Purpose – by Gina Bianchini
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.
To address the elephant in the room, this is not a rehash of Rick Warren’s best-selling “The Purpose-Driven Life”. Instead, this book is (in this reviewer’s opinion) a lot better. It’s a lot more comprehensive, and it doesn’t assume that what’s most important to the author will be what’s most important to you.
What’s it about, then? It’s about giving your passion (whatever it may be) the tools to have an enduring impact on the world. It recommends doing this by leveraging a technology that would once have been considered magic: social media.
Far from “grow your brand” business books, this one looks at what really matters the most to you. Nobody will look back on your life and say “what a profitable second quarter that was in such-a-year”. But if you do your thing well, people will look back and say:
- “he was a pillar of the community”
- “she raised that community around her”
- “they did so much for us”
- “finding my place in that community changed my life”
- …and so forth. Isn’t that something worth doing?
Bianchini takes the position of both “idealistic dreamer” and “realistic worker”.
Further, she blends the two beautifully, to give practical step-by-step instructions on how to give life to the community that you build.
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:
-
What’s So Special About Alpha-Lipoic Acid?
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 Access-All-Areas Antioxidant
Alpha-Lipoic Acid (ALA) is one of the most bioavailable antioxidants in existence. A bold claim, but most antioxidants are only water-soluble or fat-soluble, whereas ALA is both. This has far-reaching implications—and we mean that literally, because its “go everywhere” status means that it can access (and operate in) all living cells of the human body.
We make it inside our body, and we can also get it in our diet, or take it as a supplement.
What foods contain it?
The richest food sources are:
- For the meat-eaters: organ meats
- For everyone: broccoli, tomatoes, & spinach
However, supplements are more efficient at delivering it, by several orders of magnitude:
Read more: Lipoic acid – biological activity and therapeutic potential
What are its benefits?
Most of its benefits are the usual benefits you would expect from any antioxidant, just, more of it. In particular, reduced inflammation and slowed skin aging are common reasons that people take ALA as a supplement.
Does it really reduce inflammation?
Yes, it does. This one’s not at all controversial, as this systematic review of studies shows:
(C-reactive protein is a marker of inflammation)
Does it really reduce skin aging?
Again yes—which again is not surprising for such a potent antioxidant; remember that oxidative stress is one of the main agonists of cellular aging:
As a special feature, ALA shows particular strength against sun-related skin aging, because of how it protects against UV radiation and increases levels of gluthianone, which also helps:
- Photochemical stability of lipoic acid and its impact on skin ageing
- Modern approach to topical treatment of aging skin
Where can I get some?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Hardcore Self Help: F**k Anxiety – by Dr. Robert Duff
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’ve reviewed other anxiety books before, so what makes this one different? Mostly, it’s the style.
Aside from swearing approximately once every two lines (so you might want to skip this one if that would bother you), Dr. Duff’s writing is very down-to-earth in other ways too, making it unpretentiously comfortable and accessible without failing to draw upon the wealth of good-practice, evidence-based advice he has to offer.
To that end, he talks about what anxiety is and isn’t, and goes over various approaches, explaining them in a “about” fashion, and also a “how to” fashion, covering areas such as CBT, somatic therapies, social support, when talk therapy is most likely to help.
The book is a quick read (a modest 74 pages), and it’s refreshing that it hasn’t been padded unnecessarily, unlike a lot of books that could have been a fraction of the size without losing value.
Bottom line: if you (or perhaps someone you care about) would benefit from a straight-to-the-point, no-BS approach to dealing with anxiety (that’s actually evidence-based, not just a “get over it” dismissal), then this is the book for you.
Click here to check out Hardcore Self Help: F**k Anxiety, and indeed do just that!
Share This Post
-
Mental illness, psychiatric disorder or psychological problem. What should we call mental distress?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We talk about mental health more than ever, but the language we should use remains a vexed issue.
Should we call people who seek help patients, clients or consumers? Should we use “person-first” expressions such as person with autism or “identity-first” expressions like autistic person? Should we apply or avoid diagnostic labels?
These questions often stir up strong feelings. Some people feel that patient implies being passive and subordinate. Others think consumer is too transactional, as if seeking help is like buying a new refrigerator.
Advocates of person-first language argue people shouldn’t be defined by their conditions. Proponents of identity-first language counter that these conditions can be sources of meaning and belonging.
Avid users of diagnostic terms see them as useful descriptors. Critics worry that diagnostic labels can box people in and misrepresent their problems as pathologies.
Underlying many of these disagreements are concerns about stigma and the medicalisation of suffering. Ideally the language we use should not cast people who experience distress as defective or shameful, or frame everyday problems of living in psychiatric terms.
Our new research, published in the journal PLOS Mental Health, examines how the language of distress has evolved over nearly 80 years. Here’s what we found.
Engin Akyurt/Pexels Generic terms for the class of conditions
Generic terms – such as mental illness, psychiatric disorder or psychological problem – have largely escaped attention in debates about the language of mental ill health. These terms refer to mental health conditions as a class.
Many terms are currently in circulation, each an adjective followed by a noun. Popular adjectives include mental, mental health, psychiatric and psychological, and common nouns include condition, disease, disorder, disturbance, illness, and problem. Readers can encounter every combination.
These terms and their components differ in their connotations. Disease and illness sound the most medical, whereas condition, disturbance and problem need not relate to health. Mental implies a direct contrast with physical, whereas psychiatric implicates a medical specialty.
Mental health problem, a recently emerging term, is arguably the least pathologising. It implies that something is to be solved rather than treated, makes no direct reference to medicine, and carries the positive connotations of health rather than the negative connotation of illness or disease.
Is ‘mental health problem’ actually less pathologising? Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock Arguably, this development points to what cognitive scientist Steven Pinker calls the “euphemism treadmill”, the tendency for language to evolve new terms to escape (at least temporarily) the offensive connotations of those they replace.
English linguist Hazel Price argues that mental health has increasingly come to replace mental illness to avoid the stigma associated with that term.
How has usage changed over time?
In the PLOS Mental Health paper, we examine historical changes in the popularity of 24 generic terms: every combination of the nouns and adjectives listed above.
We explore the frequency with which each term appears from 1940 to 2019 in two massive text data sets representing books in English and diverse American English sources, respectively. The findings are very similar in both data sets.
The figure presents the relative popularity of the top ten terms in the larger data set (Google Books). The 14 least popular terms are combined into the remainder.
Relative popularity of alternative generic terms in the Google Books corpus. Haslam et al., 2024, PLOS Mental Health. Several trends appear. Mental has consistently been the most popular adjective component of the generic terms. Mental health has become more popular in recent years but is still rarely used.
Among nouns, disease has become less widely used while illness has become dominant. Although disorder is the official term in psychiatric classifications, it has not been broadly adopted in public discourse.
Since 1940, mental illness has clearly become the preferred generic term. Although an assortment of alternatives have emerged, it has steadily risen in popularity.
Does it matter?
Our study documents striking shifts in the popularity of generic terms, but do these changes matter? The answer may be: not much.
One study found people think mental disorder, mental illness and mental health problem refer to essentially identical phenomena.
Other studies indicate that labelling a person as having a mental disease, mental disorder, mental health problem, mental illness or psychological disorder makes no difference to people’s attitudes toward them.
We don’t yet know if there are other implications of using different generic terms, but the evidence to date suggests they are minimal.
The labels we use may not have a big impact on levels of stigma. Pixabay/Pexels Is ‘distress’ any better?
Recently, some writers have promoted distress as an alternative to traditional generic terms. It lacks medical connotations and emphasises the person’s subjective experience rather than whether they fit an official diagnosis.
Distress appears 65 times in the 2022 Victorian Mental Health and Wellbeing Act, usually in the expression “mental illness or psychological distress”. By implication, distress is a broad concept akin to but not synonymous with mental ill health.
But is distress destigmatising, as it was intended to be? Apparently not. According to one study, it was more stigmatising than its alternatives. The term may turn us away from other people’s suffering by amplifying it.
So what should we call it?
Mental illness is easily the most popular generic term and its popularity has been rising. Research indicates different terms have little or no effect on stigma and some terms intended to destigmatise may backfire.
We suggest that mental illness should be embraced and the proliferation of alternative terms such as mental health problem, which breed confusion, should end.
Critics might argue mental illness imposes a medical frame. Philosopher Zsuzsanna Chappell disagrees. Illness, she argues, refers to subjective first-person experience, not to an objective, third-person pathology, like disease.
Properly understood, the concept of illness centres the individual and their connections. “When I identify my suffering as illness-like,” Chappell writes, “I wish to lay claim to a caring interpersonal relationship.”
As generic terms go, mental illness is a healthy option.
Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of Melbourne and Naomi Baes, Researcher – Social Psychology/ Natural Language Processing, The University of Melbourne
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Buckwheat vs Bulgur Wheat – 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 buckwheat to bulgur, we picked the buckwheat.
Why?
First, some things to know up front:
- Bulgur wheat is a kind of cracked wheat product. As such, it contains wheat, and yes, gluten.
- Buckwheat is not a wheat, nor even a grass, but a flowering plant. Buckwheat is as related to wheat as a lionfish is to a lion. It does not contain gluten.
- Buckwheat can be purchased whole or hulled. We went with whole. If you go with hulled, the percentages of vitamins and minerals will be relatively higher, and/but this will be because you lost the fibrous husk, so they’ll be commensurately lower in fiber. If you were to go with hulled, we’d still pick it over bulgur wheat though, just for a different reason (as in that case, the vitamin and mineral contents would be more overwhelmingly in buckwheat’s favor, even though it’d have less fiber).
Ok, now that those things are covered…
Looking at the macronutrients, there’s not a lot between them, except that buckwheat has the much lower glycemic index (this is only the case if you got whole, not hulled—if you got hulled, the glycemic index would be about the same).
In terms of vitamins, buckwheat has more of vitamins B2, B5, B9, E, K, and choline, while bulgur wheat technically has more vitamin A, but the numbers are tiny; a cup of bulgur wheat will give you 0.12% of the RDA. So, an easy win (functionally: 5:0) for buckwheat.
When it comes to minerals, buckwheat has more copper, magnesium, potassium, and selenium, while bulgur wheat has more calcium and manganese. They’re equal on iron and phosphorus, making this a 4:2 win for buckwheat.
Adding up the categories makes this a clear win for buckwheat!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Fasting Without Crashing?
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.
Intermittent Fasting: What’s the truth?
Before we get to facts and fictions, let’s quickly cover:
What is Intermittent Fasting?
Intermittent Fasting (IF) is an umbrella term for various kinds of time-restricted fasting, based on a schedule. Types include:
Time-restricted IF, for example:
- 16:8—Fast for 16 hours, eat during an 8-hour window
- 18:6–Fast for 18 hours, eat during a 6-hour window
- 20:4—Fast for 20 hours, eat during a 4-hour window
24hr fasting, including:
- Eat Stop Eat—basically, take a day off from eating once a week
- Alternate Day Fasting—a more extreme version of the above; it is what it sounds like; eat one day, fast the next, repeat
Non-fast fasting, e.g:
- 5:2—Eat normally for 5 days, have a very reduced calorie intake (⅓ of normal intake) for the other 2 days
- Fruit Fasting—have a small amount of fruit on “fast” days, but no other food
- The Warrior Diet—as above, but include a small amount of non-starchy vegetables
Why IF?
While IF is perhaps most commonly undertaken as a means of fat loss or fat management (i.e., keeping fat down when it is already low), others cite different reasons, such as short term cognitive performance or long-term longevity.
But… Does it work?
Here we get into the myth-busting bit!
“IF promotes weight loss”
Mix of True and False. It can! But it also doesn’t have to. If you’re a bodybuilder who downs 4,000 calories in your 4hr eating window, you’re probably not going to lose weight! For such people, this is of course “a feature, not a bug” of IF—especially as it has been found that, in an acute study, IF did not adversely impact muscle protein synthesis.
“IF promotes fat loss, without eating less”
Broadly True. IF was found to be potentially equal to, but not necessarily better than, eating less.
“IF provides metabolic benefits for general health”
Broadly True. IF (perhaps counterintuitively) decreases the risk of insulin resistance, and also has anti-inflammatory effects, benefits a healthy gut microbiome, and promotes healthy autophagy (which as we noted in a previous edition of 10almonds, is important against both aging and cancer)
However, results vary according to which protocol you’re observing…
For what it’s worth, 16:8 is perhaps the most-studied protocol. Because such studies tend to have the eating window from midday to 8pm, this means that—going against popular wisdom—part of the advice here is basically “skip breakfast”.
“Unlike caloric restriction, IF is sustainable and healthy as a long-term protocol”
Broadly True. Of course, there’s a slight loophole here in that IF is loosely defined—technically everyone fasts while they’re sleeping, at the very least!
However, for the most commonly-studied IF method (16:8), this is generally very sustainable and healthy and for most people.
On the other hand, a more extreme method such as Alternate Day Fasting, may be trickier to sustain (even if it remains healthy to do so), because it’s been found that hunger does not decrease on fasting days—ie, the body does not “get used to it”.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition wrote:
❝Alternate-day fasting was feasible in nonobese subjects, and fat oxidation increased. However, hunger on fasting days did not decrease, perhaps indicating the unlikelihood of continuing this diet for extended periods of time. Adding one small meal on a fasting day may make this approach to dietary restriction more acceptable.❞
“IF improves mood and cognition”
Mix of True and False (plus an honest “We Don’t Know” from researchers).
Many studies have found benefits to both mood and cognition, but in the short-term, fasting can make people “hangry” (or: “experience irritability due to low blood sugar levels”, as the scientists put it), and in the long term, it can worsen symptoms of depression for those who already experience such—although some studies have found it can help alleviate depressive symptoms.
Basically this is one where researchers typically append the words “more research is needed” to their summaries.
“Anyone can do IF”
Definitely False, unless going by the absolute broadest possible interpretation of what constitutes “Intermittent Fasting” to the point of disingenuity.
For example, if you are Type 1 Diabetic, and your blood sugars are hypo, and you wait until tomorrow to correct that, you will stand a good chance of going into a coma instead. So please don’t.
(On the other hand, IF may help achieve remission of type 2 diabetes)
Lastly, IF is broadly not recommend to children and adolescents, anyone pregnant or breastfeeding, and certain underlying health conditions not mentioned above (we’re not going to try to give an exhaustive list here, but basically, if you have a chronic health condition, we recommend you check with your doctor first).
WHICH APP?
Choosing a fasting app
Thinking of giving IF a try and would like a little extra help? We’ve got you covered!
Check out: Livewire’s 7 Best Intermittent Fasting Apps of 2023
Prefer to just trust us with a recommendation?
We like BodyFast—it’s #2 on Lifewire’s list, but it has an array of pre-set plans to choose from (unlike Lifewire’s #1, Zero), and plenty of clear tracking, scheduling help, and motivational features.
Both are available on both iOS and Android:
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:
-
Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be 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.
Polyphasic Sleep… Super-Schedule Or An Idea Best Put To Rest?
What is it?
Let’s start by defining some terms:
- Monophasic sleep—sleeping in one “chunk” per day. For example, a good night’s “normal” sleep.
- Biphasic sleep—sleeping in two “chunks” per day. Typically, a shorter night’s sleep, with a nap usually around the middle of the day / early afternoon.
- Polyphasic sleep—sleeping in two or more “chunks per day”. Some people do this in order to have more hours awake per day, to do things. The idea is that sleeping this way is more efficient, and one can get enough rest in less time. The most popular schedules used are:
- The Überman schedule—six evenly-spaced 20-minute naps, one every four hours, throughout the 24-hour day. The name is a semi-anglicized version of the German word Übermensch, “Superman”.
- The Everyman schedule—a less extreme schedule, that has a three-hours “long sleep” during the night, and three evenly-spaced 20-minute naps during the day, for a total of 4 hours sleep.
There are other schedules, but we’ll focus on the most popular ones here.
Want to learn about the others? Visit: Polyphasic.Net (a website by and for polyphasic sleep enthusiasts)
Some people have pointed to evidence that suggests humans are naturally polyphasic sleepers, and that it is only modern lifestyles that have forced us to be (mostly) monophasic.
There is at least some evidence to suggest that when environmental light/dark conditions are changed (because of extreme seasonal variation at the poles, or, as in this case, because of artificial changes as part of a sleep science experiment), we adjust our sleeping patterns accordingly.
The counterpoint, of course, is that perhaps when at the mercy of long days/nights at the poles, or no air-conditioning to deal with the heat of the day in the tropics, that perhaps we were forced to be polyphasic, and now, with modern technology and greater control, we are free to be monophasic.
Either way, there are plenty of people who take up the practice of polyphasic sleep.
Ok, But… Why?
The main motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is simply to have more hours in the day! It’s exciting, the prospect of having 22 hours per day to be so productive and still have time over for leisure.
A secondary motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is that when the brain is sleep-deprived, it will prioritize REM sleep. Here’s where the Überman schedule becomes perhaps most interesting:
The six evenly-spaced naps of the Überman schedule are each 20 minutes long. This corresponds to the approximate length of a normal REM cycle.
Consequently, when your head hits the pillow, you’ll immediately begin dreaming, and at the end of your dream, the alarm will go off.
Waking up at the end of a dream, when one hasn’t yet entered a non-REM phase of sleep, will make you more likely to remember it. Similarly, going straight into REM sleep will make you more likely to be aware of it, thus, lucid dreaming.
Read: Sleep fragmentation and lucid dreaming (actually a very interesting and informative lucid dreaming study even if you don’t want to take up polyphasic sleep)
Six 20-minute lucid-dreaming sessions per day?! While awake for the other 22 hours?! That’s… 24 hours per day of wakefulness to use as you please! What sorcery is this?
Hence, it has quite an understandable appeal.
Next Question: Does it work?
Can we get by without the other (non-REM) kinds of sleep?
According to Überman cycle enthusiasts: Yes! The body and brain will adapt.
According to sleep scientists: No! The non-REM slow-wave phases of sleep are essential
Read: Adverse impact of polyphasic sleep patterns in humans—Report of the National Sleep Foundation sleep timing and variability consensus panel
(if you want to know just how bad it is… the top-listed “similar article” is entitled “Suicidal Ideation”)
But what about, for example, the Everman schedule? Three hours at night is enough for some non-REM sleep, right?
It is, and so it’s not as quickly deleterious to the health as the Überman schedule. But, unless you are blessed with rare genes that allow you to operate comfortably on 4 hours per day (you’ll know already if that describes you, without having to run any experiment), it’s still bad.
Adults typically need 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and if you don’t get it, you’ll accumulate a sleep debt. And, importantly:
When you accumulate sleep debt, you are borrowing time at a very high rate of interest!
And, at risk of laboring the metaphor, but this is important too:
Not only will you have to pay it back soon (with interest), you will be hounded by the debt collection agents—decreased cognitive ability and decreased physical ability—until you pay up.
In summary:
- Polyphasic sleep is really very tempting
- It will give you more hours per day (for a while)
- It will give the promised lucid dreaming benefits (which is great until you start micronapping between naps, this is effectively a mini psychotic break from reality lasting split seconds each—can be deadly if behind the wheel of a car, for instance!)
- It is unequivocally bad for the health and we do not recommend it
Bottom line:
Some of the claimed benefits are real, but are incredibly short-term, unsustainable, and come at a cost that’s far too high. We get why it’s tempting, but ultimately, it’s self-sabotage.
(Sadly! We really wanted it to work, too…)
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:
