).
Caffeine is an adenosine receptor blocker, so that will do nothing to mitigate the effects of melatonin in your brain that doesn’t have any meaningful quantity of adenosine in it in the morning.
Adenosine gradually accumulates in the brain over the course of the day (and then gets washed out while we sleep), so if you’re sleepy in the afternoon (for reasons other than: you just had a nap and now have sleep inertia again), then caffeine can block that adenosine in the afternoon.
Of course, caffeine is also a stimulant (it increases adrenaline levels and promotes vasoconstriction), but its effects at healthily small doses are modest for most people, and you’d do better by splashing cold water on your face and/or listening to some upbeat music.
Learn more: The Two Sides Of Caffeine
Time your naps correctly (if you take naps)
Dr. Breus has a lot to say about this, based on a lot of clinical research, but as it’s entirely consistent with what we’ve written before (based on the exact same research), to save space we’ll link to that here:
How To Be An Expert Nap-Artist (With No “Sleep-Hangovers”)
Calculate your bedtime correctly
Remember what we said about sleep cycles? This means that that famous “7–9 hours sleep” is actually “either 7½ or 9 hours sleep”—because those are multiples of 90 minutes, whereas 8 hours (for example) is not.
So, consider the time you want to get up (ideally, this should be relatively early, and the same time every day), and then count backwards either 7½ or 9 hours sleep (you choose), add 20–30 minutes to fall asleep, and that’s your bedtime.
So for example: if you want to have 7½ hours sleep and get up at 6am, then your bedtime is anywhere between 10pm and 10:10pm.
Remember how we said not to sleep in, even if you have a sleep debt? Now is the time to pay it off, if you have one. If you normally sleep 7½ hours, then make tonight a 9-hour sleep (plus 20–30 minutes to fall asleep). This means you’ll still get up at 6am, but your bedtime is now anywhere between 8:30pm and 8:40pm.
Want to know more from Dr. Breus?
You might like this excellent book of his that we reviewed a while back:
The Power of When – by Dr. Michael Breus
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:
-
Long-acting contraceptives seem to be as safe as the pill when it comes to cancer risk
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.
Many women worry hormonal contraceptives have dangerous side-effects including increased cancer risk. But this perception is often out of proportion with the actual risks.
So, what does the research actually say about cancer risk for contraceptive users?
And is your cancer risk different if, instead of the pill, you use long-acting reversible contraceptives? These include intrauterine devices or IUDs (such as Mirena), implants under the skin (such as Implanon), and injections (such as Depo Provera).
Our new study, conducted by the University of Queensland and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute and published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, looked at this question.
We found long-acting contraceptives seem to be as safe as the pill when it comes to cancer risk (which is good news) but not necessarily any safer than the pill.
Peakstock/Shutterstock Some hormonal contraceptives take the form of implants under the skin. WiP-Studio/Shutterstock How does the contraceptive pill affect cancer risk?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which compiles evidence on cancer causes, has concluded that oral contraceptives have mixed effects on cancer risk.
Using the oral contraceptive pill:
- slightly increases your risk of breast and cervical cancer in the short term, but
- substantially reduces your risk of cancers of the uterus and ovaries in the longer term.
Our earlier work showed the pill was responsible for preventing far more cancers overall than it contributed to.
In previous research we estimated that in 2010, oral contraceptive pill use prevented over 1,300 cases of endometrial and ovarian cancers in Australian women.
It also prevented almost 500 deaths from these cancers in 2013. This is a reduction of around 25% in the deaths that could have occurred that year if women hadn’t taken the pill.
In contrast, we calculated the pill may have contributed to around 15 deaths from breast cancer in 2013, which is less than 0.5% of all breast cancer deaths in that year.
Previous work showed the pill was responsible for preventing far more cancers overall than it contributed to. Image Point Fr What about long-acting reversible contraceptives and cancer risk?
Long-acting reversible contraceptives – which include intrauterine devices or IUDs, implants under the skin, and injections – release progesterone-like hormones.
These are very effective contraceptives that can last from a few months (injections) up to seven years (intrauterine devices).
Notably, they don’t contain the hormone oestrogen, which may be responsible for some of the side-effects of the pill (including perhaps contributing to a higher risk of breast cancer).
Use of these long-acting contraceptives has doubled over the past decade, while the use of the pill has declined. So it’s important to know whether this change could affect cancer risk for Australian women.
Our new study of more than 1 million Australian women investigated whether long-acting, reversible contraceptives affect risk of invasive cancers. We compared the results to the oral contraceptive pill.
We used de-identified health records for Australian women aged 55 and under in 2002.
Among this group, about 176,000 were diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2013 when the oldest women were aged 67. We compared hormonal contraceptive use among these women who got cancer to women without cancer.
We found that long-term users of all types of hormonal contraception had around a 70% lower risk of developing endometrial cancer in the years after use. In other words, the risk of developing endometrial cancer is substantially lower among women who took hormonal contraception compared to those who didn’t.
For ovarian cancer, we saw a 50% reduced risk (compared to those who took no hormonal contraception) for women who were long-term users of the hormone-containing IUD.
The risk reduction was not as marked for the implants or injections, however few long-term users of these products developed these cancers in our study.
As the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers increases with age, it will be important to look at cancer risk in these women as they get older.
What about breast cancer risk?
Our findings suggest that the risk of breast cancer for current users of long-acting contraceptives is similar to users of the pill.
However, the contraceptive injection was only associated with an increase in breast cancer risk after five years of use and there was no longer a higher risk once women stopped using them.
Our results suggested that the risk of breast cancer also reduces after stopping use of the contraceptive implants.
We will need to follow-up the women for longer to determine whether this is also the case for the IUD.
It is worth emphasising that the breast cancer risk associated with all hormonal contraceptives is very small.
About 30 in every 100,000 women aged 20 to 39 years develop breast cancer each year, and any hormonal contraceptive use would only increase this to around 36 cases per 100,000.
What about other cancers?
Our study did not show any consistent relationships between contraceptive use and other cancers types. However, we only at looked at invasive cancers (meaning those that start at a primary site but have the potential to spread to other parts of the body).
A recent French study found that prolonged use of the contraceptive injection increased the risk of meningioma (a type of benign brain tumour).
However, meningiomas are rare, especially in young women. There are around two cases in every 100,000 in women aged 20–39, so the extra number of cases linked to contraceptive injection use was small.
The French study found the hormonal IUD did not increase meningioma risk (and they did not investigate contraceptive implants).
Benefits and side-effects
There are benefits and side-effects for all medicines, including contraceptives, but it is important to know most very serious side-effects are rare.
A conversation with your doctor about the balance of benefits and side-effects for you is always a good place to start.
Susan Jordan, Professor of Epidemiology, The University of Queensland; Karen Tuesley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, and Penny Webb, Distinguished Scientist, Gynaecological Cancers Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
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:
-
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: