
It’s Not A Diet – by Davinia Taylor
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 diet books claim “it’s not a diet”, even when the titles are things like “The Such-and-Such Diet”.
This time, we get to see the claim as the title itself, so, how does it measure up?
Honestly, we’ll agree it’s not a diet. Yes, there is nutritional advice, and nothing that will be too shocking to regular 10almonds readers. Avoid processed foods, get plenty of fruit and veg, skip the alcohol. She leans towards keto, but isn’t evangelical about it despite selling a line of keto products herself. All in all, it can be called dietary guidance, but not reasonably “a diet” in any meaningful sense of the word.
The only counterpoint is that there is, for those who like that sort of thing, a “two-week reset programme”, which we might consider a diet, given it is clearly prescriptive with its meal plan.
She also talks sleep, hydration, stress management, movement, and so forth. Again, nothing that will surprise the well-informed reader. So, what does this book have to offer that we’re not assuming knowledge of?
Informationally, very little. But inspirationally, rather more, and a lot is about integrating healthier changes into your life and making them actually stick—and that’s where the real value of the book lies.
The style is, as with her other book “Futureproof” that we reviewed all so recently, again very direct and personable, and/but has a normal British amount of casual swearing that might shock some American readers. There’s a lot less science in this book than her other one, so there’s no bibliography per se, just an “acknowledgements” section at the back.
Bottom line: if you know what you need to do but struggle more with actually doing it, this book can help with that.
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:
-
Honey vs Maple Syrup – 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 honey to maple syrup, we picked the honey.
Why?
It was very close, as both have small advantages:
• Honey has some medicinal properties (and depending on type, may contain an antihistamine)
• Maple syrup is a good source of manganese, as well as low-but-present amounts of other mineralsHowever, you wouldn’t want to eat enough maple syrup to rely on it as a source of those minerals, and honey has the lower GI (average 46 vs 54; for comparison, refined sugar is 65), which works well as a tie-breaker.
(If GI’s very important to you, though, the easy winner here would be agave syrup if we let it compete, with its GI of 15)
Read more:
• Can Honey Relieve Allergies?
• From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’sShare This Post
-
Why Lung Cancer Is On The Rise In Women Who’ve Never Smoked
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 easy to assume that if you’ve never smoked, lung cancer is just not a risk for you, unless you got very unlucky with an asbestos-laden environment or such.
And yes, smoking is indeed the most overwhelmingly strong risk factor:
❝It is estimated that cigarette smoking explains almost 90% of lung cancer risk in men and 70 to 80% in women❞
Which is a lot (and we’ll address that discrepancy by sex shortly), but meanwhile first let’s mention:
❝Compared with non-smokers, smokers have as much as a 30-fold increased risk of developing cancer.
31% and 26% of all cancer deaths in men and women, respectively, result from lung cancer in the United States.
Overall 5-year survival is only 15%, and 1-year survival is approximately 42%.
In total, lung cancer is responsible for more deaths than prostate, colon, pancreas, and breast cancers combined❞
Source: Smoking and Lung Cancer
Sobering statistics for any smoker, certainly.
But, “smoking is bad for the health” is not the breaking news of the century, so we’ll look now at the other risk factors.
Before we do though, let’s just drop this previous main feature of ours for anyone who does smoke or perhaps who has a loved one who smokes:
Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best? ← it’s not specific just to smoking, but it does cover such also
So, Why the extra risk for women, even if we don’t smoke?
Let’s reframe that first statistic we gave, now presenting the same information differently:
Women who do not smoke are 2–3x more likely to get lung cancer than men who do not smoke.
So… why?
There are three main reasons:
Genetic risks
Cancer often arises from genetic mutations. In the case of lung cancer, genes such as ALK, ROS1, TP53, KRAS, and EGFR are implicated, and some of those are much more likely to mutate in women than in men.
In some cases, it’s because if you have XX chromosomes (as most women do), there are genes you have redundant copies of that people with XY chromosomes don’t. Other less common karyotypes, such as XXY, probably carry higher risks, but that’s just a hypothesis we’re making based on “more copies of a gene = more chances for it to mutate”.
See also: Frequency and Distinctive Spectrum of KRAS Mutations in Never Smokers with Lung Adenocarcinoma
In other cases, it’s because estrogen interacts with the gene mutations, making lung cancer more likely to develop in women over time:
Hormonal risks (but not what you might think)
When something affects women more, it’s easy to blame hormones, but, as researchers have concluded…
❝A reduced lung cancer risk was found for OC and HRT ever users. Both oestrogen only and oestrogen+progestin HRT were associated with decreased risk. No dose-response relationship was observed with years of OC/HRT use. The greatest risk reduction was seen for squamous cell carcinoma in OC users and in both adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma in HRT users.❞
OC = oral contraceptive
HRT = hormone replacement therapyNote: we snipped out the statistical calculations for readability and brevity, so if you are interested in those, check out the paper below:
Meanwhile, another research review of 22 studies with nearly a million participants found:
❝Current or ever HRT use is partly correlated with the decreased incidence of lung cancer in women.
Concerns about the incidence of lung cancer can be reduced when perimenopausal and postmenopausal women use current HRT to reduce menopausal symptoms.❞
So, the problem seems to at least a lot of the time be not estrogen (notwithstanding what we mentioned previously about mutations—sometimes a thing can have both pros and cons), but rather, untreated menopause being the higher risk factor.
This is very reminiscent of what we talked about in one of our main features about Alzheimer’s disease:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear ← Women get Alzheimer’s at nearly 2x the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.
Chronic inflammation
For reasons that have not been tied to genetics or hormones*, women suffer from autoimmune diseases at much higher rates than men.
*presumably it is at least one or the other, because there aren’t a lot of other options that seem plausible, but (as with many “this thing mainly affects women” maladies), science hasn’t yet determined the cause.
Because cancer is in part a disease of immune dysfunction (cells fail to kill cells they should be killing), having an autoimmune disease, or indeed chronic inflammation in general, will result in a higher risk of cancer.
For general theory, see: Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases: A Tale of Two Immunological Opposites?
For specifics, see: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Role of the Immune System and Potential for Immunotherapy
And this one is the most likely explanation of why lung cancer in women who’ve never smoked is on the rise—it’s because chronic inflammation in women is on the rise. While people regardless of gender are getting chronic inflammation at increased rates nowadays (probably due in large part to the rise of ultra-processed food, as well as the higher stress of modern life, but again, we’re hypothesizing), if all other factors are equal, women will still get it more than men.
However!
Like the consideration of HRT’s protective effects (and unlike the genetic factors), this is one we can do something about.
For how, check out: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation
Want to know more?
For lung health in general, see:
Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!
Take care!
Share This Post
-
What’s The Deal With The New US Diet Guidelines?
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!
No question/request too big or small 😎
❝Would love to hear your thoughts on the new U.S. dietary guideline pyramid❞
Science-wise, it’s a mixed bag!
The good
The new guidelines advocate for reducing one’s intake of ultraprocessed foods, and especially to reduce one’s intake of added sugars.
About ultraprocessed foods: technically they’re not all bad, but one really can’t go wrong with avoiding them to be on the safe side, if you don’t want to have to research every product to find out, per: How Processed Is The Food You Buy, Really?
As for why you might want to skip them, see: How Likely Is It That Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) Will Kill You?
And about sugars: From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same? ← this is important to understand, and a lot of people don’t!
The new guidelines also still say to eat plenty of fruit & veg, as well as whole grains.
This too is supported by good science, and we’ve written about this before, for example:
- What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
- Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
- Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?
- The Real Magic Number For Daily Fruit/Veg
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- What Do The Different Kinds Of Fiber Do? 30 Foods That Rank Highest
- What Matters Most For Your Heart? Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure ← Spoiler: it’s fiber
Here’s a good guest article about the global scientific community’s position on this:
More veg, less meat: the latest global update on a diet that’s good for people and the planet
The bad
It now puts meat and dairy in the “eat most” category, having flipped the triangle to put it in a broad base at the top, even going so far as to say to include red meat, butter, and beef tallow.
This is very much against the global scientific consensus.
For example:
- Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies
- Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies
- Red Meat Consumption (Heme Iron Intake) and Risk for Diabetes and Comorbidities
- Associations of Processed Meat, Unprocessed Red Meat, Poultry, or Fish Intake With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality
- Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences
And as for butter, a recent huge study with nearly a quarter of a million participants found that every 10g increase butter consumption was associated with:
- 12% higher cancer mortality
- 15% higher all-cause mortality
- 17% higher CVD mortality
However, in the realm of small changes, substituting even 10g/intake of total butter with an equivalent amount of plant-based oils yielded 17% lower total mortality.
You can read the study in full, here: Butter and Plant-Based Oils Intake and Mortality
And you can read our article about it, here: Butter vs Plant Oils: What The Latest Evidence Shows
Another big problem with the advocacy for eating lots of red meat and butter and suchlike is that this takes one well over the 10g limit for saturated fats (which these new guidelines still recommend as the limit).
For more on why that matters so much, see: What’s The Truth? Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?
As for how this controversial advice got into the guidelines…
❝Conflicts of interest:
The scientific report accompanying the new guidelines disclosed that several committee members had financial relationships with food industry groups.
Three of nine members received grants or consulting fees from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. One also received support from the National Pork Board.
At least three members were linked to dairy industry organizations❞
Read in full: Prioritizing protein? What the new US dietary guidelines get right—and wrong—according to nutrition experts
Meanwhile, the American Heart Association has said in response:
❝For example, we are concerned that recommendations regarding salt seasoning and red meat consumption could inadvertently lead consumers to exceed recommended limits for sodium and saturated fats, which are primary drivers of cardiovascular disease.
We encourage consumers to prioritize plant-based proteins, seafood and lean meats and to limit high-fat animal products including red meat, butter, lard and tallow, which are linked to increased cardiovascular risk.❞
Read in full: New dietary guidelines underscore importance of healthy eating ← a very polite title
The downright confusing
Well, this is also bad, but it’s simply more confusingly bad.
The new guidelines no longer give a recommended unit-based numerical limit on alcohol, and instead simply say “Consume less alcohol for better overall health”, without saying how much less.
At first that may seem like an exhortation to avoid it entirely, but they also go on to say “People who should completely avoid alcohol include pregnant women, people who are recovering from alcohol use disorder or are unable to control the amount they drink, and people taking medications or with medical conditions that can interact with alcohol. For those with a family history of alcoholism, be mindful of alcohol consumption and associated addictive behaviors.”
…which rather implies that other people should not completely avoid alcohol, and/or should not be mindful of alcohol consumption and associated addictive behaviors.
Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that alcohol increases all-cause mortality at any dose (even “low-risk drinking”): Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults
…and the World Health Organization has declared that the only safe amount of alcohol is zero: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
On which note, no, not even the famous “small glass of red” is recommended: Can We Drink To Good Health?
For how that myth got started, see French biochemist Jessie Inchauspé’s explanation: Are You Making This Alcohol Mistake?
Want to learn more?
Check out:
The FDA Just Redefined “Healthy”—But How?
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Common Pesticide That Causes Brain Damage
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.
…and other items from this week’s health news:
Kills insects and isn’t great for humans either
In few words: exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos (CPF) causes lasting structural and metabolic abnormalities in the brain, leading to poorer motor skills.
In particular, researchers (Dr. Virginia Rauh et al.) found that higher prenatal CPF exposure was directly linked to:
- widespread disruptions in brain metabolism and tissue integrity
- greater structural and functional brain differences on imaging
- reduced motor speed and coordination
In the study cohort, most exposure came from indoor pesticide use in the US before the 2001 residential ban. However, CPF remains widely used in agriculture, most dangerously exposing farmworkers, pregnant people, and nearby communities via contaminated air and dust.
Read in full: Common pesticide linked to hidden brain damage, scientists warn
Related: Healthy Living in a Contaminated World – by Dr. Donald Hoernschemeyer
Let’s make this clear
Water is essential for human life, and the quality of that water matters a lot.
Researchers (Dr. Hamid Noghanibehambari & Dr. Jason Fletcher) used data from the Death Master Files (DMF) of Social Security Administration death records, looking at deaths that occurred between 1975 and 2005, and tallied those people’s year and city of birth and childhood with the water filtration data on file for that place and time, to see what effect one thing had on the other.
Now, as with any observational study, especially retrospective analysis, this cannot outright prove cause and effect, but the numbers were strong not just for healthy longevity being associated with water filtration, but also increased height and cognitive health:
Read in full: New study shows drinking water filtration systems may add months to lifespan
Related: New Way To Remove 98% Of PFAS “Forever Chemicals” From Water!
Exercise vs Multiple Sclerosis
We’ve written before about how multiple sclerosis (MS) can be put into remission with lifestyle management, allowing such a person to then enjoy greater athletic ability (amongst the more obvious benefits), but new research shows that irisin, an exercise hormone, itself reduces MS symptoms.
Importantly, it directly protects neurons in a way that medications have as yet been able to adequately (let alone safely) do.
Now, bearing in mind that MS is an autoimmune disorder, many medications that target it are immunosuppressants. In the case of the exercise hormone irisin, however, it not only has powerful neuroprotective effects (thus shielding the central nervous system from much of the adverse effects of MS), but also, it does it without directly suppressing peripheral immunity, which is quite a bonus too.
In the words of Dr. Christiane Wrann, corresponding author for this study, neuroscientist, and leader of the “Program in Neuroprotection in Exercise”,
❝We are optimistic that our study will open up further developments of irisin as a therapeutic for, in particular, progressive MS. Our findings strengthen the argument that irisin can help protect neurons in the context of multiple types of neurodegenerative diseases.❞
Read in full: New study shows how exercise hormone reduces multiple sclerosis symptoms
Related: Lifestyle vs Multiple Sclerosis & More
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:
-
New research challenges the idea of a ‘vicious cycle’ between psychological distress and conspiracy beliefs
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 research has been dedicated to understanding what makes people believe in conspiracies – and how they might be able to climb out of the rabbit hole again.
Conspiracies do happen. The Watergate scandal in the 1970s, which led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon, is arguably the most infamous example. The questioning of authority and the official narrative is something that should be encouraged.
But some people believe conspiracy theories that are contrary to evidence. Recent research found 8.9% of New Zealand participants and 10.1% of Australian participants agreed with the (false) claim fluoride is being intentionally added to the water supply by the government to make people less intelligent and easier to control.
What draws people to conspiracies like these?
One prominent theory is that conspiracy beliefs are linked to psychological distress such as anxiety and depression.
Our new research explores the causal relationship – whether psychological distress actually makes people more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. We found very limited evidence for a link between elevated distress and conspiracy beliefs.
Getty Images What research suggests about conspiracy beliefs
The existential threat model of conspiracy theories suggests experiences of psychological distress can make people more likely to develop conspiracy beliefs because they search for explanations for distressing events.
This model argues distress actually worsens once a conspiracy belief is formed, creating a vicious cycle where distress breeds conspiracy belief which, in turn, generates more distress.
The model also suggests this belief is exacerbated when a despised outgroup (political elites, for example) becomes salient as people try to make sense of their experience.
However, few have rigorously tested this claim. While substantial evidence for a correlation between psychological distress and belief in conspiracy theories has been established, correlation does not imply a causal link.
Some analyses of longitudinal data haven’t found evidence to support the hypothesis. But no one has directly tested the claims of the existential threat model.
We set out to do this using a longitudinal survey.
A longitudinal study isn’t as conclusive as a true experiment but it can establish the sequence of cause and effect and rule out some alternative explanations for a relationship.
Our sample consisted of 995 participants with representatives groups from New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. Each month from September 2022 to February 2023, we presented participants with a survey, including 11 conspiracy theories and common measures of anxiety, depression and stress. Each month we asked them about their level of agreement with the conspiracy theories, and their levels of psychological distress.
Prior to collecting the data, we preregistered our hypotheses. These boiled down to the ideas that increased distress of different types (anxiety, depression, stress) will subsequently increase belief in conspiracy theories and that such beliefs will subsequently increase distress.
Rethinking the vicious cycle
We found very limited evidence for elevated distress subsequently increasing belief in conspiracy theories.
We also found no evidence to support the converse – that belief in conspiracy theories increases distress.
Our findings suggest beliefs in conspiracy theories may mostly reflect a relatively stable worldview rather than being driven by temporary changes in distress.
This matters because some researchers have suggested interventions that reduce stress could be used to help reduce conspiracy beliefs. However, if stress is not driving conspiracy beliefs, as our results suggest, this approach is unlikely to be effective.
We also found no evidence that conspiracy beliefs cause short-term distress. This challenges the common assumption that beliefs in conspiracy theories inherently cause harm to one’s mental health, particularly stress, anxiety and depression. That said, conspiracy beliefs could still cause harm in other ways – such as by contributing to the flow of misinformation.
Our research challenges the idea of a vicious cycle of conspiracy beliefs. It appears distress may not have a key role in making people “spiral” down the rabbit hole.
Interventions that foster an analytical mindset or include critical thinking skills may be more useful.
Nick Fox, Researcher in Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University; Matt Williams, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University, and Stephen Hill, Associate Professor of Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
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:
-
5 Things You Can Change About Your Personality (But: Should You?)
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.
There are many personality-typing systems that, with varying degrees of validity*, aim to describe a person’s personality.
*and often pseudoscience:
- sometimes obviously so like astrology
- sometimes dressed up in clinical words like the Meyers-Briggs
- sometimes openly, per “this is not science but you may find it useful to frame things this way”, like the Enneagram
There is currently one kind of personality-typing system (with some minor variations) that is used in the actual field of clinical psychology, specifically under the umbrella of “trait theory”, and that is…
The “Big Five” personality traits
Also called the OCEAN or CANOE model, based on its 5 components:
- openness to experience: inventive/curious rather than consistent/cautious
- conscientiousness: efficient/organized rather than extravagant/careless
- extroversion: outgoing/energetic rather than solitary/reserved
- agreeableness: friendly/compassionate rather than critical/judgmental
- neuroticism: sensitive/nervous rather than resilient/confident
The latter (neuroticism) is not to be confused with neurosis, which is very different and beyond the scope of today’s article.
Note that some of these seem more positive/negative than others at a glance, but really, any of these could be a virtue or a vice depending on specifics or extremity.
For scientific reference, here’s an example paper:
The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values
Quick self-assessment
There are of course many lengthy questionnaires for this, but in the interests of expediency:
Take a moment to rate yourself as honestly as you can, on a scale of 1–10, for each of those components, with 10 being highest for the named trait.
For example, this writer gives herself: O7, C6, E3, A8, N2 (in other words I’d say I’m fairly open, moderately conscientious, on the reserved side, quite agreeable, and quite resilient)
Now, put your rating aside (in your phone’s notes app is fine, if you hadn’t written it down already) and forget about it for the moment, because we want you to do the next exercise from scratch.
Who would you be, at your best?
Now imagine your perfect idealized self, the best you could ever be, with no constraints.
Take a moment to rate your idealized self’s personality, on a scale of 1–10, for each of those components, with 10 being highest for the named trait.
For example, this writer picks: O9, C10, E5, A8, N1.
Maybe this, or maybe your own idealized self’s personality, will surprise you. That some traits might already be perfect for you already; others might just be nudged a little here or there; maybe there’s some big change you’d like. Chances are you didn’t go for a string of 10s or 1s (though if you did, you do you; there are no wrong answers here as this one is about your preferences).
We become who we practice being
There are some aspects of personality that can naturally change with age. For example:
- confidence/resilience will usually gradually increase with age due to life experience (politely overlook teenagers’ bravado; they are usually a bundle of nerves inside, resulting in the overcompensatory displays of confidence)
- openness to experience may decrease with age, as we can get into a rut of thinking/acting a certain way, and/or simply consciously decide that our position on something is already complete and does not need revision.
But, we can decide for ourselves how to nudge our “Big Five” traits, for example:
- We can make a point of seeking out new experiences, and considering new ideas, or develop strategies for reining ourselves in
- We can use systems to improve our organization, or go out of our way to introduce a little well-placed chaos
- We can “put ourselves out there” socially, or make the decision to decline more social invitations because we simply don’t want to
- We can make a habit of thinking kindly of others and ourselves, or we can consciously detach ourselves and look on the cynical side more
- We can build on our strengths and eliminate our weaknesses, or lean into uncomfortable emotions
Some of those may provoke a “why would anyone want to…?” response, but the truth is we are all different. An artist and a police officer may have very different goals for who they want to be as a person, for example.
Interventions to change personality can and do work:
A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention
There are many ways to go about “being the change we want to see” in ourselves, and yes there can be a degree of “fake it until you make it” if that works for you, but it doesn’t have to be so. It can also simply be a matter of setting yourself reminders about the things that are most important to you.
Writer’s example: pinned above my digital workspace I have a note from my late beloved, written just under a week before death. The final line reads, “keep being the good person that you are” (on a human level, the whole note is uplifting and soothing to me and makes me smile and remember the love we shared; or to put it in clinical terms, it promotes high agreeableness, low neuroticism).
Other examples could be a daily practice of gratitude (promotes lower neuroticism), or going out of your way to speak to your neighbors (promotes higher extraversion), signing up for a new educational course (promotes higher openness) or downloading a budgeting app (promotes higher conscientiousness).
In short: be the person you want to be, and be that person deliberately, because you can.
Some resources that may help for each of the 5 traits:
- Curiosity Kills The Neurodegeneration
- How (And Why) To Train Your Pre-Frontal Cortex
- How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation
- Optimism Seriously Increases Longevity!
- Building Psychological Resilience (Without Undue Hardship)
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:








