Monosodium Glutamate: Sinless Flavor-Enhancer Or Terrible Health Risk?
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.
What’s The Deal With MSG?
There are a lot of popular beliefs about MSG. Is there a grain of truth, or should we take them with a grain of salt? We’ll leap straight into myth-busting:
MSG is high in salt
True (technically) False (practically)
- MSG is a salt (a monosodium salt of L-glutamic acid), but to call it “full of salt” in practical terms is like calling coffee “full of fruit”. (Coffee beans are botanically fruit)
- It does contain sodium, though which is what the S stands for!
- We talked previously about how MSG’s sodium content is much lower than that of (table) salt. Specifically, it’s about one third of that of sodium chloride (e.g. table salt).
MSG triggers gluten sensitivity
False!
Or at least, because this kind of absolute negative is hard to prove in science, what we can say categorically is: it does not contain gluten. We understand that the similar name can cause that confusion. However:
- Gluten is a protein, found in wheat (and thus wheat-based foods).
- Glutamate is an amino acid, found in protein-rich foods.
- If you’re thinking “but proteins are made from amino acids”, yes, they are, but the foundational amino acid of gluten is glutamine, not glutamate. Different bricks → different house!
The body can’t process MSG correctly
False!
The body has glutamate receptors throughout the gut and nervous system.
The body metabolizes glutamate from MSG just the same as from any other food that contains it naturally.
Read: Update on food safety of monosodium l-glutamate (MSG) ← evidence-based safety review
MSG causes “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome”
False!
Racism causes that. It finds its origins in what was originally intended as a satirical joke, that the papers picked up and ran with, giving it that name in the 1960s. As to why it grew and persisted, that has more to do with US politics (the US has been often at odds with China for a long time) and xenophobia (people distrust immigrants, such as those who opened restaurants), including nationalistic rhetoric associating immigrants with diseases.
Read: Xenophobia in America in the Age of Coronavirus and Beyond ← academic paper that gives quite a compact yet comprehensive overview
Research science, meanwhile, has not found any such correlation, in more than 40 years of looking.
PS: we realize this item in the list is very US-centric. Apologies to our non-US subscribers. We know that this belief isn’t so much of a thing outside the US—though it certainly can crop up elsewhere sometimes, too.
Are there any health risks associated with MSG, then?
Well, as noted, it does contain sodium, albeit much less than table salt. So… do go easy on it, all the same.
Aside from that, the LD50 (a way of measuring toxicity) of MSG is 15.8g/kg, so if for example you weigh 150lb (68 kg), don’t eat 2.2lb (a kilogram) of MSG.
There have been some studies on rats (or in one case, fruit flies) that found high doses of MSG could cause heart problems and/or promote obesity. However:
- this has not been observed to be the case in humans
- those doses were really high, ranging from 1g/kg to 8g/kg. So that’d be the equivalent of our 150lb person eating it by the cupful
- it was injected (as a solution) into the rats, not ingested by them
- so don’t let someone inject you with a cup of MSG!
Read: A review of the alleged health hazards of monosodium glutamate
Bottom line on MSG and health:
Enjoy in moderation, but enjoy if you wish! MSG is just the salt form of the amino acid glutamate, which is found naturally in many foods, including shrimp, seaweed, and tomatoes.
Scientists have spent more than 40 years trying to find health risks for MSG, and will probably keep trying (which is as science should be), but for now… Everything has either come up negative, or has been the result of injecting laboratory animals with megadoses.
If you’d like to try it in your cooking as a low-sodium way to bring out the flavor of your dishes, you can order it online. Cheapest in bulk, but try it and see if you like it first!
(I’ll be real with you… I have 5 kg in the pantry myself and use about half a teaspoon a day, cooking for two)
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:
-
Do we need animal products to be healthy?
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.
Do we need animal products to be healthy?
We asked you for your (health-related) perspective on plant-based vs anima-based foods, and got the above-pictured spread of answers.
“Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products” came out on top with more votes than the two more meat-eatery options combined, and the second most popular option was the hard-line “We can all live healthily and happily on just plants”.
Based on these answers, it seems our readership has quite a lot of vegans, vegetarians, and perhaps “flexitarians” who just have a little of animal products here and there.
Perhaps we should have seen this coming; the newsletter is “10almonds”, not “10 rashers of bacon”, after all.
But what does the science say?
We are carnivores and are best eating plenty of meat: True or False?
False. Let’s just rip the band-aid off for this one.
In terms of our anatomy and physiology, we are neither carnivores nor herbivores:
- We have a mid-length digestive tract (unlike carnivores and herbivores who have short and long ones, respectively)
- We have a mouthful of an assortment of teeth; molars and premolars for getting through plants from hard nuts to tough fibrous tubers, and we have incisors for cutting into flesh and (vestigial, but they’re there) canines that really serve us no purpose now but would have been a vicious bite when they were bigger, like some other modern-day primates.
- If we look at our closest living relatives, the other great apes, they are mostly frugivores (fruit-eaters) who supplement their fruity diet with a small quantity of insects and sometimes other small animals—of which they’ll often eat only the fatty organ meat and discard the rest.
And then, there’s the health risks associated with meat. We’ll not linger on this as we’ve talked about it before, but for example:
- Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies
- Red Meat Consumption (Heme Iron Intake) and Risk for Diabetes and Comorbidities?
- Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies
- Associations of Processed Meat, Unprocessed Red Meat, Poultry, or Fish Intake With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality
- Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences
If we avoid processed and/or red meat, that’s good enough: True or False?
True… Ish.
Really this one depends on one’s criteria for “good enough”. The above-linked studies, and plenty more like them, give the following broad picture:
- Red and/or processed meats are unequivocally terrible for the health in general
- Other mammalian meats, such as from pigs, are really not much better
- Poultry, on the other hand, the science is less clear on; the results are mixed, and thus so are the conclusions. The results are often barely statistically significant. In other words, when it comes to poultry, in the matter of health, the general consensus is that you can take it or leave it and will be fine. Some studies have found firmly for or against it, but the consensus is a collective scientific shrug.
- Fish, meanwhile, has almost universally been found to be healthful in moderation. You may have other reasons for wanting to avoid it (ethics, environmentalism, personal taste) but those things are beyond the scope of this article.
Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products: True or False?
True! With nuances.
Let’s divide this into “some” and “all”. Firstly, some people may have health conditions and/or other mitigating circumstances that make an entirely plant-based diet untenable.
We’re going light on quotations from subscriber comments today because otherwise this article will get a bit long, but here’s a great example that’s worth quoting, from a subscriber who voted for this option:
❝I have a rare genetic disease called hereditary fructose intolerance. It means I lack the enzyme, Aldolase B, to process fructose. Eating fruits and veggies thus gives me severe hypoglycemia. I also have anemia caused by two autoimmune diseases, so I have to eat meat for the iron it supplies. I also supplement with iron pills but the pills alone can’t fix the problem entirely.❞
And, there’s the thing. Popular vegan talking-points are very good at saying “if you have this problem, this will address it; if you have that problem, that will address it”, etc. For every health-related objection to a fully plant-based diet there’s a refutation… Individually.
But actual real-world health doesn’t work like that; co-morbidities are very common, and in some cases, like our subscriber above, one problem undermines the solution to another. Add a third problem and by now you really just have to do what you need to do to survive.
For this reason, even the Vegan Society’s definition of veganism includes the clause “so far as is possible and practicable”.
Now, as for the rest of us “all”.
What if we’re really healthy and are living in optimal circumstances (easy access to a wide variety of choice of food), can we live healthily and happily just on plants?
No—on a technicality.
Vegans famously need to supplement vitamin B12, which is not found in plants. Ironically, much of the B12 in animal products comes from the animals themselves being given supplements, but that’s another matter. However, B12 can also be enjoyed from yeast. Popular options include the use of yeast extract (e.g. Marmite) and/or nutritional yeast in cooking.
Yeast is a single-celled microorganism that’s taxonomically classified as a fungus, even though in many ways it behaves like an animal (which series of words may conjure an amusing image, but we mean, biologically speaking).
However, it’s also not technically a plant, hence the “No—on a technicality”
Bottom line:
By nature, humans are quite versatile generalists when it comes to diet:
- Most of us can live healthily and happily on just plants if we so choose.
- Some people cannot, and will require varying kinds (and quantities) of animal products.
- As for red and/or processed meats, we’re not the boss of you, but from a health perspective, the science is clear: unless you have a circumstance that really necessitates it, just don’t.
- Same goes for pork, which isn’t red and may not be processed, but metabolically it’s associated with the same problems.
- The jury is out on poultry, but it strongly appears to be optional, healthwise, without making much of a difference either way
- Fish is roundly considered healthful in moderation. Enjoy it if you want, don’t if you don’t.
Share This Post
-
The Sweet Truth About Diabetes
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.
There’s A Lot Of Confusion About Diabetes!
For those readers who are not diabetic, nor have a loved one who is diabetic, nor any other pressing reason to know these things, first a quick 101 rundown of some things to understand the rest of today’s main feature:
- Blood sugar levels: how much sugar is in the blood, measured in mg/dL or mmol/L
- Hyperglycemia or “hyper” for short: too much sugar in the blood
- Hypoglycemia or “hypo” for short: too little sugar in the blood
- Insulin: a hormone that acts as a gatekeeper to allow sugar to pass, or not pass, into various parts of the body
- Type 1 diabetes (sometimes capitalized, and/or abbreviated to “T1D”) is an autoimmune disorder that prevents the pancreas from being able to supply the body with insulin. This means that taking insulin consistently is necessary for life.
- Type 2 diabetes is a matter of insulin resistance. The pancreas produces plenty of insulin, but the body has become desensitized to it, so it doesn’t work properly. Taking extra insulin may sometimes be necessary, but for many people, it can be controlled by means of a careful diet and other lifestyle factors.
With that in mind, on to some very popular myths…
Diabetes is caused by having too much sugar
While sugar is not exactly a health food, it’s not the villain of this story either.
- Type 1 diabetes has a genetic basis, triggered by epigenetic factors unrelated to sugar.
- Type 2 diabetes comes from a cluster of risk factors which, together, can cause a person to go through pre-diabetes and acquire type 2 diabetes.
- Those risk factors include:
- A genetic predisposition
- A large waist circumference
- (this is more relevant than BMI or body fat percentage)
- High blood pressure
- A sedentary lifestyle
- Age (the risk starts rising at 35, rises sharply at 45, and continues upwards with increasing age)
- Those risk factors include:
Read more: Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes
Diabetics can’t have sugar
While it’s true that diabetics must be careful about sugar (and carbs in general), it’s not to say that they can’t have them… just: be mindful and intentional about it.
- Type 1 diabetics will need to carb-count in order to take the appropriate insulin bolus. Otherwise, too little insulin will result in hyperglycemia, or too much insulin will result in hypoglycemia.
- Type 2 diabetics will often be able to manage their blood sugar levels with diet alone, and slow-release carbs will make this easier.
In either case, having quick release sugars will increase blood sugar levels (what a surprise), and sometimes (such as when experiencing a hypo), that’s what’s needed.
Also, when it comes to sugar, a word on fruit:
Not all fruits are equal, and some fruits can help maintain stable blood sugar levels! Read all about it:
Fruit Intake to Prevent and Control Hypertension and Diabetes
Artificial sweeteners are must-haves for diabetics
Whereas sugar is a known quantity to the careful diabetic, some artificial sweeteners can impact insulin sensitivity, causing blood sugars to behave in unexpected ways. See for example:
The Impact of Artificial Sweeteners on Body Weight Control and Glucose Homeostasis
If a diabetic person is hyper, they should exercise to bring their blood sugar levels down
Be careful with this!
- In the case of type 2 diabetes, it may (or may not) help, as the extra sugar may be used up.
- Type 1 diabetes, however, has a crucial difference. Because the pancreas isn’t making insulin, a hyper (above a certain level, anyway) means more insulin is needed. Exercising could do more harm than good, as unlike in type 2 diabetes, the body has no way to use that extra sugar, without the insulin to facilitate it. Exercising will just pump the syrupy hyperglycemic blood around the body, potentially causing damage as it goes (all without actually being able to use it).
There are other ways this can be managed that are outside of the scope of this newsletter, but “be careful” is rarely a bad approach.
Read more, from the American Diabetes Association:
Share This Post
-
End Your Carb Confusion – by Dr. Eric Westman & Amy Berger
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.
Carbs can indeed be confusing! We’ve written about it ourselves before, but there’s more to be said than fits in a single article, and sometimes a book is in order. This one is such a book.
The authors (an MD and a nutritionist) explain the ins and outs of carbohydrates of various kinds, insulin responses, and what that means for the body. They also then look at the partly-similar, partly-different processes that occur with the metabolism of fats of various kinds, and what that means for the body, too.
Ultimately they advocate for a simple and clear low-carb approach broadly consistent with keto diet macro principles, without getting too overly focused on “is this fruit/vegetable ok?” minutiae. This has the benefit of putting it well aside from the paleo diet, for example (which focuses more on pseudo-historical foods than it does on macros), and also makes it a lot easier on a practical level.
The style is very textbook-like, which makes for an easy read with plenty of information that should stick easily in most reader’s minds, rather than details getting lost in wall-of-text formatting. So, we approve of this.
There is not, by the way, a recipes section. It’s “here’s the information, now go forth and enjoy” and leaves us all to find/make our own recipes, rather than trying to guess our culinary preferences.
Bottom line: if you’d like an easy-to-read primer on understanding how carbs work, what it means for you, and what to do about it, then this is a fine book.
Click here to check out End Your Carb Confusion, and end your carb confusion!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
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
❝Very informative thank you. And made me think. I am a 72 yr old whitewoman, have never used ( or even been offered) HRT since menopause ~15 yrs ago. Now I’m wondering if it would have delayed the onset of osteoarthritis ( knee) and give me more energy in general. And is it wise to start taking hrt after being without those hormones for so long?❞
(this was in response to our article about menopausal HRT)
Thanks for writing! To answer your first question, obviously we can never know for sure now, but it certainly is possible, per for example a large-ish (n=1003) study of women aged 45–64, in which:
- Those with HRT were significantly less likely to have knee arthritis than those without
- However, to enjoy this benefit depended on continued use (those who used it for a bit and then stopped did not enjoy the same results)
- While it made a big difference to knee arthritis, it made only a small (but still beneficial) difference to wrist/hand arthritis.
We could hypothesize that this is because the mechanism of action is more about strengthening the bones (proofing against osteoporosis is one of the main reasons many people take HRT) and cartilage than it is against inflammation directly.
Since the knee is load-bearing and the hand/wrist joints usually are not, this would mean the HRT strengthening the bones makes a big difference to the “wear and tear” aspect of potential osteoarthritis of the knee, but not the same level of benefit for the hand/wrist, which is less about wear and tear and more about inflammatory factors. But that latter, about it being load-bearing, is just this writer’s hypothesis as to why the big difference.
The researchers do mention:
❝In OA the mechanisms by which HRT might act are highly speculative, but could entail changes in cartilage repair or bone turnover, perhaps with cytokines such as interleukin 6, for example.❞
What is clear though, is that it does indeed appear to have a protective effect against osteoarthritis of the knee.
With regard to the timing, the researchers do note:
❝Why as little as three years of HRT should have a demonstrable effect is unclear. Given the difficulty in ascertaining when the disease starts, it is hard to be sure of the importance of the timing of HRT, and whether early or subclinical disease was present.
These results taken together suggest that HRT has a metabolic action that is only effective if given continuously, perhaps by preventing disease initiation; once HRT is stopped there might be a ‘rebound’ effect, explaining the rapid return to normal risk❞
~ Ibid.
You can read the study here:
On whether it is worth it now…
Again, do speak with an endocrinologist because your situation may vary, but:
- hormones are simply messengers, and your body categorically will respond to those messages regardless of age, or time elapsed without having received such a message. Whether it will repair all damage done is another matter entirely, but it would take a biological miracle for it to have no effect at all.
- anecdotally, many women do enjoy life-changing benefits upon starting HRT at your age and older!
(We don’t like to rely on “anecdotally”, but we couldn’t find studies isolating according to “length of time since menopause”—we’ll keep an eye out and if we find something in the future, we’ll mention it!)
Meanwhile, 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 we diagnose and define obesity is set to change – here’s why, and what it means for treatment
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.
Obesity is linked to many common diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and knee osteoarthritis.
Obesity is currently defined using a person’s body mass index, or BMI. This is calculated as weight (in kilograms) divided by the square of height (in metres). In people of European descent, the BMI for obesity is 30 kg/m² and over.
But the risk to health and wellbeing is not determined by weight – and therefore BMI – alone. We’ve been part of a global collaboration that has spent the past two years discussing how this should change. Today we publish how we think obesity should be defined and why.
As we outline in The Lancet, having a larger body shouldn’t mean you’re diagnosed with “clinical obesity”. Such a diagnosis should depend on the level and location of body fat – and whether there are associated health problems.
World Obesity Federation What’s wrong with BMI?
The risk of ill health depends on the relative percentage of fat, bone and muscle making up a person’s body weight, as well as where the fat is distributed.
Athletes with a relatively high muscle mass, for example, may have a higher BMI. Even when that athlete has a BMI over 30 kg/m², their higher weight is due to excess muscle rather than excess fatty tissue.
Some athletes have a BMI in the obesity category. Tima Miroshnichenko/Pexels People who carry their excess fatty tissue around their waist are at greatest risk of the health problems associated with obesity.
Fat stored deep in the abdomen and around the internal organs can release damaging molecules into the blood. These can then cause problems in other parts of the body.
But BMI alone does not tell us whether a person has health problems related to excess body fat. People with excess body fat don’t always have a BMI over 30, meaning they are not investigated for health problems associated with excess body fat. This might occur in a very tall person or in someone who tends to store body fat in the abdomen but who is of a “healthy” weight.
On the other hand, others who aren’t athletes but have excess fat may have a high BMI but no associated health problems.
BMI is therefore an imperfect tool to help us diagnose obesity.
What is the new definition?
The goal of the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity was to develop an approach to this definition and diagnosis. The commission, established in 2022 and led from King’s College London, has brought together 56 experts on aspects of obesity, including people with lived experience.
The commission’s definition and new diagnostic criteria shifts the focus from BMI alone. It incorporates other measurements, such as waist circumference, to confirm an excess or unhealthy distribution of body fat.
We define two categories of obesity based on objective signs and symptoms of poor health due to excess body fat.
1. Clinical obesity
A person with clinical obesity has signs and symptoms of ongoing organ dysfunction and/or difficulty with day-to-day activities of daily living (such as bathing, going to the toilet or dressing).
There are 18 diagnostic criteria for clinical obesity in adults and 13 in children and adolescents. These include:
- breathlessness caused by the effect of obesity on the lungs
- obesity-induced heart failure
- raised blood pressure
- fatty liver disease
- abnormalities in bones and joints that limit movement in children.
2. Pre-clinical obesity
A person with pre-clinical obesity has high levels of body fat that are not causing any illness.
People with pre-clinical obesity do not have any evidence of reduced tissue or organ function due to obesity and can complete day-to-day activities unhindered.
However, people with pre-clinical obesity are generally at higher risk of developing diseases such as heart disease, some cancers and type 2 diabetes.
What does this mean for obesity treatment?
Clinical obesity is a disease requiring access to effective health care.
For those with clinical obesity, the focus of health care should be on improving the health problems caused by obesity. People should be offered evidence-based treatment options after discussion with their health-care practitioner.
Treatment will include management of obesity-associated complications and may include specific obesity treatment aiming at decreasing fat mass, such as:
- support for behaviour change around diet, physical activity, sleep and screen use
- obesity-management medications to reduce appetite, lower weight and improve health outcomes such as blood glucose (sugar) and blood pressure
- metabolic bariatric surgery to treat obesity or reduce weight-related health complications.
Treatment for clinical obesity may include support for behaviour change. Shutterstock/shurkin_son Should pre-clinical obesity be treated?
For those with pre-clinical obesity, health care should be about risk-reduction and prevention of health problems related to obesity.
This may require health counselling, including support for health behaviour change, and monitoring over time.
Depending on the person’s individual risk – such as a family history of disease, level of body fat and changes over time – they may opt for one of the obesity treatments above.
Distinguishing people who don’t have illness from those who already have ongoing illness will enable personalised approaches to obesity prevention, management and treatment with more appropriate and cost-effective allocation of resources.
What happens next?
These new criteria for the diagnosis of clinical obesity will need to be adopted into national and international clinical practice guidelines and a range of obesity strategies.
Once adopted, training health professionals and health service managers, and educating the general public, will be vital.
Reframing the narrative of obesity may help eradicate misconceptions that contribute to stigma, including making false assumptions about the health status of people in larger bodies. A better understanding of the biology and health effects of obesity should also mean people in larger bodies are not blamed for their condition.
People with obesity or who have larger bodies should expect personalised, evidence-based assessments and advice, free of stigma and blame.
Louise Baur, Professor, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney; John B. Dixon, Adjunct Professor, Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology; Priya Sumithran, Head of the Obesity and Metabolic Medicine Group in the Department of Surgery, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, and Wendy A. Brown, Professor and Chair, Monash University Department of Surgery, School of Translational Medicine, Alfred Health, Monash 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:
-
Five Supplements That Actually Work Vs Arthritis
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 Dr. Diana Girnita, a double board-certified physician (internal medicine & rheumatology) who, in addition to her MD, also has a PhD in immunology—bearing in mind that rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune condition.
Her mission is to help people with any form of arthritis (rheumatoid or otherwise) and those with many non-arthritic autoimmune conditions (ranging from tendonitis to lupus) to live better.
Today, we’ll be looking at her recommendations of 5 supplements that actually help alleviate arthritis:
Collagen
Collagen famously supports skin, nails, bones, and joint cartilage; Dr. Girnita advises that it’s particularly beneficial for osteoarthritis.
Specifically, she recommends either collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen, as they are most absorbable. However, collagen can also be sourced from foods like bone broth, fish with skin and bones, and gelatin-based foods.
If you’re vegetarian/vegan, then it becomes important to simply consume the ingredients for collagen, because like most animals, we can synthesize it ourselves provided we get the necessary nutrients. For more on that, see:
We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
Glucosamine & chondroitin
Technically two things, but almost always sold/taken together. Naturally found in joint cartilage, it can slow cartilage breakdown and reduce pain in osteoarthritis.
Studies show pain relief, especially in moderate-to-severe cases; best taken long-term. Additionally, it’s a better option than NSAIDs for patients with heart or gastrointestinal issues.
10almonds tip: something that’s tricker to find as a supplement than glucosamine and chondroitin, but you might want to check it out:
Cucumber Extract Beats Glucosamine & Chondroitin… At 1/135th Of The Dose?!
Omega-3 fatty acids
Dr. Girnita recommends this one because unlike the above recommendations that mainly help reduce/reverse the joint damage itself, omega-3 reduces inflammation, pain, and stiffness, and can decrease or eliminate the need for NSAIDs in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.
She recommends 2-4g EPA/DHA daily; ideally taken with a meal for better absorption.
She also recommends to look for mercury-free options—algae-derived are usually better than fish-derived, but check for certification either way! See also:
What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
Boswellia serrata (frankincense)
Popularly enjoyed as an incense but also available in supplement form, it contains boswellic acid, which reduces inflammation and cartilage damage.
Dr. Girnita recommends 100 mg daily, but advises that it may interact with some antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, and NSAIDs—so speak with your pharmacist/doctor if unsure.
We also wrote about this one here:
Science-Based Alternative Pain Relief
Curcumin (turmeric)
Well-known for its potent anti-inflammatory properties, it’s comparable to NSAIDs in pain relief for most common forms of arthritis.
Dr. Girnita recommends 1–1.5g of curcumin daily, ideally combined with black pepper for better absorption:
Why Curcumin (Turmeric) Is Worth Its Weight In Gold
Lastly…
Dr. Girnita advises to not blindly trust supplements, but rather, to test them for 2–3 months while keeping a journal of your symptoms. If it improves things for you, keep it up, if not, discontinue. Humans can be complicated and not everything will work exactly the same way for everyone!
For more on dealing with chronic pain specifically, by the way, check out:
Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)
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:
