Is A Visible Six-Pack Obtainable Regardless Of Genetic Predisposition?
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.
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 it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder) and how much does it matter for health e.g. waist size etc?❞
Let’s break it down into two parts:
Is it possible for anyone to get 6-pack abs (even if genetics makes it easier or harder)?
Short answer: no
First, a quick anatomy lesson: while “abs” (abdominal muscles) are considered in the plural and indeed they are, what we see as a six-pack is actually only one muscle, the rectus abdominis, which is nestled in between other abdominal muscles that are beyond the scope of our answer here.
The reason that the rectus abdominis looks like six muscles is because there are bands of fascia (connective tissue) lying over it, so we see where it bulges between those bands.
The main difference genes make are as follows:
- Number of fascia bands (and thus the reason that some people get a four-, six-, eight-, or rarely, even ten-pack). Obviously, no amount of training can change this number, any more than doing extra bicep curls will grow you additional arms.
- Density of muscle fibers. Some people have what has been called “superathlete muscle type”, which, while prized by Olympians and other athletes, is on bodybuilding forums less glamorously called being a “hard gainer”. What this means is that muscle fibers are denser, so while training will make muscles stronger, you won’t see as much difference in size. This means that size for size, the person with this muscle type will always be stronger than someone the same size without it, but that may be annoying if you’re trying to build visible definition.
- Twitch type of muscle fibers. Some people have more fast-twitch fibers, some have more slow-twitch fibers. Fast-twitch fibers are better suited for visible abs (and, as the name suggests, quick changes between contracting and relaxing). Slow-twitch fibers are better for endurance, but yield less bulky muscles.
- Inclination to subcutaneous fat storage. This is by no means purely genetic; hormones make the biggest difference, followed by diet. But, genes are an influencing factor, and if your body fat percentage is inclined to be higher than someone else’s, then it’ll take more work to see muscle definition under that fat.
The first of those items is why our simple answer is “no”; because some people are destined to, if muscle is visible, have a four-, eight, or (rarely) ten-pack, making a six-pack unobtainable.
It’s worth noting here that while a bigger number is more highly prized aesthetically, there is literally zero difference healthwise or in terms of performance, because it’s nothing to do with the muscle, and is only about the fascia layout.
The density of muscle fibers is again purely genetic, but it only makes things easier or harder; this part’s not impossible for anyone.
The inclination to subcutaneous fat storage is by far the most modifiable factor, and the thus most readily overcome, if you feel so inclined. That doesn’t mean it will necessarily be easy! But it does mean that it’s relatively less difficult than the others.
How much does it matter for health, e.g. waist size etc?
As you may have gathered from the above, having a six-pack (or indeed a differently-numbered “pack”, if that be your genetic lot) makes no important difference to health:
- The fascia layout is completely irrelevant to health
- The muscle fiber types do make a difference to athletic performance, but not general health when at rest
- The subcutaneous fat storage is a health factor, but probably not how most people think
Healthy body fat percentages are (assuming normal hormones) in the range of 20–25% for women and 15–20% for men.
For most people, having clearly visible abs requires going below those healthy levels. For most people, that’s not optimally healthy. And those you see on magazine covers or in bodybuilding competitions are usually acutely dehydrated for the photo, which is of course not good. They will rehydrate after the shoot.
However, waist size (especially as a ratio, compared to hip size) is very important to health. This has less to do with subcutaneous fat, though, and is more to do with visceral belly fat, which goes under the muscles and thus does not obscure them:
Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It
One final note: fat notwithstanding, and aesthetics notwithstanding, having a strong core is very good for general health; it helps keeps one’s internal organs in place and well-protected, and improves stability, making falls less likely as we get older. Additionally, having muscle improves our metabolic base rate, which is good for our heart. Abs are just one part of core strength (the back being important too, for example), but should not be neglected.
Top-tier exercises to do include planks, and hanging leg raises (i.e. hang from some support, such as a chin-up bar, and raise your legs, which counterintuitively works your abs a lot more than your legs).
Take care!
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:
-
Pinch Of Nom, Everyday Light – by Kay Featherstone and Kate Allinson
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.
One of the biggest problems with “light”, “lean” or “under this many calories” cookbooks tends to be the portion sizes perhaps had sparrows in mind. Not so, here!
Nor do they go for the other usual trick, which is giving us something that’s clearly not a complete meal. All of these recipes are for complete meals, or else come with a suggestion of a simple accompaniment that will still keep the dish under 400kcal.
The recipes are packed with vegetables and protein, perfect for keeping lean while also making sure you’re full until the next meal.
Best of all, they are indeed rich and tasty meals—there’s only so many times one wants salmon with salad, after all. There are healthy-edition junk food options, too! Sausage and egg muffins, fish and chips, pizza-loaded fries, sloppy dogs, firecracker prawns, and more!
Most of the meals are quite quick and easy to make, and use common ingredients.
Nearly half are vegetarian, and gluten-free options involve only direct simple GF substitutions. Similarly, turning a vegetarian meal into a vegan meal is usually not rocket science! Again, quick and easy substitutions, à la “or the plant-based milk of your choice”.
Recipes are presented in the format: ingredients, method, photo. Super simple (and no “chef’s nostalgic anecdote storytime” introductions that take more than, say, a sentence to tell).
All in all, a fabulous addition to anyone’s home kitchen!
Get your copy of “Pinch of Nom—Everyday Light” from Amazon today!
Share This Post
-
The Anti-Viral Gut – by Dr. Robynne Chutkan
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.
Some people get a virus and feel terrible for a few days; other people get the same virus and die. Then there are some who never even get it at all despite being in close proximity with the other two. So, what’s the difference?
Dr. Robynne Chutkan outlines the case for the difference not being in the virus, but in the people. And nor is it a matter of mysterious fate, but rather, a matter of the different levels of defenses (or lack thereof) that we each have.
The key, she explains, is in our microbiome, and the specific steps to make sure that ours is optimized and ready to protect us. The book goes beyond “eat prebiotics and probiotics”, though, and goes through other modifiable factors, based on data from this pandemic and the last one a hundred years ago. We also learn about the many different kinds of bacteria that live in our various body parts (internal and external), because as it turns out, our gut microbiome (however important; hence the title) isn’t the only relevant microbiome when it comes to whether or not a given disease will take hold or be eaten alive on the way in.
The style is very polished—Dr. Chutkan is an excellent educator who makes her points clearly and comprehensibly without skimping on scientific detail.
Bottom line: if you’d like your chances of surviving any given virus season to not be left to chance, then this is a must-read book.
Click here to check out The Anti-Viral Gut, and make your body a fortress!
Share This Post
-
Life Extension Multivitamins vs Centrum Multivitamins – 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 Life Extension Multivitamins to Centrum Multivitamins, we picked the Life Extension.
Why?
The clue here was on the label: “two per day”. It’s not so that they can sell extra filler! It’s because they couldn’t fit it all into one.
While the Centrum Multivitamins is a (respectably) run-of-the-mill multivitamin (and multimineral) containing reasonable quantities of most vitamins and minerals that people supplement, the Life Extension product has the same plus more:
- More of the vitamins and minerals; i.e. more of them are hitting 100%+ of the RDA
- More beneficial supplements, including:
- Inositol, Alpha lipoic acid, Bio-Quercetin phytosome, phosphatidylcholine complex, Marigold extract, Apigenin, Lycopene, and more that we won’t list here because it starts to get complicated if we do.
We’ll have to write some main features on some of those that we haven’t written about before, but suffice it to say, they’re all good things.
Main take-away for today: sometimes more is better; it just necessitates then reading the label to check.
Want to get some Life Extension Multivitamins (and/or perhaps just read the label on the back)? Here they are on Amazon
PS: it bears mentioning, since we are sometimes running brands against each other head-to-head in this section: nothing you see here is an advertisement/sponsor unless it’s clearly marked as such. We haven’t, for example, been paid by Life Extension or any agent of theirs, to write the above. It’s just our own research and conclusion.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
More Mediterranean – by American’s Test Kitchen
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 will know that we talk about the Mediterranean diet often, and with good reason; it’s been for quite a while now the “Gold Standard” when it comes to scientific consensus on what constitutes a good diet for healthy longevity.
However, it’s easy to get stuck in a rut of cooking the same three meals and thinking “I must do something different, but not today, because I have these ingredients and don’t know what to cook” and then when one is grocery-shopping, it’s “I should have researched a new thing to cook, but since I haven’t, I’ll just get the ingredients for what I usually cook, since we need to eat”, and so the cycle continues.
This book will help break you out of that cycle! With (as the subtitle promises) hundreds of recipes, there’s no shortage of good ideas. The recipes are “plant-forward” rather than plant-based per se (i.e. there are some animal products in them), though for the vegetarians and vegans, it’s nothing that’s any challenge to substitute.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for “delicious and nutritious”, this book is sure to put a rainbow on your plate and a smile on your face.
Click here to check out More Mediterranean, and inspire your kitchen!
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:
-
Women spend more of their money on health care than men. And no, it’s not just about ‘women’s issues’
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.
Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, guarantees all Australians access to a wide range of health and hospital services at low or no cost.
Although access to the scheme is universal across Australia (regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status), one analysis suggests women often spend more out-of-pocket on health services than men.
Other research has found men and women spend similar amounts on health care overall, or even that men spend a little more. However, it’s clear women spend a greater proportion of their overall expenditure on health care than men. They’re also more likely to skip or delay medical care due to the cost.
So why do women often spend more of their money on health care, and how can we address this gap?
Elizaveta Galitckaia/Shutterstock Women have more chronic diseases, and access more services
Women are more likely to have a chronic health condition compared to men. They’re also more likely to report having multiple chronic conditions.
While men generally die earlier, women are more likely to spend more of their life living with disease. There are also some conditions which affect women more than men, such as autoimmune conditions (for example, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis).
Further, medical treatments can sometimes be less effective for women due to a focus on men in medical research.
These disparities are likely significant in understanding why women access health services more than men.
For example, 88% of women saw a GP in 2021–22 compared to 79% of men.
As the number of GPs offering bulk billing continues to decline, women are likely to need to pay more out-of-pocket, because they see a GP more often.
In 2020–21, 4.3% of women said they had delayed seeing a GP due to cost at least once in the previous 12 months, compared to 2.7% of men.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also shown women are more likely to delay or avoid seeing a mental health professional due to cost.
Women are more likely to live with chronic medical conditions than men. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock Women are also more likely to need prescription medications, owing at least partly to their increased rates of chronic conditions. This adds further out-of-pocket costs. In 2020–21, 62% of women received a prescription, compared to 37% of men.
In the same period, 6.1% of women delayed getting, or did not get prescribed medication because of the cost, compared to 4.9% of men.
Reproductive health conditions
While women are disproportionately affected by chronic health conditions throughout their lifespan, much of the disparity in health-care needs is concentrated between the first period and menopause.
Almost half of women aged over 18 report having experienced chronic pelvic pain in the previous five years. This can be caused by conditions such as endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea (period pain), vulvodynia (vulva pain), and bladder pain.
One in seven women will have a diagnosis of endometriosis by age 49.
Meanwhile, a quarter of all women aged 45–64 report symptoms related to menopause that are significant enough to disrupt their daily life.
All of these conditions can significantly reduce quality of life and increase the need to seek health care, sometimes including surgical treatment.
Of course, conditions like endometriosis don’t just affect women. They also impact trans men, intersex people, and those who are gender diverse.
Diagnosis can be costly
Women often have to wait longer to get a diagnosis for chronic conditions. One preprint study found women wait an average of 134 days (around 4.5 months) longer than men for a diagnosis of a long-term chronic disease.
Delays in diagnosis often result in needing to see more doctors, again increasing the costs.
Despite affecting about as many people as diabetes, it takes an average of between six-and-a-half to eight years to diagnose endometriosis in Australia. This can be attributed to a number of factors including society’s normalisation of women’s pain, poor knowledge about endometriosis among some health professionals, and the lack of affordable, non-invasive methods to accurately diagnose the condition.
There have been recent improvements, with the introduction of Medicare rebates for longer GP consultations of up to 60 minutes. While this is not only for women, this extra time will be valuable in diagnosing and managing complex conditions.
But gender inequality issues still exist in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. For example, both pelvic and breast ultrasound rebates are less than a scan for the scrotum, and no rebate exists for the MRI investigation of a woman’s pelvic pain.
Management can be expensive too
Many chronic conditions, such as endometriosis, which has a wide range of symptoms but no cure, can be very hard to manage. People with endometriosis often use allied health and complementary medicine to help with symptoms.
On average, women are more likely than men to use both complementary therapies and allied health.
While women with chronic conditions can access a chronic disease management plan, which provides Medicare-subsidised visits to a range of allied health services (for example, physiotherapist, psychologist, dietitian), this plan only subsidises five sessions per calendar year. And the reimbursement is usually around 50% or less, so there are still significant out-of-pocket costs.
In the case of chronic pelvic pain, the cost of accessing allied or complementary health services has been found to average A$480.32 across a two-month period (across both those who have a chronic disease management plan and those who don’t).
More spending, less saving
Womens’ health-care needs can also perpetuate financial strain beyond direct health-care costs. For example, women with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain are often caught in a cycle of needing time off from work to attend medical appointments.
Our preliminary research has shown these repeated requests, combined with the common dismissal of symptoms associated with pelvic pain, means women sometimes face discrimination at work. This can lead to lack of career progression, underemployment, and premature retirement.
More women are prescribed medication than men. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Similarly, with 160,000 women entering menopause each year in Australia (and this number expected to increase with population growth), the financial impacts are substantial.
As many as one in four women may either shift to part-time work, take time out of the workforce, or retire early due to menopause, therefore earning less and paying less into their super.
How can we close this gap?
Even though women are more prone to chronic conditions, until relatively recently, much of medical research has been done on men. We’re only now beginning to realise important differences in how men and women experience certain conditions (such as chronic pain).
Investing in women’s health research will be important to improve treatments so women are less burdened by chronic conditions.
In the 2024–25 federal budget, the government committed $160 million towards a women’s health package to tackle gender bias in the health system (including cost disparities), upskill medical professionals, and improve sexual and reproductive care.
While this reform is welcome, continued, long-term investment into women’s health is crucial.
Mike Armour, Associate Professor at NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Amelia Mardon, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Reproductive Health, Western Sydney University; Danielle Howe, PhD Candidate, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Hannah Adler, PhD Candidate, Health Communication and Health Sociology, Griffith University, and Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney 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:
-
Increase in online ADHD diagnoses for kids poses ethical questions
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.
In 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, clinical protocols were altered for Ontario health clinics, allowing them to perform more types of care virtually. This included ADHD assessments and ADHD prescriptions for children – services that previously had been restricted to in-person appointments. But while other restrictions on virtual care are back, clinics are still allowed to virtually assess children for ADHD.
This shift has allowed for more and quicker diagnoses – though not covered by provincial insurance (OHIP) – via a host of newly emerging private, for-profit clinics. However, it also has raised significant ethical questions.
It solves an equity issue in terms of rural access to timely assessments, but does it also create new equity issues as a privatized service?
Is it even feasible to diagnose a child for a condition like ADHD without meeting that child in person?
And as rates of ADHD diagnosis continue to rise, should health regulators re-examine the virtual care approach?
Ontario: More prescriptions, less regulation
There are numerous for-profit clinics offering virtual diagnoses and prescriptions for childhood ADHD in Ontario. These include KixCare, which does not offer the option of an in-person assessment. Another clinic, Springboard, makes virtual appointments available within days, charging around $2,600 for assessments, which take three to four hours. The clinic offers coaching and therapy at an additional cost, also not covered by OHIP. Families can choose to continue to visit the clinic virtually during a trial stage with medications, prescribed by a doctor in the clinic who then sends prescribing information back to the child’s primary care provider.
For-profit clinics like these are departing from Canada’s traditional single-payer health care model. By charging patients out-of-pocket fees for services, the clinics are able to generate more revenue because they are working outside of the billing standards for OHIP, standards that set limits on the maximum amount doctors can earn for providing specific services. Instead many services are provided by non-physician providers, who are not limited by OHIP in the same way.
Need for safeguards
ADHD prescriptions rose during the pandemic in Ontario, with women, people of higher income and those aged 20 to 24 receiving the most new diagnoses, according to research published in January 2024 by a team including researchers from the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health and Holland Bloorview Children’s Hospital. There may be numerous reasons for this increase but could the move to virtual care have been a factor?
Ontario psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, who treats both children and adults in Canada and the U.S., says virtual assessments can work for youth with ADHD, who may receive treatment quicker if they live in remote areas. However, he is concerned that as health care becomes more privatized, it will lead to exploitation and over-diagnosis of certain conditions.
“There have been a lot of profiteers who have tried to capitalize on people’s needs and I think this is very dangerous,” he said. “In some settings, profiteering companies have set up systems to offer ADHD assessments that are almost always substandard. This is different from not-for-profit setups that adhere to quality standards and regulatory mechanisms.”
Sukhera’s concerns recall the case of Cerebral Inc., a New York state-based virtual care company founded in 2020 that marketed on social media platforms including Instagram and TikTok. Cerebral offered online prescriptions for ADHD drugs among other services and boasted more than 200,000 patients. But as Dani Blum reported in the New York Times, Cerebral was accused in 2023 of pressuring doctors on staff to prescribe stimulants and faced an investigation by state prosecutors into whether it violated the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.
“At the start of the pandemic, regulators relaxed rules around medical prescription of controlled substances,” wrote Blum. “Those changes opened the door for companies to prescribe and market drugs without the protocols that can accompany an in-person visit.”
Access increased – but is it equitable?
Virtual care has been a necessity in rural areas in Ontario since well before the pandemic, although ADHD assessments for children were restricted to in-person appointments prior to 2020.
But ADHD assessment clinics that charge families out-of-pocket for services are only accessible to people with higher incomes. Rural families, many of whom are low income, are unable to afford thousands for private assessments, let alone the other services upsold by providers. If the private clinic/virtual care trend continues to grow unchecked, it may also attract doctors away from the public model of care since they can bill more for services. This could further aggravate the gap in care that lower income people already experience.
This could further aggravate the gap in care that lower income people already experience.
Sukhera says some risks could be addressed by instituting OHIP coverage for services at private clinics (similar to private surgical facilities that offer mixed private/public coverage), but also with safeguards to ensure that profits are reinvested back into the health-care system.
“This would be especially useful for folks who do not have the income, the means to pay out of pocket,” he said.
Concerns of misdiagnosis and over-prescription
Some for-profit companies also benefit financially from diagnosing and issuing prescriptions, as has been suggested in the Cerebral case. If it is cheaper for a clinic to do shorter, virtual appointments and they are also motivated to diagnose and prescribe more, then controls need to be put in place to prevent misdiagnosis.
The problem of misdiagnosis may also be related to the nature of ADHD assessments themselves. University of Strathclyde professor Matthew Smith, author of Hyperactive: The Controversial History of ADHD, notes that since the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980, assessment has typically involved a few hours of parents and patients providing their subjective perspectives on how they experience time, tasks and the world around them.
“It’s often a box-ticking exercise, rather than really learning about the context in which these behaviours exist,” Smith said. “The tendency has been to use a list of yes/no questions which – if enough are answered in the affirmative – lead to a diagnosis. When this is done online or via Zoom, there is even less opportunity to understand the context surrounding behaviour.”
Smith cited a 2023 BBC investigation in which reporter Rory Carson booked an in-person ADHD assessment at a clinic and was found not to have the condition, then had a private online assessment – from a provider on her couch in a tracksuit – and was diagnosed with ADHD after just 45 minutes, for a fee of £685.
What do patients want?
If Canadian regulators can effectively tackle the issue of privatization and the risk of misdiagnosis, there is still another hurdle: not every youth is willing to take part in virtual care.
Jennifer Reesman, a therapist and Training Director for Neuropsychology at the Chesapeake Center for ADHD, Learning & Behavioural Health in Maryland, echoed Sukhera’s concerns about substandard care, cautioning that virtual care is not suitable for some of her young clients who had poor experiences with online education and resist online health care. It can be an emotional issue for pediatric patients who are managing their feelings about the pandemic experience.
“We need to respect what their needs are, not just the needs of the provider,” says Reesman.
In 2020, Ontario opted for virtual care based on the capacity of our health system in a pandemic. Today, with a shortage of doctors, we are still in a crisis of capacity. The success of virtual care may rest on how engaged regulators are with equity issues, such as waitlists and access to care for rural dwellers, and how they resolve ethical problems around standards of care.
Children and youth are a distinct category, which is why we had restrictions on virtual ADHD diagnosis prior to the pandemic. A question remains, then: If we could snap our fingers and have the capacity to provide in-person ADHD care for all children, would we? If the answer to that question is yes, then how can we begin to build our capacity?
This article is republished from healthydebate 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: