Speedy Easy Ratatouille
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 contributing factors to unhealthy eating? The convenience factor. To eat well, it seems, one must have at least two of the following: money, time, and skill. So today we have a health dish that’s cheap, quick, and easy!
(You won’t need a rat in a hat to help you with this one)
You will need
- 3 ripe tomatoes, roughly chopped
- 2 zucchini, halved and chopped into thick batons
- 2 portobello mushrooms, sliced into ½” slices
- 1 large red pepper, cut into thick chunks
- 3 tbsp extra virgin olive oil
- 2 tbsp finely chopped parsley
- 2 tsp garlic paste
- 1 tsp red chili flakes
- 1 tsp dried thyme
- 1 tsp black pepper
- Optional: 1 tsp MSG, or 1 tsp low sodium salt (the MSG is the healthier option as it contains less sodium than even low sodium salt)
- Optional: other vegetables, chopped. Use what’s in your fridge! This is a great way to use up leftovers. Particularly good options include chopped eggplant, chopped red onion, and/or chopped carrot.
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Put the olive oil into a sauté pan and set the heat on medium. When hot but smoking, add the mushrooms and any optional vegetables (but not the others from the list yet), and fry for 5 minutes.
2) Add the garlic, followed by the zucchini, red pepper, chili flakes, and thyme; stir periodically (you shouldn’t have to stir constantly) for 10 minutes.
3) Add the tomatoes and a cup of water to the pan, along with any MSG/salt. Cover with the lid and allow to simmer for a further 10 minutes.
4) Serve, adding the garnish.
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)
- The Magic Of Mushrooms: “The Longevity Vitamin” (That’s Not A Vitamin)
- Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits? ← we had 3/5 today!
- Monosodium Glutamate: Sinless Flavor-Enhancer Or Terrible Health Risk?
- MSG vs Salt: Sodium Comparison
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:
-
Who Screens The Sunscreens?
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 Screen The Sunscreens!
Yesterday, we asked you what your sunscreen policy was, and got a spread of answers. Apparently this one was quite polarizing!
One subscriber who voted for “Sunscreen is essential to protect us against skin aging and cancer” wrote:
❝My mom died of complications from melanoma, so we are vigilant about sun and sunscreen. We are a family of campers and hikers and gardeners—outdoors in all seasons—and we never burn❞
Our condolences with regard to your mom! Life is so precious, and when something like that happens, it tends to stick with us. We’re glad you and your family are taking care of yourselves.
Of the subscribers who voted for “I put some on if I think I might otherwise get sunburned”, about half wrote to express uncertainties:
- uncertainty about how safe it is, and
- uncertainty about how helpful it is
…so we’re going to tackle those questions in a moment. But what of those who voted for “Sunscreen is full of harmful chemicals that can cause cancer”?
Of those, only one wrote a message, which was to say one has to be very careful of what is in the formula.
Let’s take a look, then…
Sunscreen is full of harmful chemicals that can cause cancer: True or False?
False—according to current best science. Research is ongoing!
There are four main chemicals (found in most sunscreens) that people tend to worry about:
- Abobenzone
- Oxybenzone
- Octocrylene
- Ecamsule
Now, these two sound like four brands of rocket fuel, but then, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), which is also found in most sunscreens, sounds like a deadly toxin too. That’s water, by the way.
But what of these four chemicals? Well, as we say, research is ongoing, but we found a study that measured all four, to see how much got into the blood, and what adverse effects, if any, this caused.
We’ll skip to their conclusion:
❝In this preliminary study involving healthy volunteers, application of 4 commercially available sunscreens under maximal use conditions resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens. The systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings. These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.❞
Now, “exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens” sounds alarming, so why did they close with the words “These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen”?
Let’s skip back up to a line from the results:
❝The most common adverse event was rash, which developed in 1 participant with each sunscreen.❞
This was most probably due to the oxybenzone, which can cause allergic skin reactions in some people.
Let us take a moment to remember the most common adverse event that occurs from not wearing sunscreen: sunburn!
You can read the full study here:
None of those ingredients have been found to be carcinogenic, even at the maximal blood plasma concentrations studied, from applications 4x/day to 75% of the body.
UVA rays, on the other hand, are absolutely very much known to cause cancer, and the effect is cumulative.
Sunscreen is essential to protect us against skin aging and cancer: True or False?
True, unequivocally, unless we live indoors and/or otherwise never go about under sunlight.
“But our ancestors—” lived under the same sun we do, and either used sunscreen or got advanced skin aging and cancer.
Sunscreen of times past ranged from mud to mineral lotions, but it’s pretty much always existed. Even non-human animals that have skin and don’t have fur or feathers, tend to take mud-baths in sunny parts of the world.
If you’d like to avoid oxybenzone and other chemicals, though, you might have your reasons. Maybe you’re allergic, or maybe you read that it’s a potential endocrine disruptor with estrogen-like and anti-androgenic properties that you don’t want.
There are other options, to include physical blockers containing zinc and titanium dioxide, which are generally recognized as safe and effective ingredients.
If you’re interested, you can even make your own sunscreen that blocks both UVA and UVB rays (UVA is what causes skin cancer; UVB is “milder” and is what causes sunburn):
Share This Post
-
Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More
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.
Let’s Get Fruity
Bromelain is an enzyme* found in pineapple (and only in pineapple), that has many very healthful properties, some of them unique to bromelain.
*actually a combination of enzymes, but most often referred to collectively in the singular. But when you do see it referred to as “they”, that’s what that means.
What does it do?
It does a lot of things, for starters:
❝Various in vivo and in vitro studies have shown that they are anti-edematous, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancerous, anti-thrombotic, fibrinolytic, and facilitate the death of apoptotic cells. The pharmacological properties of bromelain are, in part, related to its arachidonate cascade modulation, inhibition of platelet aggregation, such as interference with malignant cell growth; anti-inflammatory action; fibrinolytic activity; skin debridement properties, and reduction of the severe effects of SARS-Cov-2❞
Some quick notes:
- “facilitate the death of apoptotic cells” may sound alarming, but it’s actually good; those cells need to be killed quickly; see for example: Fisetin: The Anti-Aging Assassin
- If you’re wondering what arachidonate cascade modulation means, that’s the modulation of the cascade reaction of arachidonic acid, which plays a part in providing energy for body functions, and has a role in cell structure formation, and is the precursor of assorted inflammatory mediators and cell-signalling chemicals.
- Its skin debridement properties (getting rid of dead skin) are most clearly seen when using bromelain topically (one can literally just make a pineapple poultice), but do occur from ingestion also (because of what it can do from the inside).
- As for being anti-thrombotic and fibrinolytic, let’s touch on that before we get to the main item, its anti-inflammatory properties.
If you want to read more of the above before moving on, though, here’s the full text:
Anti-thrombotic and fibrinolytic
While it does have anti-thrombotic effects, largely by its fibrinolytic action (i.e., it dissolves the fibrin mesh holding clots together), it can have a paradoxically beneficial effect on wound healing, too:
For more specifically on its wound-healing benefits:
In Vitro Effect of Bromelain on the Regenerative Properties of Mesenchymal Stem Cells
Anti-inflammatory
Bromelain is perhaps most well-known for its anti-inflammatory powers, which are so diverse that it can be a challenge to pin them all down, as it has many mechanisms of action, and there’s a large heterogeneity of studies because it’s often studied in the context of specific diseases. But, for example:
❝Bromelain reduced IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α secretion when immune cells were already stimulated in an overproduction condition by proinflammatory cytokines, generating a modulation in the inflammatory response through prostaglandins reduction and activation of cascade reactions that trigger neutrophils and macrophages, in addition to accelerating the healing process❞
~ Dr. Taline Alves Nobre et al.
Read in full:
Bromelain as a natural anti-inflammatory drug: a systematic review
Or if you want a more specific example, here’s how it stacks up against arthritis:
❝The results demonstrated the chondroprotective effects of bromelain on cartilage degradation and the downregulation of inflammatory cytokine (tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8) expression in TNF-α–induced synovial fibroblasts by suppressing NF-κB and MAPK signaling❞
~ Dr. Perephan Pothacharoen et al.
Read in full:
More?
Yes more! You’ll remember from the first paper we quoted today, that it has a long laundry list of benefits. However, there’s only so much we can cover in one edition, so that’s it for today
Is it safe?
It is generally recognized as safe. However, its blood-thinning effect means it should be avoided if you’re already on blood-thinners, have some sort of bleeding disorder, or are about to have a surgery.
Additionally, if you have an allergy, this one may not be for you.
Aside from that, anything can have drug interactions, so do check with your doctor/pharmacist to be sure.
Want to try some?
You can just eat pineapples, but if you don’t enjoy that and/or wouldn’t want it every day, bromelain is available in supplement form too.
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
The Many Faces Of Cosmetic Surgery
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.
Cosmetic Surgery: What’s The Truth?
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you your opinion on elective cosmetic surgeries, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 48% said “Everyone should be able to get what they want, assuming informed consent”
- About 28% said “It can ease discomfort to bring features more in line with normalcy”
- 15% said “They should be available in the case of extreme disfigurement only”
- 10% said “No elective cosmetic surgery should ever be performed; needless danger”
Well, there was a clear gradient of responses there! Not so polarizing as we might have expected, but still enough dissent for discussion
So what does the science say?
The risks of cosmetic surgery outweigh the benefits: True or False?
False, subjectively (but this is important).
You may be wondering: how is science subjective?
And the answer is: the science is not subjective, but people’s cost:worth calculations are. What’s worth it to one person absolutely may not be worth it to another. Which means: for those for whom it wouldn’t be worth it, they are usually the people who will not choose the elective surgery.
Let’s look at some numbers (specifically, regret rates for various surgeries, elective/cosmetic or otherwise):
- Regret rate for elective cosmetic surgery in general: 20%
- Regret rate for knee replacement (i.e., not cosmetic): 17.1%
- Regret rate for hip replacement (i.e., not cosmetic): 4.8%
- Regret rate for gender-affirming surgeries (for transgender patients): 1%
So we can see, elective surgeries have an 80–99% satisfaction rate, depending on what they are. In comparison, the two joint replacements we mentioned have a 82.9–95.2% satisfaction rate. Not too dissimilar, taken in aggregate!
In other words: if a person has studied the risks and benefits of a surgery and decides to go ahead, they’re probably going to be happy with the results, and for them, the benefits will have outweighed the risks.
Sources for the above numbers, by the way:
- What is the regret rate for plastic surgery?
- Decision regret after primary hip and knee replacement surgery
- A systematic review of patient regret after surgery—a common phenomenon in many specialties but rare within gender-affirmation surgery
But it’s just a vanity; therapy is what’s needed instead: True or False?
False, generally. True, sometimes. Whatever the reasons for why someone feels the way they do about their appearance—whether their face got burned in a fire or they just have triple-J cups that they’d like reduced, it’s generally something they’ve already done a lot of thinking about. Nevertheless, it does also sometimes happen that it’s a case of someone hoping it’ll be the magical solution, when in reality something else is also needed.
How to know the difference? One factor is whether the surgery is “type change” or “restorative”, and both have their pros and cons.
- In “type change” (e.g. rhinoplasty), more psychological adjustment is needed, but when it’s all over, the person has a new nose and, statistically speaking, is usually happy with it.
- In “restorative” (e.g. facelift), less psychological adjustment is needed (as it’s just a return to a previous state), so a person will usually be happy quickly, but ultimately it is merely “kicking the can down the road” if the underlying problem is “fear of aging”, for example. In such a case, likely talking therapy would be beneficial—whether in place of, or alongside, cosmetic surgery.
Here’s an interesting paper on that; the sample sizes are small, but the discussion about the ideas at hand is a worthwhile read:
Does cosmetic surgery improve psychosocial wellbeing?
Some people will never be happy no matter how many surgeries they get: True or False?
True! We’re going to refer to the above paper again for this one. In particular, here’s what it said about one group for whom surgeries will not usually be helpful:
❝There is a particular subgroup of people who appear to respond poorly to cosmetic procedures. These are people with the psychiatric disorder known as “body dysmorphic disorder” (BDD). BDD is characterised by a preoccupation with an objectively absent or minimal deformity that causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning.
For several reasons, it is important to recognise BDD in cosmetic surgery settings:
Firstly, it appears that cosmetic procedures are rarely beneficial for these people. Most patients with BDD who have had a cosmetic procedure report that it was unsatisfactory and did not diminish concerns about their appearance.
Secondly, BDD is a treatable disorder. Serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and cognitive behaviour therapy have been shown to be effective in about two-thirds of patients with BDD❞
~ Dr. David Castle et al. (lightly edited for brevity)
Which is a big difference compared to, for example, someone having triple-J breasts that need reducing, or the wrong genitals for their gender, or a face whose features are distinct outliers.
Whether that’s a reason people with BDD shouldn’t be able to get it is an ethical question rather than a scientific one, so we’ll not try to address that with science.
After all, many people (in general) will try to fix their woes with a haircut, a tattoo, or even a new sportscar, and those might sometimes be bad decisions, but they are still the person’s decision to make.
And even so, there can be protectionist laws/regulations that may provide a speed-bump, for example:
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Languishing – by Prof. Corey Keyes
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’ve written before about depression and “flourishing” but what about when one isn’t exactly flourishing, but is not necessarily in the depths of depression either? That’s what this book is about.
Prof. Keyes offers, from his extensive research, hope for those who do not check enough of the boxes to be considered depressed, but who are also definitely more in the lane of “surviving” than “thriving”.
Specifically, he outlines five key ways to make the step from languishing to flourishing, based not on motivational rhetoric, but actual data-based science:
- Learn (creating your personal story of self-growth)
- Connect (building relationships, on the individual level and especially on the community level)
- Transcend (developing psychological resilience to the unexpected)
- Help (others! This is about finding your purpose, and then actively living it)
- Play (this is a necessary “recharge” element that many people miss, especially as we get older)
With regard to finding one’s purpose being given the one-word summary of “help”, this is a callback to our tribal origins, and how we thrive and flourish best and feel happiest when we have a role to fulfil and provide value to those around us)
Bottom line: if you’re not at the point of struggling to get out of bed each day, but you’re also not exactly leaping out of bed with a smile, this book can help get you from one place to the other.
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:
-
Prolonged Grief: A New Mental Disorder?
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 issue is not whether certain mental conditions are real—they are. It is how we conceptualize them and what we think treating them requires.
The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) features a new diagnosis: prolonged grief disorder—used for those who, a year after a loss, still remain incapacitated by it. This addition follows more than a decade of debate. Supporters argued that the addition enables clinicians to provide much-needed help to those afflicted by what one might simply consider a too much of grief, whereas opponents insisted that one mustn’t unduly pathologize grief and reject an increasingly medicalized approach to a condition that they considered part of a normal process of dealing with loss—a process which in some simply takes longer than in others.
By including a condition in a professional classification system, we collectively recognize it as real. Recognizing hitherto unnamed conditions can help remove certain kinds of disadvantages. Miranda Fricker emphasizes this in her discussion of what she dubs hermeneutic injustice: a specific sort of epistemic injustice that affects persons in their capacity as knowers1. Creating terms like ‘post-natal depression’ and ‘sexual harassment’, Fricker argues, filled lacunae in the collectively available hermeneutic resources that existed where names for distinctive kinds of social experience should have been. The absence of such resources, Fricker holds, put those who suffered from such experiences at an epistemic disadvantage: they lacked the words to talk about them, understand them, and articulate how they were wronged. Simultaneously, such absences prevented wrong-doers from properly understanding and facing the harm they were inflicting—e.g. those who would ridicule or scold mothers of newborns for not being happier or those who would either actively engage in sexual harassment or (knowingly or not) support the societal structures that helped make it seem as if it was something women just had to put up with.
For Fricker, the hermeneutical disadvantage faced by those who suffer from an as-of-yet ill-understood and largely undiagnosed medical condition is not an epistemic injustice. Those so disadvantaged are not excluded from full participation in hermeneutic practices, or at least not through mechanisms of social coercion that arise due to some structural identity prejudice. They are not, in other words, hermeneutically marginalized, which for Fricker, is an essential characteristic of epistemic injustice. Instead, their situation is simply one of “circumstantial epistemic bad luck”2. Still, Fricker, too, can agree that providing labels for ill-understood conditions is valuable. Naming a condition helps raise awareness of it, makes it discursively available and, thus, a possible object of knowledge and understanding. This, in turn, can enable those afflicted by it to understand their experience and give those who care about them another way of nudging them into seeking help.
Surely, if adding prolonged grief disorder to the DSM-5 were merely a matter of recognizing the condition and of facilitating assistance, nobody should have any qualms with it. However, the addition also turns intense grief into a mental disorder—something for whose treatment insurance companies can be billed. With this, significant forces of interest enter the scene. The DSM-5, recall, is mainly consulted by psychiatrists. In contrast to talk-therapists like psychotherapists or psychoanalysts, psychiatrists constitute a highly medicalized profession, in which symptoms—clustered together as syndromes or disorders—are frequently taken to require drugs to treat them. Adding prolonged grief disorder thus heralds the advent of research into various drug-based grief therapies. Ellen Barry of the New York Times confirms this: “naltrexone, a drug used to help treat addiction,” she reports, “is currently in clinical trials as a form of grief therapy”, and we are likely to see a “competition for approval of medicines by the Food and Drug Administration.”3
Adding diagnoses to the DSM-5 creates financial incentives for players in the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs advertised as providing relief to those so diagnosed. Surely, for various conditions, providing drug-induced relief from severe symptoms is useful, even necessary to enable patients to return to normal levels of functioning. But while drugs may help suppress feelings associated with intense grief, they cannot remove the grief. If all mental illnesses were brain diseases, they might be removed by adhering to some drug regimen or other. Note, however, that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor that carries the implicit suggestion that just like physical illnesses, mental afflictions, too, are curable by providing the right kind of physical treatment. Unsurprisingly, this metaphor is embraced by those who stand to massively benefit from what profits they may reap from selling a plethora of drugs to those diagnosed with any of what seems like an ever-increasing number of mental disorders. But metaphors have limits. Lou Marinoff, a proponent of philosophical counselling, puts the point aptly:
Those who are dysfunctional by reason of physical illness entirely beyond their control—such as manic-depressives—are helped by medication. For handling that kind of problem, make your first stop a psychiatrist’s office. But if your problem is about identity or values or ethics, your worst bet is to let someone reify a mental illness and write a prescription. There is no pill that will make you find yourself, achieve your goals, or do the right thing.
Much more could be said about the differences between psychotherapy, psychiatry, and the newcomer in the field: philosophical counselling. Interested readers may benefit from consulting Marinoff’s work. Written in a provocative, sometimes alarmist style, it is both entertaining and—if taken with a substantial grain of salt—frequently insightful. My own view is this: from Fricker’s work, we can extract reasons to side with the proponents of adding prolonged grief disorder to the DSM-5. Creating hermeneutic resources that allow us to help raise awareness, promote understanding, and facilitate assistance is commendable. If the addition achieves that, we should welcome it. And yet, one may indeed worry that practitioners are too eager to move from the recognition of a mental condition to the implementation of therapeutic interventions that are based on the assumption that such afflictions must be understood on the model of physical disease. The issue is not whether certain mental conditions are real—they are. It is how we conceptualize them and what we think treating them requires.
No doubt, grief manifests physically. It is, however, not primarily a physical condition—let alone a brain disease. Grief is a distinctive mental condition. Apart from bouts of sadness, its symptoms typically include the loss of orientation or a sense of meaning. To overcome grief, we must come to terms with who we are or can be without the loved one’s physical presence in our life. We may need to reinvent ourselves, figure out how to be better again and whence to derive a new purpose. What is at stake is our sense of identity, our self-worth, and, ultimately, our happiness. Thinking that such issues are best addressed by popping pills puts us on a dangerous path, leading perhaps towards the kind of dystopian society Aldous Huxley imagined in his 1932 novel Brave New World. It does little to help us understand, let alone address, the moral and broader philosophical issues that trouble the bereaved and that lie at the root not just of prolonged grief but, arguably, of many so-called mental illnesses.
Footnotes:
1 For this and the following, cf. Fricker 2007, chapter 7.
2 Fricker 2007: 152
3 Barry 2022
References:
Barry, E. (2022). “How Long Should It Take to Grieve? Psychiatry Has Come Up With an Answer.” The New York Times, 03/18/2022, URL = https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/health/prolonged-grief-
disorder.html [last access: 04/05/2022])
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of knowing. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. New York: Harper Brothers.
Marinoff, L. (1999). Plato, not Prozac! New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Professor Raja Rosenhagen is currently serving as Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Head of Department, and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Ashoka University. He earned his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh and has a broad range of philosophical interests (see here). He wrote this article a) because he was invited to do so and b) because he is currently nurturing a growing interest in philosophical counselling.
This article is republished from OpenAxis 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:
-
Ruminating vs Processing
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 it comes to traumatic experiences, there are two common pieces of advice for being able to move forwards functionally:
- Process whatever thoughts and feelings you need to process
- Do not ruminate
The latter can seem, at first glance, a lot like the former. So, how to tell them apart, and how to do one without the other?
Getting tense
One major difference between the two is the tense in which our mental activity takes place:
- processing starts with the traumatic event (or perhaps even the events leading up to the traumatic event), analyses what happened and if possible why, and then asks the question “ok, what now?” and begins work on laying out a path for the future.
- rumination starts with the traumatic event (or perhaps even the events leading up to the traumatic event), analyses what happened and if why, oh why oh why, “I was such an idiot, if only I had…” and gets trapped in a fairly tight (and destructive*) cycle of blame and shame/anger, never straying far from the events in question.
*this may be directly self-destructive, but it can also sometimes be only indirectly self-destructive, for example if the blame and anger is consciously placed with someone else.
This idea fits in, by the way, with Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s “five stages of grief” model; rumination here represents the stages “bargaining”, “despair”, and “anger”, while emotional processing here represents the stage “acceptance”. Thus, it may be that rumination does have a place in the overall process—just don’t get stuck there!
For more on healthily processing grief specifically:
What Grief Does To The Body (And How To Manage It)
Grief, by the way, can be about more than the loss of a loved one; a very similar process can play out with many other kinds of unwanted life changes too.
What are the results?
Another way to tell them apart is to look at the results of each. If you come out of a long rumination session feeling worse than when you started, it’s highly unlikely that you just stopped too soon and were on the verge of some great breakthrough. It’s possible! But not likely.
- Processing may be uncomfortable at first, and if it’s something you’ve ignored for a long time, that could be very uncomfortable at first, but there should quite soon be some “light at the end of the tunnel”. Perhaps not even because a solution seems near, but because your mind and body recognize “aha, we are doing something about it now, and thus may find a better way forward”.
- Rumination tends to intensify and prolong uncomfortable emotions, increases stress and anxiety, and likely disrupts sleep. At best, it may serve as a tipping point to seek therapy or even just recognize “I should figure out a way to deal with this, because this isn’t doing me any good”. At worst, it may serve as a tipping point to depression, and/or substance abuse, and/or suicidality.
See also: How To Stay Alive (When You Really Don’t Want To) ← which also has a link back to our article on managing depression, by the way!
Did you choose it, really?
A third way to tell them apart is the level of conscious decision that went into doing it.
- Processing is almost always something that one decides “ok, let’s figure this out”, and sits down to figure it out.
- Rumination tends to be about as voluntary as social media doomscrolling. Technically we may have decided to begin it (we also might not have made any conscious decision, and just acted on impulse), but let’s face it, our hands weren’t at the wheel for long, at all.
A good way to make sure that it is a conscious process, is to schedule time for it in advance, and then do it only during that time. If thoughts about it come up at other times, tell yourself “no, leave that for later”, and then deal with it when (and only when) the planned timeslot arrives.
It’s up to you and your schedule what time you pick, but if you’re unsure, consider an hour in the early evening. That means that the business of the day is behind you, but it’s also not right before bed, so you should have some decompression time as a buffer. So for example, perhaps after dinner you might set a timer* for an hour, and sit down to journal, brainstorm, or just plain think, about the matter that needs processing.
*electronic timers can be quite jarring, and may distract you while waiting for the beeps. So, consider investing in a relaxing sand timer like this one instead.
Is there any way to make rumination less bad?
As we mentioned up top, there’s a case to be made for “rumination is an early part of the process that gets us where we need to go, and may not be skippable, or may not be advisable to skip”.
So, if you are going to ruminate, then firstly, we recommend again bordering it timewise (with a timer as above) and having a plan to pull yourself out when you’re done rather than getting stuck there (such as: The Off-Button For Your Brain: How To Stop Negative Thought Spirals).
And secondly, you might want to consider the following technique, which allows one to let one’s brain know that the thing we’re thinking about / imagining is now to be filed away safely; not lost or erased, but sent to the same place that nightmares go after we wake up:
A Surprisingly Powerful Tool: Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing (EMDR)
What if I actually do want to forget?
That’s not usually recommendable; consider talking it through with a therapist first. However, for your interest, there is a way:
The Dark Side Of Memory (And How To Forget)
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:
