Beetroot vs Pumpkin – 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 beetroot to pumpkin, we picked the beetroot.

Why?

It was close! And an argument could be made for either.

In terms of macros, beetroot has about 3x more protein and about 3x more fiber, as well as about 2x more carbs, making it the “more food per food” option. While both have a low glycemic index, we picked the beetroot here for its better numbers overall.

In the category of vitamins, beetroot has more of vitamins B6 and B9, while pumpkin has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, E, and K. So, a fair win for pumpkin this time.

When it comes to minerals, though, beetroot has more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while pumpkin has a tiny bit more copper. An easy win for beetroot here.

In short, both are great, and although pumpkin shines in the vitamin category, beetroot wins on overall nutritional density.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

No, beetroot isn’t vegetable Viagra. But here’s what it can do

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Peas vs Green Beans – Which is Healthier?
  • Yoga For Stiff Birds – by Marion Deuchars
    Get practical and inspired with “Yoga For Stiff Birds.” No need for perfect poses or skimpy attire, just a charming introduction to yoga.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Tilapia vs Cod – 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 tilapia to cod, we picked the tilapia.

    Why?

    Another case of “that which is more expensive is not necessarily the healthier”!

    In terms of macros, tilapia has more protein and fats, as well as more omega-3 (and omega-6). On the downside, tilapia does have relatively more saturated fat, but at 0.94g/100g, it’s not exactly butter.

    The vitamins category sees that tilapia has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B12, D, and K, while cod has more of vitamins B6, B9, and choline. A moderate win for tilapia.

    When it comes to minerals, things are most divided; tilapia has more copper, iron, phosphorus, potassium, manganese, and selenium, while cod has more magnesium and zinc. An easy win for tilapia.

    One other thing to note is that both of these fish contain mercury these days (and it’s worth noting: cod has nearly 10x more mercury). Mercury is, of course, not exactly a health food.

    So, excessive consumption of either is not recommended, but out of the two, tilapia is definitely the one to pick.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Farmed Fish vs Wild Caught: Know The Health Differences

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Fruit & Veg In The Fridge: Pros & Cons

    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 Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝What effect does refrigeration have on the nutritional value of fruit and vegetables??❞

    It’s difficult to give a single definitive answer, because naturally there are a lot of different fruits and vegetables, and a lot of different climates. The answer may be different for tomatoes in Alaska vs bananas in Arizona!

    However, we can still generalize at least somewhat

    Refrigeration will generally slow down any degradation process, and in the case of fruit and vegetables, that can mean slowing down their “ripening” too, as applicable.

    However…

    Refrigeration will also impede helpful bioactivity too, and that includes quite a list of things.

    Here’s a good study that’s quite illustrative; we’d summarize the conclusions but the rather long title already does that nicely:

    Storage of Fruits and Vegetables in Refrigerator Increases their Phenolic Acids but Decreases the Total Phenolics, Anthocyanins and Vitamin C with Subsequent Loss of their Antioxidant Capacity

    So, this really is a case of “there are pros and cons, but probably more cons on balance”.

    In practical terms, a good take-away from this can be twofold:

    1. don’t keep fruit and veg in the fridge unless the ambient temperature really requires it
    2. if the ambient temperature does require it, it’s best to get the produce in fresh each day if that’s feasible, to minimize time spent in the fridge

    An extra thing not included there: often when it comes to the spoilage of fruit and veg, the problem is that it respires and oxidizes; reducing the temperature does lower the rate of those, but often a far better way is to remove the oxygen. So for example, if you get carried away and chop too many carrot batons for your hummus night, then putting them in a sealed container can go a long way to keeping them fresh.

    See also: How Does the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables Change Over Time?

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Healing Cracked Fingers

    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 Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝Question. Suffer from cracked (split) finger tips in the cold weather. Very painful, is there something I can take to ward off this off. Appreciate your daily email.❞

    Ouch, painful indeed! Aside from good hydration (which is something we easily forget in cold weather), there’s no known internal guard against this*, but from the outside, oil-based moisturizers are the way to go.

    Olive oil, coconut oil, jojoba oil, and shea butter are all fine options.

    If the skin is broken such that infection is possible, then starting with an antiseptic ointment/cream is sensible. A good example product is Savlon, unless you are allergic to its active ingredient chlorhexidine.

    *However, if perchance you are also suffering from peripheral neuropathy (a common comorbidity of cracked skin in the extremities), then lion’s main mushroom can help with that.

    Writer’s anecdote: I myself started suffering from peripheral neuropathy in my hands earlier this year, doubtlessly due to some old injuries of mine.

    However, upon researching for the above articles, I was inspired to try lion’s mane mushroom for myself. I take it daily, and have now been free of symptoms of peripheral neuropathy for several months.

    Here’s an example product on Amazon, by the way

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Peas vs Green Beans – Which is Healthier?
  • Women Living Deliciously – by Florence Given

    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.

    “Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?” as the line goes, and this book answers that, and how.

    While roundly aimed at women, as per the title, this book will be of benefit to anyone who finds that society has wanted to keep you small and contained, and that perhaps you were meant for better.

    The book is divided into three sections:

    1. Excavating
    2. Planting
    3. Blooming

    …which broadly describes the process the author takes us through, of:

    1. Digging up what is wrong
    2. Putting better things in place
    3. Enjoying life

    This is important, because otherwise a lot of people will understandably exhort us to step 3 (enjoying life), without really thinking about steps 1 and 2.

    Her wording of it is important too, it wasn’t just being flowery for floweriness’ sake—rather, it highlights the nature of the process: while “enjoy life” seems like a thing-in-itself (as Kant might say), in reality, there’s another necessary thing (or series of things) behind it. In contrast, the gardening metaphor renders it clear: how will your flowers bloom if you do not plant them? And what good will planting them do if the soil is not right for them?

    So, she gives us a “ground upwards” therapeutic approach.

    The style throughout is casual but sincere and heartfelt, and while this is a book of personal change rather than social change, it does reference feminism throughout so if that’s not for you, then neither is this book.

    Bottom line: this is a lot more than just a pep talk or a book of platitudes; it’s a lot of concrete, applicable stuff to markedly live life better.

    Click here to check out Women Living Deliciously, and live deliciously!

    PS: we notice a one-star review on Amazon expressed disappointment upon discovering that this is not a recipe book. So please be aware, the only recipe in this book is the recipe for a fulfilling and vibrant life 😎

    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 Likely Are You To Live To 100?

    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 much hope can we reasonably have of reaching 100?

    Yesterday, we asked you: assuming a good Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), how much longer do you hope to live?

    We got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • A little over 38% of respondents hope to live another 11–20 years
    • A little over 31% hope to live another 31–40 years
    • A little over 7% will be content to make it to the next decade
    • One (1) respondent hopes to live longer than an additional 100 years

    This is interesting when we put it against our graph of how old our subscribers are:

    …because it corresponds inversely, right down to the gap/dent in the 40s. And—we may hypothesize—that one person under 18 who hopes to live to 120, perhaps.

    This suggests that optimism remains more or less constant, with just a few wobbles that would probably be un-wobbled with a larger sample size.

    In other words: most of our education-minded, health-conscious subscriber-base hope to make it to the age of 90-something, while for the most part feeling that 100+ is overly optimistic.

    Writer’s anecdote: once upon a time, I was at a longevity conference in Brussels, and a speaker did a similar survey, but by show of hands. He started low by asking “put your hands up if you want to live at least a few more minutes”. I did so, with an urgency that made him laugh, and say “Don’t worry; I don’t have a gun hidden up here!”

    Conjecture aside… What does the science say about our optimism?

    First of all, a quick recap…

    To not give you the same information twice, let’s note we did an “aging mythbusting” piece already covering:

    • Aging is inevitable: True or False?
    • Aging is, and always will be, unstoppable: True or False?
    • We can slow aging: True or False?
    • It’s too early to worry about… / It’s too late to do anything about… True or False?
    • We can halt aging: True or False?
    • We can reverse aging: True or False?
    • But those aren’t really being younger, we’ll still die when our time is up: True or False?

    You can read the answers to all of those here:

    Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?

    Now, onwards…

    It is unreasonable to expect to live past 100: True or False?

    True or False, depending on your own circumstances.

    First, external circumstances: the modal average person in Hong Kong is currently in their 50s and can expect to live into their late 80s, while the modal average person in Gaza is 14 and may not expect to make it to 15 right now.

    To avoid extremes, let’s look at the US, where the modal average person is currently in their 30s and can expect to live into their 70s:

    United States Mortality Database

    Now, before that unduly worries our many readers already in their 70s…

    Next, personal circumstances: not just your health, but your socioeconomic standing. And in the US, one of the biggest factors is the kind of health insurance one has:

    SOA Research Institute | Life Expectancy Calculator 2021

    You may note that the above source puts all groups into a life expectancy in the 80s—whereas the previous source gave 70s.

    Why is this? It’s because the SOA, whose primary job is calculating life insurance risks, is working from a sample of people who have, or are applying for, life insurance. So it misses out many people who die younger without such.

    New advances in medical technology are helping people to live longer: True or False?

    True, assuming access to those. Our subscribers are mostly in North America, and have an economic position that affords good access to healthcare. But beware…

    On the one hand:

    The number of people who live past the age of 100 has been on the rise for decades

    On the other hand:

    The average life expectancy in the U.S. has been on the decline for three consecutive years

    COVID is, of course, largely to blame for that, though:

    ❝The decline of 1.8 years in life expectancy was primarily due to increases in mortality from COVID-19 (61.2% of the negative contribution).

    The decline in life expectancy would have been even greater if not for the offsetting effects of decreases in mortality due to cancer (43.1%)❞

    Source: National Vital Statistics Reports

    The US stats are applicable to Canada, the UK, and Australia: True or False?

    False: it’s not quite so universal. Differences in healthcare systems will account for a lot, but there are other factors too:

    Here’s an interesting (UK-based) tool that calculates not just your life expectancy, but also gives the odds of living to various ages (e.g. this writer was given odds of living to 87, 96, 100).

    Check yours here:

    Office of National Statistics | Life Expectancy Calculator

    To finish on a cheery note…

    Data from Italian centenarians suggests a “mortality plateau”:

    ❝The risk of dying leveled off in people 105 and older, the team reports online today in Science.

    That means a 106-year-old has the same probability of living to 107 as a 111-year-old does of living to 112.

    Furthermore, when the researchers broke down the data by the subjects’ year of birth, they noticed that over time, more people appear to be reaching age 105.❞

    Pop-sci source: Once you hit this age, aging appears to stop

    Actual paper: The plateau of human mortality: demography of longevity pioneers

    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:

  • 3 signs your diet is causing too much muscle loss – and what to do about it

    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 trying to lose weight, it’s natural to want to see quick results. So when the number on the scales drops rapidly, it seems like we’re on the right track.

    But as with many things related to weight loss, there’s a flip side: rapid weight loss can result in a significant loss of muscle mass, as well as fat.

    So how you can tell if you’re losing too much muscle and what can you do to prevent it?

    EvMedvedeva/Shutterstock

    Why does muscle mass matter?

    Muscle is an important factor in determining our metabolic rate: how much energy we burn at rest. This is determined by how much muscle and fat we have. Muscle is more metabolically active than fat, meaning it burns more calories.

    When we diet to lose weight, we create a calorie deficit, where our bodies don’t get enough energy from the food we eat to meet our energy needs. Our bodies start breaking down our fat and muscle tissue for fuel.

    A decrease in calorie-burning muscle mass slows our metabolism. This quickly slows the rate at which we lose weight and impacts our ability to maintain our weight long term.

    How to tell you’re losing too much muscle

    Unfortunately, measuring changes in muscle mass is not easy.

    The most accurate tool is an enhanced form of X-ray called a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan. The scan is primarily used in medicine and research to capture data on weight, body fat, muscle mass and bone density.

    But while DEXA is becoming more readily available at weight-loss clinics and gyms, it’s not cheap.

    There are also many “smart” scales available for at home use that promise to provide an accurate reading of muscle mass percentage.

    Woman stands on scales
    Some scales promise to tell us our muscle mass. Lee Charlie/Shutterstock

    However, the accuracy of these scales is questionable. Researchers found the scales tested massively over- or under-estimated fat and muscle mass.

    Fortunately, there are three free but scientifically backed signs you may be losing too much muscle mass when you’re dieting.

    1. You’re losing much more weight than expected each week

    Losing a lot of weight rapidly is one of the early signs that your diet is too extreme and you’re losing too much muscle.

    Rapid weight loss (of more than 1 kilogram per week) results in greater muscle mass loss than slow weight loss.

    Slow weight loss better preserves muscle mass and often has the added benefit of greater fat mass loss.

    One study compared people in the obese weight category who followed either a very low-calorie diet (500 calories per day) for five weeks or a low-calorie diet (1,250 calories per day) for 12 weeks. While both groups lost similar amounts of weight, participants following the very low-calorie diet (500 calories per day) for five weeks lost significantly more muscle mass.

    2. You’re feeling tired and things feel more difficult

    It sounds obvious, but feeling tired, sluggish and finding it hard to complete physical activities, such as working out or doing jobs around the house, is another strong signal you’re losing muscle.

    Research shows a decrease in muscle mass may negatively impact your body’s physical performance.

    3. You’re feeling moody

    Mood swings and feeling anxious, stressed or depressed may also be signs you’re losing muscle mass.

    Research on muscle loss due to ageing suggests low levels of muscle mass can negatively impact mental health and mood. This seems to stem from the relationship between low muscle mass and proteins called neurotrophins, which help regulate mood and feelings of wellbeing.

    So how you can do to maintain muscle during weight loss?

    Fortunately, there are also three actions you can take to maintain muscle mass when you’re following a calorie-restricted diet to lose weight.

    1. Incorporate strength training into your exercise plan

    While a broad exercise program is important to support overall weight loss, strength-building exercises are a surefire way to help prevent the loss of muscle mass. A meta-analysis of studies of older people with obesity found resistance training was able to prevent almost 100% of muscle loss from calorie restriction.

    Relying on diet alone to lose weight will reduce muscle along with body fat, slowing your metabolism. So it’s essential to make sure you’ve incorporated sufficient and appropriate exercise into your weight-loss plan to hold onto your muscle mass stores.

    Woman uses weights at the gym
    Strength-building exercises help you retain muscle. BearFotos/Shutterstock

    But you don’t need to hit the gym. Exercises using body weight – such as push-ups, pull-ups, planks and air squats – are just as effective as lifting weights and using strength-building equipment.

    Encouragingly, moderate-volume resistance training (three sets of ten repetitions for eight exercises) can be as effective as high-volume training (five sets of ten repetitions for eight exercises) for maintaining muscle when you’re following a calorie-restricted diet.

    2. Eat more protein

    Foods high in protein play an essential role in building and maintaining muscle mass, but research also shows these foods help prevent muscle loss when you’re following a calorie-restricted diet.

    But this doesn’t mean just eating foods with protein. Meals need to be balanced and include a source of protein, wholegrain carb and healthy fat to meet our dietary needs. For example, eggs on wholegrain toast with avocado.

    3. Slow your weight loss plan down

    When we change our diet to lose weight, we take our body out of its comfort zone and trigger its survival response. It then counteracts weight loss, triggering several physiological responses to defend our body weight and “survive” starvation.

    Our body’s survival mechanisms want us to regain lost weight to ensure we survive the next period of famine (dieting). Research shows that more than half of the weight lost by participants is regained within two years, and more than 80% of lost weight is regained within five years.

    However, a slow and steady, stepped approach to weight loss, prevents our bodies from activating defence mechanisms to defend our weight when we try to lose weight.

    Ultimately, losing weight long-term comes down to making gradual changes to your lifestyle to ensure you form habits that last a lifetime.

    At the Boden Group, Charles Perkins Centre, we are studying the science of obesity and running clinical trials for weight loss. You can register here to express your interest.

    Nick Fuller, Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader, University of Sydney

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

    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: