How to Find Happiness In Yourself – by Michelle Mann

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 lot of books about happiness tell you what to pursue, generally. What things to focus on, and that’s good, but incomplete. This book does cover those things too (complete with academic sources to back up what really works), but also goes further:

Michelle Mann gives 25 key habits that will cumulatively build happiness, which is what it’s really about. After all:

  • If you watch your favourite movie, you’ll be happy for 90 minutes (or 9 hours if it’s The Lord of the Rings).
  • If you build daily habits that add happiness to you, your surroundings, and those around you, you’ll be happy for life.

They do also cover happiness while going through difficult times, such as divorce, job loss, illness, or bereavement.

Sometimes, knowing what we “should” do in theory is the easy part. Where Mann excels here is in providing explanations of each habit. This means that rather than it being some platitude, the principles underlying it are truly understood… and thus motivate us to actually apply the advice and build the habits into our life.

While the explanations are therefore the greatest value of the book, we do recommend copying out the 25 habits (which are effectively subchapter headings) and putting them somewhere to read often.

Bottom line: we recommend getting yourself (and/or your loved ones!) a copy of this book. You (and/or they) will be happy you did!

Order “How to Find Happiness In Yourself: 25 Habits Guaranteed to Help You Live a Happier Life” on Amazon today!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Heart Smarter for Women – by Dr. Jennifer Mieres
  • How To Get More Nutrition From The Same Food
    How to Maximize Your Plate’s Potential: The key to better digestion starts with engaging your senses. Mindful eating, simple cooking, and a pleasant environment all contribute to a satisfying and nourishing meal.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Asbestos in mulch? Here’s the risk if you’ve been exposed

    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.

    Mulch containing asbestos has now been found at 41 locations in New South Wales, including Sydney parks, schools, hospitals, a supermarket and at least one regional site. Tests are under way at other sites.

    As a precautionary measure, some parks have been cordoned off and some schools have closed temporarily. Fair Day – a large public event that traditionally marks the start of Mardi Gras – was cancelled after contaminated mulch was found at the site.

    The New South Wales government has announced a new taskforce to help investigate how the asbestos ended up in the mulch.

    Here’s what we know about the risk to public health of mulch contaminated with asbestos, including “friable” asbestos, which has been found in one site (Harmony Park in Surry Hills).

    What are the health risks of asbestos?

    Asbestos is a naturally occurring, heat-resistant fibre that was widely used in building materials from the 1940s to the 1980s. It can be found in either a bonded or friable form.

    Bonded asbestos means the fibres are bound in a cement matrix. Asbestos sheeting that was used for walls, fences, roofs and eaves are examples of bonded asbestos. The fibres don’t escape this matrix unless the product is severely damaged or worn.

    A lot of asbestos fragments from broken asbestos products are still considered bonded as the fibres are not released as they lay on the ground.

    Bonded asbestos
    Asbestos sheeting was used for walls and roofs.
    Tomas Regina/Shutterstock

    Friable asbestos, in contrast, can be easily crumbled by touch. It will include raw asbestos fibres and previously bonded products that have worn to the point that they crumble easily.

    The risk of disease from asbestos exposure is due to the inhalation of fibres. It doesn’t matter if those fibres are from friable or bonded sources.

    However, fibres can more easily become airborne, and therefore inhalable, if the asbestos is friable. This means there is more of a risk of exposure if you are disturbing friable asbestos than if you disturb fragments of bonded asbestos.

    Who is most at risk from asbestos exposure?

    The most important factor for disease risk is exposure – you actually have to inhale fibres to be at risk of disease.

    Just being in the vicinity of asbestos, or material containing asbestos, does not put you at risk of asbestos-related disease.

    For those who accessed the contaminated areas, the level of exposure will depend on disturbing the asbestos and how many fibres become airborne due to that disturbance.

    However, if you have been exposed to, and inhaled, asbestos fibres it does not mean you will get an asbestos-related disease. Exposure levels from the sites across Sydney will be low and the chance of disease is highly unlikely.

    The evidence for disease risk from ingestion remains highly uncertain, although you are not likely to ingest sufficient fibres from the air, or even the hand to mouth activities that may occur with playing in contaminated mulch, for this to be a concern.

    The risk of disease from exposure depends on the intensity, frequency and duration of that exposure. That is, the more you are exposed to asbestos, the greater the risk of disease.

    Most asbestos-related disease has occurred in people who work with raw asbestos (for example, asbestos miners) or asbestos-containing products (such as building tradespeople). This has been a tragedy and fortunately asbestos is now banned.

    There have been cases of asbestos-related disease, most notably mesothelioma – a cancer of the lining of the lung (mostly) or peritoneum – from non-occupational exposures. This has included people who have undertaken DIY home renovations and may have only had short-term exposures. The level of exposure in these cases is not known and it is also impossible to determine if those activities have been the only exposure.

    There is no known safe level of exposure – but this does not mean that one fibre will kill. Asbestos needs to be treated with caution.

    As far as we are aware, there have been no cases of mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related disease, that have been caused by exposure from contaminated soils or mulch.

    Has asbestos been found in mulch before?

    Asbestos contamination of mulch is, unfortunately, not new. Environmental and health agencies have dealt with these situations in the past. All jurisdictions have strict regulations about removing asbestos products from the green waste stream but, as is happening in Sydney now, this does not always happen.

    Mulch
    Mulch contamination is not new.
    gibleho/Shutterstock

    What if I’ve been near contaminated mulch?

    Exposure from mulch contamination is generally much lower than from current renovation or construction activities and will be many orders of magnitude lower than past occupational exposures.

    Unlike activities such as demolition, construction and mining, the generation of airborne fibres from asbestos fragments in mulch will be very low. The asbestos contamination will be sparsely spread throughout the mulch and it is unlikely there will be sufficient disturbance to generate large quantities of airborne fibres.

    Despite the low chance of exposure, if you’re near contaminated mulch, do not disturb it.

    If, by chance, you have had an exposure, or think you have had an exposure, it’s highly unlikely you will develop an asbestos-related disease in the future. If you’re worried, the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency is a good source of information.The Conversation

    Peter Franklin, Associate Professor and Director, Occupational Respiratory Epidemiology, The University of Western Australia

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

    Share This Post

  • Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – 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 sunflower seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the pumpkin seeds.

    Why?

    Both seeds have a good spread of vitamins and minerals, but pumpkin seeds have more. Sunflower seeds come out on top for copper and manganese, but everything else that’s present in either of them (in the category of vitamins and minerals, anyway), pumpkin seeds have more.

    There is one other thing that sunflower seeds have more of than pumpkin seeds, and that’s fat. The fat is mostly of healthy varieties, so it’s not a negative factor, but it does mean that if you’re eating a calorie-controlled diet, you’ll get more bang for your buck (i.e. better micronutrient-to-calorie ratio) if you pick pumpkin seeds.

    If you’re not concerned about fat/calories, and/or you actively want to consume more of those, then sunflower seeds are still a fine choice.

    When it comes down to it, a diverse diet is best, so enjoying both might be the best option of all.

    Want to get some?

    We don’t sell them, but here for your convenience are example products on Amazon:

    Sunflower Seeds | Pumpkin Seeds

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Fruit & Veg In The Fridge: Pros & Cons

    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

    ❝What effect does refrigeration have on the nutritional value of fruit and vegetables??❞

    It’s difficult to give a single definitive answer, because naturally there are a lot of different fruits and vegetables, and a lot of different climates. The answer may be different for tomatoes in Alaska vs bananas in Arizona!

    However, we can still generalize at least somewhat

    Refrigeration will generally slow down any degradation process, and in the case of fruit and vegetables, that can mean slowing down their “ripening” too, as applicable.

    However…

    Refrigeration will also impede helpful bioactivity too, and that includes quite a list of things.

    Here’s a good study that’s quite illustrative; we’d summarize the conclusions but the rather long title already does that nicely:

    Storage of Fruits and Vegetables in Refrigerator Increases their Phenolic Acids but Decreases the Total Phenolics, Anthocyanins and Vitamin C with Subsequent Loss of their Antioxidant Capacity

    So, this really is a case of “there are pros and cons, but probably more cons on balance”.

    In practical terms, a good take-away from this can be twofold:

    1. don’t keep fruit and veg in the fridge unless the ambient temperature really requires it
    2. if the ambient temperature does require it, it’s best to get the produce in fresh each day if that’s feasible, to minimize time spent in the fridge

    An extra thing not included there: often when it comes to the spoilage of fruit and veg, the problem is that it respires and oxidizes; reducing the temperature does lower the rate of those, but often a far better way is to remove the oxygen. So for example, if you get carried away and chop too many carrot batons for your hummus night, then putting them in a sealed container can go a long way to keeping them fresh.

    See also: How Does the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables Change Over Time?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Heart Smarter for Women – by Dr. Jennifer Mieres
  • The Fiber Fueled Cookbook – by Dr. Will Bulsiewicz

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

    We’ve previously reviewed Dr. Bulsiewicz’s book “Fiber Fuelled” (which is great), but this one is more than just a cookbook with the previous book in mind. Indeed, this is even a great stand-alone book by itself, since it explains the core principles well enough already, and then adds to it.

    It’s also about a lot more than just “please eat more fiber”, though. It looks at FODMAPs, purine, histamine intolerance, celiac disease, altered gallbladder function, acid reflux, and more.

    He offers a five-part strategy:

    Genesis (what is the etiology of your problem)

    1. Restrict (cut things out to address that first)
    2. Observe (keep a food/symptom diary)
    3. Work things back in (re-add potential triggers one by one, see how it goes)
    4. Train your gut (your microbiome does not exist in a vacuum, and communication is two-way)
    5. Holistic healing (beyond the gut itself, looking at other relevant factors and aiming for synergistic support)

    As for the recipes themselves, there are more than a hundred of them and they are good, so no more “how can I possibly cook [favorite dish] without [removed ingredient]?”

    Bottom line: if you’d like better gut health, this book is a top-tier option for fixing existing complaints, and enjoying plain-sailing henceforth.

    Click here to check out The Fiber Fueled Cookbook; your gut will thank you later!

    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:

  • Stevia vs Acesulfame Potassium – 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 stevia to acesulfame potassium, we picked the stevia.

    Why?

    You may be wondering: is acesulfame potassium a good source of potassium?

    And the answer is: no, it is not. Obviously, it does contain potassium, but let’s do some math here:

    • Acesulfame potassium is 200x sweeter than sugar
    • Therefore replacing a 15g teaspoon of sugar = 75mg acesulfame potassium
    • Acesulfame potassium’s full name is “potassium 6-methyl-2,2-dioxo-2H-1,2λ6,3-oxathiazin-4-olate”
    • That’s just one potassium atom in there with a lot of other stuff
    • Acesulfame potassium has a molar mass of 201.042 g/mol
    • Potassium itself has a molar mass of 39.098 g/mol
    • Therefore acesulfame potassium is 100(39.098/201.042) = 19.45% potassium by mass
    • So that 75mg of acesulfame potassium contains just under 15mg of potassium, which is less than 0.5% of your recommended daily amount of potassium. Please consider eating a fruit instead.

    So, that’s that, and the rest of the nutritional values of both sweeteners are just a lot of zeros.

    What puts stevia ahead? Simply, based on studies available so far, moderate consumption of stevia improves gut microdiversity, whereas acesulfame potassium harms gut microdiversity:

    Want to give stevia a try?

    Here’s 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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Apple vs Pear – 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 apple to pear, we picked the pear.

    Why?

    Both are great! But there’s a category that puts pears ahead of apples…

    Looking at their macros first, pears contain more carbs but also more fiber. Both are low glycemic index foods, though.

    In the category of vitamins, things are moderately even: apples contain more of vitamins A, B1, B6, and E, while pears contain more of vitamins B3, B9, K, and choline. That’s a 4:4 split, and the two fruits are about equal in the other vitamins they both contain.

    When it comes to minerals, pears contain more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. A resounding victory for pears, as apples are not higher in any mineral.

    In short, if an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a pear should keep the doctor away for about a day and a half, based on the extra nutrients ← this is slightly facetious as medicine doesn’t work like that, but you get the idea: pears simply have more to offer. Apples are still great though! Enjoy both! Diversity is good.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    From Apples To Bees, And High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    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: