Cashew Nuts vs Macadamia Nuts – 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 cashews to macadamias, we picked the cashews.

Why?

In terms of macros, cashews have more than 2x the protein, while macadamias have nearly 2x the fat. The fats are mostly monounsaturated, so it’s still healthy in moderation, but still, we’re going to prize the protein over it and call this category a nominal win for cashews.

When it comes to vitamins, things are fairly even; cashews have more of vitamins B5, B6, B9, and E, while macadamias have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, and C.

In the category of minerals, cashews take the clear lead; cashews have more copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while macadamias have more calcium and manganese.

In short, enjoy both (as macadamias have their benefits too), but cashews win in total nutrient density.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Pomegranate vs Figs – Which is Healthier?
  • Beat Sugar Addiction Now! – by Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum & Chrystle Fiedler
    Sugar addiction is real, and it’s not just about willpower. Dr. Teitelbaum breaks down the different types and offers a multi-vector approach to beat it.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • How Much Alcohol Does It Take To Increase Cancer Risk?

    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.

    Alcohol is, of course, unhealthy. Not even the famous “small glass of red” is recommended:

    Can We Drink To Good Health?

    Alcohol also increases all-cause mortality at any dose (even “low-risk drinking”):

    Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults

    …and the World Health Organization has declared that the only safe amount of alcohol is zero:

    WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

    But what of alcohol and cancer? According to the American Association of Cancer Research’s latest report, more than half of Americans do not know that alcohol increases the risk of cancer:

    Source: AACR Cancer Progress Report

    Why/how does alcohol increase the risk of cancer?

    There’s an obvious aspect and a less obvious but very important aspect:

    • The obvious: alcohol damages almost every system in the body, and so it’s little surprise if that includes systems whose job it is to keep us safe from cancer.
    • The less obvious: alcohol is largely metabolized by certain enzymes that have an impact on DNA repair, such as alcohol dehydrogenases and aldehyde dehydrogenases, amongst others, and noteworthily, acetaldehyde (the main metabolite of alcohol) is itself genotoxic.

    Read more: Alcohol & Cancer

    This is important, because it means alcohol also increases the risk of cancers other than the obvious head/neck, laryngeal, esophageal, liver, and colorectal cancers.

    However, those cancers are of course the most well-represented of alcohol-related cancers, along with breast cancer (this has to do with alcohol’s effect on estrogen metabolism).

    If you’re curious about the numbers, and the changes in risk if one reduces/quits/reprises drinking:

    ❝The increased alcohol-related cancer incidence was associated with dose; those who changed from nondrinking to mild (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), moderate (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18), or heavy (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.45) drinking levels had an associated higher risk than those who did not drink.

    Those with mild drinking levels who quit drinking had a lower risk of alcohol-related cancer (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) than those who sustained their drinking levels.

    Those with moderate (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) or heavy (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12) drinking levels who quit drinking had a higher all cancer incidence than those who sustained their levels, but when quitting was sustained, this increase in risk disappeared.

    Results of this study showed that increased alcohol consumption was associated with higher risks for alcohol-related and all cancers, whereas sustained quitting and reduced drinking were associated with lower risks of alcohol-related and all cancers.

    Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer.❞

    Source: Association Between Changes in Alcohol Consumption and Cancer Risk

    Worried it’s too late?

    If you’re reading this (and thus, evidently, still alive), it isn’t. It’s never too late (nor too early) to reduce, or ideally stop, drinking. Even if you already have cancer, drinking more alcohol will only exacerbate things, and abstaining from alcohol will improve your chances of recovery.

    For a reassuring timeline of recovery from alcohol-related damage, see:

    What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Alcohol

    Want to stop, but have tried before and find it daunting?

    There are a few ways to make it a lot easier:

    Rethinking Drinking: How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Yes, we still need chickenpox vaccines

    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 people who grew up before a vaccine was available, chickenpox is largely remembered as an unpleasant experience that almost every child suffered through. The highly contagious disease tore through communities, leaving behind more than a few lasting scars. 

    For many children, chickenpox was much more than a week or two of itchy discomfort. It was a serious and sometimes life-threatening infection.

    Prior to the chickenpox vaccine’s introduction in 1995, 90 percent of children got chickenpox. Those children grew into adults with an increased risk of developing shingles, a disease caused by the same virus—varicella-zoster—as chickenpox, which lies dormant in the body for decades. 

    The vaccine changed all that, nearly wiping out chickenpox in the U.S. in under three decades. The vaccine has been so successful that some people falsely believe the disease no longer exists and that vaccination is unnecessary. This couldn’t be further from the truth. 

    Vaccination spares children and adults from the misery of chickenpox and the serious short- and long-term risks associated with the disease. The CDC estimates that 93 percent of children in the U.S. are fully vaccinated against chickenpox. However, outbreaks can still occur among unvaccinated and under-vaccinated populations. 

    Here are some of the many reasons why we still need chickenpox vaccines.

    Chickenpox is more serious than you may remember

    For most children, chickenpox lasts around a week. Symptoms vary in severity but typically include a rash of small, itchy blisters that scab over, fever, fatigue, and headache. 

    However, in one out of every 4,000 chickenpox cases, the virus infects the brain, causing swelling. If the varicella-zoster virus makes it to the part of the brain that controls balance and muscle movements, it can cause a temporary loss of muscle control in the limbs that can last for months. Chickenpox can also cause other serious complications, including skin, lung, and blood infections. 

    Prior to the U.S.’ approval of the vaccine in 1995, children accounted for most of the country’s chickenpox cases, with over 10,000 U.S. children hospitalized with chickenpox each year. 

    The chickenpox vaccine is very effective and safe

    Chickenpox is an extremely contagious disease. People without immunity have a 90 percent chance of contracting the virus if exposed. 

    Fortunately, the chickenpox vaccine provides lifetime protection and is around 90 percent effective against infection and nearly 100 percent effective against severe illness. It also reduces the risk of developing shingles later in life. 

    In addition to being incredibly effective, the chickenpox vaccine is very safe, and serious side effects are extremely rare. Some people may experience mild side effects after vaccination, such as pain at the injection site and a low fever.

    Although infection provides immunity against future chickenpox infections, letting children catch chickenpox to build up immunity is never worth the risk, especially when a safe vaccine is available. The purpose of vaccination is to gain immunity without serious risk. 

    The chickenpox vaccine is one of the greatest vaccine success stories in history

    It’s difficult to overstate the impact of the chickenpox vaccine. Within five years of the U.S. beginning universal vaccination against chickenpox, the disease had declined by over 80 percent in some regions. 

    Nearly 30 years after the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine, the disease is almost completely wiped out. Cases and hospitalizations have plummeted by 97 percent, and chickenpox deaths among people under 20 are essentially nonexistent

    Thanks to the vaccine, in less than a generation, a disease that once swept through schools and affected nearly every child has been nearly eliminated. And, unlike vaccines introduced in the early 20th century, no one can argue that improved hygiene, sanitation, and health helped reduce chickenpox cases beginning in the 1990s.

    Having chickenpox as a child puts you at risk of shingles later

    Although most people recover from chickenpox within a week or two, the virus that causes the disease, varicella-zoster, remains dormant in the body. This latent virus can reactivate years after the original infection as shingles, a tingling or burning rash that can cause severe pain and nerve damage.  

    One in 10 people who have chickenpox will develop shingles later in life. The risk increases as people get older as well as for those with weakened immune systems. 

    Getting chickenpox as an adult can be deadly

    Although chickenpox is generally considered a childhood disease, it can affect unvaccinated people of any age. In fact, adult chickenpox is far deadlier than pediatric cases. 

    Serious complications like pneumonia and brain swelling are more common in adults than in children with chickenpox. One in 400 adults who get chickenpox develops pneumonia, and one to two out of 1,000 develop brain swelling.

    Vaccines have virtually eliminated chickenpox, but outbreaks still happen

    Although the chickenpox vaccine has dramatically reduced the impact of a once widespread disease, declining immunity could lead to future outbreaks. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis found that chickenpox vaccination rates dropped in half of U.S. states in the 2022-2023 school year compared to the previous year. And more than a dozen states have immunization rates below 90 percent.

    In 2024, New York City and Florida had chickenpox outbreaks that primarily affected unvaccinated and under-vaccinated children. With declining public confidence in routine vaccines and rising school vaccine exemption rates, these types of outbreaks will likely become more common.

    The CDC recommends that children receive two chickenpox vaccine doses before age 6. Older children and adults who are unvaccinated and have never had chickenpox should also receive two doses of the vaccine.

    For more information, talk to your health care provider.

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Healthy sex drive In Our Fifties

    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? We love to hear from you!

    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

    Q: What’s a healthy sex drive for someone in their 50s?

    A: If you’re happy with it, it’s healthy! If you’re not, it’s not.

    This means… If you’re not (happy) and thus it’s not (healthy), you have two main options:

    1. Find a way to be happier without changing it (i.e., change your perspective)
    2. Find a way to change your sex drive (presumably: “increase it”, but we don’t like to assume)

    There are hormonal and pharmaceutical remedies that may help (whatever your sex), so do speak with your doctor/pharmacist.

    Additionally, if a boost to sex drive is what’s wanted, then almost anything that is good for your heart will help.

    We wrote about heart health yesterday:

    What Matters Most For Your Heart?

    That was specifically about dietary considerations, so you might also want to check out:

    The Knowledge That Harvard Medical School’s Clinical Instructor Dr. Monique Tello Thinks Everyone Should Have About Heart Health

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Pomegranate vs Figs – Which is Healthier?
  • Eat It! – by Jordan Syatt and Michael Vacanti

    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.

    One of the biggest challenges we often face when undertaking diet and exercise regimes, is the “regime” part. Day one is inspiring, day two is exciting… Day seventeen when one has a headache and some kitchen appliance just broke and one’s preferred exercise gear is in the wash… Not so much.

    Authors Jordan Syatt and Michael Vacanti, therefore, have taken it upon themselves to bring sustainability to us.

    Their main premise is simplicity, but simplicity that works. For example:

    • Having a daily calorie limit, but being ok with guesstimating
    • Weighing regularly, but not worrying about fluctuations (just trends!)
    • Eating what you like, but prioritizing some foods over others
    • Focusing on resistance training, but accessible exercises that work the whole body, instead of “and then 3 sets of 12 reps of these in 6-4-2 progression to exhaustion of the anterior sternocleidomastoid muscle”

    The writing style is simple and clear too, without skimping on the science where science helps explain why something works a certain way.

    Bottom line: this one’s for anyone who would like a strong healthy body, without doing the equivalent of a degree in anatomy and physiology along the way.

    Click here to check out “Eat it!” on Amazon and simplify your diet and exercise plans for great, sustainable progress!

    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:

  • Three Daily Servings of Beans?

    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? We love to hear from you!

    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

    ❝Not crazy about the Dr.s food advice. Beans 3X a day?❞

    For reference, this is in response to our recent article on the topic of 12 things to aim to get a certain amount of each day:

    Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen

    So, there are a couple of things to look at here:

    Firstly, don’t worry, it’s a guideline and an aim. If you don’t hit it on a given day, there is always tomorrow. It’s just good to know what one is aiming for, because without knowing that, achieving it will be a lot less likely!

    Secondly, the beans/legumes/pulses category says three servings, but the example serving sizes are quite small, e.g. ½ cup cooked beans, or ¼ cup hummus. And also as you notice, dips/pastes/sauces made from beans count too. So given the portion sizes, you could easily get two servings in by breakfast (and two servings of whole grains, too) if you enjoy frijoles refritos, for example. Many of the recipes we share on this site have “stealth” beans/legumes/pulses in this fashion

    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:

  • Could not getting enough sleep increase your risk of type 2 diabetes?

    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.

    Not getting enough sleep is a common affliction in the modern age. If you don’t always get as many hours of shut-eye as you’d like, perhaps you were concerned by news of a recent study that found people who sleep less than six hours a night are at higher risk of type 2 diabetes.

    So what can we make of these findings? It turns out the relationship between sleep and diabetes is complex.

    The study

    Researchers analysed data from the UK Biobank, a large biomedical database which serves as a global resource for health and medical research. They looked at information from 247,867 adults, following their health outcomes for more than a decade.

    The researchers wanted to understand the associations between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes, and whether a healthy diet reduced the effects of short sleep on diabetes risk.

    As part of their involvement in the UK Biobank, participants had been asked roughly how much sleep they get in 24 hours. Seven to eight hours was the average and considered normal sleep. Short sleep duration was broken up into three categories: mild (six hours), moderate (five hours) and extreme (three to four hours). The researchers analysed sleep data alongside information about people’s diets.

    Some 3.2% of participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the follow-up period. Although healthy eating habits were associated with a lower overall risk of diabetes, when people ate healthily but slept less than six hours a day, their risk of type 2 diabetes increased compared to people in the normal sleep category.

    The researchers found sleep duration of five hours was linked with a 16% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while the risk for people who slept three to four hours was 41% higher, compared to people who slept seven to eight hours.

    One limitation is the study defined a healthy diet based on the number of servings of fruit, vegetables, red meat and fish a person consumed over a day or a week. In doing so, it didn’t consider how dietary patterns such as time-restricted eating or the Mediterranean diet may modify the risk of diabetes among those who slept less.

    Also, information on participants’ sleep quantity and diet was only captured at recruitment and may have changed over the course of the study. The authors acknowledge these limitations.

    Why might short sleep increase diabetes risk?

    In people with type 2 diabetes, the body becomes resistant to the effects of a hormone called insulin, and slowly loses the capacity to produce enough of it in the pancreas. Insulin is important because it regulates glucose (sugar) in our blood that comes from the food we eat by helping move it to cells throughout the body.

    We don’t know the precise reasons why people who sleep less may be at higher risk of type 2 diabetes. But previous research has shown sleep-deprived people often have increased inflammatory markers and free fatty acids in their blood, which impair insulin sensitivity, leading to insulin resistance. This means the body struggles to use insulin properly to regulate blood glucose levels, and therefore increases the risk of type 2 diabetes.

    Further, people who don’t sleep enough, as well as people who sleep in irregular patterns (such as shift workers), experience disruptions to their body’s natural rhythm, known as the circadian rhythm.

    This can interfere with the release of hormones like cortisol, glucagon and growth hormones. These hormones are released through the day to meet the body’s changing energy needs, and normally keep blood glucose levels nicely balanced. If they’re compromised, this may reduce the body’s ability to handle glucose as the day progresses.

    These factors, and others, may contribute to the increased risk of type 2 diabetes seen among people sleeping less than six hours.

    A man checking the glucose monitor on his arm.
    Millions of people around the world have diabetes. WESTOCK PRODUCTIONS/Shutterstock

    While this study primarily focused on people who sleep eight hours or less, it’s possible longer sleepers may also face an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

    Research has previously shown a U-shaped correlation between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes risk. A review of multiple studies found getting between seven to eight hours of sleep daily was associated with the lowest risk. When people got less than seven hours sleep, or more than eight hours, the risk began to increase.

    The reason sleeping longer is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be linked to weight gain, which is also correlated with longer sleep. Likewise, people who don’t sleep enough are more likely to be overweight or obese.

    Good sleep, healthy diet

    Getting enough sleep is an important part of a healthy lifestyle and may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes.

    Based on this study and other evidence, it seems that when it comes to diabetes risk, seven to eight hours of sleep may be the sweet spot. However, other factors could influence the relationship between sleep duration and diabetes risk, such as individual differences in sleep quality and lifestyle.

    While this study’s findings question whether a healthy diet can mitigate the effects of a lack of sleep on diabetes risk, a wide range of evidence points to the benefits of healthy eating for overall health.

    The authors of the study acknowledge it’s not always possible to get enough sleep, and suggest doing high-intensity interval exercise during the day may offset some of the potential effects of short sleep on diabetes risk.

    In fact, exercise at any intensity can improve blood glucose levels.

    Giuliana Murfet, Casual Academic, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney and ShanShan Lin, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney

    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: