
Stay off My Operating Table – by Dr. Philip Ovadia
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.
With heart disease as the #1 killer worldwide, and 88% of adults being metabolically unhealthy (leading cause of heart disease), this is serious!
Rather than taking a “quick fix” advise-and-go approach, Dr. Ovadia puts the knowledge and tools in our hands to do better in the long term.
As a heart surgeon himself, his motto here is:
❝What foods to put on your table so you don’t end up on mine❞
There’s a lot more to this book than the simple “eat the Mediterranean diet”:
- While the Mediterranean diet is generally considered the top choice for heart health, he also advises on how to eat healthily on all manner of diets… Carnivore, Keto, Paleo, Atkins, Gluten-Free, Vegan, you-name-it.
- A lot of the book is given to clearing up common misconceptions, things that sounded plausible but are just plain dangerous. This information alone is worth the price of the book, we think.
- There’s also a section given over to explaining the markers of metabolic health, so you can monitor yourself effectively
- Rather than one-size-fits-all, he also talks about common health conditions and medications that may change what you need to be doing
- He also offers advice about navigating the health system to get what you need—including dealing with unhelpful doctors!
Bottom line: A very comprehensive (yet readable!) manual of heart health.
Get your copy of Stay Off My Operating Table from Amazon today!
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:
-
Loving Someone Who Has Dementia – by Dr. Pauline Boss
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 previously reviewed Dr. Boss’s excellent book “Loss, Trauma, and Resilience: Therapeutic Work With Ambiguous Loss”, which partially overlaps in ideas with this one. In that case, it was about grief when a loved one is “gone, but are they really?”, which can include missing persons, people killed in ways that weren’t 100% confirmed (e.g. no body to bury), and in contrast, people who are present in body but not entirely present mentally: perhaps in a coma, for example. It also includes people are for other reasons not entirely present in the way they used to be, which includes dementia. And that latter case is what this book focuses on.
In the case of dementia, we cannot, of course, simply focus on ourselves. Well, not if we care about the person with dementia, anyway. Much like with the other kinds of ambiguous loss, we cannot fully come to terms with things while on the cusp of presence and absence, and we cannot, as such, “give up” on our loved one.
What then, of hope? The author makes the case for—in absence of any kind of closure—making our peace with the situation as it is, making our peace with the uncertainty of things. And that means not only “at any moment could come a more clearly complete loss”, but also on the flipside at least a faint candle of hope, that we should not grasp with both hands (that is not how to treat a candle, literally or metaphorically), but rather, hold gently, and enjoy its gentle light.
Dr. Boss also covers more practical considerations; family rituals, celebrations, gatherings, and the idea of “the good-enough relationship”. Particularly helpfully, she gives her “seven guidelines for the journey”, which even if one decides against adopting them all, are definitely all good things to at least have considered.
The style is much more tailored to the lay reader than the other book of hers that we reviewed, which was intended more for clinicians, but useful also for those of us who have been hit by such kinds of grief. In this case, however, her intention is first and foremost for the family of a person who has dementia—there are still footnotes throughout though, for those who still want to read scientific papers that support the various ideas discussed in the book.
Bottom line: if a loved one has dementia or that seems a likely possibility for you, this book can help a lot!
Share This Post
-
Microplastics Now, Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s Later?
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 about microplastics before, including:
- We Are Such Stuff As Bottles Are Made Of
- Mythbusting Cookware Materials
- Are You Inhaling Microplastics In Your House?
- Body Scrubs: Benefits, Risks, and Guidance
We also have the guest articles:
- Microplastics found in artery plaque linked with higher risk of heart attack, stroke and death
- Microplastics are in our brains. How worried should I be?
Now, that last-listed article there concluded:
❝We don’t yet know the effects of microplastics in the human brain. Some laboratory experiments suggest microplastics increase brain inflammation and cell damage, alter gene expression and change brain structure.
But microplastics and their effects are difficult to study. In addition to their small size, there are so many different types of plastics in the environment. More than 13,000 different chemicals have been identified in plastic products, with more being developed every year.❞
…but that was mid-2024, and science has marched on a bit from there. For example…
A (plastic) wrench in the (biological) works
More recently, links to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s pathogenesis have been found (pathogenesis = how a disease starts), via 5 main pathways, namely;
- Mitochondrial dysfunction
- this is critical, because mitochondrial interference reduces ATP production, weakening neuron function and survival
- Blood–brain barrier disruption
- in other words, microplastics can make this protective barrier “leaky,” allowing even more bad things to enter the brain and cause even more damage.
- Direct neuronal damage
- because neurons are very delicate and have not evolved to have to deal with bits of plastic
- Neuroinflammation
- this may sound like the previous item, but this is more the brain’s immune system’s “friendly fire” (see also: The Inflamed Mind – by Dr. Edward Bullmore), whereas the previous was because of the microplastics themselves
- Oxidative stress
- this may sound trivial, but microplastic particles increase reactive oxygen species while weakening antioxidant defenses, leading to cellular damage
And, in particular, microplastics appear to promote beta-amyloid and tau buildup in Alzheimer’s, and α-synuclein aggregation plus dopaminergic neuron damage in Parkinson’s.
This is a problem, because adults ingest an average of around 250g (1 cup) of microplastics per year from sources like food, water, dust, plastic containers, and synthetic fabrics.
You can read the systematic review, here: Do microplastics play a role in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases? Shared pathophysiological pathways for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease
What to do about it?
If you want to reduce the aggregations of those unpleasantries, then there are avenues other the (the obvious) plastic reduction, such as: Spermine vs Alzheimer’s & Parkinson’s!
Or for a much deeper dive into the broader topic of avoiding the microplastics the industrial world is keen to throw our way, you might like this book that we reviewed a little while back:
Healthy Living in a Contaminated World – by Dr. Donald Hoernschemeyer
You might also consider this simpler, practical guide: Unprocess Your Life – by Rob Hobson
…and lastly, do check out those articles we linked up top, as you can learn more about how to reduce microplastics in your life from avenues other than the obvious ones.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Lemon vs Lime – 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 lemons to limes, we picked the lemons.
Why?
This one’s simple today. They’re both comparable fruits in most ways, and their macro profiles are almost identical. When it comes to vitamins, however, they stand apart a little.
Both are most well-known for their vitamin C content, but lemons contain about 2x the vitamin C of limes.
In other vitamins, they’re not too far apart. Technically limes have 2x the vitamin A, but this doesn’t count for much because it’s a case of “two times almost nothing is still almost nothing”.
In the category of minerals, neither fruit is a very good source of most minerals, and the minerals they do have, are mostly more or less the same.
Both are acidic, and this can have blood sugar benefits in both cases (and, if not careful, damage tooth enamel in both cases). Nothing to set either apart from the other here.
So, it comes down to the vitamin C! In which category, lemons take the prize with their higher content.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars ← where it talks about the use of vinegar here, it’s about the acidity, so lemon juice or lime juice is an option too!
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Elon Musk says ‘disc replacement’ worked for him. But evidence this surgery helps chronic pain is lacking
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.
Last week in a post on X, owner of the platform Elon Musk recommended people look into disc replacement if they’re experiencing severe neck or back pain.
According to a biography of the billionaire, he’s had chronic back and neck pain since he tried to “judo throw” a 350-pound sumo wrestler in 2013 at a Japanese-themed party for his 42nd birthday, and blew out a disc at the base of his neck.
In comments following the post, Musk said the surgery was a “gamechanger” and reduced his pain significantly.
Musk’s original post has so far had more than 50 million views and generated controversy. So what is disc replacement surgery and what does the evidence tells us about its benefits and harms?
What’s involved in a disc replacement?
Disc replacement is a type of surgery in which one or more spinal discs (a cushion between the spine bones, also known as vertebrae) are removed and replaced with an artificial disc to retain movement between the vertebrae. Artificial discs are made of metal or a combination of metal and plastic.
Disc replacement may be performed for a number of reasons, including slipped discs in the neck, as appears to be the case for Musk.
Disc replacement is major surgery. It requires general anaesthesia and the operation usually takes 2–4 hours. Most people stay in hospital for 2–7 days. After surgery patients can walk but need to avoid things like strenuous exercise and driving for 3–6 weeks. People may be required to wear a neck collar (following neck surgery) or a back brace (following back surgery) for about 6 weeks.
Costs vary depending on whether you have surgery in the public or private health system, if you have private health insurance, and your level of coverage if you do. In Australia, even if you have health insurance, a disc replacement surgery may leave you more than A$12,000 out of pocket.
Disc replacement surgery is not performed as much as other spinal surgeries (for example, spinal fusion) but its use is increasing.
In New South Wales for example, rates of privately-funded disc replacement increased six-fold from 6.2 per million people in 2010–11 to 38.4 per million in 2019–20.
What are the benefits and harms?
People considering surgery will typically weigh that option against not having surgery. But there has been very little research comparing disc replacement surgery with non-surgical treatments.
Clinical trials are the best way to determine if a treatment is effective. You first want to show that a new treatment is better than doing nothing before you start comparisons with other treatments. For surgical procedures, the next step might be to compare the procedure to non-surgical alternatives.
Unfortunately, these crucial first research steps have largely been skipped for disc replacement surgery for both neck and back pain. As a result, there’s a great deal of uncertainty about the treatment.
There are no clinical trials we know of investigating whether disc replacement is effective for neck pain compared to nothing or compared to non-surgical treatments.
For low back pain, the only clinical trial that has been conducted to our knowledge comparing disc replacement to a non-surgical alternative found disc replacement surgery was slightly more effective than an intensive rehabilitation program after two years and eight years.
Many people experience chronic pain. Yan Krukau/Pexels Complications are not uncommon, and can include disclocation of the artificial disc, fracture (break) of the artificial disc, and infection.
In the clinical trial mentioned above, 26 of the 77 surgical patients had a complication within two years of follow up, including one person who underwent revision surgery that damaged an artery leading to a leg needing to be amputated. Revision surgery means a re-do to the primary surgery if something needs fixing.
Are there effective alternatives?
The first thing to consider is whether you need surgery. Seeking a second opinion may help you feel more informed about your options.
Many surgeons see disc replacement as an alternative to spinal fusion, and this choice is often presented to patients. Indeed, the research evidence used to support disc replacement mainly comes from studies that compare disc replacement to spinal fusion. These studies show people with neck pain may recover and return to work faster after disc replacement compared to spinal fusion and that people with back pain may get slightly better pain relief with disc replacement than with spinal fusion.
However, spinal fusion is similarly not well supported by evidence comparing it to non-surgical alternatives and, like disc replacement, it’s also expensive and associated with considerable risks of harm.
Fortunately for patients, there are new, non-surgical treatments for neck and back pain that evidence is showing are effective – and are far cheaper than surgery. These include treatments that address both physical and psychological factors that contribute to a person’s pain, such as cognitive functional therapy.
While Musk reported a good immediate outcome with disc replacement surgery, given the evidence – or lack thereof – we advise caution when considering this surgery. And if you’re presented with the choice between disc replacement and spinal fusion, you might want to consider a third alternative: not having surgery at all.
Giovanni E Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney; Christine Lin, Professor, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney; Christopher Maher, Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney; Ian Harris, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, UNSW Sydney, and Joshua Zadro, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney
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:
-
Chiropractors have been banned again from manipulating babies’ spines. Here’s what the evidence actually 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.
Chiropractors in Australia will not be able to perform spinal manipulation on children under the age of two once more, following health concerns from doctors and politicians.
But what is the spinal treatment at the centre of the controversy? Does it work? Is there evidence of harm?
We’re a team of researchers who specialise in evidence-based musculoskeletal health. I (Matt) am a registered chiropractor, Joshua is a registered physiotherapist and Giovanni trained as a physiotherapist.
Here’s what the evidence says.
Dmitry Naumov/Shutterstock Remind me, how did this all come about?
A Melbourne-based chiropractor posted a video on social media in 2018 using a spring-loaded device (known as the Activator) to manipulate the spine of a two-week-old baby suspended upside down by the ankles.
The video sparked widespread concerns among the public, medical associations and politicians. It prompted a ban on the procedure in young children. The Victorian health minister commissioned Safer Care Victoria to conduct an independent review of spinal manipulation techniques on children.
Recently, the Chiropractic Board of Australia reinstated chiropractors’ authorisation to perform spinal manipulation on babies under two years old. But this week, it backflipped, following heavy criticism from medical associations and politicians.
What is spinal manipulation?
Spinal manipulation is a treatment used by chiropractors and other health professionals such as doctors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.
It is an umbrella term that includes popular “back cracking” techniques.
It also includes more gentle forms of treatment, such as massage or joint mobilisations. These involve applying pressure to joints without generating a “cracking” sound.
Does spinal manipulation in babies work?
Several international guidelines for health-care professionals recommend spinal manipulation to treat adults with conditions such as back pain and headache as there is an abundance of evidence on the topic. For example, spinal manipulation for back pain is supported by data from nearly 10,000 adults.
For children, it’s a different story. Safer Care Victoria’s 2019 review of spinal manipulation found very few studies testing whether this treatment was safe and effective in children.
Studies were generally small and were of poor quality. Some of those small, poor-quality studies, suggest spinal manipulation provides a very small benefit for back pain, colic and potentially bedwetting – some common reasons for parents to take their child to see a chiropractor. But overall, the review found the overall body of evidence was very poor.
Spinal manipulation doesn’t seem to help young children with an ear infection. MIA Studio/Shutterstock However, for most other children’s conditions chiropractors treat – such as headache, asthma, otitis media (a type of ear infection), cerebral palsy, hyperactivity and torticollis (“twisted neck”) – there did not appear to be a benefit.
The number of studies investigating the effectiveness of spinal manipulation on babies under two years of age was even smaller.
There was one high-quality study and two small, poor quality studies. These did not show an appreciable benefit of spinal manipulation on colic, otitis media with effusion (known as glue ear) or twisted neck in babies.
Is spinal manipulation on babies safe?
In terms of safety, most studies in the review found serious complications were extremely rare. The review noted one baby or child dying (a report from Germany in 2001 after spinal manipulation by a physiotherapist). The most common complications were mild in nature such as increased crying and soreness.
However, because studies were very small, they cannot tell us anything about the safety of spinal manipulation in a reliable way. Studies that are designed to properly investigate if a treatment is safe typically include thousands of patients. And these studies have not yet been done.
Why do people see chiropractors?
Safer Care Victoria also conducted surveys with more than 20,000 people living in Australia who had taken their children under 12 years old to a chiropractor in the past ten years.
Nearly three-quarters said that was for treatment of a child aged two years or younger.
Nearly all people surveyed reported a positive experience when they took their child to a chiropractor and reported that their child’s condition improved with chiropractic care. Only a small number of people (0.3%) reported a negative experience, and this was mostly related to cost of treatment, lack of improvement in their child’s condition, excessive use of x-rays, and perceived pressure to avoid medications.
Many of the respondents had also consulted their GP or maternity/child health nurse.
What now for spinal manipulation in children?
At the request of state and federal ministers, the Chiropractic Board of Australia confirmed that spinal manipulation on babies under two years old will continue to be banned until it discusses the issue further with health ministers.
Many chiropractors believe this is unfair, especially considering the strong consumer support for chiropractic care outlined in the Safer Care Victoria report, and the rarity of serious reported harms in children.
Others believe that in the absence of evidence of benefit and uncertainty around whether spinal manipulation is safe in children and babies, the precautionary principle should apply and children and babies should not receive spinal manipulation.
Ultimately, high quality research is urgently needed to better understand whether spinal manipulation is beneficial for the range of conditions chiropractors provide it for, and whether the benefit outweighs the extremely small chance of a serious complication.
This will help parents make an informed choice about health care for their child.
Matt Fernandez, Senior lecturer and researcher in chiropractic, CQUniversity Australia; Giovanni E. Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, and Joshua Zadro, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney
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:
-
How To Walk Away From Alzheimer’s
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 written before avoiding Alzheimer’s in many different ways, for example:
Alzheimer’s Causative Factors To Avoid
…and regular readers will also be aware of our dictum “what’s good for the heart, is good for the brain”, which is because the heart feeds the brain, with oxygen and nutrients, and also ultimately clears away detritus like beta-amyloid (associated with Alzheimer’s).
For much more detail on this, see: What’s Your Vascular Dementia Risk? ← includes actual numbers and a risk calculator tool and things like that
So, it’s no surprise of course that exercise is protective against dementia, and as per the above, typically the most important thing here is heart health, so getting regular cardiovascular exercise, such walking, running, or dancing is great. Cycling too. Things like that.
Beyond cardio
First, some background. A previous (2023) study concluded:
❝Among older adults, more time spent in sedentary behaviors was significantly associated with higher incidence of all-cause dementia. Future research is needed to determine whether the association between sedentary behavior and risk of dementia is causal.❞
Source: Sedentary Behavior and Incident Dementia Among Older Adults
We’re not going to go deeply into that paper, because our interest today is about the answer to that call of “future research is needed”, because a team of scientists have now delivered on that.
In terms of how recent this new research is, it was published today (at time of writing), in the Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
In it, Dr. Marissa Gogniat et al. examined the relationship between sedentary behavior and cognitive decline and neurodegeneration, in 404 adults aged 50+.
A note on “cognitive decline” and “neurodegeneration”: those two terms are often used interchangeably, because they are usually strongly associated with each other so if one goes up or down then so does the other, but technically:
- cognitive decline = a decline of cognitive abilities, as measured by cognitive performance tests
- neurodegeneration = physical degeneration of neural tissue, typically specifically in the brain, as measured by various physical markers of neurodegeneration (tests range from brain scans to blood markers to biopsies and more, but the point is that it’s all physical stuff)
While based on the one-line summary we gave (“examined the relationship between sedentary behavior and cognitive decline / neurodegeneration”), this can sound a bit like a “examined whether water is wet” study, but in fact it becomes interesting when physical exercise is controlled for, since they found:
❝Reducing your risk for Alzheimer’s disease is not just about working out once a day. Minimizing the time spent sitting, even if you do exercise daily, reduces the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease.❞
~ Dr. Marissa Gogniat
Too vague? Here’s the less vague version:
❝In cross-sectional models, greater sedentary time related to a smaller AD-neuroimaging signature (β = -0.0001, p = 0.01) and worse episodic memory (β = -0.001, p = 0.003). Associations differed by APOE-ε4 status. In longitudinal models, greater sedentary time related to faster hippocampal volume reductions (β = -0.1, p = 0.008) and declines in naming (β = -0.001, p = 0.03) and processing speed (β = -0.003, p = 0.02; β = 0.01, p = 0.01).❞
In other words:
- Those are very significant findings, statistically speaking; the causal association cannot be reasonably denied without some strong new evidence for why
- Greater sedentary behavior is related to neurodegeneration and worse cognition.
- Sedentary behavior is an independent* risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
- Associations differed by APOE-ε4 carrier status in cross-sectional models.
*as in, the sedentary risk factor stands (so to speak) regardless of whether you exercise a lot
With regard to “Associations differed by APOE-ε4 carrier status in cross-sectional models.”, that’s a little complicated, as …
❝Interestingly, we only found a sedentary time x APOE-ε4 status interaction on occipital volume longitudinally (which did not survive correction for multiple comparisons) and no interactions on cognition. The significant effect on occipital lobe volume was driven by APOE-ε4 non-carriers, which does not align with our cross-sectional findings. APOE-ε4 carriers are thought to have accelerated gray matter volume loss, starting possibly in middle age. Therefore, while increased sedentary time may impact gray matter volume among APOE-ε4 carriers, this effect may be masked by the cumulative effect of APOE-ε4 on brain volume over the lifespan that is captured at baseline.❞
In other words: in all likelihood, having the APOE-ε4 mutation probably means it’s extra important for you to not be sedentary in your lifestyle, and (good news) being non-sedentary is probably disproportionately impactful for you in a positive way, but (bad news) the APOE-ε4 mutation causes such an increased risk already, that it’s difficult to 100% ascertain that statistically, without larger samples starting earlier in life.
You can read the paper in full here:
“What if have to spend a lot of time sitting down?”
A valid question, relevant for many.
For this, check out:
Stand Up For Your Health (Or Don’t) ← our main feature on this also includes more things you can do if you must sit, to make sitting less bad!
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:










