For anyone telling themselves their physical peak is long behind them (along with their 20s), a long-running Swedish study might have some good news.

After tracking the same group of people for nearly five decades, researchers found that overall physical capacity peaks around age 35. After that, the slow decline begins, whether you’re a gym rat or someone who considers walking to the fridge a workout.

The research, published in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, followed several hundred participants enrolled in the Swedish Physical Activity and Fitness cohort. The study began in 1974, when participants were 16 years old, and checked in repeatedly over the next 47 years. Researchers measured aerobic capacity, muscular endurance, and muscle power at ages 16, 27, 34, 52, and 63, which makes this one of the rare studies that watches the same bodies age in real time instead of comparing different generations.

The results draw a clear curve. Muscular endurance and aerobic capacity reached their highest point between the late 20s and mid-30s, then started their steady decline. Early on, the drop stayed under one percent per year. As participants aged, the rate picked up speed, reaching declines of up to 2.5 percent annually. By their early 60s, participants had lost between 30 and 48 percent of their peak physical capacity.

Muscle power plays by its own rules. Men hit their high point in their late 20s, while women peak earlier, closer to 19. After that, everyone slides downhill at roughly the same pace, just on slightly different starting blocks.

The study also pokes a hole in the idea that consistent exercise delays the peak itself. Even participants who stayed active their entire lives still hit their ceiling around the same age. What exercise did change was how rough the descent felt.

Participants who remained physically active from adolescence onward held onto higher fitness levels across every measurement. Even those who increased activity later in adulthood saw measurable improvements, with physical capacity rising by about 10% compared to less active peers.

“It is never too late to start moving,” said lead author Maria Westerståhl of the Karolinska Institute in a statement, adding that physical activity slows performance loss even if it can’t stop it.

This doesn’t mean life ends at 36. It means the idea of constant physical upgrade was never real. Bodies rise, level off, then decline, and how much you decide to move decides how rough that decline feels. Aging stings most when people pretend it isn’t happening.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables, and require far tighter regulation, according to a new report.

UPFs and cigarettes are engineered to encourage addiction and consumption, researchers from three US universities said, pointing to the parallels in widespread health harms that link both.

UPFs, which are widely available worldwide, are food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using emulsifiers or artificial colouring and flavours. The category includes soft drinks and packaged snacks such as crisps and biscuits.

There are similarities in the production processes of UPFs and cigarettes, and in manufacturers’ efforts to optimise the “doses” of products and how quickly they act on reward pathways in the body, according to the paper from researchers at Harvard, the University of Michigan and Duke University.

They draw on data from the fields of addiction science, nutrition and public health history to make their comparisons, published on 3 February in the healthcare journal the Milbank Quarterly.

The authors suggest that marketing claims on the products, such as being “low fat” or “sugar free”, are “health washing” that can stall regulation, akin to the advertising of cigarette filters in the 1950s as protective innovations that “in practice offered little meaningful benefit”. Quick Guide What is ultra-processed food? Show

“Many UPFs share more characteristics with cigarettes than with minimally processed fruits or vegetables and therefore warrant regulation commensurate with the significant public health risks they pose,” they concluded.

One of the authors, Prof Ashley Gearhardt of the University of Michigan, a clinical psychologist specialising in addiction, said her patients made the same links: “They would say, ‘I feel addicted to this stuff, I crave it – I used to smoke cigarettes [and] now I have the same habit but it’s with soda and doughnuts. I know it’s killing me; I want to quit, but I can’t.’”

The debate around UPFs fits a well-worn pattern in the field of addiction, according to Gearhardt. She said: “We just blame it on the individual for a while and say ‘oh, you know, just smoke in moderation, drink in moderation’ – and eventually we get to a point where we understand the levers that the industry can pull to create products that can really hook people.”

While food, unlike tobacco, is essential for survival, the authors argue that the distinction makes action doubly necessary because it is difficult to opt out of the modern food environment.

Gearhardt said it should be possible to distinguish between harmful UPFs and other foodstuffs in the same way that alcoholic drinks are differentiated from other beverages.

UPFs meet “established benchmarks” as to whether a substance should be considered addictive, the paper argues, with design features that “can drive compulsive use” – although “the harms of UPFs are clear, irrespective of their addictive nature”.

The authors suggested that lessons from tobacco regulation, “including litigation, marketing restrictions and structural interventions”, could offer a guide to reducing harm related to UPFs, calling for public health efforts to “shift from individual responsibility to food industry accountability”.

Prof Martin Warren, chief scientific officer at the Quadram Institute, a specialist food research centre, said that while there were parallels between UPFs and tobacco, the authors risked “overreach” in their comparisons. Junk food leads to more children being obese than underweight for first time Read more

There were questions, he said, over whether UPFs were, like nicotine, “intrinsically addictive in a pharmacological sense, or whether they mainly exploit learned preferences, reward conditioning and convenience”.

He said it was also important to consider whether the adverse health effects attributed to UPFs came from their contents, or because they replaced “whole foods rich in fibre, micronutrients and protective phytochemicals”. He said: “This distinction matters, because it influences whether regulatory responses should mirror tobacco control or instead prioritise dietary quality, reformulation standards, and food system diversification.”

Dr Githinji Gitahi, chief executive of Amref Health Africa, said: “This journal article reinforces a growing public health alarm sounding across Africa [where] corporates have found a comfortable, and profitable, nexus: weak government regulation on harmful products and a changing pattern of consumption.

“All this places new and preventable pressures on already stretched health systems,” he said. “Without publicly led interventions on the rising burden of non-communicable diseases, we risk health systems’ collapse.”

Golden State Warriors forward Draymond Green once told me he enjoys being the dumbest person in the room.

That’s easy for me. (Well, not necessarily enjoying the feeling, but being the least smart, not necessarily enjoying the feeling.) Even though most people fall prey to the better-than average effect, I rarely think I’m on the smart side of average. Plenty of people seem smarter. Wiser. Savvier. Better able to sift through the noise, and make great decisions.

That describes me. Maybe you think that describes you, too.

But it’s likely you’re smarter than you imagine, especially if any of the following are apply.

1. You change your mind.

Love him or hate him (there’s rarely a middle ground where the Space Cowboy is concerned), there’s no denying the fact that Jeff Bezos is often right. Yet according to Bezos, the number one indicator of high intelligence is a willingness to change your mind.

As Bezos says:

The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.

Science backs Bezos up, too. A series of experiments published by Harvard Business Review show that changing your mind can actually be smarter: entrepreneurs who adapted, revised, and changed their positions during a pitch competition were six times more likely to win the competition.

The next time you question your intelligence, think about how often you’ve changed your mind in recent days. If the answer is often, you’re probably smarter than you think.

Because, as Thinking, Fast and Slow author Daniel Kahneman says, “No one enjoys being wrong, but I do enjoy having been wrong, because it means I am now less wrong.” 2. You procrastinate.

While we all procrastinate from time to time, most people assume putting off something important indicates a lack of intelligence. After all, the smart move is to avoid waiting till the last minute.

Or not. For example, Adam Grant sees procrastination as a key to innovation. According to Grant:

The time Steve Jobs was putting things off and noodling on possibilities was time well-spent in letting more divergent ideas come to the table, as opposed to diving right in with the most conventional, the most obvious, the most familiar.

Science supports the value of procrastination. A study published in Journal of Research in Personality found that people with high IQs tend to procrastinate more, if only because high intelligence affords the luxury of waiting to begin a task.

If you put something off simply because you don’t feel like doing it, that’s one thing. But if you put something off because you don’t think you’ve found the best solution, the best path, or the best option, waiting to get started could be the smartest approach to take. 3. You spend time alone.

It makes sense that smart people enjoy spending time with other smart people. Oddly enough, though, that’s often not the case. Research published in British Journal of Psychology found that the more highly intelligent people socialize, the less happy they tend to be.

Why? The researchers speculate one reason could be that the smarter you are, the more focused you might be on achieving longer-term goals. If that’s the case, spending time with friends — no matter how smart they might be — could seem more distracting than helpful.

So if you prefer to spend time alone to focus on a project, to improve a skill, to refine your business plan, or to tick off all the steps required to reach your goals, that might make you a loner.

But it doesn’t mean you lack intelligence. You might just be smarter than the rest of us. 4. You’re a night owl.

Early birds get all the press. Apple CEO Tim Cook starts his morning routine — he wakes up even earlier — at 3:45 a.m. General Motors CEO Mary Barra gets to the office by 6 a.m. Conventional wisdom says rising and shining early is the smart approach.

Then again, research published in Personality and Individual Differences determined that night owls — people who feel more alert and productive well into the late hours — are more likely to have higher intelligence.

Along the same lines, research published in the British Medical Journal found that night owls also tend to have better jobs, and earn larger incomes, than early risers.

Who’s the smart one now?

Actually, no one. Staying up late and waking up late won’t automatically make you smarter. Neither will getting up earlier. What matters is what works best for you. If 6 a.m. is the perfect start time, the smart move is to consistently start your workday at 6 a.m. If 8:30 a.m. is the optimum time, the smart move is to start at 8:30.

Basing decisions on what works best for you?

That’s an obvious sign of intelligence.

For many founders, late nights at the office and nonstop schedules are all part of the routine. Kevin O’Leary, however, is pushing back on that mindset, arguing that young entrepreneurs should stop worshipping 18-hour workdays.

“How stupid is that? You gotta get some sleep, you have to eat well, and you gotta stay focused,” O’Leary said in an Instagram video posted Thursday. “That’s how you’re successful.”

Yet many business leaders run on too little sleep. A 2014 Harvard Business Review survey of more than 180 business leaders showed that four in 10 reported getting insufficient rest lat least four nights a week.

For decades, corporate culture has promoted the idea that overworking is a badge of honor and proof of commitment. O’Leary thinks breaking down that myth is long overdue.

Featured Video

How Canva Became the Power Player in the AI Design Wars

Research suggests sleep plays a critical role in entrepreneurial decision-making. A 2019 study revealed that sleep-deprived entrepreneurs were more likely to focus on surface-level features of new business ideas rather than the deeper factors that determine their long-term potential. As a result, they were more likely to favor weaker ventures. Even a single night of poor sleep could impair judgment, researchers found.

The assumption that longer hours lead to increased productivity also fails to hold up. Sleep-deprived entrepreneurs tend to make poorer decisions and show lower levels of creativity and strong leadership.

Researchers also found that making important decisions becomes more difficult after a long day of work. Their 2022 study described this effect as “cognitive fatigue,” a state in which careful thinking requires greater mental effort and people are more likely to make impulsive decisions.

That is why O’Leary said business leaders should make important decisions earlier in the day, when energy and mental clarity are at their peak. Regardless, a sleepless founder is a deal-breaker for the ‘Shark Tank’ star.

“When I see somebody who looks like they’re dead and I’m going to meet this business startup, I don’t invest,” he said.

About a decade ago, many media outlets—including WIRED—zeroed in on a weird trend at the intersection of mental health, drug science, and Silicon Valley biohacking: microdosing, or the practice of taking a small amount of a psychedelic drug seeking not full-blown hallucinatory revels but gentler, more stable effects. Typically using psilocybin mushrooms or LSD, the archetypal microdoser sought less melting walls and open-eye kaleidoscopic visuals than boosts in mood and energy, like a gentle spring breeze blowing through the mind.

Anecdotal reports pitched microdosing as a kind of psychedelic Swiss Army knife, providing everything from increased focus to a spiked libido and (perhaps most promisingly) lowered reported levels of depression. It was a miracle for many. Others remained wary. Could 5 percent of a dose of acid really do all that? A new, wide-ranging study by an Australian biopharma company suggests that microdosing’s benefits may indeed be drastically overstated—at least when it comes to addressing symptoms of clinical depression.

A Phase 2B trial of 89 adult patients conducted by Melbourne-based MindBio Therapeutics, investigating the effects of microdosing LSD in the treatment of major depressive disorder, found that the psychedelic was actually outperformed by a placebo. Across an eight-week period, symptoms were gauged using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), a widely recognized tool for the clinical evaluation of depression.

The study has not yet been published. But MindBio’s CEO Justin Hanka recently released the top-line results on his LinkedIn, eager to show that his company was “in front of the curve in microdosing research.” He called it “the most vigorous placebo controlled trial ever performed in microdosing.” It found that patients dosed with a small amount of LSD (ranging from 4 to 20μg, or micrograms, well below the threshold of a mind-blowing hallucinogenic dose) showed observable upticks in feelings of well-being, but worse MADRS scores, compared to patients given a placebo in the form of a caffeine pill. (Because patients in psychedelic trials typically expect some kind of mind-altering effect, studies are often blinded using so-called “active placebos,” like caffeine or methylphenidate, which have their own observable psychoactive properties.)

This means, essentially, that a medium-strength cup of coffee may prove more beneficial in treating major depressive disorder than a tiny dose of acid. Good news for habitual caffeine users, perhaps, but less so for researchers (and biopharma startups) counting on the efficacy of psychedelic microdosing.

“It’s probably a nail in the coffin of using microdosing to treat clinical depression,” Hanka says. “It probably improves the way depressed people feel—just not enough to be clinically significant or statistically meaningful.”

However despairing, these results conform with the suspicions of some more skeptical researchers, who have long believed that the benefits of microdosing are less the result of a teeny-tiny psychedelic catalyst, and more attributable to the so-called “placebo effect.”

In 2020, Jay A. Olson, then a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, conducted an experiment. He gave 33 participants a placebo, telling them it was actually a dose of a psilocybin-like drug. They were led to believe there was no placebo group. Other researchers who were in on the bit acted out the effects of the drug, in a room treated with trippy lighting and other visual stimulants, in an attempt to curate the “optimized expectation” of a psychedelic experience.

The resulting paper, titled “Tripping on Nothing,” found that a majority of participants had reported feeling the effects of the drug—despite there being no real drug whatsoever. “The main conclusion we had is that the placebo effect can be stronger than expected in psychedelic studies,” Olson, now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto, tells WIRED. “Placebo effects were stronger than what you would get from microdosing.”

More than a stick in the eye to the microdosing faithful, Olson maintains that the study’s key findings had more to do with the actual role, and power, of the placebo effect. “The public has a lot of misconceptions about the placebo effect,” he says. “There’s this assumption that placebo effects are extremely weak, or that they’re not real.”

Olson goes on to say that placebo effects in psychedelic trials can be further juiced by the hype around the drugs themselves. Patients may enter a trial expecting a certain experience, and their mind is able to conjure a version of that experience, in turn. In Olson’s study, it wasn’t a matter of microdosing effects not being real, but that those effects may be caused by environment, or patient expectation. As he puts it: “It can be true at the same time that microdosing can have positive effects on people, and that those effects are perhaps almost entirely placebo.”

This itself raises a sticky question about MindBio’s study. How could a placebo group, who thinks they’re taking LSD, perform better than an active control group, members of which both think they’re taking LSD and are actually taking it? The answer comes from the design of the study itself.

Using what’s called a “double-dummy” design, MindBio’s researchers informed patients that they’d either be receiving LSD, a caffeine pill, or a dose of methylphenidate, better known as Ritalin or Concerta. (No patients were actually administered the methylphenidate.) This means that patient expectation was lowered, as they could ascribe any perceived effects to either the LSD or either of the active placebos. Patients taking LSD microdoses may well have believed they were merely on a stimulant. All patients followed an adaptation of the “Fadiman protocol,” a popular microdosing programme that sees patients taking a small dose of the given drug once every three days.

Jim Fadiman, the veteran psychedelic researcher after whom the protocol is named, rejects MindBio’s conclusions, and trial design, out of hand. Because, Fadiman believes, patients were given the active caffeine placebo, their reported benefits may well be attributable not to a pure placebo effect, but to the actual psychoactive properties of that drug.

“Double-dummy is a remarkably apt term,” Fadiman, 86, sneers. “What I know is that if you take enough caffeine, you will not be depressed!”

Fadiman points to MindBio’s earlier, Phase 2A study, recently published in the journal Neuropharmacology, which drew markedly different conclusions. It was a non-blinded, so-called “open label” study, meaning patients knew definitely that they were being microdosed with LSD. This study found that MADRS scores decreased by 59.5 percent, with effects lasting as long as six months. It also found improvements in stress, rumination, anxiety, and patient quality of life. Fadiman says that this reportage is more consistent with his own research on microdosing. “Their prior study did wonderfully with LSD,” Fadiman says. “I have collected literally hundreds of real world reports over the years that validate those findings.”

MindBio’s Hanka stands by the science. “We are bewildered at the significant difference between the open label Phase 2A trial results and the Phase 2B trial results,” he says. “But that is the nature of good science—a properly controlled trial will get a proper result. Our Phase 2B trial was of the highest standard, a triple-blind, double-dummy, active placebo controlled trial. I haven't seen another psychedelic trial that has gone to these lengths to control and blind a trial.”

Despite these findings, some microdosing true believers don’t seem especially shaken. In 2017, writer Ayelet Waldman (best known as the author of the Mommy-Track Mysteries series of novels that follow the adventures of stay-at-home-mom-cum-sleuth Juliet Applebaum) published A Really Good Day, a diaristic account of her own self-experiments using microdosing to treat an intractable mood disorder. She tells WIRED she’s not especially bothered by the implication that her positive shifts in mood may have merely been placebo. “In my book I took very seriously the possibility that what I was experiencing was the mother of all placebo effects,” Waldman says. “I wrote about this a number of times in various chapters and decided in the end it didn’t matter. What mattered was that I felt better.”

Perhaps that’s true enough. If the effects are measurable, and repeatable, then it should hardly matter if they’re attributable to a sub-perceptual dose of lysergic acid, or to the (perhaps equally profound) mysteries of the placebo. Still, one cannot help but wonder why anyone looking to use LSD to aid severe clinical depression would bother assuming the legal risk of procuring and consuming a drug still classified under Schedule I by the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

Certainly, for his part, Justin Hanka seems content to pivot MindBio’s research into a new field. His next project is “Booze A.I.”: a smartphone app that uses artificial intelligence to scan the human voice for relevant biomarkers that determine blood alcohol concentration. He’s leaving microdosing in the rearview. “I put millions of dollars into this myself,” he says. “Had I known six years ago what I know about psychedelics, I probably wouldn’t have ventured into the microdosing field.”

Even though we all define “success” differently (as well we should), most of us factor wealth into our success equations, if only to achieve the peace of mind that comes with some level of financial freedom.

So if I ask you what best predicts financial success, what would you say? Better opportunities? Luck? (Research shows “almost never (do) the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, (but are) overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals.”

Or, if you’re like me, you might say intelligence. Every financially successful person I know is really smart. Maybe that’s why, when Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman asked people how great a role innate intelligence plays in financial success (for example, how much the difference between my income and someone else’s is based on our relative IQs) most people said 25 percent. Some went as high as 50 percent.

But they’re (we’re) wrong. Heckman’s research shows innate intelligence plays, at best, a 1 to 2 percent role. Instead, financial success is correlated with personality traits that make up conscientiousness: self-discipline, perseverance, and diligence.

The study’s findings mesh nicely with Mark Cuban’s position on the biggest predictor of success. According to Cuban:

It’s not about money or connections. It’s the willingness to outwork and outlearn everyone.

Take luck. While luck plays a role, as the authors of a Cornell study wrote, “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice versa. Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck.” Plus, you can’t control luck.

And you can only partly control IQ. You can certainly become more educated. And fluid intelligence — the ability to think logically and solve problems independent of acquired knowledge — is definitely trainable. But still; I’ll never be as smart as, well, probably half the population. (I’m decidedly average in most things.)

But what you can control is how conscientious you are. How diligent you are. How persistent you are.

How hard you work, and how hard you work to learn. Hard work is the great equalizer.

That’s true even if your definition of success leans heavily toward the quality of personal relationships, maintaining a positive work-life balance, or making a meaningful difference in the lives of others. In those cases, hard work is still the great equalizer. Great relationships require consistent effort and persistence. Work-life balance requires consistent effort and persistence. Making a meaningful difference in other people’s lives requires consistent effort and persistence.

Want to know whether you’ll get rich? Work to get smarter. Work to gain skills and experience. Work to find — and seize — opportunities.

Most of all, focus on being as diligent, persistent, and disciplined as you can possibly be.

Because science says those attributes will have the biggest impact on your success, in whatever way you choose to define it.

Day or night, many of us grind or clench our teeth, and don’t even realise we’re doing it. Here are three questions to ask yourself.

At least once a week, do you:

feel sore in your temple, face, jaw or near your ear?

have pain when you open your mouth or chew?

feel your jaw lock, click or become stuck?

If you answered “yes” at least once, you may be grinding or clenching your teeth (known as bruxism).

So why do we do it? And is there any way to stop? Let’s take a look.

What happens when you clench or grind?

Clenching or grinding your teeth is involuntary. We unconsciously activate our chewing muscles, tightening or thrusting the bottom jaw and clenching the teeth together or grinding them against one another.

Nearly one in six of us do this while sleeping, and one in four while awake.

Grinding your teeth while asleep makes a distinct noise. (If you share a bed, your partner might be able to tell you about it!) The sound of teeth grinding is like nails scraping a board. Is it bad for you?

Mild, occasional grinding or clenching isn’t usually a problem.

But if you do it often or very forcefully, this habit can cause many tooth, jaw joint and muscle issues, interrupt sleep, and contribute to tension headaches or ear pain.

These issues can become painful and be expensive to manage.

Over time, it can also fracture and crack your teeth. Why do I clench or grind my teeth?

There is usually a mix of physical, mental and lifestyle factors.

You are more likely to clench and grind if you:

experience stress, anxiety and depression

take certain medications, such as those used to manage schizophrenia, psychosis and depression

have too much caffeine, nicotine and/or alcohol

experience interrupted sleep, including from unexpected noises such as phone notifications.

There is also a strong link with sleep apnoea, a condition which stops you breathing regularly while asleep and deprives your brain and body of oxygen.

Low oxygen triggers the release of stress hormones. These increase your heart rate and activate full body muscle spasms, which can also increase grinding and clenching. Can my dentist tell from looking at my teeth?

Your dentist will usually review any health issues and medications. They may ask if you experience jaw pain, headaches, difficulty chewing or jaw locking. They may also ask about your sleep experience.

In your mouth, your dentist will look for teeth or fillings that have been chipped or worn down.

Teeth that are unusually worn down can also be a sign of acid reflux. This causes stomach acid to seep into the mouth, which softens the hard enamel that protects your tooth.

As a result, people who clench and grind their teeth and also suffer from reflux tend to chip and wear down their teeth a lot faster.

Another common sign is white ridges inside your cheeks and scallop-shaped indentations around your tongue. These are formed when the cheeks and tongue get caught against the teeth when you clench or grind them.

Other signs your dentist will look for include:

shrunken or receded gums

loose or wobbly teeth and

teeth that have moved away from their original position.

Dentist chair in an empty treatment room. A dentist may be able to tell you are grinding or clenching by looking at your teeth. Benyamin Bohlouli/Unsplash What can I do about it?

Clenching and grinding your teeth is highly manageable. Your health practitioner can help you identify the causes and manage symptoms.

Your doctor can review your medications and investigate potential underlying issues, such as reflux, arthritis in the jaw or sleep apnoea.

You can also ask your doctor to assess you for sleep apnoea to see if you need a polysomnograph test.

This test is the gold standard used to diagnose sleep disorders, including clenching and grinding your teeth.

To check if the test is required, your doctor will ask questions about your sleep experience, fatigue levels and whether you fall asleep while doing everyday activities.

A physiotherapist who specialises in jaw pain can help with joint locking, clicking or tension headaches with a combination of tailored exercises and stretching.

Pain-relieving medication can also help.

Your dentist may recommend a night guard or occlusal splint to protect your teeth from wear, reduce muscle tension and jaw clicking. These are acrylic or nylon appliances custom-made to fit over the teeth in your top jaw – like a sports mouth guard, but smaller.

When these options don’t relieve symptoms, some people may consider botox injections to block the signals that control specific jaw muscle movement, reducing clenching and associated pain.

However, botox is expensive and not effective for everyone. It is also short-acting, so will require frequent visits to a neurologist or specially trained dentist. The bottom line

If you think you’re clenching and grinding your teeth, speaking to your doctor or dentist is the best place to start.

But remember, physiotherapy, night guards and painkillers treat the consequences of clenching and grinding, not its causes.

So it’s also worth thinking about ways to reduce your stress and develop good sleep habits.

Some simple adjustments to relax and unwind – such as drinking less caffeine and alcohol and keeping devices out of the bedroom at night – may improve your health and help avoid pain and expensive treatments.

I think this is relevant to self-improvement project as I very, very often see Stoic thought appropriated in the wellness culture. Stripped from it's deep self-reflection, reduced to pithy motivationals.

Stoicism is great, and approachable if one wants to live an examined life - as I hope people would if they're interested in wellness. But it takes a a deeper dive than just watching some gymbro quote the greeks without reflection.

The Waking Up app features a couple of modern Stoic practitioners that may be of interest. Personally I prefer more Buddhist approach though.

This is NOT a sponsored link. I'm not affiliated with the company. I post the name as reference if someone want to find the plan they use for a DIY project.

The REVEGO pocket system is specifically engineered to allow full overlay cabinet fronts to slide into a dedicated narrow pocket, making the kitchen vanish completely when not in use.

If an admin still think it is spam. You can avoid losing time for everyone and BAN ME right away.

@slazer2au@lemmy.world please stop playing cop without knowing anything

The REVEGO pocket system is specifically engineered to allow full overlay cabinet fronts to slide into a dedicated narrow pocket, making the kitchen vanish completely when not in use

Dealing with manipulative people is one of the greatest frustrations in the workplace. Is there a foolproof way to stop manipulative people from getting under your skin? Yes, says Shadé Zahrai, PhD, organizational behavior expert and author of the new book Big Trust. In an insightful piece at CNBC.com, she lays out her simple method for stopping manipulators cold: Do not engage with them emotionally.

Of course, that’s easy to say, and a lot harder to do. Manipulators excel at twisting your emotions around and making you feel that you need to explain yourself, defend yourself, or get back in their good graces. Your best approach is to keep your mental focus on yourself, and managing your own emotional state, rather than focusing on the manipulator. Here’s how.

1. Know the signs.

If a conversation leaves you feeling defensive, unnerved, or agitated, there’s a good chance you’re dealing with manipulation. Think back over the conversation and ask yourself if some seemingly chance remark or criticism was really a sneaky for a manipulator to get what they wanted.

Of course, not every conversation that leaves you feeling upset is a case of manipulation. But it’s always smart to pause and consider that possibility. Once you recognize manipulative behavior for what it is, it will lose some of its power to influence you.

2. Never (visibly) lose your cool.

Whatever you’re feeling inside, make sure to appear calm and unfazed on the outside, Zahrai advises. “Research on status dynamics and dominance signaling shows that the least reactive person is often seen as the most powerful,” she writes. It’s a huge advantage if you can stay physically relaxed and neutral in the face of conflict or manipulation. Try to keep a relaxed facial expression as well. Pay attention to the pace and tone of your speech. We often unconsciously speak more quickly or in a higher tone when we’re upset.

Don’t be afraid to take a break and give yourself a breather. Tell the manipulator you need to use the rest room or answer a call. Or tell them that their comment or question deserves some thought and that you will get back to them. Take a quick walk around the block or do some quick calisthenics in your office to vent some of that extra emotional energy. Then, focus on slowing your breathing, especially your exhale. That sends a signal to your body that all is well. 3. Give emotionally neutral responses.

Zahrai recommends giving unemotional responses to manipulators. For example, a simple acknowledgement that you heard what they said, such as “Noted.” Or focus only on facts. Set straightforward but definite boundaries. If the manipulator attempts to draw you into a discussion or argument, give brief, emotionally neutral responses. Refuse to be drawn in. “This is where most people slip,” Zahrai writes. “They explain, defend, justify, and try to be understood. But feeding the emotional layer is exactly what keeps manipulation alive.”

She calls this approach “emotional non-cooperation.” And, she says, it withholds fuel from the manipulator, leaving them no way to feed the emotional fire. From their point of view, this is no fun at all. That’s why, if you practice this approach consistently, you may find that in time, the manipulation stops.