Broccoli vs Asparagus – 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 broccoli to asparagus, we picked the broccoli.
Why?
Both are great! But broccoli does distinguish itself:
In terms of macros, broccoli has slightly more protein, carbs, and fiber. The two vegetables have the same glycemic index. We’ll call this a slight win for broccoli based mainly on the higher fiber, but it’s not by a huge amount.
When it comes to vitamins, broccoli has more of vitamins B5, B6, B9, C, K, and choline, whereas asparagus has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, and E. This would already be a 6:5 marginal win for broccoli, but it’s worth bearing in mind that broccoli’s margins are greater, especially with broccoli having around 15x the amount of vitamin C. So, a clear win for broccoli, respectable as asparagus may be.
In the category of minerals, broccoli has more calcium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while asparagus boasts more copper, iron, and zinc. A 6:3 win for broccoli here.
Both vegetables also contain generous amounts of antioxidant polyphenols and other beneficial phytochemicals, often a little different from each other, so that’s a case for enjoying both.
Still, if you’re going to pick just one, we recommend the broccoli!
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
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Big Think’s #1 Antidote To 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.
Why This Video Is Important
A lot of what we talk about here at 10almonds is focused on healthy aging. We want you – our lovely readers – to not only live for a long time, but also be healthy enough to enjoy that “long time”.
We’ve talked about anything from Dr. Greger’s eight anti-aging interventions, to the specific benefits of resveratrol or metformin in combatting aging, to even reducing stress-induced aging.
So, why is this video important? It goes beyond just talking about what we know about living longer, but also focuses on how we should live longer; there’s a big difference between living a long life but never leaving your house vs. living a long life beyond your front door.
The Takeaways
The core message that Big Think wants to convey is that our lifestyle is our best bet in slowing the aging process. Our bodies are adaptive systems, responding positively to healthy lifestyle choices. They focus on exercise: regular physical activity increases healthspan, consequently extending lifespan.
A key takeaway is the difference between physical activity and exercise. While any movement counts as physical activity, exercise is a deliberate, health-focused activity. It benefits the brain by releasing growth factors that strengthen critical areas like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex.
The video encourages embracing physical activity in any form available to you, from gardening to walking. The goal isn’t to hit a specific number of steps but to stay active in a way that suits your lifestyle.
Science may not solve death. Yet. But focusing on maintaining a healthy, functioning state for as long as possible is the real victory in the battle against aging. And, at the moment, exercise seems to be our best bet:
How did you find that video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
Share This Post
-
12 Things Your Urine Says About Your Health (Test At Home)
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.
Urine has been used to assess health since Ancient Egypt (fun fact: because of Egyptian language having multiple sounds that get transliterated to “a” in English, the condition of passing blood in one’s urine was known as “Aaaaa” ← this word has three syllables; “Aa-a-aa”).
Modern techniques are more advanced than those of times past (for example, diabetes is no longer diagnosed by a urine taste-test), but basic urine inspection is still a very useful indicator of many things. Recognizing changes in urine can even help detect life-threatening conditions early:
Traffic lights?
How urine works: water that we consume is absorbed into the bloodstream and filtered by the kidneys. Urine is essentially blood with actual the blood cells filtered out and/or broken down. The yellow color comes from urochrome, produced during red blood cell breakdown. Here’s how things can happen a little differently:
- Fluorescent yellow: caused by excess vitamin B2 from supplements; harmless.
- Red urine: can indicate blood (bladder cancer, UTIs), hemoglobin, or myoglobin; seek medical attention.
- Dark brown/tea-colored urine: may result from muscle damage or blood cell destruction; requires evaluation.
- Orange urine: caused by dehydration, medications, or liver/bile duct issues (if paired with pale stools).
- Purple urine: UTI bacteria produce pigments that can cause this; treatable with antibiotics.
- Green urine: rare; caused by medications or dyes like methylene blue.
- Frothy/foamy urine: indicates high protein levels, often from kidney damage (e.g. per diabetes and/or hypertension).
- Crystal-clear urine: suggests overhydration, which can dangerously lower sodium levels.
- Dark yellow/amber urine: may mean dehydration; drink more water to maintain a light yellow color.
- Not peeing enough: may indicate severe dehydration or kidney failure; urgent medical attention needed.
- Peeing too much: often linked to diabetes or excessive water intake; can lead to dehydration or low sodium.
- Color-changing urine: port wine color signals porphyria; black urine indicates alkaptonuria (oxidation of homogentisic acid). Both are serious.
Bonus: if you eat a lot of beetroot and then your urine is pink/red/purple, that’s probably just the pigments passing through. If it persists though, then of course, see above.
For more on each of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Why You Don’t Need 8 Glasses Of Water Per Day
Take care!
Share This Post
-
An RSV vaccine has been approved for people over 60. But what about young children?
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 Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Australia for the first time. The shot, called Arexvy and manufactured by GSK, will be available by prescription to adults over 60.
RSV is a contagious respiratory virus which causes an illness similar to influenza, most notably in babies and older adults.
So while it will be good to have an RSV vaccine available for older people, where is protection up to for the youngest children?
A bit about RSV
RSV was discovered in chimpanzees with respiratory illness in 1956, and was soon found to be a common cause of illness in humans.
There are two key groups of people we would like to protect from RSV: babies (up to about one year old) and people older than 60.
Babies tend to fill up hospitals during the RSV season in late spring and winter in large numbers, but severe infection requiring admission to intensive care is less common.
In babies and younger children, RSV generally causes a wheezing asthma-like illness (bronchiolitis), but can also cause pneumonia and croup.
Although there are far fewer hospital admissions among older people, they can develop severe disease and die from an infection.
Babies account for the majority of hospitalisations with RSV.
Prostock-studio/ShutterstockRSV vaccines for older people
For older adults, there are actually several RSV vaccines in the pipeline. The recent Australian TGA approval of Arexvy is likely to be the first of several, with other vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna currently in development.
The GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines are similar. They both contain a small component of the virus, called the pre-fusion protein, that the immune system can recognise.
Both vaccines have been shown to reduce illness from RSV by more than 80% in the first season after vaccination.
In older adults, side effects following Arexvy appear to be similar to other vaccines, with a sore arm and generalised aches and fatigue frequently reported.
Unlike influenza vaccines which are given each year, it is anticipated the RSV vaccine would be a one-off dose, at least at this stage.
Protecting young children from RSV
Younger babies don’t tend to respond well to some vaccines due to their immature immune system. To prevent other diseases, this can be overcome by giving multiple vaccine doses over time. But the highest risk group for RSV are those in the first few months of life.
To protect this youngest age group from the virus, there are two potential strategies available instead of vaccinating the child directly.
The first is to give a vaccine to the mother and rely on the protective antibodies passing to the infant through the placenta. This is similar to how we protect babies by vaccinating pregnant women against influenza and pertussis (whooping cough).
The second is to give antibodies directly to the baby as an injection. With both these strategies, the protection provided is only temporary as antibodies wane over time, but this is sufficient to protect infants through their highest risk period.
Women could be vaccinated during pregnancy to protect their baby in its first months of life.
Image Point Fr/ShutterstockAbrysvo, the Pfizer RSV vaccine, has been trialled in pregnant women. In clinical trials, this vaccine has been shown to reduce illness in infants for up to six months. It has been approved in pregnant women in the United States, but is not yet approved in Australia.
An antibody product called palivizumab has been available for many years, but is only partially effective and extremely expensive, so has only been given to a small number of children at very high risk.
A newer antibody product, nirsevimab, has been shown to be effective in reducing infections and hospitalisations in infants. It was approved by the TGA in November, but it isn’t yet clear how this would be accessed in Australia.
What now?
RSV, like influenza, is a major cause of respiratory illness, and the development of effective vaccines represents a major advance.
While the approval of the first vaccine for older people is an important step, many details are yet to be made available, including the cost and the timing of availability. GSK has indicated its vaccine should be available soon. While the vaccine will initially only be available on private prescription (with the costs paid by the consumer), GSK has applied for it to be made free under the National Immunisation Program.
In the near future, we expect to hear further news about the other vaccines and antibodies to protect those at higher risk from RSV disease, including young children.
Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
The Alzheimer’s Gut-Brain Connection—Caught On X-Ray!
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’ve written before about Alzheimer’s disease (a lot), and if you’re just joining us, then a great place to start is here:
How To Reduce Your Alzheimer’s Risk
We’ve also written about gut health (a lot), and if you’re just joining us, then a great place to start is here:
Make Friends With Your Gut! (Here’s Why & How)
And as a hat trick, yes, we’ve also written (admittedly not as much) about the gut-brain connection; here’s a primer:
The Brain-Gut Highway: A Two-Way Street
Because of how gut microbes influence brain function, behavior, and cognition, scientists wondered whether one’s microbiome might play a role in Alzheimer’s development. Recently, scientists from Italy’s Institute of Nanotechnology, working with the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), found some concrete answers:
How gut health affects Alzheimer’s
When the gut loses its healthy balance of bacteria, harmful bacteria (and fungi, like C. albicans, also popularly called by its first name, “Candida”) take the wheel. This problem (called “dysbiosis”) allows harmful microbes to produce toxic substances, leading to inflammation and weakening the protective barriers between the gut and brain.
In some cases, like the aforementioned C. albicans, they’ll even put roots through your gut wall (and interact with your nervous system, and they are a common reason for sugar and alcohol cravings—your CNS has literally been hacked by a fungal colony that wants sugar (including the sugar that occurs when alcohol is broken down—and that’s without considering the fact that alcohol also kills several of C. albicans competitors that rank amongst the “good bacteria”). Suffice it to say, the holes it puts in your gut wall aren’t great for the health either.
In any case, once the gut barrier is breached, it’s been hypothesized that harmful bacteria may even travel to the brain, triggering Alzheimer’s.
How the x-rays helped
To better understand gut changes in Alzheimer’s, scientists used a technique called nano- and micro- x-ray phase-contrast tomography (XPCT) at the aforementioned ESRF. That very fancy string of words refers to a commensurately powerful imaging method, which allows researchers to see detailed structures inside the gut without damaging tissue, or even adding contrast agents (like those unpleasant drinks that are sometimes required to be taken before soft-tissue x-rays).
The study examined gut samples from mice with Alzheimer’s (so yes, this does need to be repeated with humans, but in this case there’s no obvious reason why it shouldn’t be the same).
The scans revealed important changes in gut structures, including:
- The tiny finger-like villi and corresponding crypts in the gut lining
- Important cells* that help with digestion and protection
- Neurons involved in gut function
*e.g. Paneth cells, goblet cells, telocytes, and erythrocytes, all of whom would take more explanation than we have room for here, but suffice it to say they’re important to both digestion and correct mucus production (bearing in mind, mucus membranes are one of the main physical barriers to harmful bacteria—as humans, our conscious interactions with mucus are usually only the nuisance that occurs when we get a cold or something, but rest assured, mucus keeps us alive).
In short, all these findings suggest (we’d say “show”, but technically cause and effect have not been proven) gut health indeed plays a crucial role in Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis and pathology (i.e., how the disease begins and progresses, respectively).
Why it matters
To quote Dr. Alessia Cedola,
❝This technique represents a real breakthrough for the thorough analysis of the gut, and it could be pivotal in early detection and prognosis of the disease.
By gaining a deeper understanding of these processes, we hope to identify new therapeutic targets and develop innovative treatments for this devastating disease.❞
In short: the technology can be used as a super-early diagnostic tool, and ultimately, improve prevention (by encouraging people to focus on gut health) as well as, hopefully, leading to new treatments, too.
Want to see it?
Here’s the paper itself, where there are also abundant very clear images:
Are you on top of your gut health already?
If not, do refer back to that first link we dropped about gut health, up top!
If you are already sure you’re looking after your gut and want to do something else to avoid Alzheimer’s coming to call, you might want to consider:
How To Clean Your Brain (Glymphatic Health Primer) ← your glymphatic system, something many people neglect, is the brain’s cleanup crew, and removes things like the beta-amyloid proteins that are implicated in Alzheimer’s pathogenesis. So, it’s worth knowing how to keep it in working order!
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:
-
Debunking the myth that vaccines cause autism
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 myth that autism is linked to childhood vaccines first appeared in a 1998 study by British physician Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The study was later retracted, and Wakefield was discredited. But nearly three decades after the study’s publication, the myth persists, championed by activists, political leaders, and even potential health officials.
There is overwhelming evidence that there is no link between vaccines and autism. “No one has any real or solid evidence that vaccines cause autism,” says Catherine Lord, a psychologist and autism researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Here are just some of the many reasons that we know vaccines don’t cause autism.
The Wakefield study has been thoroughly discredited
In 1998, the Lancet published a study describing a small group of children who reportedly had bowel inflammation and developed autism within a month of getting the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study proposed that the vaccination triggered bowel inflammation and developmental delays, including autism. Lead author Andrew Wakefield coined the term “autistic enterocolitis” to describe the condition he and his colleagues claimed to have discovered.
The study received significant media attention and immediate criticism from scientists, who pointed out the study’s small size, lack of controls, and insufficient evidence to support its conclusions.
Subsequent research published over the next few years refuted Wakefield’s findings. A 1999 Lancet study found no link between autism and the MMR vaccine, and a 2001 study found no evidence of a link or the existence of so-called autistic enterocolitis.
In 2010, the Lancet finally retracted Wakefield’s fraudulent study, noting that “several elements” of the study were “incorrect” and that the experiments carried out on children had not been approved by an ethics board. The journal’s editor called the paper’s conclusions “utterly false.”
A few months later, Wakefield was stripped of his medical license by the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council. The council deemed Wakefield “dishonest and irresponsible” and concluded that he conducted unethical experiments on children.
The committee’s investigation also revealed that, less than a year before he published his study claiming that the MMR vaccine was linked to bowel inflammation that triggered autism, Wakefield filed a patent for a standalone measles vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease treatment.
Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001—with no effect on autism rates
A 2003 study published by a conservative group known for promoting anti-science myths—including that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS—first proposed that the preservative thimerosal in childhood vaccines is linked to autism. This supposed link was subsequently disproven.
Thimerosal is added in small amounts to some vaccines to prevent dangerous bacterial and fungal contamination. The substance contains ethylmercury, a form of mercury that the body quickly and safely processes in small doses.
Ethylmercury is different from methylmercury, a far more dangerous form of mercury that is toxic at low doses. By contrast, the small amount of thimerosal in some vaccines is harmless to humans and is equal to the amount of mercury in a can of tuna.
The preservative was removed from childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure in 2001. With the exception of some flu shots, no childhood vaccine contains the preservative and hasn’t for more than two decades. Autism rates have not decreased as a result of thimerosal being removed from childhood immunization vaccines. While some types of the annual flu vaccine contain thimerosal, you can get one without it.
Extensive research also shows that neither thimerosal nor methylmercury at any dose is linked to autism. A 2008 study of statewide California data found that autism rates “increased consistently for children born from 1989 through 2003, inclusive of the period when exposure to [thimerosal-containing vaccines] has declined.”
Autism rates are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated children
Vaccine opponents often falsely claim that vaccinated children are more likely than unvaccinated children to develop autism. Decades of research disprove this false claim.
A 2002 analysis of every child born in Denmark over eight years found that children who received MMR vaccines were no more likely to be diagnosed with autism than unvaccinated children.
A 2015 study of over 95,000 U.S. siblings found that MMR vaccination is not associated with increased autism diagnosis. This was true even among the siblings of children with autism, who are seven times more likely to develop autism than children without an autistic sibling.
And a 2018 study found some evidence that children with autism—and their siblings—were more likely to be unvaccinated or under-vaccinated than children without autism.
Vaccination also has no impact on autism rates at the population level, regardless of the age at which children get vaccinated.
“In comparing countries that have different timing and levels of vaccination … there’s no difference in autism,” says Lord. “You can look at different countries with different rates of autism, and there’s no relationship between the rates of autism and vaccinations.”
Countries such as Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, and Morocco, which have some of the world’s lowest autism rates, have childhood immunization rates that are nearly identical to countries with the highest autism rates, including Sweden, Japan, Brunei, and Singapore.
Improved awareness and diagnosis play a role in rising autism rates
Autism was first described in 1911 when it was considered to be a form of severe schizophrenia. Over a century later, our understanding of autism has changed drastically, as have diagnostic standards.
A 2013 scientific article describing how medical and social perceptions of autism have evolved explains that “the diagnoses of schizophrenia, psychosis and autism in children were largely interchangeable during the 1940s and 1950s.” Beginning in the 1960s, methods of diagnosing autism improved, “increasing the number of children who were considered to display autistic traits.”
The autism diagnosis was changed to autism spectrum disorder in 2013. “This category is now very broad, which was an intentional choice to help provide services to the greatest number of people who might need them,” writes Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist and creator of the popular Health Nerd blog.
“Rather than the severe intellectual disability of the 1940s and 50s, [autism spectrum disorder] is a group of behaviours that can be any severity as long as they are persistent and impact people’s daily functioning in a significant way.”
For more information about autism, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
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:
-
Water: For Health, for Healing, for Life – by Dr. Fereydoon Batmanghelidj
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.
Notwithstanding the cover’s declaration of “you’re not sick, you’re thirsty”, in fact this book largely makes the argument that both are often the case simultaneously, and that dehydration plays a bigger role in disease pathogenesis and progression than it is credited for.
You may be wondering: is this 304 pages to say “drink some water”?
And the answer is: yes, somewhat. However, it also goes into detail of how and why it is relevant in each case, which means that there will be, once you have read this, more chance of your dehydrated and thus acutely-less-functional brain going “oh, I remember what this is” rather than just soldiering on dehydrated because you are too dehydrated to remember to hydrate.
The strength of the book really is in motivation; understanding why things happen the way they do and thus why they matter, is a huge part of then actually being motivated to do something about it. And let’s face it, a “yes, I will focus on my hydration” health kick is typically sustained for less time than many more noticeable (e.g. diet and exercise) healthy lifestyle adjustments, precisely because there’s less there to focus on so it gets forgotten.
The style is a little dated (the book is from 2003, and the style feels like it is from the 80s, which is when the author was doing most of his research, before launching his first book, which we haven’t read-and-reviewed yet, in 1992) but perfectly clear and pleasant to read.
Bottom line: this book may well get you to actually drink more water
Click here to check out Water: For Health, for Healing, for Life, and get hydrating!
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: