The Cold Truth About Respiratory Infections

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 Pathogens That Came In From The Cold

Yesterday, we asked you about your climate-themed policy for avoiding respiratory infections, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of answers:

  • About 46% of respondents said “Temperature has no bearing on infection risk”
  • About 31% of respondents said “It’s important to get plenty of cold, fresh air, as this kills/inactivates pathogens”
  • About 22% of respondents said “It’s important to stay warm to avoid getting colds, flu, etc”

Some gave rationales, including…

For “stay warm”:

❝Childhood lessons❞

For “get cold, fresh air”:

❝I just feel that it’s healthy to get fresh air daily. Whether it kills germs, I don’t know❞

For “temperature has no bearing”:

❝If climate issue affected respiratory infections, would people in the tropics suffer more than those in colder climates? Pollutants may affect respiratory infections, but I doubt just temperature would do so.❞

So, what does the science say?

It’s important to stay warm to avoid getting colds, flu, etc: True or False?

False, simply. Cold weather does increase the infection risk, but for reasons that a hat and scarf won’t protect you from. More on this later, but for now, let’s lay to rest the idea that bodily chilling will promote infection by cold, flu, etc.

In a small-ish but statistically significant study (n=180), it was found that…

❝There was no evidence that chilling caused any acute change in symptom scores❞

Read more: Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms

Note: they do mention in their conclusion that chilling the feet “causes the onset of cold symptoms in about 10% of subjects who are chilled”, but the data does not support that conclusion, and the only clear indicator is that people who are more prone to colds generally, were more prone to getting a cold after a cold water footbath.

In other words, people who were more prone to colds remained more prone to colds, just the same.

It’s important to get plenty of cold, fresh air, as this kills/inactivates pathogens: True or False?

Broadly False, though most pathogens do have an optimal operating temperature that (for obvious reasons) is around normal human body temperature.

However, given that they don’t generally have to survive outside of a host body for long to get passed on, the fact that the pathogens may be a little sluggish in the great outdoors will not change the fact that they will be delighted by the climate in your respiratory tract as soon as you get back into the warm.

With regard to the cold air not being a reliable killer/inactivator of pathogens, we call to the witness stand…

Polar Bear Dies From Bird Flu As H5N1 Spreads Across Globe

(it was found near Utqiagvik, one of the northernmost communities in Alaska)

Because pathogens like human body temperature, raising the body temperature is a way to kill/inactivate them: True or False?

True! Unfortunately, it’s also a way to kill us. Because we, too, cannot survive for long above our normal body temperature.

So, for example, bundling up warmly and cranking up the heating won’t necessarily help, because:

  • if the temperature is comfortable for you, it’s comfortable for the pathogen
  • if the temperature is dangerous to the pathogen, it’s dangerous to you too

This is why the fever response evolved, and/but why many people with fevers die anyway. It’s the body’s way of playing chicken with the pathogen, challenging “guess which of us can survive this for longer!”

Temperature has no bearing on infection risk: True or False?

True and/or False, circumstantially. This one’s a little complex, but let’s break it down to the essentials.

  • Temperature has no direct effect, for the reasons we outlined above
  • Temperature is often related to humidity, which does have an effect
  • Temperature does tend to influence human behavior (more time spent in open spaces with good ventilation vs more time spent in closed quarters with poor ventilation and/or recycled air), which has an obvious effect on transmission rates

The first one we covered, and the third one is self-evident, so let’s look at the second one:

Temperature is often related to humidity, which does have an effect

When the environmental temperature is warmer, water droplets in the air will tend to be bigger, and thus drop to the ground much more quickly.

When the environmental temperature is colder, water droplets in the air will tend to be smaller, and thus stay in the air for longer (along with any pathogens those water droplets may be carrying).

Some papers on the impact of this:

So whatever temperature you like to keep your environment, humidity is a protective factor against respiratory infections, and dry air is a risk factor.

So, for example:

  • If the weather doesn’t suit having good ventilation, a humidifier is a good option
  • Being in an airplane is one of the worst places to be for this, outside of a hospital

Don’t have a humidifier? Here’s an example product on Amazon, but by all means shop around.

A crock pot with hot water in and the lid off is also a very workable workaround too

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit
  • What’s the difference between ‘strep throat’ and a sore throat? We’re developing a vaccine for one of them
    Strep vs. Sore Throat: Identifying the differences, understanding risks, and the race for a Strep A vaccine.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • 6 Ways To Look After Your Back

    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.

    Back To Back

    When people think about looking after their back, often thought does not go much further than sitting with good posture, and perhaps even standing with good posture. And those things are important, but:

    1) People’s efforts to have good posture often result in overcorrecting creating an anterior pelvic tilt that causes lower back problems.

    Quick tip: if you’re sticking your butt out, you’re doing it wrong (no matter how great your butt is). Instead, to find the correct posture, go up on your tip-toes for a moment, then imagine a plumb-line down the center of your body, thus perpendicular to the floor, going all the way down to the ground. Now, slowly return your heels to the ground, but as you do so, keep your spine aligned to the plumb-line, so you’re not moving backwards as you drop, just directly down. This will land you in perfect posture.

    Unless you have scoliosis. In which case, it’ll get you as close to good posture as is likely attainable from any quick tip.

    2) There’s a lot more to looking after our back than just good posture!

    Here are 5 other important things to do:

    Be strong

    Do strength-training for your back. How to do that is beyond the scope of today’s feature, but there are many good guides and also personal trainers that can be found.

    Start off easy and work up, but do start. The stronger your back is, the less likely a momentary lapse in concentration is to throw out your back because you picked something up with imperfect form.

    See also: Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)

    Stretch intentionally

    Many back injuries occur as a result of stretching and/or twisting awkwardly, so if you ensure your basic mobility and range of motion is good, the less likely it is that unthinkingly twisting around 270° to see where that wasp was going will slip a disk.

    The more you stretch intentionally (carefully, please), the more you will be able to stretch unintentionally without injury.

    See also: Building & Maintaining Mobility

    Stand when you can, walk when you can

    We humans have outrun our evolution in a lot of ways, and/but one thing our bodies are definitely not well-adapted for is sitting. Unless we are sitting in a low squat the way you might often see an orang-utan sitting, sitting is not a good way of being for us. Even sitting seiza-style or cross-legged is passable for a short while, not for too long.

    So, while there sure are times we need to sit (especially if you’re driving!) minimizing those times is ideal. There are a lot of activities that are traditionally done sitting, where there’s no need for it to be so. For example, your writer here sits for the day’s main meal, but takes any smaller meal standing (and when guests visit for a coffee or such, I’ll offer them the couch while I myself prop up the fireplace). Standing desks are also great if you spend a lot of time at the computer for any reason.

    See also: The Doctor Who Wants Us To Exercise Less & Move More

    Rest when you need to

    You can’t stand all the time! But know this: if you want to rest your legs, lying down is a lot better for your back (and internal organs) than sitting.

    Taking a 5 minute break lying on your couch, or bed, or floor, is a perfectly good option and only social convention says otherwise.

    If you want a compromise option, though? A recliner chair, in the reclined position, is a better for your back than being scrunched up in the Economy Class Flight position.

    PS: About that bed situation…

    What Mattress Is Best, By Science?

    Kill pain before it kills you

    Painkillers aren’t great for the health per se, but pain (or rather, our bodily responses to such) can be worse. Half the time, when it comes to musculoskeletal problems, things get a lot worse a lot more quickly because of how we overcompensate due to the pain. So, take your pain seriously, and remember, the right amount of pain is zero.

    If you’re thinking “but pain relief option xyz isn’t good for me”, we strongly recommend checking out:

    The 7 Approaches To Pain Management

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Fibromyalgia – by Dr. R. Paul St Amand

    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 core claim of the book is that guaifenesin, an over-the-counter expectorant (with a good safety profile) usually taken to treat a chesty cough, is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and is rapidly metabolized and excreted into the urine—and on the way, it lowers uric acid levels, which is a big deal for fibromyalgia sufferers.

    He goes on to explain how the guaifenesin, by a similar biochemical mechanism, additionally facilitates the removal of other excess secretions that are associated with fibromyalgia.

    The science for all this is… Compelling and logical, while not being nearly so well-established yet as his confidence would have us believe.

    In other words, he could be completely wrong, because adequate testing has not yet been done. However, he also could be right; scientific knowledge is, by the very reality of scientific method, always a step behind hypothesis and theory (in that order).

    Meanwhile, there are certainly many glowing testimonials from fibromyalgia sufferers, saying that this helped a lot.

    Bottom line: if you have fibromyalgia and do not mind trying a relatively clinically untested (yet logical and anecdotally successful) protocol to lessen then symptoms (allegedly, to zero), then this book will guide you through that and tell you everything to watch out for.

    Click here to check out What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Fibromyalgia, and [check with your doctor/pharmacist and] try it out!

    Share This Post

  • Why 7 Hours Sleep Is Not Enough

    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.

    How Sleep-Deprived Are You, Really?

    This is Dr. Matthew Walker. He’s a neuroscientist and sleep specialist, and is the Director of the Center for Human Sleep Science at UC Berkeley’s Department of Psychology. He’s also the author of the international bestseller “Why We Sleep”.

    What does he want us to know?

    Sleep deprivation is more serious than many people think it is. After about 16 hours without sleep, the brain begins to fail, and needs more than 7 hours of sleep to “reset” cognitive performance.

    Note: note “seven or more”, but “more than seven”.

    After ten days with only 7 hours sleep (per day), Dr. Walker points out, the brain is as dysfunctional as it would be after going without sleep for 24 hours.

    Here’s the study that sparked a lot of Dr. Walker’s work:

    The Cumulative Cost of Additional Wakefulness: Dose-Response Effects on Neurobehavioral Functions and Sleep Physiology From Chronic Sleep Restriction and Total Sleep Deprivation

    Importantly, in Dr. Walker’s own words:

    Three full nights of recovery sleep (i.e., more nights than a weekend) are insufficient to restore performance back to normal levels after a week of short sleeping❞

    ~ Dr. Matthew Walker

    See also: Why You Probably Need More Sleep

    Furthermore: the sleep-deprived mind is unaware of how sleep-deprived it is.

    You know how a drunk person thinks they can drive safely? It’s like that.

    You do not know how sleep-deprived you are, when you are sleep-deprived!

    For example:

    ❝(60.7%) did not signal sleepiness before a sleep fragment occurred in at least one of the four MWT trials❞

    Source: Sleepiness is not always perceived before falling asleep in healthy, sleep-deprived subjects

    Sleep efficiency matters

    With regard to the 7–9 hours band for optimal health, Dr. Walker points out that the sleep we’re getting is not always the sleep we think we’re getting:

    ❝Assuming you have a healthy sleep efficiency (85%), to sleep 9 hours in terms of duration (i.e. to be a long-sleeper), you would need to be consistently in bed for 10 hours and 36 minutes a night. ❞

    ~ Dr. Matthew Walker

    At the bottom end of that, by the way, doing the same math: to get only the insufficient 7 hours sleep discussed earlier, a with a healthy 85% sleep efficiency, you’d need to be in bed for 8 hours and 14 minutes per night.

    The unfortunate implication of this: if you are consistently in bed for 8 hours and 14 minutes (or under) per night, you are not getting enough sleep.

    “But what if my sleep efficiency is higher than 85%?”

    It shouldn’t be.If your sleep efficiency is higher than 85%, you are sleep-deprived and your body is having to enforce things.

    Want to know what your sleep efficiency is?

    We recommend knowing this, by the way, so you might want to check out:

    Head-To-Head Comparison of Google and Apple’s Top Sleep-Monitoring Apps

    (they will monitor your sleep and tell you your sleep efficiency, amongst other things)

    Want to know more?

    You might like his book:

    Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams

    …and/or his podcast:

    The Matt Walker Podcast

    …and for those who like videos, here’s his (very informative) TED talk:

    !

    Prefer text? Click here to read the transcript

    Want to watch it, but not right now? Bookmark it for later

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit
  • Shrimp vs Caviar – 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 shrimp to caviar, we picked the caviar.

    Why?

    Both of these seafoods share a common history (also shared with lobster, by the way) of “nutrient-dense peasant-food that got gentrified and now it’s more expensive despite being easier to source”. But, cost and social quirks aside, what are their strengths and weaknesses?

    In terms of macros, both are high in protein, but caviar is much higher in fat. You may be wondering: are the fats healthy? And the answer is that it’s a fairly even mix between monounsaturated (healthy), polyunsaturated (healthy), and saturated (unhealthy). The fact that caviar is generally enjoyed in very small portions is its saving grace here, but quantity for quantity, shrimp is the natural winner on macros.

    …unless we take into account the omega-3 and omega-6 balance, in which case, it’s worthy of note that caviar has more omega-3 (which most people could do with consuming more of) while shrimp has more omega-6 (which most people could do with consuming less of).

    When it comes to vitamins, caviar has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, B12, D, K, and choline; nor are the margins small in most cases, being multiples (or sometimes, tens of multiples) higher. Shrimp, meanwhile, boasts only more vitamin B3.

    In the category of minerals, caviar leads with more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while shrimp has more copper and zinc.

    All in all, while shrimp has its benefits for being lower in fat (and thus also, for those whom that may interest, lower in calories), caviar wins the day by virtue of its overwhelming nutritional density.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us

    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:

  • The Diabetes Code – by Dr. Jason Fung

    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.

    Cure this serious disease with diet!” is often a bold-claim that overreaches scientific rigor, but in this case, it’s well-established as scientifically valid.

    Caveat up-front: the only known circumstance in which this won’t work is if you have comorbidities that prevent you from following the advice.

    You may be wondering: is this just the Mediterranean diet again? The answer is that the Mediterreanean diet (or similar) is part of it. But there’s a lot more to this book than that.

    Dr. Fung explains to us a lot of the physiology of type 2 diabetes; how insulin resistance occurs, how it becomes a vicious cycle that we get locked into, and how to escape it.

    • We learn about the role of fructose, and why fruit is very healthful whereas high-fructose corn syrup and similars are very much not.
    • We learn about the role of the liver in glycogen metabolism, and how to un-fatty a fatty liver. Good news: the liver has famously strong self-regenerative abilities, if we give it a break to allow it to do so!
    • We learn why portion control doesn’t work, and why intermittent fasting does (here be science).

    Dr. Fung’s very readable explanations are free from needless jargon while not dumbing down. The writing style is clear and direct: “this happens this way”, “do this, not that”, etc.

    Bottom line: if you have type 2 diabetes and would like to not have that (or if you are pre-diabetic and would like to avoid diabetes) this is a book for you. If you are in great metabolic health and would like to stay that way as you get older, then this is a book for you too.

    Click here to check out The Diabetes Code, and get/keep your metabolic health in order!

    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:

  • Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?

    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.

    Does our diet need a little help?

    We asked you for your take on supplements, and got the above-illustrated, below-described set of results.

    • The largest minority of respondents (a little over a third) voted for “I just take something very specific”
    • The next most respondents voted for “I take so many supplements; every little helps!”
    • Almost as many voted for “I just take a vitamin or two / a multivitamin”
    • Fewest, about 8%, voted for “I get everything I need from my diet”

    But what does the science say?

    Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?

    True or False depending on how you measure it.

    An apple today and an apple from a hundred years ago are likely to contain the same amounts of micronutrients per apple, but a lower percentage of micronutrients per 100g of apple.

    The reason for this is that apples (and many other food products; apples are just an arbitrary example) have been selectively bred (and in some cases, modified) for size, and because the soil mineral density has remained the same, the micronutrients per apple have not increased commensurate to the increase in carbohydrate weight and/or water weight. Thus, the resultant percentage will be lower, despite the quantity remaining the same.

    We’re going to share some science on this, and/but would like to forewarn readers that the language of this paper is a bit biased, as it looks to “debunk” claims of nutritional values dropping while skimming over “yes, they really have dropped percentage-wise” in favor of “but look, the discrete mass values are still the same, so that’s just a mathematical illusion”.

    The reality is, it’s no more a mathematical illusion than is the converse standpoint of saying the nutritional value is the same, despite the per-100g values dropping. After all, sometimes we eat an apple as-is; sometimes we buy a bag of frozen chopped fruit. That 500g bag of chopped fruit is going to contain less copper (for example) than one from decades past.

    Here’s the paper, and you’ll see what we mean:

    Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines

    Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?

    True or False depending on the supplement (and your body, and the rest of your diet)

    Many people are suffering from dietary deficiencies of vitamins and minerals, that could be easily correctable by supplementation:

    However, as this study by Dr. Fang Fang Zhang shows, a lot of vitamin and mineral supplementation does not appear to have much of an effect on actual health outcomes, vis-à-vis specific diseases. She looks at:

    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Cancer
    • Type 2 diabetes
    • Osteoporosis

    Her key take-aways from this study were:

    • Randomised trial evidence does not support use of vitamin, mineral, and fish oil supplements to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases
    • People using supplements tend to be older, female, and have higher education, income, and healthier lifestyles than people who do not use them
    • Use of supplements appreciably reduces the prevalence of inadequate intake for most nutrients but also increases the prevalence of excess intake for some nutrients
    • Further research is needed to assess the long term effects of supplements on the health of the general population and in individuals with specific nutritional needs, including those from low and middle income countries

    Read her damning report: Health effects of vitamin and mineral supplements

    On the other hand…

    This is almost entirely about blanket vitamin-and-mineral supplementation. With regard to fish oil supplementation, many commercial fish oil supplements break down in the stomach rather than the intestines, and don’t get absorbed well. Additionally, many people take them in forms that aren’t pleasant, and thus result in low adherence (i.e., they nominally take them, but in fact they just sit on the kitchen counter for a year).

    One thing we can conclude from this is that it’s good to check the science for any given supplement before taking it, and know what it will and won’t help for. Our “Monday Research Review” editions of 10almonds do this a lot, although we tend to focus on herbal supplements rather than vitamins and minerals.

    We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?

    Contingently True (but here be caveats)

    In principle, if we eat the recommended guideline amounts of various macro- and micro-nutrients, we will indeed get all that we are generally considered to need. Obviously.

    However, this may come with:

    • Make sure to get enough protein… Without too much meat, and also without too much carbohydrate, such as from most plant sources of protein
    • Make sure to get enough carbohydrates… But only the right kinds, and not too much, nor at the wrong time, and without eating things in the wrong order
    • Make sure to get enough healthy fats… Without too much of the unhealthy fats that often exist in the same foods
    • Make sure to get the right amount of vitamins and minerals… We hope you have your calculators out to get the delicate balance of calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamin D right.

    That last one’s a real pain, by the way. Too much or too little of one or another and the whole set start causing problems, and several of them interact with several others, and/or compete for resources, and/or are needed for the others to do their job.

    And, that’s hard enough to balance when you’re taking supplements with the mg/µg amount written on them, never mind when you’re juggling cabbages and sardines.

    On the topic of those sardines, don’t forget to carefully balance your omega-3, -6, and -9, and even within omega-3, balancing ALA, EPA, and DHA, and we hope you’re juggling those HDL and LDL levels too.

    So, when it comes to getting everything we need from our diet, for most of us (who aren’t living in food deserts and/or experiencing food poverty, or having a medical condition that restricts our diet), the biggest task is not “getting enough”, it’s “getting enough of the right things without simultaneously overdoing it on the others”.

    With supplements, it’s a lot easier to control what we’re putting in our bodies.

    And of course, unless our diet includes things that usually can’t be bought in supermarkets, we’re not going to get the benefits of taking, as a supplement, such things as:

    Etc.

    So, there definitely are supplements with strong science-backed benefits, that probably can’t be found on your plate!

    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: