Flossing Without Flossing?
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.
Flossing Without Flossing?
You almost certainly brush your teeth. You might use mouthwash. A lot of people floss for three weeks at a time, often in January.
There are a lot of options for oral hygiene; variations of the above, and many alternatives too. This is a big topic, so rather than try to squeeze it all in one, this will be a several-part series.
The first part was: Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
How important is flossing?
Interdental cleaning is indeed pretty important, even though it may not have the heart health benefits that have been widely advertised:
However! The health of our gums is very important in and of itself, especially as we get older:
Flossing Is Associated with Improved Oral Health in Older Adults
But! It helps to avoid periodontal (e.g. gum) disease, not dental caries:
Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults
And! Most certainly it can help avoid a stack of other diseases:
Interdental Cleaning Is Associated with Decreased Oral Disease Prevalence
…so in short, if you’d like to have happy healthy teeth and gums, flossing is an important adjunct, and/but not a one-stop panacea.
Is it better to floss before or after brushing?
As you prefer. A team of scientists led by Dr. Claudia Silva studied this, and found that there was “no statistical difference between brush-floss and floss-brush”:
Flossing is tedious. How do we floss without flossing?
This is (mostly) about water-flossing! Which does for old-style floss what sonic toothbrushes to for old-style manual toothbrushes.
If you’re unfamiliar, it means using a device that basically power-washes your teeth, but with a very narrow high-pressure jet of water.
Do they work? Yes:
As for how it stacks up against traditional flossing, Liang et al. found:
❝In our previous single-outcome analysis, we concluded that interdental brushes and water jet devices rank highest for reducing gingival inflammation while toothpick and flossing rank last.
In this multioutcome Bayesian network meta-analysis with equal weight on gingival inflammation and bleeding-on-probing, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve was 0.87 for water jet devices and 0.85 for interdental brushes.
Water jet devices and interdental brushes remained the two best devices across different sets of weightings for the gingival inflammation and bleeding-on-probing. ❞
~ Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
You may be wondering how safe it is if you have had dental work done, and, it appears to be quite safe, for example:
BDJ | Water-jet flossing: effect on composites
Want to try water-flossing?
Here are some examples on Amazon:
- Waterpik Complete Care 9.0 ← example of a top-end water-flossing device
- Philips Sonicare Power Flosser 3000 ← top-tier not-Waterpik-brand device
- INSMART Cordless Water Dental Flosser ← very low price and still average 4.5 star reviews, so in our opinion, a fine first choice
Bonus: if you haven’t tried interdental brushes, here’s an example for that
Enjoy!
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:
-
Black Beans vs Pinto Beans – 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 black beans to pinto beans, we picked the pinto beans.
Why?
Both of these beans have won all their previous comparisons, so it’s no surprise that this one was very close. Despite their different appearance, taste, and texture, their nutritional profiles are almost identical:
In terms of macros, pinto beans have a tiny bit more protein, carbs, and fiber. So, a nominal win for pinto beans, but again, the difference is very slight.
When it comes to vitamins, black beans have more of vitamins A, B1, B3, and B5, while pinto beans have more of vitamins B2, B6, B9, C, E, K and choline. Superficially, again this is nominally a win for pinto beans, but in most cases the differences are so slight as to be potentially the product of decimal place rounding.
In the category of minerals, black beans have more calcium, copper, iron, and phosphorus, while pinto beans have more magnesium, manganese, selenium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but the only one with a meaningful margin of difference is selenium (of which pinto beans have 4x more), so we’re calling this one a very modest win for pinto beans.
All in all, adding these up makes for a “if we really are pressed to choose” win for pinto beans, but honestly, enjoy either in accordance with your preference (this writer prefers black beans!), or better yet, both.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Xylitol vs Erythritol – 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 xylitol to erythritol, we picked the xylitol.
Why?
They’re both sugar alcohols, which so far as the body is concerned are neither sugars nor alcohols in the way those words are commonly understood; it’s just a chemical term. The sugars aren’t processed as such by the body and are passed as dietary fiber, and nor is there any intoxicating effect as one might expect from an alcohol.
In terms of macronutrients, while technically they both have carbs, for all functional purposes they don’t and just have a little fiber.
In terms of micronutrients, they don’t have any.
The one thing that sets them apart is their respective safety profiles. Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=1.57, range=1.12-2.21), while erythritol is also prothrombotic and more strongly associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=2.21, range=1.20-4.07).
So, xylitol is bad and erythritol is worse, which means the relatively “healthier” is xylitol. We don’t recommend either, though.
Studies for both:
- Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with cardiovascular risk
- The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk
Links for the specific products we compared, in case our assessment hasn’t put you off them:
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- The WHO’s New View On Sugar-Free Sweeteners ← the WHO’s advice is “don’t”
- Stevia vs Acesulfame Potassium – Which is Healthier? ← stevia’s pretty much the healthiest artificial sweetener around, though, if you’re going to use one
- The Fascinating Truth About Aspartame, Cancer, & Neurotoxicity ← under the cold light of science, aspartame isn’t actually as bad as it was painted a few decades ago, mostly by a viral hoax letter. Per the WHO’s advice, it’s still good to avoid sweeteners in general, however.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?
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.
Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?
Out of the subscribers who engaged in the poll, it looks like we have a lot of confidence in at least some detox approaches being useful!
Celery juice is most people’s go-to, and indeed it was the only one to get mentioned in the comments added. So let’s take a look at that first…
Celery juice
Celery juice is enjoyed by many people, with many health benefits in mind, including to:
- reduce inflammation
- lower blood pressure
- heal the liver
- fight cancer
- reduce bloating
- support the digestive system
- increase energy
- support weight loss
- promote good mental health
An impressive list! With such an impressive list, we would hope for an impressive weight of evidence, so regular readers might be wondering why those bullet-pointed items aren’t all shiny hyperlinks to studies backing those claims. The reason is…
There aren’t any high-quality studies that back any of those claims.
We found one case study (so, a study with a sample size of one; not amazing) that observed a blood pressure change in an elderly man after drinking celery juice.
Rather than trawl up half of PubMed to show the lacklustre results in a way more befitting of Research Review Monday, though, here’s a nice compact article detailing the litany of disappointment that is science’s observations regards celery juice:
Why Are People Juicing Their Celery? – by Allison Webster, PhD, RD
A key take-away is: juicing destroys the fiber that is celery’s biggest benefit, and its phytochemicals are largely unproven to be of use.
If you enjoy celery, great! It (when not juiced) is a great source of fiber and water. If you juice it, it’s a great source of water.
Activated Charcoal
Unlike a lot of greenery—whose “cleansing” benefits mostly come from fiber and disappear when juiced—activated charcoal has a very different way of operating.
Activated charcoal is negatively charged on a molecular level*, and that—along with its porous nature—traps toxins. It really is a superpowered detox that actually works very well indeed.
But…
It works very well indeed. It will draw out toxins so well, that it’s commonly used to treat poisonings. “Wait”, we hear you say, “why was that a but”?
It doesn’t know what a toxin is. It just draws out all of the things. You took medicine recently? Not any more you didn’t. You didn’t even take that medication orally, you took it some other way? Activated charcoal does not care:
- The effect of activated charcoal on drug exposure following intravenous administration: A meta-analysis
- Activated charcoal for acute overdose: a reappraisal
Does this mean that activated charcoal can be used to “undo” a night of heavy drinking?
Sadly not. That’s one of the few things it just doesn’t work for. It won’t work for alcohol, salts, or metals:
The Use of Activated Charcoal to Treat Intoxications
*Fun chemistry mnemonic about ions:
Cations are pussitive
Anions (by process of elimination) are negative
Onions taste good in salad (remember also: Cole’s Law)
Bottom line on detox foods/drinks:
- Fiber is great; juicing removes fiber. Eat your greens (don’t drink them)!
- Activated charcoal is the heavy artillery of detoxing
- Sometimes it will remove things you didn’t want removed, though
- It also won’t help against alcohol, sadly
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
When can my baby drink cow’s milk? It’s sooner than you think
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.
Parents are often faced with well-meaning opinions and conflicting advice about what to feed their babies.
The latest guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends formula-fed babies can switch to cow’s milk from six months. Australian advice says parents should wait until 12 months. No wonder some parents, and the health professionals who advise them, are confused.
So what do parents need to know about the latest advice? And when is cow’s milk an option?
What’s the updated advice?
Last year, the WHO updated its global feeding guideline for children under two years old. This included recommending babies who are partially or totally formula fed can have whole animal milks (for example, full-fat cow’s milk) from six months.
This recommendation was made after a systematic review of research by WHO comparing the growth, health and development of babies fed infant formula from six months of age with those fed pasteurised or boiled animal milks.
The review found no evidence the growth and development of babies who were fed infant formula was any better than that of babies fed whole, fresh animal milks.
The review did find an increase in iron deficiency anaemia in babies fed fresh animal milk. However, WHO noted this could be prevented by giving babies iron-rich solid foods daily from six months.
On the strength of the available evidence, the WHO recommended babies fed infant formula, alone or in addition to breastmilk, can be fed animal milk or infant formula from six months of age.
The WHO said that animal milks fed to infants could include pasteurised full-fat fresh milk, reconstituted evaporated milk, fermented milk or yoghurt. But this should not include flavoured or sweetened milk, condensed milk or skim milk.
Why is this controversial?
Australian government guidelines recommend “cow’s milk should not be given as the main drink to infants under 12 months”. This seems to conflict with the updated WHO advice. However, WHO’s advice is targeted at governments and health authorities rather than directly at parents.
The Australian dietary guidelines are under review and the latest WHO advice is expected to inform that process.
OK, so how about iron?
Iron is an essential nutrient for everyone but it is particularly important for babies as it is vital for growth and brain development. Babies’ bodies usually store enough iron during the final few weeks of pregnancy to last until they are at least six months of age. However, if babies are born early (prematurely), if their umbilical cords are clamped too quickly or their mothers are anaemic during pregnancy, their iron stores may be reduced.
Cow’s milk is not a good source of iron. Most infant formula is made from cow’s milk and so has iron added. Breastmilk is also low in iron but much more of the iron in breastmilk is taken up by babies’ bodies than iron in cow’s milk.
Babies should not rely on milk (including infant formula) to supply iron after six months. So the latest WHO advice emphasises the importance of giving babies iron-rich solid foods from this age. These foods include:
- meat
- eggs
- vegetables, including beans and green leafy vegetables
- pulses, including lentils
- ground seeds and nuts (such as peanut or other nut butters, but with no added salt or sugar).
You may have heard that giving babies whole cow’s milk can cause allergies. In fact, whole cow’s milk is no more likely to cause allergies than infant formula based on cow’s milk.
What are my options?
The latest WHO recommendation that formula-fed babies can switch to cow’s milk from six months could save you money. Infant formula can cost more than five times more than fresh milk (A$2.25-$8.30 a litre versus $1.50 a litre).
For families who continue to use infant formula, it may be reassuring to know that if infant formula becomes hard to get due to a natural disaster or some other supply chain disruption fresh cow’s milk is fine to use from six months.
It is also important to know what has not changed in the latest feeding advice. WHO still recommends infants have only breastmilk for their first six months and then continue breastfeeding for up to two years or more. It is also still the case that infants under six months who are not breastfed or who need extra milk should be fed infant formula. Toddler formula for children over 12 months is not recommended.
All infant formula available in Australia must meet the same standard for nutritional composition and food safety. So, the cheapest infant formula is just as good as the most expensive.
What’s the take-home message?
The bottom line is your baby can safely switch from infant formula to fresh, full-fat cow’s milk from six months as part of a healthy diet with iron-rich foods. Likewise, cow’s milk can also be used to supplement or replace breastfeeding from six months, again alongside iron-rich foods.
If you have questions about introducing solids your GP, child health nurse or dietitian can help. If you need support with breastfeeding or starting solids you can call the National Breastfeeding Helpline (1800 686 268) or a lactation consultant.
Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University; Naomi Hull, PhD candidate, food security for infants and young children, University of Sydney, and Nina Jane Chad, Research Fellow, University of Sydney School of Public Health, 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:
-
Red Cabbage vs White Cabbage – 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 red cabbage to white cabbage, we picked the red.
Why?
Perhaps you guessed this one, based on the “darker and/or more colorful foods are usually more nutritionally dense” dictum. That’s not always true, by the way, but it is a good rule of thumb and it is correct here. In the case of cabbages, each type is a nutritional powerhouse, but red does beat white:
In terms of macros, they’re quite comparable. They’re both >90% water with just enough other stuff (carbs, fiber, protein) to hold them together, and the “other stuff” in question is quite similarly proportioned in both cases. Within the carbs, even the sugar breakdown is similar. There are slight differences, but the differences are not only tiny, but also they balance out in any case.
When it comes to vitamins, as you might expect, the colorful red cabbage does better with more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, C, and choline, while white has more of vitamins B5, B9, E, and K. So, a 7:4 win for red.
In the category of minerals, it’s even more polarized; red cabbage has more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. On the other hand, white contains a tiny amount more copper.
In short, both are great (red just makes white look bad by standing next to it, but honestly, white has lots of all those same things too, just not quite as much as red), and this writer will continue to use white when making her favorite shchi, but if you’re looking for the most nutritionally dense option, it’s red.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Enjoy Bitter Foods For Your Heart & Brain
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:
-
Mind Gym – by Gary Mack and David Casstevens
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.
While this book seems to be mostly popular amongst young American college athletes and those around them (coaches, parents, etc) its applicability is a lot wider than that.
The thing is, as this book details, we don’t have to settle for less than optimal in our training—whatever “optimal” means for us, at any stage of life.
The style is largely narrative, and conveys a lot of ideas through anecdotes. They are probably true, but whether they occured entirely as-written or have been polished or embellished is not so important, as to to give food for thought, and reflection on how we can hone what we’re doing to work the best for us.
Nor is it just a long pep-talk, though it certainly has a motivational aspect. But rather, it covers also such things as the seven critical areas that we need to excel at if we want to be mentally robust, and—counterintuitively—the value of slowing down sometimes. The authors also talk about the importance of love, labor, and ongoing learning if we want a fulfilled life.
Bottom line: if you are engaged with any sport or sport-like endeavor that you’d like to be better at, this book will sharpen your training and development.
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: