The Ultimate Booster

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.

Winning The Biological Arms Race

The human immune system (and indeed, other immune systems, but we are all humans here, after all) is in a constant state of war with pathogens, and that war is a constant biological arms race:

  • We improve our defenses and destroy the attackers; the 1% of pathogens that survived now “know” how to counter that trick.
  • The pathogens wreak havoc in our systems; the n% of us that survive now have immune systems that “know” how to counter that trick.

Vaccines are a mighty tool in our favor here, because they’re the technology that stops our n% from also being a very low number.

With vaccines, we can effectively pass on established defenses onto the population at large, as this cute video explains very well and very simply in 57 seconds:

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

The problem with vaccines

The problem is that this accelerates the arms race. It’s like a chess game where we are able to respond to every move quickly (which is good for us), and/but this means passing the move over to our opponent sooner.

That problem’s hard to avoid, because the alternative has always been “let people die in much larger numbers”.

Traditional vs mRNA vaccines

A quick refresher before we continue to the big news of the day:

  • Traditional vaccines use a disabled version of a pathogen to trigger an immune response that will teach the body to recognize the pathogen ready for when the full version shows up
  • mRNA vaccines use a custom-made bit of genetic information to tell the body to make its own harmless fake pathogen and then respond to the harmless fake pathogen it made.

Note: this happens independently of the host’s DNA, so no, it does not change your DNA

See also: The Truth About Vaccines

Here’s a more detailed explainer (with a helpful diagram) using the COVID mRNA vaccine as an example:

Genome.gov | How does an mRNA vaccine work?

However, this still leaves us “chasing strains”, because as the pathogen (in this case, a virus) adapts, the vaccine has to be updated too, hence all the boosters.

This is a lot like a security update for your computer’s antivirus software. They’re annoying, but they do an important job.

No more “chasing strains”

The press conference soundbite on this sums it up well:

❝Scientists at UC Riverside have demonstrated a new, RNA-based vaccine strategy that is effective against any strain of a virus and can be used safely even by babies or the immunocompromised.❞

~ Jules Bernstein

Read in full: Vaccine breakthrough means no more chasing strains

You may be wondering: what makes this one effective against any strain?

❝What I want to emphasize about this vaccine strategy is that it is broad.

It is broadly applicable to any number of viruses, broadly effective against any variant of a virus, and safe for a broad spectrum of people. This could be the universal vaccine that we have been looking for.

Viruses may mutate in regions not targeted by traditional vaccines. However, we are targeting their whole genome with thousands of small RNAs. They cannot escape this.❞

~ Dr. Rong Hai

Importantly, this means it can be applied not just to one disease, let alone just one strain of COVID. Rather, it can be used for a wide variety of viruses that have similar viral functions—COVID / SARS in general, including influenza, and even viruses such as dengue.

How it does this: the above article explains in more detail, but in few words: it targets tiny strings of the genome that are present in all strains of the virus.

Illustrative example: if you wanted to block 10almonds (please don’t), you could block our email address.

But if we were malicious (we’re not) we could be sneaky and change it, so you’d have to block the new one, and the cycle repeats.

But if you were block all emails containing the tiny string of characters “10almonds”, changing our email address would no longer penetrate your defenses.

Now imagine also blocking strings such as “One-Minute Book Review” and “Today’s almonds have been activated by” and other strings we use in every email.

Now multiply this by thousands of strings (because genomes are much larger than our little newsletter), and you see its effectiveness!

Great! How can I get this?

It’s still in the testing stages for now; this is “breaking news” science, after all.

The study itself

…is paywalled for now, sadly, but if you happen to have institutional access, here it is:

Live-attenuated virus vaccine defective in RNAi suppression induces rapid protection in neonatal and adult mice lacking mature B and T cells

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects
  • Real Self-Care – by Pooja Lakshmin MD
    Real Self-Care offers practical advice on setting boundaries, self-compassion, and asserting personal power. It’s a refreshing take on finding balance in a world that often expects self-sacrifice.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be Enough?

    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.

    Polyphasic Sleep… Super-Schedule Or An Idea Best Put To Rest?

    What is it?

    Let’s start by defining some terms:

    • Monophasic sleep—sleeping in one “chunk” per day. For example, a good night’s “normal” sleep.
    • Biphasic sleep—sleeping in two “chunks” per day. Typically, a shorter night’s sleep, with a nap usually around the middle of the day / early afternoon.
    • Polyphasic sleep—sleeping in two or more “chunks per day”. Some people do this in order to have more hours awake per day, to do things. The idea is that sleeping this way is more efficient, and one can get enough rest in less time. The most popular schedules used are:
      • The Überman schedule—six evenly-spaced 20-minute naps, one every four hours, throughout the 24-hour day. The name is a semi-anglicized version of the German word Übermensch, “Superman”.
      • The Everyman schedule—a less extreme schedule, that has a three-hours “long sleep” during the night, and three evenly-spaced 20-minute naps during the day, for a total of 4 hours sleep.

    There are other schedules, but we’ll focus on the most popular ones here.

    Want to learn about the others? Visit: Polyphasic.Net (a website by and for polyphasic sleep enthusiasts)

    Some people have pointed to evidence that suggests humans are naturally polyphasic sleepers, and that it is only modern lifestyles that have forced us to be (mostly) monophasic.

    There is at least some evidence to suggest that when environmental light/dark conditions are changed (because of extreme seasonal variation at the poles, or, as in this case, because of artificial changes as part of a sleep science experiment), we adjust our sleeping patterns accordingly.

    The counterpoint, of course, is that perhaps when at the mercy of long days/nights at the poles, or no air-conditioning to deal with the heat of the day in the tropics, that perhaps we were forced to be polyphasic, and now, with modern technology and greater control, we are free to be monophasic.

    Either way, there are plenty of people who take up the practice of polyphasic sleep.

    Ok, But… Why?

    The main motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is simply to have more hours in the day! It’s exciting, the prospect of having 22 hours per day to be so productive and still have time over for leisure.

    A secondary motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is that when the brain is sleep-deprived, it will prioritize REM sleep. Here’s where the Überman schedule becomes perhaps most interesting:

    The six evenly-spaced naps of the Überman schedule are each 20 minutes long. This corresponds to the approximate length of a normal REM cycle.

    Consequently, when your head hits the pillow, you’ll immediately begin dreaming, and at the end of your dream, the alarm will go off.

    Waking up at the end of a dream, when one hasn’t yet entered a non-REM phase of sleep, will make you more likely to remember it. Similarly, going straight into REM sleep will make you more likely to be aware of it, thus, lucid dreaming.

    Read: Sleep fragmentation and lucid dreaming (actually a very interesting and informative lucid dreaming study even if you don’t want to take up polyphasic sleep)

    Six 20-minute lucid-dreaming sessions per day?! While awake for the other 22 hours?! That’s… 24 hours per day of wakefulness to use as you please! What sorcery is this?

    Hence, it has quite an understandable appeal.

    Next Question: Does it work?

    Can we get by without the other (non-REM) kinds of sleep?

    According to Überman cycle enthusiasts: Yes! The body and brain will adapt.

    According to sleep scientists: No! The non-REM slow-wave phases of sleep are essential

    Read: Adverse impact of polyphasic sleep patterns in humans—Report of the National Sleep Foundation sleep timing and variability consensus panel

    (if you want to know just how bad it is… the top-listed “similar article” is entitled “Suicidal Ideation”)

    But what about, for example, the Everman schedule? Three hours at night is enough for some non-REM sleep, right?

    It is, and so it’s not as quickly deleterious to the health as the Überman schedule. But, unless you are blessed with rare genes that allow you to operate comfortably on 4 hours per day (you’ll know already if that describes you, without having to run any experiment), it’s still bad.

    Adults typically need 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and if you don’t get it, you’ll accumulate a sleep debt. And, importantly:

    When you accumulate sleep debt, you are borrowing time at a very high rate of interest!

    And, at risk of laboring the metaphor, but this is important too:

    Not only will you have to pay it back soon (with interest), you will be hounded by the debt collection agents—decreased cognitive ability and decreased physical ability—until you pay up.

    In summary:

    • Polyphasic sleep is really very tempting
    • It will give you more hours per day (for a while)
    • It will give the promised lucid dreaming benefits (which is great until you start micronapping between naps, this is effectively a mini psychotic break from reality lasting split seconds each—can be deadly if behind the wheel of a car, for instance!)
    • It is unequivocally bad for the health and we do not recommend it

    Bottom line:

    Some of the claimed benefits are real, but are incredibly short-term, unsustainable, and come at a cost that’s far too high. We get why it’s tempting, but ultimately, it’s self-sabotage.

    (Sadly! We really wanted it to work, too…)

    Share This Post

  • How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink

    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.

    Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.

    But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.

    Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.

    So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?

    Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.

    Andriana Syvanych/Shutterstock

    Human intervention in the water cycle

    There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).

    Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.

    The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.

    Aerial view of a dam next to a forest.
    Maroondah dam in Healesville, Victoria. doublelee/Shutterstock

    How do we decide what’s safe?

    The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines define what is considered safe, good-quality drinking water.

    The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.

    The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.

    From water catchment to tap

    Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).

    Public access to these areas is typically limited to preserve optimal water quality.

    Filtration and purification of water occurs naturally in catchments as it passes through soil, sediments, rocks and vegetation.

    But catchment water is subject to further treatment via standard processes that typically focus on:

    • removing particulates (for example, soil and sediment)
    • filtration (to remove particles and their contaminants)
    • disinfection (for example, using chlorine and chloramine to kill bacteria and viruses)
    • adding fluoride to prevent tooth decay
    • adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.

    This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.

    In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.

    Sources of contamination can come from roof catchments feeding rainwater tanks as well from the tap due to lead in plumbing fittings and materials.

    So, does all water meet these standards?

    Some rural and remote areas, especially First Nations communities, rely on poor-quality surface water and groundwater for their drinking water.

    Rural and regional water can exceed recommended guidelines for salt, microbial contaminants and trace elements, such as lead, manganese and arsenic.

    The federal government and other agencies are trying to address this.

    There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.

    What about PFAS?

    There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.

    Recent research examining the toxicity of PFAS chemicals along with their presence in some drinking water catchments in Australia and overseas has prompted a recent assessment of water source contamination.

    A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.

    The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.

    However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.

    While some PFAS has been identified as carcinogenic, it’s not certain that PFAS causes cancer. The link is still being debated.

    Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.

    How about removing PFAS from water?

    Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.

    While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.

    Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University; Antti Mikkonen, Principal Health Risk Advisor – Chemicals, EPA Victoria, and PhD graduate, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, and Minna Saaristo, Research Affiliate in the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University

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

    Share This Post

  • WHO Overturns Dogma on Airborne Disease Spread. The CDC Might Not Act on 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.

    The World Health Organization has issued a report that transforms how the world understands respiratory infections like covid-19, influenza, and measles.

    Motivated by grave missteps in the pandemic, the WHO convened about 50 experts in virology, epidemiology, aerosol science, and bioengineering, among other specialties, who spent two years poring through the evidence on how airborne viruses and bacteria spread.

    However, the WHO report stops short of prescribing actions that governments, hospitals, and the public should take in response. It remains to be seen how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will act on this information in its own guidance for infection control in health care settings.

    The WHO concluded that airborne transmission occurs as sick people exhale pathogens that remain suspended in the air, contained in tiny particles of saliva and mucus that are inhaled by others.

    While it may seem obvious, and some researchers have pushed for this acknowledgment for more than a decade, an alternative dogma persisted — which kept health authorities from saying that covid was airborne for many months into the pandemic.

    Specifically, they relied on a traditional notion that respiratory viruses spread mainly through droplets spewed out of an infected person’s nose or mouth. These droplets infect others by landing directly in their mouth, nose, or eyes — or they get carried into these orifices on droplet-contaminated fingers. Although these routes of transmission still happen, particularly among young children, experts have concluded that many respiratory infections spread as people simply breathe in virus-laden air.

    “This is a complete U-turn,” said Julian Tang, a clinical virologist at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom, who advised the WHO on the report. He also helped the agency create an online tool to assess the risk of airborne transmission indoors.

    Peg Seminario, an occupational health and safety specialist in Bethesda, Maryland, welcomed the shift after years of resistance from health authorities. “The dogma that droplets are a major mode of transmission is the ‘flat Earth’ position now,” she said. “Hurray! We are finally recognizing that the world is round.”

    The change puts fresh emphasis on the need to improve ventilation indoors and stockpile quality face masks before the next airborne disease explodes. Far from a remote possibility, measles is on the rise this year and the H5N1 bird flu is spreading among cattle in several states. Scientists worry that as the H5N1 virus spends more time in mammals, it could evolve to more easily infect people and spread among them through the air.

    Traditional beliefs on droplet transmission help explain why the WHO and the CDC focused so acutely on hand-washing and surface-cleaning at the beginning of the pandemic. Such advice overwhelmed recommendations for N95 masks that filter out most virus-laden particles suspended in the air. Employers denied many health care workers access to N95s, insisting that only those routinely working within feet of covid patients needed them. More than 3,600 health care workers died in the first year of the pandemic, many due to a lack of protection.

    However, a committee advising the CDC appears poised to brush aside the updated science when it comes to its pending guidance on health care facilities.

    Lisa Brosseau, an aerosol expert and a consultant at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minnesota, warns of a repeat of 2020 if that happens.

    “The rubber hits the road when you make decisions on how to protect people,” Brosseau said. “Aerosol scientists may see this report as a big win because they think everything will now follow from the science. But that’s not how this works and there are still major barriers.”

    Money is one. If a respiratory disease spreads through inhalation, it means that people can lower their risk of infection indoors through sometimes costly methods to clean the air, such as mechanical ventilation and using air purifiers, and wearing an N95 mask. The CDC has so far been reluctant to press for such measures, as it updates foundational guidelines on curbing airborne infections in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, and other facilities that provide health care. This year, a committee advising the CDC released a draft guidance that differs significantly from the WHO report.

    Whereas the WHO report doesn’t characterize airborne viruses and bacteria as traveling short distances or long, the CDC draft maintains those traditional categories. It prescribes looser-fitting surgical masks rather than N95s for pathogens that “spread predominantly over short distances.” Surgical masks block far fewer airborne virus particles than N95s, which cost roughly 10 times as much.

    Researchers and health care workers have been outraged about the committee’s draft, filing letters and petitions to the CDC. They say it gets the science wrong and endangers health. “A separation between short- and long-range distance is totally artificial,” Tang said.

    Airborne viruses travel much like cigarette smoke, he explained. The scent will be strongest beside a smoker, but those farther away will inhale more and more smoke if they remain in the room, especially when there’s no ventilation.

    Likewise, people open windows when they burn toast so that smoke dissipates before filling the kitchen and setting off an alarm. “You think viruses stop after 3 feet and drop to the ground?” Tang said of the classical notion of distance. “That is absurd.”

    The CDC’s advisory committee is comprised primarily of infection control researchers at large hospital systems, while the WHO consulted a diverse group of scientists looking at many different types of studies. For example, one analysis examined the puff clouds expelled by singers, and musicians playing clarinets, French horns, saxophones, and trumpets. Another reviewed 16 investigations into covid outbreaks at restaurants, a gym, a food processing factory, and other venues, finding that insufficient ventilation probably made them worse than they would otherwise be.

    In response to the outcry, the CDC returned the draft to its committee for review, asking it to reconsider its advice. Meetings from an expanded working group have since been held privately. But the National Nurses United union obtained notes of the conversations through a public records request to the agency. The records suggest a push for more lax protection. “It may be difficult as far as compliance is concerned to not have surgical masks as an option,” said one unidentified member, according to notes from the committee’s March 14 discussion. Another warned that “supply and compliance would be difficult.”

    The nurses’ union, far from echoing such concerns, wrote on its website, “The Work Group has prioritized employer costs and profits (often under the umbrella of ‘feasibility’ and ‘flexibility’) over robust protections.” Jane Thomason, the union’s lead industrial hygienist, said the meeting records suggest the CDC group is working backward, molding its definitions of airborne transmission to fit the outcome it prefers.

    Tang expects resistance to the WHO report. “Infection control people who have built their careers on this will object,” he said. “It takes a long time to change people’s way of thinking.”

    The CDC declined to comment on how the WHO’s shift might influence its final policies on infection control in health facilities, which might not be completed this year. Creating policies to protect people from inhaling airborne viruses is complicated by the number of factors that influence how they spread indoors, such as ventilation, temperature, and the size of the space.

    Adding to the complexity, policymakers must weigh the toll of various ailments, ranging from covid to colds to tuberculosis, against the burden of protection. And tolls often depend on context, such as whether an outbreak happens in a school or a cancer ward.

    “What is the level of mortality that people will accept without precautions?” Tang said. “That’s another question.”

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

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects
  • America’s Health System Isn’t Ready for the Surge of Seniors With Disabilities

    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 number of older adults with disabilities — difficulty with walking, seeing, hearing, memory, cognition, or performing daily tasks such as bathing or using the bathroom — will soar in the decades ahead, as baby boomers enter their 70s, 80s, and 90s.

    But the health care system isn’t ready to address their needs.

    That became painfully obvious during the covid-19 pandemic, when older adults with disabilities had trouble getting treatments and hundreds of thousands died. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health are targeting some failures that led to those problems.

    One initiative strengthens access to medical treatments, equipment, and web-based programs for people with disabilities. The other recognizes that people with disabilities, including older adults, are a separate population with special health concerns that need more research and attention.

    Lisa Iezzoni, 69, a professor at Harvard Medical School who has lived with multiple sclerosis since her early 20s and is widely considered the godmother of research on disability, called the developments “an important attempt to make health care more equitable for people with disabilities.”

    “For too long, medical providers have failed to address change in society, changes in technology, and changes in the kind of assistance that people need,” she said.

    Among Iezzoni’s notable findings published in recent years:

    Most doctors are biased. In survey results published in 2021, 82% of physicians admitted they believed people with significant disabilities have a worse quality of life than those without impairments. Only 57% said they welcomed disabled patients.

    “It’s shocking that so many physicians say they don’t want to care for these patients,” said Eric Campbell, a co-author of the study and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado.

    While the findings apply to disabled people of all ages, a larger proportion of older adults live with disabilities than younger age groups. About one-third of people 65 and older — nearly 19 million seniors — have a disability, according to the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire.

    Doctors don’t understand their responsibilities. In 2022, Iezzoni, Campbell, and colleagues reported that 36% of physicians had little to no knowledge of their responsibilities under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, indicating a concerning lack of training. The ADA requires medical practices to provide equal access to people with disabilities and accommodate disability-related needs.

    Among the practical consequences: Few clinics have height-adjustable tables or mechanical lifts that enable people who are frail or use wheelchairs to receive thorough medical examinations. Only a small number have scales to weigh patients in wheelchairs. And most diagnostic imaging equipment can’t be used by people with serious mobility limitations.

    Iezzoni has experienced these issues directly. She relies on a wheelchair and can’t transfer to a fixed-height exam table. She told me she hasn’t been weighed in years.

    Among the medical consequences: People with disabilities receive less preventive care and suffer from poorer health than other people, as well as more coexisting medical conditions. Physicians too often rely on incomplete information in making recommendations. There are more barriers to treatment and patients are less satisfied with the care they do get.

    Egregiously, during the pandemic, when crisis standards of care were developed, people with disabilities and older adults were deemed low priorities. These standards were meant to ration care, when necessary, given shortages of respirators and other potentially lifesaving interventions.

    There’s no starker example of the deleterious confluence of bias against seniors and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, older adults with disabilities routinely encounter these twinned types of discrimination when seeking medical care.

    Such discrimination would be explicitly banned under a rule proposed by HHS in September. For the first time in 50 years, it would update Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a landmark statute that helped establish civil rights for people with disabilities.

    The new rule sets specific, enforceable standards for accessible equipment, including exam tables, scales, and diagnostic equipment. And it requires that electronic medical records, medical apps, and websites be made usable for people with various impairments and prohibits treatment policies based on stereotypes about people with disabilities, such as covid-era crisis standards of care.

    “This will make a really big difference to disabled people of all ages, especially older adults,” said Alison Barkoff, who heads the HHS Administration for Community Living. She expects the rule to be finalized this year, with provisions related to medical equipment going into effect in 2026. Medical providers will bear extra costs associated with compliance.

    Also in September, NIH designated people with disabilities as a population with health disparities that deserves further attention. This makes a new funding stream available and “should spur data collection that allows us to look with greater precision at the barriers and structural issues that have held people with disabilities back,” said Bonnielin Swenor, director of the Johns Hopkins University Disability Health Research Center.

    One important barrier for older adults: Unlike younger adults with disabilities, many seniors with impairments don’t identify themselves as disabled.

    “Before my mom died in October 2019, she became blind from macular degeneration and deaf from hereditary hearing loss. But she would never say she was disabled,” Iezzoni said.

    Similarly, older adults who can’t walk after a stroke or because of severe osteoarthritis generally think of themselves as having a medical condition, not a disability.

    Meanwhile, seniors haven’t been well integrated into the disability rights movement, which has been led by young and middle-aged adults. They typically don’t join disability-oriented communities that offer support from people with similar experiences. And they don’t ask for accommodations they might be entitled to under the ADA or the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.

    Many seniors don’t even realize they have rights under these laws, Swenor said. “We need to think more inclusively about people with disabilities and ensure that older adults are fully included at this really important moment of change.”

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

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    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:

  • Going for a bushwalk? 3 handy foods to have in your backpack (including muesli bars)

    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 time of year, many of us love to get out and spend time in nature. This may include hiking through Australia’s many beautiful national parks.

    Walking in nature is a wonderful activity, supporting both physical and mental health. But there can be risks and it’s important to be prepared.

    You may have read the news about hiker, Hadi Nazari, who was recently found alive after spending 13 days lost in Kosciuszko National Park.

    He reportedly survived for almost two weeks in the Snowy Mountains region of New South Wales by drinking fresh water from creeks, and eating foraged berries and two muesli bars.

    So next time you’re heading out for a day of hiking, what foods should you pack?

    Here are my three top foods to carry on a bushwalk that are dense in nutrients and energy, lightweight and available from the local grocery store.

    Leah-Anne Thompson/Shutterstock

    1. Muesli bars

    Nazari reportedly ate two muesli bars he found in a mountain hut. Whoever left the muesli bars there made a great choice.

    Muesli bars come individually wrapped, which helps them last longer and makes them easy to transport.

    They are also a good source of energy. Muesli bars typically contain about 1,5001,900 kilojoules per 100 grams. The average energy content for a 35g bar is about 614kJ.

    This may be a fraction of what you’d usually need in a day. However, the energy from muesli bars is released at a slow to moderate pace, which will help keep you going for longer.

    Muesli bars are also packed with nutrients. They contain all three macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein and fat) that our body needs to function. They’re a good source of carbohydrates, in particular, which are a key energy source. An average Australian muesli bar contains 14g of whole grains, which provide carbohydrates and dietary fibre for long-lasting energy.

    Muesli bars that contain nuts are typically higher in fat (19.9g per 100g) and protein (9.4g per 100g) than those without.

    Fat and protein are helpful for slowing down the release of energy from foods and the protein will help keep you feeling full for longer.

    There are many different types of muesli bars to choose from. I recommend looking for those with whole grains, higher dietary fibre and higher protein content.

    2. Nuts

    Nuts are nature’s savoury snack and are also a great source of energy. Cashews, pistachios and peanuts contain about 2,300-2,400kJ per 100g while Brazil nuts, pecans and macadamias contain about 2,700-3,000kJ per 100g. So a 30g serving of nuts will provide about 700-900kJ depending on the type of nut.

    Just like muesli bars, the energy from nuts is released slowly. So even a relatively small quantity will keep you powering on.

    Nuts are also full of nutrients, such as protein, fat and fibre, which will help to stave off hunger and keep you moving for longer.

    When choosing which nuts to pack, almost any type of nut is going to be great.

    Peanuts are often the best value for money, or go for something like walnuts that are high in omega-3 fatty acids, or a nut mix.

    Whichever nut you choose, go for the unsalted natural or roasted varieties. Salted nuts will make you thirsty.

    Nut bars are also a great option and have the added benefit of coming in pre-packed serves (although nuts can also be easily packed into re-usable containers).

    If you’re allergic to nuts, roasted chickpeas are another option. Just try to avoid those with added salt.

    Handful of natural nuts with other nuts on a dark background
    Nuts are nature’s savoury snack and are also a great source of energy. Eakrat/Shutterstock

    3. Dried fruit

    If nuts are nature’s savoury snack, fruit is nature’s candy. Fresh fruits (such as grapes, frozen in advance) are wonderfully refreshing and perfect as an everyday snack, although can add a bit of weight to your hiking pack.

    So if you’re looking to reduce the weight you’re carrying, go for dried fruit. It’s lighter and will withstand various conditions better than fresh fruit, so is less likely to spoil or bruise on the journey.

    There are lots of varieties of dried fruits, such as sultanas, dried mango, dried apricots and dried apple slices.

    These are good sources of sugar for energy, fibre for fullness and healthy digestion, and contain lots of vitamins and minerals. So choose one (or a combination) that works for you.

    Don’t forget water

    Next time you head out hiking for the day, you’re all set with these easily available, lightweight, energy- and nutrient-dense snacks.

    This is not the time to be overly concerned about limiting your sugar or fat intake. Hiking, particularly in rough terrain, places demands on your body and energy needs. For instance, an adult hiking in rough terrain can burn upwards of about 2,000kJ per hour.

    And of course, don’t forget to take plenty of water.

    Having access to even limited food, and plenty of fresh water, will not only make your hike more pleasurable, it can save your life.

    Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

    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:

  • Ikigai – by Héctor García and Francesc Miralles

    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.

    Ikigai is the Japanese term for what in English we often call “raison d’être”… in French, because English is like that.

    But in other words: ikigai is one’s purpose in life, one’s reason for living.

    The authors of this work spend some chapters extolling the virtues of finding one’s ikigai, and the health benefits that doing so can convey. It is, quite clearly, an important and relevant factor.

    The rest of the book goes beyond that, though, and takes a holistic look at why (and how) healthy longevity is enjoyed by:

    • Japanese people in general,
    • Okinawans in particular,
    • Residents of Okinawa’s “blue zone” village with the highest percentage of supercentenarians, most of all.

    Covering considerations from ikigai to diet to small daily habits to attitudes to life, we’re essentially looking at a blueprint for healthy longevity.

    For a book whose title and cover suggests a philosophy-heavy content, there’s a lot of science in here too, by the way! From microbiology to psychiatry to nutrition science to cancer research, this book covers all bases.

    In short: this book gives a lot of good science-based suggestions for adjustments we can make to our lives, without moving to an Okinawan village!

    Click Here To Check Out Ikigai on Amazon Today!

    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: