How To Regrow Receding Gums
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.
One of the problems with the human form is that our teeth evolved to last us for the whole of our life, with plenty of room to spare before our eventual death at the ripe old age of about 35 on average. Dr. Ellie Phillips advises those of us who might be a bit older than that, on how we can avoid becoming “too long in the tooth”—in other words, how to keep our gums, and thus our teeth, in place and healthy.
Getting to the root of the problem
The single biggest cause of gum recession is an acidic environment in the mouth, which harms teeth and gums alike. This acidic environment is produced not merely by consuming acid foods or drinks, but also (and much more often, and more problematically) by sugary foods and drinks, which are not necessarily themselves acidic, but they feed bacteria that release acids as a by-product of their metabolism. If we consume an acidic food or drink, it’s there for a moment, but if we then salivate and/or take a drink of water, it’s pretty much gone in a few seconds. But those bacteria when we feed them sugar? They are there to stay unless we do something more about them than just drink some water.
Other contributing factors to gum recession include teeth grinding, and (ironically) certain oral care products, especially many artificial teeth whiteners.
In case you were wondering: no, brushing will not* generally cause or even worsen gum recession, but flossing can exacerbate it if it’s already underway.
*unless, of course, you are using one of the whiteners we mentioned above
What to do about it: Dr. Phillips recommends:
- use a moderately firm toothbrush to massage gums and promote blood flow
- avoid acidic oral products and homemade remedies even if they’re not acidic but can be caustic, such as baking soda
- rebuild your gums’ and teeth’s protective biofilm (yes, there are “good bacteria” that are supposed to be there) with proper brushing
- avoid cleanings that are more intensive than brushing—skip flossing until your gums have recovered, too
- adjust your diet to avoid acids and (especially) sugars
10almonds note: she also recommends the use of xylitol to promote a healthy oral environment; we don’t recommend that, as while it may be great for the teeth, studies have found it to be bad for the heart.
For more on all of her advices and a bit more of the science of it, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
- Flossing Without Flossing?
- Less Common Oral Hygiene Options ← including the miswak “chewing stick”, which even outperformed toothbrushes in clinical trials, by biochemically altering the composition of the saliva while gently cleaning like a toothbrush.
- Fluoride Toothpaste vs Non-Fluoride Toothpaste – Which is Healthier?
- Non-Alcohol Mouthwash vs Alcohol Mouthwash – Which is Healthier?
- Xylitol vs Erythritol – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Drug companies pay doctors over A$11 million a year for travel and education. Here’s which specialties received the most
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.
Drug companies are paying Australian doctors millions of dollars a year to fly to overseas conferences and meetings, give talks to other doctors, and to serve on advisory boards, our research shows.
Our team analysed reports from major drug companies, in the first comprehensive analysis of its kind. We found drug companies paid more than A$33 million to doctors in the three years from late 2019 to late 2022 for these consultancies and expenses.
We know this underestimates how much drug companies pay doctors as it leaves out the most common gift – food and drink – which drug companies in Australia do not declare.
Due to COVID restrictions, the timescale we looked at included periods where doctors were likely to be travelling less and attending fewer in-person medical conferences. So we suspect current levels of drug company funding to be even higher, especially for travel.
What we did and what we found
Since 2019, Medicines Australia, the trade association of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, has published a centralised database of payments made to individual health professionals. This is the first comprehensive analysis of this database.
We downloaded the data and matched doctors’ names with listings with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). We then looked at how many doctors per medical specialty received industry payments and how much companies paid to each specialty.
We found more than two-thirds of rheumatologists received industry payments. Rheumatologists often prescribe expensive new biologic drugs that suppress the immune system. These drugs are responsible for a substantial proportion of drug costs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
The specialists who received the most funding as a group were cancer doctors (oncology/haematology specialists). They received over $6 million in payments.
This is unsurprising given recently approved, expensive new cancer drugs. Some of these drugs are wonderful treatment advances; others offer minimal improvement in survival or quality of life.
A 2023 study found doctors receiving industry payments were more likely to prescribe cancer treatments of low clinical value.
Our analysis found some doctors with many small payments of a few hundred dollars. There were also instances of large individual payments.
Why does all this matter?
Doctors usually believe drug company promotion does not affect them. But research tells a different story. Industry payments can affect both doctors’ own prescribing decisions and those of their colleagues.
A US study of meals provided to doctors – on average costing less than US$20 – found the more meals a doctor received, the more of the promoted drug they prescribed.
Another study found the more meals a doctor received from manufacturers of opioids (a class of strong painkillers), the more opioids they prescribed. Overprescribing played a key role in the opioid crisis in North America.
Overall, a substantial body of research shows industry funding affects prescribing, including for drugs that are not a first choice because of poor effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness.
Then there are doctors who act as “key opinion leaders” for companies. These include paid consultants who give talks to other doctors. An ex-industry employee who recruited doctors for such roles said:
Key opinion leaders were salespeople for us, and we would routinely measure the return on our investment, by tracking prescriptions before and after their presentations […] If that speaker didn’t make the impact the company was looking for, then you wouldn’t invite them back.
We know about payments to US doctors
The best available evidence on the effects of pharmaceutical industry funding on prescribing comes from the US government-run program called Open Payments.
Since 2013, all drug and device companies must report all payments over US$10 in value in any single year. Payment reports are linked to the promoted products, which allows researchers to compare doctors’ payments with their prescribing patterns.
Analysis of this data, which involves hundreds of thousands of doctors, has indisputably shown promotional payments affect prescribing.
US research also shows that doctors who had studied at medical schools that banned students receiving payments and gifts from drug companies were less likely to prescribe newer and more expensive drugs with limited evidence of benefit over existing drugs.
In general, Australian medical faculties have weak or no restrictions on medical students seeing pharmaceutical sales representatives, receiving gifts, or attending industry-sponsored events during their clinical training. They also have no restrictions on academic staff holding consultancies with manufacturers whose products they feature in their teaching.
So a first step to prevent undue pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribing decisions is to shelter medical students from this influence by having stronger conflict-of-interest policies, such as those mentioned above.
A second is better guidance for individual doctors from professional organisations and regulators on the types of funding that is and is not acceptable. We believe no doctor actively involved in patient care should accept payments from a drug company for talks, international travel or consultancies.
Third, if Medicines Australia is serious about transparency, it should require companies to list all payments – including those for food and drink – and to link health professionals’ names to their Ahpra registration numbers. This is similar to the reporting standard pharmaceutical companies follow in the US and would allow a more complete and clearer picture of what’s happening in Australia.
Patients trust doctors to choose the best available treatments to meet their health needs, based on scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. They don’t expect marketing to influence that choice.
Barbara Mintzes, Professor, School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney and Malcolm Forbes, Consultant psychiatrist and PhD candidate, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Nutrivore – by Dr. Sarah Ballantyne
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 core idea of this book is that foods can be assigned a numerical value according to their total nutritional value, and that this number can be used to guide a person’s diet such that we will eat, in aggregate, a diet that is more nutritious. So far, so simple.
What Dr. Ballantyne also does, besides explaining and illustrating this system (there are chapters explaining the calculation system, and appendices with values), is also going over what to consider important and what we can let slide, and what things we might need more of to address a wide assortment of potential health concerns. And yes, this is definitely a “positive diet” approach, i.e. it focuses on what to add in, not what to cut out.
The premise of the “positive diet” approach is simple, by the way: if we get a full set of good nutrients, we will be satisfied and not crave unhealthy food.
She also offers a lot of helpful “rules of thumb”, and provides a variety of cheat-sheets and suchlike to make things as easy as possible.
There’s also a recipes section! Though, it’s not huge and it’s probably not necessary, but it’s just one more “she’s thinking of everything” element.
Bottom line: if you’d like a single-volume “Bible of” nutrition-made-easy, this is a very usable tome.
Click here to check out Nutrivore, and start filling up your diet!
Share This Post
Vaccines and cancer: The myth that won’t die
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.
Two recent studies reported rising cancer rates among younger adults in the U.S. and worldwide. This prompted some online anti-vaccine accounts to link the studies’ findings to COVID-19 vaccines.
But, as with other myths, the data tells a very different story.
What you need to know
- Baseless claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have persisted online for several years and gained traction in late 2023.
- Two recent reports finding rising cancer rates among younger adults are based on pre-pandemic cancer incidence data. Cancer rates in the U.S. have been on the rise since the 1990s.
- There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk.
False claims about COVID-19 vaccines began circulating months before the vaccines were available. Chief among these claims was misinformed speculation that vaccine mRNA could alter or integrate into vaccine recipients’ DNA.
It does not. But that didn’t prevent some on social media from spinning that claim into a persistent myth alleging that mRNA vaccines can cause or accelerate cancer growth. Anti-vaccine groups even coined the term “turbo cancer” to describe a fake phenomenon of abnormally aggressive cancers allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
They used the American Cancer Society’s 2024 cancer projection—based on incidence data through 2020—and a study of global cancer trends between 1999 and 2019 to bolster the false claims. This exposed the dishonesty at the heart of the anti-vaccine messaging, as data that predated the pandemic by decades was carelessly linked to COVID-19 vaccines in viral social media posts.
Some on social media cherry-pick data and use unfounded evidence because the claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer are not true. According to the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society, there is no evidence of any link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in cancer diagnosis, progression, or remission.
Why does the vaccine cancer myth endure?
At the root of false cancer claims about COVID-19 vaccines is a long history of anti-vaccine figures falsely linking vaccines to cancer. Polio and HPV vaccines have both been the target of disproven cancer myths.
Not only do HPV vaccines not cause cancer, they are one of only two vaccines that prevent cancer.
In the case of polio vaccines, some early batches were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), a virus that is known to cause cancer in some mammals but not humans. The contaminated batches were discovered, and no other vaccine has had SV40 contamination in over 60 years.
Follow-up studies found no increase in cancer rates in people who received the SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. Yet, vaccine opponents have for decades claimed that polio vaccines cause cancer.
Recycling of the SV40 myth
The SV40 myth resurfaced in 2023 when vaccine opponents claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain the virus. In reality, a small, nonfunctional piece of the SV40 virus is used in the production of some COVID-19 vaccines. This DNA fragment, called the promoter, is commonly used in biomedical research and vaccine development and doesn’t remain in the finished product.
Crucially, the SV40 promoter used to produce COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus and is associated with cancer-causing properties in some animals. The promoter also lacks the ability to survive on its own inside the cell or interact with DNA. In other words, it poses no risk to humans.
Over 5.6 billion people worldwide have received COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020. At that scale, even the tiniest increase in cancer rates in vaccinated populations would equal hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths. The evidence for alleged vaccine-linked cancer would be observed in real incidence, treatment, and mortality data, not social media anecdotes or unverifiable reports.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
Related Posts
Metformin For Weight-Loss & 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.
Metformin Without Diabetes?
Metformin is a diabetes drug; it works by:
- decreasing glucose absorption from the gut
- decreasing glucose production in the liver
- increasing glucose sensitivity
It doesn’t change how much insulin is secreted, and is unlikely to cause hypoglycemia, making it relatively safe as diabetes drugs go.
It’s a biguanide drug, and/but so far as science knows (so far), its mechanism of action is unique (i.e. no other drug works the same way that metformin does).
Today we’ll examine its off-label uses and see what the science says!
A note on terms: “off-label” = when a drug is prescribed to treat something other than the main purpose(s) for which the drug was approved.
Other examples include modafinil against depression, and beta-blockers against anxiety.
Why take it if not diabetic?
There are many reasons people take it, including just general health and life extension:
However, its use was originally expanded (still “off-label”, but widely prescribed) past “just for diabetes” when it showed efficacy in treating pre-diabetes. Here for example is a longitudinal study that found metformin use performed similarly to lifestyle interventions (e.g. diet, exercise, etc). In their words:
❝ Lifestyle intervention or metformin significantly reduced diabetes development over 15 years. There were no overall differences in the aggregate microvascular outcome between treatment groups❞
But, it seems it does more, as this more recent review found:
❝Long-term weight loss was also seen in both [metformin and intensive lifestyle intervention] groups, with better maintenance under metformin.
Subgroup analyses from the DPP/DPPOS have shed important light on the actions of metformin, including a greater effect in women with prior gestational diabetes, and a reduction in coronary artery calcium in men that might suggest a cardioprotective effect.
Long-term diabetes prevention with metformin is feasible and is supported in influential guidelines for selected groups of subjects.❞
Source: Metformin for diabetes prevention: update of the evidence base
We were wondering about that cardioprotective effect, so…
Cardioprotective effect
In short, another review (published a few months after the above one) confirmed the previous findings, and also added:
❝Patients with BMI > 35 showed an association between metformin use and lower incidence of CVD, including African Americans older than age 65. The data suggest that morbidly obese patients with prediabetes may benefit from the use of metformin as recommended by the ADA.❞
We wondered about the weight loss implications of this, and…
For weight loss
The short version is, it works:
- Effectiveness of metformin on weight loss in non-diabetic individuals with obesity
- Metformin for weight reduction in non-diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Metformin induces weight loss associated with gut microbiota alteration in non-diabetic obese women
…and many many more where those came from. As a point of interest, it has also been compared and contrasted to GLP-1 agonists.
Compared/contrasted with GLP-1 agonists
It’s not quite as effective for weight loss, and/but it’s a lot cheaper, is tablets rather than injections, has fewer side effects (for most people), and doesn’t result in dramatic yoyo-ing if there’s an interruption to taking it:
Or if you prefer a reader-friendly pop-science version:
Ozempic vs Metformin: Comparing The Two Diabetes Medications
Is it safe?
For most people yes, but there are a stack of contraindications, so it’s best to speak with your doctor. However, particular things to be aware of include:
- Usually contraindicated if you have kidney problems of any kind
- Usually contraindicated if you have liver problems of any kind
- May be contraindicated if you have issues with B12 levels
See also: Metformin: Is it a drug for all reasons and diseases?
Where can I get it?
As it’s a prescription-controlled drug, we can’t give you a handy Amazon link for this one.
However, many physicians are willing to prescribe it for off-label use (i.e., for reasons other than diabetes), so speak with yours (telehealth options may also be available).
If you do plan to speak with your doctor and you’re not sure they’ll be agreeable, you might want to get this paper and print it to take it with you:
Off-label indications of Metformin – Review of Literature
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:
For many who are suffering with prolonged grief, the holidays can be a time to reflect and find meaning in loss
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 holiday season is meant to be filled with joy, connection and celebration of rituals. Many people, however, are starkly reminded of their grief this time of year and of whom – or what – they have lost.
The added stress of the holiday season doesn’t help. Studies show that the holidays negatively affect many people’s mental health.
While COVID-19-related stressors may have lessened, the grief from change and loss that so many endured during the pandemic persists. This can cause difficult emotions to resurface when they are least expected.
I am a licensed therapist and trauma-sensitive yoga instructor. For the last 12 years, I’ve helped clients and families manage grief, depression, anxiety and complex trauma. This includes many health care workers and first responders who have recounted endless stories to me about how the pandemic increased burnout and affected their mental health and quality of life.
I developed an online program that research shows has improved their well-being. And I’ve observed firsthand how much grief and sadness can intensify during the holidays.
Post-pandemic holidays and prolonged grief
During the pandemic, family dynamics, close relationships and social connections were strained, mental health problems increased or worsened, and most people’s holiday traditions and routines were upended.
Those who lost a loved one during the pandemic may not have been able to practice rituals such as holding a memorial service, further delaying the grieving process. As a result, holiday traditions may feel more painful now for some. Time off from school or work can also trigger more intense feelings of grief and contribute to feelings of loneliness, isolation or depression.
Sometimes feelings of grief are so persistent and severe that they interfere with daily life. For the past several decades, researchers and clinicians have been grappling with how to clearly define and treat complicated grief that does not abate over time.
In March 2022, a new entry to describe complicated grief was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which classifies a spectrum of mental health disorders and problems to better understand people’s symptoms and experiences in order to treat them.
This newly defined condition is called prolonged grief disorder. About 10% of bereaved adults are at risk, and those rates appear to have increased in the aftermath of the pandemic.
People with prolonged grief disorder experience intense emotions, longing for the deceased, or troublesome preoccupation with memories of their loved one. Some also find it difficult to reengage socially and may feel emotionally numb. They commonly avoid reminders of their loved one and may experience a loss of identity and feel bleak about their future. These symptoms persist nearly every day for at least a month. Prolonged grief disorder can be diagnosed at least one year after a significant loss for adults and at least six months after a loss for children.
I am no stranger to complicated grief: A close friend of mine died by suicide when I was in college, and I was one of the last people he spoke to before he ended his life. This upended my sense of predictability and control in my life and left me untangling the many existential themes that suicide loss survivors often face.
How grieving alters brain chemistry
Research suggests that grief not only has negative consequences for a person’s physical health, but for brain chemistry too.
The feeling of grief and intense yearning may disrupt the neural reward systems in the brain. When bereaved individuals seek connection to their lost loved one, they are craving the chemical reward they felt before their loss when they connected with that person. These reward-seeking behaviors tend to operate on a feedback loop, functioning similar to substance addiction, and could be why some people get stuck in the despair of their grief.
One study showed an increased activation of the amygdala when showing death-related images to people who are dealing with complicated grief, compared to adults who are not grieving a loss. The amygdala, which initiates our fight or flight response for survival, is also associated with managing distress when separated from a loved one. These changes in the brain might explain the great impact prolonged grief has on someone’s life and their ability to function.
Recognizing prolonged grief disorder
Experts have developed scales to help measure symptoms of prolonged grief disorder. If you identify with some of these signs for at least one year, it may be time to reach out to a mental health professional.
Grief is not linear and doesn’t follow a timeline. It is a dynamic, evolving process that is different for everyone. There is no wrong way to grieve, so be compassionate to yourself and don’t make judgments on what you should or shouldn’t be doing.
Increasing your social supports and engaging in meaningful activities are important first steps. It is critical to address any preexisting or co-occurring mental health concerns such as anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress.
It can be easy to confuse grief with depression, as some symptoms do overlap, but there are critical differences.
If you are experiencing symptoms of depression for longer than a few weeks and it is affecting your everyday life, work and relationships, it may be time to talk with your primary care doctor or therapist.
A sixth stage of grief
I have found that naming the stage of grief that someone is experiencing helps diminish the power it might have over them, allowing them to mourn their loss.
For decades, most clinicians and researchers have recognized five stages of grief: denial/shock, anger, depression, bargaining and acceptance.
But “accepting” your grief doesn’t sit well for many. That is why a sixth stage of grief, called “finding meaning,” adds another perspective. Honoring a loss by reflecting on its meaning and the weight of its impact can help people discover ways to move forward. Recognizing how one’s life and identity are different while making space for your grief during the holidays might be one way to soften the despair.
When my friend died by suicide, I found a deeper appreciation for what he brought into my life, soaking up the moments he would have enjoyed, in honor of him. After many years, I was able to find meaning by spreading mental health awareness. I spoke as an expert presenter for suicide prevention organizations, wrote about suicide loss and became certified to teach my local community how to respond to someone experiencing signs of mental health distress or crisis through Mental Health First Aid courses. Finding meaning is different for everyone, though.
Sometimes, adding a routine or holiday tradition can ease the pain and allow a new version of life, while still remembering your loved one. Take out that old recipe or visit your favorite restaurant you enjoyed together. You can choose to stay open to what life has to offer, while grieving and honoring your loss. This may offer new meaning to what – and who – is around you.
If you need emotional support or are in a mental health crisis, dial 988 or chat online with a crisis counselor.
Mandy Doria, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Rose Hips vs Blueberries – 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 rose hips to blueberries, we picked the rose hips.
Why?
Both of these fruits are abundant sources of antioxidants and other polyphenols, but one of them stands out for overall nutritional density:
In terms of macros, rose hips have about 2x the carbohydrates, and/but about 10x the fiber. That’s an easy calculation and a clear win for rose hips.
When it comes to vitamins, rose hips have a lot more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, K, and choline. On the other hand, blueberries boast more of vitamins B1 and B9. That’s a 9:2 lead for rose hips, even before we consider rose hips’ much greater margins of difference (kicking off with 80x the vitamin A, for instance, and many multiples of many of the others).
In the category of minerals, rose hips have a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Meanwhile, blueberries are not higher in any minerals.
In short: as ever, enjoy both, but if you’re looking for nutritional density, there’s a clear winner here and it’s rose hips.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
It’s In The Hips: Rosehip’s Benefits, Inside & Out
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: