Managing Major Chronic Diseases – by Alexis Dupree

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 author, Alexis Dupree, is herself in her 70s, and writing with more than three decades of experience of surviving multiple chronic diseases (in her case, Multiple Sclerosis, and then a dozen comorbidities that came with such).

She is not a doctor or a scientist, but for more than 30 years she’s been actively working to accumulate knowledge not just on her own conditions, but on the whole medical system, and what it means to be a “forever patient” without giving up hope.

She talks lived-experience “life management” strategies for living with chronic disease, and she talks—again from lived experience—about navigating the complexities of medical care; not on a legalistic “State regulations say…” level, because that kind of thing changes by the minute, but on a human level.

Perhaps most practically: how to advocate strongly for yourself while still treating medical professionals with the respect and frankly compassion that they deserve while doing their best in turn.

But also: how to change your attitude to that of a survivor, and yet also redefine your dreams. How to make a new game plan of life—while working to make life easier for yourself. How to deal, psychologically, with the likelihood that not only will you probably not get better, but also, you will probably get worse, while still never, ever, giving up.

After all, many things are easily treatable today that mere decades ago were death sentences, and science is progressing all the time. We just have to stay alive, and in as good a condition as we reasonably can, to benefit from those advances!

Bottom line: if you have a chronic disease, or if a loved one does, then this is an immensely valuable book to read.

Click here to check out Managing Major Chronic Diseases, and make life easier!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • The Twenty-Four Hour Mind – by Dr. Rosalind Cartwright
  • The Neuroscience of You – by Dr. Chantel Prat
    Uncover the fascinating truth about the uniqueness of our brains and how our experiences shape them in “The Neuroscience of You.”

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Getting Things Done – by David Allen

    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 “to-do” lists are usually hopelessly tangled:

    To do thing x needs thing y doing first but that can only be done with information that I must get by doing thing z”, and so on.

    Suddenly that two-minute task is looking like half an hour, which is making our overall to-do list look gargantuan. Tackling tiny parts of tasks seems useless; tackling large tasks seems overwhelming. What a headache!

    Getting Things Done (“GTD”, to its friends) shows us how to gather all our to-dos, and then use the quickest ways to break down a task (in reality, often a mini-project) into its constituent parts and which things can be done next, and what order to do them in (or defer, or delegate, or ditch).

    In a nutshell: The GTD system aims to make all your tasks comprehensible and manageable, for stress-free productivity. No need to strategize everything every time; you have a system now, and always know where to begin.

    And by popular accounts, it delivers—many put this book in the “life-changing” category.

    Check out today’s book on Amazon!

    Share This Post

  • Could ADHD drugs reduce the risk of early death? Unpacking the findings from a new Swedish study

    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.

    Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can have a considerable impact on the day-to-day functioning and overall wellbeing of people affected. It causes a variety of symptoms including difficulty focusing, impulsivity and hyperactivity.

    For many, a diagnosis of ADHD, whether in childhood or adulthood, is life changing. It means finally having an explanation for these challenges, and opens up the opportunity for treatment, including medication.

    Although ADHD medications can cause side effects, they generally improve symptoms for people with the disorder, and thereby can significantly boost quality of life.

    Now a new study has found being treated for ADHD with medication reduces the risk of early death for people with the disorder. But what can we make of these findings?

    A large study from Sweden

    The study, published this week in JAMA (the prestigious journal of the American Medical Association), was a large cohort study of 148,578 people diagnosed with ADHD in Sweden. It included both adults and children.

    In a cohort study, a group of people who share a common characteristic (in this case a diagnosis of ADHD) are followed over time to see how many develop a particular health outcome of interest (in this case the outcome was death).

    For this study the researchers calculated the mortality rate over a two-year follow up period for those whose ADHD was treated with medication (a group of around 84,000 people) alongside those whose ADHD was not treated with medication (around 64,000 people). The team then determined if there were any differences between the two groups.

    What did the results show?

    The study found people who were diagnosed and treated for ADHD had a 19% reduced risk of death from any cause over the two years they were tracked, compared with those who were diagnosed but not treated.

    In understanding this result, it’s important – and interesting – to look at the causes of death. The authors separately analysed deaths due to natural causes (physical medical conditions) and deaths due to unnatural causes (for example, unintentional injuries, suicide, or accidental poisonings).

    The key result is that while no significant difference was seen between the two groups when examining natural causes of death, the authors found a significant difference for deaths due to unnatural causes.

    So what’s going on?

    Previous studies have suggested ADHD is associated with an increased risk of premature death from unnatural causes, such as injury and poisoning.

    On a related note, earlier studies have also suggested taking ADHD medicines may reduce premature deaths. So while this is not the first study to suggest this association, the authors note previous studies addressing this link have generated mixed results and have had significant limitations.

    In this new study, the authors suggest the reduction in deaths from unnatural causes could be because taking medication alleviates some of the ADHD symptoms responsible for poor outcomes – for example, improving impulse control and decision-making. They note this could reduce fatal accidents.

    The authors cite a number of studies that support this hypothesis, including research showing ADHD medications may prevent the onset of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders, and lower the risk of accidents and criminality. All this could reasonably be expected to lower the rate of unnatural deaths.

    Strengths and limitations

    Scandinavian countries have well-maintained national registries that collect information on various aspects of citizens’ lives, including their health. This allows researchers to conduct excellent population-based studies.

    Along with its robust study design and high-quality data, another strength of this study is its size. The large number of participants – almost 150,000 – gives us confidence the findings were not due to chance.

    The fact this study examined both children and adults is another strength. Previous research relating to ADHD has often focused primarily on children.

    One of the important limitations of this study acknowledged by the authors is that it was observational. Observational studies are where the researchers observe and analyse naturally occurring phenomena without intervening in the lives of the study participants (unlike randomised controlled trials).

    The limitation in all observational research is the issue of confounding. This means we cannot be completely sure the differences between the two groups observed were not either partially or entirely due to some other factor apart from taking medication.

    Specifically, it’s possible lifestyle factors or other ADHD treatments such as psychological counselling or social support may have influenced the mortality rates in the groups studied.

    Another possible limitation is the relatively short follow-up period. What the results would show if participants were followed up for longer is an interesting question, and could be addressed in future research.

    What are the implications?

    Despite some limitations, this study adds to the evidence that diagnosis and treatment for ADHD can make a profound difference to people’s lives. As well as alleviating symptoms of the disorder, this study supports the idea ADHD medication reduces the risk of premature death.

    Ultimately, this highlights the importance of diagnosing ADHD early so the appropriate treatment can be given. It also contributes to the body of evidence indicating the need to improve access to mental health care and support more broadly.The Conversation

    Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

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

    Share This Post

  • Cottage cheese is back and all over TikTok. Two dietitians explain why social media’s obsessed

    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.

    You might remember cottage cheese from your childhood. Back then, it was considered “diet food”. You ate it out of the tub, with celery or spread it on crackers for a low-calorie snack. Then cottage cheese went out of fashion.

    But cottage cheese is having a resurgence. In recent months, Google searches for “cottage cheese” have risen to the highest levels since 2004.

    Social media influencers have been promoting its benefits on TikTok and Instagram with hashtags such as #cottagecheese, #cottagecheeseforlife, and #cottagecheeserecipe. Sales of cottage cheese around the world have skyrocketed.

    Let’s see why cottage cheese is having such a moment.

    Karolina Kaboompics/Pexels

    What is cottage cheese?

    Cottage cheese is a fresh dairy cheese product with a mild flavour and a slightly tangy taste. It is made by curdling cow’s milk, then draining the whey, leaving behind the curds. These curds are usually small and lumpy, and the texture can vary from creamy to dry, depending on the amount of whey left in the cheese.

    The term “cottage cheese” is said to have originated because the cheese was generally made in cottage-type houses from leftover milk, after making butter.

    Cottage cheese is cheap, costing about A$12 per kilogram in the supermarket, similar to ricotta cheese.

    It’s also surprisingly simple to make at home using freely available recipes. All you need is milk, salt and a splash of vinegar.

    We’re using cottage cheese in new ways

    It’s difficult to know what started the latest cottage cheese trend. But the creativity of social media means people are sharing alternative ways to use cottage cheese, changing people’s views from it being boring and lacking flavour to it being versatile and healthy.

    People are spreading cottage cheese on toast and using it to make dishes such as porridge, dips, salads, bread and flatbreads. They’re using it in cakes and scones, and in desserts such as mousse and ice cream.

    Is cottage cheese healthy?

    Compared with other cheeses, cottage cheese is low in fat and therefore energy (kilojoules or kJ). This makes it a smart choice for people looking to cut down on their daily energy intake.

    For example, 100 grams of cottage cheese contains about 556kJ. The same amount of cheddar contains 1,254kJ and parmesan 1,565kJ.

    Many cheeses are rich in protein but they often contain higher amounts of kilojoules due to their fat content. But cottage cheese has substantial amounts of protein with fewer kilojoules.

    This makes cottage cheese an ideal option for people aiming to maximise their protein intake without eating large amounts of kilojoules.

    Some 100g of cottage cheese provides 17g protein. This is about the same found in three eggs, 60g chicken breast or 320 millilitres (about 300g) full-fat yoghurt.

    Woman taking picture of pancakes with smartphone
    People are sharing images of their cottage cheese creations on TikTok and Instagram. New Africa/Shutterstock

    Cottage cheese also contains high levels of vitamin B12 (important for healthy brain function), riboflavin (supports healthy skin and eyes), phosphorus (helps build strong bones and teeth) and folate (essential for cell growth).

    However, cottage cheese is lower in calcium compared with other cheeses. It contains just 89 milligrams per 100g. This compares with parmesan (948mg), haloumi (620mg) and ricotta (170mg).

    You’ve convinced me. How can I use cottage cheese?

    Beyond its excellent nutrition profile, the resurgence of cottage cheese is enabling people to experiment in the kitchen. Its neutral flavour and varied textures – ranging from smooth to chunky – makes it suitable for a range of dishes, from sweet to savoury.

    TikTok and Instagram have some great recipes. You could start with an old faithful recipe of celery and cottage cheese, and work your way towards new options such as cottage cheese ice cream.

    The healthiest recipes will be those that combine cottage cheese with wholefoods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, and lean protein sources.

    For instance, you can make a cottage cheese wrap then fill it with vegetables and a lean source of protein (such as chicken or fish).

    Other combinations include cottage cheese salad dressings, vegetable dips and egg salads.

    Cottage cheese’s rise in popularity is well deserved. Including more cottage cheese in your diet is a smart choice for getting a high dose of protein without adding processed ingredients or too much energy. Embrace the trend and get creative in the kitchen.

    Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Twenty-Four Hour Mind – by Dr. Rosalind Cartwright
  • Reinventing Your Life – by Dr. Jeffrey Young & Dr. Janet Klosko

    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 book is quite unlike any other broadly-CBT-focused books we’ve reviewed before. How so, you may wonder?

    Rather than focusing on automatic negative thoughts and cognitive distortions with a small-lens focus on an immediate problem, this one zooms out rather and tackles the cause rather than the symptom.

    The authors outline eleven “lifetraps” that we can get stuck in:

    1. Abandonment
    2. Mistrust & abuse
    3. Vulnerability
    4. Dependence
    5. Emptional deprivation
    6. Social exclusion
    7. Defectiveness
    8. Failure
    9. Subjugation
    10. Unrelenting standards
    11. Entitlement

    They then borrow from other areas of psychology, to examine where these things came from, and how they can be addressed, such that we can escape from them.

    The style of the book is very reader-friendly pop-psychology, with illustrative (and perhaps apocryphal, but no less useful for it if so) case studies.

    The authors then go on to give step-by-step instructions for dealing with each of the 11 lifetraps, per 6 unmet needs we probably had that got us into them, and per 3 likely ways we tried to cope with this using maladaptive coping mechanisms that got us into the lifetrap(s) we ended up in.

    Bottom line: if you feel there’s something in your life that’s difficult to escape from (we cannot outrun ourselves, after all, and bring our problems with us), this book could well contain the key that you need to get out of that cycle.

    Click here to check out “Reinventing Your Life” and break free from any lifetrap(s) of your own!

    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:

  • Oscar contender Poor Things is a film about disability. Why won’t more people say so?

    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.

    Readers are advised this article includes an offensive and outdated disability term in a quote from the film.

    Poor Things is a spectacular film that has garnered critical praise, scooped up awards and has 11 Oscar nominations. That might be the problem. Audiences become absorbed in another world, so much so our usual frames of reference disappear.

    There has been much discussion about the film’s feminist potential (or betrayal). What’s not being talked about in mainstream reviews is disability. This seems strange when two of the film’s main characters are disabled.

    Set in a fantasy version of Victorian London, unorthodox Dr Godwin Baxter (William Dafoe) finds the just-dead body of a heavily pregnant woman in the Thames River. In keeping with his menagerie of hybrid animals, Godwin removes the unborn baby’s brain and puts it into the skull of its mother, who becomes Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).

    Is Bella really disabled?

    Stone has been praised for her ability to embody a small child who rapidly matures into a hypersexual person – one who has not had time to absorb the restrictive rules of gender or patriarchy.

    But we also see a woman using her behaviour to express herself because she has complex communication barriers. We see a woman who is highly sensitive and responsive to the sensory world around her. A woman moving through and seeing the world differently – just like the fish-eye lens used in many scenes.

    Women like this exist and they have historically been confined, studied and monitored like Bella. When medical student Max McCandless (Ramy Youssef) first meets Bella, he offensively exclaims “what a very pretty retard!” before being told the truth and promptly declared her future husband.

    Even if Bella is not coded as disabled through her movements, speech and behaviour, her onscreen creator and guardian is. Godwin Baxter has facial differences and other impairments which require assistive technology.

    So ignoring disability as a theme of the film seems determined and overt. The absurd humour for which the film is being lauded is often at Bella’s “primitive”, “monstrous” or “damaged” actions: words which aren’t usually used to describe children, but have been used to describe disabled people throughout history.

    In reviews, Bella’s walk and speech are compared to characters like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, rather than a disabled woman. So why the resistance?

    Freak shows and displays

    Disability studies scholar Rosemarie Gardland-Thomson writes “the history of disabled people in the Western world is in part the history of being on display”.

    In the 19th century, when Poor Things is set, “freak shows” featuring disabled people, Indigenous people and others with bodily differences were extremely popular.

    Doctors used freak shows to find specimens – like Joseph Merrick (also known as the Elephant Man and later depicted on screen) who was used for entertainment before he was exhibited in lecture halls. In the mid-1800s, as medicine became a profession, observing the disabled body shifted from a public spectacle to a private medical gaze that labelled disability as “sick” and pathologised it.

    Poor Things doesn’t just circle around these discourses of disability. Bella’s body is a medical experiment, kept locked away for the private viewing of male doctors who take notes about her every move in small pads. While there is something glorious, intimate and familiar about Bella’s discovery of her own sexual pleasure, she immediately recognises it as worth recording in the third person:

    I’ve discovered something that I must share […] Bella discover happy when she want!

    The film’s narrative arc ends with Bella herself training to be a doctor but one whose more visible disabilities have disappeared.

    Framing charity and sexual abuse

    Even the film’s title is an expression often used to describe disabled people. The charity model of disability sees disabled people as needing pity and support from others. Financial poverty is briefly shown at a far-off port in the film and Bella initially becomes a sex worker in Paris for money – but her more pressing concern is sexual pleasure.

    Disabled women’s sexuality is usually seen as something that needs to be controlled. It is frequently assumed disabled women are either hypersexual or de-gendered and sexually innocent.

    In the real world disabled people experience much higher rates of abuse, including sexual assault, than others. Last year’s Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found women with disability are nearly twice as likely as women without disability to have been assaulted. Almost a third of women with disability have experienced sexual assault by the age of 15. Bella’s hypersexual curiosity appears to give her some layer of protection – but that portrayal denies the lived experience of many.

    Watch but don’t ignore

    Poor Things is a stunning film. But ignoring disability in the production ignores the ways in which the representation of disabled bodies play into deep and historical stereotypes about disabled people.

    These representations continue to shape lives. The Conversation

    Louisa Smith, Senior lecturer, Deakin University; Gemma Digby, Lecturer – Health & Social Development, Deakin University, and Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney

    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:

  • Vaccines and cancer: The myth that won’t die

    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.

    Two recent studies reported rising cancer rates among younger adults in the U.S. and worldwide. This prompted some online anti-vaccine accounts to link the studies’ findings to COVID-19 vaccines. 

    But, as with other myths, the data tells a very different story. 

    What you need to know 

    • Baseless claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have persisted online for several years and gained traction in late 2023.
    • Two recent reports finding rising cancer rates among younger adults are based on pre-pandemic cancer incidence data. Cancer rates in the U.S. have been on the rise since the 1990s.
    • There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk.

    False claims about COVID-19 vaccines began circulating months before the vaccines were available. Chief among these claims was misinformed speculation that vaccine mRNA could alter or integrate into vaccine recipients’ DNA. 

    It does not. But that didn’t prevent some on social media from spinning that claim into a persistent myth alleging that mRNA vaccines can cause or accelerate cancer growth. Anti-vaccine groups even coined the term “turbo cancer” to describe a fake phenomenon of abnormally aggressive cancers allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines. 

    They used the American Cancer Society’s 2024 cancer projection—based on incidence data through 2020—and a study of global cancer trends between 1999 and 2019 to bolster the false claims. This exposed the dishonesty at the heart of the anti-vaccine messaging, as data that predated the pandemic by decades was carelessly linked to COVID-19 vaccines in viral social media posts.

    Some on social media cherry-pick data and use unfounded evidence because the claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer are not true. According to the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society, there is no evidence of any link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in cancer diagnosis, progression, or remission. 

    Why does the vaccine cancer myth endure?

    At the root of false cancer claims about COVID-19 vaccines is a long history of anti-vaccine figures falsely linking vaccines to cancer. Polio and HPV vaccines have both been the target of disproven cancer myths. 

    Not only do HPV vaccines not cause cancer, they are one of only two vaccines that prevent cancer.

    In the case of polio vaccines, some early batches were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), a virus that is known to cause cancer in some mammals but not humans. The contaminated batches were discovered, and no other vaccine has had SV40 contamination in over 60 years

    Follow-up studies found no increase in cancer rates in people who received the SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. Yet, vaccine opponents have for decades claimed that polio vaccines cause cancer.

    Recycling of the SV40 myth

    The SV40 myth resurfaced in 2023 when vaccine opponents claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain the virus. In reality, a small, nonfunctional piece of the SV40 virus is used in the production of some COVID-19 vaccines. This DNA fragment, called the promoter, is commonly used in biomedical research and vaccine development and doesn’t remain in the finished product. 

    Crucially, the SV40 promoter used to produce COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus and is associated with cancer-causing properties in some animals. The promoter also lacks the ability to survive on its own inside the cell or interact with DNA. In other words, it poses no risk to humans.

    Over 5.6 billion people worldwide have received COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020. At that scale, even the tiniest increase in cancer rates in vaccinated populations would equal hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths. The evidence for alleged vaccine-linked cancer would be observed in real incidence, treatment, and mortality data, not social media anecdotes or unverifiable reports. 

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    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: