Life Is in the Transitions – by Bruce Feiler

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.

Change happens. Sometimes, because we choose it. More often, we don’t get a choice.

Our bodies change; with time, with illness, with accident or incident, or even, sometimes, with effort. People in our lives change; they come, they go, they get sick, they die. Our working lives change; we get a job, we lose a job, we change jobs, our jobs change, we retire.

Whether we’re undergoing cancer treatment or a religious conversion, whether our families are growing or down to the last few standing, change is inescapable.

Our author makes the case that on average, we each undergo at least 5 major “lifequakes”; changes that shake our lives to the core. Sometimes one will come along when we’ve barely got back on our feet from the previous—if we have at all.

What, then, to do about this? We can’t stop change from occurring, and some changes aren’t easy to “roll with”. Feiler isn’t prescriptive about this, but rather, descriptive:

By looking at the stories of hundreds of people he interviewed for this book, he looks at how people pivoted on the spot (or picked up the pieces!) and made the best of their situation—or didn’t.

Bottom line: zooming out like this, looking at many people’s lives, can remind us that while we don’t get to choose what winds we get swept by, we at least get to choose how we set the sails. The examples of others, as this book gives, can help us make better decisions.

Click here to check out Life Is In The Transitions, and get conscious about how you handle yours!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Outsmart Your Pain – by Dr. Christiane Wolf
  • Calm Your Inflammation – by Dr. Brenda Tidwell
    Tame chronic inflammation with a holistic approach covering diet, lifestyle, and stress management in “Calm Your Inflammation”—your comprehensive guide to a healthier you.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • A New $16,000 Postpartum Depression Drug Is Here. How Will Insurers Handle It?

    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 much-awaited treatment for postpartum depression, zuranolone, hit the market in December, promising an accessible and fast-acting medication for a debilitating illness. But most private health insurers have yet to publish criteria for when they will cover it, according to a new analysis of insurance policies.

    The lack of guidance could limit use of the drug, which is both novel — it targets hormone function to relieve symptoms instead of the brain’s serotonin system, as typical antidepressants do — and expensive, at $15,900 for the 14-day pill regimen.

    Lawyers, advocates, and regulators are watching closely to see how insurance companies will shape policies for zuranolone because of how some handled its predecessor, an intravenous form of the same drug called brexanolone, which came on the market in 2019. Many insurers required patients to try other, cheaper medications first — known as the fail-first approach — before they could be approved for brexanolone, which was shown in early trials reviewed by the FDA to provide relief within days. Typical antidepressants take four to six weeks to take effect.

    “We’ll have to see if insurers cover this drug and what fail-first requirements they put in” for zuranolone, said Meiram Bendat, a licensed psychotherapist and an attorney who represents patients.

    Most health plans have yet to issue any guidelines for zuranolone, and maternal health advocates worry that the few that have are taking a restrictive approach. Some policies require that patients first try and fail a standard antidepressant before the insurer will pay for zuranolone.

    In other cases, guidelines require psychiatrists to prescribe it, rather than obstetricians, potentially delaying treatment since OB-GYN practitioners are usually the first medical providers to see signs of postpartum depression.

    Advocates are most worried about the lack of coverage guidance.

    “If you don’t have a published policy, there is going to be more variation in decision-making that isn’t fair and is less efficient. Transparency is really important,” said Joy Burkhard, executive director of the nonprofit Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, which commissioned the study.

    With brexanolone, which was priced at $34,000 for the three-day infusion, California’s largest insurer, Kaiser Permanente, had such rigorous criteria for prescribing it that experts said the policy amounted to a blanket denial for all patients, according to an NPR investigation in 2021.

    KP’s written guidelines required patients to try and fail four medications and electroconvulsive therapy before they would be eligible for brexanolone. Because the drug was approved only for up to six months postpartum, and trials of typical antidepressants take four to six weeks each, the clock would run out before a patient had time to try brexanolone.

    An analysis by NPR of a dozen other health plans at the time showed Kaiser Permanente’s policy on brexanolone to be an outlier. Some did require that patients fail one or two other drugs first, but KP was the only one that recommended four.

    Miriam McDonald, who developed severe postpartum depression and suicidal ideation after giving birth in late 2019, battled Kaiser Permanente for more than a year to find effective treatment. Her doctors put her on a merry-go-round of medications that didn’t work and often carried unbearable side effects, she said. Her doctors refused to prescribe brexanolone, the only FDA-approved medication specifically for postpartum depression at the time.

    “No woman should suffer like I did after having a child,” McDonald said. “The policy was completely unfair. I was in purgatory.”

    One month after NPR published its investigation, KP overhauled its criteria to recommend that women try just one medication before becoming eligible for brexanolone.

    Then, in March 2023, after the federal Department of Labor launched an investigation into the insurer — citing NPR’s reporting — the insurer revised its brexanolone guidelines again, removing all fail-first recommendations, according to internal documents recently obtained by NPR. Patients need only decline a trial of another medication.

    “Since brexanolone was first approved for use, more experience and research have added to information about its efficacy and safety,” the insurer said in a statement. “Kaiser Permanente is committed to ensuring brexanolone is available when physicians and patients determine it is an appropriate treatment.”

    “Kaiser basically went from having the most restrictive policy to the most robust,” said Burkhard of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health. “It’s now a gold standard for the rest of the industry.”

    McDonald is hopeful that her willingness to speak out and the subsequent regulatory actions and policy changes for brexanolone will lead Kaiser Permanente and other health plans to set patient-friendly policies for zuranolone.

    “This will prevent other women from having to go through a year of depression to find something that works,” she said.

    Clinicians were excited when the FDA approved zuranolone last August, believing the pill form, taken once a day at home over two weeks, will be more accessible to women compared with the three-day hospital stay for the IV infusion. Many perinatal psychiatrists told NPR it is imperative to treat postpartum depression as quickly as possible to avoid negative effects, including cognitive and social problems in the baby, anxiety or depression in the father or partner, or the death of the mother to suicide, which accounts for up to 20% of maternal deaths.

    So far, only one of the country’s six largest private insurers, Centene, has set a policy for zuranolone. It is unclear what criteria KP will set for the new pill. California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, has not yet established coverage criteria.

    Insurers’ policies for zuranolone will be written at a time when the regulatory environment around mental health treatment is shifting. The U.S. Department of Labor is cracking down on violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which requires insurers to cover psychiatric treatments the same as physical treatments.

    Insurers must now comply with stricter reporting and auditing requirements intended to increase patient access to mental health care, which advocates hope will compel health plans to be more careful about the policies they write in the first place.

    In California, insurers must also comply with an even broader state mental health parity law from 2021, which requires them to use clinically based, expert-recognized criteria and guidelines in making medical decisions. The law was designed to limit arbitrary or cost-driven denials for mental health treatments and has been hailed as a model for the rest of the country. Much-anticipated regulations for the law are expected to be released this spring and could offer further guidance for insurers in California setting policies for zuranolone.

    In the meantime, Burkhard said, patients suffering from postpartum depression should not hold back from asking their doctors about zuranolone. Insurers can still grant access to the drug on a case-by-case basis before they formalize their coverage criteria.

    “Providers shouldn’t be deterred from prescribing zuranolone,” Burkhard said. 

    This article is from a partnership that includes KQEDNPR and KFF Health News.

    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.

    Share This Post

  • Cancer is increasingly survivable – but it shouldn’t depend on your ability to ‘wrangle’ the health system

    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 in three of us will develop cancer at some point in our lives. But survival rates have improved to the point that two-thirds of those diagnosed live more than five years.

    This extraordinary shift over the past few decades introduces new challenges. A large and growing proportion of people diagnosed with cancer are living with it, rather than dying of it.

    In our recently published research we examined the cancer experiences of 81 New Zealanders (23 Māori and 58 non-Māori).

    We found survivorship not only entailed managing the disease, but also “wrangling” a complex health system.

    Surviving disease or surviving the system

    Our research focused on those who had lived longer than expected (four to 32 years since first diagnosis) with a life-limiting or terminal diagnosis of cancer.

    Common to many survivors’ stories was the effort it took to wrangle the system or find others to advocate on their behalf, even to get a formal diagnosis and treatment.

    By wrangling we refer to the practices required to traverse complex and sometimes unwelcoming systems. This is an often unnoticed but very real struggle that comes on top of managing the disease itself.

    The common focus of the healthcare system is on symptoms, side effects of treatment and other biological aspects of cancer. But formal and informal care often falls by the wayside, despite being key to people’s everyday experiences.

    A woman at a doctor's appointment
    Survival is often linked to someone’s social connections and capacity to access funds. Getty Images

    The inequities of cancer survivorship are well known. Analyses show postcodes and socioeconomic status play a strong role in the prevalence of cancer and survival.

    Less well known, but illustrated in our research, is that survival is also linked to people’s capacity to manage the entire healthcare system. That includes accessing a diagnosis or treatment, or identifying and accessing alternative treatments.

    Survivorship is strongly related to material resources, social connections, and understandings of how the health system works and what is available. For instance, one participant who was contemplating travelling overseas to get surgery not available in New Zealand said:

    We don’t trust the public system. So thankfully we had private health insurance […] But if we went overseas, health insurance only paid out to $30,000 and I think the surgery was going to be a couple of hundred thousand. I remember Dad saying and crying and just being like, I’ll sell my business […] we’ll all put in money. It was really amazing.

    Assets of survivorship

    In New Zealand, the government agency Pharmac determines which medications are subsidised. Yet many participants were advised by oncologists or others to “find ways” of taking costly, unsubsidised medicines.

    This often meant finding tens of thousands of dollars with no guarantees. Some had the means, but for others it meant drawing on family savings, retirement funds or extending mortgages. This disproportionately favours those with access to assets and influences who survives.

    But access to economic capital is only one advantage. People also have cultural resources – often described as cultural capital.

    In one case, a participant realised a drug company was likely to apply to have a medicine approved. They asked their private oncologist to lobby on their behalf to obtain the drug through a compassionate access scheme, without having to pay for it.

    Others gained community support through fundraising from clubs they belonged to. But some worried about where they would find the money, or did not want to burden their community.

    I had my doctor friend and some others that wanted to do some public fundraising. But at the time I said, “Look, most of the people that will be contributing are people from my community who are poor already, so I’m not going to do that option”.

    Accessing alternative therapies, almost exclusively self-funded, was another layer of inequity. Some felt forced to negotiate the black market to access substances such as marijuana to treat their cancer or alleviate the side effects of orthodox cancer treatment.

    Cultural capital is not a replacement for access to assets, however. Māori survivorship was greatly assisted by accessing cultural resources, but often limited by lack of material assets.

    Persistence pays

    The last thing we need when faced with the possibility of cancer is to have to push for formal diagnosis and care. Yet this was a common experience.

    One participant was told nothing could be found to explain their abdominal pain – only to find later they had pancreatic cancer. Another was told their concerns about breathing problems were a result of anxiety related to a prior mental health history, only to learn later their earlier breast cancer had spread to their lungs.

    Persistence is another layer of wrangling and it often causes distress.

    Once a diagnosis was given, for many people the public health system kicked in and delivered appropriate treatment. However, experiences were patchy and variable across New Zealand.

    Issues included proximity to hospitals, varying degrees of specialisation available, and the requirement of extensive periods away from home and whānau. This reflects an ongoing unevenness and lack of fairness in the current system.

    When facing a terminal or life-limiting diagnosis, the capacity to wrangle the system makes a difference. We shouldn’t have to wrangle, but facing this reality is an important first step.

    We must ensure it doesn’t become a continuing form of inequity, whereby people with access to material resources and social and cultural connections can survive longer.

    Kevin Dew, Professor of Sociology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Alex Broom, Professor of Sociology & Director, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney; Chris Cunningham, Professor of Maori & Public Health, Massey University; Elizabeth Dennett, Associate Professor in Surgery, University of Otago; Kerry Chamberlain, Professor of Social and Health Psychology, Massey University, and Richard Egan, Associate Professor in Health Promotion, University of Otago

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

    Share This Post

  • Why ’10almonds’? Newsletter Name Explained

    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!

    Each Thursday, we respond to subscriber questions and requests! If it’s something small, we’ll answer it directly; if it’s something bigger, we’ll do a main feature in a follow-up day instead!

    So, no question/request to big or small; they’ll just get sorted accordingly

    Remember, you can always hit reply to any of our emails, or use the handy feedback widget at the bottom. We always look forward to hearing from you!

    Q: Why is your newsletter called 10almonds? Maybe I missed it in the intro email, but my curiosity wants to know the significance. Thanks!”

    It’s a reference to a viral Facebook hoax! There was a post going around that claimed:

    ❝HEADACHE REMEDY. Eat 10–12 almonds, the equivalent of two aspirins, next time you have a headache❞ ← not true!

    It made us think about how much health-related disinformation there was online… So, calling ourselves 10almonds was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to that story… but also a reminder to ourselves:

    We must always publish information with good scientific evidence behind it!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Outsmart Your Pain – by Dr. Christiane Wolf
  • Anti-Inflammatory Diet 101 (What to Eat to Fight Inflammation)

    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.

    Chronic inflammation is a cause and/or exacerbating factor in very many diseases. Arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease are probably top of the list, but there are lots more where they came from. And, it’s good to avoid those things. So, how to eat to avoid inflammation?

    Let food be thy medicine

    The key things to keep in mind, the “guiding principles” are to prioritize whole, minimally-processed foods, and enjoy foods with plenty of antioxidants. Getting a healthy balance of omega fatty acids is also important, which for most people means getting more omega-3 and less omega-6.

    Shopping list (foods to prioritize) includes:

    • fruits and vegetables in a variety of colors (e.g. berries, leafy greens, beats)
    • whole grains, going for the most fiber-rich options (e.g. quinoa, brown rice, oats)
    • healthy fats (e.g. avocados, nuts, seeds)
    • fatty fish (e.g. salmon, mackerel, sardines) ← don’t worry about this if you’re vegetarian/vegan though, as the previous category can already cover it
    • herbs and spices (e.g. turmeric, garlic, ginger)

    Noping list (foods to avoid) includes:

    • refined carbohydrates
    • highly processed and/or fried foods
    • red meats and/or processed meats (yes, that does mean that organic grass-fed farmers’ pinky-promise-certified holistically-raised beef is also off the menu)
    • dairy products, especially if unfermented

    For more information on each of these, plus advice on transitioning away from an inflammatory diet, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    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:

  • Who Screens The Sunscreens?

    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 Screen The Sunscreens!

    Yesterday, we asked you what your sunscreen policy was, and got a spread of answers. Apparently this one was quite polarizing!

    One subscriber who voted for “Sunscreen is essential to protect us against skin aging and cancer” wrote:

    ❝My mom died of complications from melanoma, so we are vigilant about sun and sunscreen. We are a family of campers and hikers and gardeners—outdoors in all seasons—and we never burn❞

    Our condolences with regard to your mom! Life is so precious, and when something like that happens, it tends to stick with us. We’re glad you and your family are taking care of yourselves.

    Of the subscribers who voted for “I put some on if I think I might otherwise get sunburned”, about half wrote to express uncertainties:

    • uncertainty about how safe it is, and
    • uncertainty about how helpful it is

    …so we’re going to tackle those questions in a moment. But what of those who voted for “Sunscreen is full of harmful chemicals that can cause cancer”?

    Of those, only one wrote a message, which was to say one has to be very careful of what is in the formula.

    Let’s take a look, then…

    Sunscreen is full of harmful chemicals that can cause cancer: True or False?

    False—according to current best science. Research is ongoing!

    There are four main chemicals (found in most sunscreens) that people tend to worry about:

    • Abobenzone
    • Oxybenzone
    • Octocrylene
    • Ecamsule

    Now, these two sound like four brands of rocket fuel, but then, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), which is also found in most sunscreens, sounds like a deadly toxin too. That’s water, by the way.

    But what of these four chemicals? Well, as we say, research is ongoing, but we found a study that measured all four, to see how much got into the blood, and what adverse effects, if any, this caused.

    We’ll skip to their conclusion:

    ❝In this preliminary study involving healthy volunteers, application of 4 commercially available sunscreens under maximal use conditions resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens. The systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings. These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.❞

    Now, “exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens” sounds alarming, so why did they close with the words “These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen”?

    Let’s skip back up to a line from the results:

    ❝The most common adverse event was rash, which developed in 1 participant with each sunscreen.❞

    This was most probably due to the oxybenzone, which can cause allergic skin reactions in some people.

    Let us take a moment to remember the most common adverse event that occurs from not wearing sunscreen: sunburn!

    You can read the full study here:

    Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients—A Randomized Clinical Trial

    None of those ingredients have been found to be carcinogenic, even at the maximal blood plasma concentrations studied, from applications 4x/day to 75% of the body.

    UVA rays, on the other hand, are absolutely very much known to cause cancer, and the effect is cumulative.

    Sunscreen is essential to protect us against skin aging and cancer: True or False?

    True, unequivocally, unless we live indoors and/or otherwise never go about under sunlight.

    “But our ancestors—” lived under the same sun we do, and either used sunscreen or got advanced skin aging and cancer.

    Sunscreen of times past ranged from mud to mineral lotions, but it’s pretty much always existed. Even non-human animals that have skin and don’t have fur or feathers, tend to take mud-baths in sunny parts of the world.

    If you’d like to avoid oxybenzone and other chemicals, though, you might have your reasons. Maybe you’re allergic, or maybe you read that it’s a potential endocrine disruptor with estrogen-like and anti-androgenic properties that you don’t want.

    There are other options, to include physical blockers containing zinc and titanium dioxide, which are generally recognized as safe and effective ingredients.

    If you’re interested, you can even make your own sunscreen that blocks both UVA and UVB rays (UVA is what causes skin cancer; UVB is “milder” and is what causes sunburn):

    How to Make a Safe and Effective Sunscreen from Scratch – medically reviewed by Dr. Debra Rose Wilson, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., IBCLC, AHN-BC, CHT

    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:

    1. We can make a point of seeking out new experiences, and considering new ideas, or develop strategies for reining ourselves in
    2. We can use systems to improve our organization, or go out of our way to introduce a little well-placed chaos
    3. We can “put ourselves out there” socially, or make the decision to decline more social invitations because we simply don’t want to
    4. 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
    5. 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:

    1. Curiosity Kills The Neurodegeneration
    2. How (And Why) To Train Your Pre-Frontal Cortex
    3. How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation
    4. Optimism Seriously Increases Longevity!
    5. 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: