Pear vs Prickly Pear – 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 pear to prickly pear, we picked the prickly.

Why?

Both of these fruits are fine and worthy choices, but the prickly pear wins out in nutritional density.

Looking at the macros to start with, the prickly pear is higher in fiber and lower in carbs, resulting in a much lower glycemic index. However, non-prickly pears are already low GI, so this is not a huge matter. Whether it’s pear’s GI of 38 or prickly pear’s GI of 7, you’re unlikely to experience a glucose spike.

In the category of vitamins, pear has a little more of vitamins B5, B9, E, K, and choline, but the margins are tiny. On the other hand, prickly pear has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, and C, with much larger margins of difference (except vitamin B1; that’s still quite close). Even before taking margins of difference into account, this is a slight win for prickly pear.

When it comes to minerals, things are more pronounced; pear has more manganese, while prickly pear has more calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc.

In short, both pears are great (so do enjoy the pair), but prickly pear is the clear winner where one must be declared.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Apple vs Pear – Which is Healthier?

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Olive Oil vs Coconut Oil – Which is Healthier?
  • Visceral Belly Fat & How To Lose It
    Visceral belly fat is a concern for many. Learn about its impact on your health and discover effective ways to reduce it, including cutting alcohol, improving sleep, and tweaking your diet.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Want to sleep longer? Adding mini-bursts of exercise to your evening routine can help – new study

    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.

    Exercising before bed has long been discouraged as the body doesn’t have time to wind down before the lights go out.

    But new research has found breaking up a quiet, sedentary evening of watching television with short bursts of resistance exercise can lead to longer periods of sleep.

    Adults spend almost one third of the 24-hour day sleeping. But the quality and length of sleep can affect long-term health. Sleeping too little or waking often in the night is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

    Physical activity during the day can help improve sleep. However, current recommendations discourage intense exercise before going to bed as it can increase a person’s heart rate and core temperature, which can ultimately disrupt sleep.

    Nighttime habits

    For many, the longest period of uninterrupted sitting happens at home in the evening. People also usually consume their largest meal during this time (or snack throughout the evening).

    Insulin (the hormone that helps to remove sugar from the blood stream) tends to be at a lower level in the evening than in the morning.

    Together these factors promote elevated blood sugar levels, which over the long term can be bad for a person’s health.

    Our previous research found interrupting evening sitting every 30 minutes with three minutes of resistance exercise reduces the amount of sugar in the bloodstream after eating a meal.

    But because sleep guidelines currently discourage exercising in the hours before going to sleep, we wanted to know if frequently performing these short bursts of light activity in the evening would affect sleep.

    Activity breaks for better sleep

    In our latest research, we asked 30 adults to complete two sessions based in a laboratory.

    During one session the adults sat continuously for a four-hour period while watching streaming services. During the other session, they interrupted sitting by performing three minutes of body-weight resistance exercises (squats, calf raises and hip extensions) every 30 minutes.

    After these sessions, participants went home to their normal life routines. Their sleep that evening was measured using a wrist monitor.

    Our research found the quality of sleep (measured by how many times they woke in the night and the length of these awakenings) was the same after the two sessions. But the night after the participants did the exercise “activity breaks” they slept for almost 30 minutes longer.

    Identifying the biological reasons for the extended sleep in our study requires further research.

    But regardless of the reason, if activity breaks can extend sleep duration, then getting up and moving at regular intervals in the evening is likely to have clear health benefits.

    Time to revisit guidelines

    These results add to earlier work suggesting current sleep guidelines, which discourage evening exercise before bed, may need to be reviewed.

    As the activity breaks were performed in a highly controlled laboratory environment, future research should explore how activity breaks performed in real life affect peoples sleep.

    We selected simple, body-weight exercises to use in this study as they don’t require people to interrupt the show they may be watching, and don’t require a large space or equipment.

    If people wanted to incorporate activity breaks in their own evening routines, they could probably get the same benefit from other types of exercise. For example, marching on the spot, walking up and down stairs, or even dancing in the living room.

    The key is to frequently interrupt evening sitting time, with a little bit of whole-body movement at regular intervals.

    In the long run, performing activity breaks may improve health by improving sleep and post-meal blood sugar levels. The most important thing is to get up frequently and move the body, in a way the works best for a person’s individual household.

    Jennifer Gale, PhD candidate, Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago and Meredith Peddie, Senior Lecturer, Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Syphilis Is Killing Babies. The U.S. Government Is Failing to Stop the Disease From Spreading.

    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.

    ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

    Karmin Strohfus, the lead nurse at a South Dakota jail, punched numbers into a phone like lives depended on it. She had in her care a pregnant woman with syphilis, a highly contagious, potentially fatal infection that can pass into the womb. A treatment could cure the woman and protect her fetus, but she couldn’t find it in stock at any pharmacy she called — not in Hughes County, not even anywhere within an hour’s drive.

    Most people held at the jail where Strohfus works are released within a few days. “What happens if she gets out before I’m able to treat her?” she worried. Exasperated, Strohfus reached out to the state health department, which came through with one dose. The treatment required three. Officials told Strohfus to contact the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for help, she said. The risks of harm to a developing baby from syphilis are so high that experts urge not to delay treatment, even by a day.

    Nearly three weeks passed from when Strohfus started calling pharmacies to when she had the full treatment in hand, she said, and it barely arrived in time. The woman was released just days after she got her last shot.

    Last June, Pfizer, the lone U.S. manufacturer of the injections, notified the Food and Drug Administration of an “impending stock out” that it anticipated would last a year. The company blamed “an increase in syphilis infection rates as well as competitive shortages.”

    Across the country, physicians, clinic staff and public health experts say that the shortage is preventing them from reining in a surge of syphilis and that the federal government is downplaying the crisis. State and local public health authorities, which by law are responsible for controlling the spread of infectious diseases, report delays getting medicine to pregnant people with syphilis. This emergency was predictable: There have been shortages of this drug in eight of the last 20 years.

    Yet federal health authorities have not prevented the drug shortages in the past and aren’t doing much to prevent them in the future.

    Syphilis, which is typically spread during sex, can be devastating if it goes untreated in pregnancy: About 40% of babies born to women with untreated syphilis can be stillborn or die as newborns, according to the CDC. Infants that survive can suffer from deformed bones, excruciating pain or brain damage, and some struggle to hear, see or breathe. Since this is entirely preventable, a baby born with syphilis is a shameful sign of a failing public health system.

    In 2022, the most recent year for which the CDC has data available, more than 3,700 babies were infected with syphilis, including nearly 300 who were stillborn or died as infants. More than 50% of these cases occurred because, even though the pregnant parent was diagnosed with syphilis, they were never properly treated.

    That year, there were 200,000 cases identified in the U.S., a 79% increase from five years before. Infection rates among pregnant people and babies increased by more than 250% in that time; South Dakota, where Strohfus works, had the highest rates — including a more than 400% increase among pregnant women. Statewide, the rate of babies born with the disease, a condition known as congenital syphilis, jumped more than 40-fold in just five years.

    And that was before the current shortage of shots.

    In Mississippi, the state with the second highest rate of syphilis in pregnant women, Dr. Caroline Weinberg started having trouble this summer finding treatments for her clinic’s patients, most of whom are uninsured, live in poverty or lack transportation. She began spending hours each month scouring medicine suppliers’ websites for available doses of the shots, a form of penicillin sold under the brand name Bicillin L-A.

    “The way people do it for Taylor Swift, that’s how I’ve been with the Bicillin shortage,” Weinberg said. “Desperately checking the websites to see what I can snag.”

    The shortage is driving up infection rates even further.

    In a November survey by the National Coalition of STD Directors, 68% of health departments that responded said the drug shortage will cause syphilis rates in their area to increase, further crushing the nation’s most disadvantaged populations.

    “This is the most basic medicine,” said Meghan O’Connell, chief public health officer for the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, which represents 18 tribal communities in South Dakota and three other states. “We allow ourselves to continue to not have enough, and it impacts so many people.”

    ProPublica examined what the federal government has done to manage the crisis and the ways in which experts say it has fallen short.

    The government could pressure Pfizer to be more transparent.

    Twenty years ago, there were at least three manufacturers of the syphilis shot. Then Pfizer, one of the manufacturers, purchased the other two companies and became the lone U.S. supplier.

    Pfizer’s supply has fallen short since then. In 2016, the company announced a shortage due to a manufacturing issue; it lasted two years. Even during times when Pfizer had not notified the FDA of an official shortage, clinics across the country told ProPublica, the shots were often hard to get.

    Several health officials said they would like to see the government use its power as the largest purchaser of the drug to put pressure on Pfizer to produce adequate supplies and to be more transparent about how much of the drug they have on hand, when it will be widely available and how stable the supply will be going forward.

    In response to questions, Pfizer said there are two reasons its supply is falling short. One, the company said, was a surge in use of the pediatric form of the drug after a shortage of a different antibiotic last winter. Pfizer also blamed a 70% increase in demand for the adult shots since last February, which it described as unexpected.

    Public health experts say the increase in cases and subsequent rise in demand was easy to see coming. Officials have been raising the alarm about skyrocketing syphilis cases for years. “If Pfizer was truly caught completely off guard, it raises significant questions about the competency of the company to forecast obvious infectious disease trends,” a coalition of organizations wrote to the White House Drug Shortage Task Force in September.

    Pfizer said it is consistently communicating with the CDC and FDA about its supply and that it has been transparent with public health groups and policymakers.

    The FDA has a group dedicated to addressing drug shortages. But Valerie Jensen, associate director of that staff, said the FDA can’t force manufacturers to make more of a drug. “It is up to manufacturers to decide how to respond to that increased demand.” she said. “What we’re here to do is help with those plans.”

    Pfizer said it had a target of increasing production by about 20% in 2023 but faced delays toward the end of the year. The company did not explain the reason for those delays.

    The company said it has invested $38 million in the last five years in the Michigan facility where it makes the shots and that it is increasing production capacity. It also said it is adding evening shifts at the facility and actively recruiting and training new workers. Pfizer said it also reduced manufacturing time from 110 to 50 days. By the end of June, the company expects the supply to recover, which it described as having eight weeks of inventory based on its forecast demands with no disruptions in sight.

    The government could manufacture the drug itself.

    Having only one supplier for a drug, especially one of public health importance, makes the country vulnerable to shortages. With just one manufacturer, any disruption — contamination at a plant, a shortage of raw materials, a severe weather event or a flawed prediction of demand — can put lives at risk. What’s ultimately needed, public health experts say, is another manufacturer.

    Congressional Democrats recently introduced a bill that would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to manufacture generic drugs in exactly this scenario, when there are few manufacturers and regular shortages. Called the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, it would also establish an office of drug manufacturing.

    This same bill was introduced in 2018, but it didn’t have bipartisan support and was never taken up for a vote. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who introduced the bill in the Senate, said she’s hopeful this time will be different. Lawmakers from both parties understand the risks created by drug shortages, and COVID-19 helped everyone understand the role the government can play to boost manufacturing.

    Still, it’s unlikely to be passed with the current gridlock in Congress.

    The government could reserve syphilis drugs for infected patients.

    Responding to the shortage of shots to treat the disease, the CDC in July asked health care providers nationwide to preserve the scarce remaining doses for people who are pregnant. The shots are considered the gold standard treatment for anyone with syphilis, faster and with fewer side effects than an alternative pill regimen. And for people who are pregnant, the pills are not an option; the shots are the only safe treatment.

    Despite that call, the military is giving shots to new recruits who don’t have syphilis, to prevent outbreaks of severe bacterial respiratory infections. The Army has long administered this treatment at boot camps held at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Moore and Fort Sill. The Army has been unable to obtain the shots several times in the past few years, according to the U.S. Army Center for Initial Military Training. But the Defense Health Agency’s pharmacy operations center has been working with Pfizer to ensure military sites can get them, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency said.

    “Until we think about public health the way we think about our military, we’re not going to see a difference,” said Dr. John Vanchiere, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport.

    Some public health officials, including Alaska’s chief medical officer, Dr. Anne Zink, questioned whether the military should be using scarce shots for prevention.

    “We should ask if that’s the best use,” she said.

    Using antibiotics to prevent streptococcal outbreaks is a well-established, evidence-based public health practice that’s also used by other branches of the armed services, said Lt. Col. Randy Ready, a public affairs officer with the Army’s Initial Military Training center. “The Army continues to work with the CDC and the entire medical community in regards to public health while also taking into account the unique missions and training environments our Soldiers face,” including basic training, Ready said in a written statement.

    The government isn’t stockpiling syphilis drugs.

    In rare instances, the federal government has created stockpiles of drugs considered key to public health. In 2018, confronting shortages of various drugs to treat tuberculosis, the CDC created a small stockpile of them. And the federal Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response keeps a national stockpile of supplies necessary for public health emergencies, including vaccines, medical supplies and antidotes needed in case of a chemical warfare attack.

    In November, the Biden administration announced it was creating a new syphilis task force. When asked why the federal government doesn’t stockpile syphilis treatments, Adm. Rachel Levine, the HHS official who leads the task force, said officials don’t routinely stockpile drugs, because they have expiration dates.

    In a written statement, an HHS spokesperson said that Bicillin has a shelf life of two years and that the Strategic National Stockpile “does not deploy products that are commercially available.” In general, the spokesperson wrote, stockpiles are most effective before a national shortage begins and can’t overcome the problems of limited suppliers or fragile supply chains. “There is also a risk that stockpiles can exacerbate shortages, particularly when supply is already low, by removing drugs from circulation that would have otherwise been available,” the spokesperson wrote.

    Stephanie Pang, a senior director with the coalition of STD directors, said that given the critical role of this drug and the severe access concerns, she thinks a stockpile is necessary. “I don’t have another solution that actually gets drugs to patients,” Pang said.

    The government could declare a federal emergency.

    Some public health officials say the federal government needs to treat the syphilis crisis the way it did Ebola or monkeypox.

    Declare a federal emergency, said Dr. Michael Dube, an infectious disease specialist for more than 30 years. That would free up money for more public health staff and fund more creative approaches that could lead to a long-term solution to the near-constant shortages, he said. “I’d hate to have to wait for some horrible anecdotes to get out there in order to get the public’s and the policymakers’ minds on it,” said Dube, who oversees medical care for AIDS Healthcare Foundation wellness clinics across the country.

    Citing an alarming surge in syphilis cases, the Great Plains Tribes wrote to the HHS secretary last week asking that the agency declare a public health emergency in their areas. In the request, they asked HHS to work globally to find adequate syphilis treatment and send the needed medicine to the Great Plains region.

    During the 2014 outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, Congress gave hundreds of millions of dollars to HHS to help develop new rapid tests and vaccines. Facing a global outbreak of monkeypox in 2022, a White House task force deployed more than a million vaccines, regularly briefed the public and sent extra resources to Pride parades and other places where people at risk were gathered.

    Levine, leader of the federal syphilis task force, countered that declaring an emergency wouldn’t make much of a difference. The government, she said, already has a “dramatic and coordinated response” involving several agencies.

    The FDA recently approved an emergency import of a similar syphilis treatment made by a French manufacturer that had plenty on hand. According to the company, Provepharm, the imported shots are enough to cover approximately one or two months of typical use by all people in the U.S. (The FDA would not say how many doses Provepharm sent, and the company said it was not allowed to reveal that number under the federal rules governing such emergency imports.)

    Clinics applaud that development. But many of them can’t afford the imported shots.

    The government could do more to rein in the cost.

    Clinics and hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients often qualify for a federal program that allows them to purchase drugs at steeply discounted prices. Pharmaceutical companies that want Medicaid to cover their outpatient drugs must participate in the program.

    One factor in determining the discount price is whether a pharmaceutical company has raised the price of a drug by more than the rate of inflation. Because Pfizer has hiked the price of its Bicillin shots significantly over the years, the government requires that it be sold to qualifying clinics for just pennies a dose. Otherwise, a single Pfizer shot can retail for upwards of $500. The French shots are comparable in retail price and not eligible for the discount program.

    Several clinic directors also said they worried that drug distributors were reserving the limited supply of the Pfizer shot for organizations that could pay full price. For several days in January, for example, the website of Henry Schein, a medical supplier, showed doses of the shot available at full price, while doses at the penny pricing were out of stock, according to screenshots shared with ProPublica. When asked whether it was only selling shots at full price, a spokesperson for Henry Schein did not respond to the question.

    Local health departments that qualify for the discount program told ProPublica they’ve had to pay full price at other distributors, because it was the only stock available.

    The Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that regulates the discount program, said that a drug manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that when supplies are available, they are available at the discounted price. When asked about this, Pfizer said that it has “one inventory that is distributed to our trade partners” and that hospitals and clinics that qualify for the discount program are “responsible for ensuring compliance with the program and orders through the wholesaler accordingly.” The company added, “Pfizer plays no part in this process.”

    In October, on Weinberg’s regular search for shots for her Mississippi clinic, she found doses of Bicillin for sale at the discounted price and purchased 40. “The idea that we’re supposed to be hoarding treatment is a horrific compact,” she said. Word got out that the clinic, called Plan A, has some shots, and other clinics began sending pregnant patients there.

    The clinic’s supply is dwindling. Weinberg is happy to get the shots to patients who need them. But she’s not sure how much longer her reserve will last — or if she’ll be able to find more when they’re gone.

    Share This Post

  • Plant vs Animal Protein

    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.

    Plant vs Animal Protein: Head to Head

    Some people will obviously have strong ideological opinions here—for vegetarians and vegans, it’s no question, and for meat-eaters, it’s easy to be reactive to that and double-down on the bacon. But, we’re a health and productivity newsletter, so we’ll be sticking to the science.

    Which is better, healthwise?

    First, it depends how you go about it. Consider these options:

    • A piece of salmon
    • A steak
    • A hot dog
    • A hot dog, but plant-based
    • Textured soy protein (no additives)
    • Edamame (young soy) beans

    Three animal-based protein sources, three plant-based. We could render the competition simple (but very unfair) by pitting the hotdog against the edamame beans, or the plant-based hot dog against the piece of salmon. So let’s kick this off by saying:

    • There are good and bad animal-based protein sources
    • There are good and bad plant-based protein sources

    Whatever you choose, keep that in mind while you do. Less processed is better in either case. And if you do go for red meat, less is better, period.

    Picking the healthiest from each, how do the nutritional profiles look?

    They look good in both cases! One factor of importance is that in either case, our bodies will reduce the proteins we consume to their constituent amino acids, and then rebuild them into the specific proteins we actually need. Our bodies will do that regardless of the source, because we are neither a salmon nor a soy bean, for example.

    We need 20 specific amino acids, for our bodies to make the proteins we will use in our bodies.

    Animal protein sources contain all 20 of those. Plant based sources often don’t, individually, but by eating soy for example (which does contain all 20) and/or getting multiple sources of protein from different plants, the 20 can be covered quite easily with little thought, just by having a varied diet.

    Meats are #1!

    • They’re number 1 for nutritional density
    • They’re number 1 for health risks, too

    So while plant-based diet adherents may need to consume more varied things to get all the nutrients necessary, meat-eaters won’t have that problem.

    Meat-eaters will instead have a different problem, of more diet-related health risks, e.g.

    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Metabolic disorders
    • Cancers

    So again, if eating (especially processed and/or red) meat, moderation is good. The Mediterranean Diet that we so often recommend, by default contains small amounts of lean animal protein.

    Which is better for building muscle?

    Assuming a broadly healthy balanced diet, and getting sufficient protein from your chosen source, they’re pretty equal:

    (both studies showed that both dietary approaches yielded results that showed no difference in muscle synthesis between the two)

    The bottom line is…

    Healthwise, what’s more important than whether you get your protein from animals or plants is that you eat foods that aren’t processed, and are varied.

    And if you want to do a suped-up Mediterranean Diet with less red meat, you might want to try:

    A Pesco-Mediterranean Diet With Intermittent Fasting: JACC Review Topic of the Week

    ^This is from a review in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and in few words, they recommend it very highly

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Olive Oil vs Coconut Oil – Which is Healthier?
  • Taurine’s Benefits For Heart Health And More

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Taurine: Research Review

    First, what is taurine, beyond being an ingredient in many energy drinks?

    It’s an amino acid that many animals, including humans, can synthesize in our bodies. Some other animals—including obligate carnivores such as cats (but not dogs, who are omnivorous by nature) cannot synthesize taurine and must get it from food.

    So, as humans are very versatile omnivorous frugivores by nature, we have choices:

    • Synthesize it—no need for any conscious action; it’ll just happen
    • Eat it—by eating meat, which contains taurine
    • Supplement it—by taking supplements, including energy drinks, which generally (but not always) use a bioidentical lab-made taurine. Basically, lab-made taurine is chemically identical to the kind found in meat, it’s just cheaper and doesn’t involve animals as a middleman.

    What does it do?

    Taurine does a bunch of essential things, including:

    • Maintaining hydration/electrolyte balance in cells
    • Regulating calcium/magnesium balance in cells
    • Forming bile salts, which are needed for digestion
    • Supporting the integrity of the central nervous system
    • Regulating the immune system and antioxidative processes

    Thus, a shortage of taurine can lead to such issues as kidney problems, eye tissue damage (since the eyes are a particularly delicate part of the CNS), and cardiomyopathy.

    If you want to read more, here’s an academic literature review:

    Taurine: A “very essential” amino acid

    On the topic of eye health, a 2014 study found that taurine is the most plentiful amino acid in the eye, and helps protect against retinal degeneration, in which they say:

    ❝We here review the evidence for a role of taurine in retinal ganglion cell survival and studies suggesting that this compound may be involved in the pathophysiology of glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy. Along with other antioxidant molecules, taurine should therefore be seriously reconsidered as a potential treatment for such retinal diseases❞

    Read more: Taurine: the comeback of a neutraceutical in the prevention of retinal degenerations

    Taurine for muscles… In more than sports!

    We’d be remiss not to mention that taurine is enjoyed by athletes to enhance athletic performance; indeed, it’s one of its main selling-points:

    See: Taurine in sports and exercise

    But! It’s also useful for simply maintaining skeleto-muscular health in general, and especially in the context of age-related decline and chronic disease:

    Taurine: the appeal of a safe amino acid for skeletal muscle disorders

    On the topic of safety… How safe is it?

    There’s an interesting answer to that question. Within safe dose ranges (we’ll get to that), taurine is not only relatively safe, but also, studies that looked to explore its risks found new benefits in the process. Specifically of interest to us were that it appears to promote better long-term memory, especially as we get older (as taurine levels in the brain decline with age):

    Taurine, Caffeine, and Energy Drinks: Reviewing the Risks to the Adolescent Brain

    ^Notwithstanding the title, we assure you, the research got there; they said:

    ❝Interestingly, the levels of taurine in the brain decreased significantly with age, which led to numerous studies investigating the potential neuroprotective effects of supplemental taurine in several different experimental models❞

    What experimental models were those? These ones:

    …which were all animal studies, however.

    The same systematic review also noted that not only was more research needed on humans, but also, existing studies have had a strong bias to male physiology (in both human and assorted other animal studies), so more diverse study is needed too.

    What are the safe dose ranges?

    Before we get to toxicity, let’s look at some therapeutic doses. In particular, some studies that found that 500mg 3x daily, i.e. 1.5g total daily, had benefits for heart health:

    Bottom line on safety: 3g/day has been found to be safe:

    Click here to see the findings of the risk assessment published in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

    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:

  • How To Make Drinking Less Harmful

    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.

    Making Drinking Less Harmful

    We often talk of the many ways alcohol harms our health, and we advocate for reducing (or eliminating) its consumption. However, it’s not necessarily as easy as all that, and it might not even be a goal that everyone has. So, if you’re going to imbibe, what can you do to mitigate the harmful effects of alcohol?

    There is no magical solution

    Sadly. If you drink alcohol, there will be some harmful effects, and nothing will completely undo that. But there are some things that can at least help—read on to learn more!

    Coffee

    It’s not the magical sober-upperer that some would like it to be, but it is good against the symptoms of alcohol intoxication, and slightly reduces the harm to your body, because it is:

    • Hydrating (whereas alcohol is dehydrating)
    • A source of antioxidants (whereas alcohol causes oxidative stress, which has nothing to do with psychological stress, and is a kind of cellular damage)
    • A stimulant, assuming it is not decaffeinated (it’s worth noting that its stimulant effects work partly by triggering vasoconstriction, which is the opposite of the vasodilation caused by alcohol)

    To this end, the best coffee for anti-alcohol effects should be:

    • Caffeinated, and strong
    • Long (we love espresso, but we need hydration here and that comes from volume!)
    • Without sugar (you don’t want to create an adverse osmotic gradient to leech water from your body)

    As for milk/cream/whatever, have it or don’t, per your usual preference. It won’t make any difference to the alcohol in your system.

    Antioxidants, polyphenols, flavonoids, and things with similar mechanisms

    We mentioned that coffee contains antioxidants, but if you want to really bring out the heavy guns, taking more powerful antioxidants can help a lot. If you don’t have the luxury of enjoying berries and cacao nibs by the handful, supplements that have some similar benefits are a perfectly respectable choice.

    For example, you might want to consider green tea extract:

    L-theanine 200mg (available on Amazon)

    Specialist anti-alcohol drugs

    These are somewhat new and the research is still ongoing, but for example:

    Dihydromyricetin (DHM) as a novel anti-alcohol intoxication medication

    In short, DHM is a flavonoid (protects against the oxidative stress caused by alcohol, and has been found to reduce liver damage—see the above link) and also works on GABA-receptors (reduces alcohol withdrawal symptoms after cessation of drinking, and thus also reduces hangovers).

    Once again: the marketing claims of such drugs may be bold, but there’s a lot that’s not known and they’re not a magic pill. They do NOT mean you can take them alongside drinking and drink what you like with impunity. However, they may help mitigate some of the harmful effects of alcohol. If you wish to try them, these can be purchased at pharmacies or online, for example:

    Alcohol Defense Capsules (available on Amazon)

    Bottom line

    Alcohol is bad for your health and none of the above will eliminate the health risks. But, if you’re going to have alcohol, then having the above things as well may at least somewhat reduce the harm done.

    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:

  • Keep Inflammation At Bay

    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.

    How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    You asked us to do a main feature on inflammation, so here we go!

    Before we start, it’s worth noting an important difference between acute and chronic inflammation:

    • Acute inflammation is generally when the body detects some invader, and goes to war against it. This (except in cases such as allergic responses) is usually helpful.
    • Chronic inflammation is generally when the body does a civil war. This is almost never helpful.

    We’ll be tackling the latter, which frees up your body’s resources to do better at the former.

    First, the obvious…

    These five things are as important for this as they are for most things:

    1. Get a good dietthe Mediterranean diet is once again a top-scorer
    2. Exercisemove and stretch your body; don’t overdo it, but do what you reasonably can, or the inflammation will get worse.
    3. Reduce (or ideally eliminate) alcohol consumption. When in pain, it’s easy to turn to the bottle, and say “isn’t this one of red wine’s benefits?” (it isn’t, functionally*). Alcohol will cause your inflammation to flare up like little else.
    4. Don’t smoke—it’s bad for everything, and that goes for inflammation too.
    5. Get good sleep. Obviously this can be difficult with chronic pain, but do take your sleep seriously. For example, invest in a good mattress, nice bedding, a good bedtime routine, etc.

    *Resveratrol (which is a polyphenol, by the way), famously found in red wine, does have anti-inflammatory properties. However, to get enough resveratrol to be of benefit would require drinking far more wine than will be good for your inflammation or, indeed, the rest of you. So if you’d like resveratrol benefits, consider taking it as a supplement. Superficially it doesn’t seem as much fun as drinking red wine, but we assure you that the results will be much more fun than the inflammation flare-up after drinking.

    About the Mediterranean Diet for this…

    There are many causes of chronic inflammation, but here are some studies done with some of the most common ones:

    *Type 1 diabetes is a congenital autoimmune disorder, as the pancreas goes to war with itself. Type 2 diabetes is different, being a) acquired and b) primarily about insulin resistance, and/but this is related to chronic inflammation regardless. It is also possible to have T1D and go on to develop insulin resistance, and that’s very bad, and/but beyond the scope of today’s newsletter, in which we are focusing on the inflammation aspects.

    Some specific foods to eat or avoid…

    Eat these:

    • Leafy greens
    • Cruciferous vegetables
    • Tomatoes
    • Fruits in general (berries in particular)
    • Healthy fats, e.g. olives and olive oil
    • Almonds and other nuts
    • Dark chocolate (choose high cocoa, low sugar)

    Avoid these:

    • Processed meats (absolute worst offenders are hot dogs, followed by sausages in general)
    • Red meats
    • Sugar (includes most fruit juices, but not most actual fruits—the difference with actual fruits is they still contain plenty of fiber, and in many cases, antioxidants/polyphenols that reduce inflammation)
    • Dairy products (unless fermented, in which case it seems to be at worst neutral, sometimes even a benefit, in moderation)
    • White flour (and white flour products, e.g. white bread, white pasta, etc)
    • Processed vegetable oils

    See also: 9 Best Drinks To Reduce Inflammation, Says Science

    Supplements?

    Some supplements that have been found to reduce inflammation include:

    (links are to studies showing their efficacy)

    Consider Intermittent Fasting

    Remember when we talked about the difference between acute and chronic inflammation? It’s fair to wonder “if I reduce my inflammatory response, will I be weakening my immune system?”, and the answer is: generally, no.

    Often, as with the above supplements and dietary considerations, reducing inflammation actually results in a better immune response when it’s actually needed! This is because your immune system works better when it hasn’t been working in overdrive constantly.

    Here’s another good example: intermittent fasting reduces the number of circulating monocytes (a way of measuring inflammation) in healthy humans—but doesn‘t compromise antimicrobial (e.g. against bacteria and viruses) immune response.

    See for yourself: Dietary Intake Regulates the Circulating Inflammatory Monocyte Pool ← the study is about the anti-inflammatory effects of fasting

    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: