Things Many People Forget When It Comes To Hydration
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.
Good hydration is about more than just “drink lots of water”, and in fact it’s quite possible for a person to drink too much water, and at the same time, be dehydrated. Here’s how and why and what to do about it:
Water, water, everywhere
Factors that people forget:
- Electrolyte balance: without it, we can technically have lots of water while either retaining it (in the case of too high salt levels) or peeing it out (in the case of too low salt levels), neither of which are as helpful as getting it right and actually being able to use the water.
- Gastrointestinal health: conditions like IBS, Crohn’s, or celiac disease can impair water and nutrient absorption, affecting hydration
- Genetic factors: some people simply have a predisposition to need more or less water for proper hydration
- Dietary factors: high salt, caffeine, and alcohol intake (amongst other diuretics) can increase water loss, while water-rich foods (assuming they aren’t also diuretics) increase hydration.
Strategies to do better:
- Drink small amounts of water consistently throughout the day rather than large quantities at once—healthy kidneys can process about 1 liter (about 1 quart) of water per hour, so drinking more than that will not help, no matter how dehydrated you are when you start. If your kidneys aren’t in peak health, the amount processable per hour will be lower for you.
- Increase fiber intake (e.g., fruit and vegetables) to retain water in the intestines and improve hydration
- Consume water-rich foods (e.g., watermelon, cucumbers, grapes) to enhance overall hydration and support cellular function (the body can use this a lot more efficiently than if you just drink water).
- Counteract the diuretic effects of caffeine and alcohol by drinking an additional 12 oz of water for every 8 oz of these beverages. Best yet, don’t drink alcohol and keep caffeine to a low level (or quit entirely, if you prefer, but for most people that’s not necessary).
- If you are sweating (be it because of weather, exercise, or any other reasons), include electrolyte fluids to improve cellular hydration, as they contain essential minerals like magnesium, potassium, and in moderation yes even sodium which you will have lost in your sweat too, supporting fluid regulation.
For more details on all of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Water’s Counterintuitive Properties
- Hydration Mythbusting
- When To Take Electrolytes (And When We Shouldn’t!)
- Keeping Your Kidneys Healthy (Especially After 60)
Take care!
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:
-
Asparagus vs Edamame – 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 asparagus to edamame, we picked the edamame.
Why?
Perhaps it’s a little unfair comparing a legume to a vegetable that’s not leguminous (given legumes’ high protein content), but these two vegetables often serve a similar culinary role, and there is more to nutrition than protein. That said…
In terms of macros, edamame has a lot more protein and fiber; it also has more carbs, but the ratio is such that edamame still has the lower glycemic index. Thus, the macros category is a win for edamame in all relevant aspects.
When it comes to vitamins, things are a little closer; asparagus has more of vitamins A, B3, and C, while edamame has more of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, and B9. All in all, a moderate win for edamame, unless we want to consider the much higher vitamin C content of asparagus as particularly more relevant.
In the category of minerals, asparagus boasts only more selenium (and more sodium, not that that’s a good thing for most people in industrialized countries), while edamame has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. An easy win for edamame.
In short, enjoy both (unless you have a soy allergy, because edamame is young soy beans), but edamame is the more nutritionally dense by far.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Fitness Freedom for Seniors – by Jackie Jacobs
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.
Exercise books often assume that either we are training for the Olympics, and most likely also that we are 20 years old. This one doesn’t.
Instead, we see a well-researched, well-organized, clearly-illustrated fitness plan with age in mind. Author Jackie Jacobs offers tips and advice for all levels, and a progressive week-by-week plan of 15-minute sessions. This way, we’re neither overdoing it nor slacking off; it’s a perfect balance.
The exercises are aimed at “all areas”, that is to say, improving cardiovascular fitness, balance, flexibility, and strength. It also gives some supplementary advice with regard to diet and suchlike, but the workouts are the real meat of the book.
Bottom line: if you’d like a robust, science-based exercise regime that’s tailored to seniors, this is the book for you.
Click here to check out Fitness Freedom for Seniors, and get yours!
Share This Post
-
How anti-vaccine figures abuse data to trick you
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 anti-vaccine movement is nearly as old as vaccines themselves. For as long as humans have sought to harness our immune system’s incredible ability to recognize and fight infectious invaders, critics and conspiracy theorists have opposed these efforts.
Anti-vaccine tactics have advanced since the early days of protesting “unnatural” smallpox inoculation, and the rampant abuse of scientific data may be the most effective strategy yet.
Here’s how vaccine opponents misuse data to deceive people, plus how you can avoid being manipulated.
Misappropriating raw and unverified safety data
Perhaps the oldest and most well-established anti-vaccine tactic is the abuse of data from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration maintain VAERS as a tool for researchers to detect early warning signs of potential vaccine side effects.
Anyone can submit a VAERS report about any symptom experienced at any point after vaccination. That does not mean that these symptoms are vaccine side effects.
VAERS was not designed to determine if a specific vaccine caused a specific adverse event. But for decades, vaccine opponents have misinterpreted, misrepresented, and manipulated VAERS data to convince people that vaccines are dangerous.
Anyone relying on VAERS to draw conclusions about vaccine safety is probably trying to trick you. It isn’t possible to determine from VAERS data alone if a vaccine caused a specific health condition.
VAERS isn’t the only federal data that vaccine opponents abuse. Originally created for COVID-19 vaccines, V-safe is a vaccine safety monitoring system that allows users to report—via text message surveys—how they feel and any health issues they experience up to a year after vaccination. Anti-vaccine groups have misrepresented data in the system, which tracks all health experiences, whether or not they are vaccine-related.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) has also become a target of anti-vaccine misinformation. Vaccine opponents have falsely claimed that DMED data reveals massive spikes in strokes, heart attacks, HIV, cancer, and blood clots among military service members since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The spike was due to an updated policy that corrected underreporting in the previous years
Misrepresenting legitimate studies
A common tactic vaccine opponents use is misrepresenting data from legitimate sources such as national health databases and peer-reviewed studies. For example, COVID-19 vaccines have repeatedly been blamed for rising cancer and heart attack rates, based on data that predates the pandemic by decades.
A prime example of this strategy is a preliminary FDA study that detected a slight increase in stroke risk in older adults after a high-dose flu vaccine alone or in combination with the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. The study found no “increased risk of stroke following administration of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccines.”
Yet vaccine opponents used the study to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines were uniquely harmful, despite the data indicating that the increased risk was almost certainly driven by the high-dose flu vaccine. The final peer-reviewed study confirmed that there was no elevated stroke risk following COVID-19 vaccination. But the false narrative that COVID-19 vaccines cause strokes persists.
Similarly, the largest COVID-19 vaccine safety study to date confirmed the extreme rarity of a few previously identified risks. For weeks, vaccine opponents overstated these rare risks and falsely claimed that the study proves that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.
Citing preprint and retracted studies
When a study has been retracted, it is no longer considered a credible source. A study’s retraction doesn’t deter vaccine opponents from promoting it—it may even be an incentive because retracted papers can be held up as examples of the medical establishment censoring so-called “truthtellers.” For example, anti-vaccine groups still herald Andrew Wakefield nearly 15 years after his study falsely linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism was retracted for data fraud.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the lasting impact of retracted studies into sharp focus. The rush to understand a novel disease that was infecting millions brought a wave of scientific publications, some more legitimate than others.
Over time, the weaker studies were reassessed and retracted, but their damage lingers. A 2023 study found that retracted and withdrawn COVID-19 studies were cited significantly more frequently than valid published COVID-19 studies in the same journals.
In one example, a widely cited abstract that found that ivermectin—an antiparasitic drug proven to not treat COVID-19—dramatically reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients exemplifies this phenomenon. The abstract, which was never peer reviewed, was retracted at the request of its authors, who felt the study’s evidence was weak and was being misrepresented.
Despite this, the study—along with the many other retracted ivermectin studies—remains a touchstone for proponents of the drug that has shown no effectiveness against COVID-19.
In a more recent example, a group of COVID-19 vaccine opponents uploaded a paper to The Lancet’s preprint server, a repository for papers that have not yet been peer reviewed or published by the prestigious journal. The paper claimed to have analyzed 325 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, finding COVID-19 vaccines were linked to 74 percent of the deaths.
The paper was promptly removed because its conclusions were unsupported, leading vaccine opponents to cry censorship.
Applying animal research to humans
Animals are vital to medical research, allowing scientists to better understand diseases that affect humans and develop and screen potential treatments before they are tested in humans. Animal research is a starting point that should never be generalized to humans, but vaccine opponents do just that.
Several animal studies are frequently cited to support the claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous during pregnancy. These studies found that pregnant rats had adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. The results are unsurprising given that they were injected with doses equal to or many times larger than the dose given to humans rather than a dose that is proportional to the animal’s size.
Similarly, a German study on rat heart cells found abnormalities after exposure to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine opponents falsely insinuated that this study proves COVID-19 vaccines cause heart damage in humans and was so universally misrepresented that the study’s author felt compelled to dispute the claims.
The author noted that the study used vaccine doses significantly higher than those administered to humans and was conducted in cultured rat cells, a dramatically different environment than a functioning human heart.
How to avoid being misled
The internet has empowered vaccine opponents to spread false information with an efficiency and expediency that was previously impossible. Anti-vaccine narratives have advanced rapidly due to the rampant exploitation of valid sources and the promotion of unvetted, non-credible sources.
You can avoid being tricked by using multiple trusted sources to verify claims that you encounter online. Some examples of credible sources are reputable public health entities like the CDC and World Health Organization, personal health care providers, and peer-reviewed research from experts in fields relevant to COVID-19 and the pandemic.
Read more about anti-vaccine tactics:
- How vaccine opponents spread misinformation
- How misinformation tricks our brains
- How vaccine opponents use kids to spread misinformation
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Are Supplements Worth Taking?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝There seems to be a lot of suggestions to take supplements for every thing, from your head to your toes. I know it’s up to the individual but what are the facts or stats to support taking them versus not?❞
Short answer:
- supplementary vitamins and minerals are probably neither needed nor beneficial for most (more on this later) people, with the exception of vitamin D which most people over a certain age need unless they are white and getting a lot of sun.
- other kinds of supplement can be very beneficial or useless, depending on what they are, of course, and also your own personal physiology.
With regard to vitamins and minerals, in most cases they should be covered by a healthy balanced diet, and the bioavailability is usually better from food anyway (bearing in mind, we say vitamin such-and-such, or name an elemental mineral, but there are usually multiple, often many, forms of each—and supplements will usually use whatever is cheapest to produce and most chemically stable).
However! It is also quite common for food to be grown in whatever way is cheapest and produces the greatest visible yield, rather than for micronutrient coverage.
This goes for most if not all plants, and it goes extra for animals (because of the greater costs and inefficiencies involved in rearing animals).
We wrote about this a while back in a mythbusting edition of 10almonds, covering:
- Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?
- Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?
- We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?
You can read the answers and explanations, and see the science that we presented, here:
Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?
You may be wondering: what was that about “most (more on this later) people”?
Sometimes someone will have a nutrient deficiency that can’t be easily remedied with diet. Often this occurs when their body:
- has trouble absorbing that nutrient, or
- does something inconvenient with it that makes a lot of it unusable when it gets it.
…which is why calcium, iron, vitamin B12, and vitamin D are quite common supplements to get prescribed by doctors after a certain age.
Still, it’s best to try getting things from one’s diet first all of all, of course.
Things we can’t (reasonably) get from food
This is another category entirely. There are many supplements that are convenient forms of things readily found in a lot of food, such as vitamins and minerals, or phytochemicals like quercetin, fisetin, and lycopene (to name just a few of very many).
Then there are things not readily found in food, or at least, not in food that’s readily available in supermarkets.
For example, if you go to your local supermarket and ask where the mimosa is, they’ll try to sell you a cocktail mix instead of the roots, bark, or leaves of a tropical tree. It is also unlikely they’ll stock lion’s mane mushroom, or reishi.
If perchance you do get the chance to acquire fresh lion’s mane mushroom, by the way, give it a try! It’s delicious shallow-fried in a little olive oil with black pepper and garlic.
In short, this last category, the things most of us can’t reasonably get from food without going far out of our way, are the kind of thing whereby supplements actually can be helpful.
And yet, still, not every supplement has evidence to support the claims made by its sellers, so it’s good to do your research beforehand. We do that on Mondays, with our “Research Review Monday” editions, of which you can find in our searchable research review archive ← we also review some drugs that can’t be classified as supplements, but mostly, it’s supplements.
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:
-
How Aging Changes At 44 And Again At 60 (And What To Do About It)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
As it turns out, aging is not linear. Or rather: chronological aging may be, but biological aging isn’t, and there are parts of our life where it kicks into a different gear. This study looked at 108 people (65 of whom women) between the ages of 25 and 75, as part of a longitudinal cohort study, tracked for around 2–8 years (imprecise as not all follow-up durations were the same). They took frequent blood and urine samples, and tested them for thousands of different molecules and analyzing changes in gene expression, proteomic, blood biomarkers, and more. All things that are indicators of various kinds of health/disease, and which might seem more simple but it isn’t: aging.
Here’s what they found:
Landmark waypoints
At 44, significant changes occur in the metabolism, including notably the metabolism of carbs, caffeine, and alcohol. A large portion of this may be hormone related, as that’s a time of change not just for those undergoing the menopause, but also the andropause (not entirely analogous to the menopause, but it does usually entail a significant reduction in sex hormone production; in this case, testosterone).
However, the study authors also hypothesize that lifestyle factors may be relevant, as one’s 40s are often a stressful time, and an increase in alcohol consumption often occurs around the same time as one’s ability to metabolize it drops, resulting in further dysfunctional alcohol metabolism.
At 60, carb metabolism slows again, with big changes in glucose metabolism specifically, as well as an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and a decline in kidney function. In case that wasn’t enough: also an increase free radical pathology, meaning a greatly increased risk of cancer. Immune function drops too.
What to do about this: the recommendation is of course to be proactive, and look after various aspects of your health before it becomes readily apparent that you need to. For example, good advice for anyone approaching 44 might be to quit alcohol, go easy on caffeine, and eat a diet that is conducive to good glucose metabolism. Similarly, good advice for anyone approaching 60 might be to do the same, and also pay close attention to keeping your kidneys healthy. Getting regular tests done is also key, including optional extras that your doctor might not suggest but you should ask for, such as blood urea nitrogen levels (biomarkers of kidney function). The more we look after each part of our body, the more they can look after us in turn, and the fewer/smaller problems we’ll have down the line.
If you, dear reader, are approaching the age 44 or 60… Be neither despondent nor complacent. We must avoid falling into the dual traps of “Well, that’s it, bad health is around the corner, nothing I can do about it; that’s nature”, vs “I’ll be fine, statistics are for other people, and don’t apply to me”.
Those are averages, and we do not have to be average. Every population has statistical outliers. But it would be hubris to think none of this will apply to us and we can just carry on regardless. So, for those of us who are approaching one of those two ages… It’s time to saddle up, knuckle down, and do our best!
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Also, if you’d like to read the actual paper by Dr. Xiaotao Shen et al., here it is:
Nonlinear dynamics of multi-omics profiles during human aging ← honestly, it’s a lot clearer and more informative than the video, and also obviously discusses things in a lot more detail than we have room to here
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:
-
Can You Be Fat AND Fit?
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 short answer is “yes“.
And as for what that means for your heart and/or all-cause mortality risk: it’s just as good as being fit at a smaller size, and furthermore, it’s better than being less fit at a smaller size.
Here’s the longer answer:
The science
A research team did a systematic review looking at multiple large cohort studies examining the associations between:
- Cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular disease risk
- Cardiorespiratory fitness and all-cause mortality
- BMI and cardiovascular disease risk
- BMI and all-cause mortality
However, they also took this further, and tabulated the data such that they could also establish the cardiovascular disease mortality risk and all-cause mortality risk of:
- Unfit people with “normal” BMI
- Unfit people with “overweight” BMI
- Unfit people with “obese” BMI
- Fit people with “normal” BMI
- Fit people with “overweight” BMI
- Fit people with “obese” BMI
Before we move on, let’s note for the record that BMI is a woeful system in any case, for enough reasons to fill a whole article:
Now, with that in mind, let’s get to the results:
What they found
For cardiovascular disease mortality risk of unfit people specifically, compared to fit people of “normal” BMI:
- Unfit people with “normal” BMI: 2.04x higher risk.
- Unfit people with “overweight” BMI: 2.58x higher risk.
- Unfit people with “obese” BMI: 3.35x higher risk
So here we can see that if you are unfit, then being heavier will indeed increase your CVD mortality risk.
For all-cause mortality risk of unfit people specifically, compared to fit people of “normal” BMI:
- Unfit people with “normal” BMI: 1.92x higher risk.
- Unfit people with “overweight” BMI: 1.82x higher risk.
- Unfit people with “obese” BMI: 2.04x higher risk
This time we see that if you are unfit, then being heavier or lighter than “overweight” will increase your all-cause mortality risk.
So, what about if you are fit? Then being heavier or lighter made no significant difference to either CVD mortality risk or all-cause mortality risk.
Fit individuals, regardless of weight category (normal, overweight, or obese), had significantly lower mortality risks compared to unfit individuals in any weight category.
Note: not just “compared to unfit individuals in their weight category”, but compared to unfit individuals in any weight category.
In other words, if you are obese and have good cardiorespiratory fitness, you will (on average) live longer than an unfit person with “normal” BMI.
You can find the paper itself here, if you want to examine the data and/or method:
Cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass index and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ok, so how do I improve the kind of fitness that they measured?
They based their cardiorespiratory fitness on VO2 Max, which scientific consensus holds to be a good measure of how efficiently your body can use oxygen—thus depending on your heart and lungs being healthy.
If you use a fitness tracker that tracks your exercise and your heart rate, it will estimate your VO2 Max for you—to truly measure the VO2 Max itself directly, you’ll need a lot more equipment; basically, access to a lab that tests this. But the estimates are fairly accurate, and so good enough for most personal purposes that aren’t hard-science research.
Next, you’ll want to do this:
53 Studies Later: The Best Way to Improve VO2 Max
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:
