Elderberries vs Cranberries – 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 elderberries to cranberries, we picked the elderberries.

Why?

In terms of macros, elderberry has slightly more carbs and 2x the fiber, the ratio of which gives elderberries the lower glycemic index also. A win for elderberries, then.

Looking at the vitamins, elderberries have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, and C, while cranberries have more vitamin B5. An easy win for elderberries in this category.

In the category of minerals, we see a similar story: elderberries have more calcium, copper, iron, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while cranberries have (barely) more magnesium. Another clear win for elderberries.

Both of these fruits have additional “special” properties, and it’s worth noting that:

  • elderberries’ bonus properties include that they significantly hasten recovery from upper respiratory tract viral infections.
  • cranberries’ bonus properties (including: famously very good at reducing UTI risk) come with some warnings, including that they may increase the risk of kidney stones if you are prone to such, and also that cranberries have anti-clotting effects, which are great for heart health but can be a risk of you’re on blood thinners or have a bleeding disorder.

You can read about both of these fruits’ special properties in more detail below:

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Almond Butter vs Cashew Butter – Which is Healthier?
  • We’re the ‘allergy capital of the world’. But we don’t know why food allergies are so common in Australian children
    Australia: the ‘allergy capital’ where 1 in 10 kids develop food allergies in their first year, with rising rates despite new prevention strategies.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Is stress turning my hair grey?

    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 we start to go grey depends a lot on genetics.

    Your first grey hairs usually appear anywhere between your twenties and fifties. For men, grey hairs normally start at the temples and sideburns. Women tend to start greying on the hairline, especially at the front.

    The most rapid greying usually happens between ages 50 and 60. But does anything we do speed up the process? And is there anything we can do to slow it down?

    You’ve probably heard that plucking, dyeing and stress can make your hair go grey – and that redheads don’t. Here’s what the science says.

    Oksana Klymenko/Shutterstock

    What gives hair its colour?

    Each strand of hair is produced by a hair follicle, a tunnel-like opening in your skin. Follicles contain two different kinds of stem cells:

    • keratinocytes, which produce keratin, the protein that makes and regenerates hair strands
    • melanocytes, which produce melanin, the pigment that colours your hair and skin.

    There are two main types of melanin that determine hair colour. Eumelanin is a black-brown pigment and pheomelanin is a red-yellow pigment.

    The amount of the different pigments determines hair colour. Black and brown hair has mostly eumelanin, red hair has the most pheomelanin, and blonde hair has just a small amount of both.

    So what makes our hair turn grey?

    As we age, it’s normal for cells to become less active. In the hair follicle, this means stem cells produce less melanin – turning our hair grey – and less keratin, causing hair thinning and loss.

    As less melanin is produced, there is less pigment to give the hair its colour. Grey hair has very little melanin, while white hair has none left.

    Unpigmented hair looks grey, white or silver because light reflects off the keratin, which is pale yellow.

    Grey hair is thicker, coarser and stiffer than hair with pigment. This is because the shape of the hair follicle becomes irregular as the stem cells change with age.

    Interestingly, grey hair also grows faster than pigmented hair, but it uses more energy in the process.

    Can stress turn our hair grey?

    Yes, stress can cause your hair to turn grey. This happens when oxidative stress damages hair follicles and stem cells and stops them producing melanin.

    Oxidative stress is an imbalance of too many damaging free radical chemicals and not enough protective antioxidant chemicals in the body. It can be caused by psychological or emotional stress as well as autoimmune diseases.

    Environmental factors such as exposure to UV and pollution, as well as smoking and some drugs, can also play a role.

    Melanocytes are more susceptible to damage than keratinocytes because of the complex steps in melanin production. This explains why ageing and stress usually cause hair greying before hair loss.

    Scientists have been able to link less pigmented sections of a hair strand to stressful events in a person’s life. In younger people, whose stems cells still produced melanin, colour returned to the hair after the stressful event passed.

    4 popular ideas about grey hair – and what science says

    1. Does plucking a grey hair make more grow back in its place?

    No. When you pluck a hair, you might notice a small bulb at the end that was attached to your scalp. This is the root. It grows from the hair follicle.

    Plucking a hair pulls the root out of the follicle. But the follicle itself is the opening in your skin and can’t be plucked out. Each hair follicle can only grow a single hair.

    It’s possible frequent plucking could make your hair grey earlier, if the cells that produce melanin are damaged or exhausted from too much regrowth.

    2. Can my hair can turn grey overnight?

    Legend says Marie Antoinette’s hair went completely white the night before the French queen faced the guillotine – but this is a myth.

    Painted portrait of Marie Antoinette with elaborate grey hairstyle.
    It is not possible for hair to turn grey overnight, as in the legend about Marie Antoinette. Yann Caradec/Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    Melanin in hair strands is chemically stable, meaning it can’t transform instantly.

    Acute psychological stress does rapidly deplete melanocyte stem cells in mice. But the effect doesn’t show up immediately. Instead, grey hair becomes visible as the strand grows – at a rate of about 1 cm per month.

    Not all hair is in the growing phase at any one time, meaning it can’t all go grey at the same time.

    3. Will dyeing make my hair go grey faster?

    This depends on the dye.

    Temporary and semi-permanent dyes should not cause early greying because they just coat the hair strand without changing its structure. But permanent products cause a chemical reaction with the hair, using an oxidising agent such as hydrogen peroxide.

    Accumulation of hydrogen peroxide and other hair dye chemicals in the hair follicle can damage melanocytes and keratinocytes, which can cause greying and hair loss.

    4. Is it true redheads don’t go grey?

    People with red hair also lose melanin as they age, but differently to those with black or brown hair.

    This is because the red-yellow and black-brown pigments are chemically different.

    Producing the brown-black pigment eumelanin is more complex and takes more energy, making it more susceptible to damage.

    Producing the red-yellow pigment (pheomelanin) causes less oxidative stress, and is more simple. This means it is easier for stem cells to continue to produce pheomelanin, even as they reduce their activity with ageing.

    With ageing, red hair tends to fade into strawberry blonde and silvery-white. Grey colour is due to less eumelanin activity, so is more common in those with black and brown hair.

    Your genetics determine when you’ll start going grey. But you may be able to avoid premature greying by staying healthy, reducing stress and avoiding smoking, too much alcohol and UV exposure.

    Eating a healthy diet may also help because vitamin B12, copper, iron, calcium and zinc all influence melanin production and hair pigmentation.

    Theresa Larkin, Associate Professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

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

    Share This Post

  • STI rates are increasing among midlife and older adults. We need to talk 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.

    Globally, the rates of common sexually transmissible infections (STIs) are increasing among people aged over 50. In some cases, rates are rising faster than among younger people.

    Recent data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, among people aged 55 and older, rates of gonorrhoea and chlamydia, two of the most common STIs, more than doubled between 2012 and 2022.

    Australian STI surveillance data has reflected similar trends. Between 2013 and 2022, there was a steady increase in diagnoses of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis among people aged 40 and older. For example, there were 5,883 notifications of chlamydia in Australians 40 plus in 2013, compared with 10,263 in 2022.

    A 2020 study of Australian women also showed that, between 2000 and 2018, there was a sharper increase in STI diagnoses among women aged 55–74 than among younger women.

    While the overall rate of common STIs is highest among young adults, the significant increase in STI diagnoses among midlife and older adults suggests we need to pay more attention to sexual health across the life course.

    Fit Ztudio/Shutterstock

    Why are STI rates rising among older adults?

    STI rates are increasing globally for all age groups, and an increase among midlife and older people is in line with this trend.

    However, increases of STIs among older people are likely due to a combination of changing sex and relationship practices and hidden sexual health needs among this group.

    The “boomer” generation came of age in the 60s and 70s. They are the generation of free love and their attitude to sex, even as they age, is quite different to that of generations before them.

    Given the median age of divorce in Australia is now over 43, and the internet has ushered in new opportunities for post-separation dating, it’s not surprising that midlife and older adults are exploring new sexual practices or finding multiple sexual partners.

    A middle-aged couple cooking.
    People may start new relationships later in life. Tint Media/Shutterstock

    It’s also possible midlife and older people have not had exposure to sexual health education in school or do not relate to current safe sex messages, which tend to be directed toward young people. Condoms may therefore seem unnecessary for people who aren’t trying to avoid pregnancy. Older people may also lack confidence negotiating safe sex or accessing STI screening.

    Hidden sexual health needs

    In contemporary life, the sex lives of older adults are largely invisible. Ageing and older bodies are often associated with loss of power and desirability, reflected in the stereotype of older people as asexual and in derogatory jokes about older people having sex.

    With some exceptions, we see few positive representations of older sexual bodies in film or television.

    Older people’s sexuality is also largely invisible in public policy. In a review of Australian policy relating to sexual and reproductive health, researchers found midlife and older adults were rarely mentioned.

    Sexual health policy generally targets groups with the highest STI rates, which excludes most older people. As midlife and older adults are beyond childbearing years, they also do not feature in reproductive health policy. This means there is a general absence of any policy related to sex or sexual health among midlife or older adults.

    Added to this, sexual health policy tends to be focused on risk rather than sexual wellbeing. Sexual wellbeing, including freedom and capacity to pursue pleasurable sexual experiences, is strongly associated with overall health and quality of life for adults of all ages. Including sexual wellbeing as a policy priority would enable a focus on safe and respectful sex and relationships across the adult life course.

    Without this priority, we have limited knowledge about what supports sexual wellbeing as people age and limited funding for initiatives to engage with midlife or older adults on these issues.

    One man, working in a home office, talking happily to another man.
    Midlife and older adults may have limited knowledge about STIs. Southworks/Shutterstock

    How can we support sexual health and wellbeing for older adults?

    Most STIs are easily treatable. Serious complications can occur, however, when STIs are undiagnosed and untreated over a long period. Untreated STIs can also be passed on to others.

    Late diagnosis is not uncommon as some STIs can have no symptoms and many people don’t routinely screen for STIs. Older, heterosexual adults are, in general, less likely than other groups to seek regular STI screening.

    For midlife or older adults, STIs may also be diagnosed late because some doctors do not initiate testing due to concerns they will cause offence or because they assume STI risk among older people is negligible.

    Many doctors are reluctant to discuss sexual health with their older patients unless the patient explicitly raises the topic. However, older people can be embarrassed or feel awkward raising matters of sex.

    Resources for health-care providers and patients to facilitate conversations about sexual health and STI screening with older patients would be a good first step.

    To address rising rates of STIs among midlife and older adults, we also need to ensure sexual health promotion is targeted toward these age groups and improve accessibility of clinical services.

    More broadly, it’s important to consider ways to ensure sexual wellbeing is prioritised in policy and practice related to midlife and older adulthood.

    A comprehensive approach to older people’s sexual health, that explicitly places value on the significance of sex and intimacy in people’s lives, will enhance our ability to more effectively respond to sexual health and STI prevention across the life course.

    Jennifer Power, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

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

    Share This Post

  • Protein: How Much Do We Need, Really?

    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.

    Mythbusting Protein!

    Yesterday, we asked you for your policy on protein consumption. The distribution of responses was as follows:

    • A marginal majority (about 55%) voted for “Protein is very important, but we can eat too much of it”
    • A large minority (about 35%) voted for “We need lots of protein; the more, the better!”
    • A handful (about 4%) voted for “We should go as light on protein as possible”
    • A handful (6%) voted for “If we don’t eat protein, our body will create it from other foods”

    So, what does the science say?

    If we don’t eat protein, our body will create it from other foods: True or False?

    Contingently True on an absurd technicality, but for all practical purposes False.

    Our body requires 20 amino acids (the building blocks of protein), 9 of which it can’t synthesize and absolutely must get from food. Normally, we get those amino acids from protein in our diet, and we can also supplement them by buying amino acid supplements.

    Specifically, we require (per kg of bodyweight) a daily average of:

    1. Histidine: 10 mg
    2. Isoleucine: 20 mg
    3. Leucine: 39 mg
    4. Lysine: 30 mg
    5. Methionine: 10.4 mg
    6. Phenylalanine*: 25 mg
    7. Threonine: 15 mg
    8. Tryptophan: 4 mg
    9. Valine: 26 mg

    *combined with the non-essential amino acid tyrosine

    Source: Protein and Amino Acid Requirements In Human Nutrition: WHO Technical Report

    However, to get the requisite amino acid amounts, without consuming actual protein, would require gargantuan amounts of supplementation (bearing in mind bioavailability will never be 100%, so you’ll always need to take more than it seems), using supplements that will have been made by breaking down proteins anyway.

    So unless you live in a laboratory and have access to endless amounts of all of the required amino acids (you can’t miss even one; you will die), and are willing to do that for the sake of proving a point, then you do really need to eat protein.

    Your body cannot, for example, simply break down sugar and use it to make the protein you need.

    On another technical note… Do bear in mind that many foods that we don’t necessarily think of as being sources of protein, are sources of protein.

    Grains and grain products, for example, all contain protein; we just don’t think of them as that because their macronutritional profile is heavily weighted towards carbohydrates.

    For that matter, even celery contains protein. How much, you may ask? Almost none! But if something has DNA, it has protein. Which means all plants and animals (at least in their unrefined forms).

    So again, to even try to live without protein would very much require living in a laboratory.

    We can eat too much protein: True or False?

    True. First on an easy technicality; anything in excess is toxic. Even water, or oxygen. But also, in practical terms, there is such a thing as too much protein. The bar is quite high, though:

    ❝Based on short-term nitrogen balance studies, the Recommended Dietary Allowance of protein for a healthy adult with minimal physical activity is currently 0.8 g protein per kg bodyweight per day❞

    ❝To meet the functional needs such as promoting skeletal-muscle protein accretion and physical strength, dietary intake of 1.0, 1.3, and 1.6 g protein per kg bodyweight per day is recommended for individuals with minimal, moderate, and intense physical activity, respectively❞

    ❝Long-term consumption of protein at 2 g per kg bodyweight per day is safe for healthy adults, and the tolerable upper limit is 3.5 g per kg bodyweight per day for well-adapted subjects❞

    ❝Chronic high protein intake (>2 g per kg bodyweight per day for adults) may result in digestive, renal, and vascular abnormalities and should be avoided❞

    Source: Dietary protein intake and human health

    To put this into perspective, if you weigh about 160lbs (about 72kg), this would mean eating more than 144g protein per day, which grabbing a calculator means about 560g of lean beef, or 20oz, or 1¼lb.

    If you’re eating quarter-pounder burgers though, that’s not usually so lean, so you’d need to eat more than nine quarter-pounder burgers per day to get too much protein.

    High protein intake damages the kidneys: True or False?

    True if you have kidney damage already; False if you are healthy. See for example:

    High protein intake increases cancer risk: True or False?

    True or False depending on the source of the protein, so functionally false:

    • Eating protein from red meat sources has been associated with higher risk for many cancers
    • Eating protein from other sources has been associated with lower risk for many cancers

    Source: Red Meat Consumption and Mortality Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

    High protein intake increase risk of heart disease: True or False?

    True or False depending on the source of the protein, so, functionally false:

    • Eating protein from red meat sources has been associated with higher risk of heart disease
    • Eating protein from other sources has been associated with lower risk of heart disease

    Source: Major Dietary Protein Sources and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women

    In summary…

    Getting a good amount of good quality protein is important to health.

    One can get too much, but one would have to go to extremes to do so.

    The source of protein matters:

    • Red meat is associated with many health risks, but that’s not necessarily the protein’s fault.
    • Getting plenty of protein from (ideally: unprocessed) sources such as poultry, fish, and/or plants, is critical to good health.
    • Consuming “whole proteins” (that contain all 9 amino acids that we can’t synthesize) are best.

    Learn more: Complete proteins vs. incomplete proteins (explanation and examples)

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Almond Butter vs Cashew Butter – Which is Healthier?
  • How Much Does A Vegan Diet Affect Biological Aging?

    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.

    Slow Your Aging, One Meal At A Time

    This one’s a straightforward one today, and the ““life hack” can be summed up:

    Enjoy a vegan diet to enjoy younger biological age.

    First, what is biological age?

    Biological age is not one number, but a collection of numbers, as per different biomarkers of aging, including:

    • Visual markers of aging (e.g. wrinkles, graying hair)
    • Performative markers of aging (e.g. mobility tests)
    • Internal functional markers of aging (e.g. tests for cognitive decline, eyesight, hearing, etc)
    • Cellular markers of aging (e.g. telomere length)

    We wrote more about this here:

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

    A vegan diet may well impact multiple of those categories of aging, but today we’re highlighting a study (hot off the press; published only a few days ago!) that looks at its effect on that last category: cellular markers of aging.

    There’s an interesting paradox here, because this category is:

    • the most easily ignorable; because we all feel it if our knees are giving out or our skin is losing elasticity, but who notices if telomeres’ T/S ratio changed by 0.0407? ← the researchers, that’s who, as this difference is very significant
    • the most far-reaching in its impact, because cellular aging in turn has an effect on all the other markers of aging

    Second, how much difference does it make, and how do we know?

    The study was an eight-week interventional identical twin study. This means several things, to start with:

    • Eight weeks is a rather short period of time to accumulate cellular aging, let alone for an intervention to accumulate a significant difference in cellular aging—but it did. So, just imagine what difference it might make in a year or ten!
    • Doing an interventional study with identical twin pairs already controlled for a lot of factors, that are usually confounding variables in population / cohort / longitudinal / observational studies.

    Factors that weren’t controlled for by default by using identical twins, were controlled for in the experiment design. For example, twin pairs were rejected if one or more twin in a given pair already had medical conditions that could affect the outcome:

    ❝Inclusion criteria involved participants aged ≥18, part of a willing twin pair, with BMI <40, and LDL-C <190 mg/dL. Exclusions included uncontrolled hypertension, metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, heart/renal/liver disease, pregnancy, lactation, and medication use affecting body weight or energy.

    Eligibility was determined via online screening, followed by an orientation meeting and in-person clinic visit. Randomization occurred only after completing baseline visits, dietary recalls, and questionnaires for both twins❞

    ~ Dr. Varun Dwaraka et al. ← there’s a lot of “et al.” to this one; the paper had 16 collaborating authors!

    As to the difference it made over the course of the 8 weeks…

    ❝Various measures of epigenetic age acceleration (PC GrimAge, PC PhenoAge, DunedinPACE) were assessed, along with system-specific effects (Inflammation, Heart, Hormone, Liver, and Metabolic).

    Distinct responses were observed, with the vegan cohort exhibiting significant decreases in overall epigenetic age acceleration, aligning with anti-aging effects of plant-based diets. Diet-specific shifts were noted in the analysis of methylation surrogates, demonstrating the influence of diet on complex trait prediction through DNA methylation markers.❞

    ~ Ibid.

    You can read the whole paper here (it goes into a lot more detail than we have room to here, and also gives infographics, charts, numbers, the works):

    Unveiling the epigenetic impact of vegan vs. omnivorous diets on aging: insights from the Twins Nutrition Study (TwiNS)

    Were they just eating more healthily, though?

    Well, arguably yes, as the results show, but to be clear:

    The omnivorous diet compared to the vegan diet in this study was also controlled; both groups were given a healthy meal plan for their respective diet. So this wasn’t a case of “any omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”, but rather “healthy omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”.

    Again, the paper itself has the full details—a short version is that it involved a healthy meal kit delivery service, followed by ongoing dietician involvement in an equal and carefully-controlled fashion.

    So, aside from that one group had an omnivorous meal plan and the other vegan, both groups received the same level of “healthy eating” support, guidance, and oversight.

    But isn’t [insert your preferred animal product here] healthy?

    Quite possibly! For general health, general scientific consensus is that eating at least mostly plants is best, red meat is bad, poultry is neutral in moderation, fish is good in moderation, dairy is good in moderation if fermented, eggs are good in moderation if not fried.

    This study looked at the various biomarkers of aging that we listed, and not every possible aspect of health—there’s more science yet to be done, and the researchers themselves are calling for it.

    It also bears mentioning that for some (relatively few, but not insignificantly few) people, extant health conditions may make a vegan diet unhealthy or otherwise untenable. Do speak with your own doctor and/or dietician if unsure.

    See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?

    We would hypothesize, by the way, that the anti-aging benefits of a vegan diet are probably proportional to abstention from animal products—meaning that even if you simply have some “vegan days”, while still consuming animal products other days, you’ll still get benefit for the days you abstained. That’s just our hypothesis though.

    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:

  • Egg Noodles vs Rice Noodles – 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 egg noodles to rice noodles, we picked the egg noodles.

    Why?

    It was close—these are both quite mediocre foods. They’re neither amazing for the health nor appalling for the health (in moderation). They are both relatively low in nutrients, but they are also low in anti-nutrients, i.e. things that have a negative effect on the health.

    Their mineral profiles are similar; both are a source of selenium, manganese, phosphorus, copper, and iron. Not as good as many sources, but not devoid of nutrients either.

    Their vitamin profiles are both pitiful; rice noodles have trace amounts of various vitamins, and egg noodles have only slightly more. While eggs themselves are nutritious, the processing has robbed them of much of their value.

    In terms of macros, egg noodles have a little more fat (but the fats are healthier) and rice noodles have a lot more carbs, so this is the main differentiator, and is the main reason we chose the egg noodles over the rice noodles. Both have a comparable (small) amount of protein.

    In short:

    • They’re comparable on minerals, and vitamins here are barely worth speaking about (though egg noodles do have marginally more)
    • Egg noodles have a little more fat (but the fats are healthier)
    • Rice noodles have a lot more carbs (with a moderately high glycemic index, which is relatively worse—if you eat them with vegetables and fats, then that’ll offset this, but we’re judging the two items on merit, not your meal)

    Learn more

    You might like this previous main feature of ours:

    Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?

    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:

  • Intermittent Fasting, Intermittently?

    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 😎

    ❝Have you come across any research on alternate-day intermittent fasting—specifically switching between one day of 16:8 fasting and the next day of regular eating patterns? I’m curious if there are any benefits or drawbacks to this alternating approach, or if the benefits mainly come from consistent intermittent fasting?❞

    Short and unhelpful answer: no

    Longer and hopefully more helpful answer:

    As you probably know, usually people going for approaches based on the above terms either

    • practise 16:8 fasting (fast for 16 hours each day, eat during an 8-hour window) or
    • practise alternate-day fasting (fast for 24 hours, eat whenever for 24 hours, repeat)

    …which latter scored the best results in this large meta-analysis of studies:

    Effects of different types of intermittent fasting on metabolic outcomes: an umbrella review and network meta-analysis

    There is also the (popular) less extreme version of alternate-day fasting, sometimes called “eat stop eat”, which is not a very helpful description because that describes almost any kind of eating/fasting, but it usually refers to “once per week, take a day off from eating”.

    You can read more about each of these (and some other variants), here:

    Intermittent Fasting: What’s The Truth?

    What you are describing (doing 16:8 fasting on alternate days, eating whenever on the other days) is essentially: intermittent fasting, just with one 16-hour fast per 48 hours instead of per the usual 24 hours.

    See also: International consensus on fasting terminology ← the section on the terms “STF & PF” covers why this gets nudged back under the regular IF umbrella

    Good news: this means there is a lot of literature into the acute (i.e., occurring the same day, not long-term)* benefits of 16:8 IF, and that means that you will be getting those benefits, every second day.

    You remember that meta-analysis we posted above? While it isn’t mentioned in the conclusion (which only praised complete alternate-day fasting producing the best outcomes overall), sifting through the results data discovers that time-restricted eating (which is what you are doing, by these classifications) was the only fasting method to significantly reduce fasting blood glucose levels.

    (However, no significant differences were observed between any IF form and the reference (continuous energy restriction, CER, i.e. calorie-controlled) diets in fasting insulin and HbA1c levels)

    *This is still good news in the long-term though, because getting those benefits every second day is better than getting those benefits on no days, and this will have a long-term impact on your healthy longevity, just like how it is better to exercise every second day than it is to exercise no days, or better to abstain from alcohol every second day than it is to abstain on no days, etc.

    In short, by doing IF every second day, you are still giving your organs a break sometimes, and that’s good.

    All the same, if it would be convenient and practical for you, we would encourage you to consider either the complete alternate-day fasting (which, according to a lot of data, gives the best results overall),or time-restricted eating (TRE) every day (which, according to a lot of data, gives the best fasting blood sugar levels).

    You could also improve the TRE days by shifting to 20:4 (i.e., 20 hours fasting and 4 hours eating), this giving your organs a longer break on those days.

    Want to learn more?

    For a much more comprehensive discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to intermitted fasting, check out:

    Complete Guide To Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting – By Dr. Jason Fung

    Enjoy!

    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: