
New Eye Drops vs Age-Related Macular Degeneration
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 previously on preventative interventions against age-related macular degeneration (AMD):
How To Avoid Age-Related Macular Degeneration
…and then supplemented that, to to speak, with:
Fatty Acids For The Eyes & Brain: The Good And The Bad
However, what if ADM happens anyway?
Not a dry eye in the house
Age-related macular degeneration comes in two forms, wet and dry, of which, dry is by far the most common (being 9 out of 10 of all cases of AMD).
It sounds like the sort of thing that eye drops should be in order for, but in fact, the wetness vs dryness is about what’s going on inside the macula, not what’s happening on the surface of the eye. Up until now, the only treatments available (aside from supplement regimes, which we linked just above) have been injectable drugs, which:
- are not fun (yes, the injection goes into the eyeball)
- don’t actually work very well (modest improvements in vision; significantly better than nothing though)
…and even those won’t help in the late stages.
However, a Korean research team has developed eye drops with peptides that inhibit the interactions between Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and TLR-signalling proteins, in a way that addresses part of the pathogenesis of AMD:
That’s quite a dense read though, so here’s a pop-science article that explains it more simply, but in more detail than we can here:
New eye drop treatment offers hope for dry AMD patients
This is a big improvement from the state of affairs previously, in which eye drops really couldn’t help at all:
What eye drops can treat macular degeneration? ← pop-science article from January 2023
No AMD, and/but want your eye health to be better?
Check out these:
10 Great Exercises to Improve Your Eyesight ← you can quickly see the results for yourself
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
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
-
When You “Can’t Complain”
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
A Bone To Pick… Up And Then Put Back Where We Found It
In today’s Psychology Sunday feature, we’re going to be flipping the narrative on gratitude, by tackling it from the other end.
We have, by the way, written previously about gratitude, and what mistakes to avoid, in one of our pieces on positive psychology:
How To Get Your Brain On A More Positive Track (Without Toxic Positivity)
“Can’t complain”
Your mission, should you choose to accept it (and come on, who doesn’t like a challenge?) is to go 21 days without complaining (to anyone, including yourself, about anything). If you break your streak, that’s ok, just start again!
Why?
Complaining is (unsurprisingly) inversely correlated with happiness, in a self-perpetuating cycle:
Pet Peeves and Happiness: How Do Happy People Complain?
And if a stronger motivation is required, there’s a considerable inverse correlation between all-cause happiness and all-cause mortality, even when potential confounding factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, socioeconomic status, etc) are controlled for, and especially as we get older:
Investing in Happiness: The Gerontological Perspective
How?
You may have already formulated some objections by this point, for example:
- Am I supposed to tell my doctor/therapist “I’m fine thanks; how are you?”
- Some things are worthy of complaint; should I be silent?
But both of these issues (communication, and righteousness) have answers:
On communication:
There is a difference between complaining, and giving the necessary information in answer to a question—or even volunteering such information.
For example, when our site went down yesterday, some of you wrote to us to let us know the links weren’t working. There is a substantive difference (semantic, ontological, and teleological) between:
- ❝The content was great but the links in “you may have missed” did not work.❞ ← a genuine piece of feedback we received (thank you!)
- ❝Wasted my time, couldn’t read your articles! Unsubscribing, and I hope your socks get wet tomorrow!❞ ← nobody said this; our subscribers are lovely (thank you)
- Note that the former wasn’t a complaint, it was genuinely helpful feedback, without which we might not have noticed the problem and fixed it.
- The latter was a complaint, and also (like many complaints) didn’t even address the actual problem usefully.
What makes it a complaint or not is not the information conveyed, but the tone and intention. So for example:
“You’ve only done half the job I asked you to!” → “Thank you for doing the first half of this job, could you please do the other half now?”
Writer’s anecdote: my washing machine needs a part replaced; the part was ordered two weeks ago and I was told it would take a week to arrive. It’s been two weeks, so tomorrow I will not complain, but I will politely ask whether they have any information about the delay, and a new estimated time of arrival. Because you know what? Whatever the delay is, complaining won’t make it arrive last week!
On righteousness:
Indeed, some things are very worthy of complaint. But are you able to effect a solution by complaining? If not, then it’s just hot air. And venting isn’t without its own merits (we touched on the benefits of emotional catharsis recently), but that should be a mindful choice when you choose to do that, not a matter of reactivity.
Complaining is a subset of criticizing, and criticizing can be done without the feeling and intent of complaining. However, it too should definitely be measured and considered, responsive, not reactive. This itself could be the topic for another main feature, but for now, here’s a Psychology Today article that at least explains the distinction in more words than we have room for here:
React vs Respond: What’s the difference?
This, by the way, also goes the same for engaging in social and political discourse. It’s easy to get angry and reactive, but it’s good to take a moment to pick your battles, and by all means fight for what you believe in, and/but also do so responsively rather than reactively.
Not only will your health thank you, but you’re also more likely to “win friends and influence people” and all that!
What gets measured, gets done
Find a way of tracking your streak. There are apps for that, like this one, or you could find a low-tech method you prefer.
Bonus tip: if you do mess up and complain, and you realize as you’re doing it, take a moment to take a breath and correct yourself in the moment.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Managing Jealousy
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.
Jealousy is often thought of as a young people’s affliction, but it can affect us at any age—whether we are the one being jealous, or perhaps a partner.
And, the “green-eyed monster” can really ruin a lot of things; relationships, friendships, general happiness, physical health even (per stress and anxiety and bad sleep), and more.
The thing is, jealousy looks like one thing, but is actually mostly another.
Jealousy is a Scooby-Doo villain
That is to say: we can unmask it and see what much less threatening thing is underneath. Which is usually nothing more nor less than: insecurities
- Insecurity about losing one’s partner
- Insecurity about not being good enough
- Insecurity about looking bad socially
…etc. The latter, by the way, is usually the case when one’s partner is socially considered to be giving cause for jealousy, but the primary concern is not actually relational loss or any kind of infidelity, but rather, looking like one cannot keep one’s partner’s full attention romantically/sexually. This drives a lot of people to act on jealousy for the sake of appearances, in situations where they might otherwise, if they didn’t feel like they’d be adversely judged for it, be considerably more chill.
Thus, while monogamy certainly has its fine merits, there can also be a kind of “toxic monogamy” at hand, where a relationship becomes unhealthy because one partner is just trying to live up to social expectations of keeping the other partner in check.
This, by the way, is something that people in polyamorous and/or open relationships typically handle quite neatly, even if a lot of the following still applies. But today, we’re making the statistically safe assumption of a monogamous relationship, and talking about that!
How to deal with the social aspect
If you sit down with your partner and work out in advance the acceptable parameters of your relationship, you’ll be ahead of most people already. For example…
- What counts as cheating? Is it all and any sex acts with all and any people? If not, where’s the line?
- What about kissing? What about touching other body parts? If there are boundaries that are important to you, talk about them. Nothing is “too obvious” because it’s astonishing how many times it will happen that later someone says (in good faith or not), “but I thought…”
- What about being seen in various states of undress? Or seeing other people in various states of undress?
- Is meaningless flirting between friends ok, and if so, how do we draw the line with regard to what is meaningless? And how are we defining flirting, for that matter? Talk about it and ensure you are both on the same page.
- If a third party is possibly making moves on one of us under the guise of “just being friendly”, where and how do we draw the line between friendliness and romantic/sexual advances? What’s the difference between a lunch date with a friend and a romantic meal out for two, and how can we define the difference in a way that doesn’t rely on subjective “well I didn’t think it was romantic”?
If all this seems like a lot of work, please bear in mind, it’s a lot more fun to cover this cheerfully as a fun couple exercise in advance, than it is to argue about it after the fact!
See also: Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”
How to deal with the more intrinsic insecurities
For example, when jealousy is a sign of a partner fearing not being good enough, not measuring up, or perhaps even losing their partner.
The key here might not shock you: communication
Specifically, reassurance. But critically, the correct reassurance!
A partner who is jealous will often seek the wrong reassurance, for example wanting to read their partner’s messages on their phone, or things like that. And while a natural desire when experiencing jealousy, it’s not actually helpful. Because while incriminating messages could confirm infidelity, it’s impossible to prove a negative, and if nothing incriminating is found, the jealous partner can just go on fearing the worst regardless. After all, their partner could have a burner phone somewhere, or a hidden app for cheating, or something else like that. So, no reassurance can ever be given/gained by such requests (which can also become unpleasantly controlling, which hopefully nobody wants).
A quick note on “if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide”: rhetorically that works, but practically it doesn’t.
Writer’s example: when my late partner and I formalized our relationship, we discussed boundaries, and I expressed “so far as I am concerned, I have no secrets from you, except secrets that are not mine to share. For example, if someone has confided in me and asked that I not share it, I won’t. Aside from that, you have access-all-areas in my life; me being yours has its privileges” and this policy itself would already pre-empt any desire to read my messages.
Now indeed, I had nothing to hide. I am by character devoted to a fault. But my friends may well sometimes have things they don’t want me to share, which made that a necessary boundary to highlight (which my partner, an absolute angel by the way and not prone to unhealthy manifestations of jealousy in any case, understood completely).
So, it is best if the partner of a jealous person can explain the above principles as necessary, and offer the correct reassurance instead. Which could be any number of things, but for example:
- I am yours, and nobody else has a chance
- I fully intend to stay with you for life
- You are the best partner I have ever had
- Being with you makes my life so much better
…etc. Note that none of these are “you don’t have to worry about so-and-so”, or “I am not cheating on you”, etc, because it’s about yours and your partner’s relationship. If they ask for reassurances with regard to other people or activities, by all means state them as appropriate, but try to keep the focus on you two.
And if your partner (or you, if it’s you who’s jealous) can express the insecurity in the format…
“I’m afraid of _____ because _____”
…then the “because” will allow for much more specific reassurance. We all have insecurities, we all have reasons we might fear not being good enough for our partner, or losing their affection, and the best thing we can do is choose to trust our partners at least enough to discuss those fears openly with each other.
See also: Save Time With Better Communication ← this can avoid a lot of time-consuming arguments
What about if the insecurity is based in something demonstrably correct?
By this we mean, something like a prior history of cheating, or other reasons for trust issues. In such a case, the jealous partner may well have a reason for their jealousy that isn’t based on a personal insecurity.
In our previous article about boundaries, we talked about relationships (romantic or otherwise) having a “price of entry”. In this case, you each have a “price of entry”:
- The “price of entry” to being with the person who has previously cheated (or similar), is being able to accept that.
- And for the person who cheated (or similar), very likely their partner will have the “price of entry” of “don’t do that again, and also meanwhile accept in good grace that I might be jittery about it”.
And, if the betrayal of trust was something that happened between the current partners in the current relationship, most likely that was also traumatic for the person whose trust was betrayed. Many people in that situation find that trust can indeed be rebuilt, but slowly, and the pain itself may also need treatment (such as therapy and/or couples therapy specifically).
See also: Relationships: When To Stick It Out & When To Call It Quits ← this covers both sides
And finally, to finish on a happy note:
Only One Kind Of Relationship Promotes Longevity This Much!
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Could my glasses be making my eyesight worse?
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.
So, you got your eyesight tested and found out you need your first pair of glasses. Or you found out you need a stronger pair than the ones you have. You put them on and everything looks crystal clear. But after a few weeks things look blurrier without them than they did before your eye test. What’s going on?
Some people start to wear spectacles for the first time and perceive their vision is “bad” when they take their glasses off. They incorrectly interpret this as the glasses making their vision worse. Fear of this might make them less likely to wear their glasses.
But what they are noticing is how much better the world appears through the glasses. They become less tolerant of a blurry world when they remove them.
Here are some other things you might notice about eyesight and wearing glasses.
Lazy eyes?
Some people sense an increasing reliance on glasses and wonder if their eyes have become “lazy”.
Our eyes work in much the same way as an auto-focus camera. A flexible lens inside each eye is controlled by muscles that let us focus on objects in the distance (such as a footy scoreboard) by relaxing the muscle to flatten the lens. When the muscle contracts it makes the lens steeper and more powerful to see things that are much closer to us (such as a text message).
From the age of about 40, the lens in our eye progressively hardens and loses its ability to change shape. Gradually, we lose our capacity to focus on near objects. This is called “presbyopia” and at the moment there are no treatments for this lens hardening.
Optometrists correct this with prescription glasses that take the load of your natural lens. The lenses allow you to see those up-close images clearly by providing extra refractive power.
Once we are used to seeing clearly, our tolerance for blurry vision will be lower and we will reach for the glasses to see well again.
The wrong glasses?
Wearing old glasses, the wrong prescription (or even someone else’s glasses) won’t allow you to see as well as possible for day-to-day tasks. It could also cause eyestrain and headaches.
Incorrectly prescribed or dispensed prescription glasses can lead to vision impairment in children as their visual system is still in development.
But it is more common for kids to develop long-term vision problems as a result of not wearing glasses when they need them.
By the time children are about 10–12 years of age, wearing incorrect spectacles is less likely to cause their eyes to become lazy or damage vision in the long term, but it is likely to result in blurry or uncomfortable vision during daily wear.
Registered optometrists in Australia are trained to assess refractive error (whether the eye focuses light into the retina) as well as the different aspects of ocular function (including how the eyes work together, change focus, move around to see objects). All of these help us see clearly and comfortably.
Younger children with progressive vision impairments may need more frequent eye tests. Shutterstock What about dirty glasses?
Dirty or scratched glasses can give you the impression your vision is worse than it actually is. Just like a window, the dirtier your glasses are, the more difficult it is to see clearly through them. Cleaning glasses regularly with a microfibre lens cloth will help.
While dirty glasses are not commonly associated with eye infections, some research suggests dirty glasses can harbour bacteria with the remote but theoretical potential to cause eye infection.
To ensure best possible vision, people who wear prescription glasses every day should clean their lenses at least every morning and twice a day where required. Cleaning frames with alcohol wipes can reduce bacterial contamination by 96% – but care should be taken as alcohol can damage some frames, depending on what they are made of.
When should I get my eyes checked?
Regular eye exams, starting just before school age, are important for ocular health. Most prescriptions for corrective glasses expire within two years and contact lens prescriptions often expire after a year. So you’ll need an eye check for a new pair every year or so.
Kids with ocular conditions such as progressive myopia (short-sightedness), strabismus (poor eye alignment), or amblyopia (reduced vision in one eye) will need checks at least every year, but likely more often. Likewise, people over 65 or who have known eye conditions, such as glaucoma, will be recommended more frequent checks.
Eye checks can detect broader health issues. Shutterstock An online prescription estimator is no substitute for a full eye examination. If you have a valid prescription then you can order glasses online, but you miss out on the ability to check the fit of the frame or to have them adjusted properly. This is particularly important for multifocal lenses where even a millimetre or two of misalignment can cause uncomfortable or blurry vision.
Conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure, can affect the eyes so regular eye checks can also help flag broader health issues. The vast majority of eye conditions can be treated if caught early, highlighting the importance of regular preventative care.
James Andrew Armitage, Professor of Optometry and Course Director, Deakin University and Nick Hockley, Lecturer in Optometric Clinical Skills, Director Deakin Collaborative Eye Care Clinic, Deakin University
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:
-
Accidentally Overweight – by Dr. Libby Weaver
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’s main premise is that for most people who become overweight especially in midlife or later, if there wasn’t an obvious lifestyle change to precipitate this (e.g. started living on fast food for some reason), then in most cases, what’s needed is not drastic action, so much as some metabolic tweaks to correct things that have gone off-piste a little in our physiology.
The book covers nine factors that make an impact, and how each can be managed. They are:
- Insulin
- Stress hormones
- Calories
- Thyroid function
- Nervous system
- Emotions
- Sex hormones
- Liver function
- Gut bacteria
Some will be obvious, but as Dr. Weaver explains, are relative trivial compared to the others; “calories” in one such example of this “yes, it’s a factor, but very overrated” category.
Others are things that most people don’t think too much about, like liver function. And yet, it is indeed very much critical, and a major player in metabolism and adiposity.
The style is on the very light end of pop-science, but she does bring her professional knowledge to bear on topic (her doctorate is a PhD in biochemistry, so a lot of explanations come from that angle).
Bottom line: if you’ve found yourself “accidentally overweight”, and would like to tip the scales back in the other direction without doing anything extreme, then this book provides the tweaks that no amount of cardio or restrictive dieting will.
Click here to check out Accidentally Overweight, and re-adjust it back the other way!
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:
-
Blue Cheese vs Brunost – 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 blue cheese to brunost, we picked the brunost.
Why?
First, for the unfamiliar, as brunost isn’t necessarily as popular as blue cheese in N. America where most of our readers are:
Brunost, literally “brown cheese” is a traditional Norwegian affair made from aggressively boiling milk, cream, and whey in an iron cauldron. Whereas the blue in blue cheese comes from mold, the brown in brown cheese comes from caramelizing the milk sugars in the cauldron. When we say “cauldron”, yes, there is nowadays mass-produced brunost that is no longer made in something that could be mistaken for a witch’s brew, but the use of cast iron is actually important to the process, and has been the subject of regulatory controversy in Norway; first the cast iron was abandoned, then because that changed the cheese they fortified the product with added iron supplementation, then that was banned, then they reversed it because it affected iron levels in the general population. Nowadays, it is usually made with iron, one way or another.
Ok, so let’s see how they stack up against each other:
In terms of macronutrients, the two cheeses are comparable in fat, but brunost has more carbs—because whereas bacteria (and to a lesser extent, the mold) ate nearly all the carbs in the blue cheese, the caramelization of the milk sugars in brunost meant the result stayed higher in carbs. Both are considered “low GI” foods, but this category is still at least a moderate win for blue cheese.
When it comes to vitamins, brunost is higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B12, while blue cheese is higher in vitamin B9. In other words, a clear and easy win for brunost.
In the category of minerals, brunost has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and potassium. Meanwhile, blue cheese contains more zinc, although we can also mention that blue cheese has about 2x the sodium, which is generally not considered a benefit. The two cheeses are about equal in calcium and selenium. Adding these up makes for another clear and easy win for brunost.
In short, unless you are strongly avoiding [even low-GI foods’] carbs for some reason, brunost wins the day by virtue of its overwhelmingly better vitamin and mineral content.
Still, like most fermented dairy products, both cheeses can be enjoyed in moderation as part of a healthy diet (assuming you don’t have an allergy/intolerance).
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
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: