Vaginal Probiotics: What Does The Science Say?
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 😎
❝Is there any merit to vaginal probiotics?❞
What a fun question! First let’s break it down, as this could mean two different things:
- Probiotics, which you consume, using your mouth, which are marketed as benefiting vaginal health
- Probiotics taken as a vaginal pessary/suppository, to act directly there
The former has limited evidence for it, but generally speaking, improving one’s gut health improves all other areas of health, so it’s not surprising if it helps this too.
See for example:
Some notes:
- candidal vaginitis means a yeast infection causing vaginal inflammation
- bacterial vaginosis means a vaginal bacterial imbalance (generally also featuring vaginal inflammation, though it can be asymptomatic)
In the latter case, the “imbalance” in question is usually a shortage of Lactobacillus sp. (that is to say, the diverse species of the Lactobacillus genus) resulting in an overgrowth of other kinds of bacteria, which in turn results in changing the vaginal microbiome to make it warmer and more acidic than it should be.
While a healthy vagina shouldn’t smell of roses, it shouldn’t smell fishy either; if it does, that’s a sign of bacterial vaginosis.
What it’s supposed to be like: slightly bitter, slightly salty, distinctly umami, along with a cocktail of personal pheromones (and if menstruating or otherwise* vaginally bleeding, then of course add: iron/”metallic”). The pheromones will also reflect any hormonal changes, but should never make anything smell bad, just different.
*e.g. due to PCOS, fibroids, etc. Note that in the case of PCOS, it may also smell a little different (if it does, then usually: a little more musky), due to often different hormone levels. Again: it still shouldn’t smell bad, though, just different.
In the above-linked study, taking more live Lactobacillus acidophilus (in yogurt, eating it, with their mouths) improved levels of L. acidophilus in the vagina. While the study authors concluded “this ingestion of yogurt may have reduced episodes of bacterial vaginosis”, which is rather a weak claim, it can be argued that it merely improving the levels of L. acidophilus in the vagina was already a win.
That was a small (n=42, and only 7 followed through to completion) and old (1996) study, and it bears mentioning that most of the studies into this seem to be small and old, but conclude similarly with weakly positive statements.
However, it does make a difference what kind of Lactobacillus is used, for example in this next study…
- L. fermentum RC-14 worked well (90% success rate)
- L. rhamnosus GR-1 worked somewhat (40% success rate)
- L. rhamnosus GG did not work (0% success rate)
So, diversity is key, and getting a wide range of Lactobacillus sp. seems to be a safe bet.
Short version: enjoying probiotics as part of your diet probably improves vaginal health, just like it improves pretty much everything else.
See also: Make Friends With Your Gut (You Can Thank Us Later)
You would think that this would mean that taking probiotics as a vaginal pessary/suppository would be even better, but the results are weaker, as in this study, which produced temporary improvements in about half the study group, with only 3 out of 28 being free of bacterial vaginosis the next month:
Treatment of bacterial vaginosis with lactobacilli
This study got better results, with a 61% success rate:
Important note
Do note that this last category, involving topical treatments (i.e., manually introducing Lactobacillus sp. to the vagina) were all in cases of pre-existing bacterial vaginosis, not as a prophylactic and/or general health-improving thing.
If your vagina seems happy right now, then do not mess with its happy bacterial balance!
And at all times (regardless of whether it seems happy right now or not): do not douche (it does not need it and will not benefit from it; the vagina is self-cleaning*) as this will wash out many of your Lactobacilli and will do absolutely nothing against any Candida there (C. albicans being a rooted fungus, whereas Lactobacillus is a sausage-shaped bacterium with many tiny appendages but no actual ability to stay put), so Candida will flourish in the Lactobacillus’s absence.
*by the vagina, we are referring to the vaginal canal. The vulva—the outside part consisting of the two pairs of labia, the glans clitoris, and clitoral hood—are not self-cleaning, and should just be washed gently per your normal bath/shower routine; that’s perfectly fine and good.
And definitely don’t put any “cleansing” toiletries inside the vagina (or any toiletries at all, for that matter), even if they are sold and marketed for that purpose; they will not help and they will harm.
Also, due to their neighborliness, messing up the microbiome inside the vagina is a common way to also get Candida inside the urethra:
How To Avoid Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)
One other option
Finally, unless you have a “very good friend” you have a pressing urge to swap germs with, you might want to leave this one to the scientists, but we share this paper just for interest:
Lastly…
Going back to oral supplementation, if you’d like to try that then check out this for further notes on what, why, how, etc:
How Much Difference Do Probiotic Supplements Make To Health?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
‘Noisy’ autistic brains seem better at certain tasks. Here’s why neuroaffirmative research matters
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.
Pratik Raul, University of Canberra; Jeroen van Boxtel, University of Canberra, and Jovana Acevska, University of Canberra
Autism is a neurodevelopmental difference associated with specific experiences and characteristics.
For decades, autism research has focused on behavioural, cognitive, social and communication difficulties. These studies highlighted how autistic people face issues with everyday tasks that allistic (meaning non-autistic) people do not. Some difficulties may include recognising emotions or social cues.
But some research, including our own study, has explored specific advantages in autism. Studies have shown that in some cognitive tasks, autistic people perform better than allistic people. Autistic people may have greater success in identifying a simple shape embedded within a more complex design, arranging blocks of different shapes and colours, or spotting an object within a cluttered visual environment (similar to Where’s Wally?). Such enhanced performance has been recorded in babies as young as nine months who show emerging signs of autism.
How and why do autistic individuals do so well on these tasks? The answer may be surprising: more “neural noise”.
What is neural noise?
Generally, when you think of noise, you probably think of auditory noise, the ups and downs in the amplitude of sound frequencies we hear.
A similar thing happens in the brain with random fluctuations in neural activity. This is called neural noise.
This noise is always present, and comes on top of any brain activity caused by things we see, hear, smell and touch. This means that in the brain, an identical stimulus that is presented multiple times won’t cause exactly the same activity. Sometimes the brain is more active, sometimes less. In fact, even the response to a single stimulus or event will fluctuate continuously.
Neural noise in autism
There are many sources of neural noise in the brain. These include how the neurons become excited and calm again, changes in attention and arousal levels, and biochemical processes at the cellular level, among others. An allistic brain has mechanisms to manage and use this noise. For instance, cells in the hippocampus (the brain’s memory system) can make use of neural noise to enhance memory encoding and recall.
Evidence for high neural noise in autism can be seen in electroencephalography (EEG) recordings, where increased levels of neural fluctuations were observed in autistic children. This means their neural activity is less predictable, showing a wider range of activity (higher ups and downs) in response to the same stimulus.
In simple terms, if we imagine the EEG responses like a sound wave, we would expect to see small ups and downs (amplitude) in allistic brains each time they encounter a stimulus. But autistic brains seem to show bigger ups and downs, demonstrating greater amplitude of neural noise.
Many studies have linked this noisy autistic brain with cognitive, social and behavioural difficulties.
But could noise be a bonus?
The diagnosis of autism has a long clinical history. A shift from the medical to a more social model has also seen advocacy for it to be reframed as a difference, rather than a disorder or deficit. This change has also entered autism research. Neuroaffirming research can examine the uniqueness and strengths of neurodivergence.
Psychology and perception researcher David Simmons and colleagues at the University of Glasgow were the first to suggest that while high neural noise is generally a disadvantage in autism, it can sometimes provide benefits due to a phenomenon called stochastic resonance. This is where optimal amounts of noise can enhance performance. In line with this theory, high neural noise in the autistic brain might enhance performance for some cognitive tasks.
Our 2023 research explores this idea. We recruited participants from the general population and investigated their performance on letter-detection tasks. At the same time, we measured their level of autistic traits.
We performed two letter-detection experiments (one in a lab and one online) where participants had to identify a letter when displayed among background visual static of various intensities.
By using the static, we added additional visual noise to the neural noise already present in our participants’ brains. We hypothesised the visual noise would push participants with low internal brain noise (or low autistic traits) to perform better (as suggested by previous research on stochastic resonance). The more interesting prediction was that noise would not help individuals who already had a lot of brain noise (that is, those with high autistic traits), because their own neural noise already ensured optimal performance.
Indeed, one of our experiments showed people with high neural noise (high autistic traits) did not benefit from additional noise. Moreover, they showed superior performance (greater accuracy) relative to people with low neural noise when the added visual static was low. This suggests their own neural noise already caused a natural stochastic resonance effect, resulting in better performance.
It is important to note we did not include clinically diagnosed autistic participants, but overall, we showed the theory of enhanced performance due to stochastic resonance in autism has merits.
Why this is important?
Autistic people face ignorance, prejudice and discrimination that can harm wellbeing. Poor mental and physical health, reduced social connections and increased “camouflaging” of autistic traits are some of the negative impacts that autistic people face.
So, research underlining and investigating the strengths inherent in autism can help reduce stigma, allow autistic people to be themselves and acknowledge autistic people do not require “fixing”.
The autistic brain is different. It comes with limitations, but it also has its strengths.
Pratik Raul, PhD candidiate, University of Canberra; Jeroen van Boxtel, Associate professor, University of Canberra, and Jovana Acevska, Honours Graduate Student, University of Canberra
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Body by Science – by Dr. Doug McGuff & John Little
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 idea that you’ll get a re-sculpted body at 12 minutes per week is a bold claim, isn’t it? Medical Doctor Doug McGuff and bodybuilder John Little team up to lay out their case. So, how does it stand up to scrutiny?
First, is it “backed by rigorous research” as claimed? Yes… with caveats.
The book uses a large body of scientific literature as its foundation, and that weight of evidence does support this general approach:
- Endurance cardio isn’t very good at burning fat
- Muscle, even just having it without using it much, burns fat to maintain it
- To that end, muscle can be viewed as a fat-burning asset
- Muscle can be grown quickly with short bursts of intense exercise once per week
Why once per week? The most relevant muscle fibers take about that long to recover, so doing it more often will undercut gains.
So, what are the caveats?
The authors argue for slow reps of maximally heavy resistance work sufficient to cause failure in about 90 seconds. However, most of the studies cited for the benefits of “brief intense exercise” are for High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT). HIIT involves “sprints” of exercise. It doesn’t have to be literally running, but for example maxing out on an exercise bike for 30 seconds, slowing for 60, maxing out for 30, etc. Or in the case of resistance work, explosive (fast!) concentric movements and slow eccentric movements, to work fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibers, respectively.
What does this mean for the usefulness of the book?
- Will it sculpt your body as described in the blurb? Yes, this will indeed grow your muscles with a minimal expenditure of time
- Will it improve your body’s fat-burning metabolism? Yes, this will indeed turn your body into a fat-burning machine
- Will it improve your “complete fitness”? No, if you want to be an all-rounder athlete, you will still need HIIT, as otherwise anything taxing your under-worked fast-twitch muscle fibers will exhaust you quickly.
Bottom line: read this book if you want to build muscle efficiently, and make your body more efficient at burning fat. Best supplemented with at least some cardio, though!
Click here to check out Body by Science, and get re-sculpting yours!
Share This Post
-
Track Your Blood Sugars For Better Personalized Health
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 Will Be Blood
Are you counting steps? Counting calories? Monitoring your sleep? Heart rate zones? These all have their merits:
- Steps: One More Resource Against Osteoporosis!
- Calories: Is Cutting Calories The Key To Healthy Long Life?
- Sleep: A Head-To-Head Of Google and Apple’s Top Apps For Getting Your Head Down
- Heart Rate Zones: Heart Rate Zones, Oxalates, & More
About calories: this writer (it’s me, hi) opines that intermittent fasting has the same benefits as caloric restriction, without the hassle of counting, and is therefore superior. I also personally find fasting psychologically more pleasant. However, our goal here is to be informative, not prescriptive, and some people may have reasons to prefer CR to IF!
Examples that come to mind include ease of adherence in the case of diabetes management, especially Type 1, or if one’s schedule (and/or one’s “medications that need to be taken with food” schedule) does not suit IF.
And now for the blood…
A rising trend in health enthusiasts presently is the use of Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs), which do exactly what is sounds like they do: they continually monitor glucose. Specifically, the amount of it in your blood.
Of course, these have been in use in diabetes management for years; the technology is not new, but the application of the technology is.
A good example of what benefits a non-diabetic person can gain from the use of a CGM is Jessie Inchauspé, the food scientist of “Glucose Revolution” and “The Glucose Goddess Method” fame.
By wearing a CGM, she was able to notice what things did and didn’t spike her blood sugars, and found that a lot of the things were not stuff that people knew/advised about!
For example, much of diabetes management (including avoiding diabetes in the first place) is based around paying attention to carbs and little else, but she found that it made a huge difference what she ate (or didn’t) with the carbs. By taking many notes over the course of her daily life, she was eventually able to isolate these patterns, showed her working-out in The Glucose Revolution (there’s a lot of science in that book), and distilled that information into bite-size (heh) advice such as:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
That’s great, but since people like Inchauspé have done the work, I don’t have to, right?
You indeed don’t have to! But you can still benefit from it. For example, fastidious as her work was, it’s a sample size of one. If you’re not a slim white 32-year-old French woman, there may be some factors that are different for you.
All this to say: glucose responses, much like nutrition in general, are not a one-size-fits-all affair.
With a CGM, you can start building up your own picture of what your responses to various foods are like, rather than merely what they “should” be like.
This, by the way, is also one of the main aims of personalized health company ZOE, which crowdsourced a lot of scientific data about personalized metabolic responses to standardized meals:
Not knowing these things can be dangerous
We don’t like to scaremonger here, but we do like to point out potential dangers, and in this case, blindly following standardized diet advice, if your physiology is not standard, can have harmful effects, see for example:
Diabetic-level glucose spikes seen in non-diabetic people
Where can I get a CGM?
We don’t sell them, and neither does Amazon, but you can check out some options here:
The 4 Best CGM Devices For Measuring Blood Sugar in 2024
…and if your doctor is not obliging with a prescription, note that the device that came out top in the above comparisons, will be available OTC soon:
The First OTC Continuous Glucose Monitor Will Be Available Summer 2024
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Cannabis Myths vs Reality
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.
Cannabis Myths vs Reality
We asked you for your (health-related) opinion on cannabis use—specifically, the kind with psychoactive THC, not just CBD. We got the above-pictured, below-described, spread of responses:
- A little over a third of you voted for “It’s a great way to relax, without most of the dangers of alcohol”.
- A little under a third of you voted for “It may have some medical uses, but recreational use is best avoided”.
- About a quarter of you voted for “The negative health effects outweigh the possible benefits”
- Three of you voted for “It is the gateway to a life of drug-induced stupor and potentially worse”
So, what does the science say?
A quick legal note first: we’re a health science publication, and are writing from that perspective. We do not know your location, much less your local laws and regulations, and so cannot comment on such. Please check your own local laws and regulations in that regard.
Cannabis use can cause serious health problems: True or False?
True. Whether the risks outweigh the benefits is a personal and subjective matter (for example, a person using it to mitigate the pain of late stage cancer is probably unconcerned with many other potential risks), but what’s objectively true is that it can cause serious health problems.
One subscriber who voted for “The negative health effects outweigh the possible benefits” wrote:
❝At a bare minimum, you are ingesting SMOKE into your lungs!! Everyone SEEMS TO BE against smoking cigarettes, but cannabis smoking is OK?? Lung cancer comes in many forms.❞
Of course, that is assuming smoking cannabis, and not consuming it as an edible. But, what does the science say on smoking it, and lung cancer?
There’s a lot less research about this when it comes to cannabis, compared to tobacco. But, there is some:
❝Results from our pooled analyses provide little evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer among habitual or long-term cannabis smokers, although the possibility of potential adverse effect for heavy consumption cannot be excluded.❞
Read: Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: Pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium
Another study agreed there appears to be no association with lung cancer, but that there are other lung diseases to consider, such as bronchitis and COPD:
❝Smoking cannabis is associated with symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and there may be a modest association with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Current evidence does not suggest an association with lung cancer.❞
Read: Cannabis Use, Lung Cancer, and Related Issues
Cannabis edibles are much safer than smoking cannabis: True or False?
Broadly True, with an important caveat.
One subscriber who selected “It may have some medical uses, but recreational use is best avoided”, wrote:
❝I’ve been taking cannabis gummies for fibromyalgia. I don’t know if they’re helping but they’re not doing any harm. You cannot overdose you don’t become addicted.❞
Firstly, of course consuming edibles (rather than inhaling cannabis) eliminates the smoke-related risk factors we discussed above. However, other risks remain, including the much greater ease of accidentally overdosing.
❝Visits attributable to inhaled cannabis are more frequent than those attributable to edible cannabis, although the latter is associated with more acute psychiatric visits and more ED visits than expected.❞
Note: that “more frequent” for inhaled cannabis, is because more people inhale it than eat it. If we adjust the numbers to control for how much less often people eat it, suddenly we see that the numbers of hospital admissions are disproportionately high for edibles, compared to inhaled cannabis.
Or, as the study author put it:
❝There are more adverse drug events associated on a milligram per milligram basis of THC when it comes in form of edibles versus an inhaled cannabis. If 1,000 people smoked pot and 1,000 people at the same dose in an edible, then more people would have more adverse drug events from edible cannabis.❞
See the numbers: Acute Illness Associated With Cannabis Use, by Route of Exposure
Why does this happen?
- It’s often because edibles take longer to take effect, so someone thinks “this isn’t very strong” and has more.
- It’s also sometimes because someone errantly eats someone else’s edibles, not realising what they are.
- It’s sometimes a combination of the above problems: a person who is now high, may simply forget and/or make a bad decision when it comes to eating more.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean inhaling it is necessarily safer. As well as the pulmonary issues we discussed previously, inhaling cannabis has a higher risk of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (and the resultant cyclic vomiting that’s difficult to treat).
You can read about this fascinating condition that’s sometimes informally called “scromiting”, a portmanteau of screaming and vomiting:
Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
You can’t get addicted to cannabis: True or False?
False. However, it is fair to say that the likelihood of developing a substance abuse disorder is lower than for alcohol, and much lower than for nicotine.
See: Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States Between 2001–2002 and 2012–2013
If you prefer just the stats without the science, here’s the CDC’s rendering of that:
Addiction (Marijuana or Cannabis Use Disorder)
However, there is an interesting complicating factor, which is age. One is 4–7 times more likely to develop a substance abuse disorder, if one starts use as an adolescent, rather than later in life:
Cannabis is the gateway to use of more dangerous drugs: True or False?
False, generally speaking. Of course, for any population there will be some outliers, but there appears to be no meaningful causal relation between cannabis use and other substance use:
Interestingly, the strongest association (where any existed at all) was between cannabis use and opioid use. However, rather than this being a matter of cannabis use being a gateway to opioid use, it seems more likely that this is a matter of people looking to both for the same purpose: pain relief.
As a result, growing accessibility of cannabis may actually reduce opioid problems:
- Cannabis as a Gateway Drug for Opioid Use Disorder
- Association between medical cannabis laws and opioid overdose mortality has reversed over time
Some final words…
Cannabis is a complex drug with complex mechanisms and complex health considerations, and research is mostly quite young, due to its historic illegality seriously cramping science by reducing sample sizes to negligible. Simply put, there’s a lot we still don’t know.
Also, we covered some important topics today, but there were others we didn’t have time to cover, such as the other potential psychological benefits—and risks. Likely we’ll revisit those another day.
Lastly, while we’ve covered a bunch of risks today, those of you who said it has fewer and lesser risks than alcohol are quite right—the only reason we couldn’t focus on that more, is because to talk about all the risks of alcohol would make this feature many times longer!
Meanwhile, whether you partake or not, stay safe and stay well.
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 To Prevent And Reverse Type 2 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.
Turn back the clock on insulin resistance
This is Dr. Jason Fung. He’s a world-leading expert on intermittent fasting and low carbohydrate approaches to diet. He also co-founded the Intensive Dietary Management Program, later rebranded to the snappier title: The Fasting Method, a program to help people lose weight and reverse type 2 diabetes. Dr. Fung is certified with the Institute for Functional Medicine, for providing functional medicine certification along with educational programs directly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME).
Why Intermittent Fasting?
Intermittent fasting is a well-established, well-evidenced, healthful practice for most people. In the case of diabetes, it becomes complicated, because if one’s blood sugars are too low during a fasting period, it will need correcting, thus breaking the fast.
Note: this is about preventing and reversing type 2 diabetes. Type 1 is very different, and sadly cannot be prevented or reversed in this fashion.
However, these ideas may still be useful if you have T1D, as you have an even greater need to avoid developing insulin resistance; you obviously don’t want your exogenous insulin to stop working.
Nevertheless, please do confer with your endocrinologist before changing your dietary habits, as they will know your personal physiology and circumstances in ways that we (and Dr. Fung) don’t.
In the case of having type 2 diabetes, again, please still check with your doctor, but the stakes are a lot lower for you, and you will probably be able to fast without incident, depending on your diet itself (more on this later).
Intermittent Fasting can be extra helpful for the body in the case of type 2 diabetes, as it helps give the body a rest from high insulin levels, thus allowing the body to become gradually re-sensitised to insulin.
Why low carbohydrate?
Carbohydrates, especially sugars, especially fructose*, cause excess sugar to be quickly processed by the liver and stored there. When the body’s ability to store glycogen is exceeded, the liver stores energy as fat instead. The resultant fatty liver is a major contributor to insulin resistance, when the liver can’t keep up with the demand; the blood becomes spiked full of unprocessed sugars, and the pancreas must work overtime to produce more and more insulin to deal with that—until the body starts becoming desensitized to insulin. In other words, type 2 diabetes.
There are other factors that affect whether we get type 2 diabetes, for example a genetic predisposition. But, our carb intake is something we can control, so it’s something that Dr. Fung focuses on.
*A word on fructose: actual fruits are usually diabetes-neutral or a net positive due to their fiber and polyphenols.
Fructose as an added ingredient, however, not so much. That stuff zips straight into your veins with nothing to slow it down and nothing to mitigate it.
The advice from Dr. Fung is simple here: cut the carbs. If you are already diabetic and do this with no preparation, you will probably simply suffer hypoglycemia, so instead:
- Enjoy a fibrous starter (a salad, some fruit, or perhaps some nuts)
- Load up with protein first, during your main meal—this will start to trigger your feelings of satedness
- Eat carbs last (preferably whole, unprocessed carbohydrates), and stop eating when 80% full.
Adapting Intermittent Fasting to diabetes
Dr. Fung advocates for starting small, and gradually increasing your fasting period, until, ideally, fasting 16 hours per day. You probably won’t be able to do this immediately, and that’s fine.
You also probably won’t be able to do this, if you don’t also make the dietary adjustments that help to give your liver a break, and thus by knock-on-effect, give your pancreas a break too.
With the dietary adjustments too, however, your insulin production-and-response will start to return to its pre-diabetic state, and finally its healthy state, after which, it’s just a matter of maintenance.
Want to hear more from Dr. Fung?
You may enjoy his blog, and for those who like videos, here is his YouTube channel:
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:
-
The “Love Drug”
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.
Get PEA-Brained!
Today we’ll be looking at phenylethylamine, or PEA, to its friends.
Not to be mistaken for the related amino acid phenylalanine! Both ultimately have effects on the dopaminergic system, but the process and benefits are mostly quite different.
We thought we’d do this one in the week of Valentine’s Day, because of its popular association with love:
❝Phenylethylamine (PEA), an amphetamine-like substance that has been alluringly labeled the “chemical of love,” makes the best case for the love-chocolate connection since it has been shown that people in love may actually have higher levels of PEA in their brain, as surmised from the fact that their urine is richer in a metabolite of this compound. In other words, people thrashing around in the throes of love pee differently from others.❞
Source: Office for Science and Society | The Chemical of Love
What is it?
It’s an amino acid. Because we are mammals, we can synthesize it inside our bodies, so it’s not considered an “essential amino acid”, i.e. one that we need to get from our diet. It is found in some foods, though, including:
- Other animals, especially other mammals
- Various beans, legumes, nuts, seeds. In particular almonds, soybeans, lentils, and chickpeas score highly
- Fermented foods
- Chocolate (popular lore holds this to be a good source of PEA; science finds it to be a fair option, but not in the same ballpark as the other items)
Fun fact: the reason Marvel’s Venom has a penchant for eating humans and chocolate is (according to the comics) because phenylethylamine is an essential amino acid for it.
What does it do for us?
It’s a Central Nervous System (CNS) stimulant, and also helps us synthesize critical neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine (adrenaline) and serotonin:
It works similarly, but not identically, to amphetamines:
Is it safe?
We normally do this after the benefits, but “it works similarly to amphetamines” may raise an eyebrow or two, so let’s do it here:
- It is recommended to take no more than 500mg/day, with 100mg–500mg being typical doses
- It is not recommended to take it at all if you have, or have a predisposition to, any kind of psychotic disorder (especially schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder wherein you sometimes experience mania)
- This isn’t a risk for most people, but if you fall into the above category, the elevated dopamine levels could nudge you into a psychotic/manic episode that you probably don’t want.
See for example: Does phenylethylamine cause schizophrenia?
There are other contraindications too, so speak with your doctor/pharmacist before trying it.
On the other hand, if you are considering ADHD medication, then phenylethylamine could be a safer thing to try first, to see if it helps, before going to the heavy guns of actual amphetamines (as are commonly prescribed for ADHD). Same goes for depression and antidepressants.
What can I expect from PEA?
More dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. Mostly the former two. Which means, you can expect stimulation.
For focus and attention, it’s so effective that it has been suggested (as we mentioned above) as a safer alternative to ADHD meds:
β-phenylethylamine, a small molecule with a large impact
…and may give similar benefits to people without ADHD, namely improved focus, attention, and mental stamina:
It also improves mood:
❝Phenylethylamine (PEA), an endogenous neuroamine, increases attention and activity in animals and has been shown to relieve depression in 60% of depressed patients. It has been proposed that PEA deficit may be the cause of a common form of depressive illness.
Effective dosage did not change with time. There were no apparent side effects. PEA produces sustained relief of depression in a significant number of patients, including some unresponsive to the standard treatments. PEA improves mood as rapidly as amphetamine but does not produce tolerance.❞
Source: Sustained antidepressant effect of PEA replacement
Where can I get it?
We don’t sell it, but here is an example product on Amazon for your convenience
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
