Salmon vs Tuna – 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 salmon to tuna, we picked the tuna.

Why?

It’s close, and there are merits and drawbacks to both!

In terms of macros, tuna is higher in protein, while salmon is higher in fats. How healthy are the fats, you ask? Well, it’s a mix, because while there are plenty of “good” fats in salmon, salmon is also 10x higher in saturated fat and 150% higher in cholesterol.

So when it comes to fats, if you want to eat fish and have the healthiest fats, one option is to skip the salmon, and instead serve tuna with some extra virgin olive oil.

We’ll call this section a clear win for tuna.

On the vitamin front, they are close to equal. Salmon has more of some vitamins, tuna has more of others; all in all we’d say the balance is in salmon’s favor, but by the time a portion of salmon is giving you 350% of your daily requirement, does it really matter that the same portion of tuna is “only” giving you 294% of the daily requirement? It goes like that for a lot of the vitamins they both contain.

Still, we’ll call this section a nominal win for salmon.

In the category of minerals, tuna is much higher in iron while salmon is higher in calcium. The rest of the minerals they both have, tuna is comfortably higher—and since the “% of RDA in a portion” figures are double-digit here rather than triple, those margins are relevant this time.

We’ll call this section a moderate win for tuna.

Both fish carry a risk of mercury poisoning, but this varies more by location than by fish, so it hasn’t been a consideration in this head-to-head.

Totting up the sections, this a modest but clear win for tuna.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Farmed Fish vs Wild-Caught: Important Differences!

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Asparagus vs Edamame – Which is Healthier?
  • Demystifying Cholesterol
    Cholesterol misconceptions, VLDL’s impact, and steps to manage heart disease risk – get informed and proactive about your health.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Dodging Dengue In The US

    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.

    Dengue On The Rise

    We wrote recently about dengue outbreaks in the Americas, with Puerto Rico declaring an epidemic. Cases are now being reported in Florida too, and are likely to spread, so it’s good to be prepared, if your climate is of the “warm and humid” kind.

    If you want to catch up on the news first, here you go:

    Note: dengue is far from unheard of in Florida, but the rising average temperatures in each year mean that each year stands a good chance of seeing more cases than the previous. It’s been climbing since at least 2017, took a dip during the time of COVID restrictions keeping people at home more, and then for the more recent years has been climbing again since.

    What actually is it?

    Dengue is a viral, mosquito-borne disease, characterized by fever, vomiting, muscle pain, and a rash, in about 1 in 4 cases.

    Which can sound like “you’ll know if you have it”, but in fact it’s usually asymptomatic for a week or more after infection, so, watch out!

    What next, if those symptoms appear?

    The good news is: the fever will usually last less than a week

    The bad news is: a day or so after that the fever subsided, the more serious symptoms are likely to start—if they’re going to.

    If you’re unlucky enough to be one of the 1 in 20 who get the serious symptoms, then you can expect abdominal cramps, repeat vomiting, bleeding from various orifices (you may not get them all, but all are possible), and (hardly surprising, given the previous items) “extreme fatigue and restlessness”.

    If you get those symptoms, then definitely get to an ER as soon as possible, as dengue can become life-threatening within hours of such.

    Read more: CDC | Symptoms of Dengue and Testing

    While there is not a treatment for dengue per se, the Emergency Room will be better able to manage your symptoms and thus keep you alive long enough for them to pass.

    If you’d like much more detail (on symptoms, seriousness, at-risk demographics, and prognosis) than what the CDC offers, then…

    Read more: BMJ | Dengue Fever

    Ok, so how do we dodge the dengue?

    It sounds flippant to say “don’t get bitten”, but that’s it. However, there are tips are not getting bitten:

    • Use mosquito-repellent, but it has to contain >20% DEET, so check labels
    • Use mosquito nets where possible (doors, windows, etc, and the classic bed-tent net is not a bad idea either)
    • Wear clothing that covers your skin, especially during the day—it can be light clothing; it doesn’t need to be a HazMat suit! But it does need to reduce the area of attack to reduce the risk of bites.
    • Limit standing water around your home—anything that can hold even a small amount of standing water is a potential mosquito-breeding ground. Yes, even if it’s a crack in your driveway or a potted bromeliad.

    Further reading

    You might also like to check out:

    Stickers and wristbands aren’t a reliable way to prevent mosquito bites. Here’s why

    …and in case dengue wasn’t bad enough:

    Mosquitoes can spread the flesh-eating Buruli ulcer. Here’s how you can protect yourself

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Intuitive Eating Might Not Be What 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.

    In our recent Expert Insights main features, we’ve looked at two fairly opposing schools of thought when it comes to managing what we eat.

    First we looked at:

    What Flexible Dieting Really Means

    …and the notion of doing things imperfectly for greater sustainability, and reducing the cognitive load of dieting by measuring only the things that are necessary.

    And then in opposition to that,

    What Are The “Bright Lines” Of Bright Line Eating?

    …and the notion of doing things perfectly so as to not go astray, and reducing the cognitive load of dieting by having hard-and-fast rules that one does not second-guess or reconsider later when hungry.

    Today we’re going to look at Intuitive Eating, and what it does and doesn’t mean.

    Intuitive Eating does mean paying attention to hunger signals (each way)

    Intuitive Eating means listening to one’s body, and responding to hunger signals, whether those signals are saying “time to eat” or “time to stop”.

    A common recommendation is to “check in” with one’s body several times per meal, reflecting on such questions as:

    • Do I have hunger pangs? Would I seek food now if I weren’t already at the table?
    • If I hadn’t made more food than I’ve already eaten so far, would that have been enough, or would I have to look for something else to eat?
    • Am I craving any of the foods that are still before me? Which one(s)?
    • How much “room” do I feel I still have, really? Am I still in the comfort zone, and/or am I about to pass into having overeaten?
    • Am I eating for pleasure only at this point? (This is not inherently bad, by the way—it’s ok to have a little more just for pleasure! But it is good to note that this is the reason we’re eating, and take it as a cue to slow down and remember to eat mindfully, and enjoy every bite)
    • Have I, in fact, passed the point of pleasure, and I’m just eating because it’s in front of me, or so as to “not be wasteful”?

    See also: Interoception: Improving Our Awareness Of Body Cues

    And for that matter: Mindful Eating: How To Get More Out Of What’s On Your Plate

    Intuitive Eating is not “80:20”

    When it comes to food, the 80:20 rule is the idea of having 80% of one’s diet healthy, and the other 20% “free”, not necessarily unhealthy, but certainly not moderated either.

    Do you know what else the 80:20 food rule is?

    A food rule.

    Intuitive Eating doesn’t do those.

    The problem with food rules is that they can get us into the sorts of problems described in the studies showing how flexible dieting generally works better than rigid dieting.

    Suddenly, what should have been our free-eating 20% becomes “wait, is this still 20%, or have I now eaten so much compared to the healthy food, that I’m at 110% for my overall food consumption today?”

    Then one gets into “Well, I’ve already failed to do 80:20 today, so I’ll try again tomorrow [and binge meanwhile, since today is already written off]”

    See also: Eating Disorders: More Varied (And Prevalent) Than People Think

    It’s not “eat anything, anytime”, either

    Intuitive Eating is about listening to your body, and your brain is also part of your body.

    • If your body is saying “give me sugar”, your brain might add the information “fruit is healthier than candy”.
    • If your body is saying “give me fat”, your brain might add the information “nuts are healthier than fried food”
    • If your body is saying “give me salt”, your brain might add the information “kimchi is healthier than potato chips”

    That doesn’t mean you have to swear off candy, fried food, or potato chips.

    But it does mean that you might try satisfying your craving with the healthier option first, giving yourself permission to have the less healthy option afterwards if you still want it (you probably won’t).

    See also:

    I want to eat healthily. So why do I crave sugar, salt and carbs?

    Want to know more about Intuitive Eating?

    You might like this book that we reviewed previously:

    Intuitive Eating – by Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Cherries vs Cranberries – 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 cherries to cranberries, we picked the cherries.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, cherries have a little more protein (but it’s not much) while cranberries have a little more fiber. Despite this, cherries have the lower glycemic index—about half that of cranberries.

    In the category of vitamins, cherries have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B9, and a little more choline, while cranberries have more of vitamins B5, B6, C, E, and K. A modest win for cherries here.

    When it comes to minerals, things are more divided: cherries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while cranberries have more manganese. An easy win for cherries here.

    This all adds up to a total win for cherries, but both of these fruits are great and both have their own beneficial properties (see our main features below!)

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Asparagus vs Edamame – Which is Healthier?
  • Statins: His & Hers?

    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 Hidden Complexities of Statins and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

    This is Dr. Barbara Roberts. She’s a cardiologist and the Director of the Women’s Cardiac Center at one of the Brown University Medical School teaching hospitals. She’s an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and takes care of patients, teaches medical students, and does clinical research. She specializes in gender-specific aspects of heart disease, and in heart disease prevention.

    We previously reviewed Dr. Barbara Roberts’ excellent book “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs”. It prompted some requests to do a main feature about Statins, so we’re doing it today. It’s under the auspices of “Expert Insights” as we’ll be drawing almost entirely from Dr. Roberts’ work.

    So, what are the risks of statins?

    According to Dr. Roberts, one of the biggest risks is not just drug side-effects or anything like that, but rather, what they simply won’t treat. This is because statins will lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, without necessarily treating the underlying cause.

    Imagine you got Covid, and it’s one of the earlier strains that’s more likely deadly than “merely” debilitating.

    You’re coughing and your throat feels like you gargled glass.

    Your doctor gives you a miracle cough medicine that stops your coughing and makes your throat feel much better.

    (Then a few weeks later, you die, because this did absolutely nothing for the underlying problem)

    You see the problem?

    Are there problematic side-effects too, though?

    There can be. But of course, all drugs can have side effects! So that’s not necessarily news, but what’s relevant here is the kind of track these side-effects can lead one down.

    For example, Dr. Roberts cites a case in which a woman’s LDL levels were high and she was prescribed simvastatin (Zocor), 20mg/day. Here’s what happened, in sequence:

    1. She started getting panic attacks. So, her doctor prescribed her sertraline (Zoloft) (a very common SSRI antidepressant) and when that didn’t fix it, paroxetine (Paxil). This didn’t work either… because the problem was not actually her mental health. The panic attacks got worse…
    2. Then, while exercising, she started noticing progressive arm and leg weakness. Her doctor finally took her off the simvastatin, and temporarily switched to ezetimibe (Zetia), a less powerful nonstatin drug that blocks cholesterol absorption, which change eased her arm and leg problem.
    3. As the Zetia was a stopgap measure, the doctor put her on atorvastatin (Lipitor). Now she got episodes of severe chest pressure, and a skyrocketing heart rate. She also got tremors and lost her body temperature regulation.
    4. So the doctor stopped the atorvastatin and tried rosovastatin (Crestor), on which she now suffered exhaustion (we’re not surprised, by this point) and muscle pains in her arms and chest.
    5. So the doctor stopped the rosovastatin and tried lovastatin (Mevacor), and now she had the same symptoms as before, plus light-headedness.
    6. So the doctor stopped the lovastatin and tried fluvastatin (Lescol). Same thing happened.
    7. So he stopped the fluvastatin and tried pravastatin (Pravachol), without improvement.
    8. So finally he took her off all these statins because the high LDL was less deleterious to her life than all these things.
    9. She did her own research, and went back to the doctor to ask for cholestyramine (Questran), which is a bile acid sequestrent and nothing to do with statins. She also asked for a long-acting niacin. In high doses, niacin (one of the B-vitamins) raises HDL (good) cholesterol, lowers LDL, and lowers tryglycerides.
    10. Her own non-statin self-prescription (with her doctor’s signature) worked, and she went back to her life, her work, and took up running.

    Quite a treatment journey! Want to know more about the option that actually worked?

    Read: Bile Acid Resins or Sequestrants

    What are the gender differences you/she mentioned?

    A lot of this is still pending more research—basically it’s a similar problem in heart disease to one we’ve previously talked about with regard to diabetes. Diabetes disproportionately affects black people, while diabetes research disproportionately focuses on white people.

    In this case, most heart disease research has focused on men, with women often not merely going unresearched, but also often undiagnosed and untreated until it’s too late. And the treatments, if prescribed? Assumed to be the same as for men.

    Dr. Roberts tells of how medicine is taught:

    ❝When I was in medical school, my professors took the “bikini approach” to women’s health: women’s health meant breasts and reproductive organs. Otherwise the prototypical patient was presented as a man.❞

    There has been some research done with statins and women, though! Just, still not a lot. But we do know for example that some statins can be especially useful for treating women’s atherosclerosis—with a 50% success rate, rather than 31% for men.

    For lowering LDL, it can work but is generally not so hot in women.

    Fun fact:

    In men:

    • High total cholesterol
    • High non-HDL cholesterol
    • High LDL cholesterol
    • Low HDL cholesterol

    …are all significantly associated with an increased risk of death from CVD.

    In women:

    …levels of LDL cholesterol even more than 190 were associated with only a small, statistically insignificant increased risk of dying from CVD.

    So…

    The fact that women derive less benefit from a medicine that mainly lowers LDL cholesterol, may be because elevated LDL cholesterol is less harmful to women than it is to men.

    And also: Treatment and Response to Statins: Gender-related Differences

    And for that matter: Women Versus Men: Is There Equal Benefit and Safety from Statins?*

    Definitely a case where Betteridge’s Law of Headlines applies!

    What should women do to avoid dying of CVD, then?

    First, quick reminder of our general disclaimer: we can’t give medical advice and nothing here comprises such. However… One particularly relevant thing we found illuminating in Dr. Roberts’ work was this observation:

    The metabolic syndrome is diagnosed if you have three (or more) out of five of the following:

    1. Abdominal obesity (waist >35″ if a woman or >40″ if a man)
    2. Fasting blood sugars of 100mg/dl or more
    3. Fasting triglycerides of 150mg/dl or more
    4. Blood pressure of 130/85 or higher
    5. HDL <50 if a woman or <40 if a man

    And yet… because these things can be addressed with exercise and a healthy diet, which neither pharmaceutical companies nor insurance companies have a particular stake in, there’s a lot of focus instead on LDL levels (since there are a flock of statins that can be sold be lower them)… Which, Dr. Roberts says, is not nearly as critical for women.

    So women end up getting prescribed statins that cause panic attacks and all those things we mentioned earlier… To lower our LDL, which isn’t nearly as big a factor as the other things.

    In summary:

    Statins do have their place, especially for men. They can, however, mask underlying problems that need treatment—which becomes counterproductive.

    When it comes to women, statins are—in broad terms—statistically not as good. They are a little more likely to be helpful specifically in cases of atherosclerosis, whereby they have a 50/50 chance of helping.

    For women in particular, it may be worthwhile looking into alternative non-statin drugs, and, for everyone: diet and exercise.

    Further reading: How Can I Safely Come Off Statins?

    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:

  • Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics

    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.

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinions on the medicinal use of psychedelics, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • 32% said “This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders”
    • 32% said “There are some benefits, but they don’t outweigh the risks”
    • 20% said “This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority”
    • 16% said “This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best”

    Quite a spread of answers, so what does the science say?

    This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best! True or False?

    False! We’re tackling this one first, because it’s easiest to answer:

    There are some moderately-well established [usually moderate] clinical benefits from some psychedelics for some people.

    If that sounds like a very guarded statement, it is. Part of this is because “psychedelics” is an umbrella term; perhaps we should have conducted separate polls for psilocybin, MDMA, ayahuasca, LSD, ibogaine, etc, etc.

    In fact: maybe we will do separate main features for some of these, as there is a lot to say about each of them separately.

    Nevertheless, looking at the spread of research as it stands for psychedelics as a category, the answers are often similar across the board, even when the benefits/risks may differ from drug to drug.

    To speak in broad terms, if we were to make a research summary for each drug it would look approximately like this in each case:

    • there has been research into this, but not nearly enough, as “the war on drugs” may well have manifestly been lost (the winner of the war being: drugs; still around and more plentiful than ever), but it did really cramp science for a few decades.
    • the studies are often small, heterogenous (often using moderately wealthy white student-age population samples), and with a low standard of evidence (i.e. the methodology often has some holes that leave room for reasonable doubt).
    • the benefits recorded are often small and transient.
    • in their favor, though, the risks are also generally recorded as being quite low, assuming proper safe administration*.

    *Illustrative example:

    Person A takes MDMA in a club, dances their cares away, has had only alcohol to drink, sweats buckets but they don’t care because they love everyone and they see how we’re all one really and it all makes sense to them and then they pass out from heat exhaustion and dehydration and suffer kidney damage (not to mention a head injury when falling) and are hospitalized and could die;

    Person B takes MDMA in a lab, is overwhelmed with a sense of joy and the clarity of how their participation in the study is helping humanity; they want to hug the researcher and express their gratitude; the researcher reminds them to drink some water.

    Which is not to say that a lab is the only safe manner of administration; there are many possible setups for supervised usage sites. But it does mean that the risks are often as much environmental as they are risks inherent to the drug itself.

    Others are more inherent to the drug itself, such as adverse cardiac events for some drugs (ibogaine is one that definitely needs medical supervision, for example).

    For those who’d like to see numbers and clinical examples of the bullet points we gave above, here you go; this is a great (and very readable) overview:

    NIH | Evidence Brief: Psychedelic Medications for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders

    Notwithstanding the word “brief” (intended in the sense of: briefing), this is not especially brief and is rather an entire book (available for free, right there!), but we do recommend reading it if you have time.

    This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority: True or False?

    True, technically, insofar as the evidence points to these drugs being useful for such things as depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, etc, and estimates of people who struggle with mental health issues in general is often cited as being 1 in 4, or 1 in 5. Of course, many people may just have moderate anxiety, or a transient period of depression, etc; many, meanwhile, have it worth.

    In short: there is a very large minority of people who suffer from mental health issues that, for each issue, there may be one or more psychedelic that could help.

    This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders: True or False?

    True if and only if we’re willing to accept the so far weak evidence that we discussed above. False otherwise, while the jury remains out.

    One thing in its favor though is that while the evidence is weak, it’s not contradictory, insofar as the large preponderance of evidence says such therapies probably do work (there aren’t many studies that returned negative results); the evidence is just weak.

    When a thousand scientists say “we’re not completely sure, but this looks like it helps; we need to do more research”, then it’s good to believe them on all counts—the positivity and the uncertainty.

    This is a very different picture than we saw when looking at, say, ear candling or homeopathy (things that the evidence says simply do not work).

    We haven’t been linking individual studies so far, because that book we linked above has many, and the number of studies we’d have to list would be:

    n = number of kinds of psychedelic drugs x number of conditions to be treated

    e.g. how does psilocybin fare for depression, eating disorders, anxiety, addiction, PTSD, this, that, the other; now how does ayahuasca fare for each of those, and so on for each drug and condition; at least 25 or 30 as a baseline number, and we don’t have that room.

    But here are a few samples to finish up:

    In closing…

    The general scientific consensus is presently “many of those drugs may ameliorate many of those conditions, but we need a lot more research before we can say for sure”.

    On a practical level, an important take-away from this is twofold:

    • drugs, even those popularly considered recreational, aren’t ontologically evil, generally do have putative merits, and have been subject to a lot of dramatization/sensationalization, especially by the US government in its famous war on drugs.
    • drugs, even those popularly considered beneficial and potentially lifechangingly good, are still capable of doing great harm if mismanaged, so if putting aside “don’t do drugs” as a propaganda of the past, then please do still hold onto “don’t do drugs alone”; trained professional supervision is a must for safety.

    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:

  • Apricots vs Peaches – 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 apricots to peaches, we picked the apricots.

    Why?

    Both are great! But there’s a clear winner:

    In terms of macros, apricots have more fiber and, which is less important because the numbers are small, more protein. Apricots do also have more carbs, and/but carbs from whole fruit are not a problem for most people (especially because of the fiber), unless undertaking a very carb-controlled diet.

    When it comes to vitamins, apricots sweep with more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, C, E, & K. Peaches meanwhile boast more vitamin B3, and that only marginally, as well as more choline.

    In the category of minerals, apricots sweep again with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Peaches are not higher in any minerals.

    Finally, if we consider polyphenols, apricots sweep yet again. The flavonols that peaches have, apricots have more of, and apricots have a long list of flavonols that peaches don’t.

    Outside of flavonols, there is one (1) phenolic acid that peaches have more of (it’s 3-Caffeoylquinic acid), and it’s only slightly more, and it’s mostly in the skin which isn’t included if you buy your fruit ready-chopped. So in those cases, apricots would have the higher 3-Caffeoylquinic acid content anyway.

    All in all, with their higher content of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols, apricots easily win the day.

    Enjoy both, though! Diversity is healthy!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    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: