Pine Nuts vs Peanuts – 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 pine nuts to peanuts, we picked the pine nuts.
Why?
An argument could be made for either, honestly, as it depends on what we prioritize the most. These are both very high-calorie foods, and/but are far from empty calories, as they both contain main nutrients. Obviously, if you are allergic to nuts, this one is just not a comparison for you, sorry.
Looking at the macros first, peanuts are higher in protein, carbs, and fiber, while pine nuts are higher in fats—though the fats are healthy, being mostly polyunsaturated, with about a third of the total fats monounsaturated, and a low amount of saturated fat (peanuts have nearly 2x the saturated fat). On balance, we’ll call the macros category a moderate win for peanuts, though.
In terms of vitamins, peanuts have more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B6, and B9, while pine nuts have more of vitamins A, B2, C, E, K, and choline. All in all, a marginal win for pine nuts.
In the category of minerals, peanuts have more calcium and selenium, while pine nuts have more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc. An easy win for pine nuts, even before we take into account that peanuts have nearly 10x as much sodium. And yes, we are talking about the raw nuts, not nuts that have been roasted and salted.
Adding up the categories gives a win for pine nuts—but if you have certain particular priorities, you might still prefer peanuts for the areas in which peanuts are stronger.
Of course, the best solution is to enjoy both!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!
Take care!
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:
-
The Mediterranean Diet: What Is It Good For?
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.
More to the point: what isn’t it good for?
- It’s been found to reduce all-cause mortality, which is about the best thing one can say of any diet.
- It’s especially good for heart health and against cancer.
- It’s particularly recommended for the prevention or management of diabetes.
- It’s also been found, societally, to reduce general healthcare costs—basically, people get sick less and so have fewer healthcare costs.
What brought it to the attention of the world’s scientific community?
Back in the 1950s, physiologist Ancel Keys wondered why poor people in Italian villages were healthier than wealthy New Yorkers. Upon undertaking studies, he narrowed it down to the Mediterranean diet—something he’d then take on as a public health cause for the rest of his career.
Keys himself lived to the ripe old age of 100, by the way.
When we say “Mediterranean Diet”, what image comes to mind?
We’re willing to bet that tomatoes feature (great source of lycopene, by the way), but what else?
- Salads, perhaps? Vegetables, olives? Olive oil, yea or nay?
- Bread? Pasta? Prosciutto, salami? Cheese?
- Pizza but only if it’s Romana style, not Chicago?
- Pan-seared liver, with some fava beans and a nice Chianti?
In reality, the diet is based on what was historically eaten specifically by Italian peasants. If the word “peasants” conjures an image of medieval paupers in smocks and cowls, and that’s not necessarily wrong, further back historically… but the relevant part here is that they were people who lived and worked in the countryside.
They didn’t have money for meat, which was expensive, nor the industrial setting for refined grain products to be affordable. They didn’t have big monocrops either, which meant no canola oil, for example… Olives produce much more easily extractable oil per plant, so olive oil was easier to get. Nor, of course, did they have the money (or infrastructure) for much in the way of imports.
So what foods are part of “the” Mediterranean Diet?
- Fruits. These would be fruits grown locally, but no need to sweat that, dietwise. It’s hard to go wrong with fruit.
- Tomatoes yes. So many tomatoes. (Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad)
- Non-starchy vegetables (e.g. eggplant yes, potatoes no)
- Greens (spinach, kale, lettuce, all those sorts of things)
- Beans and other legumes (whatever was grown nearby)
- Whole grain products in moderation (wholegrain bread, wholewheat pasta)
- Olives and olive oil. Special category, single largest source of fat in the Mediterranean diet, but don’t overdo it.
- Dairy products in moderation (usually hard cheeses, as these keep well)
- Fish, in moderation. Typically grilled, baked, steamed even. Not fried.
- Other meats as a rarer luxury in considerable moderation. There’s more than one reason prosciutto is so thinly sliced!
Want to super-power this already super diet?
Try: A Pesco-Mediterranean Diet With Intermittent Fasting: JACC Review Topic of the Week
Share This Post
-
Eat Better, Feel Better – by Giada de Laurentis
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 yesterday’s edition of 10almonds, we reviewed Dr. Aujla’s “The Doctor’s Kitchen“; today we’re reviewing a different book about healing through food—in this case, with a special focus on maintaining energy and good health as we get older.
De Laurentis may not be a medical doctor, but she is a TV chef, and not only holds a lot of influence, but also has access to a lot of celebrity doctors and such; that’s reflected a lot in her style and approach here.
The recipes are clear and easy to follow; well-illustrated and nicely laid-out.
This cookbook’s style is less “enjoy this hearty dish of rice and beans with these herbs and spices” and more “you can serve your steak salad with white beans and sweet shallot dressing on a bed of organic quinoa if you haven’t already had your day’s serving of grains, of course”.
It’s a little fancier, in short, and more focused on what to cut out, than what to include. On account of that, this could make it a good contrast to yesterday’s book, which had the opposite focus.
She also recommends assorted adjuvant practices; some that are evidence-based, like intermittent fasting and meditation, and some that are not, like extreme detox-dieting, and acupuncture (which has no bearing on gut health).
Bottom line: if you like the idea of eating for good health, and prefer a touch of celebrity lifestyle to your meals, this one’s a good book for you.
Share This Post
-
Oscar contender Poor Things is a film about disability. Why won’t more people say so?
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.
Readers are advised this article includes an offensive and outdated disability term in a quote from the film.
Poor Things is a spectacular film that has garnered critical praise, scooped up awards and has 11 Oscar nominations. That might be the problem. Audiences become absorbed in another world, so much so our usual frames of reference disappear.
There has been much discussion about the film’s feminist potential (or betrayal). What’s not being talked about in mainstream reviews is disability. This seems strange when two of the film’s main characters are disabled.
Set in a fantasy version of Victorian London, unorthodox Dr Godwin Baxter (William Dafoe) finds the just-dead body of a heavily pregnant woman in the Thames River. In keeping with his menagerie of hybrid animals, Godwin removes the unborn baby’s brain and puts it into the skull of its mother, who becomes Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).
Is Bella really disabled?
Stone has been praised for her ability to embody a small child who rapidly matures into a hypersexual person – one who has not had time to absorb the restrictive rules of gender or patriarchy.
But we also see a woman using her behaviour to express herself because she has complex communication barriers. We see a woman who is highly sensitive and responsive to the sensory world around her. A woman moving through and seeing the world differently – just like the fish-eye lens used in many scenes.
Women like this exist and they have historically been confined, studied and monitored like Bella. When medical student Max McCandless (Ramy Youssef) first meets Bella, he offensively exclaims “what a very pretty retard!” before being told the truth and promptly declared her future husband.
Even if Bella is not coded as disabled through her movements, speech and behaviour, her onscreen creator and guardian is. Godwin Baxter has facial differences and other impairments which require assistive technology.
So ignoring disability as a theme of the film seems determined and overt. The absurd humour for which the film is being lauded is often at Bella’s “primitive”, “monstrous” or “damaged” actions: words which aren’t usually used to describe children, but have been used to describe disabled people throughout history.
In reviews, Bella’s walk and speech are compared to characters like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, rather than a disabled woman. So why the resistance?
Freak shows and displays
Disability studies scholar Rosemarie Gardland-Thomson writes “the history of disabled people in the Western world is in part the history of being on display”.
In the 19th century, when Poor Things is set, “freak shows” featuring disabled people, Indigenous people and others with bodily differences were extremely popular.
Doctors used freak shows to find specimens – like Joseph Merrick (also known as the Elephant Man and later depicted on screen) who was used for entertainment before he was exhibited in lecture halls. In the mid-1800s, as medicine became a profession, observing the disabled body shifted from a public spectacle to a private medical gaze that labelled disability as “sick” and pathologised it.
Poor Things doesn’t just circle around these discourses of disability. Bella’s body is a medical experiment, kept locked away for the private viewing of male doctors who take notes about her every move in small pads. While there is something glorious, intimate and familiar about Bella’s discovery of her own sexual pleasure, she immediately recognises it as worth recording in the third person:
I’ve discovered something that I must share […] Bella discover happy when she want!
The film’s narrative arc ends with Bella herself training to be a doctor but one whose more visible disabilities have disappeared.
Framing charity and sexual abuse
Even the film’s title is an expression often used to describe disabled people. The charity model of disability sees disabled people as needing pity and support from others. Financial poverty is briefly shown at a far-off port in the film and Bella initially becomes a sex worker in Paris for money – but her more pressing concern is sexual pleasure.
Disabled women’s sexuality is usually seen as something that needs to be controlled. It is frequently assumed disabled women are either hypersexual or de-gendered and sexually innocent.
In the real world disabled people experience much higher rates of abuse, including sexual assault, than others. Last year’s Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found women with disability are nearly twice as likely as women without disability to have been assaulted. Almost a third of women with disability have experienced sexual assault by the age of 15. Bella’s hypersexual curiosity appears to give her some layer of protection – but that portrayal denies the lived experience of many.
Watch but don’t ignore
Poor Things is a stunning film. But ignoring disability in the production ignores the ways in which the representation of disabled bodies play into deep and historical stereotypes about disabled people.
These representations continue to shape lives.
Louisa Smith, Senior lecturer, Deakin University; Gemma Digby, Lecturer – Health & Social Development, Deakin University, and Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Shedding Some Obesity Myths
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.
Let’s shed some obesity myths!
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding obesity… And then there are also reactive opposite myths and misconceptions, which can sometimes be just as harmful!
To tackle them all would take a book, but in classic 10almonds style, we’re going to put a spotlight on some of the ones that might make the biggest difference:
True or False: Obesity is genetically pre-determined
False… With caveats.
Some interesting results have been found from twin studies and adoption studies, showing that genes definitely play some role, but lifestyle is—for most people—the biggest factor:
- The body-mass index of twins who have been reared apart
- An adoption study of human obesity
- Using a sibling-adoption design to parse genetic and environmental influences on children’s body mass index
In short: genes predispose; they don’t predetermine. But that predisposition alone can make quite a big difference, if it in turn leads to different lifestyle factors.
But upon seeing those papers centering BMI, let’s consider…
True or False: BMI is a good, accurate measure of health in the context of bodyweight
False… Unless you’re a very large group of thin white men of moderate height, which was the demographic the system was built around.
Bonus information: it was never intended to be used to measure the weight-related health of any individual (not even an individual thin white man of moderate height), but rather, as a tool to look at large-scale demographic trends.
Basically, as a system, it’s being used in a way it was never made for, and the results of that misappropriation of an epidemiological tool for individual health are predictably unhelpful.
To do a deep-dive into all the flaws of the BMI system, which are many, we’d need to devote a whole main feature just to that.
Update: we have now done so!
Here it is: When BMI Doesn’t Measure Up
True or False: Obesity does not meaningfully impact more general health
False… In more ways than one (but there are caveats)
Obesity is highly correlated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, and weight loss, correspondingly, correlates with a reduced risk. See for example:
So what are the caveats?
Let’s put it this way: owning a horse is highly correlated with increased healthy longevity. And while owning a horse may come with some exercise and relaxation (both of which are good for the health), it’s probably mostly not the horse itself that conveys the health benefits… it’s that someone who has the resources to look after a horse, probably has the resources to look after their own health too.
So sometimes there can be a reason for a correlation (it’s not a coincidence!) but the causative factor is partially (or in some cases, entirely) something else.
So how could this play out with obesity?
There’s a lot of discrimination in healthcare settings, unfortunately! In this case, it often happens that a thin person goes in with a medical problem and gets treated for that, while a fat person can go in with the same medical problem and be told “you should try losing some weight”.
Top tip if this happens to you… Ask: “what would you advise/prescribe to a thin person with my same symptoms?”
Other things may be more systemic, for example:
When a thin person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and that goes smoothly, while a fat person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and there’s not a blood pressure cuff to fit them, is the problem the size of the person or the size of the cuff? It all depends on perspective, in a world built around thin people.
That’s a trivial-seeming example, but the same principle has far-reaching (and harmful) implications in healthcare in general, e.g:
- Surgeons being untrained (and/or unwilling) to operate on fat people
- Getting a one-size-fits-all dose that was calculated using average weight, and now doesn’t work
- MRI machines are famously claustrophobia-inducing for thin people; now try not fitting in it in the first place
…and so forth. So oftentimes, obesity will be correlated with a poor healthcare outcome, where the problem is not actually the obesity itself, but rather the system having been set up with thin people in mind.
It would be like saying “Having O- blood type results in higher risks when receiving blood transfusions”, while omitting to add “…because we didn’t stock O- blood”.
True or False: to reduce obesity, just eat less and move more!
False… Mostly.
Moving more is almost always good for most people. When it comes to diet, quality is much more important than quantity. But these factors alone are only part of the picture!
But beyond diet and exercise, there are many other implicated factors in weight gain, weight maintenance, and weight loss, including but not limited to:
- Disrupted sleep
- Chronic stress
- Chronic pain
- Hormonal imbalances
- Physical disabilities that preclude a lot of exercise
- Mental health issues that add (and compound) extra levels of challenge
- Medications that throw all kinds of spanners into the works with their side effects
…and even just those first two things, diet and exercise, are not always so correlated to weight as one might think—studies have found that the difference for exercise especially is often marginal:
Read: Widespread misconceptions about obesity ← academic article in the Journal of the College of Family Physicians of Canada
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:
-
Awakening Your Ikigai – by Dr. Ken Mogi
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s been well-established in supercentenarian studies that one of the key factors beyond diet or exercise or suchlike (important as those things definitely are), is having a purpose to one’s life.
Neuroscientist Dr. Ken Mogi explains in this very easy-to-read book, how we can bring ikigai into our lives.
From noticing the details of the small things in life, to reorienting one’s life around what’s most truly most important to us, Dr. Mogi gives us not just a “this is ikigai” exposé, but rather, a practical and readily applicable how-to guide.
Bottom line: if you’ve so far been putting off ikigai as “I’ll get to that”, the time to start is today.
Click here to check out Awakening Your Ikigai, and actually awaken yours!
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:
-
Why Some Friendships Last And Others Don’t
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.
Friendships matter a lot, playing a significant role in our wellbeing, physical as well as mental. They bring additional meaning to our lives, help us cope with setbacks, and hopefully will be at our side through the highs and lows of life. And yet, for something that’s in principle good for everyone involved, there can be problems:
Friend to the end?
Firstly, some people find it harder to make (and then further deepen) friendships with others, which can be for a whole host of reasons.
Approaching new people can feel intimidating, but it’s a common struggle. Research shows that people often underestimate how much others enjoy their company, a phenomenon known as the “liking gap.” By reminding ourselves that others are likely to appreciate our presence and expecting to be well-received (the “acceptance prophecy”), we can approach social interactions with greater confidence.
As relationships grow, they often deepen through companionship and closeness:
- Companionship arises from shared hobbies, interests, or values, and it builds rapport.
- Closeness involves sharing thoughts, feelings, and experiences, which can build intimacy together.
An important key to these is consistency, which—whether through regular chats, honoring plans, or showing support—helps strengthen bonds, even in long-distance friendships (something often considered a barrier to closeness).
Even the strongest friendships can face challenges, of course. Conflicts may arise from a lack of support during difficult moments, or worse, betrayal. Or it could all be a misunderstanding. These situations are best addressed through honest, non-judgmental conversations. Avoiding defensiveness or accusations, and instead focusing on sharing feelings and understanding the other person’s perspective, can turn these tough discussions into opportunities for growth and stronger connections.
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:
How To Beat Loneliness & Isolation
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:
