Cabbage vs Cauliflower – 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 cabbage to cauliflower, we picked the cauliflower.
Why?
First, let’s note: these are two different cultivars of the same species (Brassica oleracea) and/but as usual (we say, as there are a lot of cultivars of Brassica oleracea, and we’ve done a fair few pairings of them before) there are still nutritional differences to consider, such as…
In terms of macros, cabbage has very slightly more carbs and fiber, while cauliflower has very slightly more protein. However, the numbers are all so close (and the glycemic index equal), such that we’re going to call the macros category a tie.
In the category of vitamins, cabbage has more of vitamins A, B1, E, and K, while cauliflower has more of vitamins B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline. Superficially, this is a clear 8:4 win for cauliflower; it’s worth noting though that the differences in amounts are mostly small, so this isn’t as big a win as it looks like. Still a win for cauliflower, though.
When it comes to minerals, it’s a similar story: cabbage has a little more calcium, iron, and manganese, while cauliflower has a little more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. This time a 6:3 win for cauliflower, and again, the margins are small so there’s really not as much between them as it looks like. Still a win for cauliflower, though.
In short: enjoy either or both (diversity is good), but the most nutritionally dense is cauliflower, even if cabbage isn’t far behind it.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
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:
-
Muir Glen Organic vs First Field Original – 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 Muir Glen Organic Ketchup to First Field Original Ketchup, we picked the First Field.
Why?
This one was a little unfair to you, as you can’t turn them around to read the ingredients here. But the point we want to share the most today is: you have to turn them around and read the ingredients! You absolutely cannot rely on appearances!
While the Muir Glen Organic may have a very “greenwashed” aesthetic going on and the word “organic” is more eye-catching than any other word on the label, it contains 4x as much sugar and 4x as much sodium.
Side-by-side, they have, per tablespoon:
First Field Original: 1g sugar, 60mg sodium
Muir Glen Organic: 4g sugar, 240mg sodiumBut what about the importance of being organic?
Well, we have one more surprise for you: the First Field ketchup is organic too, non-GMO, and contains no added concentrates either.
This isn’t an ad for First Field (by all means enjoy their products or don’t; we’re not invested), but it is a heartfelt plea to always check the backs of products and read the labels, because fronts of products can’t be relied upon at all.
I’m sure we all get caught out sometimes, but the less often, the better!
PS: we write this, of course, before seeing the results of your voting. Maybe it won’t be a “Muir Glen Organic” sweep in the polls. But either way, it’s a call to vigilance, and a “very good, carry on” to everyone who does this already
Share This Post
-
Lifespan – by Dr. David Sinclair
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.
Some books on longevity are science-heavy and heavy-going; others are glorified manifestos with much philosophy but little practical.
This one’s a sciencey-book written for a lay reader. It’s heavily referenced, but not a challenging read.
This book is divided into three parts:
- What we know (the past)
- What we’re learning (the present)
- Where we’re going (the future)
Let us quickly mention: the last part is principally sociology and economics, which are not the author’s wheelhouse. Some readers may enjoy his thoughts regardless, but we’re going to concentrate on where we found the real value of the book to be: in the first and second parts, where he brings his expertise to bear.
The first part lays the foundational knowledge that’s critical for understanding why the second part is so important.
Basically: aging is a genetic disease, and diseases can be cured. No disease has magical properties, even if sometimes it can seem for a while like they do, until we understand them better.
The second part covers a lot of recent and contemporary research into aging. We learn about such things as NAD-agonists that make elderly mice biologically young again, and the Greenland shark that easily lives for 500 years or so (currently the record-holder for vertebrates). And of course, biologically immortal jellyfish.
It’s not all animal studies though…
We learn of how NAD-agonists such as NMN have been promising in human studies too, along with resveratrol and the humble diabetes drug, metformin. These things alone may have the power to extend healthy life by 20%
Other recommendations pertain to lifestyle; the usual five things (diet, exercise, sleep, no alcohol, no smoking), as well as intermittent fasting and cryotherapy (cold showers/baths).
Bottom line: this book is informative and inspiring, and if you’ve been looking for an “in” to understanding the world of biogerontology and/or anti-aging research, this is it.
Get your copy of “Lifespan: Why We Age—And Why We Don’t Have To” from Amazon today!
Share This Post
-
Make Your Vegetables Work Better Nutritionally
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.
Most people know that boiling vegetables to death is generally not best for them, but raw isn’t always best either, and if we want to not sabotage our food, then there’s more to bear in mind than “just steam them, then”.
So, what should we keep in mind?
Water solubility
Many nutrients are water-soluble, including vitamin C, vitamin B-complex (as in, the collection of B-vitamins), and flavonoids, as well as many other polyphenols.
This means that if you cook your vegetables (which includes beans, lentils, etc) in water, a lot of the nutrients will go into the water, and be lost if you then drain that.
There are, thus, options;
- Steaming, yes
- Use just enough water to slow-cook or pressure-cook things that are suitable for slow-cooking, or pressure-cooking such as those beans and lentils. That way, when it’s done, there’s no excess water to drain, and all the nutrients are still in situ.
- Use as much water as you like, but then keep the excess water to make a soup, sauce, or broth.
- Use a cooking method other than water, where appropriate. For example, roasting peppers is a much better idea than roasting dried pulses.
- Consume raw, where appropriate.
Fat solubility
Many nutrients are fat-soluble, including vitamins A, D, E, and K, as well as a lot of carotenoids (including heavy-hitters lycopene and β-carotene) and many other polyphenols.
We’re now going to offer almost the opposite advice to that we had about water solubility. This is because unless they are dried, vegetables already contain water, whereas many contain only trace amounts of fat. Consequently, the advice this time is to add fat.
There are options:
- Cook with a modest amount of your favorite healthy cooking oil (our general go-to is extra-virgin olive oil, but avocado oil is great especially for higher temperature cooking, and an argument can be made for coconut oil sometimes)
- Remember that this goes for roasting, too. Brush those vegetables with a touch of olive oil, and not only will they be delicious, they’ll be more nutritious, too.
- Drizzle some the the above, if you’re serving things raw and it’s appropriate. This goes also for things like salads, so dress them!
- Enjoy your vegetables alongside healthy fatty foods such as nuts and seeds (or fatty animal products, if you eat those; fatty fish is a fine option here, in moderation, as are eggs, or fermented dairy products).
For a deeper understanding: Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?
Do not, however, deep-fry your foods unless it’s really necessary and then only for an occasional indulgence that you simply accept will be unhealthy. Not only is deep-frying terrible for the health in a host of ways (ranging from an excess of oil in the resultant food, to acrylamide, to creating Advanced Glycation End-products*), but also those fat-soluble nutrients? Guess where they’ll go. And unlike with the excess vegetable-cooking water that you can turn into soup or whatever, we obviously can’t recommend doing that with deep-fryer oil.
*see also: Are You Eating AGEs?
Temperature sensitivity
Many nutrients are sensitive to temperature, including vitamin C (breaks down when exposed to high temperatures) and carotenoids (are released when exposed to higher temperatures). Another special case is ergothioneine, “the longevity vitamin” that’s not a vitamin, found in mushrooms, which is also much more bioavailable when cooked.
So, if you’re eating something for vitamin C, then raw is best if that’s a reasonable option.
And if it’s not a reasonable option? Well, then you can either a) just cope with the fact it’s going to have less vitamin C in it, or b) cook it as gently and briefly as reasonably possible.
On the other hand, if you’re eating something for carotenoids (especially including lycopene and β-carotene), or ergothioneine, then cooked is best.
Additionally, if your food is high in oxalates (such as spinach), and you don’t want it to be (for example because you have kidney problems, which oxalates can exacerbate, or would like to get more calcium out of the spinach and into your body, which which oxalic acid would inhibit), then cooked is best, as it breaks down the oxalates.
Same goes for phytates, another “anti-nutrient” found in some whole grains (such as rice and wheat); cooking breaks it down, therefore cooked is best.
This latter is not, however, applicable in the case of brown rice protein powder, for those who enjoy that—because phytates aren’t found in the part of the rice that’s extracted to make that.
And as for brown rice itself? Does contain phytates… Which can be reduced by soaking and heating, preferably both, to the point that the nutritional value is better than it would have been had there not been phytic acid present in the first place; in other words: cooked is best.
You may be wondering: “who is eating rice raw?” and the answer is: people using rice flour.
See: Brown Rice Protein: Strengths & Weaknesses
Want to know more?
Here’s a great rundown from Dr. Rosalind Gibson, Dr. Leah Perlas, and Dr. Christine Hotz:
Improving the bioavailability of nutrients in plant foods at the household level
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
“The Longevity Vitamin” (That’s Not A Vitamin)
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 Magic of Mushrooms
“The Longevity Vitamin that’s not a vitamin” is a great tagline for what’s actually an antioxidant amino acid nutraceutical, but in this case, we’re not the ones spearheading its PR, but rather, the Journal of Nutritional Science:
Is ergothioneine a “longevity vitamin” limited in the American diet?
It can be found in all foods, to some extent, but usually in much tinier amounts than would be useful. The reason for this is that it’s synthesized by a variety of microbes (mostly fungi and actinobacteria), and enters the food chain via vegetables that are grown in soil that contain such (which is basically all soil, unless you were to go out of your way to sterilize it, or something really unusually happened).
About those fungi? That includes common popular edible fungi, where it is found quite generously. An 85g (3oz) portion of (most) mushrooms contains about 5mg of ergothioneine, the consumption of which is associated with a 16% reduced all-cause mortality:
However… Most Americans don’t eat that many mushrooms, and those polled averaged 1.1mg/day ergothioneine (in contrast with, for example, Italians’ 4.6mg/day average).
Antioxidant properties
While its antioxidant properties aren’t the most exciting quality, they are worth a mention, on account of their potency:
The biology of ergothioneine, an antioxidant nutraceutical
This is also part of its potential bid to get classified as a vitamin, because…
❝Decreased blood and/or plasma levels of ergothioneine have been observed in some diseases, suggesting that a deficiency could be relevant to the disease onset or progression❞
Source: Ergothioneine: a diet-derived antioxidant with therapeutic potential
Healthy aging
Building on from the above, ergothioneine has been specifically identified as being associated with healthy aging and the prevention of cardiometabolic diseases:
❝An increasing body of evidence suggests ergothioneine may be an important dietary nutrient for the prevention of a variety of inflammatory and cardiometabolic diseases and ergothioneine has alternately been suggested as a vitamin, “longevity vitamin”, and nutraceutical❞
~ Dr. Bernadette Moore et al., citing more references every few words there
Source: Ergothioneine: an underrecognised dietary micronutrient required for healthy ageing?
Good for the heart = good for the brain
As a general rule of thumb, “what’s good for the heart is good for the brain” is almost always true, and it appears to be so in this case, too:
❝Ergothioneine crosses the blood–brain barrier and has been reported to have beneficial effects in the brain. In this study, we discuss the cytoprotective and neuroprotective properties of ergotheioneine, which may be harnessed for combating neurodegeneration and decline during aging.❞
Source: Ergothioneine: A Stress Vitamin with Antiaging, Vascular, and Neuroprotective Roles?
Want to get some?
You can just eat a portion of mushrooms per day! But if you don’t fancy that, it is available as a supplement in convenient 1/day capsule form too.
We don’t sell it, but for your convenience, here is an example product on Amazon
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:
-
Eat Better, Feel Better – by Giada de Laurentis
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.
In yesterday’s edition of 10almonds, we reviewed Dr. Aujla’s “The Doctor’s Kitchen“; today we’re reviewing a different book about healing through food—in this case, with a special focus on maintaining energy and good health as we get older.
De Laurentis may not be a medical doctor, but she is a TV chef, and not only holds a lot of influence, but also has access to a lot of celebrity doctors and such; that’s reflected a lot in her style and approach here.
The recipes are clear and easy to follow; well-illustrated and nicely laid-out.
This cookbook’s style is less “enjoy this hearty dish of rice and beans with these herbs and spices” and more “you can serve your steak salad with white beans and sweet shallot dressing on a bed of organic quinoa if you haven’t already had your day’s serving of grains, of course”.
It’s a little fancier, in short, and more focused on what to cut out, than what to include. On account of that, this could make it a good contrast to yesterday’s book, which had the opposite focus.
She also recommends assorted adjuvant practices; some that are evidence-based, like intermittent fasting and meditation, and some that are not, like extreme detox-dieting, and acupuncture (which has no bearing on gut health).
Bottom line: if you like the idea of eating for good health, and prefer a touch of celebrity lifestyle to your meals, this one’s a good book for you.
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:
-
Celery vs Carrot – 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 celery to carrot, we picked the carrot.
Why?
In terms of macros, carrot has more protein, carbs, and fiber, and is thus the “most food per food” option. The carb:fiber ratio is such that they have about the same glycemic index (when raw, anyway).
In the category of vitamins, celery has more of vitamins B9 and K, while carrot has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, and choline. An easy win for carrot here.
When it comes to minerals, celery has more calcium and selenium, while carrot has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Another clear win for carrot.
In short, both are very respectable foods, but carrot simply has more in it, and it’s all good.
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)
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: