How To Get Your First Pull-Up

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.

Pull-ups are a great compound exercise that works most of the upper body. However, it can be frustrating for many, if unable to do more than dangle and struggle while not going anywhere. That’s not actually bad, by the way! Of course it’s not great athletic performance, but in terms of exercise, “dangling and struggling while not going anywhere” is an isometric exercise that has plenty of benefits of its own. However, for those who would rather go up in the world, personal trainer Meg Gallagher shows the way:

The Only Way Is Up?

Gallagher offers a few methods; the first is simply an improvement on the “dangling and struggling while not going anywhere” method, but doing it with good form. It’s called the…

Hollow body hold:

  • Hang from the bar with legs and feet together.
  • Maintain a posterior pelvic tilt (i.e. don’t let your hips roll forwards, and don’t let your butt stick out more than is necessary by mere virtue of having a butt)
  • Engage your core by shortening the space between your ribs and pelvis.
  • Turn on your abs and lats, with your head slightly behind the bar.
  • Practice the hollow body hang instead of dead hangs to build grip and core strength.

Another method is now moving on from the hollow body hold, and shows that in fact, up is not the only way. It’s called…

Negative pull-ups:

  • Jump up to get your chin over the bar, then slowly lower yourself in a controlled manner.
  • Prioritize negative pull-ups over other exercises to build strength.
  • You can use modifications like resistance bands or feet assistance if necessary to extend the duration of your negative pull-up, but these are “crutches”, so try to move on from them as soon as you reasonably can—same if your gym has an “assisted pull-up” machine, consisting of a moving platform with a variable counterweight, mimicking how a pull-up would feel if your body were lighter.
  • Practice resisting throughout the entire range of motion.

To give a sense of direction, Gallagher offers the following program:

  • On day 1, test how long you can resist the negative pull-up (e.g., 10 seconds).
  • For each session, multiply your time by 2 (e.g., 10 seconds × 2 = 20 seconds total).
  • Break the total volume into as many sets as needed (e.g., 2 sets of 10 seconds or 4 sets of 5 seconds).
  • After each session, add 2 seconds to the total volume for the next session.
  • Aim for 3 sessions per week for 3–4 weeks, increasing by 2 seconds each session.
  • When you reach about 25 seconds, you should be close to performing your first pull-up.

For more on all of this, plus a few other things to try, plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:

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

Want to learn more?

You might also like to read:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Walk Like You’re 20 Years Younger Again
  • An Apple (Cider Vinegar) A Day…
    Drinking apple cider vinegar has been found to help manage blood sugar levels, aid in weight loss, and improve cholesterol levels. It is recommended to take 1-2 tbsp in a glass of water before meals.

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 Think Like Leonardo da Vinci – by Michael J. Gelb

    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.

    Authors often try to bring forward the best minds of the distant past, and apply them to today’s world. One could fill a library with business advice adaptations from Sun Tzu’s Art of War alone, same goes for Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings, and let’s not get started on Niccolò Machiavelli. What makes this book different?

    Michael Gelb explores the principles codified and used by the infamous Renaissance Man to do exactly what he did: pretty much everything. Miyamoto Musashi had no interest in business, but Leonardo da Vinci really did care a lot about learning, creating, problem-solving, human connections, and much more. And best of all, he took notes. So many notes, for himself, of which we now enjoy the benefit.

    How To Think Like Leonardo da Vinci explores these notes and their application by the man himself, and gives real, practical examples of how you can (and why you should) put them into action in your daily life, no matter whether you are a big business CEO or a local line cook or a reclusive academic, Leonardo has lessons for you.

    See today’s book on Amazon!

    Share This Post

  • Coenzyme Q10 From Foods & Supplements

    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.

    Coenzyme Q10 and the difference it makes

    Coenzyme Q10, often abbreviated to CoQ10, is a popular supplement, and is often one of the more expensive supplements that’s commonly found on supermarket shelves as opposed to having to go to more specialist stores or looking online.

    What is it?

    It’s a compound naturally made in the human body and stored in mitochondria. Now, everyone remembers the main job of mitochondria (producing energy), but they also protect cells from oxidative stress, among other things. In other words, aging.

    Like many things, CoQ10 production slows as we age. So after a certain age, often around 45 but lifestyle factors can push it either way, it can start to make sense to supplement.

    Does it work?

    The short answer is “yes”, though we’ll do a quick breakdown of some main benefits, and studies for such, before moving on.

    First, do bear in mind that CoQ10 comes in two main forms, ubiquinol and ubiquinone.

    Ubiquinol is much more easily-used by the body, so that’s the one you want. Here be science:

    Comparison study of plasma coenzyme Q10 levels in healthy subjects supplemented with ubiquinol versus ubiquinone

    What is it good for?

    Benefits include:

    Can we get it from foods?

    Yes, and it’s equally well-absorbed through foods or supplementation, so feel free to go with whichever is more convenient for you.

    Read: Intestinal absorption of coenzyme Q10 administered in a meal or as capsules to healthy subjects

    If you do want to get it from food, you can get it from many places:

    • Organ meats: the top source, though many don’t want to eat them, either because they don’t like them or some of us just don’t eat meat. If you do, though, top choices include the heart, liver, and kidneys.
    • Fatty fish: sardines are up top, along with mackerel, herring, and trout
    • Vegetables: leafy greens, and cruciferous vegetables e.g. cauliflower, broccoli, sprouts
    • Legumes: for example soy, lentils, peanuts
    • Nuts and seeds: pistachios come up top; sesame seeds are great too
    • Fruit: strawberries come up top; oranges are great too

    If supplementing, how much is good?

    Most studies have used doses in the 100mg–200mg (per day) range.

    However, it’s also been found to be safe at 1200mg (per day), for example in this high-quality study that found that higher doses resulted in greater benefit, in patients with early Parkinson’s Disease:

    Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline

    Wondering where you can get it?

    We don’t sell it (or anything else for that matter), and you can probably find it in your local supermarket or health food store. However, if you’d like to buy it online, here’s an example product on Amazon

    Share This Post

  • Beat Food Addictions!

    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 It’s More Than “Just” Cravings

    This is Dr. Nicole Avena. She’s a research neuroscientist who also teaches at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, as well as at Princeton. She’s done a lot of groundbreaking research in the field of nutrition, diet, and addition, with a special focus on women’s health and sugar intake specifically.

    What does she want us to know?

    Firstly, that food addictions are real addictions.

    We know it can sound silly, like the famous line from Mad Max:

    ❝Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you and you will resent its absence!❞

    ~ “Immortan Joe”

    As an aside, it is actually possible to become addicted to water; if one drinks it excessively (we are talking gallons every day) it does change the structure of the brain (no surprise; the brain is not supposed to have that much water!) causing structural damage that then results in dependency, and headaches upon withdrawal. It’s called psychogenic polydipsia:

    Primary polydipsia: Update

    But back onto today’s more specific topic, and by a different mechanism of addiction…

    Food addictions are dopaminergic addictions (as is cocaine)

    If you are addicted to a certain food (often sugar, but other refined carbs such as potato products, and also especially refined flour products, are also potential addictive substances), then when you think about the food in question, your brain lights up with more dopamine than it should, and you are strongly motivated to seek and consume the substance in question.

    Remember, dopamine functions by expectation, not by result. So until your brain’s dopamine-gremlin is sated, it will keep flooding you with motivational dopamine; that’s why the first bite tastes best, then you wolf down the rest before your brain can change its mind, and afterwards you may be left thinking/feeling “was that worth it?”.

    Much like with other addictions (especially alcohol), shame and regret often feature strongly afterwards, even accompanied by notions of “never again”.

    But, binge-eating is as difficult to escape as binge-drinking.

    You can break free, but you will probably have to take it seriously

    Dr. Avena recommends treating a food addiction like any other addiction, which means:

    1. Know why you want to quit (make a list of the reasons, and this will help you stay on track later!)
    2. Make a conscious decision to genuinely quit
    3. Learn about the nature of the specific addiction (know thy enemy!)
    4. Choose a strategy (e.g. wean off vs cold turkey, and decide what replacements, if any, you will use)
    5. Get support (especially from those around you, and/but the support of others facing, or who have successfully faced, the same challenge is very helpful too)
    6. Keep track of your success (build and maintain a streak!)
    7. Lean into how you will better enjoy life without addiction to the substance (it never really made you happy anyway, so enjoy your newfound freedom and good health!)

    Want more from Dr. Avena?

    You can check out her column at Psychology Today here:

    Psychology Today | Food Junkie ← it has a lot of posts about sugar addiction in particular, and gives a lot of information and practical advice

    You can also read her book, which could be a great help if you are thinking of quitting a sugar addiction:

    Sugarless: A 7-Step Plan to Uncover Hidden Sugars, Curb Your Cravings, and Conquer Your Addiction

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Walk Like You’re 20 Years Younger Again
  • The Sucralose News: Scaremongering Or Serious?

    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 news on sucralose?

    These past days the press has been abuzz with frightening tales:

    How true and/or serious is this?

    Firstly, let’s manage expectations. Pineapple juice also breaks down DNA, but is not generally considered a health risk. So let’s keep that in mind, while we look into the science.

    Is sucralose as scary as pineapple juice, or is it something actually dangerous?

    The new study (that sparked off these headlines)

    The much-referenced study is publicly available to read in full—here it is:

    Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays

    You may notice that this doesn’t have quite the snappy punchiness of some of the headlines, but let’s break this down, if you’ll pardon the turn of phrase:

    • Toxicological: pertaining to whether or not it has toxic qualities
    • Pharmacokinetic: the science of asking, of chemicals in bodies, “where did it come from; where did it go; what could it do there; what can we know?”
    • Sucralose-6-acetate: an impurity that can be found in sucralose. For perspective, the study found that the sucralose in Splenda contained “up to” 0.67% sucralose-6-acetate.
    • Sucralose: a modified form of sucrose, that makes it hundreds of times sweeter, and non-caloric because the body cannot break it down so it’s treated as a dietary fiber and just passes through
    • In vitro: things are happening in petri dishes, not in animals (human or otherwise), which would be called “in vivo”
    • Screening assays: “we set up a very closed-parameters chemical test, to see what happens when we add this to this” ⇽ oversimplification, but this is the basic format of a screening assay

    Great, now we understand the title, but what about the study?

    Researchers looked primarily at the effects of sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose (together and separately) on epithelial cells (these are very simple cells that are easy to study; conveniently, they are also most of what makes up our intestinal walls). For this, they used a fancy way of replicating human intestinal walls, that’s actually quite fascinating but beyond the scope of today’s newsletter. Suffice it to say: it’s quite good, and/but has its limitations too. They also looked at some in vivo rat studies.

    What they found was…

    Based on samples from the rat feces (somehow this didn’t make it into the headlines), it appears that sucralose may be acetylated in the intestines. What that means is that we, if we are like the rats (definitely not a given, but a reasonable hypothesis), might convert up to 10% of sucralose into sucralose-6-acetate inside us. Iff we do, the next part of the findings become more serious.

    Based on the in vitro simulations, both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate reduced intestinal barrier integrity at least a little, but sucralose-6-acetate was the kicker when it came to most of the effects—at least, so we (reasonably!) suppose.

    Basically, there’s a lot of supposition going on here but the suppositions are reasonable. That’s how science works; there’s usually little we can know for sure from a single study; it’s when more studies roll in that we start to get a more complete picture.

    What was sucralose-6-acetate found to do? It increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer (granted those three things generally go together). So that’s a “this probably has this end result” supposition.

    More concretely, and which most of the headlines latched onto, it was found (in vitro) to induce cytogenic damage, specifically, of the clastogenic variety (produces DNA strand breaks—so this is different than pineapple’s bromelain and DNA-helicase’s relatively harmless unzipping of genes).

    The dose makes the poison

    So, how much is too much and is that 0.67% something to worry about?

    • Remembering the rat study, it may be more like 10% once our intestines have done their thing. Iff we’re like rats.
    • But, even if it’s only 0.67%, this will still be above the “threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity”, of 0.15µg/person/day.
    • On the other hand, the fact that these were in vitro studies is a serious limitation.
    • Sometimes something is very dangerous in vitro, because it’s being put directly onto cells, whereas in vivo we may have mechanisms for dealing with that.

    We won’t know for sure until we get in vivo studies in human subjects, and that may not happen any time soon, if ever, depending on the technical limitations and ethical considerations that sometimes preclude doing certain studies in humans.

    Bottom line:

    • The headlines are written to be scary, but aren’t wrong; their claims are fundamentally true
    • What that means for us as actual humans may not be the same, however; we don’t know yet
    • For now, it is probably reasonable to avoid sucralose just in case

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The Wandering Mind – by Dr. Michael Corballis

    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 mind’s tendency to wander can be a disability, but could it also be a superpower? Dr. Corballis makes the case for such.

    While many authors focus on, well, how to focus, Dr. Corballis argues in this book that our wandering imagination can be more effective at problem-solving and creative tasks, than a focused, blinkered mind.

    The book’s a quick read (184 pages of quite light reading), and yet still quite dense with content. He takes us on a tour of the brain, theory of mind, the Default Mode Network (where a lot of the brain’s general ongoing organization occurs), learning, memory, forgetting, and creativity.

    Furthermore, he cites (and explains) studies showing what kinds of “breaks” from mental work allow the wandering mind to do its thing at peak efficiency, and what kinds of breaks are counterproductive. Certainly this has practical applications for all of us!

    Bottom line: if you’d like to be less frustrated by your mind’s tendency to wander, this is a fine book to show how to leverage that trait to your benefit.

    Click here to check out The Wandering Mind, and set yours onto more useful tracks!

    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:

  • 4 Ways Vaccine Skeptics Mislead You on Measles and More

    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.

    Measles is on the rise in the United States. In the first quarter of this year, the number of cases was about 17 times what it was, on average, during the same period in each of the four years before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Half of the people infected — mainly children — have been hospitalized.

    It’s going to get worse, largely because a growing number of parents are deciding not to get their children vaccinated against measles as well as diseases like polio and pertussis. Unvaccinated people, or those whose immunization status is unknown, account for 80% of the measles cases this year. Many parents have been influenced by a flood of misinformation spouted by politicians, podcast hosts, and influential figures on television and social media. These personalities repeat decades-old notions that erode confidence in the established science backing routine childhood vaccines. KFF Health News examined the rhetoric and explains why it’s misguided:

    The No-Big-Deal Trope

    A common distortion is that vaccines aren’t necessary because the diseases they prevent are not very dangerous, or too rare to be of concern. Cynics accuse public health officials and the media of fear-mongering about measles even as 19 states report cases.

    For example, an article posted on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center — a regular source of vaccine misinformation — argued that a resurgence in concern about the disease “is ‘sky is falling’ hype.” It went on to call measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza “politically incorrect to get.”

    Measles kills roughly 2 of every 1,000 children infected, according to the CDC. If that seems like a bearable risk, it’s worth pointing out that a far larger portion of children with measles will require hospitalization for pneumonia and other serious complications. For every 10 measles cases, one child with the disease develops an ear infection that can lead to permanent hearing loss. Another strange effect is that the measles virus can destroy a person’s existing immunity, meaning they’ll have a harder time recovering from influenza and other common ailments.

    Measles vaccines have averted the deaths of about 94 million people, mainly children, over the past 50 years, according to an April analysis led by the World Health Organization. Together with immunizations against polio and other diseases, vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally.

    Some skeptics argue that vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer a threat because they’ve become relatively rare in the U.S. (True — due to vaccination.) This reasoning led Florida’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, to tell parents that they could send their unvaccinated children to school amid a measles outbreak in February. “You look at the headlines and you’d think the sky was falling,” Ladapo said on a News Nation newscast. “There’s a lot of immunity.”

    As this lax attitude persuades parents to decline vaccination, the protective group immunity will drop, and outbreaks will grow larger and faster. A rapid measles outbreak hit an undervaccinated population in Samoa in 2019, killing 83 people within four months. A chronic lack of measles vaccination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo led to more than 5,600 people dying from the disease in massive outbreaks last year.

    The ‘You Never Know’ Trope

    Since the earliest days of vaccines, a contingent of the public has considered them bad because they’re unnatural, as compared with nature’s bounty of infections and plagues. “Bad” has been redefined over the decades. In the 1800s, vaccine skeptics claimed that smallpox vaccines caused people to sprout horns and behave like beasts. More recently, they blame vaccines for ailments ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism to immune system disruption. Studies don’t back the assertions. However, skeptics argue that their claims remain valid because vaccines haven’t been adequately tested.

    In fact, vaccines are among the most studied medical interventions. Over the past century, massive studies and clinical trials have tested vaccines during their development and after their widespread use. More than 12,000 people took part in clinical trials of the most recent vaccine approved to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella. Such large numbers allow researchers to detect rare risks, which are a major concern because vaccines are given to millions of healthy people.

    To assess long-term risks, researchers sift through reams of data for signals of harm. For example, a Danish group analyzed a database of more than 657,000 children and found that those who had been vaccinated against measles as babies were no more likely to later be diagnosed with autism than those who were not vaccinated. In another study, researchers analyzed records from 805,000 children born from 1990 through 2001 and found no evidence to back a concern that multiple vaccinations might impair children’s immune systems.

    Nonetheless, people who push vaccine misinformation, like candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismiss massive, scientifically vetted studies. For example, Kennedy argues that clinical trials of new vaccines are unreliable because vaccinated kids aren’t compared with a placebo group that gets saline solution or another substance with no effect. Instead, many modern trials compare updated vaccines with older ones. That’s because it’s unethical to endanger children by giving them a sham vaccine when the protective effect of immunization is known. In a 1950s clinical trial of polio vaccines, 16 children in the placebo group died of polio and 34 were paralyzed, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of a book on the first polio vaccine.

    The Too-Much-Too-Soon Trope

    Several bestselling vaccine books on Amazon promote the risky idea that parents should skip or delay their children’s vaccines. “All vaccines on the CDC’s schedule may not be right for all children at all times,” writes Paul Thomas in his bestselling book “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.” He backs up this conviction by saying that children who have followed “my protocol are among the healthiest in the world.”

    Since the book was published, Thomas’ medical license was temporarily suspended in Oregon and Washington. The Oregon Medical Board documented how Thomas persuaded parents to skip vaccines recommended by the CDC, and reported that he “reduced to tears” a mother who disagreed.  Several children in his care came down with pertussis and rotavirus, diseases easily prevented by vaccines, wrote the board. Thomas recommended fish oil supplements and homeopathy to an unvaccinated child with a deep scalp laceration, rather than an emergency tetanus vaccine. The boy developed severe tetanus, landing in the hospital for nearly two months, where he required intubation, a tracheotomy, and a feeding tube to survive.

    The vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC has been tailored to protect children at their most vulnerable points in life and minimize side effects. The combination measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine isn’t given for the first year of a baby’s life because antibodies temporarily passed on from their mother can interfere with the immune response. And because some babies don’t generate a strong response to that first dose, the CDC recommends a second one around the time a child enters kindergarten because measles and other viruses spread rapidly in group settings.

    Delaying MMR doses much longer may be unwise because data suggests that children vaccinated at 10 or older have a higher chance of adverse reactions, such as a seizure or fatigue.

    Around a dozen other vaccines have discrete timelines, with overlapping windows for the best response. Studies have shown that MMR vaccines may be given safely and effectively in combination with other vaccines.

    ’They Don’t Want You to Know’ Trope

    Kennedy compares the Florida surgeon general to Galileo in the introduction to Ladapo’s new book on transcending fear in public health. Just as the Roman Catholic inquisition punished the renowned astronomer for promoting theories about the universe, Kennedy suggests that scientific institutions oppress dissenting voices on vaccines for nefarious reasons.

    “The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies is not a new phenomenon,” Kennedy writes. His running mate, lawyer Nicole Shanahan, has campaigned on the idea that conversations about vaccine harms are censored and the CDC and other federal agencies hide data due to corporate influence.

    Claims like “they don’t want you to know” aren’t new among the anti-vaccine set, even though the movement has long had an outsize voice. The most listened-to podcast in the U.S., “The Joe Rogan Experience,” regularly features guests who cast doubt on scientific consensus. Last year on the show, Kennedy repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.

    Far from ignoring that concern, epidemiologists have taken it seriously. They have conducted more than a dozen studies searching for a link between vaccines and autism, and repeatedly found none. “We have conclusively disproven the theory that vaccines are connected to autism,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “So, the public health establishment tends to shut those conversations down quickly.”

    Federal agencies are transparent about seizures, arm pain, and other reactions that vaccines can cause. And the government has a program to compensate individuals whose injuries are scientifically determined to result from them. Around 1 to 3.5 out of every million doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction; a person’s lifetime risk of death by lightning is estimated to be as much as four times as high.

    “The most convincing thing I can say is that my daughter has all her vaccines and that every pediatrician and public health person I know has vaccinated their kids,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “No one would do that if they thought there were serious risks.”

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    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: