Lobster vs Crab – 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 lobster to crab, we picked the crab.

Why?

Generally speaking, most seafood is healthy in moderation (assuming it’s well-prepared, not poisonous, and you don’t have an allergy), and for most people, these two sea creatures are indeed considered a reasonable part of a healthy balanced diet.

In terms of macros, they’re comparable in protein, and technically crab has about 2x the fat, but in both cases it’s next to nothing, so 2x almost nothing is still almost nothing. And, if we break down the lipids profiles, crab has a sufficiently smaller percentage of saturated fat (compared to monounsaturated and polyunsaturated), that crab actually has less saturated fat than lobster. In balance, the category of macros is either a tie or a slight win for crab, depending on your personal priorities.

When it comes to vitamins, crab wins easily with more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, B9, B12, and C, in most cases by considerable margins (we’re talking multiples of what lobster has). Lobster, meanwhile, has more of vitamin B3 (tiny margin) and vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid, as in, the vitamin that’s in basically everything edible, and thus almost impossible to be deficient in unless literally starving).

The minerals scene is more balanced; lobster has more calcium, copper, manganese, and selenium, while crab has more iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. The margins are comparable from one creature to another, so all in all the 4:5 score means a modest win for crab.

Both of these creatures are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids, but crab is better.

Lobster and crab are both somewhat high in cholesterol, but crab is the relatively lower of the two.

In short: for most people most of the time, both are fine to enjoy in moderation, but if picking one, crab is the healthier by most metrics.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Shrimp vs Caviar – 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

  • Blueberries vs Cranberries – Which is Healthier?
  • Slow-Cooker Moroccan Tagine
    Master the art of tagine with a slow cooker using red onions, red peppers, and a touch of ras el-hanout for an authentic taste.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The China Study – by Dr. T Colin Campbell and Dr. Thomas M. Campbell

    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.

    This is not the newest book we’ve reviewed (originally published 2005; this revised and expanded edition 2016), but it is a seminal one.

    You’ve probably heard it referenced, and maybe you’ve wondered what the fuss is about. Now you can know!

    The titular study itself was huge. We tend to think “oh there was one study” and look to discount it, but it literally looked at the population of China. That’s a large study.

    And because China is relatively ethnically homogenous, especially per region, it was easier to isolate what dietary factors made what differences to health. Of course, that did also create a limitation: follow-up studies would be needed to see if the results were the same for non-Chinese people. But even for the rest of us (this reviewer is not Chinese), it already pointed science in the right direction. And sure enough, smaller follow-up studies elsewhere found the same.

    But enough about the research; what about the book? This is a book review, not a research review, after all.

    The book itself is easy for a lay reader to understand. It explains how the study was conducted (no small feat), and how the data was examined. It also discusses the results, and the conclusions drawn from those results.

    In light of all this, it also offers simple actionable advices, on how to eat to avoid disease in general, and cancer in particular. In especially that latter case, one take-home conclusion was: get more of your protein from plants for a big reduction in cancer risk, for example.

    Bottom line: this book is an incredible blend of “comprehensive” and “readable” that we don’t often find in the same book! It contains not just a lot of science, but also an insight into how the science works, on a research level. And, of course, its results and conclusions have strong implications for all our lives.

    Click here to check out The China Study, to know more about it!

    Share This Post

  • Reporting on psychedelics research or legislation? Proceed with caution

    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.

    More cities and states are introducing bills to decriminalize and regulate access to psychedelic drugs, which could potentially become another option to treat mental health conditions and substance use disorders. But the substances remain illegal under U.S. federal law and scientific evidence about their effectiveness is still far from conclusive.

    This month alone, California lawmakers introduced a bill to allow people 21 and older to consume psychedelic mushrooms under medical supervision. In Massachusetts, lawmakers are working on a bill that would legalize psilocybin, the active ingredient of psychedelic mushrooms. And Arizona legislators have also introduced a bill that would make psychedelic mushrooms available as a mental health treatment option.

    Last December, Congress passed legislation that included funding for psychedelic clinical trials for active-duty service members. And in January this year, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it will begin funding research on MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and psilocybin, to treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. This is the first time since the 1960s that the VA is funding research on such compounds, according to the department.

    The rise of proposed and passed legislation in recent years necessitates more journalistic coverage. But it’s important for journalists to go beyond what the bills and lawmakers say and include research studies about psychedelics and note the limitations of those studies.

    Major medical organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, have not yet endorsed psychedelics to treat psychiatric disorders, except in clinical trials, due to inadequate scientific evidence.

    The authors of a 2023 study published in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology, also advise “strong caution” regarding the hype around the potential medical use of psychedelics. “There is not enough robust evidence to draw any firm conclusions about the safety and efficacy of psychedelic therapy,” they write.

    Scientists are still trying to better understand how psychedelics work, what’s the best dose for treating different mental health conditions and how to reduce the risk of potential side effects such as intense emotional experiences or increased heart rate and blood pressure, the authors of a February 2024 study published in the journal Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry write.

    In a 2022 study published in JAMA Psychiatry, Dr. Joshua Siegel and his colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis write that while legislative reform for psychedelic drugs is moving forward rapidly, several issues have not been addressed, including:

    • A mechanism for verifying the chemical content of drugs that are obtained from outside the medical establishment.
    • Licensure and training criteria for practitioners who wish to provide psychedelic treatment.
    • Clinical and billing infrastructure.
    • Assessing potential interactions with other drugs.
    • How the drugs should be used in populations such as youths, older adults and pregnant people.

    “Despite the relative rapidity with which some have embraced psychedelics as legitimate medical treatments, critical questions about the mechanism of action, dose and dose frequency, durability of response to repeated treatments, drug-drug interactions, and the role that psychotherapy plays in therapeutic efficacy remain unanswered,” Siegel and colleagues write.

    What are psychedelics?

    Psychedelics are among the oldest class of mind-altering substances, used by humans for thousands of years in traditional or religious rituals.

    In 2021, 74 million people 12 years and older reported using hallucinogens, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

    The terms “psychedelics” and “hallucinogens” are used interchangeably in public discourse, but scientifically, hallucinogens fall into three groups based on chemical structure and mechanism of action, according to NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse:

    • Psychedelic drugs, also called “classic psychedelics” or simply “psychedelics,” mainly affect the way the brain processes serotonin, a chemical that carries messages between nerve cells in the brain and the body. These drugs can bring on vivid visions and affect a person’s sense of self, according to NIDA. Drugs in this category include:
      • Psilocybin is the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms, also known as “magic” mushrooms or shrooms. It’s a Schedule 1 drug in the U.S. under the Controlled Substances Act, which means it has a high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use. However, some states have decriminalized it, according to NIDA. The drug has also been given the Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA, a process to speed up the development and review of drugs, for the treatment of major depressive disorder.
      • LSD, or lysergic acid diethylamide, is a synthetic chemical made from a fungus that infects rye. It’s a Schedule 1 drug.
      • DMT, or dimethyltryptamine, found in certain plants native to the Amazon rainforest, has been used in religious practices and rituals. The plants are sometimes used to make a tea called ayahuasca. DMT can also be made in the lab as a white powder. DMT is generally smoked or consumed in brews like ayahuasca. It’s a Schedule 1 drug.
      • Mescaline, a chemical compound found in a small cactus called peyote, has been used by Indigenous people in northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S. in religious rituals. Mescaline can also be produced in the lab. Mescaline and peyote are Schedule 1 drugs.
    • Dissociative drugs affect how the brain processes glutamate, an abundant chemical released by nerve cells in the brain that plays an important role in learning and memory. These drugs can make people feel disconnected from their bodies and surroundings. Drugs in this category include:
      • PCP, or phencyclidine, was developed in the 1950s as an injectable anesthetic but was discontinued because patients became agitated and delusional. Today it is an illegal street drug. It’s a Schedule 2 drug, which means it has a high potential for abuse, but lower compared to Schedule 1 drugs.
      • Ketamine, a drug developed in the 1960s and used as an anesthetic in the Vietnam War, is approved by the FDA as an anesthetic. It has been shown to play a role in pain management and treatment of depression. It is also illegally used for its hallucinogenic effects. It is a Schedule 3 drug, which means it has a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. A chemically-similar drug called esketamine is approved by the FDA for the treatment of depression that doesn’t respond to standard treatment.
    • Other hallucinogens, which affect different brain functions and can cause psychedelic and potentially dissociative effects, include:
      • MDMA, or ecstasy, is a synthetic drug that’s a stimulant and hallucinogen. It is a Schedule 1 drug. It has been given the Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for the treatment of PTSD.
      • Salvia is an herb in the mint family that has hallucinogenic effects. It is not a federally controlled drug, but it is controlled in some states, according to the DEA.
      • Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of a West African shrub and is a stimulant and hallucinogen. It is a Schedule 1 drug.

    Research on psychedelics

    There was a wave of studies on psychedelics, particularly LSD, in the 1950s and 1960s, but they came to a halt when the U.S. declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971 and tightened pharmaceutical regulations. There was little research activity until the early 1990s when studies on drugs such as MDMA and DMT began to emerge.

    In 2006, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published a seminal double-blind study in which two-thirds of participants — who had never taken psychedelics previously — said their psychedelic sessions were among the most meaningful experiences of their lives.

    “These studies, among others, renewed scientific interest in psychedelics and, accordingly, research into their effects has continued to grow since,” Jacob S. Aday and colleagues write in a 2019 study published in Drug Science, Policy and Law.

    In their paper, Aday and colleagues argue that 2018 may be remembered as the true turning point in psychedelic research due to “advances within science, increased public interest, and regulatory changes,” such as psilocybin receiving the “breakthrough therapy” status from the FDA.

    Today, there are numerous ongoing clinical trials on the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for different conditions, including substance use disorders and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Given the growing number of studies on psychedelics, the Food and Drug Administration issued a draft guidance in June 2023 for clinical trials with psychedelic drugs, aiming to help researchers design studies that will yield more reliable results for drug development.

    The systematic reviews highlighted below show that there’s a lack of robust study designs in many psychedelic clinical trials. Some have small sample sizes. Some include participants who have used psychedelics before, so when they participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial, they know whether they are receiving psychedelic treatment or a placebo. Or, some include participants who may have certain expectations due to positive coverage in the lay media, hence creating bias in the results.

    If you’re covering a study about psychedelics…

    It’s important for journalists to pay close attention to study design and speak with an expert who is not involved in the study.

    In a February 2024 blog post from Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center, Leiden University professors Eiko I. Fried and Michiel van Elk share several challenges in psychedelic research:

    • “Conclusions are dramatically overstated in many studies. This ranges from conclusions in the results sections, abstracts, and even titles of papers not consistent with the reported results.”
    • “There is emerging evidence that adverse events resulting from psychedelic substances are both common and underreported.”
    • Some studies don’t have control groups, which can create problems for interpreting results, “because treatments like psychedelics need to be compared against a placebo or other treatment to conclude that they work beyond the placebo effect or already existing, readily available treatments.”
    • “Participants in psychedelic studies usually know if they are in the treatment or control group, which artificially increases the apparent efficacies of psychedelics in clinical studies.”
    • Small sample sizes can affect the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. “Small samples also mean that results are not representative. For example, participants with severe or comorbid mental health problems are commonly excluded from psychedelic studies, and therefore results may look better in these studies than in real-world psychiatric settings.”
    • Many studies do not include long-term follow-ups of participants. “Studying how these people are feeling a few days or weeks after they receive treatment is not sufficient to establish that they are indeed cured from depression.”

    Fried and van Elk also have a useful checklist for assessing the quality and scientific rigor of psychedelic research in their 2023 study “History Repeating: Guidelines to Address Common Problems in Psychedelic Science,” published in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology.

    Journalists should also remind their audiences that the drugs are still illegal under federal law and can pose a danger to health.

    In California, the number of emergency room visits involving the use of hallucinogens increased by 54% between 2016 and 2022, according to a January 2024 study published in Addiction. Meanwhile, the law enforcement seizure of psychedelic mushrooms has risen dramatically, increasing nearly four-fold between 2017 and 2022, according to a February 2024 study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

    Below, we have curated and summarized five recent studies, mostly systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which examine various aspects of psychedelic drugs, including legislative reform; long-term effects; efficacy and safety for the treatment of anxiety, depression and PTSD; and participation of older adults in clinical trials. The research summaries are followed by recommended reading.

    Research roundup

    Psychedelic Drug Legislative Reform and Legalization in the US
    Joshua S. Siegel, James E. Daily, Demetrius A. Perry and Ginger E. Nicol. JAMA Psychiatry, December 2022.

    The study: Most psychedelics are Schedule I drugs federally, but state legislative reforms are changing the prospects of the drugs’ availability for treatment and their illegal status. For a better understanding of the legislative reform landscape around Schedule I psychedelic drugs, researchers collected all bills and ballot initiatives related to psychedelic drugs that were introduced into state legislatures between 2019 and September 2022. They used publicly available sources, including BillTrack50, Ballotpedia and LexisNexis.

    The findings: In total, 25 states considered 74 bills, although the bills varied widely in their framework. A majority proposed decriminalization but only a few would require medical oversight and some would not even require training or licensure, the authors write. Ten of those bills became law in seven states — Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas and Washington. As of August 1, 2022, 32 bills were dead and 32 remained active.

    The majority of the bills — 67 of them — referred to psilocybin; 27 included both psilocybin and MDMA; 43 proposed decriminalization of psychedelic drugs.

    To predict the future legalization of psychedelics, the authors also created two models based on existing medical and recreational marijuana reform. Using 2020 as the year of the first psychedelic decriminalization in Oregon, their models predict that 26 states will legalize psychedelics between 2033 and 2037.

    In the authors’ words: “Despite the relative rapidity with which some have embraced psychedelics as legitimate medical treatments, critical questions about the mechanism of action, dosing and dose frequency, durability of response to repeated treatments, drug-drug interactions, and the role psychotherapy plays in therapeutic efficacy remain unanswered. This last point is critical, as a significant safety concern associated with drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, or LSD is the suggestibility and vulnerability of the patient while under the influence of the drug. Thus, training and clinical oversight is necessary to ensure safety and also therapeutic efficacy for this divergent class of treatments.”

    Who Are You After Psychedelics? A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Long-Term Effects of Serotonergic Psychedelics on Cognition/Creativity, Emotional Processing and Personality
    Ivana Solaja, et al. Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews, March 2024.

    The study: Many anecdotal reports and observational studies have reported that psychedelics, even at microdoses, which are roughly one-tenth of a typical recreational dose, may enhance certain aspects of cognition and/or creativity, including coming up with new, useful ideas. Cognition is a “range of intellectual functions and processes involved in our ability to perceive, process, comprehend, store and react to information,” the authors explain. There are established relationships between impaired cognitive functioning and mental health disorders.

    Due to limitations such as a lack of rigorous study designs, various populations in the studies and lack of documented dosage, it’s difficult to draw any conclusions about changes that last at least one week as a result of consuming psychedelics.

    The authors screened 821 studies and based on the criteria they had set, found 10 to be eligible for the review and meta-analysis. The drugs in the studies include psilocybin, ayahuasca and LSD.

    The findings: Overall, there was little evidence that these psychedelics have lasting effects on creativity. Also, there was not sufficient evidence to determine if this group of psychedelics enhances cognition and creativity in healthy populations or improves cognitive deficits in the study populations.

    Pooled data from three studies showed lasting improvement in emotional processing — perceiving, expressing and managing emotions.

    The studies offered little evidence suggesting lasting effects of psychedelics on personality traits.

    In the authors’ words: “Results from this study showed very limited evidence for any lasting beneficial effects across these three psychological constructs. However, preliminary meta-analytic evidence suggested that these drugs may have the potential to cause lasting improvement in emotional recognition time. Future studies investigating these constructs should employ larger sample sizes, better control conditions, standardized and validated measures and longer-term follow-ups.”

    The Impact of Psychedelics on Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
    Dakota Sicignano, et al. Current Medical Research and Opinion, December 2023.

    The study: Researchers are exploring the psychedelics’ potential for the treatment of alcohol use disorder, which affected nearly 30 million Americans in 2022. The authors of this study searched PubMed from 1960 to September 2023 for studies on the use of psychedelics to treat alcohol use disorder. Out of 174 English-language studies, they selected six studies that met the criteria for their analysis.

    The findings: LSD and psilocybin are promising therapies for alcohol use disorder, the authors report. However, five of the six trials were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s and may not reflect the current treatment views. Also, four of the six studies included patients who had used psychedelics before participating in the study, increasing the risk of bias.

    In the authors’ words: “Despite the existence of several clinical trials showing relatively consistent benefits of psychedelic therapy in treating alcohol use disorder, there are important limitations in the dataset that must be appreciated and that preclude a conclusive determination of its value for patient care at this time.”

    Older Adults in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy Trials: A Systematic Review
    Lisa Bouchet, et al. Journal of Psychopharmacology, January 2024.

    The study: People 65 years and older have been underrepresented in clinical trials involving psychedelics, including the use of psilocybin for the treatment of depression and anxiety. About 15% of adults older than 60 suffer from mental health issues, the authors note. They wanted to quantify the prevalence of older adults enrolled in psychedelic clinical trials and explore safety data in this population. They searched for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals from January 1950 to September 2023. Of 4,376 studies, the authors selected 36. The studies involved psilocybin, MDMA, LSD, ayahuasca, and DPT (dipropyltryptamine), which is a less-studied synthetic hallucinogen.

    The findings: Of the 1,400 patients participating in the selected studies, only 19 were 65 and older. Eighteen received psychedelics for distress related to cancer or other life-threatening illnesses. In a trial of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD, only one older adult was included. Adverse reactions to the drugs among older patients, including heart and gastrointestinal issues were resolved within two days and didn’t have a long-lasting impact.

    In the authors’ words: “Although existing data in older adults is limited, it does provide preliminary evidence for the safety and tolerability of [psychedelic-assisted therapy] in older patients, and as such, should be more rigorously studied in future clinical trials.”

    Efficacy and Safety of Four Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies for Adults with Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Anees Bahji, Isis Lunsky, Gilmar Gutierrez and Gustavo Vazquez. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, November 2023.

    The study: LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca and MDMA have been approved for clinical trials on psychedelic-assisted therapy of mental health conditions in Canada and the U.S. However, major medical associations, including the American Psychiatric Association, have argued that there is insufficient scientific evidence to endorse these drugs for treating mental health disorders. To better understand the current evidence, researchers reviewed 18 blinded, randomized controlled trials, spanning 2008 through 2023. Most studies were conducted in the U.S. or Switzerland.

    The findings: The studies overall suggest preliminary evidence that psychedelic drugs are mostly well-tolerated. Psilocybin and MDMA therapies may offer relief from depression and PTSD symptoms for at least a year. Most studies also used therapy and psychological support along with psychedelics.

    In the authors’ words: “Despite the promising evidence presented by our study and previous reviews in the field, the evidence base remains limited and underpowered. Long-term efficacy and safety data are lacking,” the authors write. “Future steps should encourage and highlight the need for more robust larger scale randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods, and efforts to address regulatory and legal barriers through the collaborations between researchers, healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies, and policymakers.”

    This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • What’s Your Ikigai?

    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.

    Ikigai: A Closer Look

    We’ve mentioned ikigai from time to time, usually when discussing the characteristics associated with Blue Zone centenarians, for example as number 5 of…

    The Five Pillars Of Longevity

    It’s about finding one’s “purpose”. Not merely a function, but what actually drives you in life. And, if Japanese studies can be extrapolated to the rest of the world, it has a significant and large impact on mortality (other factors being controlled for); not having a sense of ikigai is associated with an approximately 47%* increase in 7-year mortality risk in the categories of cardiovascular disease and external cause mortality:

    Sense of life worth living (ikigai) and mortality in Japan: Ohsaki Study

    *we did a lot of averaging and fuzzy math to get this figure; the link will show you the full stats though!

    In case that huge (n=43,391) study didn’t convince you, here’s another comparably-sized (n=43,117) one that found similarly, albeit framing the numbers the other way around, i.e. a comparable decrease in mortality risk for having a sense of ikigai:

    Associations of ikigai as a positive psychological factor with all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality among middle-aged and elderly Japanese people

    This study was even longer (12 years rather than 7), so the fact that it found pretty much the same results the 7-year study we cited just before is quite compelling evidence. Again, multivariate hazard ratios were adjusted for age, BMI, drinking and smoking status, physical activity, sleep duration, education, occupation, marital status, perceived mental stress, and medical history—so all these things were effectively controlled for statistically.

    Three kinds of ikigai

    There are three principal kinds of ikigai:

    • Social ikigai: for example, a caring role in the family or community, volunteer work, teaching
    • Asocial ikigai: for example, a solitary practice of self-discipline, spirituality, or study without any particular intent to teach others
    • Antisocial ikigai: for example, a strong desire to outlive an enemy, or to harm a person or group that one hates

    You may be thinking: wait, aren’t those last things bad?

    And… Maybe! But ikigai is not a matter of morality or even about “warm fuzzy feelings”. The fact is, having a sense of purpose increases longevity regardless of moral implications or niceness.

    Nevertheless, for obvious reasons there is a lot more focus on the first two categories (social and asocial), and of those, especially the first category (social), because on a social level, “we all do well when we all do well”.

    We exemplified them above, but they can be defined:

    • Social: working for the betterment of society
    • Asocial: working for the betterment of oneself

    Of course, for many people, the same ikigai may cover both of those—often somebody who excels at something for its own sake and/but shares it with others to enrich their lives also, for example a teacher, an artist, a scientist, etc.

    For it to cover both, however, requires that both parts of it are genuinely part of their feeling of ikigai, and not merely unintended consequences.

    For example, a piano teacher who loves music in general and the piano in particular, and would gladly spend every waking moment studying/practising/performing, but hates having to teach it, but needs to pay the bills so teaches it anyway, cannot be said to be living any kind of social ikigai there, just asocial. And in fact, if teaching the piano is causing them to not have the time or energy to pursue it for its own sake, they might not even be living any ikigai at all.

    One other thing to watch out for

    There is one last stumbling block, which is that while we can find ikigai, we can also lose it! Examples of this may include:

    • A professional whose job is their ikigai, until they face mandatory retirement or are otherwise unable to continue their work (perhaps due to disability, for example)
    • A parent whose full-time-parent role is their ikigai, until their children leave for school, university, life in general
    • A married person whose “devoted spouse” role is their ikigai, until their partner dies

    For this reason, people of any age can have a “crisis of identity” that’s actually more of a “crisis of purpose”.

    There are two ways of handling this:

    1. Have a back-up ikigai ready! For example, if your profession is your ikigai, maybe you have a hobby waiting in the wings, that you can smoothly jump ship to upon retirement.
    2. Embrace the fluidity of life! Sometimes, things don’t happen the way we expect. Sometimes life’s surprises can trip us up; sometimes they can leave us a sobbing wreck. But so long as life continues, there is an opportunity to pick ourselves up and decide where to go from that point. Note that this is not fatalism, by the way, it doesn’t have to be “this bad thing happened so that we could find this good thing, so really it was a good thing all along”. Rather, it can equally readily be “well, we absolutely did not want that bad thing to happen, but since it did, now we shall take it this way from here”.

    For more on developing/maintaining psychological resilience in the face of life’s less welcome adversities, see:

    Psychological Resilience Training

    …and:

    Putting The Abs Into Absurdity ← do not underestimate the power of this one

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Blueberries vs Cranberries – Which is Healthier?
  • No, sugar doesn’t make your kids hyperactive

    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 a Saturday afternoon at a kids’ birthday party. Hordes of children are swarming between the spread of birthday treats and party games. Half-eaten cupcakes, biscuits and lollies litter the floor, and the kids seem to have gained superhuman speed and bounce-off-the-wall energy. But is sugar to blame?

    The belief that eating sugary foods and drinks leads to hyperactivity has steadfastly persisted for decades. And parents have curtailed their children’s intake accordingly.

    Balanced nutrition is critical during childhood. As a neuroscientist who has studied the negative effects of high sugar “junk food” diets on brain function, I can confidently say excessive sugar consumption does not have benefits to the young mind. In fact, neuroimaging studies show the brains of children who eat more processed snack foods are smaller in volume, particularly in the frontal cortices, than those of children who eat a more healthful diet.

    But today’s scientific evidence does not support the claim sugar makes kids hyperactive.

    Sharomka/Shutterstock

    The hyperactivity myth

    Sugar is a rapid source of fuel for the body. The myth of sugar-induced hyperactivity can be traced to a handful of studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. These were focused on the Feingold Diet as a treatment for what we now call Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a neurodivergent profile where problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity can negatively affect school, work or relationships.

    Devised by American paediatric allergist Benjamin Feingold, the diet is extremely restrictive. Artificial colours, sweeteners (including sugar) and flavourings, salicylates including aspirin, and three preservatives (butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene, and tert-Butrylhdryquinone) are eliminated.

    Salicylates occur naturally in many healthy foods, including apples, berries, tomatoes, broccoli, cucumbers, capsicums, nuts, seeds, spices and some grains. So, as well as eliminating processed foods containing artificial colours, flavours, preservatives and sweeteners, the Feingold diet eliminates many nutritious foods helpful for healthy development.

    However, Feingold believed avoiding these ingredients improved focus and behaviour. He conducted some small studies, which he claimed showed a large proportion of hyperactive children responded favourably to his diet.

    bowls of lollies on table
    Even it doesn’t make kids hyperactive, they shouldn’t have too much sugar. DenisMArt/Shutterstock

    Flawed by design

    The methods used in the studies were flawed, particularly with respect to adequate control groups (who did not restrict foods) and failed to establish a causal link between sugar consumption and hyperactive behaviour.

    Subsequent studies suggested less than 2% responded to restrictions rather than Feingold’s claimed 75%. But the idea still took hold in the public consciousness and was perpetuated by anecdotal experiences.

    Fast forward to the present day. The scientific landscape looks vastly different. Rigorous research conducted by experts has consistently failed to find a connection between sugar and hyperactivity. Numerous placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated sugar does not significantly impact children’s behaviour or attention span.

    One landmark meta-analysis study, published almost 20 years ago, compared the effects of sugar versus a placebo on children’s behaviour across multiple studies. The results were clear: in the vast majority of studies, sugar consumption did not lead to increased hyperactivity or disruptive behaviour.

    Subsequent research has reinforced these findings, providing further evidence sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children, even in those diagnosed with ADHD.

    While Feingold’s original claims were overstated, a small proportion of children do experience allergies to artificial food flavourings and dyes.

    Pre-school aged children may be more sensitive to food additives than older children. This is potentially due to their smaller body size, or their still-developing brain and body.

    Hooked on dopamine?

    Although the link between sugar and hyperactivity is murky at best, there is a proven link between the neurotransmitter dopamine and increased activity.

    The brain releases dopamine when a reward is encountered – such as an unexpected sweet treat. A surge of dopamine also invigorates movement – we see this increased activity after taking psychostimulant drugs like amphetamine. The excited behaviour of children towards sugary foods may be attributed to a burst of dopamine released in expectation of a reward, although the level of dopamine release is much less than that of a psychostimulant drug.

    Dopamine function is also critically linked to ADHD, which is thought to be due to diminished dopamine receptor function in the brain. Some ADHD treatments such as methylphenidate (labelled Ritalin or Concerta) and lisdexamfetamine (sold as Vyvanse) are also psychostimulants. But in the ADHD brain the increased dopamine from these drugs recalibrates brain function to aid focus and behavioural control.

    girl in yellow top licks large lollipop while holding a pink icecream
    Maybe it’s less of a sugar rush and more of a dopamine rush? Anastasiya Tsiasemnikava/Shutterstock

    Why does the myth persist?

    The complex interplay between diet, behaviour and societal beliefs endures. Expecting sugar to change your child’s behaviour can influence how you interpret what you see. In a study where parents were told their child had either received a sugary drink, or a placebo drink (with a non-sugar sweetener), those parents who expected their child to be hyperactive after having sugar perceived this effect, even when they’d only had the sugar-free placebo.

    The allure of a simple explanation – blaming sugar for hyperactivity – can also be appealing in a world filled with many choices and conflicting voices.

    Healthy foods, healthy brains

    Sugar itself may not make your child hyperactive, but it can affect your child’s mental and physical health. Rather than demonising sugar, we should encourage moderation and balanced nutrition, teaching children healthy eating habits and fostering a positive relationship with food.

    In both children and adults, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting free sugar consumption to less than 10% of energy intake, and a reduction to 5% for further health benefits. Free sugars include sugars added to foods during manufacturing, and naturally present sugars in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.

    Treating sugary foods as rewards can result in them becoming highly valued by children. Non-sugar rewards also have this effect, so it’s a good idea to use stickers, toys or a fun activity as incentives for positive behaviour instead.

    While sugar may provide a temporary energy boost, it does not turn children into hyperactive whirlwinds.

    Amy Reichelt, Senior Lecturer (Adjunct), Nutritional neuroscientist, University of Adelaide

    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:

  • Lower Your Cortisol! (Here’s Why & How)

    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.

    Cortisol, or “the stress hormone” to its friends, is produced by your adrenal glands, and is generally considered “not fun”.

    It does serve a purpose, of course, just like almost everything else our body does. It serves as part of the “fight or flight” response, for example, and helps you to wake up in the morning.

    While you do need some cortisol (and a small percentage of people have too little), most of us have too much.

    Why? Simply put, modern life is not what 200,000* years of human evolution prepared us for:

    *the 200,000 years figure is conservative and doesn’t take into account the 200,000,000 years of pre-hominid mammalian evolution. Doing so, on the basis of the mammalian brain & physiology being what’s important here, means our modern stressors have been around for <0.0001% of the time we have.

    So guess what, our bodies haven’t caught up. As far as our bodies are concerned, we are supposed to be enjoying the sunshine of grassy plains and the shade of woodland while eating fruit.

    • When the alarm clock goes off, our body panics and prepares us to either flee or help fight the predator, because why else would we have been woken so?
    • When we have a pressing deadline for work, our brain processes this as “if we don’t do this, we will literally starve and die”.
    • When people are upset or angry with us, there’s a part of our brain that fears exile from the tribe and resultant death.

    …and so on.

    Health Risks of High Cortisol

    The long-term stressors are the biggest issue for health. Unless you have a heart condition or other relevant health problem, almost anyone can weather a brief unpleasant surprise. But if something persists? That prompts the body to try to protect you, bless it. The body’s attempts backfire, because…

    • One way it does this by making sure to save as much food as possible in the form of body fat
    • It’ll also increase your appetite, to make sure you eat anything you can while you still can
    • It additionally tries to protect you by keeping you on the brink of fight-or-flight readiness, e.g:
      • High blood pressure
      • High blood sugar levels
      • Rapid mood changes—gotta be able to do those heel-turns as necessary and react quickly to any possible threat!

    Suffice it to say, these things are not good for your long-term health.

    That’s the “Why”—now here’s the “How”:

    Lowering your cortisol levels mostly means lowering your stress and/or lowering your stress response. We previously gave some powerful tools for lowering anxiety, which for these purposes amounts to the same thing.

    However, we can also make nutritional and lifestyle changes that will reduce our cortisol levels, for example:

    • Reduce (ideally: eliminate from your lifestyle) caffeine
    • Reduce (ideally: eliminate from your lifestyle) alcohol
      • Yes, really. While many understandably turn to alcohol specifically to help manage stress, it only makes it worse long-term.
      • Additionally, alcohol directly stimulates cortisol production, counterintuitive as that may be.

    Read: Alcohol, Aging, and the Stress Response ← full article (with 37 sources of its own) from the NYMC covering how alcohol stimulates cortisol production and what that means for us

    As well as reductions/eliminations, are some things you can add into your lifestyle that will help!

    We’ve written previously about some:

    Read: Ashwagandha / Read: L-Theanine / Read: CBD Oil

    Other things include, no surprises here:

    Progressive Relaxation

    We’ll give this one its own section because we’ve not talked about it before. Maybe you’re familiar. If not, then in a nutshell: progressive relaxation means progressively tensing and then relaxing each part of your body in turn.

    Why does this work? Part of it is just a physical trick involving biofeedback and the natural function of muscles to contract and relax in turn, but the other part is even cleverer:

    It basically tricks the most primitive part of your brain, the limbic system, into thinking you had a fight and won, telling it “thank you very much for the cortisol but we don’t need it anymore”.

    Take a Hike! Or a Stroll… You Do You!

    Last but not least: go connect with your roots. Spend time in the park, or at least the garden. Have a picnic, if the weather suits. Go somewhere you can spend time around leafy green things under a blue sky (we realize the blue sky may be subject to availability in some locations, but do what you can!).

    Remember also: just as your body’s responses will be tricked by the alarm clock or the housework, they will also be easily tricked by blue and green stuff around you. If a sunny garden isn’t available in your location, a picture of one as your desktop background is the next best thing.

    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:

  • Healthy Brain, Happy Life – by Dr. Wendy Suzuki

    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 talked about Dr. Wendy Suzuki’s research in the category of exercise and brain-benefits in our main feature the other day. But she has more to say than we can fit into an article!

    This book chronicles her discoveries, through her work in memory and neuroplasticity, to her discoveries about exercise, and her dive into broader neurology-based mental health. So what does neurology-based mental health look like?

    The answer is: mitigating brain-busters such as stress and anxiety, revitalizing a fatigued brain, boosting creativity, and other such benefits.

    Does she argue that exercise is a cure-all? No, not quite. Sometimes there are other things she’s recommending (such as in her chapter on challenging the neurobiology of the stress response, or her chapter on meditation and the brain).

    The writing style is mostly casual, interspersed with occasional mini-lectures (complete with diagrams and other illustrations), and is very readable and informative throughout.

    Bottom line: if you’d like the more in-depth details of Dr. Suzuki’s work, this book is a very accessible way to get 320 pages of that!

    Click here to check out Healthy Brain, Happy Life, and give yours the best!

    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: