The End of Food Allergy – by Dr. Kari Nadeau & Sloan Barnett

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 don’t usually mention author credentials beyond their occupation/title. However, in this case it bears acknowledging at least the first line of the author bio:

❝Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, is the director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University and is one of the world’s leading experts on food allergy❞

We mention this, because there’s a lot of quack medicine out there [in general, but especially] when it comes to things such as food allergies. So let’s be clear up front that Dr. Nadeau is actually a world-class professional at the top of her field.

This book is, by the way, about true allergies—not intolerances or sensitivities. It does touch on those latter two, but it’s not the main meat of the book.

In particular, most of the research cited is around peanut allergies, though the usual other common allergens are all discussed too.

The authors’ writing style is that of a science educator (Dr. Nadeau’s co-author, Sloan Barnett, is lawyer and health journalist). We get a clear explanation of the science from real-world to clinic and back again, and are left with a strong understanding, not just a conclusion.

The titular “End of Food Allergy” is a bold implicit claim; does the book deliver? Yes, actually.

The book lays out guidelines for safely avoiding food allergies developing in infants, and yes, really, how to reverse them in adults. But…

Big caveat:

The solution for reversing severe food allergies (e.g. “someone nearby touched a peanut three hours ago and now I’m in anaphylactic shock”), drug-assisted oral immunotherapy, takes 6–24 months of weekly several-hour-long clinic visits, relies on having a nearby clinic offering the service, and absolutely 100% cannot be done at home (on pain of probable death).

Bottom line: it’s by no means a magic bullet, but yes, it does deliver.

Click here to check out The End of Food Allergy to learn more!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Calm Your Inflammation – by Dr. Brenda Tidwell
  • Thinner Leaner Stronger – by Michael Matthews
    “Thinner Leaner Stronger” delivers sensible dietary and specific exercise advice for lasting lifestyle changes—not quick fixes—aimed at achieving a leaner, stronger body.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Coffee, From A Blood Sugar Management Perspective

    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 favorite French biochemist (Jessie Inchauspé) is back, and this time, she’s tackling a topic near and dear to this writer’s heart: coffee ☕💕

    What to consider

    Depending on how you like your coffee, some or all of these may apply to you:

    • Is coffee healthy? Coffee is generally healthy, reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes by improving fat burning in the liver and protecting beta cells in the pancreas.
    • Does it spike blood sugars? Usually not so long as it’s black and unsweetened. Black coffee can cause small glucose spikes in some people due to stress-induced glucose release, but only if it contains caffeine.
    • When is it best to drink it? Drinking coffee after breakfast, especially after a poor night’s sleep, can actually reduce glucose and insulin spikes.
    • What about milk? All milks cause some glucose and insulin spikes. While oat milk is generally healthy, for blood sugar purposes unsweetened nut milks or even whole cow’s milk (but not skimmed; it needs the fat) are better options as they cause smaller spikes.
    • What about sweetening? Adding sugar to coffee, especially on an empty stomach, obviously leads to large glucose spikes. Alternative sweeteners like stevia or sweet cinnamon are fine substitutes.

    For more details on all of those things, plus why Kenyan coffee specifically may be the best for blood sugars, enjoy:

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

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • The Fascinating Truth About Aspartame, Cancer, & Neurotoxicity

    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.

    Is Aspartame’s Reputation Well-Deserved?

    A bar chart showing the number of people who are interested in social media and Aspartame.

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions on aspartame, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 47% said “It is an evil carcinogenic neurotoxin”
    • 20% said “It is safe-ish, but has health risks that are worse than sugar”
    • About 19% said “It is not healthy, but better than sugar”
    • About 15% said “It’s a perfectly healthy replacement for sugar”

    But what does the science say?

    Aspartame is carcinogenic: True or False?

    False, assuming consuming it in moderation. In excess, almost anything can cause cancer (oxygen is a fine example). But for all meaningful purposes, aspartame does not appear to be carcinogenic. For example,

    ❝The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or other harms in people.❞

    ~ NIH | National Cancer Institute

    Source: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer

    Plenty of studies and reviews have also confirmed this; here are some examples:

    Why then do so many people believe it causes cancer, despite all the evidence against it?

    Well, there was a small study involving giving megadoses to rats, which did increase their cancer risk. So of course, the popular press took that and ran with it.

    But those results have not been achieved outside of rats, and human studies great and small have all been overwhelmingly conclusive that moderate consumption of aspartame has no effect on cancer risk.

    Aspartame is a neurotoxin: True or False?

    False, again assuming moderate consumption. If you’re a rat being injected with a megadose, your experience may vary. But a human enjoying a diet soda, the aspartame isn’t the part that’s doing you harm, so far as we know.

    For example, the European Food Safety Agency’s scientific review panel concluded:

    ❝there is still no substantive evidence that aspartame can induce such effects❞

    ~ Dr. Atkin et al (it was a pan-European team of 21 experts in the field)

    Source: Report on the Meeting on Aspartame with National Experts

    See also,

    ❝The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior.

    The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.❞

    ~ Dr. Magnuson et al.

    Source: Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies

    and

    ❝The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive.

    When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.❞

    ~ Dr. Stegink et al.

    Source: Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology | Aspartame: Review of Safety

    Why then do many people believe it is a neurotoxin? This one can be traced back to a chain letter hoax from about 26 years ago; you can read it here, but please be aware it is an entirely debunked hoax:

    Urban Legends | Aspartame Hoax

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Feminist narratives are being hijacked to market medical tests not backed by evidence

    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.

    Corporations have used feminist language to promote their products for decades. In the 1980s, companies co-opted messaging about female autonomy to encourage women’s consumption of unhealthy commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol.

    Today, feminist narratives around empowerment and women’s rights are being co-opted to market interventions that are not backed by evidence across many areas of women’s health. This includes by commercial companies, industry, mass media and well-intentioned advocacy groups.

    Some of these health technologies, tests and treatments are useful in certain situations and can be very beneficial to some women.

    However, promoting them to a large group of asymptomatic healthy women that are unlikely to benefit, or without being transparent about the limitations, runs the risk of causing more harm than good. This includes inappropriate medicalisation, overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

    In our analysis published today in the BMJ, we examine this phenomenon in two current examples: the anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) test and breast density notification.

    The AMH test

    The AMH test is a blood test associated with the number of eggs in a woman’s ovaries and is sometimes referred to as the “egg timer” test.

    Although often used in fertility treatment, the AMH test cannot reliably predict the likelihood of pregnancy, timing to pregnancy or specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists therefore strongly discourages testing for women not seeking fertility treatment.

    Woman sits in a medical waiting room
    The AMH test can’t predict your chance of getting pregnant.
    Anastasia Vityukova/Unsplash

    Despite this, several fertility clinics and online companies market the AMH test to women not even trying to get pregnant. Some use feminist rhetoric promising empowerment, selling the test as a way to gain personalised insights into your fertility. For example, “you deserve to know your reproductive potential”, “be proactive about your fertility” and “knowing your numbers will empower you to make the best decisions when family planning”.

    The use of feminist marketing makes these companies appear socially progressive and champions of female health. But they are selling a test that has no proven benefit outside of IVF and cannot inform women about their current or future fertility.

    Our recent study found around 30% of women having an AMH test in Australia may be having it for these reasons.

    Misleading women to believe that the test can reliably predict fertility can create a false sense of security about delaying pregnancy. It can also create unnecessary anxiety, pressure to freeze eggs, conceive earlier than desired, or start fertility treatment when it may not be needed.

    While some companies mention the test’s limitations if you read on, they are glossed over and contradicted by the calls to be proactive and messages of empowerment.

    Breast density notification

    Breast density is one of several independent risk factors for breast cancer. It’s also harder to see cancer on a mammogram image of breasts with high amounts of dense tissue than breasts with a greater proportion of fatty tissue.

    While estimates vary, approximately 25–50% of women in the breast screening population have dense breasts.

    Young woman has mammogram
    Dense breasts can make it harder to detect cancer.
    Tyler Olsen/Shutterstock

    Stemming from valid concerns about the increased risk of cancer, advocacy efforts have used feminist language around women’s right to know such as “women need to know the truth” and “women can handle the truth” to argue for widespread breast density notification.

    However, this simplistic messaging overlooks that this is a complex issue and that more data is still needed on whether the benefits of notifying and providing additional screening or tests to women with dense breasts outweigh the harms.

    Additional tests (ultrasound or MRI) are now being recommended for women with dense breasts as they have the ability to detect more cancer. Yet, there is no or little mention of the lack of robust evidence showing that it prevents breast cancer deaths. These extra tests also have out-of-pocket costs and high rates of false-positive results.

    Large international advocacy groups are also sponsored by companies that will financially benefit from women being notified.

    While stronger patient autonomy is vital, campaigning for breast density notification without stating the limitations or unclear evidence of benefit may go against the empowerment being sought.

    Ensuring feminism isn’t hijacked

    Increased awareness and advocacy in women’s health are key to overcoming sex inequalities in health care.

    But we need to ensure the goals of feminist health advocacy aren’t undermined through commercially driven use of feminist language pushing care that isn’t based on evidence. This includes more transparency about the risks and uncertainties of health technologies, tests and treatments and greater scrutiny of conflicts of interests.

    Health professionals and governments must also ensure that easily understood, balanced information based on high quality scientific evidence is available. This will enable women to make more informed decisions about their health.The Conversation

    Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney and Tessa Copp, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Calm Your Inflammation – by Dr. Brenda Tidwell
  • Ultra-Processed People – by Dr. Chris van Tulleken

    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 probably won’t come as a great surprise to any of our readers that ultra-processed food is—to make a sweeping generalization—not fabulous for the health. So, what does this book offer beyond that?

    Perhaps this book’s greatest strength is in showing not just what ultra-processed foods are, but why they are. In principle, food being highly processed should be neither good nor bad by default. Much like GMOs, if a food is modified to be more nutritious, that should be good, right?

    Only, that’s mostly not what happens. What happens instead is that food is modified (be it genetically or by ultra-processing) to be cheaper to produce, and thus maximise the profit margin.

    The addition of a compound that increases shelf-life but harms the health, increases sales and is a net positive for the manufacturer, for instance. Dr. van Tulleken offers us many, many, examples and explanations of such cost-cutting strategies at our expense.

    In terms of qualifications, the author has an MD from Oxford, and also a PhD, but the latter is in molecular virology; not so relevant here. Yet, we are not expected to take an “argument from authority”, and instead, Dr. van Tulleken takes great pains to go through a lot of studies with us—the good, the bad, and the misleading.

    If the book has a downside, then this reviewer would say it’s in the format; it’s less a reference book, and more a 384-page polemic. But, that’s a subjective criticism, and for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they like.

    Click here to check out Ultra-Processed People, and understand better what you are putting in your body!

    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:

  • Everything You Need To Know About The Menopause – by Kate Muir

    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.

    Kate Muir has made a career out of fighting for peri-menopausal health to be taken seriously. Because… it’s actually far more serious than most people know.

    What people usually know:

    • No more periods
    • Hot flushes
    • “I dunno, some annoying facial hairs maybe”

    The reality encompasses a lot more, and Muir covers topics including:

    • Workplace struggles (completely unnecessary ones)
    • Changes to our sex life (not usually good ones, by default!)
    • Relationship between menopause and breast cancer
    • Relationship between menopause and Alzheimer’s

    “Wait”, you say, “correlation is not causation, that last one’s just an age thing”, and that’d be true if it weren’t for the fact that receiving Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) or not is strongly correlated with avoiding Alzheimer’s or not.

    The breast cancer thing is not to be downplayed either. Taking estrogen comes with a stated risk of breast cancer… But what they don’t tell you, is that for many people, not taking it comes with a higher risk of breast cancer (but that’s not the doctor’s problem, in that case). It’s one of those situations where fear of litigation can easily overrule good science.

    This kind of thing, and much more, makes up a lot of the meat of this book.

    Hormonal treatment for the menopause is often framed in the wider world as a whimsical luxury, not a serious matter of health…. If you’ve ever wondered whether you might want something different, something better, as part of your general menopause plan (you have a plan for this important stage of your life, right?), this is a powerful handbook for you.

    Additionally, if (like many!) you justifiably fear your doctor may brush you off (or in the case of mood disorders, may try to satisfy you with antidepressants to treat the symptom, rather than HRT to treat the cause), this book will arm you as necessary to help you get what you need.

    Grab your copy of “Everything You Need To Know About The Menopause” from Amazon today!

    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:

  • Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear

    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.

    Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear

    Women get Alzheimer’s at nearly twice the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.

    So… Why?

    There are many potential things to look at, but four stand out for quick analysis:

    • Chromosomes: women usually have XX chromosomes, to men’s usual XY. There are outliers to both groups, people with non-standard combinations of chromosomes, but not commonly enough to throw out the stats.
    • Hormones: women usually have high estrogen and low testosterone, compared to men. Again there are outliers and this is a huge oversimplification that doesn’t even look at other sex hormones, but broadly speaking (which sounds vague, but is actually what is represented in epidemiological studies), it will be so.
    • Anatomy: humans have some obvious sexual dimorphism (again, there are outliers, but again, not enough to throw out the stats); this seems least likely to be relevant (Alzheimer’s is probably not stored in the breasts, for examples), though average body composition (per muscle:fat ratio) could admittedly be a factor.
    • Social/lifestyle: once again, #NotAllWomen etc, but broadly speaking, women and men often tend towards different social roles in some ways, and as we know, of course lifestyle can play a part in disease pathogenesis.

    As a quick aside before we continue, if you’re curious about those outliers, then a wiki-walk into the fascinating world of intersex conditions, for example, could start here. But by and large, this won’t affect most people.

    So… Which parts matter?

    Back in 2018, Dr. Maria Teresa Ferretti et al. kicked up some rocks in this regard, looking not just at genes (as much research has focussed on) or amyloid-β (again, well-studied) but also at phenotypes and metabolic and social factors—bearing in mind that all three of those are heavily influenced by hormones. Noting, for example, that (we’ll quote directly here):

    • Men and women with Alzheimer disease (AD) exhibit different cognitive and psychiatric symptoms, and women show faster cognitive decline after diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia.
    • Brain atrophy rates and patterns differ along the AD continuum between the sexes; in MCI, brain atrophy is faster in women than in men.
    • The prevalence and effects of cerebrovascular, metabolic and socio-economic risk factors for AD are different between men and women.

    See: Sex differences in Alzheimer disease—the gateway to precision medicine

    So, have scientists controlled for each of those factors?

    Mostly not! But they have found clues, anyway, while noting the limitations of the previous way of conducting studies. For example:

    ❝Women are more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease and experience faster cognitive decline compared to their male counterparts. These sex differences should be accounted for when designing medications and conducting clinical trials❞

    ~ Dr. Feixiong Cheng

    Read: Research finds sex differences in immune response and metabolism drive Alzheimer’s disease

    Did you spot the clue?

    It was “differences in immune response and metabolism”. These things are both influenced by (not outright regulated by, but strongly influenced by) sex hormones.

    ❝As [hormonal] sex influences both the immune system and metabolic process, our study aimed to identify how all of these individual factors influence one another to contribute to Alzheimer’s disease❞

    ~ Dr. Justin Lathia

    Ignoring for a moment progesterone’s role in metabolism, estrogen is an immunostimulant and testosterone is an immunosuppressant. These thus both also have an effect in inflammation, which yes, includes neuroinflammation.

    But wait a minute, shouldn’t that mean that women are more protected, not less?

    It should! Except… Alzheimer’s is an age-related disease, and in the age-bracket that generally gets Alzheimer’s (again, there are outliers), menopause has been done and dusted for quite a while.

    Which means, and this is critical: post-menopausal women not on HRT are essentially left without the immune boost usually directed by estrogen, while men of the same age will be ticking over with their physiology that (unlike that of the aforementioned women) was already adapted to function with negligible estrogen.

    Specifically:

    ❝The metabolic consequences of estrogen decline during menopause accelerate neuropathology in women❞

    ~ Dr. Rasha Saleh

    Source: Hormone replacement therapy is associated with improved cognition and larger brain volumes in at-risk APOE4 women

    Critical idea to take away from all this:

    Alzheimer’s research is going to be misleading if it doesn’t take into account sex differences, and not just that, but also specifically age-relevant sex differences—because that can flip the narrative. If we don’t take age into account, we could be left thinking estrogen is to blame, when in fact, it appears to be the opposite.

    In the meantime, if you’re a woman of a certain age, you might talk with a doctor about whether HRT could be beneficial for you, if you haven’t already:

    ❝Women at genetic risk for AD (carrying at least one APOE e4 allele) seem to be particularly benefiting from MHT❞

    (MHT = Menopausal Hormone Therapy; also commonly called HRT, which is the umbrella term for Hormone Replacement Therapies in general)

    ~ Dr. Herman Depypere

    Source study: Menopause hormone therapy significantly alters pathophysiological biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease

    Pop-sci press release version: HRT could ward off Alzheimer’s among at-risk women

    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: