LSD vs Anxiety!

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’ve written before about how psychedelics can have lasting (beneficial!) effects, here:

Psychedelics: Yes Even Once?

However, after a lot of research into psilocybin (the active compound in “magic mushrooms”) and some other psychedelics, the “yes even once” part of that was in reference to a study using the psychedelic compound 25CN-NBOH, a selective serotonin 2A receptor agonist (which honestly does not have a snappier name than that or else we’d use it), and how it improved cognitive flexibility (albeit: in mice) in a lasting fashion.

You can read that paper in full (and see graphs!) here:

Single-dose psychedelic enhances cognitive flexibility and reversal learning in mice weeks* after administration

*About “weeks”; the experiment ran for 20 days and that was that. It is not known how long the benefits would have persisted, only that in the first 20 days, they showed no signs of disappearing.

Suffice it to say, an LSD trip does not last for weeks. So, it seems the changes have been made to the brain and that’s that.

So, what about LSD and anxiety?

A “chill pill” with safe, lasting effects?

We previously shared this study:

Repeated lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) reverses stress-induced anxiety-like behavior, cortical synaptogenesis deficits and serotonergic neurotransmission decline

However, that was (once again) mice. And, as the study title suggests, repeated LSD use, not just a single dose.

Today, we’ll be looking at a study into the effects of LSD vs anxiety in humans, from a single dose.

Researchers (Dr. Reid Robinson et al.) found that a single LSD dose eased anxiety symptoms for up to 3 months* in 198 patients with moderate to severe anxiety

*This is a case of the study running for three months, so the researchers can’t comment on what how long it lasts after the three months, because the research grant didn’t have enough for a crystal ball for them to use to write about the future and what will happen with the study participants after the study period. After all, at some point one needs to draw a line under it and publish the results.

About that timeline:

  • at baseline, all patients had moderate to severe anxiety
  • at four weeks, those who took higher doses significantly lowered anxiety scores compared to smaller doses or placebo
  • at 12 weeks, 65% of patients who took 100 mg still showed improvements and 48% were in remission

One thing that set this study apart from many is that it unlike most psychedelic studies paired with therapy, this trial tested LSD alone under supervision to isolate the drug’s effect vs placebo, rather than the effect drug+therapy and being unsure whether it would have helped without the therapy.

About that placebo: it was noted as a limitation of the study that that many patients correctly guessed whether they took LSD or placebo (weakening blinding). The resultant high dropout rate (because it’s not very motivating to keep at something where you’re almost certain you received the placebo) reduced the final data set. Still, the researchers did what they could under the circumstances.

You can find the paper itself, here: Single Treatment With MM120 (Lysergide D-Tartrate) in Generalized Anxiety Disorder

On which note, with regard to “lysergide D-tartrate”; that is a form of LSD (it’s a salt of LSD, which is then metabolized as such, so one could argue that it’s essentially a pro-drug), and/but since it is far from the only form of LSD, it cannot be said for sure whether the effects will be the same with any/all LSD. It seems likely that the results will translate just the same to other forms of LSD, but we can’t say that confidently without the science actually being done for it.

Want to learn more?

With regard to psychedelics in general, see:

Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics

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:

  • Pear vs Pineapple – 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 pear to pineapple, we picked the pineapple.

    Why?

    They do both have their merits, and pear started off strong!

    In terms of macros, pears have 2x the fiber, for approximately the same carbs and protein, winning in this category.

    In the category of vitamins, pear has more of vitamins E and K, while pineapple has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline, winning easily.

    Looking at minerals, pear has more phosphorus and potassium, while pineapple has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, and zinc, scoring another win for pineapple.

    In other considerations, pineapple gives a lot of extra benefits because it contains bromelain, an enzymatic mixture that is unique to it—you can read all about that in the link below!

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for pineapple, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Fasting Without Crashing?

    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.

    Intermittent Fasting: What’s the truth?

    Before we get to facts and fictions, let’s quickly cover:

    What is Intermittent Fasting?

    Intermittent Fasting (IF) is an umbrella term for various kinds of time-restricted fasting, based on a schedule. Types include:

    Time-restricted IF, for example:

    • 16:8—Fast for 16 hours, eat during an 8-hour window
    • 18:6–Fast for 18 hours, eat during a 6-hour window
    • 20:4—Fast for 20 hours, eat during a 4-hour window

    24hr fasting, including:

    • Eat Stop Eat—basically, take a day off from eating once a week
    • Alternate Day Fasting—a more extreme version of the above; it is what it sounds like; eat one day, fast the next, repeat

    Non-fast fasting, e.g:

    • 5:2—Eat normally for 5 days, have a very reduced calorie intake (⅓ of normal intake) for the other 2 days
    • Fruit Fasting—have a small amount of fruit on “fast” days, but no other food
    • The Warrior Diet—as above, but include a small amount of non-starchy vegetables

    Why IF?

    While IF is perhaps most commonly undertaken as a means of fat loss or fat management (i.e., keeping fat down when it is already low), others cite different reasons, such as short term cognitive performance or long-term longevity.

    But… Does it work?

    Here we get into the myth-busting bit!

    “IF promotes weight loss”

    Mix of True and False. It can! But it also doesn’t have to. If you’re a bodybuilder who downs 4,000 calories in your 4hr eating window, you’re probably not going to lose weight! For such people, this is of course “a feature, not a bug” of IF—especially as it has been found that, in an acute study, IF did not adversely impact muscle protein synthesis.

    “IF promotes fat loss, without eating less”

    Broadly True. IF was found to be potentially equal to, but not necessarily better than, eating less.

    “IF provides metabolic benefits for general health”

    Broadly True. IF (perhaps counterintuitively) decreases the risk of insulin resistance, and also has anti-inflammatory effects, benefits a healthy gut microbiome, and promotes healthy autophagy (which as we noted in a previous edition of 10almonds, is important against both aging and cancer)

    However, results vary according to which protocol you’re observing…

    For what it’s worth, 16:8 is perhaps the most-studied protocol. Because such studies tend to have the eating window from midday to 8pm, this means that—going against popular wisdom—part of the advice here is basically “skip breakfast”.

    “Unlike caloric restriction, IF is sustainable and healthy as a long-term protocol”

    Broadly True. Of course, there’s a slight loophole here in that IF is loosely defined—technically everyone fasts while they’re sleeping, at the very least!

    However, for the most commonly-studied IF method (16:8), this is generally very sustainable and healthy and for most people.

    On the other hand, a more extreme method such as Alternate Day Fasting, may be trickier to sustain (even if it remains healthy to do so), because it’s been found that hunger does not decrease on fasting days—ie, the body does not “get used to it”.

    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition wrote:

    ❝Alternate-day fasting was feasible in nonobese subjects, and fat oxidation increased. However, hunger on fasting days did not decrease, perhaps indicating the unlikelihood of continuing this diet for extended periods of time. Adding one small meal on a fasting day may make this approach to dietary restriction more acceptable.❞

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    “IF improves mood and cognition”

    Mix of True and False (plus an honest “We Don’t Know” from researchers).

    Many studies have found benefits to both mood and cognition, but in the short-term, fasting can make people “hangry” (or: “experience irritability due to low blood sugar levels”, as the scientists put it), and in the long term, it can worsen symptoms of depression for those who already experience such—although some studies have found it can help alleviate depressive symptoms.

    Basically this is one where researchers typically append the words “more research is needed” to their summaries.

    “Anyone can do IF”

    Definitely False, unless going by the absolute broadest possible interpretation of what constitutes “Intermittent Fasting” to the point of disingenuity.

    For example, if you are Type 1 Diabetic, and your blood sugars are hypo, and you wait until tomorrow to correct that, you will stand a good chance of going into a coma instead. So please don’t.

    (On the other hand, IF may help achieve remission of type 2 diabetes)

    Lastly, IF is broadly not recommend to children and adolescents, anyone pregnant or breastfeeding, and certain underlying health conditions not mentioned above (we’re not going to try to give an exhaustive list here, but basically, if you have a chronic health condition, we recommend you check with your doctor first).

    WHICH APP?

    Choosing a fasting app

    Thinking of giving IF a try and would like a little extra help? We’ve got you covered!

    Check out: Livewire’s 7 Best Intermittent Fasting Apps of 2023

    Prefer to just trust us with a recommendation?

    We like BodyFast—it’s #2 on Lifewire’s list, but it has an array of pre-set plans to choose from (unlike Lifewire’s #1, Zero), and plenty of clear tracking, scheduling help, and motivational features.

    Both are available on both iOS and Android:

    See the BodyFast App / See the Zero App

    Share This Post

  • Soft Drinks & Your Liver: Sugar vs Sugar-Free Sweeteners

    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.

    First of all, how’s your liver health? If you’re not sure, then rather than guessing, you might like to quickly check out: 12 Signs Of Liver Disease That You Can See

    …to make sure that your liver isn’t about to defy its name. The liver (when healthy) is a remarkably self-regenerative organ, but the flipside of this is that this means that very often problems do not get noticed until something goes very seriously wrong.

    Now, about those soft drinks…

    Not so sweet after all?

    Firstly, while liver failure is commonly associated with excessive drinking of alcohol (and indeed, alcohol does very much harm the liver), actually most liver disease takes the form of the awkwardly-rebranded metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). If you noticed that the words do not add up to the acronym, then, so did we and we haven’t found an explanation for it either*

    In any case, it’s what is formerly known as, and for now at least still better known as, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

    *We delved more into this, looking and why and how the name was changed (i.e. including the voting process for the new name), within part of a previous article of ours, here: Top Diets & Fasting vs Fatty Liver: What’s Best?

    MASLD, as we will now begrudgingly refer to it, is often precipitated by a diet (including drinks) high in carbs, especially sugars, without sufficient fiber. We explained why this dietary imbalance does such harm to the liver, here: From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    So, it can safely be acknowledged that sugary beverages (including sugar-sweetened soft drinks, which we’re going to be talking about today, and also including fruit juices as these have been stripped of fiber, but not smoothies or whole fruit) are bad for the liver, by the mechanism described in the above-linked article.

    But what of artificial sweeteners?

    Since they do not contain sugar, or at least not sugar that is metabolized normally as such (since technically some artificial sweeteners are sugars, chemically speaking, but the body cannot metabolize them and so instead processes them as dietary fiber), they must be better for the liver, right?

    New research presented at the United European Gasteroenterology week suggests otherwise.

    In fact,

    ❝A higher intake of both low-or-no-sugar-sweetened beverages and sugar-sweetened beverages (>250g per day) was associated with a 60% (HR: 1.599) and 50% (HR: 1.469) elevated risk of developing MASLD, respectively.

    Over the median 10.3-year follow-up, 1,178 participants developed MASLD and 108 died from liver-related causes.

    Both beverage types were also positively associated with higher liver fat content.❞

    Note: 250g is an odd way to measure drinks (usually measured in volume, not mass), but that equals 1 cup, in any case.

    So, translating from sciencese:

    • sugar-sweetened soft drinks increase the risk of MASLD by 50%
    • diet soft drinks increase the risk of MASLD by 60%

    Caveat: this was an observational study so when we say “increased the risk” really we mean “were associated with an increase in risk”, since it doesn’t strictly prove causality. However, with a sample size of 123,788 participants, the evidence does look rather damning, doesn’t it?

    You can read more about the study here: Artificially-sweetened and sugary drinks linked to higher risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

    If, perchance, you have decided that for you, artificial sweeteners are still the “lesser evil” (and indeed there may be reasons this could be appropriate for some), then you might want to check out:

    What’s The Healthiest Sweetener?

    Want to do more for your liver?

    Consider: N-Acetyl Cysteine For The Liver & More

    Or if you prefer a purely dietary approach, then: How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Elderberries vs Raspberries – 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 elderberries to raspberries, we picked the elderberries.

    Why?

    It was close!

    In terms of macros, elderberries have very slightly more fiber and carbs, but honestly it’s close enough to call this round a tie.

    In the category of vitamins, elderberries have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, and C, while raspberries have more of vitamins B3, B5, and B9. Thus, a 6:3 win for elderberries.

    When it comes to minerals, elderberries have more calcium, iron, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while raspberries have more copper, magnesium, and zinc. This time, a 5:3 win for elderberries.

    It’s also worth noting that elderberries have a far greater complement of polyphenols (mostly anthocyanins, whence the color, though also a fair amount of quercetin). We’ll mention also that raspberries certainly are good in this regard too, just not on the same tier as elderberries in this category.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for elderberries, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Herbs For Evidence-Based Health & Healing ← elderberry significantly hastens recovery from upper respiratory viral infections 😎

    Enjoy!

    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:

  • The Small Daily Habits That Add 9+ Years To Life

    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.

    Things that aren’t on the list:

    • Springing out of bed for a 5am run every morning
    • Getting a divorce
    • Drinking 10% of your bodyweight in kale smoothies
    • Regular blood transfusions from a team of healthy teenagers
    • Cold water plunges

    Instead, the actual habits we’re going to talk about today are quite minor things, but they add up to big differences.

    First, we were a little silly with the above list, but actually before we move on, let’s examine it:

    The easier list

    We’ll not keep it a mystery:

    • Move more
    • Sit less
    • Sleep better
    • Eat better

    Now, probably none of those things are a shocking surprise, but what recent science has found is that the amount that most people need to improve by (in order to enjoy benefits) is much smaller than previously believed.

    Specifically, two large cohort analyses have shown that very small, realistic daily improvements in movement, sitting time, sleep, and diet are associated with serious reductions in mortality risk and notable gains in lifespan and healthspan.

    One of them (Dr. Maria Hagströmer et al.) found adding literally just 5 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reducing sedentary time by 30 minutes per day could reduce mortality by up to 10%.

    You can find that paper here: Deaths potentially averted by small changes in physical activity and sedentary time: an individual participant data meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

    Another (Dr. Dorothea Dumuid et al.) found that sleeping 7.2–8.0 hours per day, doing more than 42 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous exercise, and achieving a diet quality score* of 57.5–72.5 were associated with an average 9.35 additional years of healthy lifespan, compared to not doing those things.

    *The diet quality score (DQS) involves assessing dietary components that make things better or worse, such as intake of vegetables, fruits, grains, fish, other meats, dairy, oils, and sugar-sweetened beverages (ranging 0–100; higher indicates better quality)

    If those changes seem too much, then note also that as little as 5 extra minutes of sleep per day, 1.9 additional minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day, and improving by just 5 points in the DQS were associated with 1 extra year of healthy lifespan.

    There’s a dose-response relationship here, as larger but still modest combined changes—24 more minutes of sleep per day, 3.7 more minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day, and a 23-point DQS improvement—were associated with about 4 additional years lived in good health.

    You can find that paper here: Minimum combined sleep, physical activity, and nutrition variations associated with lifeSPAN and healthSPAN improvements: a population cohort study

    Ok, but how to implement that?

    Short answer: little by little!

    Long answer: we’ll give our own long answer another day, as we’re out of room for today, but…

    You might like these excellent books that we’ve reviewed by Dr. Rangan Chatterjee, who specializes in getting people to do just this:

    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:

  • A new government inquiry will examine women’s pain and treatment. How and why is it different?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The Victorian government has announced an inquiry into women’s pain. Given women are disproportionately affected by pain, such a thorough investigation is long overdue.

    The inquiry, the first of its kind in Australia and the first we’re aware of internationally, is expected to take a year. It aims to improve care and services for Victorian girls and women experiencing pain in the future.

    The gender pain gap

    Globally, more women report chronic pain than men do. A survey of over 1,750 Victorian women found 40% are living with chronic pain.

    Approximately half of chronic pain conditions have a higher prevalence in women compared to men, including low back pain and osteoarthritis. And female-specific pain conditions, such as endometriosis, are much more common than male-specific pain conditions such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

    These statistics are seen across the lifespan, with higher rates of chronic pain being reported in females as young as two years old. This discrepancy increases with age, with 28% of Australian women aged over 85 experiencing chronic pain compared to 18% of men.

    It feels worse

    Women also experience pain differently to men. There is some evidence to suggest that when diagnosed with the same condition, women are more likely to report higher pain scores than men.

    Similarly, there is some evidence to suggest women are also more likely to report higher pain scores during experimental trials where the same painful pressure stimulus is applied to both women and men.

    Pain is also more burdensome for women. Depression is twice as prevalent in women with chronic pain than men with chronic pain. Women are also more likely to report more health care use and be hospitalised due to their pain than men.

    woman lies in bed in pain
    Women seem to feel pain more acutely and often feel ignored by doctors.
    Shutterstock

    Medical misogyny

    Women in pain are viewed and treated differently to men. Women are more likely to be told their pain is psychological and dismissed as not being real or “all in their head”.

    Hollywood actor Selma Blair recently shared her experience of having her symptoms repeatedly dismissed by doctors and put down to “menstrual issues”, before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018.

    It’s an experience familiar to many women in Australia, where medical misogyny still runs deep. Our research has repeatedly shown Australian women with pelvic pain are similarly dismissed, leading to lengthy diagnostic delays and serious impacts on their quality of life.

    Misogyny exists in research too

    Historically, misogyny has also run deep in medical research, including pain research. Women have been viewed as smaller bodied men with different reproductive functions. As a result, most pre-clinical pain research has used male rodents as the default research subject. Some researchers say the menstrual cycle in female rodents adds additional variability and therefore uncertainty to experiments. And while variability due to the menstrual cycle may be true, it may be no greater than male-specific sources of variability (such as within-cage aggression and dominance) that can also influence research findings.

    The exclusion of female subjects in pre-clinical studies has hindered our understanding of sex differences in pain and of response to treatment. Only recently have we begun to understand various genetic, neurochemical, and neuroimmune factors contribute to sex differences in pain prevalence and sensitivity. And sex differences exist in pain processing itself. For instance, in the spinal cord, male and female rodents process potentially painful stimuli through entirely different immune cells.

    These differences have relevance for how pain should be treated in women, yet many of the existing pharmacological treatments for pain, including opioids, are largely or solely based upon research completed on male rodents.

    When women seek care, their pain is also treated differently. Studies show women receive less pain medication after surgery compared to men. In fact, one study found while men were prescribed opioids after joint surgery, women were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants. In another study, women were more likely to receive sedatives for pain relief following surgery, while men were more likely to receive pain medication.

    So, women are disproportionately affected by pain in terms of how common it is and sensitivity, but also in how their pain is viewed, treated, and even researched. Women continue to be excluded, dismissed, and receive sub-optimal care, and the recently announced inquiry aims to improve this.

    What will the inquiry involve?

    Consumers, health-care professionals and health-care organisations will be invited to share their experiences of treatment services for women’s pain in Victoria as part of the year-long inquiry. These experiences will be used to describe the current service delivery system available to Victorian women with pain, and to plan more appropriate services to be delivered in the future.

    Inquiry submissions are now open until March 12 2024. If you are a Victorian woman living with pain, or provide care to Victorian women with pain, we encourage you to submit.

    The state has an excellent track record of improving women’s health in many areas, including heart, sexual, and reproductive health, but clearly, we have a way to go with women’s pain. We wait with bated breath to see the results of this much-needed investigation, and encourage other states and territories to take note of the findings.The Conversation

    Jane Chalmers, Senior Lecturer in Pain Sciences, University of South Australia and Amelia Mardon, PhD Candidate, University of South Australia

    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: