Black Bean Burgers With Guacamole

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.

Once again proving that burgers do not have to be unhealthy, this one’s a nutritional powerhouse full of protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, as well as healthy fats and extra health-giving spices.

You will need

  • 1 can black beans, drained and rinsed (or 1 cup same, cooked, drained, and rinsed)
  • 3 oz walnuts (if allergic, substitute with pumpkin seeds)
  • 1 tbsp chia seeds
  • 1 tbsp flax seeds
  • ½ red onion, finely chopped
  • 1 small eggplant, diced small (e.g. ½” cubes or smaller)
  • 1 small carrot, grated
  • 3 tbsp finely chopped cilantro (or if you have the “this tastes like soap” gene, then substitute with parsley)
  • 1 tbsp lemon juice
  • 1 jalapeño pepper, finely chopped (adjust per heat preferences)
  • ¼ bulb garlic, crushed
  • 2 tsp black pepper
  • 1 tsp smoked paprika
  • 1 tsp cayenne pepper (adjust per heat preferences)
  • ½ tsp MSG or 1 tsp low-sodium salt
  • Burger buns (you can use our Delicious Quinoa Avocado Bread recipe if you like)

For the guacamole:

  • 1 large ripe avocado, pitted, skinned, and chopped
  • 1 tbsp lime juice
  • 1 tomato, finely chopped
  • ¼ red onion, finely chopped
  • ¼ bulb garlic, crushed
  • 1 tsp red chili pepper flakes (adjust per heat preferences)

Method

(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

1) Process the walnuts, chia seeds, and flax seeds in a food processor/blender, until they become a coarse mixture. Set aside.

2) Heat a little oil in a skillet, and fry the red onion, aubergine, and carrot for 5 minutes stirring frequently, then add the garlic and jalapeño and stir for a further 1 minute. Set aside.

3) Combine both mixtures you set aside with the rest of the ingredients from the burger section of the recipe, except the buns, and process them in the food processor on a low setting if possible, until you have a coarse mixture—you still want some texture, not a paste.

4) Shape into patties; this recipe gives for 4 large patties or 8 small ones. When you’ve done this, put them in the fridge for at least 30 minutes, to firm up.

5) While you wait, make the guacamole by mashing the avocado with the lime juice, and then stirring into the onion, tomato, garlic, and pepper.

6) Cook the patties; you can do this on the grill, in a skillet, or in the oven, per your preference. Grilling or frying should take about 5 minutes on each side, give or take the size and shape of the patties. Baking in the oven should take 20–30 minutes at 400℉ / 200℃ turning over halfway through, but keep an eye on them, because again, the size and shape of the patties will affect this. You may be wondering: aren’t they all going to be patty-shaped? And yes, but for example a wide flat patty will cook more quickly than the same volume of burger mixture in a taller less wide patty.

7) Assemble! We recommend the order: bottom bun, guacamole, burger patty, any additional toppings you want to add (e.g. more salad, pickles, etc), top bun:

Enjoy!

Want to learn more?

For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Superfood Broccoli Pesto
  • The Web That Has No Weaver – by Ted Kaptchuk
    Explore the world of Traditional Chinese Medicine with “The Web That Has No Weaver” – an easy-to-follow, comprehensive introduction to this holistic approach.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Hard to Kill – by Dr. Jaime Seeman

    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.

    We’ve written before about Dr. Seeman’s method for robust health at all ages, focussing on:

    • Nutrition
    • Movement
    • Sleep
    • Mindset
    • Environment

    In this book, she expands on these things far more than we have room to in our little newsletter, including (importantly!) how each interplays with the others. She also follows up with an invitation to take the “Hard to Kill 30-Day Challenge”.

    That said, in the category of criticism, it’s only 152 pages, and she takes some of that to advertise her online services in an effort to upsell the reader.

    Nevertheless, there’s a lot of worth in the book itself, and the writing style is certainly easy-reading and compelling.

    Bottom line: this book is half instructional, half motivational, and covers some very important areas of health.

    Click here to check out “Hard to Kill”, and enjoy robust health at every age!

    Share This Post

  • Caffeine: Cognitive Enhancer Or Brain-Wrecker?

    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 Two Sides Of Caffeine

    Bar chart showing varying opinions on caffeine, with the largest number considering it a safe cognitive enhancer, and progressively fewer respondents viewing it as a moderately safe recreational drug, a substance with addictive properties that make

    We asked you for your health-related opinions on caffeine itself, not necessarily the coffee, tea, energy drinks, etc that might contain it.

    We have, by the way previously written about the health effects of coffee and tea specifically:

    As for our question about caffeine itself, though, we got the above-depicted, below-described, set of results:

    • About 59% said “caffeine is a safe stimulant and cognitive enhancer”
    • About 31% said “caffeine is a moderately safe recreational drug”
    • About 8% said “caffeine’s addictive properties make it de facto bad”
    • One (1) person said “caffeine will leave you a trembling exhausted wreck”

    But what does the science say?

    Caffeine is addictive: True or False?

    True, though one will find occasional academics quibbling the definition. Most of the studies into the mechanisms of caffeine addiction have been conducted on rats, but human studies exist too and caffeine is generally considered addictive for humans, for example:

    Caffeine addiction and determinants of caffeine consumption among health care providers: a descriptive national study

    See also:

    The caffeine dilemma: unraveling the intricate relationship between caffeine use disorder, caffeine withdrawal symptoms and mental well-being in adults

    Notwithstanding its addictive status, caffeine is otherwise safe: True or False?

    True-ish, for most people. Some people with heart conditions or a hypersensitivity to caffeine may find it is not safe for them at all, and for the rest of us, the dose makes the poison. For example:

    Can too much caffeine kill you? Although quite rare, caffeine can be fatal in cases of overdose; such circumstances are generally not applicable to healthy individuals who typically consume caffeine via beverages such as tea or coffee.❞

    ~ Dr. Jose Antonio et al.

    Read more: Common questions and misconceptions about caffeine supplementation: what does the scientific evidence really show?

    this paper, by the way, also includes a good example of academics quibbling the definition of addiction!

    Caffeine is a cognitive enhancer: True or False?

    True, but only in the case of occasional use. If you are using it all the time, your physiology will normalize it and you will require caffeine in order to function at your normal level. To attain higher than that, once addicted to caffeine, would now require something else.

    Read more: Caffeine: benefits and drawbacks for technical performance

    Caffeine will leave you a trembling exhausted wreck: True or False?

    True or False depending on usage:

    • The famously moderate 3–5 cups per day will not, for most people, cause any such problems.
    • Using/abusing it to make up for lost sleep (or some other source of fatigue, such as physical exhaustion from exertion), however, is much more likely to run into problems.

    In the latter case, caffeine really is the “payday loan” of energy! It’ll give you an adrenal boost now (in return, you must suffer the adrenal dumping later, along with lost energy expended in the adrenaline surge), and also, the tiredness that you thought was gone, was just caffeine’s adenosine-blocking activities temporarily preventing you from being able to perceive the tiredness. So you’ll have to pay that back later, with interest, because of the extra time/exertion too.

    Want to make caffeine a little more gentle on your system?

    Taking l-theanine alongside caffeine can ameliorate some of caffeine’s less wonderful effects—and as a bonus, l-theanine has some nifty benefits of its own, too:

    L-Theanine: What’s The Tea?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Ouch. That ‘Free’ Annual Checkup Might Cost You. Here’s Why.

    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.

    When Kristy Uddin, 49, went in for her annual mammogram in Washington state last year, she assumed she would not incur a bill because the test is one of the many preventive measures guaranteed to be free to patients under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.

    So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.

    “I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.

    That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:

    “I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”

    The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.

    Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.

    The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?

    A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.

    Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.

    No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).

    For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:

    Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”

    Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.

    Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.

    Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”

    So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?

    And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”

    But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?

    Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.

    In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.

    The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.

    Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Superfood Broccoli Pesto
  • The Fascinating Truth About Aspartame, Cancer, & Neurotoxicity

    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.

    Is Aspartame’s Reputation Well-Deserved?

    A bar chart showing the number of people who are interested in social media and Aspartame.

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

    • About 47% said “It is an evil carcinogenic neurotoxin”
    • 20% said “It is safe-ish, but has health risks that are worse than sugar”
    • About 19% said “It is not healthy, but better than sugar”
    • About 15% said “It’s a perfectly healthy replacement for sugar”

    But what does the science say?

    Aspartame is carcinogenic: True or False?

    False, assuming consuming it in moderation. In excess, almost anything can cause cancer (oxygen is a fine example). But for all meaningful purposes, aspartame does not appear to be carcinogenic. For example,

    ❝The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or other harms in people.❞

    ~ NIH | National Cancer Institute

    Source: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer

    Plenty of studies and reviews have also confirmed this; here are some examples:

    Why then do so many people believe it causes cancer, despite all the evidence against it?

    Well, there was a small study involving giving megadoses to rats, which did increase their cancer risk. So of course, the popular press took that and ran with it.

    But those results have not been achieved outside of rats, and human studies great and small have all been overwhelmingly conclusive that moderate consumption of aspartame has no effect on cancer risk.

    Aspartame is a neurotoxin: True or False?

    False, again assuming moderate consumption. If you’re a rat being injected with a megadose, your experience may vary. But a human enjoying a diet soda, the aspartame isn’t the part that’s doing you harm, so far as we know.

    For example, the European Food Safety Agency’s scientific review panel concluded:

    ❝there is still no substantive evidence that aspartame can induce such effects❞

    ~ Dr. Atkin et al (it was a pan-European team of 21 experts in the field)

    Source: Report on the Meeting on Aspartame with National Experts

    See also,

    ❝The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior.

    The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.❞

    ~ Dr. Magnuson et al.

    Source: Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies

    and

    ❝The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive.

    When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.❞

    ~ Dr. Stegink et al.

    Source: Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology | Aspartame: Review of Safety

    Why then do many people believe it is a neurotoxin? This one can be traced back to a chain letter hoax from about 26 years ago; you can read it here, but please be aware it is an entirely debunked hoax:

    Urban Legends | Aspartame Hoax

    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:

  • Brave – by Dr. Margie Warrell

    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.

    Whether it’s the courage to jump out of a plane or the courage to have a difficult conversation, bravery is an important quality that we often don’t go far out of our way to grow. At least, not as adults.

    Rather than viewing bravery as a static attribute—you either have it or you don’t—psychologist Dr. Margie Warrell makes the case for its potential for lifelong development.

    The book is divided into five sections:

    1. Live purposefully
    2. Speak bravely
    3. Work passionately
    4. Dig deep
    5. Dare boldly

    …and each has approximately 10 chapters, each a few pages long, the kind that can easily make this a “chapter-a-day” daily reader.

    As a quick clarification: that “speak bravely” section isn’t about public speaking, but is rather about speaking up when it counts. Life is too short for regrets, and our interactions with others tend to be what matters most in the long-run. It makes a huge difference to our life!

    Dr. Warrell gives us tools to reframe our challenges and tackle them. Rather than just saying “Feel the fear and do it anyway”, she also delivers the how, in all aspects. This is one of the main values the book brings, as well as a sometimes-needed reminder of how and why being brave is something to which we should always aspire… and hold.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to be more brave—in any context—this book can help. We only get one life; might as well live it.

    Click here to check out Brave and give your life a boost!

    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:

  • Buckwheat vs Oats – 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 buckwheat to oats, we picked the oats.

    Why?

    First of all, for any thinking about the health concerns sometimes associated with wheat: buckwheat is not a kind of wheat, nor is it even in the same family; it’s not a grain, but a flowering plant. Buckwheat is to wheat as a lionfish is to lions.

    That said, while these are both excellent foods, one of them is so good it makes the other one look bad in comparison:

    In terms of macros, oats have more carbs, but also more protein and more fiber.

    When it comes to vitamins, a clear winner emerges: oats have more of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, and B9, while buckwheat is higher in vitamin K and choline.

    In the category of minerals, things are even more pronounced: oats are higher in calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. On the other hand, buckwheat is higher in selenium.

    All in all: as ever, enjoy both, but if you’re picking one, oats cannot be beaten.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    The Best Kind Of Fiber For Overall Health?

    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: