This Mobility Test Is Linked To How Long You’ll Live

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.

Can you do it?

Sit-to-rise

The sit-to-rise (STR) or sitting-rising test (SRT) is a quick mobility assessment where you sit down on the floor and stand back up again using as little support as possible, measuring how well your strength, mobility, balance, coordination, and control work together.

  • How the test works: start with 10 points total—5 points for sitting down and 5 for standing up.
  • How points are deducted: lose 1 point every time you use a hand, knee, elbow, or another support, and lose 0.5 points for wobbling or losing your balance.
  • What higher scores suggest: scores between 8 and 10 are associated with strong physical capability, good overall function, and the lowest mortality risk in research studies.
  • What mid-range scores suggest: scores between 5 and 7.5 may indicate emerging physical limitations or reduced movement quality.
  • What lower scores suggest: scores below 5 are linked with reduced physical resilience and substantially higher mortality risk in long-term studies.

What the science says: studies involving thousands of adults over 40 found that lower SRT scores were consistently associated with higher mortality risk over subsequent years. Indeed, each additional point on the SRT was associated with roughly a 21% improvement in life expectancy in the cited research.

In terms of expectations, you should know that perfect scores are common in people aged 16 to 25, but fewer than 8% of adults over 55 achieve a perfect 10.

However! The good news is that if you don’t score well, you can practice and then score better.

You may be thinking: but I use a wheelchair and physically cannot stand at all, what does this mean for me? And the answer is: nothing, really. The research wasn’t done with your body in mind, and therefore the results may not reflect your healthy longevity. Likely a different test is needed, and the grip strength test is generally considered a good one that has similar associations (due to being inversely associated with frailty, and therefore positively associated with healthy longevity).

For more on all of this plus demonstrations of the incorrect ways of doing it and suspiciously no demonstration of the correct way, just a slightly edited bit where she sort of teleports from sitting to standing (we suspect she cannot do it and was embarrassed to admit it and hoped nobody would notice), enjoy:

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

Want to learn more?

You might also like:

4 Tips To Stand Without Using Hands

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:

  • Celeriac vs Zucchini – 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 celeriac to zucchini, we picked the celeriac.

    Why?

    Both have their merits! But…

    In terms of macros, the celeriac has nearly 2x the fiber, more than 2x the carbs, and slightly more protein, winning in this category.

    In the category of vitamins, celeriac has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B7, E, and K, while zucchini has more of vitamins B2, B9, and C, yielding a 6:3 win to celeriac here.

    Looking at minerals, celeriac has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while zucchini has a tiny bit more manganese, making this round another compelling win for celeriac.

    In other considerations, celeriac also has slightly more polyphenols (most notably quercetin), but it’s a tiny difference. Realistically, we could call this last round a tie.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for celeriac, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Egg Whites vs Whole Eggs – 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 egg whites to whole eggs, we picked the whole eggs.

    Why?

    Egg whites are mostly protein. Egg yolks are mostly fat, with some protein.

    However, fat ≠ bad, and the yolk is also where the choline is stored, which itself (as well as its benefits for your brain) will tend to reduce fat storage in the body.

    Furthermore, the yolk contains an assortment of vitamins, minerals, and essential amino acids. After all, the yolk is there specifically to contain everything needed to turn a cluster of cells into a small bird.

    Read more: Eggs: All Things In Moderation?

    Share This Post

  • How Nature Provides Us With A Surprisingly Powerful Painkiller

    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 (at least to regular 10almonds-readers) that seeing nature, ideally green leaves and blue sky, improves our mood by stimulating production of serotonin.

    See also: Neurotransmitter Cheatsheet

    But it does a lot more.

    Reducing the actual signals of pain

    Researchers at the University of Vienna have discovered that viewing nature scenes (even if just on video) alleviates physical pain—not just in self-reported subjective assessments, but also by a reduction of the neural activity that signals pain:

    ❝Pain is like a puzzle, made up of different pieces that are processed differently in the brain. Some pieces of the puzzle relate to our emotional response to pain, such as how unpleasant we find it. Other pieces correspond to the physical signals underlying the painful experience, such as its location in the body and its intensity.

    Unlike placebos, which usually change our emotional response to pain, viewing nature changed how the brain processed early, raw sensory signals of pain.

    Thus, the effect appears to be less influenced by participants’ expectations, and more by changes in the underlying pain signals

    This was tested against, varyingly, viewing an urban environment or viewing an indoor environment, neither of which gave the same benefits.

    The setup of the experiment is relevant, so…

    Matching soundscape accompanied each visual stimulus. The three pain runs had a total duration of 9 min each, during which one environment was accompanied by 16 painful and 16 non-painful shocks. Neuroimaging was used for all parts, and participants were exposed to all environments:

    • First, a cue indicating the intensity of the next shock (red = painful, yellow = not painful) was presented for 2000 milliseconds (ms).
    • Second, a variable interval of 3500 ± 1500 ms was shown.
    • Third, a cue indicating the intensity of the shock was presented for 1000 ms, accompanied by an electrical shock with a duration of 500 ms.
    • Fourth, a variable interval of 3500 ± 1500 ms followed.
    • Fifth, after each third trial, participants rated the shock’s intensity and unpleasantness at 6000 ms each.
    • Sixth, each trial ended with an intertrial interval (ITI) presented for 2000 ms.

    They found that as well as the self-assessment reports being as expected (nature scenes reduced subjective experience of pain),

    ❝In summary, the multivoxel and region of interest analyses converged in showing that pain responses when exposed to nature as compared to urban or indoor stimuli were associated with a decrease in neural processes related to lower-level nociception-related features (NPS, thalamus), as well as in regions of descending modulatory circuitry associated with attentional alterations of pain that also encode sensory-discriminative aspects (S2, pINS).

    In other words—to the extent that pain can be quantified objectively by neural imaging—the pain was also objectively reduced, much like with a chemical painkiller.

    You can read the paper in full, here:

    Nature exposure induces analgesic effects by acting on nociception-related neural processing

    How to benefit from this

    Well, first there is the obvious, “view nature“.

    However, note the timescales involved in the testing periods: 2000 milliseconds is two seconds, and that was the intertrial interval used—the equivalent of a washout phase in an interventional trial (but a drug/supplement/diet washout is usually a number of weeks).

    The fact that the test periods were a matter of seconds, and the intertrial period was also literally two seconds, this means:

    It works quickly, and the effect disappears quickly, too.

    In other words: if you want pain relief from nature, the good news is you can get it immediately while viewing nature, and the bad news is that you have to keep viewing nature to continue enjoying the painkilling effect.

    So that’s a limitation, but it’s still clearly a very worthy option for a little respite from chronic pain now and again, for example.

    Want to learn more?

    We’ve written quite a bit about pain management, including:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Scarcity Brain – by Michael Easter

    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.

    After a brief overview of theevolutionary psychology underpinnings of the scarcity brain, the author grounds the rest of this book firmly in the present. He explains how the scarcity loop hooks us and why we crave more, and what factors can increase or lessen its hold over us.

    As for what things we are wired to consider “potentially scarce any time now” no matter how saturated we are in them, he looks at an array of categories, each with their nuances. From the obvious such as “food” and “stuff“, to understandable “information” and “happiness“, to abstractions like “influence“, he goes to many sources—experts of various kinds from around the world—to explore how we can know “how much is enough”, and—which can be harder—act accordingly.

    The key, he argues, is not in simply wanting less, but in understanding why we crave more in the first place, get rid of our worst habits, and use what we already have, better.

    Bottom line: if you feel a gnawing sense of needing more “to be on the safe side”, this book can help you to be a little more strategic (and at the same time, less stressed!) about that.

    Click here to check out Scarcity Brain, and manage yours more mindfully!

    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 what you eat during pregnancy and breastfeeding affect whether your child develops food allergies?

    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.

    Many questions pop up when you’re growing or raising a new baby.

    Among them, women often wonder if what they eat during pregnancy or breastfeeding will affect whether or not their child will have a food allergy.

    Researchers have also been trying to answer this question for many years.

    A baby’s exposure to food allergens during pregnancy and via breast milk is thought to be important. Experts believe it could allow the child to start developing helpful immune responses so they tolerate food allergens in their diet in future.

    But to what degree this theory plays out, and whether a mother’s diet influences their child’s likelihood of developing food allergies, isn’t yet clear. Here’s what we know so far.

    Maria Evseyeva/Shutterstock

    The science of food allergies

    A food allergy occurs when the body’s immune system responds to a particular food as if it was harmful to the body.

    In Australia, foods which commonly cause allergies include egg, cow’s milk, peanut, tree nuts, sesame, soy, wheat, fish and other seafood (this can vary a little in different countries). Although almost any food can cause an allergic reaction.

    For people with food allergies, symptoms can appear within minutes of eating the food. These symptoms can include a swollen face, lips or eyes, hives or welts on the skin, vomiting, trouble breathing, and persistent dizziness or collapse.

    In pregnancy, food allergens can cross the placenta and can be detected in amniotic fluid, from which they reach the baby’s gastrointestinal tract when the baby swallows.

    After birth this process continues when food allergens pass from breast milk to the baby’s gastrointestinal tract. Both of these pathways lead to early life exposure to different foods.

    This is thought to help the baby’s developing immune system to accept food allergens when they’re introduced once the child starts eating solids. In other words, the immune system may be more likely to see the food as harmless and not mount an allergic response against the food.

    A woman breastfeeding a baby.
    Babies can be exposed to allergens in breast milk before they start eating solid foods. Nastyaofly/Shutterstock

    Along with food allergens, babies also receive beneficial antibodies in breast milk. Levels of food allergen-specific antibodies, which could offer protection against allergies, have been found to be higher in babies whose mothers ate more of foods including egg, peanut, cow’s milk and wheat during early breastfeeding.

    Lower levels of these beneficial antibodies in the blood have been linked with higher chances of babies developing food allergies.

    Research is trying to answer the question

    While there are scientific explanations for how a woman’s diet during pregnancy and breastfeeding could influence her child’s likelihood of developing a food allergy, we don’t have conclusive evidence to tell us exactly what the best diet is to prevent allergies.

    Some studies have tried to look at this, but results have been inconsistent because they have been done in different populations, diet has been assessed in different ways, and they have not always been able to account for other factors that might influence both diet and food allergy risk.

    Current research is trying to understand this further. A large Australian study, the PrEggNut Study, is testing whether the amount of egg and peanut mothers eat during pregnancy and breastfeeding affects their child’s risk of having an egg or peanut allergy.

    More than 2,100 mothers were randomly assigned to eat either higher or lower amounts of egg and peanut from mid-pregnancy until their baby was four months old. Results are expected next year.

    Another Australian study, the Nuts For Babies Study, is testing whether the amount of peanuts and cashew nuts mothers eat during breastfeeding can reduce the chances of their child developing a peanut or cashew nut allergy.

    This study has recently commenced and is looking for 4,000 pregnant women living in Western Australia or Victoria and who are planning to breastfeed their baby to participate.

    A mother and father feed a small child peanut butter.
    Ongoing research is trying to tell us how a mother’s diet during pregnancy or breastfeeding could affect her child’s risk of food allergies. Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels

    So what’s the advice for now?

    There are many other things, such as genetic and environmental factors, that may also play a role in the development of a baby’s immune system, including how their immune cells respond to food allergens. And we still have a lot to learn about what causes allergies more broadly.

    While we wait for the results of the above studies, the current advice is for mothers not to avoid any common allergy-causing foods during pregnancy and breastfeeding (unless of course they’re allergic themselves).

    The science so far suggests that if anything, exposing the baby to allergens could reduce their risk of developing allergies, rather than increase it.

    Once the baby is ready to eat solid foods, we know introducing peanuts and eggs from around six months of age makes it less likely the child will develop an allergy to these foods.

    Introducing other common allergy-causing foods in the first year of life may also be helpful, although the evidence for this is not as strong compared with peanuts and eggs.

    Once these foods have been introduced, continuing to include them in your baby’s meals regularly, at least once a week, might also make it less likely they develop an allergy to these foods.

    Jennifer Koplin, Evidence and Translation Lead, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Chief Investigator, Centre of Food Allergy Research; Associate Professor and Group Leader, Childhood Allergy & Epidemiology Group, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland; Debbie Palmer, Head, Early Life & Life-Course Health Program; Team Lead, Nutrition in Early Life; Food Allergy Stream Co-chair, National Allergy Centre of Excellence, The Kids Research Institute Australia, and Desalegn Markos Shifti, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Child Health Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

    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:

  • Genius Gut – by Dr. Emily Leeming

    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.

    When it comes to the gut-brain information interchange, 90% of it is the gut talking to the brain (the brain is a good listener). As such, one of the best things we can do for our brain is ensure our gut has good things to say.

    Dr. Leeming talks us through doing a quick initial assessment to judge the general goodness/badness of our current gut situation (based on output, not input, so it’s about the actual goodness/badness, not what we expect it should be), before going on to explain a lot of the anatomy and physiology at hand.

    The hacks themselves may be, in their titles, things you already know—but where the real value of this book lies is in all the data and science collated under each of those hacks, allowing the reader to optimize everything rather than just guessing. Which can mean optimize by doing things as close to perfectly as possible, or it can mean optimize by doing/using the things that get the best results for the minimum effort. It’s up to you!

    The style is very casual and friendly, even conversational, while not skimping on science (and indeed, citations are frequently provided for such).

    Bottom line: if you’d like to improve your gut health, especially with the goal of improving your brain health, this is an excellent book for that.

    Click here to check out Genius Gut, and make yours better for you!

    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: