You Are the One You’ve Been Waiting For – by Dr. Richard Schwartz
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.
As self-therapy approaches go, the title here could be read two ways: as pop-psychology fluff, or a suggestion of something deeper. And, while written in a way to make it accessible to all, we’re happy to report the content consists of serious therapeutic ideas, presented clearly.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) is a large, internationally recognized, and popular therapeutic approach. It’s also an approach that lends itself quite well to self-therapy, as this book illustrates.
Dr. Schwartz kicks off by explaining not IFS, but the problem that it solves… We (most of us, anyway) have over the course of our lives tried to plug the gaps in our own unmet psychological needs. And, that can cause resentment, strain, and can even be taken out on others if we’re not careful.
The real meat of the book, however, is in its illustrative explanations of how IFS works, and can be applied by an individual. The goal is to recognize all the parts that make us who we are, understand what they need in order to be at peace, and give them that. Spoiler: most what they will need is just being adequately heard, rather than locked in a box untended.
One of the benefits of using this book for self-therapy, of course, is that it requires a lot less vulnerability with a third party.
But, speaking of which, what of these intimate relationships the subtitle of the book referenced? Mostly the benefits to such come from a “put your own oxygen mask on first” angle… but the book does also cover discussions between intimate partners, and approaches to love, including what the author calls “courageous love”.
Bottom line: this is a great book if you want to do some “spring-cleaning of the soul” and live a little more lightly as a result.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
When can my baby drink cow’s milk? It’s sooner than you think
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.
Parents are often faced with well-meaning opinions and conflicting advice about what to feed their babies.
The latest guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends formula-fed babies can switch to cow’s milk from six months. Australian advice says parents should wait until 12 months. No wonder some parents, and the health professionals who advise them, are confused.
So what do parents need to know about the latest advice? And when is cow’s milk an option?
What’s the updated advice?
Last year, the WHO updated its global feeding guideline for children under two years old. This included recommending babies who are partially or totally formula fed can have whole animal milks (for example, full-fat cow’s milk) from six months.
This recommendation was made after a systematic review of research by WHO comparing the growth, health and development of babies fed infant formula from six months of age with those fed pasteurised or boiled animal milks.
The review found no evidence the growth and development of babies who were fed infant formula was any better than that of babies fed whole, fresh animal milks.
The review did find an increase in iron deficiency anaemia in babies fed fresh animal milk. However, WHO noted this could be prevented by giving babies iron-rich solid foods daily from six months.
On the strength of the available evidence, the WHO recommended babies fed infant formula, alone or in addition to breastmilk, can be fed animal milk or infant formula from six months of age.
The WHO said that animal milks fed to infants could include pasteurised full-fat fresh milk, reconstituted evaporated milk, fermented milk or yoghurt. But this should not include flavoured or sweetened milk, condensed milk or skim milk.
If you’re choosing cow’s milk for your baby, make sure it’s whole milk rather than skim milk. Mr Adi/Shutterstock Why is this controversial?
Australian government guidelines recommend “cow’s milk should not be given as the main drink to infants under 12 months”. This seems to conflict with the updated WHO advice. However, WHO’s advice is targeted at governments and health authorities rather than directly at parents.
The Australian dietary guidelines are under review and the latest WHO advice is expected to inform that process.
OK, so how about iron?
Iron is an essential nutrient for everyone but it is particularly important for babies as it is vital for growth and brain development. Babies’ bodies usually store enough iron during the final few weeks of pregnancy to last until they are at least six months of age. However, if babies are born early (prematurely), if their umbilical cords are clamped too quickly or their mothers are anaemic during pregnancy, their iron stores may be reduced.
Cow’s milk is not a good source of iron. Most infant formula is made from cow’s milk and so has iron added. Breastmilk is also low in iron but much more of the iron in breastmilk is taken up by babies’ bodies than iron in cow’s milk.
Babies should not rely on milk (including infant formula) to supply iron after six months. So the latest WHO advice emphasises the importance of giving babies iron-rich solid foods from this age. These foods include:
- meat
- eggs
- vegetables, including beans and green leafy vegetables
- pulses, including lentils
- ground seeds and nuts (such as peanut or other nut butters, but with no added salt or sugar).
You may have heard that giving babies whole cow’s milk can cause allergies. In fact, whole cow’s milk is no more likely to cause allergies than infant formula based on cow’s milk.
If you’re introducing cow’s milk at six months, offer iron-rich foods too, such as meat or lentils. pamuk/Shutterstock What are my options?
The latest WHO recommendation that formula-fed babies can switch to cow’s milk from six months could save you money. Infant formula can cost more than five times more than fresh milk (A$2.25-$8.30 a litre versus $1.50 a litre).
For families who continue to use infant formula, it may be reassuring to know that if infant formula becomes hard to get due to a natural disaster or some other supply chain disruption fresh cow’s milk is fine to use from six months.
It is also important to know what has not changed in the latest feeding advice. WHO still recommends infants have only breastmilk for their first six months and then continue breastfeeding for up to two years or more. It is also still the case that infants under six months who are not breastfed or who need extra milk should be fed infant formula. Toddler formula for children over 12 months is not recommended.
All infant formula available in Australia must meet the same standard for nutritional composition and food safety. So, the cheapest infant formula is just as good as the most expensive.
What’s the take-home message?
The bottom line is your baby can safely switch from infant formula to fresh, full-fat cow’s milk from six months as part of a healthy diet with iron-rich foods. Likewise, cow’s milk can also be used to supplement or replace breastfeeding from six months, again alongside iron-rich foods.
If you have questions about introducing solids your GP, child health nurse or dietitian can help. If you need support with breastfeeding or starting solids you can call the National Breastfeeding Helpline (1800 686 268) or a lactation consultant.
Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University; Naomi Hull, PhD candidate, food security for infants and young children, University of Sydney, and Nina Jane Chad, Research Fellow, University of Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
The Doctor Who Wants Us To Exercise Less, & Move 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.
Today we’re talking about Dr. Rangan Chatterjee. He’s a medical doctor with decades of experience, and he wants us all to proactively stay in good health, rather than waiting for things to go wrong.
Great! What’s his deal?
Dr. Chatterjee advises that we take care of the following four pillars of good health:
- Relaxation
- Food
- Movement
- Sleep
And, they’re not in this order at random. Usually advice starts with diet and exercise, doesn’t it?
But for Dr. Chatterjee, it’s useless to try to tackle diet first if one is stressed-to-death by other things. As for food next, he knows that a good diet will fuel the next steps nicely. Speaking of next steps, a day full of movement is the ideal setup to a good night’s sleep—ready for a relaxing next day.
Relaxation
Here, Dr. Chatterjee advises that we go with what works for us. It could be meditation or yoga… Or it could be having a nice cup of tea while looking out of the window.
What’s most important, he says, is that we should take at least 15 minutes per day as “me time”, not as a reward for when we’ve done our work/chores/etc, but as something integrated into our routine, preferably early in the day.
Food
There are no grand surprises here: Dr. Chatterjee advocates for a majority plant-based diet, whole foods, and importantly, avoiding sugar.
He’s also an advocate of intermittent fasting, but only so far as is comfortable and practicable. Intermittent fasting can give great benefits, but it’s no good if that comes at a cost of making us stressed and suffering!
Movement
This one’s important. Well, they all are, but this one’s particularly characteristic to Dr. Chatterjee’s approach. He wants us to exercise less, and move more.
The reason for this is that strenuous exercise will tend to speed up our metabolism to the point that we will be prompted to eat high calorie quick-energy foods to compensate, and when we do, our body will rush to store that as fat, understanding (incorrectly) that we are in a time of great stress, because why else would we be exerting ourselves that much?
Instead, he advocates for building as much natural movement into our daily routine as possible. Walking more, taking the stairs, doing the gardening/housework.
That said, he does also advise some strength-training on a daily basis—bodyweight exercises like squats and lunges are top of his list.
Sleep
Here, aside from the usual “sleep hygiene” advices (dark cool room, fresh bedding, etc), he also advises we do as he does, and take an hour before bedtime as a purely wind-down time. In gentle lighting, perhaps reading (not on a bright screen!), for example.
Ready to start the next day, relaxed and ready to go.
If you’d like to know more about Dr. Chatterjee’s approach…
You can check out his:
If you don’t know where to start, we recommend the blog! It has a lot of guests there too, including Wim Hof, Gabor Maté, Mindy Pelz, and come to think of it, a lot of other people we’ve also featured ideas from previously!
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
How Does Fat Actually Leave The Body? Where Does It Go?
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.
Fat loss is often misunderstood, with many believing it simply “vanishes” through exercise, is simply excreted in solid form in the bathroom, or materially disappears when converted for energy. However, the principle of conservation of mass plays out here, in that the mass in fat doesn’t disappear—it changes its arrangement:
In and out
Fat is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms, with an example common form of fat in the body being C55H104O6. That’s a lot of Cs and Hs, and a few Os.
When fat leaves the body, it has been primarily converted into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).
According to a 2014 study by the University of South Wales, 84% of the mass of fat exits the body as CO2 exhaled through breathing, while 16% leaves as water through sweat, urine, and other bodily fluids (all of which contain H2O).
You’ll notice there are a lot more Os going out, proportionally, than we originally had in the C55H104O6. For this reason, the process requires oxygen intake; for every 10 kilograms of fat burned, by simple mathematics the body needs around 29 kilograms of oxygen.
Physical activity plays a crucial role in fat loss. When the body exerts itself, it naturally switches to a higher oxygen metabolism necessary for fat breakdown. This effect is amplified during intermittent fasting, which boosts human growth hormone (HGH), a hormone that aids in fat metabolism.
However, simply hyperventilating won’t work; exercise is essential to activate these processes—otherwise it’s just a case of oxygen in, oxygen out, without involving the body’s chemical energy reserves.
Consequently, one of the best diet-and-exercise combinations for fat loss is intermittent fasting with high-intensity interval training.
And, as for what to eat, this video says raw vegan, but honestly, that’s not scientific consensus. However, a diet rich in unprocessed (or minimally processed) fruits and vegetables definitely is where it’s at, with the plant-heavy Mediterranean diet generally scoring highest—which can be further improved by skipping the mammals to make it pesco-Mediterranean. Current scientific consensus does not give any extra benefits for also omitting moderate consumption of fish and fermented dairy products, so include those if you want, or skip those if you prefer.
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:
Are You A Calorie-Burning Machine? (Calorie Mythbusting)
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Cold Truth About Respiratory Infections
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 Pathogens That Came In From The Cold
Yesterday, we asked you about your climate-themed policy for avoiding respiratory infections, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of answers:
- About 46% of respondents said “Temperature has no bearing on infection risk”
- About 31% of respondents said “It’s important to get plenty of cold, fresh air, as this kills/inactivates pathogens”
- About 22% of respondents said “It’s important to stay warm to avoid getting colds, flu, etc”
Some gave rationales, including…
For “stay warm”:
❝Childhood lessons❞
For “get cold, fresh air”:
❝I just feel that it’s healthy to get fresh air daily. Whether it kills germs, I don’t know❞
For “temperature has no bearing”:
❝If climate issue affected respiratory infections, would people in the tropics suffer more than those in colder climates? Pollutants may affect respiratory infections, but I doubt just temperature would do so.❞
So, what does the science say?
It’s important to stay warm to avoid getting colds, flu, etc: True or False?
False, simply. Cold weather does increase the infection risk, but for reasons that a hat and scarf won’t protect you from. More on this later, but for now, let’s lay to rest the idea that bodily chilling will promote infection by cold, flu, etc.
In a small-ish but statistically significant study (n=180), it was found that…
❝There was no evidence that chilling caused any acute change in symptom scores❞
Read more: Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms
Note: they do mention in their conclusion that chilling the feet “causes the onset of cold symptoms in about 10% of subjects who are chilled”, but the data does not support that conclusion, and the only clear indicator is that people who are more prone to colds generally, were more prone to getting a cold after a cold water footbath.
In other words, people who were more prone to colds remained more prone to colds, just the same.
It’s important to get plenty of cold, fresh air, as this kills/inactivates pathogens: True or False?
Broadly False, though most pathogens do have an optimal operating temperature that (for obvious reasons) is around normal human body temperature.
However, given that they don’t generally have to survive outside of a host body for long to get passed on, the fact that the pathogens may be a little sluggish in the great outdoors will not change the fact that they will be delighted by the climate in your respiratory tract as soon as you get back into the warm.
With regard to the cold air not being a reliable killer/inactivator of pathogens, we call to the witness stand…
Polar Bear Dies From Bird Flu As H5N1 Spreads Across Globe
(it was found near Utqiagvik, one of the northernmost communities in Alaska)
Because pathogens like human body temperature, raising the body temperature is a way to kill/inactivate them: True or False?
True! Unfortunately, it’s also a way to kill us. Because we, too, cannot survive for long above our normal body temperature.
So, for example, bundling up warmly and cranking up the heating won’t necessarily help, because:
- if the temperature is comfortable for you, it’s comfortable for the pathogen
- if the temperature is dangerous to the pathogen, it’s dangerous to you too
This is why the fever response evolved, and/but why many people with fevers die anyway. It’s the body’s way of playing chicken with the pathogen, challenging “guess which of us can survive this for longer!”
Temperature has no bearing on infection risk: True or False?
True and/or False, circumstantially. This one’s a little complex, but let’s break it down to the essentials.
- Temperature has no direct effect, for the reasons we outlined above
- Temperature is often related to humidity, which does have an effect
- Temperature does tend to influence human behavior (more time spent in open spaces with good ventilation vs more time spent in closed quarters with poor ventilation and/or recycled air), which has an obvious effect on transmission rates
The first one we covered, and the third one is self-evident, so let’s look at the second one:
Temperature is often related to humidity, which does have an effect
When the environmental temperature is warmer, water droplets in the air will tend to be bigger, and thus drop to the ground much more quickly.
When the environmental temperature is colder, water droplets in the air will tend to be smaller, and thus stay in the air for longer (along with any pathogens those water droplets may be carrying).
Some papers on the impact of this:
- Cold temperature and low humidity are associated with increased occurrence of respiratory tract infections
- A Decrease in Temperature and Humidity Precedes Human Rhinovirus Infections in a Cold Climate
So whatever temperature you like to keep your environment, humidity is a protective factor against respiratory infections, and dry air is a risk factor.
So, for example:
- If the weather doesn’t suit having good ventilation, a humidifier is a good option
- Being in an airplane is one of the worst places to be for this, outside of a hospital
Don’t have a humidifier? Here’s an example product on Amazon, but by all means shop around.
A crock pot with hot water in and the lid off is also a very workable workaround too
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:
-
The #1 Foot Health Secret Everyone Over 50 Should Know
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 favorite over-50s specialist physio Will Harlow is here to keep us on our toes:
Mobility requires mobilization
As we age, our toes are inclined to become stiffer. Stiff toes lead to balance issues and increased risk of falling.
A study cited in the video showed that two weeks of toe mobilization improved foot-ground contact by 30% in older adults, enhancing balance and reducing falls.
Here’s the routine:
- Toe flexion:
- Apply moisturizer or oil to your hands.
- Pull your toes downwards, then let them return their normal position.
- Repeat for one minute per foot.
- Toe extension:
- Rub hands from the heel under the toes.
- Push your toes upwards, then let them return to their normal position.
- Repeat for one minute per foot.
- Foot rotation:
- Hold both sides of your foot and twist it in one direction, then the other.
- This helps loosen foot joints and improve flexibility.
- Perform for one minute in each direction per foot.
For more on each of these plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like:
Steps For Keeping Your Feet A Healthy Foundation
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:
- Toe flexion:
-
Why do disinfectants only kill 99.9% of germs? Here’s the science
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.
Have you ever wondered why most disinfectants indicate they kill 99.9% or 99.99% of germs, but never promise to wipe out all of them? Perhaps the thought has crossed your mind mid-way through cleaning your kitchen or bathroom.
Surely, in a world where science is able to do all sorts of amazing things, someone would have invented a disinfectant that is 100% effective?
The answer to this conundrum requires understanding a bit of microbiology and a bit of mathematics.
Davor Geber/Shutterstock What is a disinfectant?
A disinfectant is a substance used to kill or inactivate bacteria, viruses and other microbes on inanimate objects.
There are literally millions of microbes on surfaces and objects in our domestic environment. While most microbes are not harmful (and some are even good for us) a small proportion can make us sick.
Although disinfection can include physical interventions such as heat treatment or the use of UV light, typically when we think of disinfectants we are referring to the use of chemicals to kill microbes on surfaces or objects.
Chemical disinfectants often contain active ingredients such as alcohols, chlorine compounds and hydrogen peroxide which can target vital components of different microbes to kill them.
Diseinfectants can contain a range of ingredients. Maridav/Shutterstock The maths of microbial elimination
In the past few years we’ve all become familiar with the concept of exponential growth in the context of the spread of COVID cases.
This is where numbers grow at an ever-accelerating rate, which can lead to an explosion in the size of something very quickly. For example, if a colony of 100 bacteria doubles every hour, in 24 hours’ time the population of bacteria would be more than 1.5 billion.
Conversely, the killing or inactivating of microbes follows a logarithmic decay pattern, which is essentially the opposite of exponential growth. Here, while the number of microbes decreases over time, the rate of death becomes slower as the number of microbes becomes smaller.
For example, if a particular disinfectant kills 90% of bacteria every minute, after one minute, only 10% of the original bacteria will remain. After the next minute, 10% of that remaining 10% (or 1% of the original amount) will remain, and so on.
Because of this logarithmic decay pattern, it’s not possible to ever claim you can kill 100% of any microbial population. You can only ever scientifically say that you are able to reduce the microbial load by a proportion of the initial population. This is why most disinfectants sold for domestic use indicate they kill 99.9% of germs.
Other products such as hand sanitisers and disinfectant wipes, which also often purport to kill 99.9% of germs, follow the same principle.
You might have noticed none of the cleaning products in your laundry cupboard kill 100% of germs. Africa Studio/Shutterstock Real-world implications
As with a lot of science, things get a bit more complicated in the real world than they are in the laboratory. There are a number of other factors to consider when assessing how well a disinfectant is likely to remove microbes from a surface.
One of these factors is the size of the initial microbial population that you’re trying to get rid of. That is, the more contaminated a surface is, the harder the disinfectant needs to work to eliminate the microbes.
If for example you were to start off with only 100 microbes on a surface or object, and you removed 99.9% of these using a disinfectant, you could have a lot of confidence that you have effectively removed all the microbes from that surface or object (called sterilisation).
In contrast, if you have a large initial microbial population of hundreds of millions or billions of microbes contaminating a surface, even reducing the microbial load by 99.9% may still mean there are potentially millions of microbes remaining on the surface.
Time is is a key factor that determines how effectively microbes are killed. So exposing a highly contaminated surface to disinfectant for a longer period is one way to ensure you kill more of the microbial population.
This is why if you look closely at the labels of many common household disinfectants, they will often suggest that to disinfect you should apply the product then wait a specified time before wiping clean. So always consult the label on the product you’re using.
Disinfectants won’t necessarily work in your kitchen exactly like they work in a lab. Ground Picture/Shutterstock Other factors such as temperature, humidity and the type of surface also influence how well a disinfectant works outside the lab.
Similarly, microbes in the real world may be either more or less sensitive to disinfection than those used for testing in the lab.
Disinfectants are one part infection control
The sensible use of disinfectants plays an important role in our daily lives in reducing our exposure to pathogens (microbes that cause illness). They can therefore reduce our chances of getting sick.
The fact disinfectants can’t be shown to be 100% effective from a scientific perspective in no way detracts from their importance in infection control. But their use should always be complemented by other infection control practices, such as hand washing, to reduce the risk of infection.
Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
