We don’t all need regular skin cancer screening – but you can know your risk and check yourself

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.

Australia has one of the highest skin cancer rates globally, with nearly 19,000 Australians diagnosed with invasive melanoma – the most lethal type of skin cancer – each year.

While advanced melanoma can be fatal, it is highly treatable when detected early.

But Australian clinical practice guidelines and health authorities do not recommend screening for melanoma in the general population.

Given our reputation as the skin cancer capital of the world, why isn’t there a national screening program? Australia currently screens for breast, cervical and bowel cancer and will begin lung cancer screening in 2025.

It turns out the question of whether to screen everyone for melanoma and other skin cancers is complex. Here’s why.

Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

The current approach

On top of the 19,000 invasive melanoma diagnoses each year, around 28,000 people are diagnosed with in-situ melanoma.

In-situ melanoma refers to a very early stage melanoma where the cancerous cells are confined to the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis).

Instead of a blanket screening program, Australia promotes skin protection, skin awareness and regular skin checks (at least annually) for those at high risk.

About one in three Australian adults have had a clinical skin check within the past year.

clinician checks the back of a young man with red hair and freckles in health office
Those with fairer skin or a family history may be at greater risk of skin cancer. Halfpoint/Shutterstock

Why not just do skin checks for everyone?

The goal of screening is to find disease early, before symptoms appear, which helps save lives and reduce morbidity.

But there are a couple of reasons a national screening program is not yet in place.

We need to ask:

1. Does it save lives?

Many researchers would argue this is the goal of universal screening. But while universal skin cancer screening would likely lead to more melanoma diagnoses, this might not necessarily save lives. It could result in indolent (slow-growing) cancers being diagnosed that might have never caused harm. This is known as “overdiagnosis”.

Screening will pick up some cancers people could have safely lived with, if they didn’t know about them. The difficulty is in recognising which cancers are slow-growing and can be safely left alone.

Receiving a diagnosis causes stress and is more likely to lead to additional medical procedures (such as surgeries), which carry their own risks.

2. Is it value for money?

Implementing a nationwide screening program involves significant investment and resources. Its value to the health system would need to be calculated, to ensure this is the best use of resources.

Narrower targets for better results

Instead of screening everyone, targeting high-risk groups has shown better results. This focuses efforts where they’re needed most. Risk factors for skin cancer include fair skin, red hair, a history of sunburns, many moles and/or a family history.

Research has shown the public would be mostly accepting of a risk-tailored approach to screening for melanoma.

There are moves underway to establish a national targeted skin cancer screening program in Australia, with the government recently pledging $10.3 million to help tackle “the most common cancer in our sunburnt country, skin cancer” by focusing on those at greater risk.

Currently, Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend doctors properly evaluate all patients for their future risk of melanoma.

Looking with new technological eyes

Technological advances are improving the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis and risk assessment.

For example, researchers are investigating 3D total body skin imaging to monitor changes to spots and moles over time.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can analyse images of skin lesions, and support doctors’ decision making.

Genetic testing can now identify risk markers for more personalised screening.

And telehealth has made remote consultations possible, increasing access to specialists, particularly in rural areas.

Check yourself – 4 things to look for

Skin cancer can affect all skin types, so it’s a good idea to become familiar with your own skin. The Skin Cancer College Australasia has introduced a guide called SCAN your skin, which tells people to look for skin spots or areas that are:

1. sore (scaly, itchy, bleeding, tender) and don’t heal within six weeks

2. changing in size, shape, colour or texture

3. abnormal for you and look different or feel different, or stand out when compared to your other spots and moles

4. new and have appeared on your skin recently. Any new moles or spots should be checked, especially if you are over 40.

If something seems different, make an appointment with your doctor.

You can self-assess your melanoma risk online via the Melanoma Institute Australia or QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.

H. Peter Soyer, Professor of Dermatology, The University of Queensland; Anne Cust, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, The Daffodil Centre and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney; Caitlin Horsham, Research Manager, The University of Queensland, and Monika Janda, Professor in Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland

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

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • With all this bird flu around, how safe are eggs, chicken or milk?
  • Brown Rice vs Wild Rice – Which is Healthier?
    “Wild rice (which is not actually rice) wins with more protein, fiber, and a lower glycemic index tip the scales against brown rice (which is actually rice)”

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Too Much Or Too Little Testosterone?

    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.

    One Man’s Saw Palmetto Is Another Woman’s Serenoa Repens…

    Today we’re going to look at saw palmetto. So, first:

    What is it?

    Saw palmetto is a type of palm native to the southeastern United States. Its scientific name is “Serenoa repens”, so if that name appears in studies we cite, it’s the same thing. By whichever name, it’s widely enjoyed as a herbal supplement.

    Why do people take it?

    Here’s where it gets interesting, because people take it for some completely opposite reasons…

    Indeed, searching for it on the Internet will cause Google to suggest “…for men” and “…for women” as the top suggestions.

    That’s because it works on testosterone, and testosterone can be a bit of a double-edged sword, so some people want to increase or decrease certain testosterone-related effects on their body.

    And it works for both! Here be science:

    • Testosterone (henceforth, “T”) is produced in the human body.
      • Yes, all human bodies, to some extent.
    • An enzyme called 5-alpha-reductase converts T in to DHT (dihydrogen testosterone)
    • DHT is a much more potent androgen (masculinizing agent) than T alone, such that its effects are often unwanted, including:
      • Enlarged prostate (if you have one)
      • Hair loss (especially in men)
      • New facial hair growth (usually unwanted by women)
        • Women are more likely to get this due to PCOS and/or the menopause

    To avoid those effects, you really want less of your T to be converted into DHT.

    Saw palmetto is a 5α-reductase inhibitor, so if you take it, you’ll have less DHT, and you’ll consequently lose less hair, have fewer prostate problems, etc.

    Read: Determination of the potency of a novel saw palmetto supercritical CO2 extract (SPSE) for 5α-reductase isoform II inhibition using a cell-free in vitro test system

    ^The above study showed that saw palmetto extract performed comparably to finasteride. Finasteride is the world’s main go-to prescription drug for treating enlarged prostate and/or hair loss.

    See also: Natural Hair Supplement: Friend or Foe? Saw Palmetto, a Systematic Review in Alopecia

    Hair today… Growing tomorrow!

    So, what was that about increasing T levels?

    Men usually suffer declining T levels as they get older, with a marked drop around the age of 45. With lower T comes lower energy, lower mood, lower libido, erectile dysfunction, etc.

    Guess what… It’s T that’s needed for those things, not DHT. So if you block the conversion of T to DHT, you’ll have higher blood serum T levels, higher energy, higher mood, higher libido, and all that.

    Read: Standardized Saw Palmetto Extract Directly and Indirectly Affects Testosterone Biosynthesis and Spermatogenesis

    (the above assumes you have testicles, without which, your T levels will certainly not increase)

    Saw Palmetto Against Enlarged Prostate?

    With higher DHT levels in mid-late life, prostate enlargement (benign prostatic hyperlasia) can become a problem for many men. The size of that problem ranges from urinary inconvenience (common, when the prostate presses against the bladder) to prostate cancer (less common, much more serious). Saw palmetto, like other 5α-reductase inhibitors such as finasteride, may be used to prevent or treat this.

    Wondering how safe/reliable it is? We found a very high-quality fifteen-year longitudinal observational study of the use of saw palmetto, and it found:

    ❝The 15 years’ study results suggest that taking S. repens plant extract continuously at a daily dose of 320 mg is an effective and safe way to prevent the progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia.❞

    Read: 15 years’ survey of safety and efficacy of Serenoa repens extract in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with risk of progression

    Want a second opinion? We also found a 10-year study (by different researchers with different people taking it), which reached the same conclusion:

    ❝The results of study showed the absence of progression, both on subjective criteria (IPSS, and QoL scores), and objective criteria (prostate volume, the rate of urination, residual urine volume). Furthermore, patients had no undesirable effects directly related to the use of this drug.❞

    • IPSS = International Prostate Symptom Score
    • QoL = Quality of Life

    Read: The results of the 10-year study of efficacy and safety of Serenoa repens extract in patients at risk of progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia

    But wait a minute; I, a man over the age of 45 with potentially declining T levels but a fabulous beard, remember that you said just a minute ago that saw palmetto is used by women to avoid having facial hair; I don’t want to lose mine!

    You won’t. Once your facial hair follicles were fully developed and activated during puberty, they’ll carry on doing what they do for life. That’s no longer regulated by hormones once they’re up and running.

    The use of saw palmetto can only be used to limit facial hair if caught early—so it’s more useful at the onset of menopause, for those who have (or will have) such, or else upon the arrival of PCOS symptoms or hirsuitism from some other cause.

    Take The Test!

    Do you have a prostate, and would like to know your IPSS score, and what that means for your prostate health?

    Take The Test Here!

    (takes 1 minute, no need to pee or go probing for anything)

    Bottom Line on Saw Palmetto

    • It blocks the conversion of T into DHT
    • It will increase blood serum T levels, thus boosting mood, energy, libido, etc in men (who typically have more T, but whose T levels decline with age)
    • It will decrease DHT levels, thus limiting hair loss (especially in men) and later-life new facial hair growth (especially in women).
    • It can be used to prevent or treat prostate enlargement
    • Bonus: it’s a potent antioxidant and thus reduces general inflammation (in everyone)

    Want To Try Saw Palmetto?

    We don’t sell it (or anything else), but for your convenience…

    Click here to check out saw palmetto on Amazon!

    Share This Post

  • 50 Ways To Rewire Your Anxious Brain – by Dr. Catherine Pittman & Dr. Maha Zayed-Hoffman

    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 book is divided into sections:

    1. Calming the amygdala
    2. Rewiring the amygdala
    3. Calming the cortex
    4. Resisting cortex traps

    …each with a dozen or so ways to do exactly what it says in the title: rewire your anxious brain.

    The authors take the stance that since our brain is changing all the time, we might as well choose the direction we prefer. They then set out to provide the tools for the lay reader to do that, and (in that fourth section we mentioned) how to avoid accidentally doing the opposite, no matter how tempting doing the opposite may be.

    For a book written by two PhD scientists where a large portion of it is about neuroscience, the style is very light pop science (just a few in-line citations every few pages, where they couldn’t resist the urge), and the focus is on being useful to the reader throughout. This all makes for reassuringly science-based but accessibly readable book.

    The fact that the main material comes in the form of 50 very short chapters also makes it a lot more readable for those for whom sitting down to read a lot at a time can be off-putting.

    Bottom line: if you experience anxiety and would like to experience it less, this book will guide you through how to get there.

    Click here to check out 50 Ways To Rewire Your Anxious Brain, and rewire your anxious brain!

    Share This Post

  • 4 Ways Vaccine Skeptics Mislead You on Measles and More

    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.

    Measles is on the rise in the United States. In the first quarter of this year, the number of cases was about 17 times what it was, on average, during the same period in each of the four years before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Half of the people infected — mainly children — have been hospitalized.

    It’s going to get worse, largely because a growing number of parents are deciding not to get their children vaccinated against measles as well as diseases like polio and pertussis. Unvaccinated people, or those whose immunization status is unknown, account for 80% of the measles cases this year. Many parents have been influenced by a flood of misinformation spouted by politicians, podcast hosts, and influential figures on television and social media. These personalities repeat decades-old notions that erode confidence in the established science backing routine childhood vaccines. KFF Health News examined the rhetoric and explains why it’s misguided:

    The No-Big-Deal Trope

    A common distortion is that vaccines aren’t necessary because the diseases they prevent are not very dangerous, or too rare to be of concern. Cynics accuse public health officials and the media of fear-mongering about measles even as 19 states report cases.

    For example, an article posted on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center — a regular source of vaccine misinformation — argued that a resurgence in concern about the disease “is ‘sky is falling’ hype.” It went on to call measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza “politically incorrect to get.”

    Measles kills roughly 2 of every 1,000 children infected, according to the CDC. If that seems like a bearable risk, it’s worth pointing out that a far larger portion of children with measles will require hospitalization for pneumonia and other serious complications. For every 10 measles cases, one child with the disease develops an ear infection that can lead to permanent hearing loss. Another strange effect is that the measles virus can destroy a person’s existing immunity, meaning they’ll have a harder time recovering from influenza and other common ailments.

    Measles vaccines have averted the deaths of about 94 million people, mainly children, over the past 50 years, according to an April analysis led by the World Health Organization. Together with immunizations against polio and other diseases, vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally.

    Some skeptics argue that vaccine-preventable diseases are no longer a threat because they’ve become relatively rare in the U.S. (True — due to vaccination.) This reasoning led Florida’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, to tell parents that they could send their unvaccinated children to school amid a measles outbreak in February. “You look at the headlines and you’d think the sky was falling,” Ladapo said on a News Nation newscast. “There’s a lot of immunity.”

    As this lax attitude persuades parents to decline vaccination, the protective group immunity will drop, and outbreaks will grow larger and faster. A rapid measles outbreak hit an undervaccinated population in Samoa in 2019, killing 83 people within four months. A chronic lack of measles vaccination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo led to more than 5,600 people dying from the disease in massive outbreaks last year.

    The ‘You Never Know’ Trope

    Since the earliest days of vaccines, a contingent of the public has considered them bad because they’re unnatural, as compared with nature’s bounty of infections and plagues. “Bad” has been redefined over the decades. In the 1800s, vaccine skeptics claimed that smallpox vaccines caused people to sprout horns and behave like beasts. More recently, they blame vaccines for ailments ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to autism to immune system disruption. Studies don’t back the assertions. However, skeptics argue that their claims remain valid because vaccines haven’t been adequately tested.

    In fact, vaccines are among the most studied medical interventions. Over the past century, massive studies and clinical trials have tested vaccines during their development and after their widespread use. More than 12,000 people took part in clinical trials of the most recent vaccine approved to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella. Such large numbers allow researchers to detect rare risks, which are a major concern because vaccines are given to millions of healthy people.

    To assess long-term risks, researchers sift through reams of data for signals of harm. For example, a Danish group analyzed a database of more than 657,000 children and found that those who had been vaccinated against measles as babies were no more likely to later be diagnosed with autism than those who were not vaccinated. In another study, researchers analyzed records from 805,000 children born from 1990 through 2001 and found no evidence to back a concern that multiple vaccinations might impair children’s immune systems.

    Nonetheless, people who push vaccine misinformation, like candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismiss massive, scientifically vetted studies. For example, Kennedy argues that clinical trials of new vaccines are unreliable because vaccinated kids aren’t compared with a placebo group that gets saline solution or another substance with no effect. Instead, many modern trials compare updated vaccines with older ones. That’s because it’s unethical to endanger children by giving them a sham vaccine when the protective effect of immunization is known. In a 1950s clinical trial of polio vaccines, 16 children in the placebo group died of polio and 34 were paralyzed, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of a book on the first polio vaccine.

    The Too-Much-Too-Soon Trope

    Several bestselling vaccine books on Amazon promote the risky idea that parents should skip or delay their children’s vaccines. “All vaccines on the CDC’s schedule may not be right for all children at all times,” writes Paul Thomas in his bestselling book “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.” He backs up this conviction by saying that children who have followed “my protocol are among the healthiest in the world.”

    Since the book was published, Thomas’ medical license was temporarily suspended in Oregon and Washington. The Oregon Medical Board documented how Thomas persuaded parents to skip vaccines recommended by the CDC, and reported that he “reduced to tears” a mother who disagreed.  Several children in his care came down with pertussis and rotavirus, diseases easily prevented by vaccines, wrote the board. Thomas recommended fish oil supplements and homeopathy to an unvaccinated child with a deep scalp laceration, rather than an emergency tetanus vaccine. The boy developed severe tetanus, landing in the hospital for nearly two months, where he required intubation, a tracheotomy, and a feeding tube to survive.

    The vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC has been tailored to protect children at their most vulnerable points in life and minimize side effects. The combination measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine isn’t given for the first year of a baby’s life because antibodies temporarily passed on from their mother can interfere with the immune response. And because some babies don’t generate a strong response to that first dose, the CDC recommends a second one around the time a child enters kindergarten because measles and other viruses spread rapidly in group settings.

    Delaying MMR doses much longer may be unwise because data suggests that children vaccinated at 10 or older have a higher chance of adverse reactions, such as a seizure or fatigue.

    Around a dozen other vaccines have discrete timelines, with overlapping windows for the best response. Studies have shown that MMR vaccines may be given safely and effectively in combination with other vaccines.

    ’They Don’t Want You to Know’ Trope

    Kennedy compares the Florida surgeon general to Galileo in the introduction to Ladapo’s new book on transcending fear in public health. Just as the Roman Catholic inquisition punished the renowned astronomer for promoting theories about the universe, Kennedy suggests that scientific institutions oppress dissenting voices on vaccines for nefarious reasons.

    “The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies is not a new phenomenon,” Kennedy writes. His running mate, lawyer Nicole Shanahan, has campaigned on the idea that conversations about vaccine harms are censored and the CDC and other federal agencies hide data due to corporate influence.

    Claims like “they don’t want you to know” aren’t new among the anti-vaccine set, even though the movement has long had an outsize voice. The most listened-to podcast in the U.S., “The Joe Rogan Experience,” regularly features guests who cast doubt on scientific consensus. Last year on the show, Kennedy repeated the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism.

    Far from ignoring that concern, epidemiologists have taken it seriously. They have conducted more than a dozen studies searching for a link between vaccines and autism, and repeatedly found none. “We have conclusively disproven the theory that vaccines are connected to autism,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia. “So, the public health establishment tends to shut those conversations down quickly.”

    Federal agencies are transparent about seizures, arm pain, and other reactions that vaccines can cause. And the government has a program to compensate individuals whose injuries are scientifically determined to result from them. Around 1 to 3.5 out of every million doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction; a person’s lifetime risk of death by lightning is estimated to be as much as four times as high.

    “The most convincing thing I can say is that my daughter has all her vaccines and that every pediatrician and public health person I know has vaccinated their kids,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “No one would do that if they thought there were serious risks.”

    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

  • With all this bird flu around, how safe are eggs, chicken or milk?
  • How To Leverage Attachment Theory In Your Relationship

    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.

    How To Leverage Attachment Theory In Your Relationship

    Attachment theory has come to be seen in “kids nowadays”’ TikTok circles as almost a sort of astrology, but that’s not what it was intended for, and there’s really nothing esoteric about it.

    What it can be, is a (fairly simple, but) powerful tool to understand about our relationships with each other.

    To demystify it, let’s start with a little history…

    Attachment theory was conceived by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, and popularized as a theory bypsychiatrist John Bowlby. The two would later become research partners.

    • Dr. Ainsworth’s initial work focused on children having different attachment styles when it came to their caregivers: secure, avoidant, or anxious.
    • Later, she would add a fourth attachment style: disorganized, and then subdivisions, such as anxious-avoidant and dismissive-avoidant.
    • Much later, the theory would be extended to attachments in (and between) adults.

    What does it all mean?

    To understand this, we must first talk about “The Strange Situation”.

    “The Strange Situation” was an experiment conducted by Dr. Ainsworth, in which a child would be observed playing, while caregivers and strangers would periodically arrive and leave, recreating a natural environment of most children’s lives. Each child’s different reactions were recorded, especially noting:

    • The child’s reaction (if any) to their caregiver’s departure
    • The child’s reaction (if any) to the stranger’s presence
    • The child’s reaction (if any) to their caregiver’s return
    • The child’s behavior on play, specifically, how much or little the child explored and played with new toys

    She observed different attachment styles, including:

    1. Secure: a securely attached child would play freely, using the caregiver as a secure base from which to explore. Will engage with the stranger when the caregiver is also present. May become upset when the caregiver leaves, and happy when they return.
    2. Avoidant: an avoidantly attached child will not explore much regardless of who is there; will not care much when the caregiver departs or returns.
    3. Anxious: an anxiously attached child may be clingy before separation, helplessly passive when the caregiver is absent, and difficult to comfort upon the caregiver’s return.
    4. Disorganized: a disorganizedly attached child may flit between the above types

    These attachment styles were generally reflective of the parenting styles of the respective caregivers:

    1. If a caregiver was reliably present (physically and emotionally), the child would learn to expect that and feel secure about it.
    2. If a caregiver was absent a lot (physically and/or emotionally), the child would learn to give up on expecting a caregiver to give care.
    3. If a caregiver was unpredictable a lot in presence (physical and/or emotional), the child would become anxious and/or confused about whether the caregiver would give care.

    What does this mean for us as adults?

    As we learn when we are children, tends to go for us in life. We can change, but we usually don’t. And while we (usually) no longer rely on caregivers per se as adults, we do rely (or not!) on our partners, friends, and so forth. Let’s look at it in terms of partners:

    1. A securely attached adult will trust that their partner loves them and will be there for them if necessary. They may miss their partner when absent, but won’t be anxious about it and will look forward to their return.
    2. An avoidantly attached adult will not assume their partner’s love, and will feel their partner might let them down at any time. To protect themself, they may try to manage their own expectations, and strive always to keep their independence, to make sure that if the worst happens, they’ll still be ok by themself.
    3. An anxiously attached adult will tend towards clinginess, and try to keep their partner’s attention and commitment by any means necessary.

    Which means…

    • When both partners have secure attachment styles, most things go swimmingly, and indeed, securely attached partners most often end up with each other.
    • A very common pairing, however, is one anxious partner dating one avoidant partner. This happens because the avoidant partner looks like a tower of strength, which the anxious partner needs. The anxious partner’s clinginess can also help the avoidant partner feel better about themself (bearing in mind, the avoidant partner almost certainly grew up feeling deeply unwanted).
    • Anxious-anxious pairings happen less because anxiously attached people don’t tend to be attracted to people who are in the same boat.
    • Avoidant-avoidant pairings happen least of all, because avoidantly attached people having nothing to bind them together. Iff they even get together in the first place, then later when trouble hits, one will propose breaking up, and the other will say “ok, bye”.

    This is fascinating, but is there a practical use for this knowledge?

    Yes! Understanding our own attachment styles, and those around us, helps us understand why we/they act a certain way, and realize what relational need is or isn’t being met, and react accordingly.

    That sometimes, an anxiously attached person just needs some reassurance:

    • “I love you”
    • “I miss you”
    • “I look forward to seeing you later”

    That sometimes, an avoidantly attached person needs exactly the right amount of space:

    • Give them too little space, and they will feel their independence slipping, and yearn to break free
    • Give them too much space, and oops, they’re gone now

    Maybe you’re reading that and thinking “won’t that make their anxious partner anxious?” and yes, yes it will. That’s why the avoidant partner needs to skip back up and remember to do the reassurance.

    It helps also when either partner is going to be away (physically or emotionally! This counts the same for if a partner will just be preoccupied for a while), that they parameter that, for example:

    • Not: “Don’t worry, I just need some space for now, that’s all” (à la “I am just going outside and may be some time“)
    • But: “I need to be undisturbed for a bit, but let’s schedule some me-and-you-time for [specific scheduled time]”.

    Want to learn more about addressing attachment issues?

    Psychology Today: Ten Ways to Heal Your Attachment Issues

    You also might enjoy such articles such as:

    Lastly, to end on a light note…

    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:

  • Peach vs Papaya – 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 peach to papaya, we picked the peach.

    Why?

    It was close!

    In terms of macros, there’s not much between them; they are close to identical on protein, carbs, and fiber. Technically peach has slightly more protein (+0.4g/100g) and papaya has slightly more carbs and fiber (+1.28g/100g carbs, +0.2g/100g fiber), but since the differences are so tiny, we’re calling this section a tie—bearing in mind, these numbers are based on averages, which means that when they’re very close, they’re meaningless—one could easily, for example, pick up a peach that has more fiber than a papaya, because that 0.2g/100g is well within the margin of variation. So, as we say: a tie.

    When it comes to vitamins, things are also close; peaches have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, and E, while papaya has more of vitamins A, B6, B9, and C. This is a 4:4 tie, but since the most notable margin of difference is vitamin C (of which papayas have 9x more) while the others are much closer, we’ll call this a tie-breaker win for papaya.

    The category of minerals sets things apart more: peaches have more copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while papaya has more calcium, magnesium, and selenium. That’s already a 6:3 win for peaches, before we take into account that the numbers for papaya’s calcium and selenium are tiny, so adding this to the already 6:3 win for peaches makes for a clear and easy win for peaches in this category.

    Adding up the sections is 1W/1D/1L for both fruits, but looking at the win/loss for each, it’s clear which won/lost on a tiebreaker, and which won/lost by a large margin, so peaches get the victory here.

    Of course, enjoy either or both, though! And see below for a bonus feature of peaches:

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← peaches are high on this list! They kill cancer cells while sparing healthy ones 🙂

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Shedding Some Obesity Myths

    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.

    Let’s shed some obesity myths!

    There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding obesity… And then there are also reactive opposite myths and misconceptions, which can sometimes be just as harmful!

    To tackle them all would take a book, but in classic 10almonds style, we’re going to put a spotlight on some of the ones that might make the biggest difference:

    True or False: Obesity is genetically pre-determined

    False… With caveats.

    Some interesting results have been found from twin studies and adoption studies, showing that genes definitely play some role, but lifestyle is—for most people—the biggest factor:

    In short: genes predispose; they don’t predetermine. But that predisposition alone can make quite a big difference, if it in turn leads to different lifestyle factors.

    But upon seeing those papers centering BMI, let’s consider…

    True or False: BMI is a good, accurate measure of health in the context of bodyweight

    False… Unless you’re a very large group of thin white men of moderate height, which was the demographic the system was built around.

    Bonus information: it was never intended to be used to measure the weight-related health of any individual (not even an individual thin white man of moderate height), but rather, as a tool to look at large-scale demographic trends.

    Basically, as a system, it’s being used in a way it was never made for, and the results of that misappropriation of an epidemiological tool for individual health are predictably unhelpful.

    To do a deep-dive into all the flaws of the BMI system, which are many, we’d need to devote a whole main feature just to that.

    Update: we have now done so!

    Here it is: When BMI Doesn’t Measure Up

    True or False: Obesity does not meaningfully impact more general health

    False… In more ways than one (but there are caveats)

    Obesity is highly correlated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, and weight loss, correspondingly, correlates with a reduced risk. See for example:

    Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

    So what are the caveats?

    Let’s put it this way: owning a horse is highly correlated with increased healthy longevity. And while owning a horse may come with some exercise and relaxation (both of which are good for the health), it’s probably mostly not the horse itself that conveys the health benefits… it’s that someone who has the resources to look after a horse, probably has the resources to look after their own health too.

    So sometimes there can be a reason for a correlation (it’s not a coincidence!) but the causative factor is partially (or in some cases, entirely) something else.

    So how could this play out with obesity?

    There’s a lot of discrimination in healthcare settings, unfortunately! In this case, it often happens that a thin person goes in with a medical problem and gets treated for that, while a fat person can go in with the same medical problem and be told “you should try losing some weight”.

    Top tip if this happens to you… Ask: “what would you advise/prescribe to a thin person with my same symptoms?”

    Other things may be more systemic, for example:

    When a thin person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and that goes smoothly, while a fat person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and there’s not a blood pressure cuff to fit them, is the problem the size of the person or the size of the cuff? It all depends on perspective, in a world built around thin people.

    That’s a trivial-seeming example, but the same principle has far-reaching (and harmful) implications in healthcare in general, e.g:

    • Surgeons being untrained (and/or unwilling) to operate on fat people
    • Getting a one-size-fits-all dose that was calculated using average weight, and now doesn’t work
    • MRI machines are famously claustrophobia-inducing for thin people; now try not fitting in it in the first place

    …and so forth. So oftentimes, obesity will be correlated with a poor healthcare outcome, where the problem is not actually the obesity itself, but rather the system having been set up with thin people in mind.

    It would be like saying “Having O- blood type results in higher risks when receiving blood transfusions”, while omitting to add “…because we didn’t stock O- blood”.

    True or False: to reduce obesity, just eat less and move more!

    False… Mostly.

    Moving more is almost always good for most people. When it comes to diet, quality is much more important than quantity. But these factors alone are only part of the picture!

    But beyond diet and exercise, there are many other implicated factors in weight gain, weight maintenance, and weight loss, including but not limited to:

    • Disrupted sleep
    • Chronic stress
    • Chronic pain
    • Hormonal imbalances
    • Physical disabilities that preclude a lot of exercise
    • Mental health issues that add (and compound) extra levels of challenge
    • Medications that throw all kinds of spanners into the works with their side effects

    …and even just those first two things, diet and exercise, are not always so correlated to weight as one might think—studies have found that the difference for exercise especially is often marginal:

    Read: Widespread misconceptions about obesity ← academic article in the Journal of the College of Family Physicians of Canada

    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: