PCOS Repair Protocol – by Tamika Woods
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.
PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) affects about 1 in 5 women, and the general position of the medical establishment is “Oh dear, how sad; never mind”.
…which leaves a lot of people suffering with symptoms with little to no help.
This book looks to address that, and while it doesn’t claim to cure PCOS, it offers a system for managing (including: reducing) the symptoms. The author, a clinical nutritionist by academic background, tackles this in large part via being mindful about what one eats, in the context of the gut and endocrine system specifically.
It’s not just “have a gut healthy diet and eat foods with these nutrients”, though (although yes: also that). Rather, the author walks us through in-depth quizzes and lab testing advice, to advise the reader on how to understand the root cause of your PCOS symptoms, and then address each of those with an individualized management plan.
The style is on the low-end of pop-science, notwithstanding the clinically-informed content. For those who like a very chatty informal approach, you’ll find this one perfect. For those who don’t, well, you won’t find this one perfect, but you will most likely find it informative all the same.
Bottom line: if you or someone you care about (do you know 5 women?) has PCOS, the information in here could make a difference.
Click here to check out PCOS Repair Protocol, and suffer less!
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:
-
Language Fluency Beats General Intelligence & Memory For Longevity
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.
And no, it doesn’t have to be a second language, although that helps a lot:
An Underrated Tool Against Alzheimer’s ← you don’t even have to learn the second language to a high level, to benefit
Rather, what we’re talking about today is your first language fluency. So, for most of our readers, English. For the study participants it was German, because this was a German research team using data from the German population.
The Berlin Aging Study
Previous research has linked intelligence to longevity, but intelligence comprises multiple traits. So, what’s most important? Memory? General intelligence? Nope. Language fluency!
Let’s clarify something before we continue: “fluency” does not, in linguistics, mean what most people use it to mean. It’s not about the size of one’s overall knowledge of the language (e.g. vocabulary size), but rather, it is about one’s ability to speak and/or write fluently—literally, fluently means “flowingly”, i.e. without undue hesitation or difficulty.
The study used data from the Berlin Aging Study, which tracked 516 people aged 70–105 from 1989 onwards.
Researchers assessed four cognitive abilities, with two kinds of tests for each of:
- Verbal fluency (detailed description below)
- Perceptual speed (pattern-recognition speed)
- Verbal knowledge (vocabulary size)
- Episodic memory (personal memory recall)
General intelligence, meanwhile, was assessed as “the average of those 8 scores”.
The two tests for the cognitive ability of “verbal fluency” were:
Categories
Participants had to name as many different animals as possible within 90 seconds. Their answers were subsequently rated for correctness by two independent research assistants, to assure that noticed or unnoticed repetitions, wrong categories, and morphological variants were not coded as correct.
Word beginnings
Participants were asked to name as many different real words starting with the letter s as possible within 90 seconds. The named words were rated for correctness by two independent research assistants to avoid considering repetitions, morphological variants, and wrong words as correct.
You can read about these and the other tests for the other cognitive abilities, in the paper itself:
Verbal Fluency Selectively Predicts Survival in Old and Very Old Age ← if you’re looking for the test descriptions, scroll to “Method” and then scroll past the table, and you’ll see the test descriptions
They found that of all these metrics, only the two verbal fluency tests (and none of the other tests) showed a significant link to longevity.
Why this is important
Although the study does not prove causality (it could be that people who are predisposed to live longer for other reasons are more verbally fluent because of some common factor that influences both language fluency and longevity), it seems as good a reason as any to develop and maintain language fluency.
This builds on what was found in “The Nun Study“, that followed a convent of nuns (because they are a very homogenous sample in terms of occupation, location, diet, routine, etc, so a lot of confounding factors were already controlled-for) and made numerous major discoveries about things that impact aging (including the relevance of the APOE4 gene! That was The Nun Study).
When it came to nuns and language…
Based on the autobiographies written by the nuns in their youth upon taking their vows, there were two factors that were later correlated with not getting dementia:
- Longer sentences
- Positive outlook
- “Idea density”
That latter item means the relative linguistic density of ideas and complexity thereof, and the fluency and vivacity with which they were expressed (this was not a wishy-washy assessment; there was a hard-science analysis to determine numbers).
Want to spruce up yours? You might like to check out:
Reading, Better: Reading As A Cognitive Exercise
…for specific, evidence-based ways to tweak your reading to fight cognitive decline.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
What is ‘doll therapy’ for people with dementia? And is it backed by science?
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 way people living with dementia experience the world can change as the disease progresses. Their sense of reality or place in time can become distorted, which can cause agitation and distress.
One of the best ways to support people experiencing changes in perception and behaviour is to manage their environment. This can have profound benefits including reducing the need for sedatives.
One such strategy is the use of dolls as comfort aids.
Jack Cronkhite/Shutterstock What is ‘doll therapy’?
More appropriately referred to as “child representation”, lifelike dolls (also known as empathy dolls) can provide comfort for some people with dementia.
Memories from the distant past are often more salient than more recent events in dementia. This means that past experiences of parenthood and caring for young children may feel more “real” to a person with dementia than where they are now.
Hallucinations or delusions may also occur, where a person hears a baby crying or fears they have lost their baby.
Providing a doll can be a tangible way of reducing distress without invalidating the experience of the person with dementia.
Some people believe the doll is real
A recent case involving an aged care nurse mistreating a dementia patient’s therapy doll highlights the importance of appropriate training and support for care workers in this area.
For those who do become attached to a therapeutic doll, they will treat the doll as a real baby needing care and may therefore have a profound emotional response if the doll is mishandled.
It’s important to be guided by the person with dementia and only act as if it’s a real baby if the person themselves believes that is the case.
What does the evidence say about their use?
Evidence shows the use of empathy dolls may help reduce agitation and anxiety and improve overall quality of life in people living with dementia.
Child representation therapy falls under the banner of non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care. More specifically, the attachment to the doll may act as a form of reminiscence therapy, which involves using prompts to reconnect with past experiences.
Interacting with the dolls may also act as a form of sensory stimulation, where the person with dementia may gain comfort from touching and holding the doll. Sensory stimulation may support emotional well-being and aid commnication.
However, not all people living with dementia will respond to an empathy doll.
It depends on a person’s background. Shutterstock The introduction of a therapeutic doll needs to be done in conjunction with careful observation and consideration of the person’s background.
Empathy dolls may be inappropriate or less effective for those who have not previously cared for children or who may have experienced past birth trauma or the loss of a child.
Be guided by the person with dementia and how they respond to the doll.
Are there downsides?
The approach has attracted some controversy. It has been suggested that child representation therapy “infantilises” people living with dementia and may increase negative stigma.
Further, the attachment may become so strong that the person with dementia will become upset if someone else picks the doll up. This may create some difficulties in the presence of grandchildren or when cleaning the doll.
The introduction of child representation therapy may also require additional staff training and time. Non-pharmacological interventions such as child representation, however, have been shown to be cost-effective.
Could robots be the future?
The use of more interactive empathy dolls and pet-like robots is also gaining popularity.
While robots have been shown to be feasible and acceptable in dementia care, there remains some contention about their benefits.
While some studies have shown positive outcomes, including reduced agitation, others show no improvement in cognition, behaviour or quality of life among people with dementia.
Advances in artificial intelligence are also being used to help support people living with dementia and inform the community.
Viv and Friends, for example, are AI companions who appear on a screen and can interact with the person with dementia in real time. The AI character Viv has dementia and was co-created with women living with dementia using verbatim scripts of their words, insights and experiences. While Viv can share her experience of living with dementia, she can also be programmed to talk about common interests, such as gardening.
These companions are currently being trialled in some residential aged care facilities and to help educate people on the lived experience of dementia.
How should you respond to your loved one’s empathy doll?
While child representation can be a useful adjunct in dementia care, it requires sensitivity and appropriate consideration of the person’s needs.
People living with dementia may not perceive the social world the same way as a person without dementia. But a person living with dementia is not a child and should never be treated as one.
Ensure all family, friends and care workers are informed about the attachment to the empathy doll to help avoid unintentionally causing distress from inappropriate handling of the doll.
If using an interactive doll, ensure spare batteries are on hand.
Finally, it is important to reassess the attachment over time as the person’s response to the empathy doll may change.
Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
What Your Fitness Tracker Is Best & Worst At
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.
These days, most of us in industrialized countries will wear a fitness tracker, usually in the form of a smartwatch of some kind. But, whether a smartwatch or a dedicated device, they generally have more or less the same technology, with the same potential for usefulness or leading us astray.
What they’re ok at
What they’re ok at is mostly the things that you’d expect them to be good at, for example:
- saying how many steps you have taken
- saying what your heartrate is like
- saying how well you slept
…and so on. They’re typically not amazing at these tasks, so expect a moderate margin of error. But they’re not terrible either, and will almost always be more accurate than if you were to simply guess.
What they’re worst at
They are, for the most part, and at the time of writing (we may presume technology will advance at some point), very bad at interpreting the data that they collect.
For example, many such devices and/or their associated apps will, nowadays, give aggregate scores based on the raw data from the previous category, for example:
- saying how well-rested you are
- saying how stressed you are
- saying how much energy you have
…and so on.
The problem, however, is that while trackers are very good at handling statistics, they have little-to-no understanding of the nuances of human life in general, let alone your life in particular.
Writer’s example: if I open my phone’s fitness app now and look at my “energy score”, it says my energy score is 43. There are no units for this (it’s not about my gravitational potential energy, or how many calories I contain, etc), it’s simply a score out of 100 to say how much energy it considers I have to take on my day. It is basing that number on:
- how much sleep it recorded for me last night (positive factor; I regained energy)
- how much exercise I have done today (negative factor; I expended energy)
- what my heart rate, heart rate variability, blood oxygen saturation, and other such metrics are like
However! It can easily be wrong about those metrics, for example:
- It can misjudge how much sleep I get (indeed, I’m sure this tracker overestimates my sleep, by counting wakefulness in bed as part of my sleep)
- It can misjudge how much exercise I get (for example, I will spend a lot of time at my desk; it certainly thinks I am sitting, but in fact I am standing, usually on one leg at a time, like one of those wading birds, which although I’m mostly not very conscious of it either because it’s just how I stand at my desk out of habit, I know for a fact involves a lot of stabilizing muscle use)
- It can overlook important factors such as the effects of food I eat (a snack may perk me up; a large meal may slow me down; it won’t know about either)
- It can overlook important factors such as what’s going on in my brain (meditation can be refreshing; mental stimulation is by nature uplifting, but a long period of intense focus can cause a crash afterwards due to exhaustion—remember our brain uses 20% of our daily calories just to keep it alive, let alone what we expend in mental exertion)
With such errors in any or perhaps all of those input variables, how reliable can its output possibly be?
Now, apply the same level of error to other aggregate metrics that your fitness tracker might give you, such as a “stress score”, for example.
Or, to quote what hard science has to say about such technology:
❝While metrics such as resting heart rate and heart rate variability are well-supported by empirical evidence, the proprietary algorithms underpinning CHS and the lack of methodological disclosure hinder reproducibility and independent scrutiny. Furthermore, the absence of rigorous validation across diverse populations raises critical concerns about generalizability and equity. The variability in measurement protocols and integration strategies further complicates comparability and reliability, ultimately limiting both scientific and clinical confidence in these tools. This lack of standardization undermines the scientific basis of CHS and limits their long-term potential for clinical adoption, personalized health management, and public health applications.
If CHS are to evolve beyond opaque consumer-facing features into scientifically validated health metrics, the field must shift from merely evaluating industry-led innovations to defining best practices for their development and deployment.❞
~ Dr. Cailbhe Doherty et al.
CHS = Composite Health Scores
Read in full: Readiness, recovery, and strain: an evaluation of composite health scores in consumer wearables
What they’re best at
Before you disconnect, disavow, or defenestrate your fitness tracker, let’s mention: there is one thing they’re very good at!
Establishing patterns. And this is critical for good health management!
For example:
- it might get your sleep score wrong (and report incorrectly how many hours sleep you got, or how long you spent in each phase of sleep), but it’ll be able to show clearly whether the amount of sleep you get is increasing or decreasing over time or remaining the same, or whether your sleep schedule is sliding forwards or backwards over time
- it might get your step count wrong (most do), but it’ll be able to clearly show which days you exercised more or less on, or whether your general trend is increasing or decreasing. Because although it’ll miscount, it’ll miscount by approximately the same percentage each day on average.
- it might get your heart rate wrong (it almost certainly will), but it’ll be able to show that your heart rate spikes when you wake up or after dinner or when you do an exercise session; it’ll also be able to show whether your resting heart rate is increasing or decreasing over time (because like with the step count, it’ll be wrong by approximately the same percentage each day on average).
Thus, to get the most out of your fitness tracker… By all means, let it track all the things. But also:
- take a moment to consider how your fitness tracker knows the various things it knows (i.e., and whether in fact it could be mistaken, and if so, to what degree)
- pay much more attention to the big trends, rather than to what the actual numbers on a day-to-day basis claim
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Fig vs Grapefruit – 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 figs to grapefruit, we picked the figs.
Why?
It wasn’t close!
In terms of macros, figs have 2x the fiber and carbs for the same protein, making them the more nutrient-dense in this category.
In the category of vitamins, figs have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, and K, while grapefruit has more of vitamins A, B9, C, and E, yielding a 7:4 win to figs.
Looking at minerals, figs have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while grapefruit has just a little more phosphorus, so that’s an easy 8:1 win for figs here.
In other considerations, figs have more beneficial polyphenols, so that’s another point in their favor.
One more consideration that’s not shown in the nutritional values, is that grapefruit contains high levels of furanocoumarin, which can inhibit cytochrome P-450 3A4 isoenzyme and P-glycoptrotein transporters in the intestine and liver—slowing down their drug metabolism capabilities, thus effectively increasing the bioavailability of many drugs manifold.
This may sound superficially like a good thing (improving bioavailability of things we want), but in practice it means that in the case of many drugs, if you take them with (or near in time to) grapefruit or grapefruit juice, then congratulations, you just took an overdose. This happens with a lot of meds for blood pressure, cholesterol (including statins), calcium channel-blockers, anti-depressants, benzo-family drugs, beta-blockers, and more. Oh, and Viagra, too. Which latter might sound funny, but remember, Viagra’s mechanism of action is blood pressure modulation, and that is not something you want to mess around with unduly. So, do check with your pharmacist to know if you’re on any meds that would be affected by grapefruit or grapefruit juice!
PS: the same substance is quite available in pummelos and sour oranges (but not meaningfully in sweet oranges); you can see a chart here showing the relative furanocoumarin contents of many citrus fruits, or lack thereof as the case may be, as it is for lemons and most limes).
In any case, adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for figs, but by all means do enjoy either or both (if grapefruit isn’t contraindicated for you because of the medications interactions)!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Watch Out For Furanocoumarins!
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
When Seasonal Allergies Strike, Can We Really Unstuff That Nose?
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!
No question/request too big or small 😎
❝Around this time of year I am often plagued with allergies, and it seems that whenever I manage to unblock my nose, it reblocks itself almost immediately, is there anything that can be done to keep it clear?❞
Fully? No.
Half? Yes, actually!
First understand: when everything is functioning normally, your nostrils naturally alternate airflow dominance approximately every 2 hours* as part of the nasal cycle, a normal process controlled subconsciously by the brain, such that at any given time, you will be breathing through primarily your left nostril or primarily your right nostril.
*It can vary though, and will often be less often than that, especially when we’re sleeping, see: Length of Periods in the Nasal Cycle during 24-Hours Registration
This may seem odd, but alternating airflow lets each nostril recover from drying, irritation, and pathogen exposure, helping protect the lining of your nose and respiratory system. In other words, the congested phase increases blood flow to moisten and repair your nasal tissues while the open side handles most of the airflow.
However! You asked about when allergies strike, and it seems you’re taking measures to unblock your nose as completely as possible. The thing is, allergies (as well as some respiratory infections) and the overuse of decongestants can interfere with normal switching and make both nostrils feel blocked at once.
That’s fascinating, but how can we use this knowledge?
The key here is that if you are every 2 minutes trying re-clear both nostrils, you will be inadvertently messing one of them up (the one that’s supposed to be mostly closed).
By messing that one up, you’ll then place undue stress on the other one, whereupon you will in the near future find yourself messing that one up in a similar fashion.
Which leaves you with zero properly-functioning nostrils.
So instead, try to figure out which of your nostrils feels relatively least blocked (it may be tricky at first if you’re very congested; if air seems to be moving through neither, then if you have soreness there, note which side is worst, and conclude that the other side is the one you’re supposed to be breathing through).
Now, and here comes the hard part: leave the other side alone. Let it stay blocked. It is healing. Let it be.
You may be wondering: how am I supposed to unblock only one side? And the answer is: very very carefully, please!
You’ve probably already figured out that excessive nose-blowing only makes things worse, and that’s because to blow out of one side you need to compress the other, which doesn’t exactly help it to rest and reset.
Instead, consider putting hot water in a bowl with a little eucalyptus oil or similar, and (gently!) steam just one nostril, the one that’s supposed to be open, by (gently) covering the other nostril with your thumb. Not compressing it! Just gently covering, like a lid for your nostril.
Repeat as necessary, and switch sides when the sides switch, bearing in mind that your current condition is not “business as usual” so it probably won’t be every two hours; it’ll probably be much less often than that.
You can also try this, if the problem is running deeper than just your nostrils: Autogenic Drainage Technique (Step-By-Step Guide To Clear Mucus From Airways)
Want to learn more?
For more general seasonal allergy management, see:
- Oh, Honey ← one kind of honey may help vs allergies; most won’t
- Antihistamines’ Generation Gap ← different generations of antihistamines work differently, and those differences are important to understand
- Viruses, Bacteria, Allergens: One Nasal Spray To Stop Them All
And for more on the delightful topic of mucus, enjoy:
What Your Mucus Says About Your Health
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:
-
Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not there?
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.
Homeopathy: Evidence So Tiny That It’s Not There?
Yesterday, we asked you your opinions on homeopathy. The sample size of responses was a little lower than we usually get, but of those who did reply, there was a clear trend:
- A lot of enthusiasm for “Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective”
- Near equal support for “It may help some people as a complementary therapy”
- Very few people voted for “Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works”; this is probably because people who considered voting for this, voted for the more flexible “It may help some people as a complementary therapy” instead.
- Very few people considered it a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience.
So, what does the science say?
Well, let us start our investigation by checking out the position of the UK’s National Health Service, an organization with a strong focus on providing the least expensive treatments that are effective.
Since homeopathy is very inexpensive to arrange, they will surely want to put it atop their list of treatments, right?
❝Homeopathy is a “treatment” based on the use of highly diluted substances, which practitioners claim can cause the body to heal itself.
There’s been extensive investigation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. There’s no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.❞
The NHS actually has a lot more to say about that, and you can read their full statement here.
But that’s just one institution. Here’s what Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council had to say:
❝There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment❞
You can read their full statement here.
The American FDA, meanwhile, have a stronger statement:
❝Homeopathic drug products are made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, including known poisons. These products have the potential to cause significant and even permanent harm if they are poorly manufactured, since that could lead to contaminated products or products that have potentially toxic ingredients at higher levels than are labeled and/or safe, or if they are marketed as substitute treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, or to vulnerable populations.❞
You can read their full statement here.
Homeopathy is a dangerous scam and a pseudoscience: True or False?
False and True, respectively, mostly.
That may be a confusing answer, so let’s elaborate:
- Is it dangerous? Mostly not; it’s mostly just water. However, two possibilities for harm exist:
- Careless preparation could result in a harmful ingredient still being present in the water—and because of the “like cures like” principle, many of the ingredients used in homeopathy are harmful, ranging from heavy metals to plant-based neurotoxins. However, the process of “ultra-dilution” usually removes these so thoroughly that they are absent or otherwise scientifically undetectable.
- Placebo treatment has its place, but could result in “real” treatment going undelivered. This can cause harm if the “real” treatment was critically needed, especially if it was needed on a short timescale.
- Is it a scam? Probably mostly not; to be a scam requires malintent. Most practitioners probably believe in what they are practising.
- Is it a pseudoscience? With the exception that placebo effect has been highly studied and is a very valid complementary therapy… Yes, aside from that it is a pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “like cures like” principle, and there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy’s “water memory” idea. On the contrary, they go against the commonly understood physics of our world.
It may help some people as a complementary therapy: True or False?
True! Not only is placebo effect very well-studied, but best of all, it can still work as a placebo even if you know that you’re taking a placebo… Provided you also believe that!
Science doesn’t know how it works, but it works: True or False?
False, simply. At best, it performs as a placebo.
Placebo is most effective when it’s a remedy against subjective symptoms, like pain.
However, psychosomatic effect (the effect that our brain has on the rest of our body, to which it is very well-connected) can mean that placebo can also help against objective symptoms, like inflammation.
After all, our body, directed primarily by the brain, can “decide” what immunological defenses to deploy or hold back, for example. This is why placebo can help with conditions as diverse as arthritis (an inflammatory condition) or diabetes (an autoimmune condition, and/or a metabolic condition, depending on type).
Here’s how homeopathy measures up, for those conditions:
(the short answer is “no better than placebo”)
Homeopathy works on valid principles and is effective: True or False?
False, except insofar as placebo is a valid principle and can be effective.
The stated principles of homeopathy—”like cures like” and “water memory”—have no scientific basis.
We’d love to show the science for this, but we cannot prove a negative.
However, the ideas were conceived in 1796, and are tantamount to alchemy. A good scientific attitude means being open-minded to new ideas and testing them. In homeopathy’s case, this has been done, extensively, and more than 200 years of testing later, homeopathy has consistently performed equal to placebo.
In summary…
- If you’re enjoying homeopathic treatment and that’s working for you, great, keep at it.
- If you’re open-minded to enjoying a placebo treatment that may benefit you, be careful, but don’t let us stop you.
- If your condition is serious, please do not delay seeking evidence-based medical treatment.
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:
