Nicotine Benefits (That We Don’t Recommend)!

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

It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small

❝Does nicotine have any benefits at all? I know it’s incredibly addictive but if you exclude the addiction, does it do anything?❞

Good news: yes, nicotine is a stimulant and can be considered a performance enhancer, for example:

❝Compared with the placebo group, the nicotine group exhibited enhanced motor reaction times, grooved pegboard test (GPT) results on cognitive function, and baseball-hitting performance, and small effect sizes were noted (d = 0.47, 0.46 and 0.41, respectively).❞

~ Chi-Cheng Lu et al.

Read in full: Acute Effects of Nicotine on Physiological Responses and Sport Performance in Healthy Baseball Players

However, another study found that its use as a cognitive enhancer was only of benefit when there was already a cognitive impairment:

❝Studies of the effects of nicotinic systems and/or nicotinic receptor stimulation in pathological disease states such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia show the potential for therapeutic utility of nicotinic drugs.

In contrast to studies in pathological states, studies of nicotine in normal-non-smokers tend to show deleterious effects.

This contradiction can be resolved by consideration of cognitive and biological baseline dependency differences between study populations in terms of the relationship of optimal cognitive performance to nicotinic receptor activity.

Although normal individuals are unlikely to show cognitive benefits after nicotinic stimulation except under extreme task conditions, individuals with a variety of disease states can benefit from nicotinic drugs❞

~ Dr. Alexandra Potter et al.

Read in full: Effects of nicotinic stimulation on cognitive performance

Bad news: its addictive qualities wipe out those benefits due to tolerance and thus normalization in short order. So you may get those benefits briefly, but then you’re addicted and also lose the benefits, as well as also ruining your health—making it a lose/lose/lose situation quite quickly.

See also: A sensitization-homeostasis model of nicotine craving, withdrawal, and tolerance: integrating the clinical and basic science literature

As an aside, while nicotine is poisonous per se, in the quantities taken by most users, the nicotine itself is not usually what kills. It’s mostly the other stuff that comes with it (smoking is by far and away the worst of all; vaping is relatively less bad, but that’s not a strong statement in this case) that causes problems.

See also: Vaping: A Lot Of Hot Air?

However, this is still not an argument for, say, getting nicotine gum and thinking “no harmful effects” because then you’ll be get a brief performance boost yes before it runs out and being addicted to it and now being in a position whereby if you stop, your performance will be lower than before you started (since you now got used to it, and it became your new normal), before eventually recovering:

The effects of nicotine withdrawal on exercise-related physical ability and sports performance in nicotine addicts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In summary

We recommend against using nicotine in the first place, and for those who are addicted, we recommend quitting immediately if not contraindicated (check with your doctor if unsure; there are some situations where it is inadvisable to take away something your body is dependent on, until you correct some other thing first).

For more on quitting in general, see:

Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Lifespan vs Healthspan, And The Spice Of Life
  • The Diet Compass – by Bas Kast
    Bas Kast’s “The Diet Compass” simplifies nutrition and health with 12 simple rules backed by science. Get your diet on track with this easy-reading book.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Overcoming Gravity – by Steven Low

    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 author, a professional gymnast and coach with a background in the sciences, knows his stuff here. This is what it says on the tin: it’s rigorously systematic. It’s also the most science-based calisthenics book this reviewer has read to date.

    If you just wanted to know how to do some exercises, then this book would be very much overkill, but if you want to be able to go from no knowledge to expert knowledge, then the nearly 600 pages of this weighty tome will do that for you.

    This is a textbook, it’s a “the bible of…” style book, it’s the one that if you’re serious, will engage you thoroughly and enable you to craft the calisthenics-forged body you want, head to toe.

    As if it weren’t already overdelivering, it also has plenty of information on injury avoidance (or injury/condition management if you have some existing injury or chronic condition), and building routines in a dynamic fashion that avoids becoming a grind, because it’s going from strength to strength while cycling through different body parts.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to get serious about calisthenics, then this is the book for you.

    Click here to check out Overcoming Gravity, and do just that!

    Share This Post

  • Inverse Vaccines for Autoimmune Diseases

    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.

    Inverse Vaccines for Autoimmune Diseases

    This is Dr. Jeffrey Hubbell. He’s a molecular engineer, with a focus on immunotherapy, immune response, autoimmune diseases, and growth factor variants.

    He’s held 88 patents, and was the recipient of the Society for Biomaterials’ Founders Award for his “long-term, landmark contributions to the discipline of biomaterials”, amongst other awards and honours that would make our article too long if we included them all.

    And, his latest research has been about developing…

    Inverse Vaccines

    You may be thinking: “you mean diseases; he’s engineering diseases?”

    And no, it’s not that. Here’s how it works:

    Normally in the case of vaccine, it’s something to tell the body “hey, if you see something that looks like this, you should kill it on sight” and the body goes “ok, preparing countermeasures according to these specifications; thanks for the heads-up”

    In the case of an inverse vaccine, it’s the inverse. It’s something to tell the body “hey, this thing you seem to think is a threat, it’s actually not, and you should leave it alone”.

    Why this matters for people with autoimmune diseases

    Normally, autoimmune diseases are treated in one or more of the following ways:

    • Dampen the entire immune system (bad for immunity against actual diseases, obviously, and is part of why many immunocompromised people have suffered and died disproportionately from COVID, for example)
    • Give up and find a workaround (a good example of this is Type 1 Diabetes, and just giving up on the pancreas not being constantly at war with itself, and living on exogenous insulin instead)

    Neither of those are great.

    What inverse vaccines do is offer a way to flag the attacked-in-error items as acceptable things to have in the body. Those might be things that are in our body by default, as in the case of many autoimmune diseases, or they may even be external items that should be allowed but aren’t, as in the case of gluten, in the context of Celiac disease.

    The latest research is not yet accessible for free, alas, but you can read the abstract here:

    Synthetically glycosylated antigens for the antigen-specific suppression of established immune responses

    Or if you prefer a more accessible pop-science approach, here’s a great explanatory article:

    “Inverse vaccine” shows potential to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases

    Where can we get such inverse vaccines?

    ❝There are no clinically approved inverse vaccines yet, but we’re incredibly excited about moving this technology forward❞

    ~ Dr. Jeffrey Hubbell

    But! Lest you be disappointed, you can get in line already, in the case of the Celiac disease inverse vaccine, if you’d like to be part of their clinical trial:

    Click here to see if you are eligible to be part of their clinical trial

    If you’re not up for that, or if your autoimmune disease is something else (most of the rest of their research is presently focusing on Multiple Sclerosis and Type 1 Diabetes), then:

    • The phase 1 MS trial is currently active, estimated completion in summer 2024.
    • They are in the process of submitting an investigational new drug (IND) application for Type 1 Diabetes
      • This is the first step to starting clinical safety and efficacy trials

    …so, watch this space!

    Share This Post

  • Stop Trying To Lose Weight (And Do This Instead)

    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.

    “Lose weight” is a common goal of many people, and it’s especially a common goal handed down from medical authority figures, often as a manner of “kicking the can down the road” with regard to the doctor actually having to do some work. “Lose 20 pounds and then we’ll talk”, etc.

    The thing is, it’s often not a very good or helpful goal… Even if it would be healthy for a given person to lose weight. Instead, biochemist Jessie Inchauspé argues, one should set a directly health-giving goal instead, and let any weight loss, if the body agrees it is appropriate, be a by-product of that

    She recommends focusing on metabolic health, specifically, her own specialism is blood glucose maintenance. This is something that diabetics deal with (to one degree or another) every day, but it’s something whose importance should not be underestimated for non-diabetics too.

    Keep our blood sugar levels healthy, she says, and a lot of the rest of good health will fall into place by itself—precisely because we’re not constantly sabotaging our body (first the pancreas and liver, then the rest of the body like dominoes).

    To that end, she offers a multitude of “hacks” that really work.

    Her magnum opus, “Glucose Revolution“, explains the science in great detail and does it very well! Not to be mistaken for her shorter, simpler, and entirely pragmatic “do this, then this”-style book, “The Glucose Goddess Method”, which is also great, but doesn’t go into the science more than absolutely necessary; it’s more for the “I’ll trust you; just tell me what I need to know” crowd.

    In her own words:

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

    Prefer text?

    We’ve covered Inchauspé’s top 10 recommended hacks here:

    10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Lifespan vs Healthspan, And The Spice Of Life
  • How To Stop Binge-Eating: Flip This Switch!

    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 Big Eating Therapist” Sarah Dosanjh has insights from both personal and professional experience:

    No “Tough Love” Necessary

    Eating certain foods is often socially shamed, and it’s easy to internalize that, and feel guilty. While often guilt is considered a pro-social emotion that helps people to avoid erring in a way that will get us excluded from the tribe (bearing in mind that for most of our evolutionary history, exile would mean near-certain death), it is not good at behavior modification when it comes to addictions or anything similar to addictions.

    The reason for this is that if we indulge in a pleasure we feel we “shouldn’t” and expect we’d be shamed for, we then feel bad, and we immediately want something to make us feel better. Guess what that something will be. That’s right: the very same thing we literally just felt ashamed about.

    So guilt is not helpful when it comes to (for example) avoiding binge-eating.

    Instead, Dosanjh points us to a study whereby dieters ate a donut and drank water, before being given candy for taste testing. The control group proceeded without intervention, while the experimental group had a self-compassion intervention between the donut and the candy. This meant that researchers told the participants not to feel bad about eating the donut, emphasizing self-kindness, mindfulness, and common humanity. The study found that those who received the intervention, ate significantly less candy.

    What we can learn from this is: we must be kind to ourselves. Allowing ourselves, consciously and mindfully, “a little treat”, secures its status as being “little”, and “a treat”. Then we smile, thinking “yes, that was a nice little thing to do for myself”, and proceed with our day.

    This kind of self-compassion helps avoid the “meta-binge” process, where guilt from one thing leads to immediately reaching for another.

    For more on this, plus a link to the study she mentioned, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also 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:

  • Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?

    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.

    Does our diet need a little help?

    We asked you for your take on supplements, and got the above-illustrated, below-described set of results.

    • The largest minority of respondents (a little over a third) voted for “I just take something very specific”
    • The next most respondents voted for “I take so many supplements; every little helps!”
    • Almost as many voted for “I just take a vitamin or two / a multivitamin”
    • Fewest, about 8%, voted for “I get everything I need from my diet”

    But what does the science say?

    Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?

    True or False depending on how you measure it.

    An apple today and an apple from a hundred years ago are likely to contain the same amounts of micronutrients per apple, but a lower percentage of micronutrients per 100g of apple.

    The reason for this is that apples (and many other food products; apples are just an arbitrary example) have been selectively bred (and in some cases, modified) for size, and because the soil mineral density has remained the same, the micronutrients per apple have not increased commensurate to the increase in carbohydrate weight and/or water weight. Thus, the resultant percentage will be lower, despite the quantity remaining the same.

    We’re going to share some science on this, and/but would like to forewarn readers that the language of this paper is a bit biased, as it looks to “debunk” claims of nutritional values dropping while skimming over “yes, they really have dropped percentage-wise” in favor of “but look, the discrete mass values are still the same, so that’s just a mathematical illusion”.

    The reality is, it’s no more a mathematical illusion than is the converse standpoint of saying the nutritional value is the same, despite the per-100g values dropping. After all, sometimes we eat an apple as-is; sometimes we buy a bag of frozen chopped fruit. That 500g bag of chopped fruit is going to contain less copper (for example) than one from decades past.

    Here’s the paper, and you’ll see what we mean:

    Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines

    Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?

    True or False depending on the supplement (and your body, and the rest of your diet)

    Many people are suffering from dietary deficiencies of vitamins and minerals, that could be easily correctable by supplementation:

    However, as this study by Dr. Fang Fang Zhang shows, a lot of vitamin and mineral supplementation does not appear to have much of an effect on actual health outcomes, vis-à-vis specific diseases. She looks at:

    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Cancer
    • Type 2 diabetes
    • Osteoporosis

    Her key take-aways from this study were:

    • Randomised trial evidence does not support use of vitamin, mineral, and fish oil supplements to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases
    • People using supplements tend to be older, female, and have higher education, income, and healthier lifestyles than people who do not use them
    • Use of supplements appreciably reduces the prevalence of inadequate intake for most nutrients but also increases the prevalence of excess intake for some nutrients
    • Further research is needed to assess the long term effects of supplements on the health of the general population and in individuals with specific nutritional needs, including those from low and middle income countries

    Read her damning report: Health effects of vitamin and mineral supplements

    On the other hand…

    This is almost entirely about blanket vitamin-and-mineral supplementation. With regard to fish oil supplementation, many commercial fish oil supplements break down in the stomach rather than the intestines, and don’t get absorbed well. Additionally, many people take them in forms that aren’t pleasant, and thus result in low adherence (i.e., they nominally take them, but in fact they just sit on the kitchen counter for a year).

    One thing we can conclude from this is that it’s good to check the science for any given supplement before taking it, and know what it will and won’t help for. Our “Monday Research Review” editions of 10almonds do this a lot, although we tend to focus on herbal supplements rather than vitamins and minerals.

    We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?

    Contingently True (but here be caveats)

    In principle, if we eat the recommended guideline amounts of various macro- and micro-nutrients, we will indeed get all that we are generally considered to need. Obviously.

    However, this may come with:

    • Make sure to get enough protein… Without too much meat, and also without too much carbohydrate, such as from most plant sources of protein
    • Make sure to get enough carbohydrates… But only the right kinds, and not too much, nor at the wrong time, and without eating things in the wrong order
    • Make sure to get enough healthy fats… Without too much of the unhealthy fats that often exist in the same foods
    • Make sure to get the right amount of vitamins and minerals… We hope you have your calculators out to get the delicate balance of calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamin D right.

    That last one’s a real pain, by the way. Too much or too little of one or another and the whole set start causing problems, and several of them interact with several others, and/or compete for resources, and/or are needed for the others to do their job.

    And, that’s hard enough to balance when you’re taking supplements with the mg/µg amount written on them, never mind when you’re juggling cabbages and sardines.

    On the topic of those sardines, don’t forget to carefully balance your omega-3, -6, and -9, and even within omega-3, balancing ALA, EPA, and DHA, and we hope you’re juggling those HDL and LDL levels too.

    So, when it comes to getting everything we need from our diet, for most of us (who aren’t living in food deserts and/or experiencing food poverty, or having a medical condition that restricts our diet), the biggest task is not “getting enough”, it’s “getting enough of the right things without simultaneously overdoing it on the others”.

    With supplements, it’s a lot easier to control what we’re putting in our bodies.

    And of course, unless our diet includes things that usually can’t be bought in supermarkets, we’re not going to get the benefits of taking, as a supplement, such things as:

    Etc.

    So, there definitely are supplements with strong science-backed benefits, that probably can’t be found on your plate!

    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:

  • Hazelnuts vs Cashews – 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 hazelnuts to cashews, we picked the hazelnuts.

    Why?

    It’s close! This one’s interesting…

    In terms of macros, hazelnuts have more fiber and fats, while cashews have more protein and carbs. All in all, all good stuff all around; maybe a win for one or the other depending on your priorities. We’d pick hazelnuts here, but your preference may vary.

    When it comes to vitamins, hazelnuts have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, and E, while cashews have more vitamin K. An easy win for hazelnuts here, and the margins weren’t close.

    In the category of minerals, hazelnuts have more calcium, manganese, and potassium, while cashews have more copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc. This is a win for cashews, but it’s worth noting that cup for cup, both of these nuts provide more than the daily requirement of most of those minerals. This means that in practical terms, it doesn’t matter too much that (for example), while cashews provide 732% of the daily requirement for copper, hazelnuts “only” provide 575%. So while this category remains a victory for cashews, it’s something of a “on paper” thing for the most part.

    Adding up the sections (ambivalent + clear win for hazelnuts + nominal win for cashews) means that in total today we’re calling it in favour of hazelnuts… But as ever, enjoy both, because both are good and so is diversity!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

    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: