Tasty Hot-Or-Cold Soup

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.

Full of fiber as well as vitamins and minerals, this versatile “serve it hot or cold” soup is great whatever the weather—give it a try!

You will need

  • 1 quart low-sodium vegetable stock—ideally you made this yourself from vegetable offcuts you kept in the freezer until you had enough to boil in a big pan, but failing that, a large supermarket will generally be able to sell you low-sodium stock cubes.
  • 2 medium potatoes, peeled and diced
  • 2 leeks, chopped
  • 2 stalks celery, chopped
  • 1 large onion, diced
  • 1 large carrot, diced, or equivalent small carrots, sliced
  • 1 zucchini, diced
  • 1 red bell pepper, diced
  • 1 tsp rosemary
  • 1 tsp thyme
  • ¼ bulb garlic, minced
  • 1 small piece (equivalent of a teaspoon) ginger, minced
  • 1 tsp red chili flakes
  • 1 tsp black pepper, coarse ground
  • ½ tsp turmeric
  • Extra virgin olive oil, for frying
  • Optional: ½ tsp MSG or 1 tsp low-sodium salt

About the MSG/salt: there should be enough sodium already from the stock and potatoes, but in case there’s not (since not all stock and potatoes are made equal), you might want to keep this on standby.

Method

(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

1) Heat some oil in a sauté pan, and add the diced onion, frying until it begins to soften.

2) Add the ginger, potato, carrot, and leek, and stir for about 5 minutes. The hard vegetables won’t be fully cooked yet; that’s fine.

3) Add the zucchini, red pepper, celery, and garlic, and stir for another 2–3 minutes.

4) Add the remaining ingredients; seasonings first, then vegetable stock, and let it simmer for about 15 minutes.

5) Check the potatoes are fully softened, and if they are, it’s ready to serve if you want it hot. Alternatively, let it cool, chill it in the fridge, and enjoy it cold:

Enjoy!

Want to learn more?

For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Kimchi Fried Rice
  • Is It Dementia?
    Dementia disproportionately affects wealthy nations due to longevity and unhealthy lifestyles. Spot the signs of memory loss, aphasia, apraxia, and agnosia.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Do Probiotics Work For Weight Loss?

    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? 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

    ❝Can you talk about using probiotics for weight loss? Thanks❞

    Great question! First, a quick catch-up:

    How Much Difference Do Probiotic Supplements Make, Really?

    Our above-linked article covers a number of important benefits of probiotic supplements, but we didn’t talk about weight loss at all. So let’s examine whether probiotics are useful for weight loss.

    Up-front summary: the science is unclear

    This 2021 systematic review found that they are indeed very effective:

    ❝The intake of probiotics or synbiotics could lead to significant weight reductions, either maintaining habitual lifestyle habits or in combination with energy restriction and/or increased physical activity for an average of 12 weeks.

    Specific strains belonging to the genus Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium were the most used and those that showed the best results in reducing body weight.

    Both probiotics and synbiotics have the potential to help in weight loss in overweight and obese populations.❞

    Source: Effects of Probiotics and Synbiotics on Weight Loss in Subjects with Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review

    This slightly older (2015) systematic review and meta-analysis found the opposite:

    ❝Collectively, the RCTs examined in this meta-analysis indicated that probiotics have limited efficacy in terms of decreasing body weight and BMI and were not effective for weight loss.❞

    Source: Probiotics for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    And in case that’s not balanced enough, this 2020 randomized controlled trial got mixed results:

    ❝Regression analysis performed to correlate abundance of species following supplementation with body composition parameters and biomarkers of obesity found an association between a decrease over time in blood glucose and an increase in Lactobacillus abundance, particularly in the synbiotic group.

    However, the decrease over time in body mass, BMI, waist circumstance, and body fat mass was associated with a decrease in Bifidobacterium abundance.❞

    Source: Effects of Synbiotic Supplement on Human Gut Microbiota, Body Composition and Weight Loss in Obesity

    Summary

    Probiotics may or may not work for weight loss.

    In all likelihood, it depends on the blend of cultures contained in the supplement. It’s possible that Lactobacillus is more beneficial for weight loss than Bifidobacterium, which latter may actually reduce weight loss.

    Or it might not, because that was just one study and correlation ≠ causation!

    We’d love to give you a hard-and-fast answer, but if the data doesn’t support a hard-and-fast answer, we’re not going to lie to you.

    What we can say for sure though is that probiotics come with very many health benefits, so whether or not weight loss is one of them, they’re a good thing to have for most people.

    Some further articles that may interest you:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Fasting, eating earlier in the day or eating fewer meals – what works best for weight loss?

    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.

    Globally, one in eight people are living with obesity. This is an issue because excess fat increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

    Modifying your diet is important for managing obesity and preventing weight gain. This might include reducing your calorie intake, changing your eating patterns and prioritising healthy food.

    But is one formula for weight loss more likely to result in success than another? Our new research compared three weight-loss methods, to see if one delivered more weight loss than the others:

    • altering calorie distribution – eating more calories earlier rather than later in the day
    • eating fewer meals
    • intermittent fasting.

    We analysed data from 29 clinical trials involving almost 2,500 people.

    We found that over 12 weeks or more, the three methods resulted in similar weight loss: 1.4–1.8kg.

    So if you do want to lose weight, choose a method that works best for you and your lifestyle.

    chalermphon_tiam/Shutterstock

    Eating earlier in the day

    When our metabolism isn’t functioning properly, our body can’t respond to the hormone insulin properly. This can lead to weight gain, fatigue and can increase the risk of a number of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

    Eating later in the day – with a heavy dinner and late-night snacking – seems to lead to worse metabolic function. This means the body becomes less efficient at converting food into energy, managing blood sugar and regulating fat storage.

    In contrast, consuming calories earlier in the day appears to improve metabolic function.

    However, this might not be the case for everyone. Some people naturally have an evening “chronotype”, meaning they wake up and stay up later.

    People with this chronotype appear to have less success losing weight, no matter the method. This is due to a combination of factors including genes, an increased likelihood to have a poorer diet overall and higher levels of hunger hormones.

    Eating fewer meals

    Skipping breakfast is common, but does it hinder weight loss? Or is a larger breakfast and smaller dinner ideal?

    While frequent meals may reduce disease risk, recent studies suggest that compared to eating one to two meals a day, eating six times a day might increase weight loss success.

    However, this doesn’t reflect the broader research, which tends to show consuming fewer meals can lead to greater weight loss. Our research suggests three meals a day is better than six. The easiest way to do this is by cutting out snacks and keeping breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    Most studies compare three versus six meals, with limited evidence on whether two meals is better than three.

    However, front-loading your calories (consuming most of your calories between breakfast and lunch) appears to be better for weight loss and may also help reduce hunger across the day. But more studies with a longer duration are needed.

    Fasting, or time-restricted eating

    Many of us eat over a period of more than 14 hours a day.

    Eating late at night can throw off your body’s natural rhythm and alter how your organs function. Over time, this can increase your risk of type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases, particularly among shift workers.

    Time-restricted eating, a form of intermittent fasting, means eating all your calories within a six- to ten-hour window during the day when you’re most active. It’s not about changing what or how much you eat, but when you eat it.

    Man looks at his watch
    Some people limit their calories to a six hour window, while others opt for ten hours. Shutterstock/NIKS ADS

    Animal studies suggest time-restricted eating can lead to weight loss and improved metabolism. But the evidence in humans is still limited, especially about the long-term benefits.

    It’s also unclear if the benefits of time-restricted eating are due to the timing itself or because people are eating less overall. When we looked at studies where participants ate freely (with no intentional calorie limits) but followed an eight-hour daily eating window, they naturally consumed about 200 fewer calories per day.

    What will work for you?

    In the past, clinicians have thought about weight loss and avoiding weight gain as a simile equation of calories in and out. But factors such as how we distribute our calories across the day, how often we eat and whether we eat late at night may also impact our metabolism, weight and health.

    There are no easy ways to lose weight. So choose a method, or combination of methods, that suits you best. You might consider

    • aiming to eat in an eight-hour window
    • consuming your calories earlier, by focusing on breakfast and lunch
    • opting for three meals a day, instead of six.

    The average adult gains 0.4 to 0.7 kg per year. Improving the quality of your diet is important to prevent this weight gain and the strategies above might also help.

    Finally, there’s still a lot we don’t know about these eating patterns. Many existing studies are short-term, with small sample sizes and varied methods, making it hard to make direct comparisons.

    More research is underway, including well-controlled trials with larger samples, diverse populations and consistent methods. So hopefully future research will help us better understand how altering our eating patterns can result in better health.

    Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University and Loai Albarqouni, Assistant Professor | NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, Bond University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • From Painkillers To Hunger-Killers

    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.

    Here’s this week’s selection of health news discoveries, the science behind them, what they mean for you, and where you can go from there:

    Killing more than pain

    It’s well-known that overuse of opioids can lead to many problems, and here’s another one: messing with the endocrine system. This time, mostly well-evidenced in men—however, the researchers are keen to point out that absence of evidence is very much not evidence of absence, hence “the hidden effects” in the headline below. It’s not that the effects are hard to see—it’s that a lot of the research has yet to be done. For now, though, we know at the very least that there’s an association between opioid use and hyperprolactinemia in men. The same research also begins to shine a light on the effects of opioid use on the hypothalamic-pituitary system and bone health, too:

    Read in full: The hidden effects of opioid use on the endocrine system

    Related: The 7 Approaches To Pain Management

    Gut microbiome dysbiosis may lead to slipping disks

    These things sound quite unconnected, but the association is strong. The likely mechanism of action is that the gut dysbiosis influences systemic inflammation, and thus spinal health—because the gut-spine axis cannot really be disconnected (while you’re alive, at least). It’s especially likely if you’re over 50 and female:

    Read in full: Are back problems influenced by your gut?

    Related: Is Your Gut Leading You Into Osteoporosis?

    The Internet is really really great (for brains)

    It’s common to see many articles on the Internet telling us, paradoxically, that we should spend less time on the Internet. However… Remember when in the 90s, it was all about “the information superhighway”? It turns out, the fact that it’s more like “the information spaghetti junction” these days doesn’t change the fact that stimulation is good for our brains, and daily Internet use improves memory, because of the different way that we index and store information that came from a virtual source. While there are parts of your brain for “things at home” and “things at the local supermarket”, there are also parts for “things at 10almonds” and “things at Facebook” and so forth. You are, in effect, building a vast mental library as you surf:

    Read in full: Daily internet use supercharges your memory!

    Related: Make Social Media Work For Your Mental Health

    Fall back

    Around this time of year in many places in the Northern Hemisphere, the clocks go back an hour (it’s next weekend in the US and Canada, by the way, and this weekend in most of Europe). Many enjoy this as the potential for an extra hour’s sleep, but for night owls, it can be more of a nuisance than a benefit—throwing out what’s often an already difficult relationship with the clock, and presenting challenges both practical and physiological (different processing of melatonin, for instance). Here be science:

    Read in full: Why night owls struggle more when the clocks go back

    Related: Early Bird Or Night Owl? Genes vs Environment

    Can you outrun your hunger?

    It seems so, though benefits are strongest in women. We say “outrun”, though this study did use stationary cycling. To put it in few words, intense exercise (but not moderate exercise) significantly reduced acylated ghrelin (hunger hormone) levels, and subjective reports of hunger, especially in women:

    Read in full: Study finds intense exercise may suppress appetite in healthy humans

    Related: 3 Appetite Suppressants Better Than Ozempic

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Kimchi Fried Rice
  • Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics

    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 Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinions on the medicinal use of psychedelics, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • 32% said “This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders”
    • 32% said “There are some benefits, but they don’t outweigh the risks”
    • 20% said “This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority”
    • 16% said “This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best”

    Quite a spread of answers, so what does the science say?

    This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best! True or False?

    False! We’re tackling this one first, because it’s easiest to answer:

    There are some moderately-well established [usually moderate] clinical benefits from some psychedelics for some people.

    If that sounds like a very guarded statement, it is. Part of this is because “psychedelics” is an umbrella term; perhaps we should have conducted separate polls for psilocybin, MDMA, ayahuasca, LSD, ibogaine, etc, etc.

    In fact: maybe we will do separate main features for some of these, as there is a lot to say about each of them separately.

    Nevertheless, looking at the spread of research as it stands for psychedelics as a category, the answers are often similar across the board, even when the benefits/risks may differ from drug to drug.

    To speak in broad terms, if we were to make a research summary for each drug it would look approximately like this in each case:

    • there has been research into this, but not nearly enough, as “the war on drugs” may well have manifestly been lost (the winner of the war being: drugs; still around and more plentiful than ever), but it did really cramp science for a few decades.
    • the studies are often small, heterogenous (often using moderately wealthy white student-age population samples), and with a low standard of evidence (i.e. the methodology often has some holes that leave room for reasonable doubt).
    • the benefits recorded are often small and transient.
    • in their favor, though, the risks are also generally recorded as being quite low, assuming proper safe administration*.

    *Illustrative example:

    Person A takes MDMA in a club, dances their cares away, has had only alcohol to drink, sweats buckets but they don’t care because they love everyone and they see how we’re all one really and it all makes sense to them and then they pass out from heat exhaustion and dehydration and suffer kidney damage (not to mention a head injury when falling) and are hospitalized and could die;

    Person B takes MDMA in a lab, is overwhelmed with a sense of joy and the clarity of how their participation in the study is helping humanity; they want to hug the researcher and express their gratitude; the researcher reminds them to drink some water.

    Which is not to say that a lab is the only safe manner of administration; there are many possible setups for supervised usage sites. But it does mean that the risks are often as much environmental as they are risks inherent to the drug itself.

    Others are more inherent to the drug itself, such as adverse cardiac events for some drugs (ibogaine is one that definitely needs medical supervision, for example).

    For those who’d like to see numbers and clinical examples of the bullet points we gave above, here you go; this is a great (and very readable) overview:

    NIH | Evidence Brief: Psychedelic Medications for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders

    Notwithstanding the word “brief” (intended in the sense of: briefing), this is not especially brief and is rather an entire book (available for free, right there!), but we do recommend reading it if you have time.

    This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority: True or False?

    True, technically, insofar as the evidence points to these drugs being useful for such things as depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, etc, and estimates of people who struggle with mental health issues in general is often cited as being 1 in 4, or 1 in 5. Of course, many people may just have moderate anxiety, or a transient period of depression, etc; many, meanwhile, have it worth.

    In short: there is a very large minority of people who suffer from mental health issues that, for each issue, there may be one or more psychedelic that could help.

    This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders: True or False?

    True if and only if we’re willing to accept the so far weak evidence that we discussed above. False otherwise, while the jury remains out.

    One thing in its favor though is that while the evidence is weak, it’s not contradictory, insofar as the large preponderance of evidence says such therapies probably do work (there aren’t many studies that returned negative results); the evidence is just weak.

    When a thousand scientists say “we’re not completely sure, but this looks like it helps; we need to do more research”, then it’s good to believe them on all counts—the positivity and the uncertainty.

    This is a very different picture than we saw when looking at, say, ear candling or homeopathy (things that the evidence says simply do not work).

    We haven’t been linking individual studies so far, because that book we linked above has many, and the number of studies we’d have to list would be:

    n = number of kinds of psychedelic drugs x number of conditions to be treated

    e.g. how does psilocybin fare for depression, eating disorders, anxiety, addiction, PTSD, this, that, the other; now how does ayahuasca fare for each of those, and so on for each drug and condition; at least 25 or 30 as a baseline number, and we don’t have that room.

    But here are a few samples to finish up:

    In closing…

    The general scientific consensus is presently “many of those drugs may ameliorate many of those conditions, but we need a lot more research before we can say for sure”.

    On a practical level, an important take-away from this is twofold:

    • drugs, even those popularly considered recreational, aren’t ontologically evil, generally do have putative merits, and have been subject to a lot of dramatization/sensationalization, especially by the US government in its famous war on drugs.
    • drugs, even those popularly considered beneficial and potentially lifechangingly good, are still capable of doing great harm if mismanaged, so if putting aside “don’t do drugs” as a propaganda of the past, then please do still hold onto “don’t do drugs alone”; trained professional supervision is a must for safety.

    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:

  • Who you are and where you live shouldn’t determine your ability to survive cancer

    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 Canada, nearly everyone has a cancer story to share. It affects one in every two people, and despite improvements in cancer survivorship, one out of every four people affected by cancer still will die from it.

    As a scientist dedicated to cancer care, I work directly with patients to reimagine a system that was never designed for them in the first place – a system in which your quality of care depends on social drivers like your appearance, your bank statements and your postal code.

    We know that poverty, poor nutrition, housing instability and limited access to education and employment can contribute to both the development and progression of cancer. Quality nutrition and regular exercise reduce cancer risk but are contingent on affordable food options and the ability to stay active in safe, walkable neighbourhoods. Environmental hazards like air pollution and toxic waste elevate the risk of specific cancers, but are contingent on the built environment, laws safeguarding workers and the availability of affordable housing.

    On a health-system level, we face implicit biases among care providers, a lack of health workforce competence in addressing the social determinants of health, and services that do not cater to the needs of marginalized individuals.

    Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, those with low income and gender diverse individuals face the most discrimination in health care, resulting in inadequate experiences, missed diagnosis and avoidance of care. One patient living in subsidized housing told me, “You get treated like a piece of garbage – you come out and feel twice as bad.”

    As Canadians, we benefit from a taxpayer funded health-care system that encompasses cancer care services. The average Canadian enjoys a life expectancy of more than 80 years and Canada boasts high cancer survival rates. While we have made incredible strides in cancer care, we must work together to ensure these benefits are equally shared amongst all people in Canada. We need to redesign systems of care so that they are:

    1. Anti-oppressive. We must begin by understanding and responding to historical and systemic racism that shapes cancer risk, access to care and quality of life for individuals facing marginalizing conditions. Without tackling the root causes, we will never be able to fully close the cancer care gap. This commitment involves undoing intergenerational trauma and harm through public policies that elevate the living and working conditions of all people.
    2. Patient-centric. We need to prioritize patient needs, preferences and values in all aspects of their health-care experience. This means tailoring treatments and services to individual patient needs. In policymaking, it involves creating policies that are informed by and responsive to the real-life experiences of patients. In research, it involves engaging patients in the research process and ensuring studies are relevant to and respectful of their unique perspectives and needs. This holistic approach ensures that patients’ perspectives are central to all aspects of health care.
    3. Socially just. We must strive for a society in which everyone has equal access to resources, opportunities and rights, and systemic inequalities and injustices are actively challenged and addressed. When redesigning the cancer care system, this involves proactive practices that create opportunities for all people, particularly those experiencing the most marginalization, to become involved in systemic health-care decision-making. A system that is responsive to the needs of the most marginalized will ultimately work better for all people.

    Who you are, how you look, where you live and how much money you make should never be the difference between life and death. Let us commit to a future in which all people have the resources and support to prevent and treat cancer so that no one is left behind.

    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:

  • Why You Don’t Need 8 Glasses Of Water Per Day

    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 idea that you need to drink eight glasses of water daily is a myth. For most people most of the time, this practice will not make your skin brighter, improve mental clarity, or boost energy levels. All that will happen as a result of drinking beyond your thirst, is that you’ll pee more.

    A self-regulating system

    Our kidneys regulate hydration by monitoring blood volume and salt levels. When blood becomes slightly saltier or its volume drops, such as through sweating, the kidneys absorb more water into the bloodstream. If needed, the body triggers thirst signals to encourage fluid intake.

    In most cases, you can rely on your body’s natural thirst cues to manage hydration. Thirst is a reliable indicator of when you need to drink water, making constant monitoring of water intake unnecessary for most people.

    There are some exceptions, though! Some people, such as those with kidney stones, especially older adults, or those with specific medical considerations and resultant advice from your doctor, may need to pay closer attention to their water intake.

    Nor does hydration have to be a matter of “drinking water”: many foods and drinks, such as fruit, coffee, soups, etc, contribute to your daily water intake and (because the body processes it more slowly) are often more hydrating than plain water (which can just pass straight through if you take more than a certain amount at once). If you listen to your body’s thirst signals, there’s no need to rigidly count eight glasses of water each day.

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Hydration Mythbusting ← this also covers why urine color is not as good a guide as your thirst

    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: