Apricots vs Peaches – 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 apricots to peaches, we picked the apricots.

Why?

Both are great! But there’s a clear winner:

In terms of macros, apricots have more fiber and, which is less important because the numbers are small, more protein. Apricots do also have more carbs, and/but carbs from whole fruit are not a problem for most people (especially because of the fiber), unless undertaking a very carb-controlled diet.

When it comes to vitamins, apricots sweep with more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, C, E, & K. Peaches meanwhile boast more vitamin B3, and that only marginally, as well as more choline.

In the category of minerals, apricots sweep again with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Peaches are not higher in any minerals.

Finally, if we consider polyphenols, apricots sweep yet again. The flavonols that peaches have, apricots have more of, and apricots have a long list of flavonols that peaches don’t.

Outside of flavonols, there is one (1) phenolic acid that peaches have more of (it’s 3-Caffeoylquinic acid), and it’s only slightly more, and it’s mostly in the skin which isn’t included if you buy your fruit ready-chopped. So in those cases, apricots would have the higher 3-Caffeoylquinic acid content anyway.

All in all, with their higher content of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and polyphenols, apricots easily win the day.

Enjoy both, though! Diversity is healthy!

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

  • Tomato vs Cucumber – Which is Healthier?
  • Next-Level Headache Hacks
    Unlock the therapeutic benefits of your sternocleidomastoid muscle. Massage and stretch it to relieve headaches, migraines, and jaw tension.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • How To Engage Your Whole Brain

    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 Stroke Of Insight That Nobody Wants

    This is Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. She’s a neuroanatomist, who, at the age of 37 (when she was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School), had what she refers to as her “stroke of insight”.

    That is to say, she had a massive stroke, and after a major brain surgery to remove a clot the size of a golf ball, she spent the next 8 years re-learning to do everything.

    Whereas previously she’d been busy mapping the brain to determine how cells communicate with each other, now she was busy mapping whether socks or shoes should go on first. Needless to say, she got an insight into neuroplasticity that few people would hope for.

    What does she want us to know?

    Dr. Taylor (now once again a successful scientist, lecturer, and author) advocates for “whole brain living”, which involves not taking parts of our brain for granted.

    About those parts…

    Dr. Taylor wants us to pay attention to all the parts regardless of size, ranging from the two hemispheres, all the way down to the billions of brain cells, and yet even further, to the “trillions of molecular geniuses”—because each brain cell is itself reliant on countless molecules of the many neurochemicals that make up our brain.

    For a quick refresher on some of the key players in that latter category, see our Neurotransmitter Cheatsheet 😎

    When it comes to the hemispheres, there has historically been a popular belief that these re divided into:

    • The right brain: emotional, imaginative, creative, fluid feeling
    • The left brain: intellectual, analytical, calculating, crystal thinking

    …which is not true, anatomically speaking, because there are cells on both sides doing their part of both of these broad categories of brain processes.

    However, Dr. Taylor found, while one hemisphere of her brain was much more damaged than the other, that nevertheless she could recover some functions more quickly than others, which, once she was able to resume her career, inspired her model of four distinct ways of cogitating that can be switched-between and played with or against each other:

    Meet The Four Characters Inside Your Brain

    Why this matters

    As she was re-learning everything, the way forward was not quick or easy, and she also didn’t know where she was going, because for obvious reasons, she couldn’t remember, much less plan.

    Looking backwards after her eventual full recovery, she noted a lot of things that she needed during that recovery, some of which she got and some of which she didn’t.

    Most notably for her, she needed the right kind of support that would allow all four of the above “characters” as she puts it, to thrive and grow. And, when we say “grow” here we mean that literally, because of growing new brain cells to replace the lost ones (as well as the simple ongoing process of slowly replacing brain cells).

    For more on growing new brain cells, by the way, see:

    How To Grow New Brain Cells (At Any Age)

    In order to achieve this in all of the required brain areas (i.e., and all of the required brain functions), she also wants us to know… drumroll please

    When to STFU

    Specifically, the ability to silence parts of our brain that while useful in general, aren’t necessarily being useful right now. Since it’s very difficult to actively achieve a negative when it comes to brain-stuff (don’t think of an elephant), this means scheduling time for other parts of our brain to be louder. And that includes:

    • scheduling time to feel (emotionally)
    • scheduling time to feel (gut feelings)
    • scheduling time to feel (kinesthetically)

    …amongst others.

    Note: those three are presented in that order, from least basic to most basic. And why? Because, clever beings that we are, we typically start from a position that’s not remotely basic, such as “overthinking”, for example. So, there’s a wind-down through thinking just the right amount, thinking through simpler concepts, feeling, noticing one’s feelings, noticing noticing one’s feelings, all the way down to what, kinesthetically, are we actually physically feeling.

    ❝It is interesting to note that although our limbic system fucntions throughout our lifetime, it does not mature. As a result, when our emotional “buttons” are pushed, we retain the ability to react to incoming stimulation as though we were a two-year-old, even when we are adults.❞

    ~ Dr. Jill Taylor

    Of course, sometimes the above is not useful, which is why the ability to switch between brain modes is a very important and useful skill to develop.

    And how do we do that? By practising. Which is something that it’s necessary to take up consciously, and pursue consistently. When children are at school, there are (hopefully, ideally) curricula set out to ensure they engage and train all parts of their brain. As adults, this does not tend to get the same amount of focus.

    “Children’s brains are still developing”—indeed, and so are adult brains:

    The Brain As A Work-In-Progress

    Dr. Taylor had the uncommon experience of having to, in many ways, neurologically speaking, redo childhood. And having had a second run at it, she developed an appreciation of the process that most of us didn’t necessarily get when doing childhood just the once.

    In other words: take the time to feel stuff; take the time to quiet down your chatty mind, take the time engage your senses, and take it seriously! Really notice, as though for the first time, what the texture of your carpet is like. Really notice, as though for the first time, what it feels like to swallow some water. Really notice, as though for the first time, what it feels like to experience joy—or sadness, or comfort, or anger, or peace. Exercise your imagination. Make some art (it doesn’t have to win awards; it just has to light up your brain!). Make music (again, it’s about wiring your brain in your body, not about outdoing Mozart in composition and/or performance). Make changes! Make your brain work in the ways it’s not in the habit of doing.

    If you need a little help switching off parts of your brain that are being too active, so that you can better exercise other parts of your brain that might otherwise have been neglected, you might want to try:

    The Off-Button For Your Brain

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • Does intermittent fasting increase or decrease our risk of cancer?

    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.

    Research over the years has suggested intermittent fasting has the potential to improve our health and reduce the likelihood of developing cancer.

    So what should we make of a new study in mice suggesting fasting increases the risk of cancer?

    Stock-Asso/Shutterstock

    What is intermittent fasting?

    Intermittent fasting means switching between times of eating and not eating. Unlike traditional diets that focus on what to eat, this approach focuses on when to eat.

    There are lots of commonly used intermittent fasting schedules. The 16/8 plan means you only eat within an eight-hour window, then fast for the remaining 16 hours. Another popular option is the 5:2 diet, where you eat normally for five days then restrict calories for two days.

    In Australia, poor diet contributes to 7% of all cases of disease, including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancers of the bowel and lung. Globally, poor diet is linked to 22% of deaths in adults over the age of 25.

    Intermittent fasting has gained a lot of attention in recent years for its potential health benefits. Fasting influences metabolism, which is how your body processes food and energy. It can affect how the body absorbs nutrients from food and burns energy from sugar and fat.

    What did the new study find?

    The new study, published in Nature, found when mice ate again after fasting, their gut stem cells, which help repair the intestine, became more active. The stem cells were better at regenerating compared with those of mice who were either totally fasting or eating normally.

    This suggests the body might be better at healing itself when eating after fasting.

    However, this could also have a downside. If there are genetic mutations present, the burst of stem cell-driven regeneration after eating again might make it easier for cancer to develop.

    Polyamines – small molecules important for cell growth – drive this regeneration after refeeding. These polyamines can be produced by the body, influenced by diet, or come from gut bacteria.

    The findings suggest that while fasting and refeeding can improve stem cell function and regeneration, there might be a tradeoff with an increased risk of cancer, especially if fasting and refeeding cycles are repeated over time.

    While this has been shown in mice, the link between intermittent fasting and cancer risk in humans is more complicated and not yet fully understood.

    What has other research found?

    Studies in animals have found intermittent fasting can help with weight loss, improve blood pressure and blood sugar levels, and subsequently reduce the risks of diabetes and heart disease.

    Research in humans suggests intermittent fasting can reduce body weight, improve metabolic health, reduce inflammation, and enhance cellular repair processes, which remove damaged cells that could potentially turn cancerous.

    However, other studies warn that the benefits of intermittent fasting are the same as what can be achieved through calorie restriction, and that there isn’t enough evidence to confirm it reduces cancer risk in humans.

    What about in people with cancer?

    In studies of people who have cancer, fasting has been reported to protect against the side effects of chemotherapy and improve the effectiveness of cancer treatments, while decreasing damage to healthy cells.

    Prolonged fasting in some patients who have cancer has been shown to be safe and may potentially be able to decrease tumour growth.

    On the other hand, some experts advise caution. Studies in mice show intermittent fasting could weaken the immune system and make the body less able to fight infection, potentially leading to worse health outcomes in people who are unwell. However, there is currently no evidence that fasting increases the risk of bacterial infections in humans.

    So is it OK to try intermittent fasting?

    The current view on intermittent fasting is that it can be beneficial, but experts agree more research is needed. Short-term benefits such as weight loss and better overall health are well supported. But we don’t fully understand the long-term effects, especially when it comes to cancer risk and other immune-related issues.

    Since there are many different methods of intermittent fasting and people react to them differently, it’s hard to give advice that works for everyone. And because most people who participated in the studies were overweight, or had diabetes or other health problems, we don’t know how the results apply to the broader population.

    For healthy people, intermittent fasting is generally considered safe. But it’s not suitable for everyone, particularly those with certain medical conditions, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and people with a history of eating disorders. So consult your health-care provider before starting any fasting program.

    Amali Cooray, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering and Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)

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

    Share This Post

  • Non-Alcohol Mouthwash vs Alcohol Mouthwash – 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 non-alcohol mouthwash to alcohol mouthwash, we picked the alcohol.

    Why?

    Note: this is a contingent choice and is applicable to most, but not all, people.

    In short, there has been some concern about alcohol mouthwashes increasing cancer risk, but research has shown this is only the case if you already have an increased risk of oral cancer (for example if you smoke, and/or have had an oral cancer before).

    For those for whom this is not the case (for example, if you don’t smoke, and/or have no such cancer history), then best science currently shows that alcohol mouthwash does not cause any increased risk.

    What about non-alcohol mouthwashes? Well, they have a different problem; they usually use chlorine-based chemicals like chlorhexidine or cetylpyridinium chloride, which are (exactly as the label promises) exceptionally good at killing oral bacteria.

    (They’d kill us too, at higher doses, hence: swill and spit)

    Unfortunately, much like the rest of our body, our mouth is supposed to have bacteria there and bad things happen when it doesn’t. In the case of our oral microbiome, cleaning it with such powerful antibacterial agents can kill our “good” bacteria along with the bad, which lowers the pH of our saliva (that’s bad; it means it is more acidic), and thus indirectly erodes tooth enamel.

    You can read more about the science of all of the above (with references), here:

    Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?

    Summary:

    For most people, alcohol mouthwashes are a good way to avoid the damage that can be done by chlorhexidine in non-alcohol mouthwashes.

    Here are some examples, but there will be plenty in your local supermarket:

    Non-Alcohol, by Colgate | Alcohol, by Listerine

    If you have had oral cancer, or if you smoke, then you may want to seek a third alternative (and also, please, stop smoking if you can).

    Or, really, most people could probably skip mouthwashes, if you’ve good oral care already by other means. See also:

    Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?

    (yes, it’s the same link as before, but we’re now drawing your attention to the fact it has information about toothpastes too)

    If you do want other options though, might want to check out:

    Less Common Oral Hygiene Options ← miswak sticks are especially effective

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Tomato vs Cucumber – Which is Healthier?
  • Can a child legally take puberty blockers? What if their parents disagree?

    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.

    Young people’s access to gender-affirming medical care has been making headlines this week.

    Today, federal Health Minister Mark Butler announced a review into health care for trans and gender-diverse children and adolescents. The National Health and Medical Research Council will conduct the review.

    Yesterday, The Australian published an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling for a federal inquiry, and a nationwide pause on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors.

    This followed Queensland Health Minister Tim Nicholls earlier this week announcing an immediate pause on access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for new patients under 18 in the state’s public health system, pending a review.

    In the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week directing federal agencies to restrict access to gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.

    This recent wave of political attention might imply gender-affirming care for young people is risky, controversial, perhaps even new.

    But Australian courts have already extensively tested questions about its legitimacy, the conditions under which it can be provided, and the scope and limits of parental powers to authorise it.

    MirasWonderland/Shutterstock

    What are puberty blockers?

    Puberty blockers suppress the release of oestrogen and testosterone, which are primarily responsible for the physical changes associated with puberty. They are generally safe and used in paediatric medicine for various conditions, including precocious (early) puberty, hormone disorders and some hormone-sensitive cancers.

    International and domestic standards of care state that puberty blockers are reversible, non-harmful, and can prevent young people from experiencing the distress of undergoing a puberty that does not align with their gender identity. They also give young people time to develop the maturity needed to make informed decisions about more permanent medical interventions further down the line.

    Puberty blockers are one type of gender-affirming care. This care includes medical, psychological and social interventions to support transgender, gender-diverse and, in some cases, intersex people.

    Young people in Australia need a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to receive this care. Gender dysphoria is defined as the psychological distress that can arise when a person’s gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. This diagnosis is only granted after an exhaustive and often onerous medical assessment.

    After a diagnosis, treatment may involve hormones such as oestrogen or testosterone and/or puberty-blocking medications.

    Hormone therapies involving oestrogen and testosterone are only prescribed in Australia once a young person has been deemed capable of giving informed consent, usually around the age of 16. For puberty blockers, parents can consent at a younger age.

    Anonymous teenage girl at table, clutching hands
    Gender dysphoria comes with considerable psychological distress. slexp880/Shutterstock

    Can a child legally access puberty blockers?

    Gender-affirming care has been the subject of extensive debate in the Family Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court).

    Between 2004 and 2017, every minor who wanted to access gender-affirming care had to apply for a judge to approve it. However, medical professionals, human rights organisations and some judges condemned this process.

    In research for my forthcoming book, I found the Family Court has heard at least 99 cases about a young person’s gender-affirming care since 2004. Across these cases, the court examined the potential risks of gender-affirming treatment and considered whether parents should have the authority to consent on their child’s behalf.

    When determining whether parents can consent to a particular medical procedure for their child, the court must consider whether the treatment is “therapeutic” and whether there is a significant risk of a wrong decision being made.

    However, in a landmark 2017 case, the court ruled that judicial oversight was not required because gender-affirming treatments meet the standards of normal medical care.

    It reasoned that because these therapies address an internationally recognised medical condition, are supported by leading professional medical organisations, and are backed by robust clinical research, there is no justification for treating them differently from any other standard medical intervention. These principles still stand today.

    What if parents disagree?

    Sometimes parents disagree with decisions about gender-affirming care made by their child, or each other.

    As with all forms of health care, under Australian law, parents and legal guardians are responsible for making medical decisions on behalf of their children. That responsibility usually shifts once those children reach a sufficient age and level of maturity to make their own decisions.

    However, in another landmark case in 2020, the court ruled gender-affirming treatments cannot be given to minors without consent from both parents, even if the child is capable of providing their own consent. This means that if there is any disagreement among parents and the young person about either their capacity to consent or the legitimacy of the treatment, only a judge can authorise it.

    In such instances, the court must assess whether the proposed treatment is in the child’s best interests and make a determination accordingly. Again, these principals apply today.

    Parent talking with son/daughter outside, one hand on child's shoulder
    If a parent disagrees with their child, the matter can go to court. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Have the courts ever denied care?

    Across the at least 99 cases the court has heard about gender-affirming care since 2004, 17 have involved a parent opposing the treatment and one has involved neither parent supporting it.

    Regardless of parental support, in every case, the court has been responsible for determining whether gender-affirming treatment was in the child’s best interests. These decisions were based on medical evidence, expert testimony, and the specific circumstances of the young person involved.

    In all cases bar one, the court has found overwhelming evidence to support gender-affirming care, and approved it.

    Supporting transgender young people

    The history of Australia’s legal debates about gender-affirming care shows it has already been the subject of intense legal and medical scrutiny.

    Gender-affirming care is already difficult for young people to access, with many lacking the parental support required or facing other barriers to care.

    Gender-affirming care is potentially life-saving, or at the very least life-affirming. It almost invariably leads to better social and emotional outcomes. Further restricting access is not the “protection” its opponents claim.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. For LGBTQIA+ peer support and resources, you can also contact Switchboard, QLife (call 1800 184 527), Queerspace, Transcend Australia (support for trans, gender-diverse, and non-binary young people and their families) or Minus18 (resources and community support for LGBTQIA+ young people).

    Matthew Mitchell, Lecturer in Criminology, Deakin 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:

  • Considering taking Wegovy to lose weight? Here are the risks and benefits – and how it differs from Ozempic

    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 weight-loss drug Wegovy is now available in Australia.

    Wegovy is administered as a once-weekly injection and is approved specifically for weight management. It’s intended to be used in combination with a reduced-energy diet and increased physical activity.

    So how does Wegovy work and how much weight can you expect to lose while taking it? And what are the potential risks – and costs – for those who use it?

    Let’s look at what the science says.

    Halfpoint/Shutterstock

    What is Wegovy?

    Wegovy is a brand name for the medication semaglutide. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). This means it makes your body’s own glucagon-like peptide-1 hormone, called GLP-1 for short, work better.

    Normally when you eat, the body releases the GLP-1 hormone which helps signal to your brain that you are full. Semaglutides enhance this effect, leading to a feeling of fullness, even when you haven’t eaten.

    Another role of GLP-1 is to stimulate the body to produce more insulin, a hormone which helps lower the level of glucose (sugar) in the blood. That’s why semaglutides have been used for several years to treat type 2 diabetes.

    Pack of Wegovy injections
    Wegovy is self-injected once a week. S Becker/Shutterstock

    How does Wegovy differ from Ozempic?

    Like Wegovy, Ozempic is a semaglutide. The way Wegovy and Ozempic work in the body are essentially the same. They’re made by the same pharmaceutical company, Novo Nordisk.

    But there are two differences:

    1) They are approved for two different (but related) reasons.

    In Australia (and the United States), Ozempic is approved for use to improve blood glucose levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. By managing blood glucose levels effectively, the medication aims to reduce the risk of major complications, such as heart disease.

    Wegovy is approved for use alongside diet and exercise for people with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or greater, or 27 or greater but with other conditions such as high blood pressure.

    Wegovy can also be used in people aged 12 years and older. Like Ozempic, Wegovy aims to reduce the risk of future health complications, including heart disease.

    2) They are both injected but come in different strengths.

    Ozempic is available in pre-loaded single-dose pens with varying dosages of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg per injection. The dose can be slowly increased, up to a maximum of 2 mg per week, if needed.

    Wegovy is available in prefilled single-dose pens with doses of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 1.7 mg, or 2.4 mg. The treatment starts with a dose of 0.25 mg once weekly for four weeks, after which the dose is gradually increased until reaching a maintenance dose of 2.4 mg weekly.

    While it’s unknown what the impact of Wegovy’s introduction will be on Ozempic’s availability, Ozempic is still anticipated to be in low supply for the remainder of 2024.

    Is Wegovy effective for weight loss?

    Given Wegovy is a semaglutide, there is very strong evidence it can help people lose weight and maintain this weight loss.

    A recent study found that over four years, participants taking Wevovy as indicated experienced an average weight loss of 10.2% body weight and a reduction in waist circumference of 7.7cm.

    For those who stop taking the medication, analyses have shown that about two-thirds of weight lost is regained.

    Man leans against a bridge rail
    Wegovy can help people lose weight and maintain their weight loss – while they take the drug. Mladen Mitrinovic/Shutterstock

    What are the side effects of Wegovy?

    The most common side effects are nausea and vomiting.

    However, other serious side effects are also possible because of the whole-of-body impact of the medication. Thyroid tumours and cancer have been detected as a risk in animal studies, yet are rarely seen in human scientific literature.

    In the four-year Wegovy trial, 16.6% of participants who received Wegovy (1,461 people) experienced an adverse event that led to them permanently discontinuing their use of the medication. This was higher than the 8.2% of participants (718 people) who received the placebo (with no active ingredient).

    Side effects included gastrointestinal disorders (including nausea and vomiting), which affected 10% of people who used Wegovy compared to 2% of people who used the placebo.

    Gallbladder-related disorders occurred in 2.8% of people who used Wegovy, and 2.3% of people who received the placebo.

    Recently, concerns about suicidal thoughts and behaviours have been raised, after a global analysis reviewed more than 36 million reports of adverse events from semaglutide (Ozempic or Wegovy) since 2000.

    There were 107 reports of suicidal thoughts and self-harm among people taking semaglutide, sadly including six actual deaths. When people stopped the medication, 62.5% found the thoughts went away. What we don’t know is whether dose, weight loss, or previous mental health status or use of antidepressants had a role to play.

    Finally, concerns are growing about the negative effect of semaglutides on our social and emotional connection with food. Anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests people who use semaglutides significantly reduce their daily dietary intake (as anticipated) by skipping meals and avoiding social occasions – not very enjoyable for people and their loved ones.

    How can people access Wegovy?

    Wegovy is available for purchase at pharmacists with a prescription from a doctor.

    But there is a hefty price tag. Wegovy is not currently subsidised through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, leaving patients to cover the cost. The current cost is estimated at around A$460 per month dose.

    If you’re considering Wegovy, make an appointment with your doctor for individual advice.

    Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, 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:

  • Spinach vs Chard – 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 spinach to chard, we picked the spinach.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, spinach has slightly more fiber and protein, while chard has slightly more carbs. Now, those carbs are fine; nobody is getting metabolic disease from eating greens. But, by the numbers, this is a clear, albeit marginal, win for spinach.

    In the category of vitamins, spinach has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, E, and K, while chard has more of vitamins C and choline. An even clearer victory for spinach this time.

    When it comes to minerals, spinach has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc, while chard has more potassium. Once again, a clear win for spinach.

    You may be wondering about oxalates, in which spinach is famously high. However, chard is nearly 2x higher in oxalates. In practical terms, this doesn’t mean too much for most people. If you have kidney problems or a family history of such, it is recommended to avoid oxalates. For everyone else, the only downside is that oxalates diminish calcium bioavailability, which is a pity, as spinach is (by the numbers) a good source of calcium.

    However, oxalates are broken down by heat, so this means that cooked spinach (lightly steamed is fine; you don’t need to do anything drastic) will be much lower in oxalates (if you have kidney problems, do still check with your doctor/dietician, though).

    All in all, spinach beats chard by most metrics, and by a fair margin. Still, enjoy either or both, unless you have kidney problems, in which case maybe go for kale or collard greens instead!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Make Your Vegetables Work Better Nutritionally ← includes a note on breaking down oxalates, and lots of other information besides!

    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: