The Teenage Brain – by Dr. Frances Jensen
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 realize that we probably have more grandparents of teenagers than parents of teenagers here, but most of us have at least some teenage relative(s). Which makes this book interesting.
There are a lot of myths about the teenage brain, and a lot of popular assumptions that usually have some basis in fact but are often misleading.
Dr. Jensen gives us a strong foundational grounding in the neurophysiology of adolescence, from the obvious-but-often-unclear (such as the role of hormones) to less-known things like the teenage brain’s general lack of myelination. Not just “heightened neuroplasticity” but, if you imagine the brain as an electrical machine, then think of myelin as the insulation between the wires. Little wonder some wires may get crossed sometimes!
She also talks about such things as the teenage circadian rhythm’s innate differences, the impact of success and failure on the brain, and harder topics such as addiction—and the adolescent cortisol functions that can lead to teenagers needing to seek something to relax in the first place.
In criticism, we can only say that sometimes the author makes sweeping generalizations without acknowledging such, but that doesn’t detract from what she has to say on the topic of neurophysiology.
Bottom line: if there’s a teenager in your life whose behavior and/or moods are sometimes baffling to you, and whose mysteries you’d like to unravel, this is a great book.
Click here to check out the Teenage Brain, and better understand those around you!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Starfruit vs Soursop – 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 starfruit to soursop, we picked the soursop.
Why?
First, by starfruit, we also mean carambola, which is a different name for the same fruit, and by soursop we also mean graviola/guyabano/guanábana, which are different namers for the same fruit. Now, as for their health qualities:
In terms of macros, the soursop has more carbs and fiber, the ratio of which also give it the lower glycemic index. So, a win for soursop here.
When it comes to vitamins, starfruit has more of vitamins A, B5, C, and E, while soursop has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B7, B9, and K. Another win for soursop.
In the category of minerals, starfruit has slightly more copper, manganese, and zinc, while soursop has much more calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium. One more win for soursop!
Adding up the sections makes for a clear and overwhelming win for soursop, but let’s address to quick safety considerations while we’re here:
- Soursop extract has been claimed to be an effective cancer treatment. It isn’t. There is no evidence for this at all; just one unscrupulous company that spread the claims.
- Soursop contains annonacin, a neurotoxin. That sounds scary, but much like with apple seeds and cyanide, the quantities you’d have to consume to suffer ill effects are absurd. Remember how capsaicin (as found in hot peppers) is also a neurotoxin, too and has many health benefits. Humans have a long and happy tradition of enjoying things that are toxic at high doses, but in small doses are neutral or even beneficial. Pretty much all things we can consume (including oxygen, and water) are toxic at sufficient doses.
In short, both of these fruits are fine and good, neither will treat cancer, but both will help to keep you in good health. As for nutritional density, the soursop wins in every category.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← soursop has no special cancer treatment properties, but actual evidence shows these fruits are beneficial (being good as a preventative, and also definitely a worthy adjunct to—but not a replacement for—mainstream anticancer therapies if you have cancer).
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Kiwi vs Pomegranate – 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 kiwi to pomegranate, we picked the pomegranate.
Why?
Both are certainly excellent! But…
In terms of macros, pomegranate has more fiber, carbs, and protein, winning in its first round.
In the category of vitamins, kiwi has more of vitamins C, E, and K, while pomegranate has more of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, B7, and B9, winning again.
Looking at minerals, kiwi has more calcium, magnesium, and potassium, while pomegranate has more copper, manganese, selenium, and zinc, for a marginal third-round win.
In other considerations, kiwi has some cancer-killing properties that pomegranate can’t boast, while pomegranate has a bunch of extra healthful phytochemical properties, albeit in the peel, which most people don’t consume. So for practical purposes, we’d say this last round’s a notional win for kiwi.
Adding up the sections nevertheless makes for a clear overall win for kiwi, but do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
- Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← kiwi is number one on the list!
- Pomegranate’s Health Gifts Are Mostly In Its Peel
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Thriving Beyond Fifty – by Will Harlow
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 featured this author sometimes in our video section; he’s an over-50s specialist physiotherapist with a lot of very functional advice to offer.
In this book, Harlow focusses heavily on three things: mobility, strength, endurance.
You may not want to be a gymnast, powerlifter, or marathon-runner, but these things are important for us all to maintain to at least a fair degree:
- Mobility can be the difference between tweaking one’s shoulder getting something from a high shelf, or not
- Strength can be the difference between being able to get back up, or not
- Endurance can be the difference between coming back from a long day on your feet and thinking “that was a good day; I’m looking forward to tomorrow now”, or not
One of the greatest strengths of this book is its comprehensive troubleshooting aspect; if you have a weak spot, chances are this book has the remedy.
As for the style, it’s quite casual/conversational in tone, but without skimping on science and detail. It’s clear, explanatory, and helpful throughout.
Bottom line: if you’d like to maintain/improve mobility, strength, and endurance, then this book is a very recommendable resource.
Click here to check out Thriving Beyond Fifty, and keep thriving at every age!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Living Kitchen – by Tamara Green and Sarah Grossman
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.
For the most part, this is a very respectable book of recipes; plants-forward though not entirely plant-based (which from a cancer perspective is fine; poultry and fish are cancer-neutral, and fermented dairy may even be protective).
They do focus on including a lot of phytonutrient-rich foods (mostly: colorful plants), which indeed have a lot of anticancer potency between them.
It was an interesting choice to include some beef, since red meat is well-established as a carcinogen. The authors advise that it should be grass-fed, and this is a definite health improvement over the alternative, but still not great.
In a similar vein they recommend “sustainably farmed fish”. Not a known carcinogen, by the way (though watch out for antibiotics which are very high in farmed fish), but do you see the problem? Paying attention to sustainability is great; truly laudable. However, it won’t actually make any difference to the health impact on the consumer. Farmed fish is full of antibiotics, whether deemed sustainable or not.
The front cover shows a soup; the recipes in the book are a wide variety of different dishes, of which soups are just one category. There is a juices section, which not only was probably superfluous, but also is not amazing for the metabolism (and thus, not great in the context of cancer). On a more positive note though, the “mains” section is divided into “omnivore mains” and “vegetarian mains”, with equal attention given to both (20 pages each), so the recipes list isn’t entirely padded with juices and sauces and things (though yes, that also).
Bottom line: from an anticancer perspective, this one’s a bit of a mixed bag, but mostly good ones.
Click here to check out The Living Kitchen, and add to your culinary repertoire!
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:
-
What Length Of Walk Is Best?
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 is not shocking news that walking is good for the health.
See for example: Top 8 Habits Of The Top 1% Healthiest Over-50s ← walking is #3 on the list!
And a lot of research has been done into how many steps per day are important. Of which, the general consensus is:
- Under 5,000 steps = bad; one needs to walk more than this if possible
- 5,000 to 8,000 steps = good, with more being better than fewer
- Over 8,000 steps = also good, but with diminishing marginal returns
Some research has even been done with regard to when it is best to get these steps in!
See: The Japanese Health Initiative That Lowers Blood Sugars
But today we’ll look at the question: is it better to get many short walks, or a few long ones?
The road goes ever on and on
The above heading is a nod to a line from Tolkien, and while it’s not necessary to walk all the way to Mordor for good for health (in fact, we recommend against walking to Mordor specifically; famously risky for the health), as it turns out, one long walk may be better than many short ones.
Researchers (Dr. Borja del Pozo Cruz et al.) examined whether step accumulation patterns—not just total steps—affect long-term health in low-activity adults (defined as walking fewer than 8,000 steps per day).
How these were sorted: 33,560 adults averaging 5,165 steps daily were followed for 9.5 years, grouped by typical walking bout length from under 5 minutes to 15 minutes or longer.
What they found, in few words: people who bundled steps into longer, uninterrupted walks had substantially lower risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease than those whose steps came in short, scattered bursts.
There was a clear dose-dependent gradient to this; all-cause mortality risk fell steadily as walking bouts lengthened, from 4.36% in bouts under 5 minutes to about 0.8% in bouts lasting 15 minutes or longer. In other words, more than a 5x difference in mortality!
Not only that, but cardiovascular disease risk (not just mortality, but any CVD incidence) showed a steep decline too, dropping from 13.03% with under-5-minute bouts to 4.39% with walks of 15 minutes or longer.
If you’re on the low end of activity, there’s good news: the benefits were most pronounced among people taking fewer than 5,000 steps per day, suggesting longer walks matter most when overall activity is low.
Note: this isn’t an argument for “walk less to get greater benefits”; that’d be the opposite of the correct interpretation of these statistics. The take-away here is “longer walks matter even more when overall activity is low“.
There is an important cited limitation, namely:
❝Observational design with potential residual confounding and reverse causation❞
In other words, the results could also be at least partly explained by the alternative hypothesis “people who are healthier and have healthier hearts, walk for longer because of their good health, whereas people who are less health and have weaker hearts, walk for shorter durations only”.
However, even if this may be true, it is clear which group one should aim to be in.
You can find the paper itself here: Step Accumulation Patterns and Risk for Cardiovascular Events and Mortality Among Suboptimally Active Adults
Want to learn more?
You might like this very good book we reviewed a while back:
In Praise Of Walking – by Dr. Shane O’Mara
…and, for that matter:
52 Ways To Walk – by Annabel Streets
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:
-
How Much Does A Vegan Diet Affect Biological Aging?
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.
Slow Your Aging, One Meal At A Time
This one’s a straightforward one today, and the ““life hack” can be summed up:
Enjoy a vegan diet to enjoy younger biological age.
First, what is biological age?
Biological age is not one number, but a collection of numbers, as per different biomarkers of aging, including:
- Visual markers of aging (e.g. wrinkles, graying hair)
- Performative markers of aging (e.g. mobility tests)
- Internal functional markers of aging (e.g. tests for cognitive decline, eyesight, hearing, etc)
- Cellular markers of aging (e.g. telomere length)
We wrote more about this here:
Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?
A vegan diet may well impact multiple of those categories of aging, but today we’re highlighting a study (hot off the press; published only a few days ago!) that looks at its effect on that last category: cellular markers of aging.
There’s an interesting paradox here, because this category is:
- the most easily ignorable; because we all feel it if our knees are giving out or our skin is losing elasticity, but who notices if telomeres’ T/S ratio changed by 0.0407? ← the researchers, that’s who, as this difference is very significant
- the most far-reaching in its impact, because cellular aging in turn has an effect on all the other markers of aging
Second, how much difference does it make, and how do we know?
The study was an eight-week interventional identical twin study. This means several things, to start with:
- Eight weeks is a rather short period of time to accumulate cellular aging, let alone for an intervention to accumulate a significant difference in cellular aging—but it did. So, just imagine what difference it might make in a year or ten!
- Doing an interventional study with identical twin pairs already controlled for a lot of factors, that are usually confounding variables in population / cohort / longitudinal / observational studies.
Factors that weren’t controlled for by default by using identical twins, were controlled for in the experiment design. For example, twin pairs were rejected if one or more twin in a given pair already had medical conditions that could affect the outcome:
❝Inclusion criteria involved participants aged ≥18, part of a willing twin pair, with BMI <40, and LDL-C <190 mg/dL. Exclusions included uncontrolled hypertension, metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, heart/renal/liver disease, pregnancy, lactation, and medication use affecting body weight or energy.
Eligibility was determined via online screening, followed by an orientation meeting and in-person clinic visit. Randomization occurred only after completing baseline visits, dietary recalls, and questionnaires for both twins❞
~ Dr. Varun Dwaraka et al. ← there’s a lot of “et al.” to this one; the paper had 16 collaborating authors!
As to the difference it made over the course of the 8 weeks…
❝Various measures of epigenetic age acceleration (PC GrimAge, PC PhenoAge, DunedinPACE) were assessed, along with system-specific effects (Inflammation, Heart, Hormone, Liver, and Metabolic).
Distinct responses were observed, with the vegan cohort exhibiting significant decreases in overall epigenetic age acceleration, aligning with anti-aging effects of plant-based diets. Diet-specific shifts were noted in the analysis of methylation surrogates, demonstrating the influence of diet on complex trait prediction through DNA methylation markers.❞
~ Ibid.
You can read the whole paper here (it goes into a lot more detail than we have room to here, and also gives infographics, charts, numbers, the works):
Were they just eating more healthily, though?
Well, arguably yes, as the results show, but to be clear:
The omnivorous diet compared to the vegan diet in this study was also controlled; both groups were given a healthy meal plan for their respective diet. So this wasn’t a case of “any omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”, but rather “healthy omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”.
Again, the paper itself has the full details—a short version is that it involved a healthy meal kit delivery service, followed by ongoing dietician involvement in an equal and carefully-controlled fashion.
So, aside from that one group had an omnivorous meal plan and the other vegan, both groups received the same level of “healthy eating” support, guidance, and oversight.
But isn’t [insert your preferred animal product here] healthy?
Quite possibly! For general health, general scientific consensus is that eating at least mostly plants is best, red meat is bad, poultry is neutral in moderation, fish is good in moderation, dairy is good in moderation if fermented, eggs are good in moderation if not fried.
This study looked at the various biomarkers of aging that we listed, and not every possible aspect of health—there’s more science yet to be done, and the researchers themselves are calling for it.
It also bears mentioning that for some (relatively few, but not insignificantly few) people, extant health conditions may make a vegan diet unhealthy or otherwise untenable. Do speak with your own doctor and/or dietician if unsure.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
We would hypothesize, by the way, that the anti-aging benefits of a vegan diet are probably proportional to abstention from animal products—meaning that even if you simply have some “vegan days”, while still consuming animal products other days, you’ll still get benefit for the days you abstained. That’s just our hypothesis though.
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:
