Apricot vs Banana – 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 apricot to banana, we picked the banana.
Why?
Both are great, and it was close!
In terms of macros, apricot has more protein, while banana has more carbs and fiber; both are low glycemic index foods, and we’ll call this category a tie.
In the category of vitamins, apricot has more of vitamins A, C, E, and K, while banana has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and choline, giving banana the win by strength of numbers. It’s worth noting though that apricots are one of the best fruits for vitamin A in particular.
When it comes to minerals, apricot has slightly more calcium, iron, and zinc, while banana has a lot more magnesium, manganese, potassium, and selenium, meaning a moderate win for banana here.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for banana—but of course, by all means enjoy either or both!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← we argue for apricots as bonus number 9 on the list
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Neuroscience of You – by Dr. Chantel Prat
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 insides of people are rarely so standardized as one finds in a medical textbook, and that’s just as true of the brain as it is of any other organ—and often more so.
Our brains all look quite different from each other’s. Of course there are similarities; a wobbly mass of white and grey matter with tiny blood vessels running through. The constituent parts are (usually!) all present and correct. But… what is “correct”?
Dr. Chantel Prat takes us on a tour of the anatomical features that we may have grown or shrunken over the course of our life, according to how we’ve used them, or not. She also looks at what’s going on when it comes to the smaller scale—from the neuronal to the neurochemical.
We learn the truth (and myth) when it comes to left- and right-brainedness, and we learn how whether we saw that dress as black and blue or white and gold, depends on our circadian rhythm (and thus whether we have wired ourselves for perceiving colors more or less often under daylight or artificial light). And lots more.
The style throughout is very accessible, for a book that goes beyond most “how the brain works” books.
Bottom line: if you’re interested in the workings of your brain (as opposed to: a standardized Platonic ideal of what a brain might be), then this book will set you on the right track.
Click here to check out The Neuroscience of You, and learn more about what makes you you!
Share This Post
-
Purpose – by Gina Bianchini
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.
To address the elephant in the room, this is not a rehash of Rick Warren’s best-selling “The Purpose-Driven Life”. Instead, this book is (in this reviewer’s opinion) a lot better. It’s a lot more comprehensive, and it doesn’t assume that what’s most important to the author will be what’s most important to you.
What’s it about, then? It’s about giving your passion (whatever it may be) the tools to have an enduring impact on the world. It recommends doing this by leveraging a technology that would once have been considered magic: social media.
Far from “grow your brand” business books, this one looks at what really matters the most to you. Nobody will look back on your life and say “what a profitable second quarter that was in such-a-year”. But if you do your thing well, people will look back and say:
- “he was a pillar of the community”
- “she raised that community around her”
- “they did so much for us”
- “finding my place in that community changed my life”
- …and so forth. Isn’t that something worth doing?
Bianchini takes the position of both “idealistic dreamer” and “realistic worker”.
Further, she blends the two beautifully, to give practical step-by-step instructions on how to give life to the community that you build.
Share This Post
-
Mythbusting The Big O
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.
“Early To Bed…”
In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) views on orgasms.
But what does the science say?
Orgasms are essential to good health: True or False?
False, in the most literal sense. One certainly won’t die without them. Anorgasmia (the inability to orgasm) is a condition that affects many postmenopausal women, some younger women, and some men. And importantly, it isn’t fatal—just generally considered unfortunate:
Anorgasmia Might Explain Why You’re Not Orgasming When You Want To
That article focuses on women; here’s a paper focusing on men:
Orgasms are good for the health, but marginally: True or False?
True! They have a wide array of benefits, depending on various factors (including, of course, one’s own sex). That said, the benefits are so marginal that we don’t have a flock of studies to cite, and are reduced to pop-science sources that verbally cite studies that are, alas, nowhere to be found, for example:
- For women: 9 Orgasm Benefits That Might Surprise You
- For men: 9 Ways Orgasms May Benefit Your Health
Doubtlessly the studies do exist, but are sparse enough that finding them is a nightmare as the keywords for them will bring up a lot of studies about orgasms and health that aren’t answering the above question (usually: health’s affect on orgasms, rather than the other way around).
There is some good science for post-menopausal women, though! Here it is:
Misconceptions About Sexual Health in Older Women
(if you have the time to read this, this also covers many very avoidable things that can disrupt sexual function, in ways that people will errantly chalk up to old age, not knowing that they are missing out needlessly)
Orgasms are good or bad, depending on being male or female: True or False
False, broadly. The health benefits are extant and marginal for almost everyone, as indicated above.
What’s that “almost” about, then?
There are a very few* people (usually men) for whom it doesn’t go well. In such cases, they have a chronic and lifelong problem whereby orgasm is followed by 2–7 days of flu-like and allergic symptoms. Little is known about it, but it appears to be some sort of autoimmune disorder.
Read more: Post-orgasmic illness syndrome: history and current perspectives
*It’s hard to say for sure how few though, as it is surely under-reported and thus under-diagnosed; likely even misdiagnosed if the patient doesn’t realize that orgasms are the trigger for such episodes, and the doctor doesn’t think to ask. Instead, they will be busy trying to eliminate foods from the diet, things like that, while missing this cause.
Orgasms are better avoided for optimal health: True or False?
Aside from the above, False. There is a common myth for men of health benefits of “semen retention”, but it is not based in science, just tradition. You can read a little about it here:
The short version is: do it if you want; don’t if you don’t; the body will compensate either way so it won’t make a meaningful difference to anything for most people, healthwise.
Small counterpoint: while withholding orgasm (and ejaculation) is not harmful to health, what does physiologically need draining sometimes is prostate fluid. But that can also be achieved mechanically through prostate milking, or left to fend for itself (as it will in nocturnal emissions, popularly called wet dreams). However, if you have problems with an enlarged prostate, it may not be a bad idea to take matters into your own hands, so to speak. As ever, do check with your doctor if you have (or think you may have) a condition that might affect this.
One final word…
We’re done with mythbusting for today, but we wanted to share this study that we came across (so to speak) while researching, as it’s very interesting:
On which note: if you haven’t already, consider getting a “magic wand” style vibe; you can thank us later (this writer’s opinion: everyone should have one!).
Top tip: do get the kind that plugs into the wall, not rechargeable. The plug-into-the-wall kind are more powerful, and last much longer (both “in the moment”, and in terms of how long the device itself lasts).
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Beyond Burger vs Beef Burger – 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 the Beyond Burger to a grass-fed beef burger, we picked the Beyond Burger—but it was very close.
Why?
The macronutrient profiles of the two are almost identical, including the amount of protein, the amount of fat, and the amount of that fat that’s saturated.
Where they stand apart is in two ways:
1) Red meat is classed as a group 2A carcinogen
2) The Beyond Burger contains more sodium (about 1/5 of the daily allowance according to the AHA, or 1/4 of the daily allowance according to the WHO)Neither of those things are great, so how to decide which is worse?
• Cancer and heart disease are both killers, with heart disease claiming more victims.
• However, we do need some sodium to live, whereas we don’t need carcinogens to live.Tie-breaker: the sodium content in the Beyond Burger is likely to be offset by the fact that it’s a fully seasoned burger and will be eaten as-is, whereas the beef burger will doubtlessly have seasonings added before it’s eaten—which may cause it to equal or even exceed the salt content of the Beyond Burger.
The cancer risk for the beef burger, meanwhile, stays one-sided.
One thing’s for sure though: neither of them are exactly a cornerstone of a healthy diet, and either are best enjoyed as an occasional indulgence.
Some further reading:
• Lesser-Known Salt Risks
• Food Choices And Cancer Risk
• Hypertension: Factors Far More Relevant Than SaltDon’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:
-
Hair-Loss Remedies, By Science
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.
10almonds Gets Hairy
Hair loss is a thing that at some point affects most men and a large minority of women. It can be a source of considerable dysphoria for both, as it’s often seen as a loss of virility/femininity respectively, and is societally stigmatized in various ways.
Today we’re going to focus on the most common kind: androgenic alopecia, which is called “male pattern baldness” in men and “female pattern baldness” in women, despite being the same thing.
We won’t spend a lot of time on the science of why this happens (we’re going to focus on the remedies instead), but suffice it to say that genes and hormones both play a role, with dihydrogen testosterone (DHT) being the primary villain in this case.
We’ve talked before about the science of 5α-reductase inhibitors to block the conversion of regular testosterone* to DHT, its more potent form:
One Man’s Saw Palmetto Is Another Woman’s Serenoa Repens…
*We all make this to a greater or lesser degree, unless we have had our ovaries/testes removed.
Finasteride
Finasteride is a 5α-reductase inhibitor that performs similarly to saw palmetto, but comes in tiny pills instead of needing to take a much higher dose of supplement (5mg of finasteride is comparable in efficacy to a little over 300mg of saw palmetto).
Does it work? Yes!
Any drawbacks? A few:
- It’ll take 3–6 months to start seeing effects. This is because of the hormonal life-cycle of human hairs.
- Common side-effects include ED.
- It is popularly labelled/prescribed as “only for men”
On that latter point: the warnings about this are severe, detailing how women must not take it, must not even touch it if it has been cut up or crushed.
However… That’s because it can carry a big risk to our unborn fetuses. So, if we are confident we definitely don’t have one of those, it’s not actually applicable to us.
That said, finasteride’s results in women aren’t nearly so clear-cut as in men (though also, there has been less research, largely because of the above). Here’s an interesting breakdown in more words than we have room for here:
Finasteride for Women: Everything You Need to Know
Spironolactone
This one’s generally prescribed to women, not men, largely because it’s the drug sometimes popularly known as a “chemical castration” drug, which isn’t typically great marketing for men (although it can be applied topically, which will have less of an effect on the rest of the body). For women, this risk is simply not an issue.
We’ll be brief on this one, but we’ll just drop this, so that you know it’s an option that works:
❝Spironolactone is an effective and safe treatment of androgenic alopecia which can enhance the efficacy when combined with other conventional treatments such as minoxidil.
Topical spironolactone is safer than oral administration and is suitable for both male and female patients, and is expected to become a common drug for those who do not have a good response to minoxidil❞
Minoxidil
This one is available (to men and women) without prescription. It’s applied topically, and works by shortcutting the hair’s hormonal growth cycle, to reduce the resting phase and kick it into a growth phase.
Does it work? Yes!
Any drawbacks? A few:
- Whereas you’ll remember finasteride takes 3–6 months to see any effect, this one will have an effect very quickly
- Specifically, the immediate effect is: your rate of hair loss will appear to dramatically speed up
- This happens because when hairs are kicked into their growth phase if they were in a resting phase, the first part of that growth phase is to shed each old hair to make room for the new one
- You’ll then need the same 3–6 months as with finasteride, to see the regrowth effects
- If you stop using it, you will immediately shed whatever hair you gained by this method
Why do people choose this over finasteride? For one of three reasons, mainly:
- They are women, and not offered finasteride
- They are men, and do not want the side effects of finasteride
- They just saw an ad and tried it
As to how it works:
Some final notes:
There are some other contraindications and warnings with each of these drugs by the way, so do speak with your doctor/pharmacist. For example:
- Finasteride can tax the liver a little
- Spironolactone can reduce bone turnover
- Minoxidil is a hypotensive; this shouldn’t be an issue for most people, but for some people it could be a problem
There are other hair loss remedies and practices, but the above three are the heavy-hitters, so that’s what we spent our time/space on today. We’ll perhaps cover the less powerful (but less risky) options one of these days.
Meanwhile, 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:
-
How Does One Test Acupuncture Against Placebo Anyway?
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.
Pinpointing The Usefulness Of Acupuncture
We asked you for your opinions on acupuncture, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of answers:
- A little under half of all respondents voted for “It’s well-backed by modern science, per neurology, cardiology, immunology, etc”
- Slightly fewer respondents voted for “We don’t understand how it works, but it works!”
- A little under a fifth of respondents voted for “It may have some limited clinical applications beyond placebo”
- One (1) respondent voted for for “It’s placebo at best”
When we did a main feature about homeopathy, a couple of subscribers wrote to say that they were confused as to what homeopathy was, so this time, we’ll start with a quick definition first.
First, what is acupuncture? For the convenience of a quick definition so that we can move on to the science, let’s borrow from Wikipedia:
❝Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine and a component of traditional Chinese medicine in which thin needles are inserted into the body.
Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery.❞
Now, that’s not a promising start, but we will not be deterred! We will instead examine the science itself, rather than relying on tertiary sources like Wikipedia.
It’s worth noting before we move on, however, that there is vigorous debate behind the scenes of that article. The gist of the argument is:
- On one side: “Acupuncture is not pseudoscience/quackery! This has long been disproved and there are peer-reviewed research papers on the subject.”
- On the other: “Yes, but only in disreputable quack journals created specifically for that purpose”
The latter counterclaim is a) potentially a “no true Scotsman” rhetorical ploy b) potentially true regardless
Some counterclaims exhibit specific sinophobia, per “if the source is Chinese, don’t believe it”. That’s not helpful either.
Well, the waters sure are muddy. Where to begin? Let’s start with a relatively easy one:
It may have some clinical applications beyond placebo: True or False?
True! Admittedly, “may” is doing some of the heavy lifting here, but we’ll take what we can get to get us going.
One of the least controversial uses of acupuncture is to alleviate chronic pain. Dr. Vickers et al, in a study published under the auspices of JAMA (a very respectable journal, and based in the US, not China), found:
❝Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo.
However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture❞
Source: Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis
If you’re feeling sharp today, you may be wondering how the differences are described as “significant” and “relatively modest” in the same text. That’s because these words have different meanings in academic literature:
- Significant = p<0.05, where p is the probability of the achieved results occurring randomly
- Modest = the differences between the test group and the control group were small
In other words, “significant modest differences” means “the sample sizes were large, and the test group reliably got slightly better results than placebo”
We don’t understand how it works, but it works: True or False
Broadly False. When it works, we generally have an idea how.
Placebo is, of course, the main explanation. And even in examples such as the above, how is placebo acupuncture given?
By inserting acupuncture needles off-target rather than in accord with established meridians and points (the lines and dots that, per Traditional Chinese Medicine, indicate the flow of qi, our body’s vital energy, and welling-points of such).
So, if a patient feels that needles are being inserted randomly, they may no longer have the same confidence that they aren’t in the control group receiving placebo, which could explain the “modest” difference, without there being anything “to” acupuncture beyond placebo. After all, placebo works less well if you believe you are only receiving placebo!
Indeed, a (Korean, for the record) group of researchers wrote about this—and how this confounding factor cuts both ways:
❝Given the current research evidence that sham acupuncture can exert not only the originally expected non-specific effects but also sham acupuncture-specific effects, it would be misleading to simply regard sham acupuncture as the same as placebo.
Therefore, researchers should be cautious when using the term sham acupuncture in clinical investigations.❞
Source: Sham Acupuncture Is Not Just a Placebo
It’s well-backed by modern science, per neurology, cardiology, immunology, etc: True or False?
False, for the most part.
While yes, the meridians and points of acupuncture charts broadly correspond to nerves and vasculature, there is no evidence that inserting needles into those points does anything for one’s qi, itself a concept that has not made it into Western science—as a unified concept, anyway…
Note that our bodies are indeed full of energy. Electrical energy in our nerves, chemical energy in every living cell, kinetic energy in all our moving parts. Even, to stretch the point a bit, gravitational potential energy based on our mass.
All of these things could broadly be described as qi, if we so wish. Indeed, the ki in the Japanese martial art of aikido is the latter kinds; kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy based on our mass. Same goes, therefore for the ki in kiatsu, a kind of Japanese massage, while the ki in reiki, a Japanese spiritual healing practice, is rather more mystical.
The qi in Chinese qigong is mostly about oxygen, thus indirectly chemical energy, and the electrical energy of the nerves that are receiving oxygenated blood at higher or lower levels.
On the other hand, the efficacy of the use of acupuncture for various kinds of pain is well-enough evidenced. Indeed, even the UK’s famously thrifty NHS (that certainly would not spend money on something it did not find to work) offers it as a complementary therapy for some kinds of pain:
❝Western medical acupuncture (dry needling) is the use of acupuncture following a medical diagnosis. It involves stimulating sensory nerves under the skin and in the muscles.
This results in the body producing natural substances, such as pain-relieving endorphins. It’s likely that these naturally released substances are responsible for the beneficial effects experienced with acupuncture.❞
Source: NHS | Acupuncture
Meanwhile, the NIH’s National Cancer Institute recommends it… But not as a cancer treatment.
Rather, they recommend it as a complementary therapy for pain management, and also against nausea, for which there is also evidence that it can help.
Frustratingly, while they mention that there is lots of evidence for this, they don’t actually link the studies they’re citing, or give enough information to find them. Instead, they say things like “seven randomized clinical trials found that…” and provide links that look reassuring until one finds, upon clicking on them, that it’s just a link to the definition of “randomized clinical trial”:
Source: NIH | Nactional Cancer Institute | Acupuncture (PDQ®)–Patient Version
However, doing our own searches finds many studies (mostly in specialized, potentially biased, journals such as the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies) finding significant modest outperformance of [what passes for] placebo.
Sometimes, the existence of papers with promising titles, and statements of how acupuncture might work for things other than relief of pain and nausea, hides the fact that the papers themselves do not, in fact, contain any evidence to support the hypothesis. Here’s an example:
❝The underlying mechanisms behind the benefits of acupuncture may be linked with the regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (adrenal) axis and activation of the Wnt/β-catenin and OPG/RANKL/RANK signaling pathways.
In summary, strong evidence may still come from prospective and well-designed clinical trials to shed light on the potential role of acupuncture in preserving bone loss❞
Source: Acupuncture for Osteoporosis: a Review of Its Clinical and Preclinical Studies
So, here they offered a very sciencey hypothesis, and to support that hypothesis, “strong evidence may still come”.
“We must keep faith” is not usually considered evidence worthy of inclusion in a paper!
PS: the above link is just to the abstract, because the “Full Text” link offered in that abstract leads to a completely unrelated article about HIV/AIDS-related cryptococcosis, in a completely different journal, nothing to do with acupuncture or osteoporosis).
Again, this is not the kind of professionalism we expect from peer-reviewed academic journals.
Bottom line:
Acupuncture reliably performs slightly better than sham acupuncture for the management of pain, and may also help against nausea.
Beyond placebo and the stimulation of endorphin release, there is no consistently reliable evidence that is has any other discernible medical effect by any mechanism known to Western science—though there are plenty of hypotheses.
That said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the logistical difficulty of testing acupuncture against placebo makes for slow research. Maybe one day we’ll know more.
For now:
- If you find it helps you: great! Enjoy
- If you think it might help you: try it! By a licensed professional with a good reputation, please.
- If you are not inclined to having needles put in you unnecessarily: skip it! Extant science suggests that at worst, you’ll be missing out on slight relief of pain/nausea.
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: