Plant-Based Salmon Recipe

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.

From Tofu to Salmon

This video (below) by SweetPotatoSoul isn’t just a recipe tutorial; it’s an inspiring journey into the world of vegan cooking, proving that reducing animal products doesn’t have to mean sacrificing flavor.

The key to her vegan salmon is the tofu. However, there’s a trick to the tofu – you have to press it.

Essentially, this involved putting some paper towel on either side of the tofu, and then placing a heavy object on top; this removes excess water and, more importantly, primes the tofu to absorb the flavor of your marinade!

(You’ll want to press the tofu for around 1 hour)

Find the rest of the recipe in the 12-minute video below!

Other Plant-Based Recipes

With there being so many benefits of cutting meat out of your diet, we’ve spent the time reviewing some of the top books on vegan recipes, including The Green Roasting Tin and The Vegan Instant Pot Cookbook. We hope you enjoy them as much as you’ll enjoy this recipe:

How was the video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Coffee, From A Blood Sugar Management Perspective
  • Wholesome Threesome Protein Soup
    Fuel up with a protein-packed, vitamin-rich soup loaded with quinoa, lentils, rice, and a cashew twist. Perfect for a nutritious light meal!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Why 7 Hours Sleep Is Not Enough

    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.

    How Sleep-Deprived Are You, Really?

    This is Dr. Matthew Walker. He’s a neuroscientist and sleep specialist, and is the Director of the Center for Human Sleep Science at UC Berkeley’s Department of Psychology. He’s also the author of the international bestseller “Why We Sleep”.

    What does he want us to know?

    Sleep deprivation is more serious than many people think it is. After about 16 hours without sleep, the brain begins to fail, and needs more than 7 hours of sleep to “reset” cognitive performance.

    Note: note “seven or more”, but “more than seven”.

    After ten days with only 7 hours sleep (per day), Dr. Walker points out, the brain is as dysfunctional as it would be after going without sleep for 24 hours.

    Here’s the study that sparked a lot of Dr. Walker’s work:

    The Cumulative Cost of Additional Wakefulness: Dose-Response Effects on Neurobehavioral Functions and Sleep Physiology From Chronic Sleep Restriction and Total Sleep Deprivation

    Importantly, in Dr. Walker’s own words:

    Three full nights of recovery sleep (i.e., more nights than a weekend) are insufficient to restore performance back to normal levels after a week of short sleeping❞

    ~ Dr. Matthew Walker

    See also: Why You Probably Need More Sleep

    Furthermore: the sleep-deprived mind is unaware of how sleep-deprived it is.

    You know how a drunk person thinks they can drive safely? It’s like that.

    You do not know how sleep-deprived you are, when you are sleep-deprived!

    For example:

    ❝(60.7%) did not signal sleepiness before a sleep fragment occurred in at least one of the four MWT trials❞

    Source: Sleepiness is not always perceived before falling asleep in healthy, sleep-deprived subjects

    Sleep efficiency matters

    With regard to the 7–9 hours band for optimal health, Dr. Walker points out that the sleep we’re getting is not always the sleep we think we’re getting:

    ❝Assuming you have a healthy sleep efficiency (85%), to sleep 9 hours in terms of duration (i.e. to be a long-sleeper), you would need to be consistently in bed for 10 hours and 36 minutes a night. ❞

    ~ Dr. Matthew Walker

    At the bottom end of that, by the way, doing the same math: to get only the insufficient 7 hours sleep discussed earlier, a with a healthy 85% sleep efficiency, you’d need to be in bed for 8 hours and 14 minutes per night.

    The unfortunate implication of this: if you are consistently in bed for 8 hours and 14 minutes (or under) per night, you are not getting enough sleep.

    “But what if my sleep efficiency is higher than 85%?”

    It shouldn’t be.If your sleep efficiency is higher than 85%, you are sleep-deprived and your body is having to enforce things.

    Want to know what your sleep efficiency is?

    We recommend knowing this, by the way, so you might want to check out:

    Head-To-Head Comparison of Google and Apple’s Top Sleep-Monitoring Apps

    (they will monitor your sleep and tell you your sleep efficiency, amongst other things)

    Want to know more?

    You might like his book:

    Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams

    …and/or his podcast:

    The Matt Walker Podcast

    …and for those who like videos, here’s his (very informative) TED talk:

    !

    Prefer text? Click here to read the transcript

    Want to watch it, but not right now? Bookmark it for later

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Green Paneer Flatbreads

    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 are versatile little snacks that can be eaten alone or served as part of a buffet; great for warm summer nights!

    You will need

    • 1 lb block of paneer (you can also use our plant-based high-protein paneer recipe)
    • 7 oz unsweetened yogurt (your choice what kind; plant-based is fine; live cultured is best)
    • 1 tomato, thinly sliced
    • ½ red onion, thinly sliced
    • 2 oz spinach leaves
    • 1 tbsp lime juice
    • 1 tsp red chili powder
    • 4 wholewheat flatbreads

    And then the marinade:

    • 3 oz spinach
    • ½ bulb garlic
    • 1 tsp cumin seeds
    • 1 tsp coriander seeds
    • 1 tsp chili flakes
    • ½ tsp MSG or 1 tsp low-sodium salt (MSG being the preferable and healthier option)
    • 2 tbsp extra virgin olive oil
    • Juice of ½ lime

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Blend the marinade ingredients in a blender.

    2) Cut the paneer into long cuboid chapes (similar to fish fingers) and put them in a bowl. Pour ⅔ of the marinade over them, and gently mix to coat evenly.

    3) Heat a ridged griddle pan, and when hot, add the paneer and cook for 1–2 minutes each side without stirring, jiggling, or doing anything other than turning once per uncooked side.

    4) Combine the onion, tomato, spinach leaves, lime choice, and chili powder to make the salad.

    5) Add the remaining marinade to the yogurt to make a green dip.

    6) Toast your flatbreads under the grill.

    5) Assemble, putting the paneer and salad with a spoonful of the dip on the flatbread, and serve:

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • A short history of sunscreen, from basting like a chook to preventing skin cancer

    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.

    Australians have used commercial creams, lotions or gels to manage our skin’s sun exposure for nearly a century.

    But why we do it, the preparations themselves, and whether they work, has changed over time.

    In this short history of sunscreen in Australia, we look at how we’ve slathered, slopped and spritzed our skin for sometimes surprising reasons.

    At first, suncreams helped you ‘tan with ease’

    Advertisement for Hamilton's Sunburn Vanishing Cream
    This early sunscreen claimed you could ‘tan with ease’.
    Trove/NLA

    Sunscreens have been available in Australia since the 30s. Chemist Milton Blake made one of the first.

    He used a kerosene heater to cook batches of “sunburn vanishing cream”, scented with French perfume.

    His backyard business became H.A. Milton (Hamilton) Laboratories, which still makes sunscreens today.

    Hamilton’s first cream claimed you could “
    Sunbathe in Comfort and TAN with ease”. According to modern standards, it would have had an SPF (or sun protection factor) of 2.

    The mirage of ‘safe tanning’

    A tan was considered a “modern complexion” and for most of the 20th century, you might put something on your skin to help gain one. That’s when “safe tanning” (without burning) was thought possible.

    Coppertone advertisement showing tanned woman in bikini
    This 1967 Coppertone advertisement urged you to ‘tan, not burn’.
    SenseiAlan/Flickr, CC BY-SA

    Sunburn was known to be caused by the UVB component of ultraviolet (UV) light. UVA, however, was thought not to be involved in burning; it was just thought to darken the skin pigment melanin. So, medical authorities advised that by using a sunscreen that filtered out UVB, you could “safely tan” without burning.

    But that was wrong.

    From the 70s, medical research suggested UVA penetrated damagingly deep into the skin, causing ageing effects such as sunspots and wrinkles. And both UVA and UVB could cause skin cancer.

    Sunscreens from the 80s sought to be “broad spectrum” – they filtered both UVB and UVA.

    Researchers consequently recommended sunscreens for all skin tones, including for preventing sun damage in people with dark skin.

    Delaying burning … or encouraging it?

    Up to the 80s, sun preparations ranged from something that claimed to delay burning, to preparations that actively encouraged it to get that desirable tan – think, baby oil or coconut oil. Sun-worshippers even raided the kitchen cabinet, slicking olive oil on their skin.

    One manufacturer’s “sun lotion” might effectively filter UVB; another’s merely basted you like a roast chicken.

    Since labelling laws before the 80s didn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients, it was often hard for consumers to tell which was which.

    At last, SPF arrives to guide consumers

    In the 70s, two Queensland researchers, Gordon Groves and Don Robertson, developed tests for sunscreens – sometimes experimenting on students or colleagues. They printed their ranking in the newspaper, which the public could use to choose a product.

    An Australian sunscreen manufacturer then asked the federal health department to regulate the industry. The company wanted standard definitions to market their products, backed up by consistent lab testing methods.

    In 1986, after years of consultation with manufacturers, researchers and consumers, Australian Standard AS2604 gave a specified a testing method, based on the Queensland researchers’ work. We also had a way of expressing how well sunscreens worked – the sun protection factor or SPF.

    This is the ratio of how long it takes a fair-skinned person to burn using the product compared with how long it takes to burn without it. So a cream that protects the skin sufficiently so it takes 40 minutes to burn instead of 20 minutes has an SPF of 2.

    Manufacturers liked SPF because businesses that invested in clever chemistry could distinguish themselves in marketing. Consumers liked SPF because it was easy to understand – the higher the number, the better the protection.

    Australians, encouraged from 1981 by the Slip! Slop! Slap! nationwide skin cancer campaign, could now “slop” on a sunscreen knowing the degree of protection it offered.

    How about skin cancer?

    It wasn’t until 1999 that research proved that using sunscreen prevents skin cancer. Again, we have Queensland to thank, specifically the residents of Nambour. They took part in a trial for nearly five years, carried out by a research team led by Adele Green of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Using sunscreen daily over that time reduced rates of squamous cell carcinoma (a common form of skin cancer) by about 60%.

    Follow-up studies in 2011 and 2013 showed regular sunscreen use almost halved the rate of melanoma and slowed skin ageing. But there was no impact on rates of basal cell carcinoma, another common skin cancer.

    By then, researchers had shown sunscreen stopped sunburn, and stopping sunburn would prevent at least some types of skin cancer.

    What’s in sunscreen today?

    An effective sunscreen uses one or more active ingredients in a cream, lotion or gel. The active ingredient either works:

    • “chemically” by absorbing UV and converting it to heat. Examples include PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and benzyl salicylate, or

    • “physically” by blocking the UV, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

    Physical blockers at first had limited cosmetic appeal because they were opaque pastes. (Think cricketers with zinc smeared on their noses.)

    With microfine particle technology from the 90s, sunscreen manufacturers could then use a combination of chemical absorbers and physical blockers to achieve high degrees of sun protection in a cosmetically acceptable formulation.

    Where now?

    Australians have embraced sunscreen, but they still don’t apply enough or reapply often enough.

    Although some people are concerned sunscreen will block the skin’s ability to make vitamin D this is unlikely. That’s because even SPF50 sunscreen doesn’t filter out all UVB.

    There’s also concern about the active ingredients in sunscreen getting into the environment and whether their absorption by our bodies is a problem.

    Sunscreens have evolved from something that at best offered mild protection to effective, easy-to-use products that stave off the harmful effects of UV. They’ve evolved from something only people with fair skin used to a product for anyone.

    Remember, slopping on sunscreen is just one part of sun protection. Don’t forget to also slip (protective clothing), slap (hat), seek (shade) and slide (sunglasses).The Conversation

    Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Coffee, From A Blood Sugar Management Perspective
  • Is thunderstorm asthma becoming more common?

    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.

    When spring arrives, so do warnings about thunderstorm asthma. But a decade ago, most of us hadn’t heard of it.

    So where did thunderstorm asthma come from? Is it a new phenomenon?

    In 2016, the world’s most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event took Melbourne by surprise. An increase in warnings and monitoring is partly a response to this.

    But there are also signs climate change may be exacerbating the likelihood of thunderstorm asthma, with more extreme weather, extended pollen seasons and a rise in Australians reporting hay fever.

    A landmark catastrophe

    The first time many Australians heard of thunderstorm asthma was in November 2016, when a major event rocked Melbourne.

    During a late night storm, an estimated 10,000 people were rushed to hospitals with severe asthma attacks. With thousands of calls on emergency lines, ambulances and emergency departments were unprepared to handle the rapid increase in people needing urgent medical care. Tragically, ten of those people died.

    This was the most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event in recorded history and the first time deaths have ever occurred anywhere in the world.

    In response, the Victorian Department of Health implemented initiatives, including public awareness campaigns and improvements to health and emergency services, to be ready for future thunderstorm asthma events.

    A network of pollen monitoring stations was also set up across the state to gather data that helps to predict future events.

    A problem for decades

    While this event was unexpected, it wasn’t the first time we’d had thunderstorm asthma in Australia – we’ve actually known about it for decades.

    Melbourne reported its first instance of thunderstorm asthma back in 1984, only a year after this phenomenon was first discovered in Birmingham in the United Kingdom.

    Thunderstorm asthma has since been reported in other parts of Australia, including Canberra and New South Wales. But it is still most common in Melbourne. Compared to any other city (or country) the gap is significant: over a quarter of all known events worldwide have occurred in Melbourne.

    Why Melbourne?

    Melbourne’s location makes it a hotspot for these kinds of events. Winds coming from the north of Melbourne tend to be dry and hot as they come from deserts in the centre of Australia, while winds from the south are cooler as they come from the ocean.

    When hot and cool air mix above Melbourne, it creates the perfect conditions for thunderstorms to form.

    Northern winds also blow a lot of pollen from farmlands into the city, in particular grass pollen. This is not only the most common cause of seasonal hay fever in Melbourne but also a major trigger of thunderstorm asthma.

    Why grass pollen?

    There’s a particular reason grass pollen is the main culprit behind thunderstorm asthma in Australia. During storms there is a lot of moisture in the air. Grass pollen will absorb this moisture, making it swell up like a water balloon.

    If pollen absorbs too much water whilst airborne, it can burst or “rupture,” releasing hundreds of microscopic particles into the air that can be swept by powerful winds.

    Normally, when you breathe in pollen it gets stuck in your upper airway – for example, your nose and throat. This is what causes typical hay fever symptoms such as sneezing or runny nose.

    But the microscopic particles released from ruptured grass pollen are much smaller and don’t get stuck as easily in the upper airway. Instead, they can travel deep into your airways until they reach your lungs. This may trigger more severe symptoms, such as wheezing or difficulty breathing, even in people with no prior history of asthma.

    So who is at risk?

    You might think asthma is the biggest risk factor for thunderstorm asthma. In fact, the biggest risk factor is hay fever.

    Up to 99% of patients who went to the emergency department during the Melbourne 2016 event had hay fever, while a majority (60%) had no prior diagnosis of asthma.

    Every single person hospitalised was allergic to at least one type of grass pollen. All had a sensitivity to ryegrass.

    Is thunderstorm asthma becoming more common?

    Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, with just 26 events officially recorded worldwide.

    However there is evidence these events could become more frequent and severe in coming years, due to climate change. Higher temperatures and pollution could be making plants produce more pollen and pollen seasons last much longer.

    Extreme weather events, including thunderstorms, are also expected to become more common and severe.

    In addition, there are signs rates that hay fever may be increasing. The number of Australians reporting allergy symptoms have risen from 15% in 2008 to 24% in 2022. Similar trends in other countries has been linked to climate change.

    How can I prepare?

    Here are three ways you can reduce your risk of thunderstorm asthma:

    • stock up on allergy medication and set up an asthma action plan with your GP
    • check daily pollen forecasts for the estimated pollen level and risk of a thunderstorm asthma event in your local area
    • on days with high pollen or a high risk of thunderstorm asthma, spend less time outside or wear a surgical face mask to reduce your symptoms.

    Kira Morgan Hughes, PhD Candidate in Allergy and Asthma, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, 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:

  • Which Plant Milk?

    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.

    Plant-based milks—what’s best?

    You asked us to look at some popular plant milks and their health properties, and we said we’d do a main feature, so here it is!

    We’ll also give a quick nod to environmental considerations at the end too (they might not be quite what you expect!). That said, as a health and productivity newsletter, we’ll be focusing on the health benefits.

    While we can give a broad overview, please note that individual brands may vary, especially in two important ways:

    • Pro: many (most?) brands of plant milks fortify their products with extra vitamins and minerals, especially vitamin D and calcium.
    • Con: some brands also add sugar.

    So, by all means use this guide to learn about the different plants’ properties, and/but still do check labels later.

    Alternatively, consider making your own!

    • Pros: no added sugar + cheaper
    • Cons: no added vitamins and minerals + some equipment required

    Almond milk

    Almond milk is low in carbs and thus good for a carb-controlled diet. It’s also high in vitamin E and a collection of minerals.

    Oat milk

    Oats are one of the healthiest “staple foods” around, and while drinking oat milk doesn’t convey all the benefits, it does a lot. It also has one of the highest soluble fiber contents of any milk, which is good for reducing LDL (bad) cholesterol levels.

    See for example: Consumption of oat milk for 5 weeks lowers serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in free-living men with moderate hypercholesterolemia

    Coconut milk

    Coconut has a higher fat content than most plant milks, but also contains medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs). These raise HDL (good) cholesterol levels.

    Read the study: How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk?

    Hemp milk

    Being made from hemp seeds that contain a lot of protein and healthy fats (including omega-3 and omega-6), hemp milk packs a nutritious punch. It’s carb-free. It’s also THC-free, in case you were wondering, which means no, it does not have psychoactive effects.

    Pea milk

    It’s very high in protein, and contains an array of vitamins and minerals. It’s not very popular yet, so there isn’t as much research about it. This 2021 study found that it had the nutritional profile the closest to cow’s milk (beating soy by a narrow margin) and praised it as a good alternative for those with a soy allergy.

    This is Research Review Monday so we try to stick to pure science, but for your interest… here’s an interesting pop-science article (ostensibly in affiliation with the pea milk brand, Ripple) about the nutritional qualities of their pea milk specifically, which uses particularly nutrient-dense yellow peas, plus some extra vitamin and mineral fortifications:

    Read: Ripple Milk: 6 Reasons Why You Should Try Pea Milk

    Soy milk

    Perhaps the most popular plant milk, and certainly usually the cheapest in stores. It’s high in protein, similar to cow’s milk. In fact, nutritionally, it’s one of the closest to cow’s milk without involving cows as a middleman. (Did you know three quarters of all soy in the world is grown to feed to livestock, not humans? Now you do).

    And no, gentlemen-readers, it won’t have any feminizing effects. The human body can’t use the plant estrogens in soy for that. It does give some isoflavone benefits though, which are broadly good for everyone’s health. See for example this research review with 439 sources of its own:

    Read: Soy and Health Update: Evaluation of the Clinical and Epidemiologic Literature

    Quick note on flavor: nut milks have the flavor of the nut they were made from. Coconut milk tastes of coconut. The other milks listed above don’t have much of a flavor—which in many cases may be what you want.

    Note on environmental considerations:

    A lot of us try to be as socially responsible as reasonably possible in our choices, so this may be an influencing factor. In a nutshell:

    • Oats and Soy are generally grown as vast monocrops, and these are bad for the environment
      • They are still better for the environment than cow’s milk though, as for example most soy is grown to feed to cows, not humans. So including cows in the process means four times as much monocrop farming, plus adds several other environmental issues that are beyond the scope of this newsletter.
    • Almonds are particularly resource-intensive when it comes to water use.
      • Still nowhere near as much as cows, though.
    • Peas are grown in places that naturally have very high rainfall, so are a good option here. Same generally goes for rice, which didn’t make the cut today. (Nor did hazelnuts, sorry—we can only include so much!)
    • Hemp is by far and away the most environmentally friendly, assuming it is grown in a climate naturally conducive to such.
    • Making plant milk at home is usually most environmentally friendly, depending on where your ingredients came from.
    • Literally any plant milk is much more environmentally friendly than cow’s milk.

    See the science for yourself: Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

    See also (if you like graphs and charts): Environmental footprints of dairy and plant-based milks

    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:

  • Vaginal Probiotics: What Does The Science Say?

    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 😎

    ❝Is there any merit to vaginal probiotics?❞

    What a fun question! First let’s break it down, as this could mean two different things:

    1. Probiotics, which you consume, using your mouth, which are marketed as benefiting vaginal health
    2. Probiotics taken as a vaginal pessary/suppository, to act directly there

    The former has limited evidence for it, but generally speaking, improving one’s gut health improves all other areas of health, so it’s not surprising if it helps this too.

    See for example:

    Ingestion of yogurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus compared with pasteurized yogurt as prophylaxis for recurrent candidal vaginitis and bacterial vaginosis

    Some notes:

    • candidal vaginitis means a yeast infection causing vaginal inflammation
    • bacterial vaginosis means a vaginal bacterial imbalance (generally also featuring vaginal inflammation, though it can be asymptomatic)

    In the latter case, the “imbalance” in question is usually a shortage of Lactobacillus sp. (that is to say, the diverse species of the Lactobacillus genus) resulting in an overgrowth of other kinds of bacteria, which in turn results in changing the vaginal microbiome to make it warmer and more acidic than it should be.

    While a healthy vagina shouldn’t smell of roses, it shouldn’t smell fishy either; if it does, that’s a sign of bacterial vaginosis.

    What it’s supposed to be like: slightly bitter, slightly salty, distinctly umami, along with a cocktail of personal pheromones (and if menstruating or otherwise* vaginally bleeding, then of course add: iron/”metallic”). The pheromones will also reflect any hormonal changes, but should never make anything smell bad, just different.

    *e.g. due to PCOS, fibroids, etc. Note that in the case of PCOS, it may also smell a little different (if it does, then usually: a little more musky), due to often different hormone levels. Again: it still shouldn’t smell bad, though, just different.

    In the above-linked study, taking more live Lactobacillus acidophilus (in yogurt, eating it, with their mouths) improved levels of L. acidophilus in the vagina. While the study authors concluded “this ingestion of yogurt may have reduced episodes of bacterial vaginosis”, which is rather a weak claim, it can be argued that it merely improving the levels of L. acidophilus in the vagina was already a win.

    That was a small (n=42, and only 7 followed through to completion) and old (1996) study, and it bears mentioning that most of the studies into this seem to be small and old, but conclude similarly with weakly positive statements.

    However, it does make a difference what kind of Lactobacillus is used, for example in this next study…

    • L. fermentum RC-14 worked well (90% success rate)
    • L. rhamnosus GR-1 worked somewhat (40% success rate)
    • L. rhamnosus GG did not work (0% success rate)

    So, diversity is key, and getting a wide range of Lactobacillus sp. seems to be a safe bet.

    Short version: enjoying probiotics as part of your diet probably improves vaginal health, just like it improves pretty much everything else.

    See also: Make Friends With Your Gut (You Can Thank Us Later)

    You would think that this would mean that taking probiotics as a vaginal pessary/suppository would be even better, but the results are weaker, as in this study, which produced temporary improvements in about half the study group, with only 3 out of 28 being free of bacterial vaginosis the next month:

    Treatment of bacterial vaginosis with lactobacilli

    This study got better results, with a 61% success rate:

    Effectiveness of Lactobacillus-containing vaginal tablets in the treatment of symptomatic bacterial vaginosis

    Important note

    Do note that this last category, involving topical treatments (i.e., manually introducing Lactobacillus sp. to the vagina) were all in cases of pre-existing bacterial vaginosis, not as a prophylactic and/or general health-improving thing.

    If your vagina seems happy right now, then do not mess with its happy bacterial balance!

    And at all times (regardless of whether it seems happy right now or not): do not douche (it does not need it and will not benefit from it; the vagina is self-cleaning*) as this will wash out many of your Lactobacilli and will do absolutely nothing against any Candida there (C. albicans being a rooted fungus, whereas Lactobacillus is a sausage-shaped bacterium with many tiny appendages but no actual ability to stay put), so Candida will flourish in the Lactobacillus’s absence.

    *by the vagina, we are referring to the vaginal canal. The vulva—the outside part consisting of the two pairs of labia, the glans clitoris, and clitoral hood—are not self-cleaning, and should just be washed gently per your normal bath/shower routine; that’s perfectly fine and good.

    And definitely don’t put any “cleansing” toiletries inside the vagina (or any toiletries at all, for that matter), even if they are sold and marketed for that purpose; they will not help and they will harm.

    Also, due to their neighborliness, messing up the microbiome inside the vagina is a common way to also get Candida inside the urethra:

    How To Avoid Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)

    One other option

    Finally, unless you have a “very good friend” you have a pressing urge to swap germs with, you might want to leave this one to the scientists, but we share this paper just for interest:

    The effectiveness of vaginal microbiota transplantation for vaginal dysbiosis and bacterial vaginosis: a scoping review

    Lastly…

    Going back to oral supplementation, if you’d like to try that then check out this for further notes on what, why, how, etc:

    How Much Difference Do Probiotic Supplements Make To 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: