Reading As A Cognitive Exercise
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.
Reading, Better
It is relatively uncontroversial to say that reading is good for cognitive health, but we don’t like to make claims without science if we can help it, so let’s get started:
There was a 2021 study, which found that even when controlling for many other factors, including highest level of education, socioeconomic status, and generalized pre-morbid intelligence:
❝high reading activity, as defined by almost daily reading, was associated with lower odds of cognitive decline, compared to low reading activity❞
Source: Can reading increase cognitive reserve?
However, not all reading is the same. And this isn’t just about complexity or size of vocabulary, either. It’s about engagement.
And that level of engagement remains the key factor, no matter how quickly or slowly someone reads, as the brain tends to automatically adjust reading speed per complexity, because the brain’s “processing speed” remains the same:
Read more: Cognitive coupling during reading
Everyone’s “processing speed” is different (and is associated with generalized intelligence and executive functions), though as a general rule of thumb, the more we practice it, the faster our processing speed gets. So if you balked at the notion of “generalized intelligence” being a factor, be reassured that this association goes both ways.
So is the key to just read more?
That’s a great first step! But…
The key factor still remains: engagement.
So what does that mean?
It is not just the text that engages you. You must also engage the text!
This is akin to the difference between learning to drive by watching someone else do it, and learning by getting behind the wheel and having a go.
When it comes to reading, it should not be a purely passive thing. Sure, if you are reading a fiction book at bedtime, get lost in it, by all means. But when it comes to non-fiction reading, engage with it actively!
For example, I (your writer here, hi), when reading non-fiction:
- Read at what is generally considered an unusually fast pace, but
- Write so many notes in the margins of physical books, and
- Write so many notes using the “Notes” function on my Kindle
And this isn’t just like a studious student taking notes. Half the time I am…
- objecting to content (disagreeing with the author), or
- at least questioning it, or which is especially important, or
- noting down questions that came to my mind as a result of what I am reading.
This latter is a bit like:
- when you are reading 10almonds, sometimes you will follow our links and go off down a research rabbit-hole of your own, and that’s great!
- sometimes you will disagree with something and write to tell us, and that’s great too (when this happens, one or the other or all of us will learn something, and yes, we have published corrections before now)!
- sometimes what you read here will prompt a further question, and you’ll send that to us, and guess what, also great! We love questions.
Now, if your enjoyment of 10almonds is entirely passive, don’t let us stop you (we know our readers like quick-and-easy knowledge, and that’s good too), it’s just, the more you actively engage with it, the more you’ll get out of it.
This, by the way, was also a lifelong habit of Leonardo da Vinci, which you can read about here:
How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day – by Michael J. Gelb
a very good book that we reviewed last year
How you read (i.e. what medium) matters too!
Are you reading this on a desktop/laptop, or a mobile device? That difference could matter more than the difference between paper and digital, according to this study from 2020 that found…
❝The cumulation of evidence from this and previous studies suggests that reading on a tablet affords different interactions between the reader and the text than reading on a computer screen.
Reading on a tablet might be more similar to reading on paper, and this may impact the attentional processes during reading❞
What if my mind wanders easily?
You can either go with it, or train to improve focus.
Going with it: just make sure you have more engaging reading to get distracted by. It’s all good.
Training focus: this is trickier, but worthwhile, as executive function (you will remember from earlier) was an important factor too, and training focus is training executive function.
As for one way to do that…
If you’d like a primer for getting going with that, then you may enjoy our previous main feature:
No-Frills, Evidence-Based Mindfulness
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:
-
Eye Drops: Safety & Alternatives
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? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
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
❝Before important business meetings my father used to use eye drops to add a “sparkle” to his eyes. I think that is a step too far, but what, short of eye drops, can we do to keep our eyes bright throughout the day?❞
Firstly, we’d indeed not recommend eye drops unless advised to do so by your doctor to treat a specific health condition:
- Infections from over-the-counter artificial tears
- Are my eye drops safe to use?
- More eye drops recalled due to infection danger
Those eye drops that “add sparkle” are often based on astringents such as witch hazel. This means that the capillaries in the eye undergo vasoconstriction, becoming much less visible and the eye thus appears much whiter and thus brighter.
There isn’t a way to do the same thing from the inside, as taking a vasoconstrictor will simply increase your general blood pressure, making the capillaries of your eyes more, rather than less, visible.
However, what you can do is…
- look after your general vasculature (cardiovascular health)
- in particular, reduce hypertension
- that includes limiting salt
- stay away from vasoconstrictors (including caffeine)
- reduce your resting cortisol levels
- that certainly also means reducing alcohol consumption
- maintain good hydration
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Better Than BMI
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.
BMI is a very flawed system, and there are several more useful ways of measuring our bodies. Let’s take a look at them!
What’s wrong with BMI?
Oof, what isn’t wrong with BMI?
In short, it was developed as a demographic-based tool to specifically chart the weight-related health of working-age European white men a little under 200 years ago.
This means that if you are, perchance, not a working-age European white man in 1830 or so, then it’s not so useful. It’d be like first establishing height norms based on NBA basketball players, and then applying it to the general population, and thus coming to the conclusion that someone who is 6’2″ is very short.
In long, we did a deep-dive into it here, and in particular what things go dangerously wrong when it’s applied to women, non-white people, athletic people, pregnant people, people under 16 or over 65 and more:
When BMI Doesn’t Quite Measure Up
What we usually recommend instead
For heart disease risk and diabetes risk both, waist circumference is a much more universally reliable indicator. And since those two things tend to affect a lot of other health risks, it becomes an excellent starting point for being aware of many aspects of health.
Pregnancy will still throw off waist circumference a little (measure below the bump, not around it!), but it will nevertheless be more helpful than BMI even then, as it becomes necessary to just increase the numbers a little, according to gestational month and any confounding factors e.g. twins, triplets, etc. Ask your obstetrician about this, as it’s beyond the scope of our article today!
As to what’s considered a risk:
- Waist circumference of more than 35 inches for women
- Waist circumference of more than 40 inches for men
These numbers are considered applicable across demographics of age, ethnicity, and lifestyle.
Bonus extra measurement based on the above
Important also is waist to hip ratio.
How to calculate it:
- measure your waist circumference
- measure your hip circumference
- divide the first measurement by the second one
Because it’s a ratio, it doesn’t matter what units you use (e.g. inches, cm, etc) so long as you use the same units for both measurements.
The World Health Organization offers the following chart:
Health risk Women Men Low 0.80 or lower 0.95 or lower Moderate 0.81–0.85 0.96–1.0 High 0.86 or higher 1.1 or higher Source: Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio: Report of a WHO Expert Consultation
This is especially relevant for cardiovascular disease risk:
…and also holds true for all-cause mortality:
Waist-Hip-Ratio as a Predictor of All-Cause Mortality in High-Functioning Older Adults
An ancient contender that’s still more useful than BMI
Remember Archimedes? The (perhaps apocryphal) story of his “Eureka” moment in the bathtub when he realized that water displacement could be used to measure the volume of an irregular shape?
Just like Archimedes (who, the story goes, had been hired to determine the composition of a crown that might or might not have been pure gold), we can use this method to determine body composition, because we have references for how much a given volume of a given substance will weigh, so combing what we know about a body’s weight and volume will tell us about its composition in ways that neither metric could give us alone.
Indeed, it’s one of the commonly-mentioned flaws of BMI that muscle weighs more than fat, and Archimedes’ method not only avoids that problem, but also, actually turns that knowledge (muscle weighs more than fat) to our advantage.
It’s called “hydrostatic weighing” now:
You may be wondering: what about bones? Or internal organs?
The fact is that those are slightly confounding factors that do get in the way of a truly accurate analysis, but the variation in how much one person’s skeleton weighs vs another’s, or one person’s set of organs weigh than another’s, is too small to make an important difference to the health implications.
Lastly…
Hydrostatic weighing isn’t the only way to work out how much of our body is made of fat; if you have for example a smart scale at home (like this one) that tells you your body fat percentage, that is an estimate based on bioelectrical impedance analysis.
It’s less accurate than the hydrostatic method, but easier to do at home!
As to what percentages are “best”, healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) generally considered to be in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.
You can read more about this here:
Is A Visible Six-Pack Obtainable Regardless Of Genetic Predisposition?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Do Essential Oils Really Have Medicinal Properties?
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 😎
❝Do essential oils really have scientific merit?❞
Great question! Assuming you mean “…for medicinal purposes” then it really depends on the oil in question.
For example, one can probably buy a big book of essential oils from a New Age store, and a lot of claims for different oils will not have any scientific backing whatsoever.
However! Some definitely do. For example, we wrote a little while back about ginger:
Ginger Does A Lot More Than You Think
Now, the active compound that gives ginger those properties and more is gingerol. Which is usually found as pure ginger oil, in other words, ginger essential oil.
Another essential oil that definitely does have benefits is that of Boswellia serrata, commonly known as frankincense. It can be used in various forms, and the essential oil is one of them; see:
- Five Supplements That Actually Work Vs Arthritis
- When Painkillers Aren’t Helping, These Things Might: Science-Based Alternative Pain Relief
Meanwhile, menthol, the essential oil of peppermint, has its pros and cons:
Peppermint For Digestion & Against Nausea: How Useful Is Peppermint, Really?
And lavender essential oil does really have a sedative effect:
Herbs for Evidence-Based Health & Healing
If you have a different, particular essential oil in mind, let us know, and we can do a deep-dive on it for one of our “Research Review” editions!
A note on safety
Essential oils are pure and undiluted extracts of what’s usually a particularly potent chemical from a plant. Two things to bear in mind about this:
- Just because a chemical is potent, does not mean it will necessarily help you in a specific way, or indeed at all. On the contrary, many potent chemicals are simply harmful. So, be careful.
- Essential oils being so strong means that usually only a drop or two is required for effects; consult available literature (or ask us to do that for you!), and employ good safety practices such as:
- Do not use undiluted essential oils on your skin or internally
- If you are going to use it internally (diluted, following instructions from a reputable source, and with your doctor’s blessing, please) then test it on your skin first at the same dilution, in case of any adverse reaction.
- However you are using it, if you have any kind of adverse reaction, stop, and seek medical attention if it’s severe and/or it persists.
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
When You “Can’t Complain”
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.
A Bone To Pick… Up And Then Put Back Where We Found It
In today’s Psychology Sunday feature, we’re going to be flipping the narrative on gratitude, by tackling it from the other end.
We have, by the way, written previously about gratitude, and what mistakes to avoid, in one of our pieces on positive psychology:
How To Get Your Brain On A More Positive Track (Without Toxic Positivity)
“Can’t complain”
Your mission, should you choose to accept it (and come on, who doesn’t like a challenge?) is to go 21 days without complaining (to anyone, including yourself, about anything). If you break your streak, that’s ok, just start again!
Why?
Complaining is (unsurprisingly) inversely correlated with happiness, in a self-perpetuating cycle:
Pet Peeves and Happiness: How Do Happy People Complain?
And if a stronger motivation is required, there’s a considerable inverse correlation between all-cause happiness and all-cause mortality, even when potential confounding factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, socioeconomic status, etc) are controlled for, and especially as we get older:
Investing in Happiness: The Gerontological Perspective
How?
You may have already formulated some objections by this point, for example:
- Am I supposed to tell my doctor/therapist “I’m fine thanks; how are you?”
- Some things are worthy of complaint; should I be silent?
But both of these issues (communication, and righteousness) have answers:
On communication:
There is a difference between complaining, and giving the necessary information in answer to a question—or even volunteering such information.
For example, when our site went down yesterday, some of you wrote to us to let us know the links weren’t working. There is a substantive difference (semantic, ontological, and teleological) between:
- ❝The content was great but the links in “you may have missed” did not work.❞ ← a genuine piece of feedback we received (thank you!)
- ❝Wasted my time, couldn’t read your articles! Unsubscribing, and I hope your socks get wet tomorrow!❞ ← nobody said this; our subscribers are lovely (thank you)
- Note that the former wasn’t a complaint, it was genuinely helpful feedback, without which we might not have noticed the problem and fixed it.
- The latter was a complaint, and also (like many complaints) didn’t even address the actual problem usefully.
What makes it a complaint or not is not the information conveyed, but the tone and intention. So for example:
“You’ve only done half the job I asked you to!” → “Thank you for doing the first half of this job, could you please do the other half now?”
Writer’s anecdote: my washing machine needs a part replaced; the part was ordered two weeks ago and I was told it would take a week to arrive. It’s been two weeks, so tomorrow I will not complain, but I will politely ask whether they have any information about the delay, and a new estimated time of arrival. Because you know what? Whatever the delay is, complaining won’t make it arrive last week!
On righteousness:
Indeed, some things are very worthy of complaint. But are you able to effect a solution by complaining? If not, then it’s just hot air. And venting isn’t without its own merits (we touched on the benefits of emotional catharsis recently), but that should be a mindful choice when you choose to do that, not a matter of reactivity.
Complaining is a subset of criticizing, and criticizing can be done without the feeling and intent of complaining. However, it too should definitely be measured and considered, responsive, not reactive. This itself could be the topic for another main feature, but for now, here’s a Psychology Today article that at least explains the distinction in more words than we have room for here:
React vs Respond: What’s the difference?
This, by the way, also goes the same for engaging in social and political discourse. It’s easy to get angry and reactive, but it’s good to take a moment to pick your battles, and by all means fight for what you believe in, and/but also do so responsively rather than reactively.
Not only will your health thank you, but you’re also more likely to “win friends and influence people” and all that!
What gets measured, gets done
Find a way of tracking your streak. There are apps for that, like this one, or you could find a low-tech method you prefer.
Bonus tip: if you do mess up and complain, and you realize as you’re doing it, take a moment to take a breath and correct yourself in the moment.
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:
-
Brain Maker – by Dr. David Perlmutter
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.
Regular 10almonds readers probably know about the gut-brain connection already, so what’s new here?
Dr. David Perlmutter takes us on a tour of gut and brain health, specifically, the neuroprotective effect of healthy gut microbiota.
This seems unlikely! After all, vagus nerve or no, the gut microbiota are confined to the gut, and the brain is kept behind the blood-brain barrier. So how does one thing protect the other?
Dr. Perlmutter presents the relevant science, and the honest answer is, we’re not 100% sure how this happens! We do know part of it: that bad gut microbiota can result in a “leaky gut”, and that may in turn lead to such a thing as a “leaky brain”, where the blood-brain barrier has been compromised and some bad things can get in with the blood.
When it comes to gut-brain health…
Not only is the correlation very strong, but also, in tests where someone’s gut microbiota underwent a radical change, e.g. due to…
- antibiotics (bad)
- fasting (good)
- or a change in diet (either way)
…their brain health changed accordingly—something we can’t easily check outside of a lab, but was pretty clear in those tests.
We’re also treated to an exposé on the links between gut health, brain health, inflammation, and dementia… Which links are extensive.
In closing, we’ll mention that throughout this book we’re also given many tips and advices to improve our gut/brain health, reverse damage done already, and set ourselves up well for the future.
Click here to check out “Brain Maker” on Amazon and take care of this important part of your health!
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:
-
What Flexible Dieting Really Means
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 Flexibility Is The Dish Of The Day
This is Alan Aragon. Notwithstanding not being a “Dr. Alan Aragon”, he’s a research scientist with dozens of peer-reviewed nutrition science papers to his name, as well as being a personal trainer and fitness educator. Most importantly, he’s an ardent champion of making people’s pursuit of health and fitness more evidence-based.
We’ll be sharing some insights from a book of his that we haven’t reviewed yet, but we will link it at the bottom of today’s article in any case.
What does he want us to know?
First, get out of the 80s and into the 90s
In the world of popular dieting, the 80s were all about calorie-counting and low-fat diets. They did not particularly help.
In the 90s, it was discovered that not only was low-fat not the way to go, but also, regardless of the diet in question, rigid dieting leads to “disinhibition”, that is to say, there comes a point (usually not far into a diet) whereby one breaks the diet, at which point, the floodgates open and the dieter binges unhealthily.
Aragon would like to bring our attention to a number of studies that found this in various ways over the course of the 90s measuring various different metrics including rigid vs flexible dieting’s impacts on BMI, weight gain, weight loss, lean muscle mass changes, binge-eating, anxiety, depression, and so forth), but we only have so much room here, so here’s a 1999 study that’s pretty much the culmination of those:
Flexible vs. Rigid Dieting Strategies: Relationship with Adverse Behavioral Outcomes
So in short: trying to be very puritan about any aspect of dieting will not only not work, it will backfire.
Next, get out of the 90s into the 00s
…which is not only fun if you read “00s” out loud as “naughties”, but also actually appropriate in this case, because it is indeed important to be comfortable being a little bit naughty:
In 2000, Dr. Marika Tiggemann found that dichotomous perceptions of food (e.g. good/bad, clean/dirty, etc) were implicated as a dysfunctional cognitive style, and predicted not only eating disorders and mood disorders, but also adverse physical health outcomes:
Dieting and Cognitive Style: The Role of Current and Past Dieting Behaviour and Cognitions
This was rendered clearer, in terms of physical health outcomes, by Dr. Susan Byrne & Dr. Emma Dove, in 2009:
❝Weight loss was negatively associated with pre-treatment depression and frequency of treatment attendance, but not with dichotomous thinking. Females who regard their weight as unacceptably high and who think dichotomously may experience high levels of depression irrespective of their actual weight, while depression may be proportionate to the degree of obesity among those who do not think dichotomously❞
Aragon’s advice based on all this: while yes, some foods are better than others, it’s more useful to see foods as being part of a spectrum, rather than being absolutist or “black and white” about it.
Next: hit those perfect 10s… Imperfectly
The next decade expanded on this research, as science is wont to do, and for this one, Aragon shines a spotlight on Dr. Alice Berg’s 2018 study with obese women averaging 69 years of age, in which…
In other words (and in fact, to borrow Dr. Berg’s words from that paper),
❝encouraging a flexible approach to eating behavior and discouraging rigid adherence to a diet may lead to better intentional weight loss for overweight and obese older women❞
You may be wondering: what did this add to the studies from the 90s?
And the key here is: rather than being observational, this was interventional. In other words, rather than simply observing what happened to people who thought one way or another, this study took people who had a rigid, dichotomous approach to food, and gave them a 6-month behavioral intervention (in other words, support encouraging them to be more flexible and open in their approach to food), and found that this indeed improved matters for them.
Which means, it’s not a matter of fate or predisposition, as it could have been back in the 90s, per “some people are just like that; who’s to say which factor causes which”. Instead, now we know that this is an approach that can be adopted, and it can be expected to work.
Beyond weight loss
Now, so far we’ve talked mostly about weight loss, and only touched on other health outcomes. This is because:
- weight loss a very common goal for many
- it’s easy to measure so there’s a lot of science for it
Incidentally, if it’s a goal of yours, here’s what 10almonds had to say about that, along with two follow-up articles for other related goals:
Spoiler: we agree with Aragon, and recommend a relaxed and flexible approach to all three of these things
Aragon’s evidence-based approach to nutrition has found that this holds true for other aspects of healthy eating, too. For example…
To count or not to count?
It’s hard to do evidence-based anything without counting, and so Aragon talks a lot about this. Indeed, he does a lot of counting in scientific papers of his own, such as:
and
The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis
…as well as non-protein-related but diet-related topics such as:
But! For the at-home health enthusiast, Aragon recommends that the answer to the question “to count or not to count?” is “both”:
- Start off by indeed counting and tracking everything that is important to you (per whatever your current personal health intervention is, so it might be about calories, or grams of protein, or grams of carbs, or a certain fat balance, or something else entirely)
- Switch to a more relaxed counting approach once you get used to the above. By now you probably know the macros for a lot of your common meals, snacks, etc, and can tally them in your head without worrying about weighing portions and knowing the exact figures.
- Alternatively, count moderately standardized portions of relevant foods, such as “three servings of beans or legumes per day” or “no more than one portion of refined carbohydrates per day”
- Eventually, let habit take the wheel. Assuming you have established good dietary habits, this will now do you just fine.
This latter is the point whereby the advice (that Aragon also champions) of “allow yourself an unhealthy indulgence of 10–20% of your daily food”, as a budget of “discretionary calories”, eventually becomes redundant—because chances are, you’re no longer craving that donut, and at a certain point, eating foods far outside the range of healthiness you usually eat is not even something that you would feel inclined to do if offered.
But until that kicks in, allow yourself that budget of whatever unhealthy thing you enjoy, and (this next part is important…) do enjoy it.
Because it is no good whatsoever eating that cream-filled chocolate croissant and then feeling guilty about it; that’s the dichotomous thinking we had back in the 80s. Decide in advance you’re going to eat and enjoy it, then eat and enjoy it, then look back on it with a sense of “that was enjoyable” and move on.
The flipside of this is that the importance of allowing oneself a “little treat” is that doing so actively helps ensure that the “little treat” remains “little”. Without giving oneself permission, then suddenly, “well, since I broke my diet, I might as well throw the whole thing out the window and try again on Monday”.
On enjoying food fully, by the way:
Mindful Eating: How To Get More Nutrition Out Of The Same Food
Want to know more from Alan Aragon?
Today we’ve been working heavily from this book of his; we haven’t reviewed it yet, but we do recommend checking it out:
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: