Goji Berries vs Pomegranate – 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 goji berries to pomegranate, we picked the goji berries.

Why?

Both fruits with substantial phytochemical benefits, but…

In terms of macros, goji berries have a lot more protein, carbs, and fiber, the ratio of which latter two brings the glycemic index to the same place as pomegranate’s—specifically, that eating either of these will not raise a person’s blood glucose levels. We thus call this a win for goji berries, as the “more food per food” option.

In the category of vitamins, goji berries have a lot more of vitamins A, B3, B6, and C, while pomegranate is not higher in any vitamins.

When it comes to minerals, goji berries have more calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, and zinc, while pomegranate has more copper. Another win for goji berries here.

With regard to those phytochemical benefits we talked about; it’s worth noting that they come in abundance in goji berries, while in pomegranates, most of the benefits are in the peel, not the flesh/seeds that people most often eat. So, again goji berries win.

Adding up the sections makes for an easy win for goji berries today.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Pomegranate vs Cherries – Which is Healthier?
  • Hormone Replacement
    Q&A Day at 10almonds tackles your burning questions! From revisiting menopause symptoms to addressing HRT misconceptions, no topic is too big or small.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Scattered Minds – by Dr. Gabor Maté

    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.

    This was not the first book that Dr. Maté sat down to write, by far. But it was the first that he actually completed. Guess why.

    Writing from a position of both personal and professional experience and understanding, Dr. Maté explores the inaptly-named Attention Deficit Disorder (if anything, there’s often a surplus of attention, just, to anything and everything rather than necessarily what would be most productive in the moment), its etiology, its presentation, and its management.

    This is a more enjoyable book than some others by the same author, as while this condition certainly isn’t without its share of woes (often, for example, a cycle of frustration and shame re “why can’t I just do the things; this is ruining my life and it would be so easy if I could just do the things!”), it’s not nearly so bleak as entire books about trauma, addiction, and so forth (worthy as those books also are).

    Dr. Maté frames it specifically as a development disorder, and one whereby with work, we can do the development later that (story of an ADHDer’s life) we should have done earlier but didn’t. In terms of practical advice, he includes a program for effecting this change, including as an adult.

    The style is easy-reading, in small chapters, with ADHD’d-up readers in mind, giving a strong sense of speeding pleasantly through the book.

    Bottom line: when it’s a book by Dr. Gabor Maté, you know it’s going to be good, and this is no exception. Certainly read it if you, anyone you care about, or even anyone you just spend a lot of time around, has ADHD or similar.

    Click here to check out Scattered Minds, and unscatter yours!

    Share This Post

  • Magnesium Glycinate vs Magnesium Citrate – 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 magnesium glycinate to magnesium citrate, we picked the citrate.

    Why?

    Both are fine sources of magnesium, a nutrient in which it’s very common to be deficient—a lot of people don’t eat many leafy greens, beans, nuts, and so forth that contain it.

    A quick word on a third contender we didn’t include here: magnesium oxide is probably the most widely-sold magnesium supplement because it’s cheapest to make. It also has woeful bioavailability, to the point that there seems to be negligible benefit to taking it. So we don’t recommend that.

    Magnesium glycinate and magnesium citrate are both absorbed well, but magnesium citrate is the most well-absorbed form of magnesium supplement.

    In terms of the relative merits of the glycine or the citric acid (the “other part” of magnesium glycinate and magnesium citrate, respectively), both are also great nutrients, but the amount delivered with the magnesium is quite small in each case, and so there’s nothing here to swing it one way or the other.

    For this reason, we went with the magnesium citrate, as the most readily bioavailable!

    Want to try them out?

    Here they are on Amazon:

    Magnesium glycinate | Magnesium citrate

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Honey vs Maple Syrup – 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 honey to maple syrup, we picked the honey.

    Why?

    It was very close, as both have small advantages:
    •⁠ ⁠Honey has some medicinal properties (and depending on type, may contain an antihistamine)
    •⁠ ⁠Maple syrup is a good source of manganese, as well as low-but-present amounts of other minerals

    However, you wouldn’t want to eat enough maple syrup to rely on it as a source of those minerals, and honey has the lower GI (average 46 vs 54; for comparison, refined sugar is 65), which works well as a tie-breaker.

    (If GI’s very important to you, though, the easy winner here would be agave syrup if we let it compete, with its GI of 15)

    Read more:
    •⁠ ⁠Can Honey Relieve Allergies?
    •⁠ ⁠From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’s

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Pomegranate vs Cherries – Which is Healthier?
  • 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!

    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:

  • Chia Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – 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 chia seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the chia.

    Why?

    Both are great! But chia is best.

    Note: we’re going to abbreviate them both to “chia” and “pumpkin”, respectively, but we’ll still be referring to the seeds throughout.

    In terms of macros, pumpkin has a little more protein and notably higher carbs, whereas chia has nearly 2x the fiber, as well as more fat, and/but they are famously healthy fats. We’ll call this category a subjective win for chia, though you might disagree if you want to prioritize an extra 2g of protein per 100g (for pumpkin) over an extra 16g of fiber per 100g (for chia). Chia is also vastly preferable for omega-3.

    When it comes to vitamins, pumpkin is marginally higher in vitamin A, while chia is a lot higher in vitamins B1, B2, B3, B9, C, and E. An easy win for chia.

    In the category of minerals, for which pumpkin seeds are so famously a good source, chia has a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and selenium. On the other hand, pumpkin has more potassium and zinc. Still, that’s a 7:2 win for chia.

    Adding up the categories makes for a very compelling win for the humble chia seed.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    If You’re Not Taking Chia, You’re Missing Out: The Tiniest Seeds With The Most Value

    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:

  • Surgery won’t fix my chronic back pain, so what will?

    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.

    This week’s ABC Four Corners episode Pain Factory highlighted that our health system is failing Australians with chronic pain. Patients are receiving costly, ineffective and risky care instead of effective, low-risk treatments for chronic pain.

    The challenge is considering how we might reimagine health-care delivery so the effective and safe treatments for chronic pain are available to millions of Australians who suffer from chronic pain.

    One in five Australians aged 45 and over have chronic pain (pain lasting three or more months). This costs an estimated A$139 billion a year, including $12 billion in direct health-care costs.

    The most common complaint among people with chronic pain is low back pain. So what treatments do – and don’t – work?

    Opioids and invasive procedures

    Treatments offered to people with chronic pain include strong pain medicines such as opioids and invasive procedures such as spinal cord stimulators or spinal fusion surgery. Unfortunately, these treatments have little if any benefit and are associated with a risk of significant harm.

    Spinal fusion surgery and spinal cord stimulators are also extremely costly procedures, costing tens of thousands of dollars each to the health system as well as incurring costs to the individual.

    Addressing the contributors to pain

    Recommendations from the latest Australian and World Health Organization clinical guidelines for low back pain focus on alternatives to drug and surgical treatments such as:

    • education
    • advice
    • structured exercise programs
    • physical, psychological or multidisciplinary interventions that address the physical or psychological contributors to ongoing pain.
    Woman sits on exercise ball and uses stretchy band
    Pain education is central. Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    Two recent Australian trials support these recommendations and have found that interventions that address each person’s physical and psychological contributors to pain produce large and sustained improvements in pain and function in people with chronic low back pain.

    The interventions have minimal side effects and are cost-effective.

    In the RESOLVE trial, the intervention consists of pain education and graded sensory and movement “retraining” aimed to help people understand that it’s safe to move.

    In the RESTORE trial, the intervention (cognitive functional therapy) involves assisting the person to understand the range of physical and psychological contributing factors related to their condition. It guides patients to relearn how to move and to build confidence in their back, without over-protecting it.

    Why isn’t everyone with chronic pain getting this care?

    While these trials provide new hope for people with chronic low back pain, and effective alternatives to spinal surgery and opioids, a barrier for implementation is the out-of-pocket costs. The interventions take up to 12 sessions, lasting up to 26 weeks. One physiotherapy session can cost $90–$150.

    In contrast, Medicare provides rebates for just five allied health visits (such as physiotherapists or exercise physiologists) for eligible patients per year, to be used for all chronic conditions.

    Private health insurers also limit access to reimbursement for these services by typically only covering a proportion of the cost and providing a cap on annual benefits. So even those with private health insurance would usually have substantial out-of-pocket costs.

    Access to trained clinicians is another barrier. This problem is particularly evident in regional and rural Australia, where access to allied health services, pain specialists and multidisciplinary pain clinics is limited.

    Higher costs and lack of access are associated with the increased use of available and subsidised treatments, such as pain medicines, even if they are ineffective and harmful. The rate of opioid use, for example, is higher in regional Australia and in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage than metropolitan centres and affluent areas.

    So what can we do about it?

    We need to reform Australia’s health system, private and public, to improve access to effective treatments for chronic pain, while removing access to ineffective, costly and high-risk treatments.

    Better training of the clinical workforce, and using technology such as telehealth and artificial intelligence to train clinicians or deliver treatment may also improve access to effective treatments. A recent Australian trial, for example, found telehealth delivered via video conferencing was as effective as in-person physiotherapy consultations for improving pain and function in people with chronic knee pain.

    Advocacy and improving the public’s understanding of effective treatments for chronic pain may also be helpful. Our hope is that coordinated efforts will promote the uptake of effective treatments and improve the care of patients with chronic pain.

    Christine Lin, Professor, University of Sydney; Christopher Maher, Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney; Fiona Blyth, Professor, University of Sydney; James Mcauley, Professor of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, and Mark Hancock, Professor of Physiotherapy, Macquarie University

    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: