Why You Don’t Need 8 Glasses Of Water Per Day
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The idea that you need to drink eight glasses of water daily is a myth. For most people most of the time, this practice will not make your skin brighter, improve mental clarity, or boost energy levels. All that will happen as a result of drinking beyond your thirst, is that you’ll pee more.
A self-regulating system
Our kidneys regulate hydration by monitoring blood volume and salt levels. When blood becomes slightly saltier or its volume drops, such as through sweating, the kidneys absorb more water into the bloodstream. If needed, the body triggers thirst signals to encourage fluid intake.
In most cases, you can rely on your body’s natural thirst cues to manage hydration. Thirst is a reliable indicator of when you need to drink water, making constant monitoring of water intake unnecessary for most people.
There are some exceptions, though! Some people, such as those with kidney stones, especially older adults, or those with specific medical considerations and resultant advice from your doctor, may need to pay closer attention to their water intake.
Nor does hydration have to be a matter of “drinking water”: many foods and drinks, such as fruit, coffee, soups, etc, contribute to your daily water intake and (because the body processes it more slowly) are often more hydrating than plain water (which can just pass straight through if you take more than a certain amount at once). If you listen to your body’s thirst signals, there’s no need to rigidly count eight glasses of water each day.
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Hydration Mythbusting ← this also covers why urine color is not as good a guide as your thirst
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:
-
Women are less likely to receive CPR than men. Training on manikins with breasts could help
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.
If someone’s heart suddenly stops beating, they may only have minutes to live. Doing CPR (cardiopulmonary resusciation) can increase their chances of survival. CPR makes sure blood keeps pumping, providing oxygen to the brain and vital organs until specialist treatment arrives.
But research shows bystanders are less likely to intervene to perform CPR when that person is a woman. A recent Australian study analysed 4,491 cardiac arrests between 2017–19 and found bystanders were more likely to give CPR to men (74%) than women (65%).
Could this partly be because CPR training dummies (known as manikins) don’t have breasts? Our new research looked at manikins available worldwide to train people in performing CPR and found 95% are flat-chested.
Anatomically, breasts don’t change CPR technique. But they may influence whether people attempt it – and hesitation in these crucial moments could mean the difference between life and death.
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock Heart health disparities
Cardiovascular diseases – including heart disease, stroke and cardiac arrest – are the leading cause of death for women across the world.
But if a woman has a cardiac arrest outside hospital (meaning her heart stops pumping properly), she is 10% less likely to receive CPR than a man. Women are also less likely to survive CPR and more likely to have brain damage following cardiac arrests.
Bystanders are less likely to intervene if a woman needs CPR, compared to a man. doublelee/Shutterstock These are just some of many unequal health outcomes women experience, along with transgender and non-binary people. Compared to men, their symptoms are more likely to be dismissed or misdiagnosed, or it may take longer for them to receive a diagnosis.
Bystander reluctance
There is also increasing evidence women are less likely to receive CPR compared to men.
This may be partly due to bystander concerns they’ll be accused of sexual harassment, worry they might cause damage (in some cases based on a perception women are more “frail”) and discomfort about touching a woman’s breast.
Bystanders may also have trouble recognising a woman is experiencing a cardiac arrest.
Even in simulations of scenarios, researchers have found those who intervened were less likely to remove a woman’s clothing to prepare for resuscitation, compared to men. And women were less likely to receive CPR or defibrillation (an electric charge to restart the heart) – even when the training was an online game that didn’t involve touching anyone.
There is evidence that how people act in resuscitation training scenarios mirrors what they do in real emergencies. This means it’s vital to train people to recognise a cardiac arrest and be prepared to intervene, across genders and body types.
Skewed to male bodies
Most CPR training resources feature male bodies, or don’t specify a sex. If the bodies don’t have breasts, it implies a male default.
For example, a 2022 study looking at CPR training across North, Central and South America, found most manikins available were white (88%), male (94%) and lean (99%).
It’s extremely rare for a manikin to have breasts or a larger body. M Isolation photo/Shutterstock These studies reflect what we see in our own work, training other health practitioners to do CPR. We have noticed all the manikins available to for training are flat-chested. One of us (Rebecca) found it difficult to find any training manikins with breasts.
A single manikin with breasts
Our new research investigated what CPR manikins are available and how diverse they are. We identified 20 CPR manikins on the global market in 2023. Manikins are usually a torso with a head and no arms.
Of the 20 available, five (25%) were sold as “female” – but only one of these had breasts. That means 95% of available CPR training manikins were flat-chested.
We also looked at other features of diversity, including skin tone and larger bodies. We found 65% had more than one skin tone available, but just one was a larger size body. More research is needed on how these aspects affect bystanders in giving CPR.
Breasts don’t change CPR technique
CPR technique doesn’t change when someone has breasts. The barriers are cultural. And while you might feel uncomfortable, starting CPR as soon as possible could save a life.
Signs someone might need CPR include not breathing properly or at all, or not responding to you.
To perform effective CPR, you should:
- put the heel of your hand on the middle of their chest
- put your other hand on the top of the first hand, and interlock fingers (keep your arms straight)
- press down hard, to a depth of about 5cm before releasing
- push the chest at a rate of 100-120 beats per minute (you can sing a song) in your head to help keep time!)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Plse2FOkV4Q?wmode=transparent&start=94 An example of how to do CPR – with a flat-chested manikin.
What about a defibrillator?
You don’t need to remove someone’s bra to perform CPR. But you may need to if a defibrillator is required.
A defibrillator is a device that applies an electric charge to restore the heartbeat. A bra with an underwire could cause a slight burn to the skin when the debrillator’s pads apply the electric charge. But if you can’t remove the bra, don’t let it delay care.
What should change?
Our research highlights the need for a range of CPR training manikins with breasts, as well as different body sizes.
Training resources need to better prepare people to intervene and perform CPR on people with breasts. We also need greater education about women’s risk of getting and dying from heart-related diseases.
Jessica Stokes-Parish, Assistant Professor in Medicine, Bond University and Rebecca A. Szabo, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Critical Care and Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, The University of Melbourne
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
When Science Brings Hope
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
There’s a lot of bad news out there at present, including in the field of healthcare. So as some measure of respite from that, here’s some good news from the world of health science, including some actionable things to do:
Run for your life! Or casually meander for your life; that’s fine too.
Those who enjoy the equivalent of an average of 160mins slow (3mph) walking per day also enjoy the greatest healthspan. Now, there may be an element of two-way causality here (moving more means we live longer, but also, sometimes people move less because of having crippling disabilities, which are themselves not great for healthspan, as well as having the knock-on effect of reducing movement, and so such conditions yield and anti-longevity double-whammy), but for any who are able to, increasing the amount of time per day spend moving, ultimately results (on average) in a lot of extra days in life that we’ll then get to spend moving.
Depending on how active or not you are already, every extra 1 hour walked could add two hours and 49 minutes to life expectancy:
Read in full: Americans over 40 could live extra 5 years if they were all as active as top 25% of population, modeling study suggests
Related: The Doctor Who Wants Us To Exercise Less & Move More
Re-teaching your brain to heal itself
Cancer is often difficult to treat, and brain tumors can be amongst the most difficult with which to contend. Not only is everything in there very delicate, but also it’s the hardest place in the body to get at—not just surgically, but even chemically, because of the blood-brain barrier. To make matters worse, brain tumors such as glioblastoma weaken the function of T-cells (whose job it is to eliminate the cancer) by prolonged exposure.
Research has found a way to restore the responsiveness of these T-cells to immune checkpoint inhibitors, allowing them to go about their cancer-killing activities unimpeded:
Read in full: New possibilities for treating intractable brain tumors unveiled
Related: 5 Ways To Beat Cancer (And Other Diseases)
Here’s to your good health!
GLP-1 receptor agonists, originally developed to fight diabetes and now enjoying popularity as weight loss adjuvants, work in large part by cutting down food cravings by interfering with the chemical messaging about such.
As a bonus, it seems that they also can reduce alcohol cravings, especially by targetting the brain’s reward center; this was based on a large review of studies looking at how GLP-1RA use affects alcohol use, alcohol-related health problems, hospital visits, and brain reactions to alcohol cues:
Read in full: Diabetes medication may be effective in helping people drink less alcohol, research finds
Related: How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Pineapple vs Passion Fruit – 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 pineapple to passion fruit, we picked the passion fruit.
Why?
Both are certainly great, and both have won their respective previous comparisons! And this one’s close:
In terms of macros, passion fruit has about 4x the protein, nearly 2x the carbs, and more than 7x the fiber. So, this one’s a clear and overwhelming win for passion fruit.
Vitamins are quite close; pineapple has more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B9, and C, while passion fruit has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, and choline. So, a 5:4 marginal win for pineapple.
When it comes to minerals, pineapple has more calcium, copper, manganese, and zinc, while passion fruit has more iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium. Superficially, this would be a 5:5 tie, but looking at the numbers, passion fruit’s margins of difference are much greater, which means it gives the better overall mineral coverage, and thus wins the category.
Looking at polyphenols, pineapple wins this category with its variety of lignans, while passion fruit has just secoisolariciresinol, of which pineapple has more anyway. Plus, not a polyphenol but doing much of the same job of same, pineapple has bromelain, which is unique to it. So pineapple wins on the phytochemicals reckoning.
Adding up the sections and weighting them for importance (e.g. what a difference it makes to health) and statistical relevance (e.g. greater or smaller margins of difference) makes for a nominal passion fruit win, but like we say, both of these fruits are great, so enjoy both!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More
Take care!
Share This Post
-
You can thaw and refreeze meat: five food safety myths busted
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This time of year, most fridges are stocked up with food and drinks to share with family and friends. Let’s not make ourselves and our guests sick by getting things wrong when preparing and serving food.
As the weather warms up, so does the environment for micro-organisms in foods, potentially allowing them to multiply faster to hazardous levels. So put the drinks on ice and keep the fridge for the food.
But what are some of those food safety myths we’ve long come to believe that aren’t actually true?
Myth 1: if you’ve defrosted frozen meat or chicken you can’t refreeze it
From a safety point of view, it is fine to refreeze defrosted meat or chicken or any frozen food as long as it was defrosted in a fridge running at 5°C or below. Some quality may be lost by defrosting then refreezing foods as the cells break down a little and the food can become slightly watery.
Another option is to cook the defrosted food and then divide into small portions and refreeze once it has stopped steaming. Steam in a closed container leads to condensation, which can result in pools of water forming. This, combined with the nutrients in the food, creates the perfect environment for microbial growth. So it’s always best to wait about 30 minutes before refrigerating or freezing hot food.
Plan ahead so food can be defrosted in the fridge, especially with large items such as a frozen turkey or roll of meat. If left on the bench, the external surface could be at room temperature and micro-organisms could be growing rapidly while the centre of the piece is still frozen!
Myth 2: Wash meat before you prepare and/or cook it
It is not a good idea to wash meats and poultry when preparing for cooking. Splashing water that might contain potentially hazardous bacteria around the kitchen can create more of a hazard if those bacteria are splashed onto ready-to-eat foods or food preparation surfaces.
It is, however, a good idea to wash fruits and vegetables before preparing and serving, especially if they’re grown near or in the ground as they may carry some dirt and therefore micro-organisms.
This applies particularly to foods that will be prepared and eaten without further cooking. Consuming foods raw that traditionally have been eaten cooked or otherwise processed to kill pathogenic micro-organisms (potentially deadly to humans) might increase the risk of food poisoning.
Fruit, salad, vegetables and other ready-to-eat foods should be prepared separately, away from raw meat, chicken, seafood and other foods that need cooking.
Myth 3: Hot food should be left out to cool completely before putting it in the fridge
It’s not OK to leave perishable food out for an extended time or overnight before putting it in the fridge.
Micro-organisms can grow rapidly in food at temperatures between 5° and 60°C. Temperature control is the simplest and most effective way of controlling the growth of bacteria. Perishable food should spend as little time as possible in the 5-60°C danger zone. If food is left in the danger zone, be aware it is potentially unsafe to eat.
Hot leftovers, and any other leftovers for that matter, should go into the fridge once they have stopped steaming to reduce condensation, within about 30 minutes.
Large portions of hot food will cool faster if broken down into smaller amounts in shallow containers. It is possible that hot food such as stews or soup left in a bulky container, say a two-litre mixing bowl (versus a shallow tray), in the fridge can take nearly 24 hours to cool to the safe zone of less than 5°C.
Myth 4: If it smells OK, then it’s OK to eat
This is definitely not always true. Spoilage bacteria, yeasts and moulds are the usual culprits for making food smell off or go slimy and these may not make you sick, although it is always advisable not to consume spoiled food.
Pathogenic bacteria can grow in food and not cause any obvious changes to the food, so the best option is to inhibit pathogen growth by refrigerating foods.
Myth 5: Oil preserves food so it can be left at room temperature
Adding oil to foods will not necessarily kill bugs lurking in your food. The opposite is true for many products in oil if anaerobic micro-organisms, such as Clostridium botulinum (botulism), are present in the food. A lack of oxygen provides perfect conditions for their growth.
Outbreaks of botulism arising from consumption of vegetables in oil – including garlic, olives, mushrooms, beans and hot peppers – have mostly been attributed to the products not being properly prepared.
Vegetables in oil can be made safely. In 1991, Australian regulations stipulated that this class of product (vegetables in oil) can be safely made if the pH (a measure of acid) is less than 4.6. Foods with a pH below 4.6 do not in general support the growth of food-poisoning bacteria including botulism.
So keep food out of the danger zone to reduce your guests’ risk of getting food poisoning this summer. Check out other food safety tips and resources from CSIRO and the Food Safety Information Council, including testing your food safety knowledge.
Cathy Moir, Team leader, Microbial and chemical sciences, Food microbiologist and food safety specialist, CSIRO
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:
-
Meals That Heal – by Dr. Carolyn Williams
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.
Inflammation is implicated as a contributory or casual factor in almost all chronic diseases (and still exacerbates the ones in which it’s not directly implicated causally), so if there’s one area of health to focus on with one’s diet, then reducing inflammation is a top candidate.
This book sets about doing exactly that.
You may be wondering whether, per the book’s subtitle, they can really all be done in 30 minutes or under. The answer is: no, not unless you have a team of sous-chefs to do all the prep work for you, and line up everything mise-en-place style for when you start the clock. If you do have that team of sous-chefs working for you, then you can probably do most of them in under 30 minutes. If you don’t have that team, then budget about an hour in total, sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the recipe.
The recipes themselves are mostly Mediterranean-inspired, though you might want to do a few swaps where the author has oddly recommended using seed oils instead of olive oil, or plant milk in place of where she has used dairy milk in a couple of “recipes” for smoothies. You might also want to be a little more generous with the seasonings, if you’re anything like this reviewer.
Bottom line: if you’re looking for an anti-inflammatory starter cookbook, you could do worse than this. You could probably do better, too, such as starting with The Inflammation Spectrum – by Dr. Will Cole.
Alternatively, click here if you want to check out Meals That Heal, and dive straight in!
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:
-
Plum vs Nectarine – 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 plums to nectarines, we picked the nectarines.
Why?
Both are great! But nectarines win at least marginally in each category we look at.
In terms of macros, plums have more carbs while nectarines have more fiber, resulting of course in a lower glycemic index. Plums do have a low GI also; just, nectarines have it better.
When it comes to vitamins, plums have more of vitamins A, B6, C, and K, while nectarines have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, E, and choline.
In the category of minerals, plums are great but not higher in any mineral than nectarines; nectarines meanwhile have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.
All in all, enjoy both. And if having dried fruit, then prunes (dried plums) are generally more widely available than dried nectarines. But if you’re choosing one fruit or the other, nectarine is the way to go.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Replacing Sugar: Top 10 Anti-Inflammatory Sweet Foods
- Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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:
