The Most Anti Aging Exercise

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’ve referenced this (excellent) video before, but never actually put it under the spotlight in one of these features, so here we go!

Deep squats

It’s about deep squats, also called Slav squats, Asian squats, sitting squats, resting squats, or various other names. However, fear not; you don’t need to be Slavic or Asian to do it; you just need to practice.

As for why this is called “anti-aging”, by the way, it’s because being able to get up off the ground is one of the main tests of age-related mobility decline, and if you can deep-squat comfortably, then you can do that easily. And so long as you continue being able to deep-squat comfortably, you’ll continue to be able to get up off the ground easily too, because you have the strength in the right muscles, as well as the suppleness, comfort with range of motion, and balance (those stabilizing muscles are used constantly in a deep squat, whereas Western lifestyle sitting leaves those muscles very neglected and thus atrophied).

Epidemiological note: chairs, couches, and assorted modern conveniences reduce the need for squatting in daily life, leading to stiffness in joints, muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Many adults in developed countries struggle with deep squats due to lack of use, not aging. Which is a problem, because a lack of full range of motion in joints causes wear and tear, leading to chronic pain and degenerative joint diseases. People in countries where squatting is a common resting position have lower incidences of osteoarthritis, for example—contrary to what some might expect, squatting does not harm joints but rather protects them from arthritis and knee pain. Strengthening leg muscles through squatting can alleviate knee pain, whereas knee pain is often worsened by inactivity.

Notwithstanding the thumbnail, which is showing an interim position, one’s feet should be flat on the ground, by the way, and one’s butt should be nearby, just a few inches off the ground (in other words, the position that we see her in for most of this video).

Troubleshooting: if you’re accustomed to sitting in chairs a lot, then this may be uncomfortable at first. Zuzka advises us to go gently, and/but gradually increase our range of motion and (equally importantly) duration in the resting position.

You can use a wall or doorway to partially support you, at first, if you struggle with mobility or balance. Just try to gradually use it less, until you’re comfortable deep-squatting with no support.

Since this is not an intrinsically very exciting exercise, once you build up the duration for which you’re comfortable deep-squatting, it can be good to get in the habit of “sitting” this way (i.e. deep squatting, still butt-off-the-floor, but doing the job of sitting) while doing other things such as working (if you have an appropriate work set-up for that*), reading, or watching TV.

*this is probably easiest with a laptop placed on an object/surface of appropriate height, such as a coffee table or such. As a bonus, having your hands in front of you while working will also bring your center of gravity forwards a bit, making the position easier and more comfortable to maintain. This writer (hi, it’s me) prefers her standing desk for work in general, with a nice ergonomic keyboard and all that, but if using a laptop from time to time, then squatting is a very good option.

In terms of working up duration, if you can only manage seconds to start with, that’s fine. Just do a few more seconds each time, until it’s 30, 60, 120, and so on until it’s 5 minutes, 10, 15, and so on.

You can even start that habit-forming while you’re still in the “seconds at a time” stage! You can deep-squat just for some seconds while you:

  • pick up something from the floor
  • check on something in the oven
  • get something out of the bottom of the fridge

…etc!

For more on all this, plus many visual demonstrations including interim exercises to get you there if it’s difficult for you at first, enjoy:

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

Want to learn more?

You might also like to read:

Mobility For Now & For Later: Train For The Marathon That Is Your Life!

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • 7 Days Of Celery Juice: What’s The Verdict?
  • Focusing On Health In Our Sixties
    Taking proactive steps towards maintaining good health becomes crucial as we enter our sixties, ensuring a fulfilling and vibrant life.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Demystifying Cholesterol

    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.

    All About 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”

    You can read more about that here:

    Statins: His & Hers? ← we highly recommend reading this, especially if you are a woman and/or considering/taking statins. To be clear, we’re not saying “don’t take statins!”, because they might be the right medical choice for you and we’re not your doctors. But we are saying: here’s something to at least know about and consider.

    Beyond HDL & LDL

    There is also VLDL cholesterol, which as you might have guessed, stands for “very low-density lipoprotein”. It has a high, unhealthy triglyceride content, and it increases atherosclerotic plaque. In other words, it hardens your arteries more quickly.

    The term “hardening the arteries” is an insufficient descriptor of what’s happening though, because while yes it is hardening the arteries, it’s also narrowing them. Because minerals and detritus passing through in the blood (the latter sounds bad, but there is supposed to be detritus passing through in the blood; it’s got to get out of the body somehow, and it’s off to get filtered and excreted) get stuck in the cholesterol (which itself is a waxy substance, by the way) and before you know it, those minerals and other things have become a solid part of the interior of your artery wall, like a little plastering team came and slapped plaster on the inside of the walls, then when it hardened, slapped more plaster on, and so on. Macrophages (normally the body’s best interior clean-up team) can’t eat things much bigger than themselves, so that means they can’t tackle the build-up of plaque.

    Impact on the heart

    Narrower less flexible arteries means very poor circulation, which means that organs can start having problems, which obviously includes your heart itself as it is not only having to do a harder job to keep the blood circulating through the narrower blood vessels, but also, it is not immune to also being starved of oxygen and nutrients along with the rest of the body when the circulation isn’t good enough. It’s a catch 22.

    What if LDL is low and someone is getting heart disease anyway?

    That’s often a case of apolipoprotein B, and unlike lipoprotein A, which is bound to LDL so usually* isn’t a problem if LDL is in “safe” ranges, Apo-B can more often cause problems even when LDL is low. Neither of these are tested for in most standard cholesterol tests by the way, so you might have to ask for them.

    *Some people, around 1 in 20 people, have hereditary extra risk factors for this.

    What to do about it?

    Well, get those lipids tests! Including asking for the LpA and Apo-B tests, especially if you have a history of heart disease in your family, or otherwise know you have a genetic risk factor.

    With or without extra genetic risks, it’s good to get lipids tests done annually from 40 onwards (earlier, if you have extra risk factors).

    See also: Understanding your cholesterol numbers

    Wondering whether you have an increased genetic risk or not?

    Genetic Testing: Health Benefits & Methods ← we think this is worth doing; it’s a “one-off test tells many useful things”. Usually done from a saliva sample, but some companies arrange a blood draw instead. Cost is usually quite affordable; do shop around, though.

    Additionally, talk to your pharmacist to check whether any of your meds have contraindications or interactions you should be aware of in this regard. Pharmacists usually know contraindications/interactions stuff better than doctors, and/but unlike doctors, they don’t have social pressure on them to know everything, which means that if they’re not sure, instead of just guessing and reassuring you in a confident voice, they’ll actually check.

    Lastly, shocking nobody, all the usual lifestyle medicine advice applies here, especially get plenty of moderate exercise and eat a good diet, preferably mostly if not entirely plant-based, and go easy on the saturated fat.

    Note: while a vegan diet contains zero dietary cholesterol (because plants don’t make it), vegans can still get unhealthy blood lipid levels, because we are animals and—like most animals—our body is perfectly capable of making its own cholesterol (indeed, we do need some cholesterol to function), and it can make its own in the wrong balance, if for example we go too heavy on certain kinds of (yes, even some plant-based) saturated fat.

    Read more: Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy? ← see for example how palm oil and coconut oil are both plant-based, and both high in saturated fat, but palm oil’s is heart-unhealthy on balance, while coconut oil’s is heart-healthy on balance (in moderation).

    Want to know more about your personal risk?

    Try the American College of Cardiology’s ASCVD risk estimator (it’s free)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Limitless Expanded Edition – by Jim Kwik

    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.

    This is a little flashier in presentation than we usually go for here, but the content is actually very good. Indeed, we’ve featured Jim Kwik before, with different, but also good content—in that case, physical exercises that strengthen the brain.

    This time, Kwik (interspersed with motivational speeches that you may or may not benefit from, but they are there) offers a step-by-step course in improving various metrics of cognitive ability. His methods were produced by trial and error, and now have been refined and enjoyed by man. If it sounds like a sales gimmick, it is a bit, but the good news is that everything you need to benefit is in the book; it’s not about upselling to a course or “advanced” books or whatnot.

    The style is enthusiastically conversational, and instructions when given (which is often) are direct and clear.

    Bottom line: one of the most critical abilities a brain can have is the ability to improve itself, so whatever level your various cognitive abilities are at right now, if you apply this book, you will almost certainly improve in one or more areas, which will make it worth the price of the book.

    Click here to check out Limitless, and find out what you can do!

    Share This Post

  • If You’re Poor, Fertility Treatment Can Be Out of Reach

    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.

    Mary Delgado’s first pregnancy went according to plan, but when she tried to get pregnant again seven years later, nothing happened. After 10 months, Delgado, now 34, and her partner, Joaquin Rodriguez, went to see an OB-GYN. Tests showed she had endometriosis, which was interfering with conception. Delgado’s only option, the doctor said, was in vitro fertilization.

    “When she told me that, she broke me inside,” Delgado said, “because I knew it was so expensive.”

    Delgado, who lives in New York City, is enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income and disabled people. The roughly $20,000 price tag for a round of IVF would be a financial stretch for lots of people, but for someone on Medicaid — for which the maximum annual income for a two-person household in New York is just over $26,000 — the treatment can be unattainable.

    Expansions of work-based insurance plans to cover fertility treatments, including free egg freezing and unlimited IVF cycles, are often touted by large companies as a boon for their employees. But people with lower incomes, often minorities, are more likely to be covered by Medicaid or skimpier commercial plans with no such coverage. That raises the question of whether medical assistance to create a family is only for the well-to-do or people with generous benefit packages.

    “In American health care, they don’t want the poor people to reproduce,” Delgado said. She was caring full-time for their son, who was born with a rare genetic disorder that required several surgeries before he was 5. Her partner, who works for a company that maintains the city’s yellow cabs, has an individual plan through the state insurance marketplace, but it does not include fertility coverage.

    Some medical experts whose patients have faced these issues say they can understand why people in Delgado’s situation think the system is stacked against them.

    “It feels a little like that,” said Elizabeth Ginsburg, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School who is president-elect of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a research and advocacy group.

    Whether or not it’s intended, many say the inequity reflects poorly on the U.S.

    “This is really sort of standing out as a sore thumb in a nation that would like to claim that it cares for the less fortunate and it seeks to do anything it can for them,” said Eli Adashi, a professor of medical science at Brown University and former president of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinologists.

    Yet efforts to add coverage for fertility care to Medicaid face a lot of pushback, Ginsburg said.

    Over the years, Barbara Collura, president and CEO of the advocacy group Resolve: The National Infertility Association, has heard many explanations for why it doesn’t make sense to cover fertility treatment for Medicaid recipients. Legislators have asked, “If they can’t pay for fertility treatment, do they have any idea how much it costs to raise a child?” she said.

    “So right there, as a country we’re making judgments about who gets to have children,” Collura said.

    The legacy of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, when states passed laws that permitted poor, nonwhite, and disabled people to be sterilized against their will, lingers as well.

    “As a reproductive justice person, I believe it’s a human right to have a child, and it’s a larger ethical issue to provide support,” said Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, an advocacy group.

    But such coverage decisions — especially when the health care safety net is involved — sometimes require difficult choices, because resources are limited.

    Even if state Medicaid programs wanted to cover fertility treatment, for instance, they would have to weigh the benefit against investing in other types of care, including maternity care, said Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “There is a recognition about the primacy and urgency of maternity care,” she said.

    Medicaid pays for about 40% of births in the United States. And since 2022, 46 states and the District of Columbia have elected to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage to 12 months, up from 60 days.

    Fertility problems are relatively common, affecting roughly 10% of women and men of childbearing age, according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

    Traditionally, a couple is considered infertile if they’ve been trying to get pregnant unsuccessfully for 12 months. Last year, the ASRM broadened the definition of infertility to incorporate would-be parents beyond heterosexual couples, including people who can’t get pregnant for medical, sexual, or other reasons, as well as those who need medical interventions such as donor eggs or sperm to get pregnant.

    The World Health Organization defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system characterized by failing to get pregnant after a year of unprotected intercourse. It terms the high cost of fertility treatment a major equity issue and has called for better policies and public financing to improve access.

    No matter how the condition is defined, private health plans often decline to cover fertility treatments because they don’t consider them “medically necessary.” Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring health plans to provide some fertility coverage, but those laws vary greatly and apply only to companies whose plans are regulated by the state.

    In recent years, many companies have begun offering fertility treatment in a bid to recruit and retain top-notch talent. In 2023, 45% of companies with 500 or more workers covered IVF and/or drug therapy, according to the benefits consultant Mercer.

    But that doesn’t help people on Medicaid. Only two states’ Medicaid programs provide any fertility treatment: New York covers some oral ovulation-enhancing medications, and Illinois covers costs for fertility preservation, to freeze the eggs or sperm of people who need medical treatment that will likely make them infertile, such as for cancer. Several other states also are considering adding fertility preservation services.

    In Delgado’s case, Medicaid covered the tests to diagnose her endometriosis, but nothing more. She was searching the internet for fertility treatment options when she came upon a clinic group called CNY Fertility that seemed significantly less expensive than other clinics, and also offered in-house financing. Based in Syracuse, New York, the company has a handful of clinics in upstate New York cities and four other U.S. locations.

    Though Delgado and her partner had to travel more than 300 miles round trip to Albany for the procedures, the savings made it worthwhile. They were able do an entire IVF cycle, including medications, egg retrieval, genetic testing, and transferring the egg to her uterus, for $14,000. To pay for it, they took $7,000 of the cash they’d been saving to buy a home and financed the other half through the fertility clinic.

    She got pregnant on the first try, and their daughter, Emiliana, is now almost a year old.

    Delgado doesn’t resent people with more resources or better insurance coverage, but she wishes the system were more equitable.

    “I have a medical problem,” she said. “It’s not like I did IVF because I wanted to choose the gender.”

    One reason CNY is less expensive than other clinics is simply that the privately owned company chooses to charge less, said William Kiltz, its vice president of marketing and business development. Since the company’s beginning in 1997, it has become a large practice with a large volume of IVF cycles, which helps keep prices low.

    At this point, more than half its clients come from out of state, and many earn significantly less than a typical patient at another clinic. Twenty percent earn less than $50,000, and “we treat a good number who are on Medicaid,” Kiltz said.

    Now that their son, Joaquin, is settled in a good school, Delgado has started working for an agency that provides home health services. After putting in 30 hours a week for 90 days, she’ll be eligible for health insurance.

    One of the benefits: fertility coverage.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • 7 Days Of Celery Juice: What’s The Verdict?
  • What’s the difference between ADD and ADHD?

    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.

    Around one in 20 people has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It’s one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood and often continues into adulthood.

    ADHD is diagnosed when people experience problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that negatively impacts them at school or work, in social settings and at home.

    Some people call the condition attention-deficit disorder, or ADD. So what’s the difference?

    In short, what was previously called ADD is now known as ADHD. So how did we get here?

    Let’s start with some history

    The first clinical description of children with inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity was in 1902. British paediatrician Professor George Still presented a series of lectures about his observations of 43 children who were defiant, aggressive, undisciplined and extremely emotional or passionate.

    Since then, our understanding of the condition evolved and made its way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM. Clinicians use the DSM to diagnose mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions.

    The first DSM, published in 1952, did not include a specific related child or adolescent category. But the second edition, published in 1968, included a section on behaviour disorders in young people. It referred to ADHD-type characteristics as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood or adolescence”. This described the excessive, involuntary movement of children with the disorder.

    Kids in the 60s playing
    It took a while for ADHD-type behaviour to make in into the diagnostic manual. Elzbieta Sekowska/Shutterstock

    In the early 1980s, the third DSM added a condition it called “attention deficit disorder”, listing two types: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and attention deficit disorder as the subtype without the hyperactivity.

    However, seven years later, a revised DSM (DSM-III-R) replaced ADD (and its two sub-types) with ADHD and three sub-types we have today:

    • predominantly inattentive
    • predominantly hyperactive-impulsive
    • combined.

    Why change ADD to ADHD?

    ADHD replaced ADD in the DSM-III-R in 1987 for a number of reasons.

    First was the controversy and debate over the presence or absence of hyperactivity: the “H” in ADHD. When ADD was initially named, little research had been done to determine the similarities and differences between the two sub-types.

    The next issue was around the term “attention-deficit” and whether these deficits were similar or different across both sub-types. Questions also arose about the extent of these differences: if these sub-types were so different, were they actually different conditions?

    Meanwhile, a new focus on inattention (an “attention deficit”) recognised that children with inattentive behaviours may not necessarily be disruptive and challenging but are more likely to be forgetful and daydreamers.

    Woman daydreams
    People with inattentive behaviours may be more forgetful or daydreamers. fizkes/Shutterstock

    Why do some people use the term ADD?

    There was a surge of diagnoses in the 1980s. So it’s understandable that some people still hold onto the term ADD.

    Some may identify as having ADD because out of habit, because this is what they were originally diagnosed with or because they don’t have hyperactivity/impulsivity traits.

    Others who don’t have ADHD may use the term they came across in the 80s or 90s, not knowing the terminology has changed.

    How is ADHD currently diagnosed?

    The three sub-types of ADHD, outlined in the DSM-5 are:

    • predominantly inattentive. People with the inattentive sub-type have difficulty sustaining concentration, are easily distracted and forgetful, lose things frequently, and are unable to follow detailed instructions
    • predominantly hyperactive-impulsive. Those with this sub-type find it hard to be still, need to move constantly in structured situations, frequently interrupt others, talk non-stop and struggle with self control
    • combined. Those with the combined sub-type experience the characteristics of those who are inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive.

    ADHD diagnoses continue to rise among children and adults. And while ADHD was commonly diagnosed in boys, more recently we have seen growing numbers of girls and women seeking diagnoses.

    However, some international experts contest the expanded definition of ADHD, driven by clinical practice in the United States. They argue the challenges of unwanted behaviours and educational outcomes for young people with the condition are uniquely shaped by each country’s cultural, political and local factors.

    Regardless of the name change to reflect what we know about the condition, ADHD continues to impact educational, social and life situations of many children, adolescents and adults.

    Kathy Gibbs, Program Director for the Bachelor of Education, Griffith University

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

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Why Diets Make Us Fat – by Dr. Sandra Aamodt

    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 well-known that crash-dieting doesn’t work. Restrictive diets will achieve short-term weight loss, but it’ll come back later. In the long term, weight creeps slowly upwards. Why?

    Dr. Sandra Aamodt explores the science and sociology behind this phenomenon, and offers an evidence-based alternative.

    A lot of the book is given over to explanations of what is typically going wrong—that is the title of the book, after all. From metabolic starvation responses to genetics to the negative feedback loop of poor body image, there’s a lot to address.

    However, what alternative does she propose?

    The book takes us on a shift away from focusing on the numbers on the scale, and more on building consistent healthy habits. It might not feel like it if you desperately want to lose weight, but it’s better to have healthy habits at any weight, than to have a wreck of physical and mental health for the sake of a lower body mass.

    Dr. Aamodt lays out a plan for shifting perspectives, building health, and letting weight loss come by itself—as a side effect, not a goal.

    In fact, as she argues (in agreement with the best current science, science that we’ve covered before at 10almonds, for that matter), that over a certain age, people in the “overweight” category of BMI have a reduced mortality risk compared to those in the “healthy weight” category. It really underlines how there’s no point in making oneself miserably unhealthy with the end goal of having a lighter coffin—and getting it sooner.

    Bottom line: will this book make you hit those glossy-magazine weight goals by your next vacation? Quite possibly not, but it will set you up for actually healthier living, for life, at any weight.

    Click here to check out Why Diets Make Us Fat, and live healthier and better!

    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:

  • Jamaican Coconut Rice

    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.

    This is a great dish that can be enjoyed hot or cold, as a main or as a side. It has carbs, proteins, healthy fats, fiber, as well as an array of healthy phytochemicals. Not to mention, a great taste!

    You will need

    • 1 cup wholegrain basmati rice (it may also be called “brown basmati rice“; this is the same) (traditional recipe calls for pudding rice, but we’re going with the healthier option here)
    • 2 cans (each 12 z / 400g) coconut milk
    • 2 cups (or 2 cans, of which the drained weight is comparable to a cup each) cooked black beans. If you cook them yourself, this is better, as you will be able to cook them more al dente than you can get from a can, and this firmness is desirable. But canned is fine if that’s what’s available.
    • 1 large red onion, finely chopped
    • ½ cup low-sodium vegetable stock (ideally you made this yourself from vegetable offcuts you saved in the freezer for this purpose, but failing that, low-sodium stock cubes can be bought at any large supermarket)
    • 2 serrano chilis, finely chopped
    • 1 Scotch bonnet chili, without doing anything to it
    • 1 tbsp black pepper, coarse ground
    • 1 tbsp chia seeds
    • 1 tbsp coconut oil
    • Garnish: parsley, chopped

    Note: we have erred on the side of low-heat when it comes to the chilis. If you know that you and (if applicable) everyone else eating would enjoy more heat, add more heat. If not, let extra heat be added at the table via your hot sauce of choice. Sounds heretical, but it ensures everyone gets the right amount! It’s easy to add heat than to take it out, after all.

    However: if you do end up with too much heat in this or any other dish, adding acid will usually help to neutralize that. In the case of this dish, we’d recommend lime juice as a complementary flavor.

    Method

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

    1) In a big sauté pan, add the coconut oil, melt it if not already melted, and add the chopped onion and the chopped chilis, at a temperature sufficient to sizzle. Keep them all moving. Once the coconut oil is absorbed into the onion (this will happen before the onion is fully cooked), add the vegetable stock, followed by the coconut milk; mix it all gently to create a smooth consistency.

    2) Add the rice, chia seeds, and black pepper; mix it all gently but thoroughly; turn the temperature to a simmer, and add the Scotch bonnet chili, without cutting it at all.

    3) Cover and keep on low for about 20–30 minutes until the rice is looking done. Check on it periodically to make sure it’s not running out of liquid, but resist the urge to stir it; it shouldn’t be burning but paradoxically, once you start stirring you can’t stop or it will definitely burn.

    4) Take out the Scotch bonnet chili, and discard*. Add the black beans.

    *its job was to add flavor without adding the high-level heat of that particular chili. If you’re a regular heat-fiend, feel free to experiment with using sliced Scotch bonnet chilis instead of serrano chilis; just be aware that there’s a big difference in heat. Only do this if you really like heat. Using it the way we described in the main recipe is what’s traditional in the Caribbean, by the way.

    5) Now you can (and in fact must) stir, to mix in the black beans and bring them back to temperature within the dish. Be aware that once you start stirring, you need to keep stirring until you’re ready to take it off the heat.

    6) Serve, adding the parsley garnish.

    (this example went light on the beans; our recipe includes more for a heartier dish)

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

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

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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