
Vodka vs Beer – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing vodka to beer, we picked the vodka.
Why?
As you might have guessed, neither are exactly healthy. But one of them is relatively, and we stress relatively, less bad than the other.
In the category of nutrients, vodka is devoid of nutrients, and beer has small amounts of some vitamins and minerals—but the amounts are so small, that you would need to drink yourself to death before benefiting from them meaningfully. And while beer gets touted as “liquid bread”, it really isn’t. A thousand years ago it will have been a lot less alcoholic and more carby, but even then, it wasn’t a health product aside from that it provided a way of making potentially contaminated water safer to drink.
In the category of carbohydrates, vodka nominally has none, due to the distillation process, and beer has some. Glycemic index websites often advise that the GI of beers, wines, and spirits can’t be measured as their carb content is not sufficient to get a meaningful sample, but diabetes research tells a more useful story:
Any alcoholic drink will generally cause a brief drop in blood sugars, followed by a spike. This happens because the liver prioritises metabolizing alcohol over producing glycogen, so it hits pause on the sugar metabolism and then has a backlog to catch up on. In the case of alcoholic drinks that have alcohol and carbs, this will be more pronounced—so this means that the functional glycemic load of beer is higher.
That’s a point in favor of vodka.
Additionally, in terms of the alcohol content, correctly-distilled vodka’s alcohol is pure ethanol, while beer will contain an amount of methanol that will vary per beer, but an illustrative nominal figure could be about 16mg/L. Methanol is more harmful than ethanol.
So that’s another point in favor of vodka.
Once again, neither drink is healthy; both are distinctly unhealthy. But unit for unit, beer is the least healthy of the two, making vodka the lesser of two evils.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Can We Drink To Good Health? (answer: we cannot, but this was about alcohol’s proposed heart-healthy benefits)
- Guinness Is Good For You* (it isn’t, but this was the long-time slogan and marketing campaign that fooled many)
- How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol
- How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver
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:
-
Make Your Saliva Better For Your Teeth
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.
A new study has highlighted the importance of lifestyle factors in shaping the oral microbiome—that is to say, how the things we do affect the bacteria that live in our mouths:
Nepali oral microbiomes reflect a gradient of lifestyles from traditional to industrialized
Neither the study title nor the abstract elucidate how, exactly, one impacts the other, but the study itself does (of course) contain that information; we read it, and the short version is:
In terms of the extremes of “most traditional” to “most industrialized”, foragers have the most diverse oral microbiomes (that’s good), and people with an American industrialized lifestyle had the least diverse oral microbiomes (that’s bad). Between the two extremes, we see the gradient promised by the title.
If you do feel like checking it out, Figure 3 in the paper illustrates this nicely.
Also illustrated in the above-linked Figure 3 is oral microbiome composition. In other words (and to oversimplify it rather), how good or bad our mouth bacteria are for us, independent of diversity (so for example, are there more of this or that kind of bacteria).
Once again, there is a gradient, only this time, the ends of it are even more polarized: foragers have a diverse oral microbiome rich with healthy-for-humans bacteria, while people with an American industrialized lifestyle might not have the diversity, but do have a large number of bad-for-humans bacteria.
While many lifestyle factors are dietary or quasi-dietary, e.g. what kinds of foods people eat, whether they drink alcohol, whether they smoke or use gum, etc, many lifestyle factors were examined, including everything from medications and exercise, to things like kitchen location and what fuel is predominantly used, to education and sexual activity and many other things that we don’t have room for here.
You can see how each lifestyle factor stacked up, in Figure 5.
Why it matters
Our oral microbiome affects many aspects of health, including:
- Locally: caries, periodontal diseases, mucosal diseases, oral cancer, and more
- Systemically: gastrointestinal diseases in general, IBS in particular, nervous system diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, endocrine diseases, all manner of immune/autoimmune diseases, and more
Nor are the effects it has mild; oral microbiome health can be a huge factor, statistically, for many of the above. You can see information and data pertaining to all of the above and more, here:
Oral microbiomes: more and more importance in oral cavity and whole body
What to do about it
Take care of your oral microbiome, to help it to take care of you. As well as the above-mentioned lifestyle factors, it’s worth noting that when it comes to oral hygiene, not all oral hygiene products are created equal:
Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Kinds Help, And Which Kinds Harm?
Additionally, you might want to consider gentler options, but if you do, take care to opt for things that science actually backs., rather than things that merely trended on social media.
This writer (hi, it’s me) is particularly excited about the science and use of the miswak stick, which comes from the Saladora persica tree, and has phytochemical properties that (amongst many other health-giving effects) improve the quality of saliva (i.e., improve its pH and microbiome composition). In essence, your own saliva gets biochemically nudged into being the safest, most effective mouthwash.
There’s a lot of science for the use of S. persica, and we’ve discussed it before in more detail than we have room to rehash today, here:
Less Common Oral Hygiene Options
If you’d like to enjoy these benefits (and also have the equivalent of a toothbrush that you can carry with you at all times and does not require water*), then here’s an example product on Amazon 😎
*don’t worry, it won’t feel like dry-brushing your teeth. Remember what we said about what it does to your saliva. Basically, you chomp it once, and your saliva a) increases and b) becomes biological tooth-cleaning fluid. The stick itself is fibrous, so the end of it frays in a way that makes a natural little brush. Each stick is about 5”×¼” and you can carry it in a little carrying case (you’ll get a couple with each pack of miswak sticks), so you can easily use it in, say, the restroom of a restaurant or before your appointment somewhere, just as easily as you could use a toothpick, but with much better results. You may be wondering how long a stick lasts; well, that depends on how much you use it, but in this writer’s experience, each stick lasts about a month maybe, using it at least 2–3 times per day, probably rather more since I use it after each meal/snack and upon awakening.
(the above may read like an ad, but we promise you it’s not sponsored and this writer’s just enthusiastic, and when you read the science, you will be too)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.
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 article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.
It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.
We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.
Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.
“We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”
Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.
We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.
It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?
As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.
One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption.
Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.
For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue.
One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.
Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination.
As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking.
Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.
Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.
It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.
Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
How old’s too old to be a doctor? Why GPs and surgeons over 70 may need a health check to practise
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.
A growing number of complaints against older doctors has prompted the Medical Board of Australia to announce today that it’s reviewing how doctors aged 70 or older are regulated. Two new options are on the table.
The first would require doctors over 70 to undergo a detailed health assessment to determine their current and future “fitness to practise” in their particular area of medicine.
The second would require only general health checks for doctors over 70.
A third option acknowledges existing rules requiring doctors to maintain their health and competence. As part of their professional code of conduct, doctors must seek independent medical and psychological care to prevent harming themselves and their patients. So, this third option would maintain the status quo.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Haven’t we moved on from set retirement ages?
It might be surprising that stricter oversight of older doctors’ performance is proposed now. Critics of mandatory retirement ages in other fields – for judges, for instance – have long questioned whether these rules are “still valid in a modern society”.
However, unlike judges, doctors are already required to renew their registration annually to practise. This allows the Medical Board of Australia not only to access sound data about the prevalence and activity of older practitioners, but to assess their eligibility regularly and to conduct performance assessments if and when they are needed.
What has prompted these proposals?
This latest proposal identifies several emerging concerns about older doctors. These are grounded in external research about the effect of age on doctors’ competence as well as the regulator’s internal data showing surges of complaints about older doctors in recent years.
Studies of medical competence in ageing doctors show variable results. However, the Medical Board of Australia’s consultation document emphasises studies of neurocognitive loss. It explains how physical and cognitive impairment can lead to poor record-keeping, improper prescribing, as well as disruptive behaviour.
The other issue is the number of patient complaints against older doctors. These “notifications” have surged in recent years, as have the number of disciplinary actions against older doctors.
In 2022–2023, the Medical Board of Australia took disciplinary action against older doctors about 1.7 times more often than for doctors under 70.
In 2023, notifications against doctors over 70 were 81% higher than for the under 70s. In that year, patients sent 485 notifications to the Medical Board of Australia about older doctors – up from 189 in 2015.
While older doctors make up only about 5.3% of the doctor workforce in Australia (less than 1% over 80), this only makes the high numbers of complaints more starkly disproportionate.
It’s for these reasons that the Medical Board of Australia has determined it should take further regulatory action to safeguard the health of patients.
So what distinguishes the two new proposed options?
The “fitness to practise” assessment option would entail a rigorous assessment of doctors over 70 based on their specialisation. It would be required every three years after the age of 70 and every year after 80.
Surgeons, for example, would be assessed by an independent occupational physician for dexterity, sight and the ability to give clinical instructions.
Importantly, the results of these assessments would usually be confidential between the assessor and the doctor. Only doctors who were found to pose a substantial risk to the public, which was not being managed, would be obliged to report their health condition to the Medical Board of Australia.
The second option would be a more general health check not linked to the doctor’s specific role. It would occur at the same intervals as the “fitness to practise” assessment. However, its purpose would be merely to promote good health-care decision-making among health practitioners. There would be no general obligation on a doctor to report the results to the Medical Board of Australia.
In practice, both of these proposals appear to allow doctors to manage their own general health confidentially.
Older surgeons could be independently assessed for dexterity, sight and the ability to give clinical instructions. worradirek/Shutterstock The law tends to prioritise patient safety
All state versions of the legal regime regulating doctors, known as the National Accreditation and Registration Scheme, include a “paramountcy” provision. That provision basically says patient safety is paramount and trumps all other considerations.
As with legal regimes regulating childcare, health practitioner regulation prioritises the health and safety of the person receiving the care over the rights of the licensed professional.
Complicating this further, is the fact that a longstanding principle of health practitioner regulation has been that doctors should not be “punished” for errors in practice.
All of this means that reforms of this nature can be difficult to introduce and that the balance between patient safety and professional entitlements must be handled with care.
Could these proposals amount to age discrimination?
It is premature to analyse the legal implications of these proposals. So it’s difficult to say how these proposals interact with Commonwealth age- and other anti-discrimination laws.
For instance, one complication is that the federal age discrimination statute includes an exemption to allow “qualifying bodies” such as the Medical Board of Australia to discriminate against older professionals who are “unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the profession, trade or occupation because of his or her age”.
In broader terms, a licence to practise medicine is often compared to a licence to drive or pilot an aircraft. Despite claims of discrimination, New South Wales law requires older drivers to undergo a medical assessment every year; and similar requirements affect older pilots and air traffic controllers.
Where to from here?
When changes are proposed to health practitioner regulation, there is typically much media attention followed by a consultation and behind-the-scenes negotiation process. This issue is no different.
How will doctors respond to the proposed changes? It’s too soon to say. If the proposals are implemented, it’s possible some older doctors might retire rather than undergo these mandatory health assessments. Some may argue that encouraging more older doctors to retire is precisely the point of these proposals. However, others have suggested this would only exacerbate shortages in the health-care workforce.
The proposals are open for public comment until October 4.
Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Lifespan – by Dr. David Sinclair
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.
Some books on longevity are science-heavy and heavy-going; others are glorified manifestos with much philosophy but little practical.
This one’s a sciencey-book written for a lay reader. It’s heavily referenced, but not a challenging read.
This book is divided into three parts:
- What we know (the past)
- What we’re learning (the present)
- Where we’re going (the future)
Let us quickly mention: the last part is principally sociology and economics, which are not the author’s wheelhouse. Some readers may enjoy his thoughts regardless, but we’re going to concentrate on where we found the real value of the book to be: in the first and second parts, where he brings his expertise to bear.
The first part lays the foundational knowledge that’s critical for understanding why the second part is so important.
Basically: aging is a genetic disease, and diseases can be cured. No disease has magical properties, even if sometimes it can seem for a while like they do, until we understand them better.
The second part covers a lot of recent and contemporary research into aging. We learn about such things as NAD-agonists that make elderly mice biologically young again, and the Greenland shark that easily lives for 500 years or so (currently the record-holder for vertebrates). And of course, biologically immortal jellyfish.
It’s not all animal studies though…
We learn of how NAD-agonists such as NMN have been promising in human studies too, along with resveratrol and the humble diabetes drug, metformin. These things alone may have the power to extend healthy life by 20%
Other recommendations pertain to lifestyle; the usual five things (diet, exercise, sleep, no alcohol, no smoking), as well as intermittent fasting and cryotherapy (cold showers/baths).
Bottom line: this book is informative and inspiring, and if you’ve been looking for an “in” to understanding the world of biogerontology and/or anti-aging research, this is it.
Get your copy of “Lifespan: Why We Age—And Why We Don’t Have To” from 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:
-
For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is 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.
Last week, Australian Open player Destanee Aiava revealed she had struggled with borderline personality disorder.
The tennis player said a formal diagnosis, after suicidal behaviour and severe panic attacks, “was a relief”. But “it also felt like a death sentence because it’s something that I have to live with my whole life”.
A diagnosis is often associated with therapeutic nihilism. This means it’s viewed as impossible to treat, and can leave clinicians and people with the condition in despair.
In fact, people with this disorder can and do recover with adequate support. Understanding it is caused by trauma is fundamental to effectively treat this complex and poorly understood mental illness.
A stigmatising diagnosis
The name “borderline personality disorder” is confusing and adds greatly to the stigma around it.
Doctors first used “borderline” to describe a condition they believed was in-between two others: neurosis and psychosis.
But this implies the condition is not real in itself, and can invalidate the suffering and distress the person and their loved ones experience.
“Personality disorder” is a judgemental term that describes the very essence of a person – their personality – as flawed.
What is borderline personality disorder?
People with the disorder can express a range of symptoms, but high levels of anxiety – including panic attacks – are usually constant.
Symptoms cluster around four main areas:
- high impulsivity (leading to suicidal thoughts and behaviour, self-harm and other risky behaviours)
- unstable or poor sense of self (including low self-esteem)
- mood disturbances (including intense, inappropriate anger, episodic depression or mania)
- problems in relationships.
People with the disorder greatly fear being abandoned and as a result, commonly have distressing difficulties in interpersonal relationships.
This creates a “push-pull” dynamic with loved ones, as people with borderline personality disorder seek closeness, but push away those they love to test the strength of the relationship.
For example, they may escalate a small issue into a major disagreement to see if the loved one will “stick with them” and reinforce their love.
Conversely, if a loved one appears distant or fed up – for example, is thinking about ending the relationship – the person with borderline personality disorder will make major efforts to “pull” them back. This might look like a flurry of messages, expressions of despair, or even suicidal behaviours.
People with borderline personality disorder greatly fear being abandoned, making relationship issues common. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock Who does it affect?
The disorder affects one in 100 Australians, although this is likely a conservative estimate, as diagnosis is based on the most severe symptoms.
Women are much more likely to be diagnosed with it than men – but why this is so remains a major debate, with political and sociological factors playing a role in making psychiatric diagnoses. Symptoms usually begin in the mid to late teens.
While an initial response to receiving a diagnosis can be comforting for some, it is commonly seen as a chronic, relapsing condition, meaning symptoms can return after a period of improvement.
Borderline personality disorder can fluctuate in intensity and mimic other conditions such as major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
Estimates suggest 26% of presentations at emergency departments for mental health issues are by people diagnosed with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.
What causes it?
The main cause for borderline personality disorder appears to be trauma in early life, compounded by repeated traumas later.
Early life trauma can lead to biological changes in the brain that cause behavioural, emotional or cognitive shifts, leading to social and relationship issues. This is known as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
Aiava has acknowledged the disorder is “mainly from childhood trauma”, although she has not given details about her specific experiences.
People with borderline personality disorder usually have complex post-traumatic stress disorder. But complex post-traumatic stress disorder doesn’t always result in a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.
Although the two disorders are not identical, they share many similarities, in particular that they are both caused by complex and repeated trauma.
However those with borderline personality disorder tend to experience more rage, emotional disturbances and have a greater fear of abandonment.
They also face greater stigma, whereas the term “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t carry the same negative connotations and focuses on the cause of the condition – trauma – rather than “personality”, leading to better treatment options.
The recognition of the major role of trauma in borderline personality disorder is an important step forward in treating the disorder. But because of the stigma associated with it, using the diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder maybe a better step forward in the future.
Can it be treated?
There are many effective psychological therapies and other treatments for people with borderline personality disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
For example, dialectical behavioural therapy is a type of cognitive therapy that helps people learn skills such as tolerating distress, managing relationships, regulating emotions and practising mindfulness.
The treatment of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, including victims of war and rape, has taught us a lot about how to treat complex, underlying trauma. For example, with trauma-focused psychological therapies.
Other new treatments, such as eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming, have also shown to be effective.
Many people with borderline personality disorder who receive treatment and have supportive relationships are able to “outgrow” the condition. Others may need to continue to manage symptoms while pursuing a good quality of life.
Treating trauma, not personality
Rethinking borderline personality disorder as a trauma disorder enables a more effective and understanding approach for those with it.
Understanding what trauma does to the brain means newer, targeted medications can also be used.
For example, our research has shown how the brain’s glutamate system – the chemicals responsible for learning and making sense of one’s environment – is overactive in people with complex post-traumtic stress disorder. Medications that work on the glutumate system may therefore help alleviate borderline personality disorder symptoms.
Educating partners and families about borderline personality disorder, providing them support and co-designing crisis strategies are also important parts of total care. Preventing early life trauma is also critical.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University and Eveline Mu, Research Fellow in Women’s Mental 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:
-
PCOS Repair Protocol – by Tamika Woods
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.
PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) affects about 1 in 5 women, and the general position of the medical establishment is “Oh dear, how sad; never mind”.
…which leaves a lot of people suffering with symptoms with little to no help.
This book looks to address that, and while it doesn’t claim to cure PCOS, it offers a system for managing (including: reducing) the symptoms. The author, a clinical nutritionist by academic background, tackles this in large part via being mindful about what one eats, in the context of the gut and endocrine system specifically.
It’s not just “have a gut healthy diet and eat foods with these nutrients”, though (although yes: also that). Rather, the author walks us through in-depth quizzes and lab testing advice, to advise the reader on how to understand the root cause of your PCOS symptoms, and then address each of those with an individualized management plan.
The style is on the low-end of pop-science, notwithstanding the clinically-informed content. For those who like a very chatty informal approach, you’ll find this one perfect. For those who don’t, well, you won’t find this one perfect, but you will most likely find it informative all the same.
Bottom line: if you or someone you care about (do you know 5 women?) has PCOS, the information in here could make a difference.
Click here to check out PCOS Repair Protocol, and suffer less!
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: