The Humor Habit – by Paul Osincup

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.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls… It could be tolling for anyone. Don’t worry about it.It’s probably fine.

More seriously (heh), laughter is good for healthy lifespan, also called healthspan. It eases stress and anxiety, gives our brains neurochemicals they need to function well, and is very pro-social too, which in turn has knock-on positive effects for our own mental health as well as those around us.

This book is a guide to cultivating that humor, finding the funny side in difficult times, and bringing a light-hearted silliness to moments where it helps.

The title suggests it’s about habit-building (and it is!) but it’s also about knowing where to look in your daily life for humorous potential and how to find it, and how to bring that into being in the moment.

The style is that of an instruction manual with a healthy dose of pop-science; first and foremost this is a practical guide, not a several-hundred page exhortation on “find things funny!”, but rather a “hey, psst, here are many sneaky insider tricks for finding the funny“.

Bottom line: this book is not only a very enjoyable read, but also very much the gift that keeps on giving, so treat yourself!

Click here to check out The Humor Habit, and strength your funny-bones!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • The Body Is Not an Apology – by Sonya Renee Taylor
  • The Snooze-Button Controversy
    To Snooze Or Not To Snooze? (Science Has Answers) Dr. Jennifer Kanaan, a medical doctor specializing in sleep disorders, warns against relying on recent sleep studies. She suggests prioritizing uninterrupted sleep and getting sunlight upon waking.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The Sardinian Cholesterol Paradox

    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.

    Broadly speaking, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, is generally considered to be… Well… Bad. Specifically because of how it can functionally narrow arteries, causing bits of floating detritus to get stuck in it, narrow it further, and eventually harden into atherosclerotic plaque, at which point it becomes even harder for the body to clear out.

    We wrote about the process here: Demystifying Cholesterol

    When it comes to cholesterol, the most common lay understanding (especially under a certain age) is “it’s bad”.

    A more informed view (and more common after a certain age) is “LDL cholesterol is bad; HDL cholesterol is good”.

    A more nuanced view is “LDL cholesterol is established as significantly associated with (and almost certainly a causal factor of) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and related mortality in men; in women it is less strongly associated and may or may not be a causal factor”

    We wrote more about that, here: Statins: His & Hers? ← despite most research being on men, statins have very different effects (and side effects) for women, often being relatively less useful, and more dangerous. There are exceptions (for some women’s specific profiles they can still be worthwhile), but the trend is certainly troubling.

    What, then, of Sardinia?

    Sardinia is well-known for being one of the “Supercentenarian Blue Zones”, a place whose inhabitants enjoy (on average, statistically) unusually healthy longevity. These places have been looked to for clues as to how to live the healthiest life.

    For example: From Blue To Green: News From The Centenarian Blue Zones

    However, researchers recently were investigating life in a region of Sardinia where a lot of people are aged 90+, and followed the health of 168 of them for up to 6 years (because in the case of those who died during that time, obviously the time was less than 6 years).

    Note: because this was specifically a Blue Zones study, they only included participants of whom all four grandparents were born within the Blue Zone—so not, for example, looking at the health of someone who just moved there from New York, say.

    They collected a lot of interesting data (of course), but what we’re talking about today is that they found that participants with LDL levels above 130 mg/dL had a significantly longer average survival than those with LDL levels below this threshold. Specifically, a 40% lower mortality risk.

    This is interesting, because LDL levels ≥130 mg/dL are considered moderate hypercholesterolemia (i.e., the LDL levels are a bit too high).

    However, if the same participants had total cholesterol levels over 250mg/dL, they got no extra survival benefits, and very high cholesterol was still linked with shorter survival.

    You can read the paper here: The Cholesterol Paradox in Long-Livers from a Sardinia Longevity Hot Spot (Blue Zone)

    But before you reach for the butter…

    The researchers have several hypotheses about why these results could be so, including:

    • The longevity has less to do with LDL itself, and more to do with the diet, with the ratio of grain to olive oil.
    • Most of the participants with higher LDL cholesterol were on antihypertensive drugs, which a) will obviously have a cardioprotective effect, and b) means that their heart health is probably enjoying greater scrutiny, and medical scrutiny can also have a protective effect (indeed, that’s the point of it).
    • It was also speculated that the locals of that region may have a genetic defense against the harm of moderate hypercholesterolemia, due to historical exposure to malaria meaning that naturally slightly higher cholesterol levels without increased cardiovascular risk may have been naturally selected-for (i.e. those without it were more likely to die of malaria and not pass on their genes).

    Thus, it may be that it’s not so applicable more generally. However, it is still reason to at least re-examine how bad LDL cholesterol actually is, and whether for some demographics it could have a protective factor (much like “overweight” BMI is a protective factor for people over 65).

    Still, if you’d like to keep on top of your cholesterol levels, check out:

    How To Lower Cholesterol Naturally, Without Statins

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Beetroot vs Carrot – 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 beetroot to carrot, we picked the carrot.

    Why?

    It was close! And beetroot does have its advantages, but we say carrot wins on balance.

    In terms of macros, these two root vegetables are close to identical, down to both having 9.57g carbs per 100g, and 2.8g fiber per 100g. Technically, beetroot has a smidgen more protein, but nobody’s eating these for their tiny protein content.

    When it comes to vitamins, it’s not close and the margins are mostly huge: carrots have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while beetroot has more vitamin B9.

    In the category of minerals, superficially it swings the other way, but the margins this time are small. Nevertheless, beetroot has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while carrots have more calcium.

    This would make things, on balance, a tie: equal on macros, carrots win on vitamins, beetroot wins on minerals.

    But because of the relative margins of difference, carrots win the day, because they’re almost as good as beetroot on those minerals, whereas beetroot doesn’t come close to carrot on the vitamins.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    From Apples to Bees, and high-fructose C’s: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Is still water better for you than sparkling water?

    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.

    Still or sparkling? It’s a question you’ll commonly hear in a café or restaurant and you probably have a preference. But is there any difference for your health?

    If you love the fizz, here’s why you don’t have to pass on the sparkling water.

    Brent Hofacker/Shutterstock

    What makes my water sparkle?

    This article specifically focuses on comparing still filtered water to carbonated filtered water (called “sparkling water” or “unflavoured seltzer”). Soda water, mineral water, tonic water and flavoured water are similar, but not the same product.

    The bubbles in sparkling water are created by adding carbon dioxide to filtered water. It reacts to produce carbonic acid, which makes sparkling water more acidic (a pH of about 3.5) than still (closer to neutral, with a pH around 6.5-8.5).

    Which drink is healthiest?

    Water is the best way to hydrate our bodies. Research shows when it comes to hydration, still and sparkling water are equally effective.

    Some people believe water is healthier when it comes from a sealed bottle. But in Australia, tap water is monitored very carefully. Unlike bottled water, it also has the added benefit of fluoride, which can help protect young children against tooth decay and cavities.

    Sparkling or still water is always better than artificially sweetened flavoured drinks or juices.

    Isn’t soda water bad for my teeth and bones?

    There’s no evidence sparkling water damages your bones. While drinking a lot of soft drinks is linked to increased fractures, this is largely due to their association with higher rates of obesity.

    Sparkling water is more acidic than still water, and acidity can soften the teeth’s enamel. Usually this is not something to be too worried about, unless it is mixed with sugar or citrus, which has much higher levels of acidity and can harm teeth.

    However, if you grind your teeth often, the softening could enhance the damage it causes. If you’re undertaking a home whitening process, sparkling water might discolour your teeth.

    In most other cases, it would take a lot of sparkling water to pass by the teeth, for a long period of time, to cause any noticeable damage.

    How does drinking water affect digestion?

    There is a misconception drinking water (of any kind) with a meal is bad for digestion.

    While theoretically water could dilute stomach acid (which breaks down food), the practice of drinking it doesn’t appear to have any negative effect. Your digestive system simply adapts to the consistency of the meal.

    Some people do find that carbonated beverages cause some stomach upset. This is due to the build-up of gases, which can cause bloating, cramping and discomfort. For people with an overactive bladder, the acidity might also aggravate the urinary system.

    Interestingly, the fizzy “buzz” you feel in your mouth from sparkling water fades the more you drink it.

    Is cold water harder to digest?

    You’ve chosen still or sparkling water. What about its temperature?

    There are surprisingly few studies about the effect of drinking cold water compared to room temperature. There is some evidence colder water (at two degrees Celsius) might inhibit gastric contractions and slow down digestion. Ice water may constrict blood vessels and cause cramping.

    However other research suggests drinking cold water might temporarily boost metabolism, as the body needs to expend energy to warm it up to body temperature. This effect is minimal and unlikely to lead to significant weight loss.

    Which water wins?

    The bottom line is water is essential, hydrates us and has countless other health benefits. Water, with carbonated bubbles or without, will always be the healthiest drink to choose.

    And if you’re concerned about any impact to teeth enamel, one trick is to follow sparkling water with a glass of still. This helps rinse the teeth and return your mouth’s acidity back to normal.

    Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University and Charlotte Phelps, Senior Teaching Fellow, Medical Program, Bond University

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Body Is Not an Apology – by Sonya Renee Taylor
  • The push for Medicare to cover weight-loss drugs: An explainer

    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 largest U.S. insurer, Medicare, does not cover weight-loss drugs, making it tougher for older people to get access to promising new medications.

    If you cover stories about drug costs in the U.S., it’s important to understand why Medicare’s Part D pharmacy program, which covers people aged 65 and older and people with certain disabilities, doesn’t cover weight-loss drugs today. It’s also important to consider what would happen if Medicare did start covering weight loss drugs. This explainer will give you a brief overview of the issues and then summarize some recent publications the benefits and costs of drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

    First, what are these new and newsy weight loss drugs?

    Semaglutide is a medication used for both the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for long-term weight management in adults with obesity. It debuted in the United States in 2017 as an injectable diabetes drug called Ozempic, manufactured by Novo Nordisk. It’s part of a class of drugs that mimics the action of glucagon, a substance that the human body makes to aid digestion. 

    Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs like semaglutide help prompt the body to release insulin. But they also cause a minor delay in the pace of digestion, helping people feel sated after eating.

    That second effect turned Ozempic into a widely used weight-loss drug, even before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave its okay for this use. Doctors in the United States can prescribe medicines for uses beyond those approved by the FDA. This is known as off-label use.

    In writing about her own experience in using the medicine to help her shed 40 pounds, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus in June noted that Novo Nordisk mentioned the potential for weight loss in its “ubiquitous cable ads (‘Oh-oh-oh, Ozempic!’)” 

    The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists has reported shortages of semaglutide due to demand, leaving some people with diabetes struggling to find supply of the medicine.

    Novo Nordisk won Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2021 to market semaglutide as an injectable weight loss drug under the name Wegovy, but with a different dosing regimen than Ozempic. Rival Eli Lilly first won FDA approval of its similar GLP-1 diabetes drug, tirzepatide, in the United States in 2022 and sells it under the brand name Mounjaro.

    In November of 2023, Eli Lilly won FDA approval to sell tirzepatide as a weight-loss drug, soon-to-be marketed under the brand name Zepbound. The company said it will set a monthly list price for a month’s supply of the drug at $1,059.87, which the company described as 20% discount to the cost of rival Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy. Wegovy has a list price of $1,349.02, according to the Novo Nordisk website. 

    Even when their insurance plans officially cover costs for weight loss drugs, consumers may face barriers in seeking that coverage for these drugs. Commercial health plans have in place prior authorization requirements to try to limit coverage of new weight-loss shots to those who qualify for these treatments. The Wegovy shot, for example, is intended for people whose weight reaches a certain benchmark for obesity or who are overweight and have a condition related to excess weight, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

    State Medicaid programs, meanwhile, have taken approaches that vary by state. For example, the most populous U.S. state, California, provides some coverage to new weight-loss injections through its Medicaid program, but many others, including Texas, the No. 2 state in terms of population,  do not, according to an online tool that Novo Nordisk created to help people check on coverage. 

    Medicare does cover semaglutide for treatment of diabetes, and the insurer reported $3 billion in 2021 spending on the drug under Medicare Part D. Congress last year gave Medicare new tools that might help it try to lower the cost of semaglutide.

    Medicare is in the midst of implementing new authority it gained through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 to negotiate with companies about the cost of certain medicines.

    This legislation gave Medicare, for the first time, tools to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the cost of some medicines. Congress tailored this program to spare drug makers from negotiations for the first few years they put new medicines on the market, allowing them to recoup investment in these products.

    Why doesn’t Medicare cover weight-loss drugs?

    Congress created the Medicare Part D pharmacy program in 2003 to address a gap in coverage that had existed since the creation of Medicare in 1965. The program long covered the costs of drugs administered by doctors and those given in hospitals, but not the kinds of medicines people took on their own, like Wegovy shots.

    In 2003, there seemed to be good reasons to leave weight-loss drugs out of the benefit, write Inmaculada Hernandez of the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors in their September 2023 editorial in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Medicare Part D Coverage of Anti-obesity Medications: a Call for Forward-Looking Policy Reform.”

    When members of Congress worked on the Part D benefit, the drugs available on the market were known to have limited effectiveness and unpleasant side effects. And those members of Congress were aware of how a drug combination called fen-phen, once touted as a weight-loss miracle medicine, turned out in rare cases to cause fatal heart valve damage. In 1997, American Home Products, which later became Wyeth, took its fen-phen product off the market.

    But today GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide appear to offer significant benefits, with far less risk and milder side effects, write Hernandez and coauthors.

    “Other than budget impact, it is hard to find a reason to justify the historical statutory exclusion of weight loss drugs from coverage other than the stigma of the condition itself,” they write.

    What’s happening today that could lead Medicare to start covering weight loss drugs?

    Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly both have hired lobbyists to try to persuade lawmakers to reverse this stance, according to Senate records.  Pro tip: You can use the Senate’s lobbying disclosure database to track this and other issues. Type in the name of the company of interest and then read through the forms. 

    Some members of Congress already have been trying for years to strike the Medicare Part D restriction on weight-loss drugs. Over the past decade, senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Bill Cassidy, MD, (R-LA) have repeatedly introduced bills that would do that. They introduced the current version, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023, in July. It has the support of 10 other Republican senators and seven Democratic ones, as of Dec. 19. The companion House measure has the support of 41 Democrats and 23 Republicans in that chamber, which has 435 seats.

    The influential nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review conducts in-depth analyses of drugs and medical treatments in the United States. ICER last year recommended passage of a law allowing Medicare Part D to cover weight-loss medications. ICER also called for broader coverage of weight-loss medications in state Medicaid programs. Insurers, including Medicare, consider ICER’s analyses in deciding whether to cover treatments.

    While offering these calls for broader coverage as part of a broad assessment of obesity management, ICER also urged companies to reduce the costs of weight-loss medicines.

    Most people with obesity can’t achieve sustained weight loss through diet and exercise alone, said David Rind, ICER’s chief medical officer in an August 2022 statement. The development of newer obesity treatments represents the achievement of a long-standing goal of medical research, but prices of these new products must be reasonable to allow broad access to them, he noted.

    After an extensive process of reviewing studies, engaging in public debate and processing feedback, ICER concluded that semaglutide for weight loss should have an annual cost of $7,500 to $9,800, based on its potential benefits.

    What does academic research say about the benefits and the potential costs of new obesity drugs?

    Here are a couple of studies to consider when covering the ongoing story of weight-loss drug costs:

    Medicare Part D Coverage of Antiobesity Medications — Challenges and Uncertainty Ahead
    Khrysta Baig, Stacie B. Dusetzina, David D. Kim and Ashley A. Leech. New England Journal of Medicine, March 2023

    In this Perspective piece, researchers at Vanderbilt University create a series of estimates about how much Medicare may have to spend annually on weight-loss drugs if the program eventually covers these drugs.

    These include a high estimate — $268 billion — based on an extreme calculation, one reflecting the potential cost if virtually all people on Medicare who have obesity used semaglutide. In an announcement of the study on the Vanderbilt website, lead author Khrysta Baig described this as a “purely hypothetical scenario,” but one that “ underscores that at current prices, these medications cannot be the only way – or even the main way – we address obesity as a society.”

    In a more conservative estimate, Bhaig and coauthors consider a case where only about 10% of those eligible for obesity treatment opted for semaglutide, which would result in $27 billion in new costs.

     (To put these numbers in context, consider that the federal government now spends about $145 billion a year on the entire Part D program.)

    It’s likely that all people enrolled in Part D would have to pay higher monthly premiums if Medicare were to cover weight-loss injections, Baig and coauthors write.

    Baig and coauthors note that the recent ICER review of weight-loss drugs focused on patients younger than the Medicare population. The balance of benefits and risks associated with weight-loss drugs may be less favorable for older people than the younger ones, making it necessary to study further how these drugs work for people aged 65 and older, they write. For example, research has shown older adults with a high blood sugar level called prediabetes are less likely to develop diabetes than younger adults with this condition.

    SELECTing Treatments for Cardiovascular Disease — Obesity in the Spotlight
    Amit Khera and Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley. New England Journal of Medicine, Dec. 14, 2023
    Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients Without Diabetes
    A Michael Lincoff, et. al. New England Journal of Medicine, Dec. 14, 2023.

    An editorial accompanies the publication of a semaglutide study that drew a lot of coverage in the media. The Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes (SELECT) study was a randomized controlled trial, conducted by Novo Nordisk, which looked at rates of cardiovascular events in people who already had known heart risk and were overweight, but not diabetic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a once-weekly dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) or a placebo.

    In the study, the authors report that of the 8,803 patients who took Wegovy in the trial, 569 (6.5%)  had a heart attack or another cardiovascular event, compared with 701 of the 8801 patients (8.0%) in the placebo group. The mean duration of exposure to semaglutide or placebo in the study was 34.2 months.

    The study also reports a mean 9.4% reduction in body weight among patients taking Wegovy, while those on placebo had a mean loss of 0.88%.

    The findings suggest Wegovy may be a welcome new treatment option for many people who have coronary disease and are overweight, but are not diabetic, write Khera and Powell-Wiley in their editorial. 

    But the duo, both of whom focus on disease prevention in their research, also call for more focus on the prevention and root causes of obesity and on the use of proven treatment approaches other than medication.

    “Socioeconomic, environmental, and psychosocial factors contribute to incident obesity, and therefore equity-focused obesity prevention and treatment efforts must target multiple levels,” they write. “For instance, public policy targeting built environment features that limit healthy behaviors can be coupled with clinical care interventions that provide for social needs and access to treatments like semaglutide.”

    Additional information:

    The nonprofit KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, has done recent reports looking at the potential for expanded coverage of semaglutide:

    Medicaid Utilization and Spending on New Drugs Used for Weight Loss, Sept. 8, 2023

    What Could New Anti-Obesity Drugs Mean for Medicare? May 18, 2023

    And KFF held an Aug. 4 webinar, New Weight Loss Drugs Raise Issues of Coverage, Cost, Access and Equity, for which the recording is posted here.

    This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    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:

  • White Potato vs Sweet Potato – 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 white potatoes to sweet potatoes, we picked the sweet potatoes.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, sweet potatoes are a little lighter on carbs and calories, though in the case of sugar and fiber, sweet potato has a few grams more of each, per potato. However, when an average sweet potato’s 7g of sugar are held against its 4g of fiber, this (much like with fruit!) not a sugar you need to avoid.

    See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    The glycemic index of a sweet potato is also lower than that of a white potato, so the sugars it does have are slower-release.

    Sweet potatoes famously are good sources of vitamin A and beta-carotene, which important nutrients white potatoes cannot boast.

    Both plants are equally good sources of potassium and vitamin C.

    Summary

    Both are good sources of many nutrients, and any nutritional health-hazards associated with them come with the preparation (for example, frying introduces unhealthy fats, and mashing makes the glycemic index skyrocket, and cooking with salt increases the salt content).

    Baking either is great (consider stuffing them with delicious well-seasoned beans and/or tomatoes; if you make it yourself, pesto can be a great option too, as can cheese if you’re so-inclined and judicious with choice and quantity) and preserves almost all of their nutrients. Remember that nearly 100% of the fiber is in the skin, so you do want to eat that.

    The deciding factor is: sweet potatoes are good sources of a couple more valuable nutrients that white potatoes aren’t, and come out as the overall healthiest for that reason.

    Enjoy!

    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:

  • Meditation for Fidgety Skeptics – by Dan Harris

    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.

    If you already meditate regularly, this book isn’t aimed at you (though you may learn a thing or two anyway—this reviewer, who has practiced meditation for the past 30 years, learned a thing!).

    However, if you’re—as the title suggests—someone who hasn’t so far been inclined towards meditation, you could get the most out of this one. We’ll say more on this (obviously), but first, there’s one other group that may benefit from this book:

    If you have already practiced meditation, and/or already understand and want its benefits, but never really made it stick as a habit.

    Now, onto what you’ll get:

    • A fair scientific overview of meditation as an increasingly evidence-based way to reduce stress and increase both happiness and productivity
    • A good grounding in what meditation is and isn’t
    • A how-to guide for building up a consistent meditation habit that won’t get kiboshed when you have a particularly hectic day—or a cold.
    • An assortment of very common (and some less common) meditative practices to try
    • Some great auxiliary tools to build cognitive restructuring into your meditation

    We don’t usually cite other people’s reviews, but we love that one Amazon reviewer wrote:

    ❝I am 3 weeks into daily meditation practice, and I already notice that I am no longer constantly wishing for undercarriage rocket launchers while driving. I will always think your driving sucks, but I no longer wish you a violent death because of it. Yes, I live in Boston❞

    ~ J. Flaherty

    Bottom line: if you’re not already meditating daily, this is definitely a book for you. And if you are, you may learn a thing or two anyway!

    Click here to get your copy of Meditation For Fidgety Skeptics 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: