The Dental Diet – by Dr. Steven Lin

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.

As it turns out, there’s a lot more to healthy teeth than skipping the sugar and getting some calcium.

The author’s journey started with the realization that most of his work as a dentist should be unnecessary, and not just in the “you should have been flossing” sense. Rather, he came to the same conclusions as his fellow dentist Weston Price before him, and this time (unlike Price) he stuck to his own field, dentistry—meaning that the conclusions he kept were the more valid ones.

Another thing he does better than Price is that he contextualizes the information—we don’t need, for example, to be eating seal fat as a main component of our diet, but we do need to be getting sufficient amounts of certain fat-soluble vitamins. And most people aren’t. Same with what’s good or bad for our oral microbiome, and by extension, our saliva, and by extension, our teeth and gums.

There’s a lot of nutritional information in here; macros and micronutrients alike, but the book goes further than that, to also recommend minimally-processed food that requires more chewing, for example. Not just for its nutritional content, but because that helps our teeth move to (and then stay) where they are ideally supposed to be. No amount of perfectly-blended nutritional supplement drink will align your maxilla for you, say. But chomping on raw carrots? Different story.

Dr. Lin offers a 40-day meal plan, but aware that if you’re vegetarian or vegan you’re probably going to have to rethink it yourself using the information he gives, because his meal plan includes animal products.

Bottom line: if you’d like to eat for better oral health (nutritionally, physically, and for your oral microbiome), this book has all the information you’ll need.

Click here to check out The Dental Diet, and improve yours!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Powered by Plants – by Ocean Robbins & Nichole Dandrea-Russert
  • What Is Making The Ringing In Your Ears Worse?
    Dr. Rachael Cook reveals how caffeine, nicotine, diet, and untreated hearing loss can intensify tinnitus symptoms. Learn management strategies for the ringing in your ears.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The Exercises That Can Fix Sinus Problems (And 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.

    Who nose what benefits you will gain today?

    This is James Nestor, a science journalist and author. He’s written for many publications, including Scientific American, and written a number of books, most notably Breath: The New Science Of A Lost Art.

    Today we’ll be looking at what he has to share about what has gone wrong with our breathing, what problems this causes, and how to fix it.

    What has gone wrong?

    When it comes to breathing, we humans are the pugs of the primate world. In a way, we have the opposite problem to the squashed-faced dogs, though. But, how and why?

    When our ancestors learned first tenderize food, and later to cook it, this had two big effects:

    1. We could now get much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering
    2. We now did not need to chew our food nearly so much

    Getting much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering is what allowed us to grow our brains so large—as a species, we have a singularly large brain-to-body size ratio.

    Not needing to chew our food nearly so much, meanwhile, had even more effects… And these effects have become only more pronounced in recent decades with the rise of processed food making our food softer and softer.

    It changed the shape of our jaw and cheekbones, just as the size of our brains taking up more space in our skull moved our breathing apparatus around. As a result, our nasal cavities are anatomically ridiculous, our sinuses are a crime against nature (not least of all because they drain backwards and get easily clogged), and our windpipes are very easily blocked and damaged due to the unique placement of our larynx; we’re the only species that has it there. It allowed us to develop speech, but at the cost of choking much more easily.

    What problems does this cause?

    Our (normal, to us) species-wide breathing problems have resulted in behavioral adaptations such as partial (or in some people’s cases, total or near-total) mouth-breathing. This in turn exacerbates the problems with our jaws and cheekbones, which in turn exacerbates the problems with our sinuses and nasal cavities in general.

    Results include such very human-centric conditions as sleep apnea, as well as a tendency towards asthma, allergies, and autoimmune diseases. Improper breathing also brings about a rather sluggish metabolism for how many calories we consume.

    How are we supposed to fix all that?!

    First, close your mouth if you haven’t already, and breathe through your nose.

    In and out.

    Both are important, and unless you are engaging in peak exercise, both should be through your nose. If you’re not used to this, it may feel odd at first, but practice, and build up your breathing ability.

    Six seconds in and six seconds out is a very good pace.

    If you’re sitting doing a breathing exercise, also good is four seconds in, four seconds hold, four seconds out, four seconds hold, repeat.

    But those frequent holds aren’t practical in general life, so: six seconds in, six seconds out.

    Through your nose only.

    This has benefits immediately, but there are other more long-term benefits from doing not just that, but also what has been called (by Nestor, amongst many others), “Mewing”, per the orthodontist, Dr. John Mew, who pioneered it.

    How (and why) to “mew”:

    Place your tongue against the roof of your mouth. It should be flat against the palate; you’re not touching it with the tip here; you’re creating a flat seal.

    Note: if you were mouth-breathing, you will now be unable to breathe. So, important to make sure you can breathe adequately through your nose first.

    This does two things:

    1. It obliges nose-breathing rather than mouth-breathing
    2. It creates a change in how the muscles of your face interact with the bones of your face

    In a battle between muscle and bone, muscle will always win.

    Aim to keep your tongue there as much as possible; make it your new best habit. If you’re not eating, talking, or otherwise using your tongue to do something, it should be flat against the roof of your mouth.

    You don’t have to exert pressure; this isn’t an exercise regime. Think of it more as a postural exercise, just, inside your mouth.

    Quick note: read the above line again, because it’s important. Doing it too hard could cause the opposite problems, and you don’t want that. You cannot rush this by doing it harder; it takes time and gentleness.

    Why would we want to do that?

    The result, over time, will tend to be much healthier breathing, better sinus health, freer airways, reduced or eliminated sleep apnea, and, as a bonus, what is generally considered a more attractive face in terms of bone structure. We’re talking more defined cheekbones, straighter teeth, and a better mouth position.

    Want to learn more?

    This is the “Mewing” technique that Nestor encourages us to try:

    Share This Post

  • A short history of sunscreen, from basting like a chook to preventing skin 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.

    Australians have used commercial creams, lotions or gels to manage our skin’s sun exposure for nearly a century.

    But why we do it, the preparations themselves, and whether they work, has changed over time.

    In this short history of sunscreen in Australia, we look at how we’ve slathered, slopped and spritzed our skin for sometimes surprising reasons.

    At first, suncreams helped you ‘tan with ease’

    Advertisement for Hamilton's Sunburn Vanishing Cream
    This early sunscreen claimed you could ‘tan with ease’.
    Trove/NLA

    Sunscreens have been available in Australia since the 30s. Chemist Milton Blake made one of the first.

    He used a kerosene heater to cook batches of “sunburn vanishing cream”, scented with French perfume.

    His backyard business became H.A. Milton (Hamilton) Laboratories, which still makes sunscreens today.

    Hamilton’s first cream claimed you could “
    Sunbathe in Comfort and TAN with ease”. According to modern standards, it would have had an SPF (or sun protection factor) of 2.

    The mirage of ‘safe tanning’

    A tan was considered a “modern complexion” and for most of the 20th century, you might put something on your skin to help gain one. That’s when “safe tanning” (without burning) was thought possible.

    Coppertone advertisement showing tanned woman in bikini
    This 1967 Coppertone advertisement urged you to ‘tan, not burn’.
    SenseiAlan/Flickr, CC BY-SA

    Sunburn was known to be caused by the UVB component of ultraviolet (UV) light. UVA, however, was thought not to be involved in burning; it was just thought to darken the skin pigment melanin. So, medical authorities advised that by using a sunscreen that filtered out UVB, you could “safely tan” without burning.

    But that was wrong.

    From the 70s, medical research suggested UVA penetrated damagingly deep into the skin, causing ageing effects such as sunspots and wrinkles. And both UVA and UVB could cause skin cancer.

    Sunscreens from the 80s sought to be “broad spectrum” – they filtered both UVB and UVA.

    Researchers consequently recommended sunscreens for all skin tones, including for preventing sun damage in people with dark skin.

    Delaying burning … or encouraging it?

    Up to the 80s, sun preparations ranged from something that claimed to delay burning, to preparations that actively encouraged it to get that desirable tan – think, baby oil or coconut oil. Sun-worshippers even raided the kitchen cabinet, slicking olive oil on their skin.

    One manufacturer’s “sun lotion” might effectively filter UVB; another’s merely basted you like a roast chicken.

    Since labelling laws before the 80s didn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients, it was often hard for consumers to tell which was which.

    At last, SPF arrives to guide consumers

    In the 70s, two Queensland researchers, Gordon Groves and Don Robertson, developed tests for sunscreens – sometimes experimenting on students or colleagues. They printed their ranking in the newspaper, which the public could use to choose a product.

    An Australian sunscreen manufacturer then asked the federal health department to regulate the industry. The company wanted standard definitions to market their products, backed up by consistent lab testing methods.

    In 1986, after years of consultation with manufacturers, researchers and consumers, Australian Standard AS2604 gave a specified a testing method, based on the Queensland researchers’ work. We also had a way of expressing how well sunscreens worked – the sun protection factor or SPF.

    This is the ratio of how long it takes a fair-skinned person to burn using the product compared with how long it takes to burn without it. So a cream that protects the skin sufficiently so it takes 40 minutes to burn instead of 20 minutes has an SPF of 2.

    Manufacturers liked SPF because businesses that invested in clever chemistry could distinguish themselves in marketing. Consumers liked SPF because it was easy to understand – the higher the number, the better the protection.

    Australians, encouraged from 1981 by the Slip! Slop! Slap! nationwide skin cancer campaign, could now “slop” on a sunscreen knowing the degree of protection it offered.

    How about skin cancer?

    It wasn’t until 1999 that research proved that using sunscreen prevents skin cancer. Again, we have Queensland to thank, specifically the residents of Nambour. They took part in a trial for nearly five years, carried out by a research team led by Adele Green of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Using sunscreen daily over that time reduced rates of squamous cell carcinoma (a common form of skin cancer) by about 60%.

    Follow-up studies in 2011 and 2013 showed regular sunscreen use almost halved the rate of melanoma and slowed skin ageing. But there was no impact on rates of basal cell carcinoma, another common skin cancer.

    By then, researchers had shown sunscreen stopped sunburn, and stopping sunburn would prevent at least some types of skin cancer.

    What’s in sunscreen today?

    An effective sunscreen uses one or more active ingredients in a cream, lotion or gel. The active ingredient either works:

    • “chemically” by absorbing UV and converting it to heat. Examples include PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and benzyl salicylate, or

    • “physically” by blocking the UV, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

    Physical blockers at first had limited cosmetic appeal because they were opaque pastes. (Think cricketers with zinc smeared on their noses.)

    With microfine particle technology from the 90s, sunscreen manufacturers could then use a combination of chemical absorbers and physical blockers to achieve high degrees of sun protection in a cosmetically acceptable formulation.

    Where now?

    Australians have embraced sunscreen, but they still don’t apply enough or reapply often enough.

    Although some people are concerned sunscreen will block the skin’s ability to make vitamin D this is unlikely. That’s because even SPF50 sunscreen doesn’t filter out all UVB.

    There’s also concern about the active ingredients in sunscreen getting into the environment and whether their absorption by our bodies is a problem.

    Sunscreens have evolved from something that at best offered mild protection to effective, easy-to-use products that stave off the harmful effects of UV. They’ve evolved from something only people with fair skin used to a product for anyone.

    Remember, slopping on sunscreen is just one part of sun protection. Don’t forget to also slip (protective clothing), slap (hat), seek (shade) and slide (sunglasses).The Conversation

    Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University

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

    Share This Post

  • Gut – by Dr. Giulia Enders

    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.

    On account of being an organ (or rather, a system of organs) whose functions are almost entirely autonomic, most of us don’t think about our gut much. We usually know there’s acid in the stomach, and we usually know there are “good and bad” gut bacteria. But what of the rest of what goes on?

    For anyone who has a hazy half-remembered knowledge from school, this will serve as not only a reminder, but a distinct upgrade in knowledge.

    Dr. Giuliua Enders talks us through not just the processes of what goes on, but, as a medical doctor, also many instances of what can go wrong, for example:

    • Why do some people’s bodies mistake nuts for a deadly threat (and consequently, accidentally elevate them to the status of actually becoming a deadly threat)?
    • Why are some people lactose-intolerant, and why do food intolerances often pop up later with age?
    • Why do constipation and diarrhoea happen?
    • Why is it that stress can cause stomach ulcers?

    The style of writing is light and easy-reading, and the illustrations are clear too. This is a very accessible book that doesn’t assume prior knowledge, and also doesn’t skimp on the scientific explanations—there’s no dumbing down here.

    Bottom line: knowing what goes on in our gut as akin to knowing what goes on under the hood of a car. A lot of the time we don’t need to know, but knowing can make a big difference from time to time, and that’s when you’ll wish you’d learned!

    Click here to check out Gut and be prepared!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Powered by Plants – by Ocean Robbins & Nichole Dandrea-Russert
  • How Too Much Salt May Lead To Organ Failure

    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.

    Salt’s Health Risks… More Than Just Heart Disease!

    It’s been well-established for a long time that too much salt is bad for cardiovascular health. It can lead to high blood pressure, which in turn can lead to many problems, including heart attacks.

    A team of researchers has found that in addition to this, it may be damaging your organs themselves.

    This is because high salt levels peel away the surfaces of blood vessels. How does this harm your organs? Because it’s through those walls that nutrients are selectively passed to where they need to be—mostly your organs. So, too much salt can indirectly starve your organs of the nutrients they need to survive. And you absolutely do not want your organs to fail!

    ❝We’ve identified new biomarkers for diagnosing blood vessel damage, identifying patients at risk of heart attack and stroke, and developing new drug targets for therapy for a range of blood vessel diseases, including heart, kidney and lung diseases as well as dementia❞

    ~ Newman Sze, Canada Research Chair in Mechanisms of Health and Disease, and lead researcher on this study.

    See the evidence for yourself: Endothelial Damage Arising From High Salt Hypertension Is Elucidated by Vascular Bed Systematic Profiling

    Diets high in salt are a huge problem in Canada, North America as a whole, and around the world. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report released March 9, Canadians consume 9.1 grams of salt per day.

    Read: WHO global report on sodium intake reduction

    You may be wondering: who is eating over 9g of salt per day?

    And the answer is: mostly, people who don’t notice how much salt is already in processed foods… don’t see it, and don’t think about it.

    Meanwhile, the WHO recommends the average person to consume no more than five grams, or one teaspoon, of salt per day.

    Read more: Massive efforts needed to reduce salt intake and protect lives

    The American Heart Association, tasked with improving public health with respect to the #1 killer of Americans (it’s also the #1 killer worldwide—but that’s not the AHA’s problem), goes further! It recommends no more than 2.3g per day, and ideally, no more than 1.5g per day.

    Some handy rules-of-thumb

    Here are sodium-related terms you may see on food packages:

    • Salt/Sodium-Free = Less than 5mg of sodium per serving
    • Very Low Sodium = 35mg or less per serving
    • Low Sodium = 140mg or less per serving
    • Reduced Sodium = At least 25% less sodium per serving than the usual sodium level
    • Light in Sodium or Lightly Salted = At least 50% less sodium than the regular product

    Confused by milligrams? Instead of remembering how many places to move the decimal point (and potentially getting an “out by an order of magnitude error—we’ve all been there!), think of the 1.5g total allowance as being 1500mg.

    See also: How much sodium should I eat per day? ← from the American Heart Association

    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:

  • Which Plant Milk?

    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.

    Plant-based milks—what’s best?

    You asked us to look at some popular plant milks and their health properties, and we said we’d do a main feature, so here it is!

    We’ll also give a quick nod to environmental considerations at the end too (they might not be quite what you expect!). That said, as a health and productivity newsletter, we’ll be focusing on the health benefits.

    While we can give a broad overview, please note that individual brands may vary, especially in two important ways:

    • Pro: many (most?) brands of plant milks fortify their products with extra vitamins and minerals, especially vitamin D and calcium.
    • Con: some brands also add sugar.

    So, by all means use this guide to learn about the different plants’ properties, and/but still do check labels later.

    Alternatively, consider making your own!

    • Pros: no added sugar + cheaper
    • Cons: no added vitamins and minerals + some equipment required

    Almond milk

    Almond milk is low in carbs and thus good for a carb-controlled diet. It’s also high in vitamin E and a collection of minerals.

    Oat milk

    Oats are one of the healthiest “staple foods” around, and while drinking oat milk doesn’t convey all the benefits, it does a lot. It also has one of the highest soluble fiber contents of any milk, which is good for reducing LDL (bad) cholesterol levels.

    See for example: Consumption of oat milk for 5 weeks lowers serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in free-living men with moderate hypercholesterolemia

    Coconut milk

    Coconut has a higher fat content than most plant milks, but also contains medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs). These raise HDL (good) cholesterol levels.

    Read the study: How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk?

    Hemp milk

    Being made from hemp seeds that contain a lot of protein and healthy fats (including omega-3 and omega-6), hemp milk packs a nutritious punch. It’s carb-free. It’s also THC-free, in case you were wondering, which means no, it does not have psychoactive effects.

    Pea milk

    It’s very high in protein, and contains an array of vitamins and minerals. It’s not very popular yet, so there isn’t as much research about it. This 2021 study found that it had the nutritional profile the closest to cow’s milk (beating soy by a narrow margin) and praised it as a good alternative for those with a soy allergy.

    This is Research Review Monday so we try to stick to pure science, but for your interest… here’s an interesting pop-science article (ostensibly in affiliation with the pea milk brand, Ripple) about the nutritional qualities of their pea milk specifically, which uses particularly nutrient-dense yellow peas, plus some extra vitamin and mineral fortifications:

    Read: Ripple Milk: 6 Reasons Why You Should Try Pea Milk

    Soy milk

    Perhaps the most popular plant milk, and certainly usually the cheapest in stores. It’s high in protein, similar to cow’s milk. In fact, nutritionally, it’s one of the closest to cow’s milk without involving cows as a middleman. (Did you know three quarters of all soy in the world is grown to feed to livestock, not humans? Now you do).

    And no, gentlemen-readers, it won’t have any feminizing effects. The human body can’t use the plant estrogens in soy for that. It does give some isoflavone benefits though, which are broadly good for everyone’s health. See for example this research review with 439 sources of its own:

    Read: Soy and Health Update: Evaluation of the Clinical and Epidemiologic Literature

    Quick note on flavor: nut milks have the flavor of the nut they were made from. Coconut milk tastes of coconut. The other milks listed above don’t have much of a flavor—which in many cases may be what you want.

    Note on environmental considerations:

    A lot of us try to be as socially responsible as reasonably possible in our choices, so this may be an influencing factor. In a nutshell:

    • Oats and Soy are generally grown as vast monocrops, and these are bad for the environment
      • They are still better for the environment than cow’s milk though, as for example most soy is grown to feed to cows, not humans. So including cows in the process means four times as much monocrop farming, plus adds several other environmental issues that are beyond the scope of this newsletter.
    • Almonds are particularly resource-intensive when it comes to water use.
      • Still nowhere near as much as cows, though.
    • Peas are grown in places that naturally have very high rainfall, so are a good option here. Same generally goes for rice, which didn’t make the cut today. (Nor did hazelnuts, sorry—we can only include so much!)
    • Hemp is by far and away the most environmentally friendly, assuming it is grown in a climate naturally conducive to such.
    • Making plant milk at home is usually most environmentally friendly, depending on where your ingredients came from.
    • Literally any plant milk is much more environmentally friendly than cow’s milk.

    See the science for yourself: Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

    See also (if you like graphs and charts): Environmental footprints of dairy and plant-based milks

    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:

  • Should We Skip Shampoo?

    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 😎

    ❝What’s the science on “no poo”? Is it really better for hair? There are so many mixed reports out there.❞

    First, for any unfamiliar: this is not about constipation; rather, it is about skipping shampoo, and either:

    • Using an alternative cleaning agent, such as vinegar and/or sodium bicarbonate
    • Using nothing at all, just conditioner when wet and brushing when dry

    Let’s examine why the trend became a thing: the thinking went “shampoo does not exist in nature, and most of our body is more or less self-cleaning; shampoos remove oils from hair, and the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair”.

    Now let’s fact-check each of those:

    • shampoo does not exist in nature: true (except in the sense that everything that exists can be argued to exist in nature, since nature encompasses everything—but the point is that shampoo is a purely artificial human invention)
    • most of our body is more or less self-cleaning: true, but our hair is not, for the same reason our nails are not: they’re not really a living part of the overall organism that is our body, so much as a keratinous protrusion of neatly stacked and hardened dead cells from our body. Dead things are not self-cleaning.
    • shampoos remove oils from hair: true; that is what they were invented for and they do it well
    • the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair: false; or at least, there is no evidence for this.

    Our hair’s natural oils are great at protecting it, and also great at getting dirt stuck in it. For the former reason we want the oil there; for the latter reason, we don’t.

    So the trick becomes: how to remove the oil (and thus the dirt stuck in it) and then put clean oil back (but not too much, because we don’t want it greasy, just, shiny and not dry)?

    The popular answer is: shampoo to clean the hair, conditioner to put an appropriate amount of oil* back.

    *these days, mostly not actually oil, but rather silicon-based substitutes, that do the same job of protecting hair and keeping it shiny and not brittle, without attracting so much dirt. Remember also that silicon is inert and very body safe; its molecules are simply too large to be absorbed, which is why it gets used in hair products, some skin products, and lube.

    See also: Water-based Lubricant vs Silicon-based Lubricant – Which is Healthier?

    If you go “no poo”, then what will happen is either you dry your hair out much worse by using vinegar or (even worse) bicarbonate of soda, or you just have oil (and any dirt stuck in it) in your hair for the life of the hair. As in, each individual strand of hair has a lifespan, and when it falls out, the dirt will go with it. But until that day, it’s staying with you, oil and dirt and all.

    If you use a conditioner after using those “more natural” harsh cleaners* that aren’t shampoo, then you’ll undo a lot of the damage done, and you’ll probably be fine.

    *in fact, if you’re going to skip shampoo, then instead of vinegar or bicarbonate of soda, dish soap from your kitchen may actually do less damage, because at least it’s pH-balanced. However, please don’t use that either.

    If you’re going to err one way or the other with regard to pH though, erring on the side of slightly acidic is much better than slightly alkaline.

    More on pH: Journal of Trichology | The Shampoo pH can Affect the Hair: Myth or Reality?

    If you use nothing, then brushing a lot will mitigate some of the accumulation of dirt, but honestly, it’s never going to be clean until you clean it.

    Our recommendation

    When your hair seems dirty, and not before, wash it with a simple shampoo (most have far too many unnecessary ingredients; it just needs a simple detergent, and the rest is basically for marketing; to make it foam completely unnecessarily but people like foam, to make it thicker so it feels more substantial, to make it smell nice, to make it a color that gives us confidence it has ingredients in it, etc).

    Then, after rinsing, enjoy a nice conditioner. Again there are usually a lot of unnecessary ingredients, but an argument can be made this time for some being more relevant as unlike with the shampoo, many ingredients are going to remain on your hair after rinsing.

    Between washes, if you have long hair, consider putting some hair-friendly oil (such as argan oil or coconut oil) on the tips daily, to avoid split ends.

    And if you have tight curly hair, then this advice goes double for you, because it takes a lot longer for natural oils to get from your scalp to the ends of your hair. For those of us with straight hair, it pretty much zips straight on down there within a day or two; not so if you have beautiful 4C curls to take care of!

    For more on taking care of hair gently, check out:

    Gentler Hair Care Options, According To Science

    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: