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:
How To Heal And Regrow Receding Gums
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
❝Hey Sheila – As always, your articles are superb !! So, I have a topic that I’d love you guys to discuss: green tea. I used to try + drink it years ago but I always got an allergic reaction to it. So the question I’d like answered is: Will I still get the same allergic reaction if I take the capsules ? Also, because it’s caffeinated, will taking it interfere with iron pills, other vitamins + meds ? I read that the health benefits of the decaffeinated tea/capsules are not as great as the caffeinated. Any info would be greatly appreciated !! Thanks much !!❞
Hi! I’m not Sheila, but I’ll answer this one in the first person as I’ve had a similar issue:
I found long ago that taking any kind of tea (not herbal infusions, but true teas, e.g. green tea, black tea, red tea, etc) on an empty stomach made me want to throw up. The feeling would subside within about half an hour, but I learned it was far better to circumvent it by just not taking tea on an empty stomach.
However! I take an l-theanine supplement when I wake up, to complement my morning coffee, and have never had a problem with that. Of course, my physiology is not your physiology, and this “shouldn’t” be happening to either of us in the first place, so it’s not something there’s a lot of scientific literature about, and we just have to figure out what works for us.
This last Monday I wrote (inspired in part by your query) about l-theanine supplementation, and how it doesn’t require caffeine to unlock its benefits after all, by the way. So that’s that part in order.
I can’t speak for interactions with your other supplements or medications without knowing what they are, but I’m not aware of any known issue, beyond that l-theanine will tend to give a gentler curve to the expression of some neurotransmitters. So, if for example you’re talking anything that affects that (e.g. antidepressants, antipsychotics, ADHD meds, sleepy/wakefulness meds, etc) then checking with your doctor is best.
❝Can you do something on collagen and keep use posted on pineapple, and yes love and look forward to each issue❞
Glad you’re enjoying! We did write a main feature on collagen a little while back! Here it is:
We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
As for pineapple, there’s not a lot to keep you posted about! Pineapple’s protein-digesting, DNA-unzipping action is well-established and considered harmless (if your mouth feels weird when you eat pineapple or drink pineapple juice, this is why, by the way) because no meaningful damage was done.
For example:
- Pineapple’s bromelain action is akin to taking apart a little lego model brick by brick (easy to fix)
- Clastogenic genotoxicity is more like taking a blowtorch to the lego model (less easy to fix)
Fun fact: pineapple is good against inflammation, because of the very same enzyme!
❝I never knew anything about the l- tea. Where can I purchase it?❞
You can get it online quite easily! Here’s an example on Amazon
❝The 3 most important exercises don’t work if you can’t get on the floor. I’m 78, and have knee replacements. What about 3 best chair yoga stretches? Love your articles!❞
Here are six!
We turn the tables and ask you a question!
We’ll then talk about this tomorrow:
Share This Post
Sesame Seeds vs Poppy Seeds – 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 sesame seeds to poppy seeds, we picked the poppy seeds.
Why?
It’s close, and they’re both very respectable seeds!
In terms of macros, their protein content is the same, while poppy seeds have a little less fat and more carbs, as well as slightly more fiber. A moderate win for poppy seeds on this one.
About that fat… The lipid profiles here see poppy seeds with (as a percentage of total fat, so notwithstanding that poppy seeds have a little less fat overall) more polyunsaturated fat and less saturated fat. Another win for poppy seeds in this case.
In the category of vitamins, poppy seeds contain a lot more vitamins B5 & E while sesame seeds contain notably more vitamins B3, B6 and choline. Marginal win for sesame this time.
When it comes to minerals, poppy seeds contain rather more calcium, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese, while sesame seeds contain more copper, iron, and selenium. Marginal win for poppies here.
Note: it is reasonable to wonder about poppy seeds’ (especially unwashed poppy seeds’) opiate content. Indeed, they do contain opiates, and levels do vary, but to give you an idea: you’d need to eat, on average, 1kg (2.2lbs) of poppy seeds to get the same opiate content as a 30mg codeine tablet.
All in all, adding up the wins in each section, this one’s a moderate win for poppy seeds, but of course, enjoy both in moderation!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Chia Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Sunflower Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?
- Hemp Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
10 Lessons For A Healthy Mind & Body
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.
Sadia Badiei, food scientist of “Pick Up Limes” culinary fame, has advice in and out of the kitchen:
Pick up a zest for life
Here’s what she picked up, and we all can too:
- “I can’t do it… yet”: it’s never too late to adopt a growth mindset by adding “yet” to your self-doubt, focusing on progress and the possibility of improvement.
- The spotlight effect: people are generally too absorbed in their own lives to focus on you, so don’t worry too much about others’ perceptions.
- Nutrition by addition: focus on adding healthier foods to your diet rather than eliminating the less healthy ones to avoid restrictive mindsets. You can still eliminate the less healthy ones if you want to! It just shouldn’t be the primary focus. Focusing on a conceptually negative thing is rarely helpful.
- It’s ok to change: embrace change as a sign of growth and evolution, rather than seeing it as a failure or waste of time.
- The way you do one thing is the way you do everything: be mindful of how you approach small tasks, regular tasks, boring tasks, unwanted tasks—you can either create a habit of enthusiasm or a habit of suffering (it’s entirely your choice which)
- Setting goals for success: set goals based on actions you can control (inputs) rather than outcomes that are uncertain. Less “lose 10 lbs”, and more “eat fiber before starch”, for example.
- You probably can’t have it all at once: you can achieve all your dreams, but often not simultaneously; goals and desires unfold in stages over time.
- The five-year rule: before adopting a new lifestyle or habit, ask yourself if you can realistically sustain it for five years to ensure it’s not just a short-term fix. If you struggle with this prognostic, look backwards first instead. Which healthy habits have you maintained for decades, and which were you never able to make stick?
- Are you afraid or excited?: reframe fear as excitement, as both emotions share similar physical sensations and signify that you care about the outcome.
- The voice you hear most: speak kindly to yourself in self-talk to create a softer, more compassionate tone. Your subconscious is always listening, so reinforce healthy rather than unhealthy thought patterns.
For more on each of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
80-Year-Olds Share Their Biggest Regrets
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:
Kidney Beans vs Fava Beans – 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 kidney beans to fava beans, we picked the kidney beans.
Why?
It’s a simple and straightforward one today!
The macronutrient profiles are mostly comparable, but kidney beans do have a little more protein and a little more fiber.
In the category of vitamins, kidney beans have more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B9, C, E, & K, while fava beans boast only more of vitamins B2 and B3. They are both equally good sources of choline, but the general weight of vitamins is very much in kidney beans’ favor, with a 7:2 lead, most of which have generous margins.
When it comes to minerals, kidney beans have more iron, phosphorus, and potassium, while fava beans have more copper and selenium. They’re both equally good sources of other minerals they both contain. Still, a 3:2 victory for kidney beans on the mineral front.
Adding up the moderate victory on macros, the strong victory on vitamins, and the slight victory on minerals, all in all makes for a clear win for kidney beans.
Still, enjoy both! Diversity is healthy.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Chickpeas vs Black Beans – 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:
At The Heart Of Women’s Health
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 woman’s heart is a particular thing
For the longest time (and still to a large degree now), “women’s health” is assumed to refer to the health of organs found under a bikini. But there’s a lot more to it than that. We are whole people, with such things as brains and hearts and more.
Today (Valentine’s Day!) we’re focusing on the heart.
A quick recap:
We’ve talked previously about some of these sex differences when it comes to the heart, for example:
Heart Attack: His & Hers (Be Prepared!)
…but that’s fairly common knowledge at least amongst those who are attentive to such things, whereas…
…is much less common knowledge, especially with the ways statins are more likely to make things worse for a lot of women (not all though; see the article for some nuance about that).
We also talked about:
What Menopause Does To The Heart
…which is well worth reading too!
A question:
Why are women twice as likely to die from a heart attack as their age-equivalent male peers? Women develop heart disease later, but die from it sooner. Why is that?
That’s been a question scientists have been asking (and tentatively answering, as scientists do—hypotheses, theories, conclusions even sometimes) for 20 years now. Likely contributing factors include:
- A lack of public knowledge of the different symptoms
- A lack of confidence of bystanders to perform CPR on a woman
- A lack of public knowledge (including amongst prescribers) about the sex-related differences for statins
- A lack of women in cardiology, comparatively.
- A lack of attention to it, simply. Men get heart disease earlier, so it’s thought of as a “man thing”, by health providers as much as by individuals. Men get more regular cardiovascular check-ups, women get a mammogram and go.
Statistically, women are much more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer:
- Breast cancer kills around 0.02% of us.
- Heart disease kills one in three.
And yet…
❝In a nationwide survey, only 22% of primary care doctors and 42% of cardiologists said they feel extremely well prepared to assess cardiovascular risks in women.
We are lagging in implementing risk prevention guidelines for women.
A lot of women are being told to just watch their cholesterol levels and see their doctor in a year. That’s a year of delayed care.❞
Source: The slowly evolving truth about heart disease and women
(there’s a lot more in that article than we have room for in ours, so do check it out!)
Some good news:
The “bystanders less likely to feel confident performing CPR on a woman” aspect may be helped by the deployment of new automatic external defibrillator, that works from four sides instead of one.
It’s called “double sequential external defibrillation”, and you can learn about it here:
A new emergency procedure for cardiac arrests aims to save more lives—here’s how it works
(it’s in use already in Canada and Aotearoa)
Gentlemen-readers, thank you for your attention to this one even if it was mostly not about you! Maybe someone you love will benefit from being aware of this
On a lighter note…
Since it’s Valentine’s Day, a little more on affairs of the heart…
Is chocolate good for the heart? And is it really an aphrodisiac?
We answered these questions and more in our previous main feature:
Chocolate & Health: Fact or Fiction?
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: