Knee Cracking & Popping: Should You Be Worried?

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.

Dr. Tom Walters (Doctor of Physical Therapy) explains about what’s going on behind our musical knees, and whether or not this synovial symphony is cause for concern.

When to worry (and when not to)

If the clicking/cracking/popping/etc does not come with pain, then it is probably being caused by the harmless movement of fluid within the joints, in this case specifically the patellofemoral joint, just behind the kneecap.

As Dr. Walters says:

❝It is extremely important that people understand that noises from the knee are usually not associated with pathology and may actually be a sign of a healthy, well-lubricated joint. let’s be careful not to make people feel bad about their knee noise as it can negatively influence how they view their body!❞

On the other hand, there is also such a thing as patellofemoral joint pain syndrome (PFPS), which is very common, and involves pain behind the kneecap, especially upon over-stressing the knee(s).

In such cases, it is good to get that checked out by a doctor/physiotherapist.

Dr. Walters advises us to gradually build up strength, and not try for too much too quickly. He also advises us to take care to strengthen our glutes in particular, so our knees have adequate support. Gentle stretching of the quadriceps and soft tissue mobilization with a foam roller, are also recommended, to reduce tension on the kneecap.

For more on these things and especially about the exercises, enjoy:

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

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

How To Really Take Care Of Your Joints

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:

  • Your gluten sensitivity might be something else entirely, new study shows

    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.

    Social media and lifestyle magazines have turned gluten – a protein in wheat, rye and barley – into a dietary villain.

    Athletes and celebrities have promoted gluten-free eating as the secret to better health and performance.

    But our review in The Lancet published today challenges that idea.

    By examining decades of research, we found that for most people who think they react to gluten, gluten itself is rarely the cause.

    Daisy-Daisy/Getty

    Symptoms but not coeliac

    Coeliac disease is when the body’s immune system attacks itself when someone eats gluten, leading to inflammation and damage to the gut.

    But people with gut or other symptoms after eating foods containing gluten can test negative for coeliac disease or wheat allergy. They are said to have non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.

    We wanted to understand whether gluten itself, or other factors, truly cause their symptoms.

    What we did and what we found

    Our study combined more than 58 studies covering symptom changes and possible ways they could arise. These included studying the immune system, gut barrier, microbes in the gut, and psychological explanations.

    Across studies, gluten-specific reactions were uncommon and, when they occurred, changes in symptoms were usually small. Many participants who believed they were “gluten sensitive” reacted equally – or more strongly – to a placebo.

    One landmark trial looked at the role of fermentable carbohydrates (known as FODMAPs) in people who said they were sensitive to gluten (but didn’t have coeliac disease). When people ate a low-FODMAP diet – avoiding foods such as certain fruits, vegetables, legumes and cereals – their symptoms improved, even when gluten was reintroduced.

    Another showed fructans – a type of FODMAP in wheat, onion, garlic and other foods – caused more bloating and discomfort than gluten itself.

    This suggests most people who feel unwell after eating gluten are sensitive to something else. This could be FODMAPs such as fructans, or other wheat proteins. Another explanation could be that symptoms reflect a disorder in how the gut interacts with the brain, similar to irritable bowel syndrome.

    Some people may be truly sensitive to gluten. However, current evidence suggests this is uncommon.

    People expected symptoms

    A consistent finding is how expecting to have symptoms profoundly shapes people’s symptoms.

    In blinded trials, when people unknowingly ate gluten or placebo, symptom differences almost vanished.

    Some who expected gluten to make them unwell developed identical discomfort when exposed to a placebo.

    This nocebo effect – the negative counterpart of placebo – shows that belief and prior experience influence how the brain processes signals from the gut.

    Brain-imaging research supports this, showing that expectation and emotion activate brain regions involved in pain and how we perceive threats. This can heighten sensitivity to normal gut sensations.

    These are real physiological responses. What the evidence is telling us is that focusing attention on the gut, coupled with anxiety about symptoms or repeated negative experiences with food, has real effects. This can sensitise how the gut interacts with the brain (known as the gut–brain axis) so normal digestive sensations are felt as pain or urgency.

    Recognising this psychological contribution doesn’t mean symptoms are imagined. When the brain predicts a meal may cause harm, gut sensory pathways amplify every cramp or sensation of discomfort, creating genuine distress.

    This helps explain why people remain convinced gluten is to blame even when blinded studies show otherwise. Symptoms are real, but the mechanism is often driven by expectation rather than gluten.

    So what else could explain why some people feel better after going gluten-free? Such a change in the diet also reduces high-FODMAP foods and ultra-processed products, encourages mindful eating and offers a sense of control. All these can improve our wellbeing.

    People also tend to eat more naturally gluten-free, nutrient-dense foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, which may further support gut health.

    The cost of going gluten-free

    For the approximately 1% of the population with coeliac disease, avoiding gluten for life is essential.

    But for most who feel better gluten-free, gluten is unlikely to be the true problem.

    There’s also a cost to going gluten-free unnecessarily. Gluten-free foods are, on average, 139% more expensive than standard ones. They are also often lower in fibre and key nutrients.

    Avoiding gluten long term can also reduce diversity in your diet, alter your gut microbes and reinforce anxiety about eating.

    Is it worth getting tested?

    Unlike coeliac disease or a wheat allergy, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity has no biomarker – there’s no blood test or tissue marker that can confirm it.

    Diagnosis instead relies on excluding other conditions and structured dietary testing.

    Based on our review, we recommend clinicians:

    • rule out coeliac disease and wheat allergy first
    • optimise the quality of someone’s overall diet
    • trial a low-FODMAP diet if symptoms persist
    • only then, consider a four to six-week dietitian-supervised gluten-free trial, followed by a structured re-introduction of gluten-containing foods to see whether gluten truly causes symptoms.

    This approach keeps restriction targeted and temporary, avoiding unnecessary long-term exclusion of gluten.

    If gluten doesn’t explain someone’s symptoms, combining dietary guidance with psychological support often works best. That’s because expectation, stress and emotion influence our symptoms. Cognitive-behavioural or exposure-based therapies can reduce food-related fear and help people safely reintroduce foods they once avoided.

    This integrated model moves beyond the simplistic “gluten is bad” narrative toward personalised, evidence-based gut–brain care.

    Jessica Biesiekierski, Associate Professor of Human Nutrition, The University of Melbourne

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

    Share This Post

  • The Brain-Training Game That Reduces Your Pain

    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 little while ago, we wrote about How Nature Provides Us With A Surprisingly Powerful Painkiller—literally, that viewing nature scenes (even if just on video) alleviates physical pain—not just in self-reported subjective assessments, but also by a reduction of the neural activity that signals pain (unlike placebo, which changes our response to pain when the signal arrives).

    That means, of course, that virtual reality can be a potential painkilling technology, if used to view nature scenes.

    Of course, a top-tier option in this regard is to view actual nature scenes directly (i.e., spend time in green spaces), but we recognize that it’s not possible for everyone, especially not on-demand.

    Beyond virtual reality

    Today, we’re going to talk about a new synthesis of existing technologies, to reduce pain (in the case of the study: neuropathic pain) by adjusting one’s brain waves directly.

    How? The software monitors brain activity via an electroencephalogram (EEG) headset, and responds in real-time with visual cues as the user learns to regulate abnormal brainwave patterns using biofeedback (specifically: neurofeedback), because…

    ❝The brainwaves of people with neuropathic pain show a distinct pattern: more slow theta waves, fewer alpha waves, and more fast, high beta waves.

    We believe these changes interfere with how the thalamus talks to other parts of the brain, especially the sensory motor cortex, which registers pain.

    I wondered, can we develop a treatment that directly targets and normalizes these abnormal waves?❞

    ~ Dr. Sylvia Gustin, lead researcher

    And the answer to that question appears to be “yes”. We say “appears to be”, as so far there’s only been a small pilot study, but they’re recruiting for a larger study to launch soon.

    The game itself is tablet-based and simple, and involves a simple visual challenge, on the tablet screen, in various possible ways, but generally taking the form of “this thing on the screen moves this way when your brain state is what it needs to be”, and then the user performs mental exercises (instructions are given) to make the thing on the screen move in the appropriate direction.

    Doing this correctly yields—according to preliminary results at least (which admittedly are very preliminary)—pain relief comparable to opioids.

    A small but significant portion of the readers may be thinking: wasn’t this the plot of a Star Trek episode in the 90s? And yes it was, but we promise that the headset-based move-the-object-with-neurofeedback opioid-like relief-giving game is not part of an alien takeover attempt this time.

    You can read about the pilot study, here: The effect of an EEG neurofeedback intervention for corneal neuropathic pain

    If, on the other hand, you don’t want to wait for this to become widely available, you can use other mental techniques to achieve a similar end, without technology; we did a main feature on this before; here it is: How To Dial Down Your Pain

    Want to learn more?

    We’ve written quite a bit about pain management, including:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Are Supplements Worth Taking?

    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 😎

    ❝There seems to be a lot of suggestions to take supplements for every thing, from your head to your toes. I know it’s up to the individual but what are the facts or stats to support taking them versus not?❞

    Short answer:

    • supplementary vitamins and minerals are probably neither needed nor beneficial for most (more on this later) people, with the exception of vitamin D which most people over a certain age need unless they are white and getting a lot of sun.
    • other kinds of supplement can be very beneficial or useless, depending on what they are, of course, and also your own personal physiology.

    With regard to vitamins and minerals, in most cases they should be covered by a healthy balanced diet, and the bioavailability is usually better from food anyway (bearing in mind, we say vitamin such-and-such, or name an elemental mineral, but there are usually multiple, often many, forms of each—and supplements will usually use whatever is cheapest to produce and most chemically stable).

    However! It is also quite common for food to be grown in whatever way is cheapest and produces the greatest visible yield, rather than for micronutrient coverage.

    This goes for most if not all plants, and it goes extra for animals (because of the greater costs and inefficiencies involved in rearing animals).

    We wrote about this a while back in a mythbusting edition of 10almonds, covering:

    • Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?
    • Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?
    • We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?

    You can read the answers and explanations, and see the science that we presented, here:

    Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?

    You may be wondering: what was that about “most (more on this later) people”?

    Sometimes someone will have a nutrient deficiency that can’t be easily remedied with diet. Often this occurs when their body:

    1. has trouble absorbing that nutrient, or
    2. does something inconvenient with it that makes a lot of it unusable when it gets it.

    …which is why calcium, iron, vitamin B12, and vitamin D are quite common supplements to get prescribed by doctors after a certain age.

    Still, it’s best to try getting things from one’s diet first all of all, of course.

    Things we can’t (reasonably) get from food

    This is another category entirely. There are many supplements that are convenient forms of things readily found in a lot of food, such as vitamins and minerals, or phytochemicals like quercetin, fisetin, and lycopene (to name just a few of very many).

    Then there are things not readily found in food, or at least, not in food that’s readily available in supermarkets.

    For example, if you go to your local supermarket and ask where the mimosa is, they’ll try to sell you a cocktail mix instead of the roots, bark, or leaves of a tropical tree. It is also unlikely they’ll stock lion’s mane mushroom, or reishi.

    If perchance you do get the chance to acquire fresh lion’s mane mushroom, by the way, give it a try! It’s delicious shallow-fried in a little olive oil with black pepper and garlic.

    In short, this last category, the things most of us can’t reasonably get from food without going far out of our way, are the kind of thing whereby supplements actually can be helpful.

    And yet, still, not every supplement has evidence to support the claims made by its sellers, so it’s good to do your research beforehand. We do that on Mondays, with our “Research Review Monday” editions, of which you can find in our searchable research review archive ← we also review some drugs that can’t be classified as supplements, but mostly, it’s supplements.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Dermatologist Shops Walmart Skincare: What To Buy & Avoid

    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.

    Dr. Andrea Suarez takes us shopping:

    Confessions of a dermatologist

    First, before we get to the product-specific parts, some things to know:

    When it comes to handwashing in particular, regular soap works as well as antibacterial when you wash thoroughly, rinse all surfaces, and dry fully, while antibacterial soaps are usually unnecessary outside specific medical situations, and can increase irritation and antimicrobial resistance.

    However, habits do matter at least as much as product choice, because residue from hand soap left in your skin (especially under rings, or in the “webbed” part between fingers) combined with water, friction, inadequate rinsing, and incomplete drying, can promote dryness and cracking more than the soap itself.

    Now, as for product considerations: Dr. Suarez notes that soap quality varies unpredictably from ingredient lists, avoiding methylisothiazolinone can reduce allergy risk, and fragrance-free lotions are generally better for sensitive or eczema-prone skin.

    In the category of sunscreens: she advises us that sunscreen sprays require generous, multi-pass application without wind interference, tanning oils with low SPF increase UV damage risk, and fragranced after-sun products can further irritate compromised skin, none of which is great.

    If shopping for children: most children don’t need extensive skincare due to naturally well-hydrated skin. Moisturizers are mainly useful for conditions like eczema, and dandruff treatments like zinc pyrithione or selenium sulfide can help, though applying conditioner to the scalp can reduce medicated shampoo effectiveness (unless it also contains active ingredients, of course).

    For more on all of this plus brand-specific recommendations/discommendations, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    The Truth About Handwashing

    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:

  • How Not To Die – by Dr. Michael Greger

    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 previously reviewed this book some years ago, but we’re revisiting it now because:

    1. It really is a book that should be in every healthspan-enjoyer’s collection
    2. Our book reviews back then were not as comprehensive as now (though we still generally try to fit into the “it takes about one minute to read this review” idea, sometimes we’ll spend a little extra time).

    Dr. Greger (of “Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen” fame) outlines for us in cold hard facts and stats what’s most likely to be our cause of death. While this is not a cheery premise for a book, he then sets out to work back from there—what could have prevented those specific things?

    Thus, while the book doesn’t confer immortality (the title is not “how to not die”, after all), it does teach us how not to die—i.e, from heart disease, lung diseases, brain diseases, digestive cancers, infections, diabetes, high blood pressure, liver disease, blood cancers, kidney disease, breast cancer, suicidal depression, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and even iatrogenic causes.

    This it does with a lot of solid science, explained for the layperson, and/but without holding back when it comes to big words, and a lot of them, at that. If you want to add in daily exercises, just lifting the book could be a start; weighing in at 678 pages, it’s an information-dense tome that’s more likely to be sifted through than read cover-to-cover.

    The style is thus dense science somewhat editorialized for lay readability, and well-evidenced with around 3,000 citations. That’s not a typo; there are 178 pages of bibliography at the back with about 15–20 scientific references per page.

    In terms of practical use, he does also devote chapters to that, it’s not just all textbook. Indeed, he discusses the reasonings behind the items, portion sizes, and quantities of his “daily dozen” foods, so that the reader will understand how much bang-for-buck they deliver, and then it’ll seem a lot less like an arbitrary list, and more likely to be adopted and maintained.

    Bottom line: if you care about not getting life-threatening illnesses (which at the end of the day, come to most people at some point), then this book is a must-read.

    Click here to check out How Not To Die, and live well!

    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:

  • Walden Farms Caesar Dressing vs. Primal Kitchen Caesar Dressing – 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 Walden Farms Caesar Dressing to Primal Kitchen Caesar Dressing, we picked the Primal Kitchen.

    Why?

    As you can see from the front label, the Walden Farms product has 0 net carbs, 0 calories, and 0 fat. In fact, its ingredients list begins:

    Water, white distilled vinegar, erythritol, corn fiber, salt, microcrystalline cellulose, xanthan gum, titanium dioxide (color)

    …before it gets to something interesting (garlic purée), by which point the amount must be miniscule.

    The Primal Kitchen product, meanwhile, has 140 calories per serving and 15g fat (of which, 1.5g is saturated). However! The ingredients list this time begins:

    Avocado oil, water, organic coconut aminos (organic coconut sap, sea salt), organic apple cider vinegar, organic distilled vinegar, mushroom extract, organic gum acacia, organic guar gum

    …before it too gets to garlic, which this time, by the way, is organic roasted garlic.

    In case you’re wondering about the salt content in both, they add up to 190mg for the Walden Farms product, and 240mg for the Primal Kitchen product. We don’t think that the extra 50mg (out of a daily allowance of 2300–5000mg, depending on whom you ask) is worthy of note.

    In short, the Walden Farms product is made of mostly additives of various kinds, whereas the Primal Kitchen product is made of mostly healthful ingredients.

    So, the calories and fat are nothing to fear.

    For this reason, we chose the product with more healthful ingredients—but we acknowledge that if you are specifically trying to keep your calories down, then the Walden Farms product may be a valid choice.

    Read more:
    •⁠ ⁠Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?
    •⁠ ⁠Caloric Restriction with Optimal Nutrition

    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: