Relieve GERD and Acid Reflux with Stretches and Exercises
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.
Looking for relief from GERD or acid reflux? Today we’re featuring an amazing video by Dr. Jo, packed with stretches and exercises designed to ease those symptoms.
Here’s a quick rundown, in case you don’t have time to watch the whole video.
If you’re not familiar with GERD, you can find our simple explanation of GERD here. Or, if you’re on the other end of the spectrum and want to do a deeper dive on the topic, we reviewed a great book on the topic).
1. Mobilize Your SEM Muscle
The sternocleidomastoid (SEM) muscle, if tight, can aggravate acid reflux. Dr. Jo shows how to gently mobilize this muscle by turning your head while holding the SEM in place. It’s simple but effective.
2. Portrait Pose Stretch
Stretch out that SEM with the Portrait Pose. Place your hand on your collarbone, turn your head away, side bend, and look up. Hold for 30 seconds. You’ll feel the tension melting away.
3. Seated Cat-Cow Motion
Open up your stomach area with this easy exercise. Sit down, roll your body forward, arch your back (Cow), then curl your spine and tuck your chin (Cat). Alternate for 30 seconds and feel the difference.
4. Quadruped Cat-Cow with Breathing
Similar to the seated cat-cow, the quadruped cat-cow focuses on flexing the lower spine whilst on all fours. Bonus tip: focus on deep belly breathing during the exercise. This helps improve digestion and ease reflux symptoms.
5. Exaggerated Pelvic Tilt
Lie on your back and tilt your pelvis back and forth. This loosens up the abdominal area and helps everything flow better.
6. Trunk Rotation
Lie down, bend your knees, and rotate them to one side. Hold for 30 seconds, then switch sides. It’s a great way to relax and stretch your abdominal muscles.
We know this is a quick overview (sorry if it seems rushed!), but if you have a few more minutes on your hand you can watch the whole video below.
Feel better soon! And if you have any favorite tips or videos to share, email us at 10almonds.
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:
-
Reflexology: What The Science Says
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 Does Reflexology Work, Really?
In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinion of reflexology, and got the above-depicted, below-described set of responses:
- About 63% said “It works by specific nerves connecting the feet and hands to various specific organs, triggering healing remotely”
- About 26% said “It works by realigning the body’s energies (e.g. qi, ki, prana, etc), removing blockages and improving health“
- About 11% said “It works by placebo, at best, and has no evidence for any efficacy beyond that”
So, what does the science say?
It works by realigning the body’s energies (e.g. qi, ki, prana, etc), removing blockages and improving health: True or False?
False, or since we can’t prove a negative: there is no reliable scientific evidence for this.
Further, there is no reliable scientific evidence for the existence of qi, ki, prana, soma, mana, or whatever we want to call it.
To save doubling up, we did discuss this in some more detail, exploring the notion of qi as bioelectrical energy, including a look at some unreliable clinical evidence for it (a study that used shoddy methodology, but it’s important to understand what they did wrong, to watch out for such), when we looked at [the legitimately very healthful practice of] qigong, a couple of weeks ago:
Qigong: A Breath Of Fresh Air?
As for reflexology specifically: in terms of blockages of qi causing disease (and thus being a putative therapeutic mechanism of action for attenuating disease), it’s an interesting hypothesis but in terms of scientific merit, it was pre-emptively supplanted by germ theory and other similarly observable-and-measurable phenomena.
We say “pre-emptively”, because despite orientalist marketing, unless we want to count some ancient pictures of people getting a foot massage and say it is reflexology, there is no record of reflexology being a thing before 1913 (and that was in the US, by a laryngologist working with a spiritualist to produce a book that they published in 1917).
It works by specific nerves connecting the feet and hands to various specific organs, triggering healing remotely: True or False?
False, or since we can’t prove a negative: there is no reliable scientific evidence for this.
A very large independent review of available scientific literature found the current medical consensus on reflexology is that:
- Reflexology is effective for: anxiety (but short lasting), edema, mild insomnia, quality of sleep, and relieving pain (short term: 2–3 hours)
- Reflexology is not effective for: inflammatory bowel disease, fertility treatment, neuropathy and polyneuropathy, acute low back pain, sub acute low back pain, chronic low back pain, radicular pain syndromes (including sciatica), post-operative low back pain, spinal stenosis, spinal fractures, sacroiliitis, spondylolisthesis, complex regional pain syndrome, trigger points / myofascial pain, chronic persistent pain, chronic low back pain, depression, work related injuries of the hip and pelvis
Source: Reflexology – a scientific literary review compilation
(the above is a fascinating read, by the way, and its 50 pages go into a lot more detail than we have room to here)
Now, those items that they found it effective for, looks suspiciously like a short list of things that placebo is often good for, and/or any relaxing activity.
Another review was not so generous:
❝The best evidence available to date does not demonstrate convincingly that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition❞
~ Dr. Edzard Ernst (MD, PhD, FMedSci)
Source: Is reflexology an effective intervention? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials
In short, from the available scientific literature, we can surmise:
- Some researchers have found it to have some usefulness against chiefly psychosomatic conditions
- Other researchers have found the evidence for even that much to be uncompelling
It works by placebo, at best, and has no evidence for any efficacy beyond that: True or False?
Mostly True; of course reflexology runs into similar problems as acupuncture when it comes to testing against placebo:
How Does One Test Acupuncture Against Placebo Anyway?
…but not quite as bad, since it is easier to give a random foot massage while pretending it is a clinical treatment, than to fake putting needles into key locations.
However, as the paper we cited just above (in answer to the previous True/False question) shows, reflexology does not appear to meaningfully outperform placebo—which points to the possibility that it does work by placebo, and is just a placebo treatment on the high end of placebo (because the placebo effect is real, does work, isn’t “nothing”, and some placebos work better than others).
For more on the fascinating science and useful (applicable in daily life!) practicalities of how placebo does work, check out:
How To Leverage Placebo Effect For Yourself
Take care!
Share This Post
-
The Cancer Code − by Dr. William Fung
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 have previously reviewed, by the same author, “The Obesity Code” and “The Diabetes Code”, so, what does this one offer that’s new?
Mostly, it’s just a new focus, because the dietary approach is basically the same (because all three are fundamentally metabolism-related), with some small tweaks for cancer-specificity. If you’ve read one or more of the other books, you can probably comfortably get away with skipping this one, unless you or a loved one presently has cancer and you’re doing your best to squeeze out any extra 1% of anticancer potential.
Indeed, the former two books assumed that you are affected by obesity or diabetes, respectively, and this one assumes you are at least particularly concerned by cancer—he doesn’t assume you have it (although he does cover that too); he assumes however that you perhaps have a known risk factor or some other similar reason to be focusing on this.
To oversimplify a lot, the dietary approach recommended involves practising intermittent fasting, and also adjusting one’s diet to reduce fasting blood sugar levels and postprandial (after eating) blood sugar and insulin levels. Shocking nobody, he advocates for a lot of plants; he does however recommend a moderately low-carb diet (e.g. legumes are fine but maybe skip the fries).
The style is on the hard end of pop-science, while still quite readable provided one takes one’s time, and there are more than 30 pages of scientific references.
Bottom line: if you’d like to make your diet as anticancer as possible, this book will show you how.
Click there to check out The Cancer Code, and eat to beat cancer!
Share This Post
-
What is ‘double pneumonia’, the condition that’s put Pope Francis in hospital?
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.
Pope Francis has been in hospital for more than a week with what some media reports are now calling “double pneumonia”.
The Vatican released a statement on Tuesday evening saying
laboratory tests, chest X-rays, and the clinical condition of the Holy Father continue to present a complex picture.
The 88-year-old Catholic leader has a long history of respiratory illness.
So, what makes this bout of pneumonia – a severe lung infection – so “complex”? And how will it be treated?
Marco Iaccobucci Epp/Shutterstock What is double pneumonia?
Pneumonia is a serious infection that fills the lungs with liquid or pus and can make it difficult to breathe. People may also have chest pain, cough up green mucus and have a fever.
“Double pneumonia” is not an official medical term. It may be being used to describe two different aspects of Pope Francis’s condition.
1. A bilateral infection
Pope Francis has pneumonia in both lungs. This is known as “bilateral pneumonia”.
An infection in both lungs doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more severe, but location is important. It can make a difference which parts of the lung are affected.
When just one part of the lung or one lung is affected, the person can continue to breathe using the other lung while their body fights the infection.
However when both lungs are compromised, the person will be receiving very little oxygen.
2. A polymicrobial infection
The Vatican has also said the infection affecting Pope Francis’s lungs is “polymicrobial”.
This means the infection is being caused by more than one kind of microorganism (or “pathogen”).
So, the cause could be two (or more) different kinds of bacteria, or any combination of bacteria, virus and fungus. It’s vital to know what’s causing the infection to effectively treat it.
How is it diagnosed?
Usually, when someone presents with suspected pneumonia the hospital will sample their lungs with a sputum test or swab.
They will often also undergo an X-ray, usually to confirm which parts of the lung are involved.
Healthy lungs look “empty” on an X-ray, because they are filled with air. But pneumonia fills the lungs with fluid.
This means it’s usually very easy to see where pneumonia is affecting them, because the infection shows up as solid white mass on the scan.
Lungs infected with pneumonia will have solid white areas on an X-ray. Komsan Loonprom/Shutterstock How is it treated?
The sputum or swab helps detect what is causing the infection and determine treatment. For example, a specific antibiotic will be used to target a certain bacterium.
Usually this works well. But if the infection is polymicrobial, the normal treatment might not be effective.
For example, the antibiotics may work on the bacteria. But if there’s also a virus – which can’t be treated with antibiotics – it may become the dominant pathogen driving the infection.
As a result, the patient may initially respond well to medication and then begin deteriorating again.
If the infection is caused by multiple bacteria, the patient might be given a broad-spectrum antibiotic rather than a single targeted drug.
A viral infection is harder to treat, as the anti-viral drugs that are available aren’t very effective or targeted.
In severe cases, a patient will also need to be in intensive care on a breathing machine because they can’t breathe alone. This helps make sure they receive enough oxygen while their body fights the infection.
Who is most susceptible?
It’s possible to recover, even from severe infections. However having pneumonia can damage the lungs, and this can make a repeat infection more likely.
Most people will never have a severe infection from these same pathogens. They may only experience a minor cold or flu, because their immune system can adequately fight the infection.
However, certain groups are much more vulnerable to developing a serious case of pneumonia.
Risk factors include:
- age: babies under two, whose immune systems are still developing, and adults over 65, who tend to have weakened immune systems
- lung damage: previous infections can cause scarring
- lung disease: for example, if you have emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- being a smoker
- immunosuppression: if your immune system is weakened, for example by medication you take after a transplant or during cancer treatment.
Pope Francis has a number of these risk factors. The pontiff is 88 years old and has a history of respiratory illness.
He also had pleurisy (a condition that inflames the lungs) as a young adult. As a result, he had part of one lung removed, making him susceptible to lung infections.
On Tuesday, the Vatican said Pope Francis remains “in good spirits” while he receives medical care and is grateful for the support he has received.
Brian Oliver, Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney and Min Feng, PhD Candidate in Respiratory Disease, University of Technology Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Book of Lymph – by Lisa Levitt Gainsely
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 book starts with an overview of what lymph is and why it matters, before getting into the main meat of the book, which is lymphatic massage techniques to improve lymphatic flow/drainage throughout different parts of the body, and in the context of an assortment of common maladies that may merit particular attention.
There’s an element of aesthetic medicine here, and improving beauty, but there’s also a whole section devoted to such things as breast care and the like (bearing in mind, the lymphatic system is one of our main defenses against cancer). There’s also a lot about managing lymph in the context of chronic health conditions.
The style is light pop-science; the science is explained clearly throughout, but without academic citations every few lines as some books might have. The author is, after all, a practitioner (CLT) and/but not an academic.
Bottom line: if you’d like to improve your lymphatic health, whether for beauty or health maintenance or recovery, this book will walk you through it.
Click here to check out The Book of Lymph, and give yours some love!
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:
-
We don’t all need regular skin cancer screening – but you can know your risk and check yourself
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.
Australia has one of the highest skin cancer rates globally, with nearly 19,000 Australians diagnosed with invasive melanoma – the most lethal type of skin cancer – each year.
While advanced melanoma can be fatal, it is highly treatable when detected early.
But Australian clinical practice guidelines and health authorities do not recommend screening for melanoma in the general population.
Given our reputation as the skin cancer capital of the world, why isn’t there a national screening program? Australia currently screens for breast, cervical and bowel cancer and will begin lung cancer screening in 2025.
It turns out the question of whether to screen everyone for melanoma and other skin cancers is complex. Here’s why.
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock The current approach
On top of the 19,000 invasive melanoma diagnoses each year, around 28,000 people are diagnosed with in-situ melanoma.
In-situ melanoma refers to a very early stage melanoma where the cancerous cells are confined to the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis).
Instead of a blanket screening program, Australia promotes skin protection, skin awareness and regular skin checks (at least annually) for those at high risk.
About one in three Australian adults have had a clinical skin check within the past year.
Those with fairer skin or a family history may be at greater risk of skin cancer. Halfpoint/Shutterstock Why not just do skin checks for everyone?
The goal of screening is to find disease early, before symptoms appear, which helps save lives and reduce morbidity.
But there are a couple of reasons a national screening program is not yet in place.
We need to ask:
1. Does it save lives?
Many researchers would argue this is the goal of universal screening. But while universal skin cancer screening would likely lead to more melanoma diagnoses, this might not necessarily save lives. It could result in indolent (slow-growing) cancers being diagnosed that might have never caused harm. This is known as “overdiagnosis”.
Screening will pick up some cancers people could have safely lived with, if they didn’t know about them. The difficulty is in recognising which cancers are slow-growing and can be safely left alone.
Receiving a diagnosis causes stress and is more likely to lead to additional medical procedures (such as surgeries), which carry their own risks.
2. Is it value for money?
Implementing a nationwide screening program involves significant investment and resources. Its value to the health system would need to be calculated, to ensure this is the best use of resources.
Narrower targets for better results
Instead of screening everyone, targeting high-risk groups has shown better results. This focuses efforts where they’re needed most. Risk factors for skin cancer include fair skin, red hair, a history of sunburns, many moles and/or a family history.
Research has shown the public would be mostly accepting of a risk-tailored approach to screening for melanoma.
There are moves underway to establish a national targeted skin cancer screening program in Australia, with the government recently pledging $10.3 million to help tackle “the most common cancer in our sunburnt country, skin cancer” by focusing on those at greater risk.
Currently, Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend doctors properly evaluate all patients for their future risk of melanoma.
Looking with new technological eyes
Technological advances are improving the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis and risk assessment.
For example, researchers are investigating 3D total body skin imaging to monitor changes to spots and moles over time.
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can analyse images of skin lesions, and support doctors’ decision making.
Genetic testing can now identify risk markers for more personalised screening.
And telehealth has made remote consultations possible, increasing access to specialists, particularly in rural areas.
Check yourself – 4 things to look for
Skin cancer can affect all skin types, so it’s a good idea to become familiar with your own skin. The Skin Cancer College Australasia has introduced a guide called SCAN your skin, which tells people to look for skin spots or areas that are:
1. sore (scaly, itchy, bleeding, tender) and don’t heal within six weeks
2. changing in size, shape, colour or texture
3. abnormal for you and look different or feel different, or stand out when compared to your other spots and moles
4. new and have appeared on your skin recently. Any new moles or spots should be checked, especially if you are over 40.
If something seems different, make an appointment with your doctor.
You can self-assess your melanoma risk online via the Melanoma Institute Australia or QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.
H. Peter Soyer, Professor of Dermatology, The University of Queensland; Anne Cust, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, The Daffodil Centre and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney; Caitlin Horsham, Research Manager, The University of Queensland, and Monika Janda, Professor in Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland
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:
-
Egg Noodles vs Soba Noodles – 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 egg noodles to soba noodles, we picked the soba.
Why?
First of all, for any unfamiliar, soba noodles are made with buckwheat. Buckwheat, for any unfamiliar, is not wheat and does not contain gluten; it’s just the name of a flowering plant that gets used as though a grain, even though it’s technically not.
In terms of macros, egg noodles have slightly more protein 2x the fat (of which, some cholesterol) while soba noodles have very slightly more carbs and 3x the fiber (and, being plant-based, no cholesterol). Given that the carbs are almost equal, it’s a case of which do we care about more: slightly more protein, or 3x the fiber? We’re going with 3x the fiber, and so are calling this category a win for soba.
In the category of vitamins, egg noodles have more of vitamins A, B12, C, D, E, K, and choline, while soba noodles have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B9. That’s a 6:6 tie. One could argue that egg noodles’ vitamins are the ones more likely to be a deficiency in people, but on the other hand, soba noodles’ vitamins have the greater margins of difference. So, still a tie.
When it comes to minerals, egg noodles have more calcium and selenium, while soba noodles have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. So, this one’s not close; it’s an easy win for soba noodles.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear win for soba noodles, but by all means, enjoy moderate portions of either or both (unless you are vegan or allergic to eggs, in which case, skip the egg noodles and just enjoy the soba!).
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Egg Noodles vs Rice Noodles – Which is Healthier?
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:
