Buckwheat vs Rye – 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 buckwheat to rye, we picked the buckwheat.
Why?
Both are good, wholegrain options for most people! On which note, yes, we are comparing whole groats* vs whole grains here, respectively.
*buckwheat is, you may remember, a flowering plant and not technically a grain or even a grass (and is very unrelated to wheat; it’s as closely related to wheat as a lionfish is to a lion).
In terms of macros, buckwheat has more protein, while rye has more carbs and fiber, the ratios of which mean that rye has the higher glycemic index. All in all, we’re calling this category a win for buckwheat on the basis of those things, but really, both are fine.
When it comes to vitamins, buckwheat has more of vitamins B1, B3, B6, B7, B9, K, and choline, while rye has more of vitamins B2, B5, and E. An easy win for buckwheat here.
In the category of minerals, buckwheat has more copper, calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while rye has more manganese and selenium. Another clear win for buckwheat.
Lastly. it’s worth noting that while buckwheat does not contain gluten, rye does. So, if you’re avoiding gluten, buckwheat is the option to choose here for that reason too.
If you don’t have celiac disease, wheat allergy, gluten intolerance, or something like that, then rye is still very worthwhile; buckwheat may have won on numbers in each category, but rye wasn’t far behind on anything; the margins of difference were quite small today.
Still, buckwheat is the best all-rounder here!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
- Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure
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:
-
Water Fluoridation, Atheroma, & More
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝I watched a documentary recently on Fluoride in our drinking water & the dangers of it. Why are we poisoning our water?❞
This is a great question, and it certainly is controversial. It sounds like the documentary you watched was predominantly or entirely negative, but there’s a lot of science to back both sides of this, and it’s not even that the science is contradictory (it’s not). It’s that what differs is people’s opinions about whether benefiting one thing is worth creating a risk to another, and that means looking at:
- What is the risk associated with taking no action (error of omission)?
- What is the risk associated with taking an action (error of commission)?
The whole topic is worth a main feature, but to summarize a few key points:
- Water fluoridation is considered good for the prevention of dental cavities
- Water fluoridation aims to deliver fluoride and doses far below dangerous levels
- This requires working on consumer averages, though
- ”Where do we put the safety margins?” is to some extent a subjective question, in terms of trading off one aspect of health for another
- Too much fluoride can also be bad for the teeth (at least cosmetically, creating little white* spots)
- Detractors of fluoride tend to mostly be worried about neurological harm
- However, the doses in public water supplies are almost certainly far below the levels required to cause this harm.
- That said, again this is working on consumer averages, though.
- However, the doses in public water supplies are almost certainly far below the levels required to cause this harm.
- A good guide is: watch your teeth! Those white* spots will be “the canary in the coal mine” of more serious harm that could potentially come from higher levels due to overconsumption of fluorine.
*Teeth are not supposed to be pure white. The “Hollywood smile” is a lie. Teeth are supposed to be a slightly off-white, ivory color. Anything whiter than that is adding something else that shouldn’t be there, or stripping something off that should be there.
❝How does your diet change clean out your arteries of the bad cholesterol?❞
There’s good news and bad news here, and they can both be delivered with a one-word reply:
Slowly.
Or rather: what’s being cleaned out is mostly not the LDL (bad) cholesterol, but rather, the result of that.
When our diet is bad for cardiovascular health, our arteries get fatty deposits on their walls. Cholesterol gets stuck here too, but that’s not the main physical problem.
Our body’s natural defenses come into action and try to clean it up, but they (for example macrophages, a kind of white blood cell that consumes invaders and then dies, before being recycled by the next part of the system) often get stuck and become part of the buildup (called atheroma), which can lead to atherosclerosis and (if calcium levels are high) hardening of the arteries, which is the worst end of this.
This can then require medical attention, precisely because the body can’t remove it very well—especially if you are still maintaining a heart-unhealthy diet, thus continuing to add to the mess.
However, if it is not too bad yet, yes, a dietary change alone will reverse this process. Without new material being added to the arterial walls, the body’s continual process of rejuvenation will eventually fix it, given time (free from things making it worse) and resources.
In fact, your arteries can be one of the quickest places for your body to make something better or worse, because the blood is the means by which the body moves most things (good or bad) around the body.
All the more reason to take extra care of it, since everything else depends on it!
You might also like our previous main feature:
Share This Post
-
Radical Longevity – by Dr. Ann Gittleman
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.
Dr. Gittleman takes a comprehensive approach, advising us about avoiding AGEs, freeing up fascia, stimulating cellular rejuvenation, the mind-gut connection, keeping the immune system healthy, and more.
The “plan” promised by the subtitle involves identifying the key factors of nutrition and lifestyle most impactful to you, and adjusting them accordingly, in a multistep, author-walks-the-reader-by-the-hand process.
There’s also, for those who prefer it, a large section (seven chapters) on a body part/system by body part/system approach, e.g. brain health, heart health, revitalizing skin, reversing hair loss, repairing bones, muscles, joints, etc.
The writing style is quite casual,butalso with a mind to education, with its call-out boxes, bullet-point summaries, and so forth. There is a “select references” section, but if one wants to find studies, it’s often necessary to go looking, as there aren’t inline citations.
Bottom line: we’d love to see better referencing, but otherwise this is a top-tier anti-aging book, and a lot more accessible than most, without skimping on depth and breadth.
Click here to check out Radical Longevity, and get rejuvenating radically!
Share This Post
-
Ayurveda’s Contributions To 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.
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science (Without Being Itself Rooted in Scientific Method)
Yesterday, we asked you for your opinions on ayurveda, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses. Of those who responded…
- A little over 41% said “I don’t know what ayurveda is without looking it up”
- A little over 37% said “It is a fine branch of health science with millennia of evidence”
- A little over 16% said “It gets some things right, but not by actual science”
- A little over 4% said “It is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience”
So, what does the science say?
Ayurveda is scientific: True or False?
False, simply. Let’s just rip the band-aid off in this case. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily without merit, though!
Let’s put it this way:
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because scientific method has discerned that caffeine has vasoconstrictive and adenosine-blocking effects while also promoting dopaminergic activity, then your consumption of coffee is evidence-based and scientific. Great!
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because somebody told you that that somebody told them that it energizes you by balancing the elements fire (the heat of the coffee), air (the little bubbles on top), earth (the coffee grinds), water (the water), and ether (steam), then that is neither evidence-based nor scientific, but it will still work exactly the same.
Ayurveda is a little like that. It’s an ancient traditional Indian medicine, based on a combination of anecdotal evidence and supposition.
- The anecdotal evidence from ayurveda has often resulted in herbal remedies that, in modern scientific trials, have been found to have merit.
- Ayurvedic meditative practices also have a large overlap with modern mindfulness practices, and have also been found to have merit
- Ayurveda also promotes the practice of yoga, which is indeed a very healthful activity
- The supposition from ayurveda is based largely in those five elements we mentioned above, as well as a “balancing of humors” comparable to medieval European medicine, and from a scientific perspective, is simply a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
Note: while ayurveda is commonly described as a science by its practitioners in the modern age, it did not originally claim to be scientific, but rather, wisdom handed down directly by the god Dhanvantari.
Ayurveda gets some things right: True or False?
True! Indeed, we covered some before in 10almonds; you may remember:
Bacopa Monnieri: A Well-Evidenced Cognitive Enhancer
(Bacopa monnieri is also known by its name in ayurveda, brahmi)
There are many other herbs that have made their way from ayurveda into modern science, but the above is a stand-out example. Others include:
- Ashwagandha: The Root of All Even-Mindedness?
- Boswellia serrata (Frankincense) Against Pain and Depression/Anxiety
Yoga and meditation are also great, and not only that, but great by science, for example:
- NCCIH | Yoga for Health: Clinical Guidelines, Scientific Literature, Info for Patients
- The Neuroscience of Mindfulness: How Mindfulness Alters the Brain and Facilitates Emotion Regulation
Ayurveda is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience: True or False?
Also True! We covered why it’s a pseudoscience above, but that doesn’t make it potentially dangerous, per se (you’ll remember our coffee example).
What does, however, make it potentially dangerous (dose-dependent) is its use of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic:
Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
Some final thoughts…
Want to learn more about the sometimes beneficial, sometimes uneasy relationship between ayurveda and modern science?
A lot of scholarly articles trying to bridge (or further separate) the two were very biased one way or the other.
Instead, here’s one that’s reasonably optimistic with regard to ayurveda’s potential for good, while being realistic about how it currently stands:
Development of Ayurveda—Tradition to trend
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Calisthenics for Beginners – by Matt Schifferle
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.
For those who are curious to take up calisthenics, for its famed benefit to many kinds of health, this is a great starter-book.
First, what kind of benefits can we expect? Lots, but most critically:
- Greater mobility (as a wide range of movements is practiced, some of them stretchy)
- Cardiovascular fitness (calisthenics can be performed as a form of High Intensity Impact Training, HIIT)
- Improved muscle-tone (because these are bodyweight strength-training exercises—have you seen a gymnast’s body?)
- Denser bones (strong muscles can’t be built on weak bones, so the body compensates by strengthening them)
A lot of the other benefits stem from those, ranging from reduced risk of stroke, diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, etc, to improved mood, more energy, better sleep, and generally all things that come with a decent, rounded, exercise regime.
Schifferle explains not just the exercises, but also the principles, so that we understand what we’re doing and why. Understanding improves motivation, adherence, and—often—form. Exercise diagrams are clear, and have active muscle-groups highlighted and color-coded for extra clarity.
As well as explaining exercises individually, he includes three programs, increasing in intensity. He also offers adjustments to make exercises easier or more challenging, depending on the current condition of your body.
The book’s not without its limitations—it may be a little male-centric for some readers, for instance—but all in all, it’s a very strong introduction to calisthenics… Enough to get anyone up and running, so to speak!
Get started with “Calisthenics for Beginners” from Amazon today!
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:
-
The Meds That Impair Decision-Making
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.
Impairment to cognitive function is often comorbid with Parkinson’s disease. That is to say: it’s not a symptom of Parkinson’s, but it often occurs in the same people. This may seem natural: after all, both are strongly associated with aging.
However, recent (last month, at time of writing) research has brought to light a very specific way in which medication for Parkinson’s may impair the ability to make sound decisions.
Obviously, this is a big deal, because it can affect healthcare decisions, financial decisions, and more—greatly impacting quality of life.
See also: Age-related differences in financial decision-making and social influence
(in which older people were found more likely to be influenced by the impulsive financial preferences of others than their younger counterparts, when other factors are controlled for)
As for how this pans out when it comes to Parkinson’s meds…
Pramipexole (PPX)
This drug can, due to an overlap in molecular shape, mimic dopamine in the brains of people who don’t have enough—such as those with Parkinson’s disease. This (as you might expect) helps alleviate Parkinson’s symptoms.
However, researchers found that mice treated with PPX and given a touch-screen based gambling game picked the high-risk, high reward option much more often. In the hopes of winning strawberry milkshake (the reward), they got themselves subjected to a lot of blindingly-bright flashing lights (the risk, to which untreated mice were much more averse, as this is very stressful for a mouse).
You may be wondering: did the mice have Parkinson’s?
The answer: kind of; they had been subjected to injections with 6-hydroxydopamine, which damages dopamine-producing neurons similarly to Parkinson’s.
This result was somewhat surprising, because one would expect that a mouse whose depleted dopamine was being mimicked by a stand-in (thus, doing much of the job of dopamine) would be less swayed by the allure of gambling (a high-dopamine activity), since gambling is typically most attractive to those who are desperate to find a crumb of dopamine somewhere.
They did find out why this happened, by the way, the PPX hyperactivated the external globus pallidus (also called GPe, and notwithstanding the name, this is located deep inside the brain). Chemically inhibiting this area of the brain reduced the risk-taking activity of the mice.
This has important implications for Parkinson’s patients, because:
- on an individual level, it means this is a side effect of PPX to be aware of
- on a research-and-development level, it means drugs need to be developed that specifically target the GPe, to avoid/mitigate this side effect.
You can read the study in full here:
Don’t want to get Parkinson’s in the first place?
While nothing is a magic bullet, there are things that can greatly increase or decrease Parkinson’s risk. Here’s a big one, as found recently (last week, at the time of writing):
Air Pollution and Parkinson’s Disease in a Population-Based Study
Also: knowing about its onset sooner rather than later is scary, but beneficial. So, with that in mind…
Recognize The Early Symptoms Of Parkinson’s Disease
Finally, because Parkinson’s disease is theorized to be caused by a dysfunction of alpha-synuclein clearance (much like the dysfunction of beta-amyloid clearance, in the case of Alzheimer’s disease), this means that having a healthy glymphatic system (glial cells doing the same clean-up job as the lymphatic system, but in the brain) is critical:
How To Clean Your Brain (Glymphatic Health Primer)
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:
-
Anchovies vs Sardines – 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 anchovies to sardines, we picked the sardines.
Why?
In terms of macros, sardines have slightly more protein and more than 2x the fat, but the fat profile is healthier than that of anchovies, meaning that the amount of saturated fat is the same, and sardines have more poly- and monounsaturated fats. Breaking it down further, sardines also have more omega-3. Unless you are for whatever reason especially keen to keep your total fat* intake down, sardines win here.
*or calories, which in this case come almost entirely from the fat, and sardines are consequently nearly 2x higher in calories.
When it comes to vitamins, sardines further distinguish themselves; anchovies have more of vitamins B2 and B3, while sardines have more of vitamins A, B1, B6, B12, B9, E, and K—in some cases, by quite large margins (especially the B12 and K, being 14x more and 26x more, respectively). A clear win for sardines.
Minerals are closer to even; anchovies have more copper, iron, and zinc, while sardines have more calcium, manganese, phosphorus, and selenium. That’s already a slight win for sardines, before we take into account that sardines’ margins of difference are also much greater than anchovies’.
In short, enjoy either in moderation if you are so inclined, but sardines win on overall nutritional density.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Farmed Fish vs Wild Caught: More Important Than You Might Think
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:
