Syphilis Is Killing Babies. The U.S. Government Is Failing to Stop the Disease From Spreading.

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.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Karmin Strohfus, the lead nurse at a South Dakota jail, punched numbers into a phone like lives depended on it. She had in her care a pregnant woman with syphilis, a highly contagious, potentially fatal infection that can pass into the womb. A treatment could cure the woman and protect her fetus, but she couldn’t find it in stock at any pharmacy she called — not in Hughes County, not even anywhere within an hour’s drive.

Most people held at the jail where Strohfus works are released within a few days. “What happens if she gets out before I’m able to treat her?” she worried. Exasperated, Strohfus reached out to the state health department, which came through with one dose. The treatment required three. Officials told Strohfus to contact the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for help, she said. The risks of harm to a developing baby from syphilis are so high that experts urge not to delay treatment, even by a day.

Nearly three weeks passed from when Strohfus started calling pharmacies to when she had the full treatment in hand, she said, and it barely arrived in time. The woman was released just days after she got her last shot.

Last June, Pfizer, the lone U.S. manufacturer of the injections, notified the Food and Drug Administration of an “impending stock out” that it anticipated would last a year. The company blamed “an increase in syphilis infection rates as well as competitive shortages.”

Across the country, physicians, clinic staff and public health experts say that the shortage is preventing them from reining in a surge of syphilis and that the federal government is downplaying the crisis. State and local public health authorities, which by law are responsible for controlling the spread of infectious diseases, report delays getting medicine to pregnant people with syphilis. This emergency was predictable: There have been shortages of this drug in eight of the last 20 years.

Yet federal health authorities have not prevented the drug shortages in the past and aren’t doing much to prevent them in the future.

Syphilis, which is typically spread during sex, can be devastating if it goes untreated in pregnancy: About 40% of babies born to women with untreated syphilis can be stillborn or die as newborns, according to the CDC. Infants that survive can suffer from deformed bones, excruciating pain or brain damage, and some struggle to hear, see or breathe. Since this is entirely preventable, a baby born with syphilis is a shameful sign of a failing public health system.

In 2022, the most recent year for which the CDC has data available, more than 3,700 babies were infected with syphilis, including nearly 300 who were stillborn or died as infants. More than 50% of these cases occurred because, even though the pregnant parent was diagnosed with syphilis, they were never properly treated.

That year, there were 200,000 cases identified in the U.S., a 79% increase from five years before. Infection rates among pregnant people and babies increased by more than 250% in that time; South Dakota, where Strohfus works, had the highest rates — including a more than 400% increase among pregnant women. Statewide, the rate of babies born with the disease, a condition known as congenital syphilis, jumped more than 40-fold in just five years.

And that was before the current shortage of shots.

In Mississippi, the state with the second highest rate of syphilis in pregnant women, Dr. Caroline Weinberg started having trouble this summer finding treatments for her clinic’s patients, most of whom are uninsured, live in poverty or lack transportation. She began spending hours each month scouring medicine suppliers’ websites for available doses of the shots, a form of penicillin sold under the brand name Bicillin L-A.

“The way people do it for Taylor Swift, that’s how I’ve been with the Bicillin shortage,” Weinberg said. “Desperately checking the websites to see what I can snag.”

The shortage is driving up infection rates even further.

In a November survey by the National Coalition of STD Directors, 68% of health departments that responded said the drug shortage will cause syphilis rates in their area to increase, further crushing the nation’s most disadvantaged populations.

“This is the most basic medicine,” said Meghan O’Connell, chief public health officer for the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, which represents 18 tribal communities in South Dakota and three other states. “We allow ourselves to continue to not have enough, and it impacts so many people.”

ProPublica examined what the federal government has done to manage the crisis and the ways in which experts say it has fallen short.

The government could pressure Pfizer to be more transparent.

Twenty years ago, there were at least three manufacturers of the syphilis shot. Then Pfizer, one of the manufacturers, purchased the other two companies and became the lone U.S. supplier.

Pfizer’s supply has fallen short since then. In 2016, the company announced a shortage due to a manufacturing issue; it lasted two years. Even during times when Pfizer had not notified the FDA of an official shortage, clinics across the country told ProPublica, the shots were often hard to get.

Several health officials said they would like to see the government use its power as the largest purchaser of the drug to put pressure on Pfizer to produce adequate supplies and to be more transparent about how much of the drug they have on hand, when it will be widely available and how stable the supply will be going forward.

In response to questions, Pfizer said there are two reasons its supply is falling short. One, the company said, was a surge in use of the pediatric form of the drug after a shortage of a different antibiotic last winter. Pfizer also blamed a 70% increase in demand for the adult shots since last February, which it described as unexpected.

Public health experts say the increase in cases and subsequent rise in demand was easy to see coming. Officials have been raising the alarm about skyrocketing syphilis cases for years. “If Pfizer was truly caught completely off guard, it raises significant questions about the competency of the company to forecast obvious infectious disease trends,” a coalition of organizations wrote to the White House Drug Shortage Task Force in September.

Pfizer said it is consistently communicating with the CDC and FDA about its supply and that it has been transparent with public health groups and policymakers.

The FDA has a group dedicated to addressing drug shortages. But Valerie Jensen, associate director of that staff, said the FDA can’t force manufacturers to make more of a drug. “It is up to manufacturers to decide how to respond to that increased demand.” she said. “What we’re here to do is help with those plans.”

Pfizer said it had a target of increasing production by about 20% in 2023 but faced delays toward the end of the year. The company did not explain the reason for those delays.

The company said it has invested $38 million in the last five years in the Michigan facility where it makes the shots and that it is increasing production capacity. It also said it is adding evening shifts at the facility and actively recruiting and training new workers. Pfizer said it also reduced manufacturing time from 110 to 50 days. By the end of June, the company expects the supply to recover, which it described as having eight weeks of inventory based on its forecast demands with no disruptions in sight.

The government could manufacture the drug itself.

Having only one supplier for a drug, especially one of public health importance, makes the country vulnerable to shortages. With just one manufacturer, any disruption — contamination at a plant, a shortage of raw materials, a severe weather event or a flawed prediction of demand — can put lives at risk. What’s ultimately needed, public health experts say, is another manufacturer.

Congressional Democrats recently introduced a bill that would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to manufacture generic drugs in exactly this scenario, when there are few manufacturers and regular shortages. Called the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, it would also establish an office of drug manufacturing.

This same bill was introduced in 2018, but it didn’t have bipartisan support and was never taken up for a vote. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who introduced the bill in the Senate, said she’s hopeful this time will be different. Lawmakers from both parties understand the risks created by drug shortages, and COVID-19 helped everyone understand the role the government can play to boost manufacturing.

Still, it’s unlikely to be passed with the current gridlock in Congress.

The government could reserve syphilis drugs for infected patients.

Responding to the shortage of shots to treat the disease, the CDC in July asked health care providers nationwide to preserve the scarce remaining doses for people who are pregnant. The shots are considered the gold standard treatment for anyone with syphilis, faster and with fewer side effects than an alternative pill regimen. And for people who are pregnant, the pills are not an option; the shots are the only safe treatment.

Despite that call, the military is giving shots to new recruits who don’t have syphilis, to prevent outbreaks of severe bacterial respiratory infections. The Army has long administered this treatment at boot camps held at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Moore and Fort Sill. The Army has been unable to obtain the shots several times in the past few years, according to the U.S. Army Center for Initial Military Training. But the Defense Health Agency’s pharmacy operations center has been working with Pfizer to ensure military sites can get them, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency said.

“Until we think about public health the way we think about our military, we’re not going to see a difference,” said Dr. John Vanchiere, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport.

Some public health officials, including Alaska’s chief medical officer, Dr. Anne Zink, questioned whether the military should be using scarce shots for prevention.

“We should ask if that’s the best use,” she said.

Using antibiotics to prevent streptococcal outbreaks is a well-established, evidence-based public health practice that’s also used by other branches of the armed services, said Lt. Col. Randy Ready, a public affairs officer with the Army’s Initial Military Training center. “The Army continues to work with the CDC and the entire medical community in regards to public health while also taking into account the unique missions and training environments our Soldiers face,” including basic training, Ready said in a written statement.

The government isn’t stockpiling syphilis drugs.

In rare instances, the federal government has created stockpiles of drugs considered key to public health. In 2018, confronting shortages of various drugs to treat tuberculosis, the CDC created a small stockpile of them. And the federal Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response keeps a national stockpile of supplies necessary for public health emergencies, including vaccines, medical supplies and antidotes needed in case of a chemical warfare attack.

In November, the Biden administration announced it was creating a new syphilis task force. When asked why the federal government doesn’t stockpile syphilis treatments, Adm. Rachel Levine, the HHS official who leads the task force, said officials don’t routinely stockpile drugs, because they have expiration dates.

In a written statement, an HHS spokesperson said that Bicillin has a shelf life of two years and that the Strategic National Stockpile “does not deploy products that are commercially available.” In general, the spokesperson wrote, stockpiles are most effective before a national shortage begins and can’t overcome the problems of limited suppliers or fragile supply chains. “There is also a risk that stockpiles can exacerbate shortages, particularly when supply is already low, by removing drugs from circulation that would have otherwise been available,” the spokesperson wrote.

Stephanie Pang, a senior director with the coalition of STD directors, said that given the critical role of this drug and the severe access concerns, she thinks a stockpile is necessary. “I don’t have another solution that actually gets drugs to patients,” Pang said.

The government could declare a federal emergency.

Some public health officials say the federal government needs to treat the syphilis crisis the way it did Ebola or monkeypox.

Declare a federal emergency, said Dr. Michael Dube, an infectious disease specialist for more than 30 years. That would free up money for more public health staff and fund more creative approaches that could lead to a long-term solution to the near-constant shortages, he said. “I’d hate to have to wait for some horrible anecdotes to get out there in order to get the public’s and the policymakers’ minds on it,” said Dube, who oversees medical care for AIDS Healthcare Foundation wellness clinics across the country.

Citing an alarming surge in syphilis cases, the Great Plains Tribes wrote to the HHS secretary last week asking that the agency declare a public health emergency in their areas. In the request, they asked HHS to work globally to find adequate syphilis treatment and send the needed medicine to the Great Plains region.

During the 2014 outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, Congress gave hundreds of millions of dollars to HHS to help develop new rapid tests and vaccines. Facing a global outbreak of monkeypox in 2022, a White House task force deployed more than a million vaccines, regularly briefed the public and sent extra resources to Pride parades and other places where people at risk were gathered.

Levine, leader of the federal syphilis task force, countered that declaring an emergency wouldn’t make much of a difference. The government, she said, already has a “dramatic and coordinated response” involving several agencies.

The FDA recently approved an emergency import of a similar syphilis treatment made by a French manufacturer that had plenty on hand. According to the company, Provepharm, the imported shots are enough to cover approximately one or two months of typical use by all people in the U.S. (The FDA would not say how many doses Provepharm sent, and the company said it was not allowed to reveal that number under the federal rules governing such emergency imports.)

Clinics applaud that development. But many of them can’t afford the imported shots.

The government could do more to rein in the cost.

Clinics and hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients often qualify for a federal program that allows them to purchase drugs at steeply discounted prices. Pharmaceutical companies that want Medicaid to cover their outpatient drugs must participate in the program.

One factor in determining the discount price is whether a pharmaceutical company has raised the price of a drug by more than the rate of inflation. Because Pfizer has hiked the price of its Bicillin shots significantly over the years, the government requires that it be sold to qualifying clinics for just pennies a dose. Otherwise, a single Pfizer shot can retail for upwards of $500. The French shots are comparable in retail price and not eligible for the discount program.

Several clinic directors also said they worried that drug distributors were reserving the limited supply of the Pfizer shot for organizations that could pay full price. For several days in January, for example, the website of Henry Schein, a medical supplier, showed doses of the shot available at full price, while doses at the penny pricing were out of stock, according to screenshots shared with ProPublica. When asked whether it was only selling shots at full price, a spokesperson for Henry Schein did not respond to the question.

Local health departments that qualify for the discount program told ProPublica they’ve had to pay full price at other distributors, because it was the only stock available.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that regulates the discount program, said that a drug manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that when supplies are available, they are available at the discounted price. When asked about this, Pfizer said that it has “one inventory that is distributed to our trade partners” and that hospitals and clinics that qualify for the discount program are “responsible for ensuring compliance with the program and orders through the wholesaler accordingly.” The company added, “Pfizer plays no part in this process.”

In October, on Weinberg’s regular search for shots for her Mississippi clinic, she found doses of Bicillin for sale at the discounted price and purchased 40. “The idea that we’re supposed to be hoarding treatment is a horrific compact,” she said. Word got out that the clinic, called Plan A, has some shots, and other clinics began sending pregnant patients there.

The clinic’s supply is dwindling. Weinberg is happy to get the shots to patients who need them. But she’s not sure how much longer her reserve will last — or if she’ll be able to find more when they’re gone.

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 Too Much Salt May Lead To Organ Failure

    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.

    Salt’s Health Risks… More Than Just Heart Disease!

    It’s been well-established for a long time that too much salt is bad for cardiovascular health. It can lead to high blood pressure, which in turn can lead to many problems, including heart attacks.

    A team of researchers has found that in addition to this, it may be damaging your organs themselves.

    This is because high salt levels peel away the surfaces of blood vessels. How does this harm your organs? Because it’s through those walls that nutrients are selectively passed to where they need to be—mostly your organs. So, too much salt can indirectly starve your organs of the nutrients they need to survive. And you absolutely do not want your organs to fail!

    ❝We’ve identified new biomarkers for diagnosing blood vessel damage, identifying patients at risk of heart attack and stroke, and developing new drug targets for therapy for a range of blood vessel diseases, including heart, kidney and lung diseases as well as dementia❞

    ~ Newman Sze, Canada Research Chair in Mechanisms of Health and Disease, and lead researcher on this study.

    See the evidence for yourself: Endothelial Damage Arising From High Salt Hypertension Is Elucidated by Vascular Bed Systematic Profiling

    Diets high in salt are a huge problem in Canada, North America as a whole, and around the world. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report released March 9, Canadians consume 9.1 grams of salt per day.

    Read: WHO global report on sodium intake reduction

    You may be wondering: who is eating over 9g of salt per day?

    And the answer is: mostly, people who don’t notice how much salt is already in processed foods… don’t see it, and don’t think about it.

    Meanwhile, the WHO recommends the average person to consume no more than five grams, or one teaspoon, of salt per day.

    Read more: Massive efforts needed to reduce salt intake and protect lives

    The American Heart Association, tasked with improving public health with respect to the #1 killer of Americans (it’s also the #1 killer worldwide—but that’s not the AHA’s problem), goes further! It recommends no more than 2.3g per day, and ideally, no more than 1.5g per day.

    Some handy rules-of-thumb

    Here are sodium-related terms you may see on food packages:

    • Salt/Sodium-Free = Less than 5mg of sodium per serving
    • Very Low Sodium = 35mg or less per serving
    • Low Sodium = 140mg or less per serving
    • Reduced Sodium = At least 25% less sodium per serving than the usual sodium level
    • Light in Sodium or Lightly Salted = At least 50% less sodium than the regular product

    Confused by milligrams? Instead of remembering how many places to move the decimal point (and potentially getting an “out by an order of magnitude error—we’ve all been there!), think of the 1.5g total allowance as being 1500mg.

    See also: How much sodium should I eat per day? ← from the American Heart Association

    Share This Post

  • Why are my muscles sore after exercise? Hint: it’s nothing to do with lactic acid

    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 many of us hit the gym or go for a run to recover from the silly season, you might notice a bit of extra muscle soreness.

    This is especially true if it has been a while between workouts.

    A common misunderstanding is that such soreness is due to lactic acid build-up in the muscles.

    Research, however, shows lactic acid has nothing to do with it. The truth is far more interesting, but also a bit more complex.

    It’s not lactic acid

    We’ve known for decades that lactic acid has nothing to do with muscle soreness after exercise.

    In fact, as one of us (Robert Andrew Robergs) has long argued, cells produce lactate, not lactic acid. This process actually opposes not causes the build-up of acid in the muscles and bloodstream.

    Unfortunately, historical inertia means people still use the term “lactic acid” in relation to exercise.

    Lactate doesn’t cause major problems for the muscles you use when you exercise. You’d probably be worse off without it due to other benefits to your working muscles.

    Lactate isn’t the reason you’re sore a few days after upping your weights or exercising after a long break.

    So, if it’s not lactic acid and it’s not lactate, what is causing all that muscle soreness?

    Muscle pain during and after exercise

    When you exercise, a lot of chemical reactions occur in your muscle cells. All these chemical reactions accumulate products and by-products which cause water to enter into the cells.

    That causes the pressure inside and between muscle cells to increase.

    This pressure, combined with the movement of molecules from the muscle cells can stimulate nerve endings and cause discomfort during exercise.

    The pain and discomfort you sometimes feel hours to days after an unfamiliar type or amount of exercise has a different list of causes.

    If you exercise beyond your usual level or routine, you can cause microscopic damage to your muscles and their connections to tendons.

    Such damage causes the release of ions and other molecules from the muscles, causing localised swelling and stimulation of nerve endings.

    This is sometimes known as “delayed onset muscle soreness” or DOMS.

    While the damage occurs during the exercise, the resulting response to the injury builds over the next one to two days (longer if the damage is severe). This can sometimes cause pain and difficulty with normal movement.

    The upshot

    Research is clear; the discomfort from delayed onset muscle soreness has nothing to do with lactate or lactic acid.

    The good news, though, is that your muscles adapt rapidly to the activity that would initially cause delayed onset muscle soreness.

    So, assuming you don’t wait too long (more than roughly two weeks) before being active again, the next time you do the same activity there will be much less damage and discomfort.

    If you have an exercise goal (such as doing a particular hike or completing a half-marathon), ensure it is realistic and that you can work up to it by training over several months.

    Such training will gradually build the muscle adaptations necessary to prevent delayed onset muscle soreness. And being less wrecked by exercise makes it more enjoyable and more easy to stick to a routine or habit.

    Finally, remove “lactic acid” from your exercise vocabulary. Its supposed role in muscle soreness is a myth that’s hung around far too long already.The Conversation

    Robert Andrew Robergs, Associate Professor – Exercise Physiology, Queensland University of Technology and Samuel L. Torrens, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology

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

    Share This Post

  • Strength training has a range of benefits for women. Here are 4 ways to get into weights

    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.

    Picture a gym ten years ago: the weights room was largely a male-dominated space, with women mostly doing cardio exercise. Fast-forward to today and you’re likely to see women of all ages and backgrounds confidently navigating weights equipment.

    This is more than just anecdotal. According to data from the Australian Sports Commission, the number of women participating in weightlifting (either competitively or not) grew nearly five-fold between 2016 and 2022.

    Women are discovering what research has long shown: strength training offers benefits beyond sculpted muscles.

    John Arano/Unsplash

    Health benefits

    Osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones become weak and brittle, affects more women than men. Strength training increases bone density, a crucial factor for preventing osteoporosis, especially for women negotiating menopause.

    Strength training also improves insulin sensitivity, which means your body gets better at using insulin to manage blood sugar levels, reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Regular strength training contributes to better heart health too.

    There’s a mental health boost as well. Strength training has been linked to reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety.

    A woman lifting a weight in a gym.
    Strength training can have a variety of health benefits. Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Improved confidence and body image

    Unlike some forms of exercise where progress can feel elusive, strength training offers clear and tangible measures of success. Each time you add more weight to a bar, you are reminded of your ability to meet your goals and conquer challenges.

    This sense of achievement doesn’t just stay in the gym – it can change how women see themselves. A recent study found women who regularly lift weights often feel more empowered to make positive changes in their lives and feel ready to face life’s challenges outside the gym.

    Strength training also has the potential to positively impact body image. In a world where women are often judged on appearance, lifting weights can shift the focus to function.

    Instead of worrying about the number on the scale or fitting into a certain dress size, women often come to appreciate their bodies for what they can do. “Am I lifting more than I could last month?” and “can I carry all my groceries in a single trip?” may become new measures of physical success.

    A young woman smiling in a gym change room.
    Strength training can have positive effects on women’s body image. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Lifting weights can also be about challenging outdated ideas of how women “should” be. Qualitative research I conducted with colleagues found that, for many women, strength training becomes a powerful form of rebellion against unrealistic beauty standards. As one participant told us:

    I wanted something that would allow me to train that just didn’t have anything to do with how I looked.

    Society has long told women to be small, quiet and not take up space. But when a woman steps up to a barbell, she’s pushing back against these outdated rules. One woman in our study said:

    We don’t have to […] look a certain way, or […] be scared that we can lift heavier weights than some men. Why should we?

    This shift in mindset helps women see themselves differently. Instead of worrying about being objects for others to look at, they begin to see their bodies as capable and strong. Another participant explained:

    Powerlifting changed my life. It made me see myself, or my body. My body wasn’t my value, it was the vehicle that I was in to execute whatever it was that I was executing in life.

    This newfound confidence often spills over into other areas of life. As one woman said:

    I love being a strong woman. It’s like going against the grain, and it empowers me. When I’m physically strong, everything in the world seems lighter.

    Feeling inspired? Here’s how to get started

    1. Take things slow

    Begin with bodyweight exercises like squats, lunges and push-ups to build a foundation of strength. Once you’re comfortable, add external weights, but keep them light at first. Focus on mastering compound movements, such as deadlifts, squats and overhead presses. These exercises engage multiple joints and muscle groups simultaneously, making your workouts more efficient.

    2. Prioritise proper form

    Always prioritise proper form over lifting heavier weights. Poor technique can lead to injuries, so learning the correct way to perform each exercise is crucial. To help with this, consider working with an exercise professional who can provide personalised guidance and ensure you’re performing exercises correctly, at least initially.

    A woman doing a lunge outdoors.
    Bodyweight exercises, such as lunges, are a good way to get started before lifting weights. antoniodiaz/Shutterstock

    3. Consistency is key

    Like any fitness regimen, consistency is key. Two to three sessions a week are plenty for most women to see benefits. And don’t be afraid to occupy space in the weights room – remember you belong there just as much as anyone else.

    4. Find a community

    Finally, join a community. There’s nothing like being surrounded by a group of strong women to inspire and motivate you. Engaging with a supportive community can make your strength-training journey more enjoyable and rewarding, whether it’s an in-person class or an online forum.

    Are there any downsides?

    Gym memberships can be expensive, especially for specialist weightlifting gyms. Home equipment is an option, but quality barbells and weightlifting equipment can come with a hefty price tag.

    Also, for women juggling work and family responsibilities, finding time to get to the gym two to three times per week can be challenging.

    If you’re concerned about getting too “bulky”, it’s very difficult for women to bulk up like male bodybuilders without pharmaceutical assistance.

    The main risks come from poor technique or trying to lift too much too soon – issues that can be easily avoided with some guidance.

    Erin Kelly, Lecturer and PhD Candidate, Discipline of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canberra

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

    Share This Post

  • Beat Cancer Kitchen – by Chris Wark & Micah Wark

    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 we eat, many things can increase our cancer risk. Some we might remember to avoid, like ultra-processed foods and red meat. Others might be more neutral when it comes to cancer, neither good nor bad.

    But! Some foods also have cancer-fighting properties. Which means reducing cancer risk, and/or having an anti-proliferative effect (i.e., shrinks or at least slows growth of tumors), in the event of already having cancer.

    That’s what Chris & Micah Wark are offering here; a cookbook built around anti-cancer foods—after the former beat his own cancer with the help of the latter. He had surgery, but skipped chemo, preferring to look to nutrition to keep cancer-free. Now 18 years later, and so far, so good.

    The dietary advice here is entirely consistent with what we’d offer at 10almonds; it’s plant-based, and high in anti-cancer phytonutrients.

    The recipes themselves (of which there are about 70-ish) are as delicious and simple as the title suggests, and/but you might want to know:

    • On the one hand, many recipes are things like sauces, condiments, or dressings, which in a recipe book can sometimes feel like underdelivering on the promise of recipes when we expect full meals
    • On the other hand, those things if you just purchase them ready-made are usually the things with the most ultra-processed products, thus, having anticancer homemade versions instead here can actually make a very big difference
    • On the third hand, there areplenty of starters/mains/desserts too!

    Bottom line: if you’re looking for an anti-cancer cookbook, this is a very good one whose ingredients aren’t obscure (which can otherwise be a problem for some books of this kind)

    Click here to check out Beat Cancer Kitchen, and take good care of yourself and your loved ones!

    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 To *Really* Pick Up (And Keep!) Those Habits

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The Healthiest Habit-Building

    Why was that book “Atomic Habits” called that? It wasn’t just because it’s a catchy title…

    Habits are—much like atoms—things that are almost imperceptibly small, yet when stacked, they make up the substance of many much larger and more obvious things, and also contain an immense amount of potential power.

    About that power…

    Habits are the “compound interest” of natural human life. Every action we take, every decision we make, makes our life (often imperceptibly) better or worse. But getting even just 1% better or 1% worse at something every day? That’s going to not just add up over time… It’ll actively compound over time.

    Habits will snowball one way or the other, good or bad. So, we want to control that snowball so that it works for us rather than against us.

    Thus, we need to choose habits that are helpful to us, rather than those that are harmful to us. Top examples include:

    • Making healthy food choices rather than unhealthy ones
    • Moving our body regularly rather than being sedentary
    • Having a good bedtime/morning routine rather than a daily chaotic blur
    • Learning constantly rather than digging into old beliefs out of habit
    • Forging healthy relationships rather than isolating ourselves

    We all know that to make a habit stick, we need to practice it regularly, with opinions varying on how long it takes for something to become habit. Some say 21 days; some say 66. The number isn’t the important part!

    What is important

    You will never get to day 66, much less will you get to day 366, if you don’t first get to day 6 (New Year’s Resolutions, anyone?).

    So in the early days especially, when the habit is most likely to get dropped, it’s critical to make the habit as easy as possible to form.

    That means:

    • The habit should be made as pleasant as possible
      • (e.g. by making modifications to it if it’s not already intrinsically pleasant)
    • The habit should take under 2 minutes to do at first
      • (no matter if it takes longer than 2 minutes to be useful; it’ll never be useful if you don’t first get it to stick, so make your initial commitment only 2 minutes, just to get in the habit)
    • The habit should have cues to remind you
      • (as it’s not habit yet, you will need to either set a reminder on your phone, or leave a visual reminder, such as your workout clothes laid out ready for you in the morning, or a bowl of fruit in plain view where you spend a lot of time)

    What gets measured, gets done

    Streaks are a great way to do this. Habit-tracking apps help. Marks on a calendar or in a journal are also totally fine.

    What can help especially, and that a lot of people don’t do, is to have a system of regular personal reviews—like a work “performance review”, but for oneself and one’s own life.

    Set a reminder or write on the calendar / in your diary, to review monthly, or weekly if you prefer, such things as:

    • How am I doing in the areas of life that are important to me?
      • Have a list of the areas of life that are important to you, by the way, and genuinely reflect on each of them, e.g:
        • Health
        • Finances
        • Relationships
        • Learning
        • Sleep
        • Etc
    • What is working for me, and what isn’t working for me?
    • What will I do better in this next month/week?

    …and then do it!

    Good luck, and may it all stack up in your favor!

    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:

  • Macadamias vs Pecans – 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 macadamias to pecans, we picked the pecans.

    Why?

    It’s close!

    In terms of macros, they’re very close, though pecans have slightly more fiber, carbs, and protein, and while the total fat figure is comparable (very slightly more for macadamias), the lipids profile is in pecans’ favor, as while they’re both rich in monounsaturated fat, macadamias have more saturated fat and pecans have more polyunsaturated fat. All in all a win for pecans here, though honestly, it’s marginal.

    In the category of vitamins, macadamias have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, and B6, while pecans have more of vitamins A, B5, B9, and E. The margins of difference are comparable too, so it’s a clear tie in this round.

    When it comes to minerals, macadamias have more calcium, iron, and magnesium, while pecans have more copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An easy win for pecans here.

    Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for pecans, but macadamias are great too, so by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

    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: