Heavy Metal Detox In A Pill?

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 have previous discussed assorted approaches to “detoxing”:

Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?

Today we’re going to be looking at one we didn’t cover there, which is zeolite.

What is zeolite?

Zeolite is a mineral that occurs naturally and can also be synthesized, and it’s famous for absorbing other stuff from around it. Because of this property, it’s used in many things, including:

  • Petrochemical catalysis
  • Water treatment
  • Nuclear waste reprocessing
  • Cat litter
  • Supplements (for detox purposes)

That’s, uh… An interesting list, isn’t it? So, we were curious as to whether this mineral that’s also used in fish tank filters is, in fact, overpriced gravel being sold to the gullible as a health supplement.

We had to do some digging on this one

Our journey didn’t start well, with this very dubious-looking paper being cited by a company selling zeolite supplements:

MasterPeace™ Zeolite Z™ Pilot Study Found to be Safe and Effective in Removing Nano and Micro Toxic Forever Chemicals, Heavy Metals, Micro Plastics and Graphene and Aluminum Found in the Human Body Cells and Fluids

This immediately prompted two questions:

  1. Who is eating graphene?!* That stuff does not occur in nature (or at least; it hasn’t ever been found; the universe is a big place so it might exist elsewhere), has only relatively recently been synthesized, is very difficult to produce, is two-dimensional while being hard as diamonds, and exists only in truly tiny lab-made quantities worldwide. It would be orders of magnitude easier to find and eat uranium.
  2. Is this a reputable journal? Which question was easier to answer than the former one, and the answer is “no”; we hadn’t heard of this journal (ACTA Scientific), and neither it seems had most of the Internet, but we did find it on a list of predatory journals, here.

*The citation given in the above paper should by rights answer the question of who is eating graphene, since by rights they must have demonstrated it somehow, but it just doesn’t. Instead, it links to what it claims is a paper titled “Oxygenated Zeolite (Clinoptilite) Efficiently Removes Aluminum & Graphene Oxide”, but is in reality just someone’s blog post with a screenshot of an actual paper entitled “Novel, oxygenated clinoptilolite material efficiently removes aluminium from aluminium chloride-intoxicated rats in vivo”). Looking up this real paper in its real journal, it does not mention graphene.

All this to say: sometimes, unscrupulous people will just plain lie to you, which is why peer review is important, as is sourcing data from reputable journals. Which is what we do for you so that you don’t have to 🙂

It does, actually, work though (for heavy metal detox)

Notwithstanding the aforementioned bunk, we found this from a more reputable publisher:

❝In this study, we have presented clinical evidence supporting the use of an activated clinoptilolite (zeolite) suspension to safely and effectively increase the urinary excretion of potentially toxic heavy metals in healthy volunteers without negatively impacting the electrolyte profiles of the participants.

Significant increases in the urinary excretion of aluminum, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel and tin were observed in the subjects participating in the two study groups as compared to placebo controls.❞

Source: Clinical evidence supporting the use of an activated clinoptilolite suspension as an agent to increase urinary excretion of toxic heavy metals

Also good for the gut and against inflammation

Specifically, it’s good for gut barrier integrity, i.e., against “leaky gut syndrome”:

❝Twelve weeks of zeolite supplementation exerted beneficial effects on intestinal wall integrity as indicated via decreased concentrations of the tight junction modulator zonulin.

This was accompanied by mild anti-inflammatory effects in this cohort of aerobically trained subjects.❞

Source: Effects of zeolite supplementation on parameters of intestinal barrier integrity, inflammation, redoxbiology and performance in aerobically trained subjects

May also be good against neurodegenerative diseases

If it is (which is plausible), it’ll probably because of removing heavy metals and improving gut barrier integrity—in other words, the things we just looked at in the two reputable peer-reviewed studies we examined above.

But the science is young for this one; here’s the current state of things:

Zeolite and Neurodegenerative Diseases

Is it safe?

Safety reviews have found it to be safe, for example:

Critical Review on Zeolite Clinoptilolite Safety and Medical Applications in vivo

However, if you are taking regular medications, we recommend checking with your pharmacist or doctor to ensure that zeolite will not also remove those medications from your system!

Want to try some?

We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon 😎

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Resveratrol & Healthy Aging
  • HIIT, But Make It HIRT
    Dive into the dynamic world of HIIT and HIRT with athlete and trainer Ingrid Clay, backed by science to transform your workout routine.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Daily Activity Levels & The Measurable Difference They Make To Brain Health

    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.

    Most studies into the difference that exercise makes to cognitive decline are retrospective, i.e. they look backwards in time, asking participants what their exercise habits were like in the past [so many] years, and tallying that against their cognitive health in the present.

    Some studies are interventional, and those are most often 3, 6, or 12 months, depending on funding. In those cases, they make a hypothesis (e.g. this intervention will boost this measure of brain health) and then test it.

    However, humans aren’t generally great at making short term decisions for long term gains. In other words: if it’s rainy out, or you’re a little pushed for time, you’re likely to take the car over walking regardless of what data point this adjusts in an overarching pattern that will affect your brain’s amyloid-β clean-up rates in 5–20 years time.

    Nine days

    The study we’re going to look at today was a 9-day observational study, using smartphone-based tracking with check-ins every 3½ hours, with participants reporting their physical activity as light, moderate, or intense (these terms were defined and exemplified, so that everyone involved was singing from the same songsheet in terms of what activities constitute what intensity).

    The sample size was reasonable (n=204) and was generally heterogenous sample (i.e. varied in terms of sex, racial background, and fitness level) of New Yorkers aged 40–65.

    So, the input variable was activity level, and the output variable was cognitive fitness.

    As to how they measured the output, two brain games assessed:

    1. cognitive processing speed, and
    2. working memory (a proxy for executive function).

    What they found:

    1. participants active within the last 3½ hours had faster processing speed, equivalent to being four years younger
    2. response times in the working memory (for: executive function) task reflected similar processing speed improvements, for participants active in the last 3½ hours

    And, which is important to note,

    ❝This benefit was observed regardless of whether the activities they reported were higher intensity (e.g., running/jogging) or lower intensity (e.g., walking, chores).❞

    ~ Dr. Lizbeth Benson et al.

    Source: Cognitive Health Benefits of Everyday Physical Activity in a Diverse Sample of Middle-Aged Adults

    Practical take-away:

    Move more often! At least every couple of hours (when not sleeping)!

    The benefits will benefit you in the now, as well as down the line.

    See also:

    The Doctor Who Wants Us To Exercise Less, & Move More

    and, for that matter:

    Do You Love To Go To The Gym? No? Enjoy These “No-Exercise Exercises”!

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • What’s the difference between ‘man flu’ and flu? Hint: men may not be exaggerating

    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.

    The term “man flu” takes a humorous poke at men with minor respiratory infections, such as colds, who supposedly exaggerate their symptoms.

    According to the stereotype, a man lies on the sofa with a box of tissues. Meanwhile his female partner, also with a snotty nose, carries on working from home, doing the chores and looking after him.

    But is man flu real? Is there a valid biological reason behind men’s symptoms or are men just malingering? And how does man flu differ from flu?

    baranq/Shutterstock

    What are the similarities?

    Man flu could refer to a number of respiratory infections – a cold, flu, even a mild case of COVID. So it’s difficult to compare man flu with flu.

    But for simplicity, let’s say man flu is actually a cold. If that’s the case, man flu and flu have some similar features.

    Both are caused by viruses (but different ones). Both are improved with rest, fluids, and if needed painkillers, throat lozenges or decongestants to manage symptoms.

    Both can share similar symptoms. Typically, more severe symptoms such as fever, body aches, violent shivering and headaches are more common in flu (but sometimes occur in colds). Meanwhile sore throats, runny noses, congestion and sneezing are more common in colds. A cough is common in both.

    What are the differences?

    Flu is a more serious and sometimes fatal respiratory infection caused by the influenza virus. Colds are caused by various viruses such as rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, and common cold coronaviruses, and are rarely serious.
    Colds tend to start gradually while flu tends to start abruptly.

    Flu can be detected with laboratory or at-home tests. Man flu is not an official diagnosis.

    Severe flu symptoms may be prevented with a vaccine, while cold symptoms cannot.

    Serious flu infections may also be prevented or treated with antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu. There are no antivirals for colds.

    OK, but is man flu real?

    Again, let’s assume man flu is a cold. Do men really have worse colds than women? The picture is complicated.

    One study, with the title “Man flu is not a thing”, did in fact show there were differences in men’s and women’s symptoms.

    This study looked at symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis. That’s inflammation of the nasal passages and sinuses, which would explain a runny or stuffy nose, a sinus headache or face pain.

    When researchers assessed participants at the start of the study, men and women had similar symptoms. But by days five and eight of the study, women had fewer or less-severe symptoms. In other words, women had recovered faster.

    But when participants rated their own symptoms, we saw a somewhat different picture. Women rated their symptoms worse than how the researchers rated them at the start, but said they recovered more quickly.

    All this suggests men were not exaggerating their symptoms and did indeed recover more slowly. It also suggests women feel their symptoms more strongly at the start.

    Why is this happening?

    It’s not straightforward to tease out what’s going on biologically.

    There are differences in immune responses between men and women that provide a plausible reason for worse symptoms in men.

    For instance, women generally produce antibodies more efficiently, so they respond more effectively to vaccination. Other aspects of women’s immune system also appear to work more strongly.

    So why do women tend to have stronger immune responses overall? That’s probably partly because women have two X chromosomes while men have one. X chromosomes carry important immune function genes. This gives women the benefit of immune-related genes from two different chromosomes.

    XX female chromosomes
    X chromosomes carry important immune function genes. Rost9/Shutterstock

    Oestrogen (the female sex hormone) also seems to strengthen the immune response, and as levels vary throughout the lifespan, so does the strength of women’s immune systems.

    Men are certainly more likely to die from some infectious diseases, such as COVID. But the picture is less clear with other infections such as the flu, where the incidence and mortality between men and women varies widely between countries and particular flu subtypes and outbreaks.

    Infection rates and outcomes in men and women can also depend on the way a virus is transmitted, the person’s age, and social and behavioural factors.

    For instance, women seem to be more likely to practice protective behaviours such as washing their hands, wearing masks or avoiding crowded indoor spaces. Women are also more likely to seek medical care when ill.

    So men aren’t faking it?

    Some evidence suggests men are not over-reporting symptoms, and may take longer to clear an infection. So they may experience man flu more harshly than women with a cold.

    So cut the men in your life some slack. If they are sick, gender stereotyping is unhelpful, and may discourage men from seeking medical advice.

    Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

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

    Share This Post

  • What’s the difference between physical and chemical sunscreens? And which one should you choose?

    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.

    Sun exposure can accelerate ageing, cause skin burns, erythema (a skin reaction), skin cancer, melasmas (or sun spots) and other forms of hyperpigmentation – all triggered by solar ultraviolet radiation.

    Approximately 80% of skin cancer cases in people engaged in outdoor activities are preventable by decreasing sun exposure. This can be done in lots of ways including wearing protective clothing or sunscreens.

    But not all sunscreens work in the same way. You might have heard of “physical” and “chemical” sunscreens. What’s the difference and which one is right for you?

    How sunscreens are classified

    Sunscreens are grouped by their use of active inorganic and organic ultraviolet (UV) filters. Chemical sunscreens use organic filters such as cinnamates (chemically related to cinnamon oil) and benzophenones. Physical sunscreens (sometimes called mineral sunscreens) use inorganic filters such as titanium and zinc oxide.

    These filters prevent the effects of UV radiation on the skin.

    Organic UV filters are known as chemical filters because the molecules in them change to stop UV radiation reaching the skin. Inorganic UV filters are known as physical filters, because they work through physical means, such as blocking, scattering and reflection of UV radiation to prevent skin damage.

    Nano versus micro

    The effectiveness of the filters in physical sunscreen depends on factors including the size of the particle, how it’s mixed into the cream or lotion, the amount used and the refraction index (the speed light travels through a substance) of each filter.

    When the particle size in physical sunscreens is large, it causes the light to be scattered and reflected more. That means physical sunscreens can be more obvious on the skin, which can reduce their cosmetic appeal.

    Nanoparticulate forms of physical sunscreens (with tiny particles smaller than 100 nanometers) can improve the cosmetic appearance of creams on the skin and UV protection, because the particles in this size range absorb more radiation than they reflect. These are sometimes labelled as “invisible” zinc or mineral formulations and are considered safe.

    So how do chemical sunscreens work?

    Chemical UV filters work by absorbing high-energy UV rays. This leads to the filter molecules interacting with sunlight and changing chemically.

    When molecules return to their ground (or lower energy) state, they release energy as heat, distributed all over the skin. This may lead to uncomfortable reactions for people with skin sensitivity.

    Generally, UV filters are meant to stay on the epidermis (the first skin layer) surface to protect it from UV radiation. When they enter into the dermis (the connective tissue layer) and bloodstream, this can lead to skin sensitivity and increase the risk of toxicity. The safety profile of chemical UV filters may depend on whether their small molecular size allows them to penetrate the skin.

    Chemical sunscreens, compared to physical ones, cause more adverse reactions in the skin because of chemical changes in their molecules. In addition, some chemical filters, such as dibenzoylmethane tend to break down after UV exposure. These degraded products can no longer protect the skin against UV and, if they penetrate the skin, can cause cell damage.

    Due to their stability – that is, how well they retain product integrity and effectiveness when exposed to sunlight – physical sunscreens may be more suitable for children and people with skin allergies.

    Although sunscreen filter ingredients can rarely cause true allergic dermatitis, patients with photodermatoses (where the skin reacts to light) and eczema have higher risk and should take care and seek advice.

    What to look for

    The best way to check if you’ll have a reaction to a physical or chemical sunscreen is to patch test it on a small area of skin.

    And the best sunscreen to choose is one that provides broad-spectrum protection, is water and sweat-resistant, has a high sun protection factor (SPF), is easy to apply and has a low allergy risk.

    Health authorities recommend sunscreen to prevent sun damage and cancer. Chemical sunscreens have the potential to penetrate the skin and may cause irritation for some people. Physical sunscreens are considered safe and effective and nanoparticulate formulations can increase their appeal and ease of use.The Conversation

    Yousuf Mohammed, Dermatology researcher, The University of Queensland and Khanh Phan, Postdoctoral research associate, Frazer Institute, The University of Queensland

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Resveratrol & Healthy Aging
  • 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?

    A bar chart showing the percentage of people who use social media, emphasizing its safety.

    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!

    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:

  • How Aging Changes At 44 And Again At 60 (And What To Do About It)

    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.

    As it turns out, aging is not linear. Or rather: chronological aging may be, but biological aging isn’t, and there are parts of our life where it kicks into a different gear. This study looked at 108 people (65 of whom women) between the ages of 25 and 75, as part of a longitudinal cohort study, tracked for around 2–8 years (imprecise as not all follow-up durations were the same). They took frequent blood and urine samples, and tested them for thousands of different molecules and analyzing changes in gene expression, proteomic, blood biomarkers, and more. All things that are indicators of various kinds of health/disease, and which might seem more simple but it isn’t: aging.

    Here’s what they found:

    Landmark waypoints

    At 44, significant changes occur in the metabolism, including notably the metabolism of carbs, caffeine, and alcohol. A large portion of this may be hormone related, as that’s a time of change not just for those undergoing the menopause, but also the andropause (not entirely analogous to the menopause, but it does usually entail a significant reduction in sex hormone production; in this case, testosterone).

    However, the study authors also hypothesize that lifestyle factors may be relevant, as one’s 40s are often a stressful time, and an increase in alcohol consumption often occurs around the same time as one’s ability to metabolize it drops, resulting in further dysfunctional alcohol metabolism.

    At 60, carb metabolism slows again, with big changes in glucose metabolism specifically, as well as an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and a decline in kidney function. In case that wasn’t enough: also an increase free radical pathology, meaning a greatly increased risk of cancer. Immune function drops too.

    What to do about this: the recommendation is of course to be proactive, and look after various aspects of your health before it becomes readily apparent that you need to. For example, good advice for anyone approaching 44 might be to quit alcohol, go easy on caffeine, and eat a diet that is conducive to good glucose metabolism. Similarly, good advice for anyone approaching 60 might be to do the same, and also pay close attention to keeping your kidneys healthy. Getting regular tests done is also key, including optional extras that your doctor might not suggest but you should ask for, such as blood urea nitrogen levels (biomarkers of kidney function). The more we look after each part of our body, the more they can look after us in turn, and the fewer/smaller problems we’ll have down the line.

    If you, dear reader, are approaching the age 44 or 60… Be neither despondent nor complacent. We must avoid falling into the dual traps of “Well, that’s it, bad health is around the corner, nothing I can do about it; that’s nature”, vs “I’ll be fine, statistics are for other people, and don’t apply to me”.

    Those are averages, and we do not have to be average. Every population has statistical outliers. But it would be hubris to think none of this will apply to us and we can just carry on regardless. So, for those of us who are approaching one of those two ages… It’s time to saddle up, knuckle down, and do our best!

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Also, if you’d like to read the actual paper by Dr. Xiaotao Shen et al., here it is:

    Nonlinear dynamics of multi-omics profiles during human aging ← honestly, it’s a lot clearer and more informative than the video, and also obviously discusses things in a lot more detail than we have room to here

    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:

  • Staying Healthy and Active After 60

    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.

    Questions and Answers at 10almonds

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    This newsletter has been growing a lot lately, and so have the questions/requests, and we love that! 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

    Q: How to be your best self after 60: Self motivation / Avoiding or limiting salt, sugar & alcohol: Alternatives / Ways to sneak in more movements/exercise

    …and, from a different subscriber…

    Q: Inflammation & over 60 weight loss. Thanks!

    Here are some of our greatest hits on those topics:

    Also, while we’ve recommended a couple of books on stopping (or reducing) drinking, we’ve not done a main feature on that, so we definitely will one of these days!

    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: