What’s The Difference Between Minoxidil For Men vs For Women?

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 😎

❝I’m confused, does minoxidil work the same for women and for men? The label on the minoxidil I was looking at says it is only for men❞

Great question!

Simple answer: yes, it works (or not, as the case may be for some people, more on that later) exactly the same for men and women.

You may be wondering: what, then, is the difference between minoxidil for men and minoxidil for women?

And the answer is: the packaging/marketing. That’s literally it.

It’s like with razors, there are razors marketed to men and razors marketed to women, and both come with advertising/marketing promising to be enhance your masculine/feminine appearance (as applicable), but at the end of the day, in both cases it’s just sharp steel blades that cut through hairs as closely as possible to the skin. The sharp steel neither knows nor cares about your gender.

When it comes to minoxidil, in both cases the active ingredient is indeed minoxidil, usually at 2% or 5% strength (though other options exist, and all these get marketed to men and women), and in both cases it works in the same ways, by:

  • dilating the blood vessels that feed the hair follicles and thus allowing them to perform better
  • kicking the follicles into anagen (growth phase) and keeping them there for longer

Note: this is why we mentioned that it won’t work for all people, and it’s because (regardless of sex/gender), it cannot do those things for your hair follicles if you do not have hair follicles to treat. In the case of someone who has had hair loss for a long time, sometimes there will not be enough living follicles remaining to do anything useful with. As a general rule of thumb, provided you have some hairs there (even if they are little downy baby hairs), they can usually be coaxed back to full life.

In both cases, it’s for treating “pattern hair loss”, the pattern being “male pattern” or “female pattern”, respectively, but in both cases it’s androgenetic alopecia, and in both cases it’s caused by the corresponding genetic factors and hormone-mediated gene expression (the physical pattern therefore is usually a little different for men and women; that’s because of the “hormone-mediated gene expression”, or to put it into lay terms “the hormones tell the body which genes to turn on and off”.

Fun fact: it’s the same resultant phenotype as for PCOS, though usually occurring at different stages in life; PCOS earlier and AGA later—sometimes people (including people with both ovaries and hair) can get one without the other, though, as there may be other considerations going on besides the genetic and hormonal.

Limitation: if the hair loss is for reasons other than androgenetic alopecia, it’s unlikely to work. In fact, it is usually flat-out stated that it won’t work, but since one of the common listed side effects of minoxidil is “hair growth in other places”, it seems fair to say that the scalp is not really the only place it can cause hair to grow.

Want to know more?

You can read about the science of various pharmaceutical options (including minoxidil) here:

Hair-Loss Remedies, By Science ← this also goes more into the pros and cons of minoxidil than we have today, so if you’re considering minoxidil, you might want to read this first, to make the most informed decision.

And if you want to be a bit less pharmaceutical about it:

Gentler Hair Health Options

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

  • The Gut-Healthiest Yogurt
    Delve into delicious yogurt enriched with fiber, probiotics, and polyphenols – a delectable and nutritious treat anytime, with easy-to-follow steps! Enjoy the perfect healthful snack.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Coffee’s Paradoxical Blood Pressure Effects

    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.

    Usually, when we talk about coffee (and/or caffeine) and cardiovascular health, the question is more about potential increase of health risks, often because of dipterpenes such as cafestol and kahweol, which can raise LDL cholesterol:

    However, that’s not the whole story…

    A matter of time

    The crux here, when it comes to “is coffee good or bad for blood pressure?”, is the question of “in the moment, or generally?”

    Because most of coffee’s interesting effects come from:

    • its stimulant qualities in the moment
    • its antioxidant qualities in general

    The stimulant qualities are relevant in the moment because they will invariably increase adrenaline release, narrow blood vessels, and sometimes (depends on the person) raise heart rate, all of which can increase systolic pressure by about 3-15 mmHg and diastolic pressure by about 4-13 mmHg for several hours after consumption, especially in people who are caffeine-sensitive, infrequent users, or already hypertensive.

    Note: caffeine levels peak 30–120 minutes after oral intake and/but caffeine’s half-life is 3–6 hours, hence the “for several hours” qualification.

    You can read more about this, here: Timing of Blood Pressure Measurement Related to Caffeine Consumption

    The antioxidant qualities are relevant in general because of how they improve endothelial function and nitric oxide bioavailability in the arterial vasculature.

    You can read more about this, here: Antihypertensive effects and mechanisms of chlorogenic acids ← this paper is just about the chlorogenic acids, but the broad principles apply to most if not all of the many antioxidants found in coffee.

    Indeed, in a recent meta-analysis of 13 studies:

    ❝We included a total of 13 longitudinal cohort studies, which involved a total of 64,650 incident cases of hypertension among 314,827 participants. In a random effects model meta-analysis of all the studies, coffee intake was not significantly associated with the risk of hypertension (relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90–1.05; I2 = 58.0%; n = 13). In the subgroup meta-analysis, coffee intake was associated with a decreased risk of hypertension in studies conducted in America (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87–0.98; I2 = 4.6%; n = 5) and in low-quality studies (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.96; I2 = 0.0%; n = 7). In the remaining subgroup meta-analyses by amount of coffee intake, gender, type of coffee (decaffeinated vs. caffeinated), smoking, and years of follow-up, coffee intake was not significantly associated with the risk of hypertension.❞

    Source: Coffee Intake and Risk of Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

    In other words: coffee can temporarily raise blood pressure, but moderate consumption is usually actively heart-healthy for most people; your overall cardiovascular will still depend on your baseline blood pressure, genetics, and other lifestyle factors, though.

    What else does coffee do for us?

    As a quick recap:

    *See also: The Other Thing Coffee Does To Your Blood Sugars

    As well as other benefits, such as Coffee & Your Gut ← gut bacteria do not, by the way, have a preference about how you make your coffee or whether it is caffeinated or not

    Aaaaaand, we recently shared new research on how coffee appears to be protective against frailty in older age. We say “appears to be”, because it was a longitudinal study and so technically we cannot say categorically that the link was causal, but the association is very strong, to the point that it’d take quite some explaining if it’s anything other than the coffee consumption that caused it.

    You can read about that here: Coffee vs Frailty!

    Not a fan of coffee?

    If you’re not a fan of coffee, but also not a fan of high blood pressure, frailty, cancer, Alzheimer’s, suicide, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and more, fear not; there is a supplement option available:

    Green Coffee Bean Extract: Coffee Benefits Without The Coffee?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Ice Baths: To Dip Or Not To Dip?

    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.

    We asked you for your (health-related) view of ice baths, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 31% said “ice baths are great for the health; we should take them”
    • About 29% said “ice baths’ risks outweigh their few benefits”
    • About 26% said “ice baths’ benefits outweigh their few risks”
    • About 14% said “ice baths are dangerous and can kill you; best avoided”

    So what does the science say?

    Freezing water is very dangerous: True or False?

    True! Water close to freezing point is indeed very dangerous, and can most certainly kill you.

    Fun fact, though: many such people are still saveable with timely medical intervention, in part because the same hypothermia that is killing them also slows down the process* of death

    Source (and science) for both parts of that:

    Cold water immersion: sudden death and prolonged survival

    *and biologically speaking, death is a process, not an event, by the way. But we don’t have room for that today!

    (unless you die in some sudden violent way, such as a powerful explosion that destroys your brain instantly; then it’s an event)

    Ice baths are thus also very dangerous: True or False?

    False! Assuming that they are undertaken responsibly and you have no chronic diseases that make it more dangerous for you.

    What does “undertaken responsibly” mean?

    Firstly, the temperature should not be near freezing. It should be 10–15℃, which for Americans is 50–59℉.

    You can get a bath thermometer to check this, by the way. Here’s an example product on Amazon.

    Secondly, your ice bath should last no more than 10–15 minutes. This is not a place to go to sleep.

    What chronic diseases would make it dangerous?

    Do check with your doctor if you have any doubts, as no list we make can be exhaustive and we don’t know your personal medical history, but the main culprits are:

    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Hypertension
    • Diabetes (any type)

    The first two are for heart attack risk; the latter is because diabetes can affect core temperature regulation.

    Ice baths are good for the heart: True or False?

    True or False depending on how they’re done, and your health before starting.

    For most people, undertaking ice baths responsibly, repeated ice bath use causes the cardiovascular system to adapt to better maintain homeostasis when subjected to thermal shock (i.e. sudden rapid changes in temperature).

    For example: Respiratory and cardiovascular responses to cold stress following repeated cold water immersion

    And because that was a small study, here’s a big research review with a lot of data; just scroll to where it has the heading“Specific thermoregulative adaptations to regular exposure to cold air and/or cold water exposure“ for many examples and much discussion:

    Health effects of voluntary exposure to cold water: a continuing subject of debate

    Ice baths are good against inflammation: True or False?

    True! Here’s one example:

    Winter-swimming as a building-up body resistance factor inducing adaptive changes in the oxidant/antioxidant status

    Uric acid and glutathione levels (important markers of chronic inflammation) are also significantly affected:

    Uric acid and glutathione levels during short-term whole body cold exposure

    Want to know more?

    That’s all we have room for today, but check out our previous “Expert Insights” main feature looking at Wim Hof’s work in cryotherapy:

    A Cold Shower A Day Keeps The Doctor Away?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Is Dairy Scary?

    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.

    Is Dairy Scary?

    Milk and milk products are popularly enjoyed as a good source of calcium and vitamin D.

    In contrast, critics of dairy products (for medical reasons, rather than ethical, which is another matter entirely and beyond the scope of this article) point to risks of cancer, heart disease, and—counterintuitively—osteoporosis. We’ll focus more on the former, but touch on the latter two before closing.

    Dairy & Cancer

    Evidence is highly conflicting. There are so many studies with so many different results. This is partially explicable by noting that not only is cancer a many-headed beast that comes in more than a hundred different forms and all or any of them may be affected one way or another by a given dietary element, but also… Not all milk is created equal, either!

    Joanna Lampe, of the Public Health Sciences division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, writes:

    ❝Dairy products are a complex group of foods and composition varies by region, which makes evaluation of their association with disease risk difficult. For most cancers, associations between cancer risk and intake of milk and dairy products have been examined only in a small number of cohort studies, and data are inconsistent or lacking❞

    In her systematic review of studies, she noted, for example, that:

    • Milk and dairy products contain micronutrients and several bioactive constituents that may influence cancer risk and progression
    • There’s probable association between milk intake and lower risk of colorectal cancer
    • There’s a probable association between diets high in calcium and increased risk of prostate cancer
    • Some studies show an inverse association between intake of cultured dairy products and bladder cancer (i.e., if you eat yogurt you’re less likely to get bladder cancer)

    Since that systemic review was undertaken, more research has been conducted, and the results are… Not conclusive, but converging towards a conclusion:

    • Dairy products can increase or decrease cancer risk
    • The increase in cancer risk seems strongest when milk is consumed in quantities that result in too much calcium. When it comes to calcium, you can absolutely have too much of a good thing—just ask your arteries!
    • The decrease in cancer seems to be mostly, if not exclusively, from fermented dairy products. This usually means yogurts. The benefit here is not from the milk itself, but rather from the gut-friendly bacteria.

    You may be wondering: “Hardened arteries, gut microbiome health? I thought we were talking about cancer?” and yes we are. No part of your health is an island unrelated to other parts of your health. One thing can lead to another. Sometimes we know how and why, sometimes we don’t, but it’s best to not ignore the data.

    The bottom line on dairy products and cancer is:

    • Consuming dairy products in general is probably fine
    • Yogurt, specifically, is probably beneficial

    Dairy and Heart Disease

    The reason for the concern is clear enough: it’s largely assumed to be a matter of saturated fat intake.

    The best combination of “large” and “recent” that we found was a three-cohort longitudinal study in 2019, which pretty much confirms what was found in smaller or less recent studies:

    • There is some evidence to suggest that consumption of dairy can increase all-cause mortality in general, and death from (cancer and) cardiovascular disease in particular
    • The evidence is not, however, overwhelming. It is marginal.

    Dairy and Osteoporosis

    Does dairy cause osteoporosis? Research here tends to fall into one of two categories when it comes to conclusions, so we’ll give an example of each:

    1. “Results are conflicting, saying yes/no/maybe, and basically we just don’t know”
    2. “Results are conflicting, but look: cross-sectional and case-control studies say yes; cohort studies say maybe or no; we prefer the cohort studies”

    See them for yourself:

    1. Osteoporosis: Is milk a kindness or a curse?
    2. Consumption of milk and dairy products and risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture

    Conclusion: really, the jury is very much still out on this one

    Summary:

    • Moderate consumption of dairy products is almost certainly fine
    • More specifically: it probably has some (small) pros and some (small) cons
    • Yogurt is almost certainly healthier than other dairy products, and is almost universally considered a healthy food (assuming not being full of added sugar etc, of course)
    • If you’re going to have non-dairy alternatives to milk, choose wisely!

    That’s all we have time for today, but perhaps in a future edition we’ll do a run-down of the pros and cons of various dairy alternatives!

    Share This Post

  • Fish Oil Can Backfire Without This Enzyme

    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.

    …and other items from this week’s health news:

    All about ALOX15

    Many people take omega-3 fish oil supplements in part for the support of cellular processes against such things as aging and cancer (which are closely related things, in any case).

    Researchers (Dr. Yoshiyuki Kiyasu et al.) found that omega-3 fish oil supplements may help protect against colorectal cancer only when the enzyme ALOX15 is active, and without it they can sometimes increase tumor growth.

    This study was done specifically for colorectal cancer, but it’s likely the results carry to other types; that just hasn’t been tested yet and scientists writing papers will (if they are any good, anyway) speak only for what they know.

    Notably, this means genetics may determine who benefits from omega-3 supplements, and people with colon polyps or cancer could respond very differently in contrast to those without.

    Of the different kinds of omega-3 fatty acids, where ALOX15 was present, diets rich in EPA reduced tumor number and size more consistently than DHA. The study didn’t look at ALA as it was about fish oils specifically, ALA is more prevalent in plant-based omega-3 sources.

    For any unfamiliar with those 3-letter initialisms, they are:

    • Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA)
    • Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
    • Docosahexanoic acid (DHA)

    ALA is most readily found in certain seeds and nuts (chia seeds and walnuts are top contenders), while EPA and DHA are most readily found in certain fish (hence “cod liver oil” being a commonly available supplement, though actually cod aren’t even the best source—salmon and mackerel are better; cod is just cheaper to overfish, making it the cheaper supplement to manufacture).

    Read in full: Omega-3 fish oil supplements could backfire without this key enzyme

    Related: Omega-3s: Different Sources, Different Benefits?

    Let it loose

    Counterintuitively, researchers (Dr. Irene Di Giulio et al.) found that sensors placed on looser clothing measure human movement more accurately than sensors attached to tight suits, straps, or directly to the skin. Putting it in numbers, loose fabric improved accuracy by 40% while requiring 80% less data.

    How does it do that, you wonder?

    ❝Sometimes, a patient’s movements are too small for a tight wristband to catch and therefore we can’t always get the most accurate data on how conditions like Parkinson’s are affecting people’s everyday lives.❞

    ~ Dr. Di Giulio

    In other words, loose fabric acts as a mechanical amplifier because it folds, billows, and shifts in response to movement, making subtle motions easier for sensors to detect than rigid or skin-tight placements.

    Read in full: Tracking devices on looser clothing show greater accuracy in measuring human movement

    Related: What Your Fitness Tracker Is Best & Worst At

    Let’s finish on a sour note

    But, of the best kind! It’s about the taste. However…

    Sourness isn’t a single taste, but rather a combined experience of taste, puckering, and salivation/drying, which varies widely not just from food to food, but also from person to person.

    ❝Equal amounts of different acids do not create equal sourness or mouthfeel. People vary widely in both how much sourness they like and how strongly they perceive it.❞

    ~ Dr. Helene Hopfer

    Also notably, unlike spicy or bitter taste preferences, a liking for sour foods wasn’t linked to personality traits and instead appears related primarily to dietary exposure. In the study, participants clustered into three groups:

    1. those who quickly disliked increasing sourness
    2. those who disliked it gradually, and
    3. those who liked the experience more as sourness increased!

    Which would you fall into?

    Read in full: Sour grapes? Experience of sour food depends on individual consumer

    Related: Sharp Tastes, Sharp Brain?

    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:

  • Is fluoride really linked to lower IQ, as a recent study suggested? Here’s why you shouldn’t worry

    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.

    Fluoride is a common natural element found in water, soil, rocks and food. For the past several decades, fluoride has also been a cornerstone of dentistry and public health, owing to its ability to protect against tooth decay.

    Water fluoridation is a population-based program where a precise, small amount of fluoride is added to public drinking water systems. Water fluoridation began in Australia in the 1950s. Today more than 90% of Australia’s population has access to fluoridated tap water.

    But a recently published review found higher fluoride exposure is linked to lower intelligence quotient (IQ) in children. So how can we interpret the results?

    Much of the data analysed in this review is poor quality. Overall, the findings don’t give us reason to be concerned about the fluoride levels in our water supplies.

    TinnaPong/Shutterstock

    Not a new controversy

    Tooth decay (also known as caries or cavities) can have negative effects on dental health, overall health and quality of life. Fluoride strengthens our teeth, making them more resistant to decay. There is scientific consensus water fluoridation is a safe, effective and equitable way to improve oral health.

    Nonetheless, water fluoridation has historically been somewhat controversial.

    A potential link between fluoride and IQ (and cognitive function more broadly) has been a contentious topic for more than a decade. This started with reports from studies in China and India.

    But it’s important to note these studies were limited by poor methodology, and water in these countries had high levels of natural fluoride when the studies were conducted – many times higher than the levels recommended for water fluoridation programs. Also, the studies did not control for other contaminants in the water supply.

    Recent reviews focusing on the level of fluoride used in water fluoridation have concluded fluoride is not linked to lower IQ.

    Despite this, some have continued to raise concerns. The United States National Toxicology Program conducted a review of the potential link. However, this review did not pass the quality assessment by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine due to significant limitations in the conduct of the review.

    The authors followed through with their study and published it as an independent publication in the journal JAMA Paediatrics last week. This is the study which has been generating media attention in recent days.

    What the study did

    This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis, where the researchers evaluated 74 studies from different parts of the world.

    A total of 52 studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, and 64 were cross-sectional studies, which often can’t provide evidence of causal relationship.

    Most of the studies were conducted in developing countries, such as China (45), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4) and Pakistan (2). Only a few studies were conducted in developed countries with established public water systems, where regular monitoring and treatment of drinking water ensures it’s free from contaminants.

    The vast majority of studies were conducted in populations with high to very high levels of natural fluoride and without water fluoridation programs, where fluoride levels are controlled within recommended levels.

    The study concluded there was an inverse association between fluoride levels and IQ in children. This means those children who had a higher intake of fluoride had lower IQ scores than their counterparts.

    A small boy at the dentist.
    Water fluoridation programs reduce the occurrence of cavities. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Limitations to consider

    While this review combined many studies, there are several limitations that cast serious doubt over its conclusion. Scientists immediately raised concerns about the quality of the review, including in a linked editorial published in JAMA.

    The low quality of the majority of included studies is a major concern, rendering the quality of the review equally low. Importantly, most studies were not relevant to the recommended levels of fluoride in water fluoridation programs.

    Several included studies from countries with controlled public water systems (Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan) showed no negative effects. Other recent studies from comparable populations (such as Spain and Denmark) also have not shown any negative effect of fluoride on IQ, but they were not included in the meta-analysis.

    For context, the review found there was no significant association with IQ when fluoride was measured at less than 1.5mg per litre in water. In Australia, the recommended levels of fluoride in public water supplies range from 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.

    Also, the primary outcome, IQ score, is difficult to collect. Most included studies varied widely on the methods used to collect IQ data and did not specify their focus on ensuring reliable and consistent IQ data. Though this is a challenge in most research on this topic, the significant variations between studies in this review raise further doubts about the combined results.

    No cause for alarm

    Although no Australian studies were included in the review, Australia has its own studies investigating a potential link between fluoride exposure in early childhood and child development.

    I’ve been involved in population-based longitudinal studies investigating a link between fluoride and child behavioural development and executive functioning and between fluoride and IQ. The IQ data in the second study were collected by qualified, trained psychologists – and calibrated against a senior psychologist – to ensure quality and consistency. Both studies have provided strong evidence fluoride exposure in Australia does not negatively impact child development.

    This new review is not a reason to be concerned about fluoride levels in Australia and other developed countries with water fluoridation programs. Fluoride remains important in maintaining the public’s dental health, particularly that of more vulnerable groups.

    That said, high and uncontrolled levels of fluoride in water supplies in less developed countries warrant attention. There are programs underway in a range of countries to reduce natural fluoride to the recommended level.

    Loc Do, Professor of Dental Public Health, 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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Kiwi vs Lime – 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 kiwi to lime, we picked the kiwi.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, kiwi has more protein, more carbs, and more fiber. As with most fruits, the fiber is the number we’re most interested in for health purposes; in this case, kiwi is just slightly ahead of limes on all three of those. So, a modest win for kiwis.

    In the category of vitamins, kiwi has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, E, and K, while lime has a tiny bit more vitamin B5. That’s vitamin B as in, the vitamin that’s in pretty much anything and is practically impossible to be deficient in unless you are literally starving to death. You may be thinking: aren’t limes a famously good source of vitamin C? And yes, yes they are. But kiwis have >3x more. In other big differences, kiwis also have >6x more vitamin E and >67 times more vitamin K. So this round’s a super-easy win for kiwis.

    Looking at minerals, kiwi has more calcium, copper, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while lime has more iron and selenium. Another clear win for kiwis.

    In other considerations, kiwi has some anticancer properties that lime can’t boast, so that’s another point in favor of kiwi.

    Adding up the sections makes for an overwhelming overall win for kiwi, but by all means enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← kiwi is top of the list; it promotes cancer cell death while sparing healthy cells 😎

    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: