Apple Cider Vinegar vs Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies – 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 apple cider vinegar (bottled) to apple cider vinegar (gummies), we picked the bottled.

Why?

There are several reasons!

The first reason is about dosage. For example, the sample we picked for apple cider vinegar gummies, boasts:

2 daily chewable gummies deliver 800 mg of Apple Cider Vinegar a day, equivalent to a teaspoon of liquid apple cider vinegar

That sounds good until you note that it’s recommended to take 1–2 tablespoons (not teaspoons) of apple vinegar. So this would need more like 4–8 gummies to make the dose. Suddenly, either that bottle of gummies is running out quickly, or you’re just not taking a meaningful dose and your benefits will likely not exceed placebo.

The other is reason about sugar. Most apple cider vinegar gummies are made with some kind of sugar syrup, often even high-fructose corn syrup, which is one of the least healthy foodstuffs (in the loosest sense of the word “foodstuffs”) known to science.

The specific brand we picked today was the best we can find; it used maltitol syrup.

Maltitol syrup, a corn derivative (and technically a sugar alcohol), has a Glycemic Index of 52, so it does raise blood sugars but not as much as sucrose would. However (and somewhat counterproductive to taking apple cider vinegar for gut health) it can cause digestive problems for many people.

And remember, you’re taking 4–8 gummies, so this is amounting to several tablespoons of the syrup by now.

On the flipside, apple cider vinegar itself has two main drawbacks, but they’re much less troublesome issues:

  • many people don’t like the taste
  • its acidic nature is not good for teeth

To this the common advice for both is to dilute it with water, thus diluting the taste and the acidity.

(this writer shoots hers from a shot glass, thus not bathing the teeth since it passes them “without touching the sides”; as for the taste, well, I find it invigorating—I do chase it with water, though to be sure of not leaving vinegar in my mouth)

Want to check them out for yourself?

Here they are:

Apple cider vinegar | Apple cider vinegar gummies

Want to know more about apple cider vinegar?

Check out:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Cashew Nuts vs Macadamia Nuts – Which is Healthier?
  • Before You Eat Breakfast: 3 Surprising Facts About Intermittent Fasting
    Dr. William Li simplifies intermittent fasting: A 12-hour window can enhance metabolism and health—aim for sustainability, not extremity.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • How much does your phone’s blue light really delay your sleep? Relax, it’s just 2.7 minutes

    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 one of the most pervasive messages about technology and sleep. We’re told bright, blue light from screens prevents us falling asleep easily. We’re told to avoid scrolling on our phones before bedtime or while in bed. We’re sold glasses to help filter out blue light. We put our phones on “night mode” to minimise exposure to blue light.

    But what does the science actually tell us about the impact of bright, blue light and sleep? When our group of sleep experts from Sweden, Australia and Israel compared scientific studies that directly tested this, we found the overall impact was close to meaningless. Sleep was disrupted, on average, by less than three minutes.

    We showed the message that blue light from screens stops you from falling asleep is essentially a myth, albeit a very convincing one.

    Instead, we found a more nuanced picture about technology and sleep.

    Mangostar/Shutterstock

    What we did

    We gathered evidence from 73 independent studies with a total of 113,370 participants of all ages examining various factors that connect technology use and sleep.

    We did indeed find a link between technology use and sleep, but not necessarily what you’d think.

    We found that sometimes technology use can lead to poor sleep and sometimes poor sleep can lead to more technology use. In other words, the relationship between technology and sleep is complex and can go both ways.

    How is technology supposed to harm sleep?

    Technology is proposed to harm our sleep in a number of ways. But here’s what we found when we looked at the evidence:

    • bright screen light – across 11 experimental studies, people who used a bright screen emitting blue light before bedtime fell asleep an average of only 2.7 minutes later. In some studies, people slept better after using a bright screen. When we were invited to write about this evidence further, we showed there is still no meaningful impact of bright screen light on other sleep characteristics including the total amount or quality of sleep
    • arousal is a measure of whether people become more alert depending on what they’re doing on their device. Across seven studies, people who engaged in more alerting or “exciting” content (for example, video games) lost an average of only about 3.5 minutes of sleep compared to those who engaged in something less exciting (for example, TV). This tells us the content of technology alone doesn’t affect sleep as much as we think
    • we found sleep disruption at night (for example, being awoken by text messages) and sleep displacement (using technology past the time that we could be sleeping) can lead to sleep loss. So while technology use was linked to less sleep in these instances, this was unrelated to being exposed to bright, blue light from screens before bedtime.

    Which factors encourage more technology use?

    Research we reviewed suggests people tend to use more technology at bedtime for two main reasons:

    There are also a few things that might make people more vulnerable to using technology late into the night and losing sleep.

    We found people who are risk-takers or who lose track of time easily may turn off devices later and sacrifice sleep. Fear of missing out and social pressures can also encourage young people in particular to stay up later on technology.

    What helps us use technology sensibly?

    Last of all, we looked at protective factors, ones that can help people use technology more sensibly before bed.

    The two main things we found that helped were self-control, which helps resist the short-term rewards of clicking and scrolling, and having a parent or loved one to help set bedtimes.

    Mother looking over shoulder of teen daughter sitting on sofa using smartphone
    We found having a parent or loved one to help set bedtimes encourages sensible use of technology. fast-stock/Shutterstock

    Why do we blame blue light?

    The blue light theory involves melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. During the day, we are exposed to bright, natural light that contains a high amount of blue light. This bright, blue light activates certain cells at the back of our eyes, which send signals to our brain that it’s time to be alert. But as light decreases at night, our brain starts to produce melatonin, making us feel sleepy.

    It’s logical to think that artificial light from devices could interfere with the production of melatonin and so affect our sleep. But studies show it would require light levels of about 1,000-2,000 lux (a measure of the intensity of light) to have a significant impact.

    Device screens emit only about 80-100 lux. At the other end of the scale, natural sunlight on a sunny day provides about 100,000 lux.

    What’s the take-home message?

    We know that bright light does affect sleep and alertness. However our research indicates the light from devices such as smartphones and laptops is nowhere near bright or blue enough to disrupt sleep.

    There are many factors that can affect sleep, and bright, blue screen light likely isn’t one of them.

    The take-home message is to understand your own sleep needs and how technology affects you. Maybe reading an e-book or scrolling on socials is fine for you, or maybe you’re too often putting the phone down way too late. Listen to your body and when you feel sleepy, turn off your device.

    Chelsea Reynolds, Casual Academic/Clinical Educator and Clinical Psychologist, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University

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

    Share This Post

  • The Recipe For Empowered Leadership – by Doug Meyer-Cuno

    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 is not a “here’s how to become a leader, you young would-be Machiavelli”; it’s more a “so you’re in a leadership role; now what?” book. The book’s subtitle describes well its contents: “25 Ingredients For Creating Value & Empowering Others”

    The book is written with the voice of experience, but without the ego-driven padding that accompanies many such books. Especially: any anecdotal illustrations are short and to-the-point, no chapter-long diversions here.

    Which we love!

    Equally helpful is where the author does spend a little more time and energy: on the “down to brass tacks” of how exactly to do various things.

    In short: if instead of a lofty-minded book of vague idealized notions selling a pipedream, you’d rather have a manual of how to actually be a good leader when it comes down to it, this is the book for you.

    Pick Up The Recipe For Empowered Leadership On Amazon Today!

    Share This Post

  • Getting to Neutral – by Trevor Moawad

    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 all know that a pessimistic outlook is self-defeating… And yet, toxic positivity can also be a set-up for failure! At some point, reckless faith in the kindly nature of the universe will get crushed, badly. Sometimes that point is a low point in life… sometimes it’s six times a day. But one thing’s for sure: we can’t “just decide everything will go great!” because the world just doesn’t work that way.

    That’s where Trevor Moawad comes in. “Getting to neutral” is not a popular selling point. Everyone wants joy, abundance, and high after high. And neutrality itself is often associated with boredom and soullessness. But, Moawad argues, it doesn’t have to be that way.

    This book’s goal—which it accomplishes well—is to provide a framework for being a genuine realist. What does that mean?

    “I’m not a pessimist; I’m a realist” – every pessimist ever.

    ^Not that. That’s not what it means. What it means instead is:

    1. Hope for the best
    2. Prepare for the worst
    3. Adapt as you go

    …taking care to use past experiences to inform future decisions, but without falling into the trap of thinking that because something happened a certain way before, it always will in the future.

    To be rational, in short. Consciously and actively rational.

    Feel the highs! Feel the lows! But keep your baseline when actually making decisions.

    Bottom line: this book is as much an antidote to pessimism and self-defeat, as it is to reckless optimism and resultant fragility. Highly recommendable.

    Click here to check out “Getting to Neutral” and start creating your best, most reason-based life!

    PS: in this book, Moawad draws heavily from his own experiences of battling adversity in the form of cancer—of which he died, before this book’s publication. A poignant reminder that he was right: we won’t always get the most positive outcome of any given situation, so what matters the most is making the best use of the time we have.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Cashew Nuts vs Macadamia Nuts – Which is Healthier?
  • Hitting the beach? Here are some dangers to watch out for – plus 10 essentials for your first aid kit

    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.

    Summer is here and for many that means going to the beach. You grab your swimmers, beach towel and sunscreen then maybe check the weather forecast. Did you think to grab a first aid kit?

    The vast majority of trips to the beach will be uneventful. However, if trouble strikes, being prepared can make a huge difference to you, a loved one or a stranger.

    So, what exactly should you be prepared for?

    FTiare/Shutterstock

    Knowing the dangers

    The first step in being prepared for the beach is to learn about where you are going and associated levels of risk.

    In Broome, you are more likely to be bitten by a dog at the beach than stung by an Irukandji jellyfish.

    In Byron Bay, you are more likely to come across a brown snake than a shark.

    In the summer of 2023–24, Surf Life Saving Australia reported more than 14 million Australian adults visited beaches. Surf lifesavers, lifeguards and lifesaving services performed 49,331 first aid treatments across 117 local government areas around Australia. Surveys of beach goers found perceptions of common beach hazards include rips, tropical stingers, sun exposure, crocodiles, sharks, rocky platforms and waves.

    Sun and heat exposure are likely the most common beach hazard. The Cancer Council has reported that almost 1.5 million Australians surveyed during summer had experienced sunburn during the previous week. Without adequate fluid intake, heat stroke can also occur.

    Lacerations and abrasions are a further common hazard. While surfboards, rocks, shells and litter might seem more dangerous, the humble beach umbrella has been implicated in thousands of injuries.

    Sprains and fractures are also associated with beach activities. A 2022 study linked data from hospital, ambulance and Surf Life Saving cases on the Sunshine Coast over six years and found 79 of 574 (13.8%) cervical spine injuries occurred at the beach. Surfing, smaller wave heights and shallow water diving were the main risks.

    Rips and rough waves present a higher risk at areas of unpatrolled beach, including away from surf lifesaving flags. Out of 150 coastal drowning deaths around Australia in 2023–24, nearly half were during summer. Of those deaths:

    • 56% occurred at the beach
    • 31% were rip-related
    • 86% were male, and
    • 100% occurred away from patrolled areas.

    People who had lived in Australia for less than two years were more worried about the dangers, but also more likely to be caught in a rip.

    Pathway to Australian beach cove with blue water
    Safety Beach on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula. Still bring your first aid essentials though. Julia Kuleshova/Shutterstock

    Knowing your DR ABCs

    So, beach accidents can vary by type, severity and impact. How you respond will depend on your level of first aid knowledge, ability and what’s in your first aid kit.

    A first aid training company survey of just over 1,000 Australians indicated 80% of people agree cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the most important skill to learn, but nearly half reported feeling intimidated by the prospect.

    CPR training covers an established checklist for emergency situations. Using the acronym “DR ABC” means checking for:

    • Danger
    • Response
    • Airway
    • Breathing
    • Circulation

    A complete first aid course will provide a range of skills to build confidence and be accredited by the national regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority.

    What to bring – 10 first aid essentials

    Whether you buy a first aid kit or put together you own, it should include ten essential items in a watertight, sealable container:

    1. Band-Aids for small cuts and abrasions
    2. sterile gauze pads
    3. bandages (one small one for children, one medium crepe to hold on a dressing or support strains or sprains, and one large compression bandage for a limb)
    4. large fabric for sling
    5. a tourniquet bandage or belt to restrict blood flow
    6. non-latex disposable gloves
    7. scissors and tweezers
    8. medical tape
    9. thermal or foil blanket
    10. CPR shield or breathing mask.

    Before you leave for the beach, check the expiry dates of any sunscreen, solutions or potions you choose to add.

    If you’re further from help

    If you are travelling to a remote or unpatrolled beach, your kit should also contain:

    • sterile saline solution to flush wounds or rinse eyes
    • hydrogel or sunburn gel
    • an instant cool pack
    • paracetamol and antihistamine medication
    • insect repellent.

    Make sure you carry any “as-required” medications, such as a Ventolin puffer for asthma or an EpiPen for severe allergy.

    Vinegar is no longer recommended for most jellyfish stings, including Blue Bottles. Hot water is advised instead.

    In remote areas, also look out for Emergency Response Beacons. Located in high-risk spots, these allow bystanders to instantly activate the surf emergency response system.

    If you have your mobile phone or a smart watch with GPS function, make sure it is charged and switched on and that you know how to use it to make emergency calls.

    First aid kits suitable for the beach range in price from $35 to over $120. Buy these from certified first aid organisations such as Surf Lifesaving Australia, Australian Red Cross, St John Ambulance or Royal Life Saving. Kits that come with a waterproof sealable bag are recommended.

    Be prepared this summer for your trip to the beach and pack your first aid kit. Take care and have fun in the sun.

    Andrew Woods, Lecturer, Nursing, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University and Willa Maguire, Associate Lecturer in Nursing, Southern Cross 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:

  • How Not to Diet – by Dr. Michael Greger

    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 talked before about Dr. Greger’s famous “How Not To Die” book, and we love it and recommend it… But… It is, primarily, a large, dry textbook. Full of incredibly good science and information about what is statistically most likely to kill us and how to avoid that… but it’s not the most accessible.

    How Not To Diet“, on the other hand, is a diet book, is very readable, and assumes the reader would simply like to know how to healthily lose weight.

    By focussing on this one problem, rather than the many (admittedly important) mortality risks, the reading is a lot easier and lighter. And, because it’s still Dr. Greger advocating for the same diet, you’ll still get to reduce all those all-cause mortality risks. You won’t be reading about them in this book; it will now just be a happy side effect.

    While in “How Not To Die”, Dr. Greger looked at what was killing people and then tackled those problems, here he’s taken the same approach to just one problem… Obesity.

    So, he looks at what is causing people to be overweight, and methodically tackles those problems.

    We’ll not list them all here—there are many, and this is a book review, not a book summary. But suffice it to say, the work is comprehensive.

    Bottom line: this book methodically and clinically (lots of science!) looks at what makes us overweight… And tackles those problems one by one, giving us a diet optimized for good health and weight loss. If you’d like to shed a few pounds in a healthy, sustainable way (that just happens to significantly reduce mortality risk from other causes too) then this is a great book for you!

    Click here to check out “How Not To Diet” on Amazon and get healthy for 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:

  • Prolonged Grief: A New Mental Disorder?

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

    The issue is not whether certain mental conditions are real—they are. It is how we conceptualize them and what we think treating them requires.

    The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) features a new diagnosis: prolonged grief disorder—used for those who, a year after a loss, still remain incapacitated by it. This addition follows more than a decade of debate. Supporters argued that the addition enables clinicians to provide much-needed help to those afflicted by what one might simply consider a too much of grief, whereas opponents insisted that one mustn’t unduly pathologize grief and reject an increasingly medicalized approach to a condition that they considered part of a normal process of dealing with loss—a process which in some simply takes longer than in others.    

    By including a condition in a professional classification system, we collectively recognize it as real. Recognizing hitherto unnamed conditions can help remove certain kinds of disadvantages. Miranda Fricker emphasizes this in her discussion of what she dubs hermeneutic injustice: a specific sort of epistemic injustice that affects persons in their capacity as knowers1. Creating terms like ‘post-natal depression’ and ‘sexual harassment’, Fricker argues, filled lacunae in the collectively available hermeneutic resources that existed where names for distinctive kinds of social experience should have been. The absence of such resources, Fricker holds, put those who suffered from such experiences at an epistemic disadvantage: they lacked the words to talk about them, understand them, and articulate how they were wronged. Simultaneously, such absences prevented wrong-doers from properly understanding and facing the harm they were inflicting—e.g. those who would ridicule or scold mothers of newborns for not being happier or those who would either actively engage in sexual harassment or (knowingly or not) support the societal structures that helped make it seem as if it was something women just had to put up with. 

    For Fricker, the hermeneutical disadvantage faced by those who suffer from an as-of-yet ill-understood and largely undiagnosed medical condition is not an epistemic injustice. Those so disadvantaged are not excluded from full participation in hermeneutic practices, or at least not through mechanisms of social coercion that arise due to some structural identity prejudice. They are not, in other words, hermeneutically marginalized, which for Fricker, is an essential characteristic of epistemic injustice. Instead, their situation is simply one of “circumstantial epistemic bad luck”2. Still, Fricker, too, can agree that providing labels for ill-understood conditions is valuable. Naming a condition helps raise awareness of it, makes it discursively available and, thus, a possible object of knowledge and understanding. This, in turn, can enable those afflicted by it to understand their experience and give those who care about them another way of nudging them into seeking help. 

    Surely, if adding prolonged grief disorder to the DSM-5 were merely a matter of recognizing the condition and of facilitating assistance, nobody should have any qualms with it. However, the addition also turns intense grief into a mental disorder—something for whose treatment insurance companies can be billed. With this, significant forces of interest enter the scene. The DSM-5, recall, is mainly consulted by psychiatrists. In contrast to talk-therapists like psychotherapists or psychoanalysts, psychiatrists constitute a highly medicalized profession, in which symptoms—clustered together as syndromes or disorders—are frequently taken to require drugs to treat them. Adding prolonged grief disorder thus heralds the advent of research into various drug-based grief therapies. Ellen Barry of the New York Times confirms this: “naltrexone, a drug used to help treat addiction,” she reports, “is currently in clinical trials as a form of grief therapy”, and we are likely to see a “competition for approval of medicines by the Food and Drug Administration.”3

    Adding diagnoses to the DSM-5 creates financial incentives for players in the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs advertised as providing relief to those so diagnosed. Surely, for various conditions, providing drug-induced relief from severe symptoms is useful, even necessary to enable patients to return to normal levels of functioning. But while drugs may help suppress feelings associated with intense grief, they cannot remove the grief. If all mental illnesses were brain diseases, they might be removed by adhering to some drug regimen or other. Note, however, that ‘mental illness’ is a metaphor that carries the implicit suggestion that just like physical illnesses, mental afflictions, too, are curable by providing the right kind of physical treatment. Unsurprisingly, this metaphor is embraced by those who stand to massively benefit from what profits they may reap from selling a plethora of drugs to those diagnosed with any of what seems like an ever-increasing number of mental disorders. But metaphors have limits. Lou Marinoff, a proponent of philosophical counselling, puts the point aptly:

    Those who are dysfunctional by reason of physical illness entirely beyond their control—such as manic-depressives—are helped by medication. For handling that kind of problem, make your first stop a psychiatrist’s office. But if your problem is about identity or values or ethics, your worst bet is to let someone reify a mental illness and write a prescription. There is no pill that will make you find yourself, achieve your goals, or do the right thing.

    Much more could be said about the differences between psychotherapy, psychiatry, and the newcomer in the field: philosophical counselling. Interested readers may benefit from consulting Marinoff’s work. Written in a provocative, sometimes alarmist style, it is both entertaining and—if taken with a substantial grain of salt—frequently insightful. My own view is this: from Fricker’s work, we can extract reasons to side with the proponents of adding prolonged grief disorder to the DSM-5. Creating hermeneutic resources that allow us to help raise awareness, promote understanding, and facilitate assistance is commendable. If the addition achieves that, we should welcome it. And yet, one may indeed worry that practitioners are too eager to move from the recognition of a mental condition to the implementation of therapeutic interventions that are based on the assumption that such afflictions must be understood on the model of physical disease. The issue is not whether certain mental conditions are real—they are. It is how we conceptualize them and what we think treating them requires.

    No doubt, grief manifests physically. It is, however, not primarily a physical condition—let alone a brain disease. Grief is a distinctive mental condition. Apart from bouts of sadness, its symptoms typically include the loss of orientation or a sense of meaning. To overcome grief, we must come to terms with who we are or can be without the loved one’s physical presence in our life. We may need to reinvent ourselves, figure out how to be better again and whence to derive a new purpose. What is at stake is our sense of identity, our self-worth, and, ultimately, our happiness. Thinking that such issues are best addressed by popping pills puts us on a dangerous path, leading perhaps towards the kind of dystopian society Aldous Huxley imagined in his 1932 novel Brave New World. It does little to help us understand, let alone address, the moral and broader philosophical issues that trouble the bereaved and that lie at the root not just of prolonged grief but, arguably, of many so-called mental illnesses.

    Footnotes:

    1 For this and the following, cf. Fricker 2007, chapter 7.

    2 Fricker 2007: 152

    3 Barry 2022

    References:

    Barry, E. (2022). “How Long Should It Take to Grieve? Psychiatry Has Come Up With an Answer.” The New York Times, 03/18/2022, URL = https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/health/prolonged-grief-
    disorder.html [last access: 04/05/2022])
    Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of knowing. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. New York: Harper Brothers.
    Marinoff, L. (1999). Plato, not Prozac! New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Professor Raja Rosenhagen is currently serving as Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Head of Department, and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Ashoka University. He earned his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh and has a broad range of philosophical interests (see here). He wrote this article a) because he was invited to do so and b) because he is currently nurturing a growing interest in philosophical counselling.

    This article is republished from OpenAxis 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: