The Truth About Chocolate & Skin Health

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

❝What’s the science on chocolate and acne? Asking for a family member❞

The science is: these two things are broadly unrelated to each other.

There was a very illustrative study done specifically for this, though!

❝65 subjects with moderate acne ate either a bar containing ten times the amount of chocolate in a typical bar, or an identical-appearing bar which contained no chocolate. Counting of all the lesions on one side of the face before and after each ingestion period indicated no difference between the bars.

Five normal subjects ingested two enriched chocolate bars daily for one month; this represented a daily addition of the diet of 1,200 calories, of which about half was vegetable fat. This excessive intake of chocolate and fat did not alter the composition or output of sebum.

A review of studies purporting to show that diets high in carbohydrate or fat stimulate sebaceous secretion and adversely affect acne vulgaris indicates that these claims are unproved.

~ Dr. James Fulton et al.

Source: Effect of Chocolate on Acne Vulgaris

As for what might help against acne more than needlessly abstaining from chocolate:

Why Do We Have Pores, And Could We Not?

…as well as:

Of Brains & Breakouts: The Neuroscience Of Your Skin

And here are some other articles that might interest you about chocolate:

Enjoy! And while we have your attention… Would you like this section to be bigger? If so, send us more questions!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • The Sugary Food That Lowers Blood Sugars
  • The Cold Truth About Respiratory Infections
    Yesterday, we asked about your climate-themed policy for avoiding respiratory infections. Some respondents believe in getting cold, fresh air, while others think staying warm is important. What does the science say?

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Boundary-Setting Beyond “No”

    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.

    More Than A “No”

    A lot of people struggle with boundary-setting, and it’s not always the way you might think.

    The person who “can’t say no” to people probably comes to mind, but the problem is more far-reaching than that, and it’s rooted in not being clear over what a boundary actually is.

    For example: “Don’t bring him here again!”

    Pretty clear, right?

    And while it is indeed clear, it’s not a boundary; it’s a command. Which may or may not be obeyed, and at the end of the day, what right have we to command people in general?

    Same goes for less dramatic things like “Don’t talk to me about xyz”, which can still be important or trivial, depending on whether the topic of xyz is deeply traumatizing for you, or mildly annoying, or something else entirely.

    Why this becomes a problem

    It becomes a problem not because of any lack of clarity about your wishes, but rather, because it opens the floor for a debate. The listener may be given to wonder whether your right to not experience xyz is greater or lesser than their right to do/say/etc xyz.

    “My right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins”

    …does not help here, firstly because both sides will believe themself (or nobody) to be the injured party; for the fist-swinger, the other person’s nose made a vicious assault on their freedom. Or secondly, maybe there was some higher principle at stake; a reason why violence was justified. And then ten levels of philosophical debate. We see this a lot when it comes to freedom of expression, and vigorous debate over whether this entails freedom from social consequences of one’s words/actions.

    How a good boundary-setting works (if this, then that)

    Consider two signs:

    • No trespassing!
    • Trespassers will be shot!

    Superficially, the second just seems like a more violent rendition of the first. But in fact, the second is more informationally useful: it explains what will happen if the boundary is not respected, and allows the reader to make their own informed decision with regard to what to do with that information.

    We can employ this method (and can even do so gently, if we so wish and hopefully we mostly do wish to be gentle) when it comes to social and interpersonal boundary-setting:

    • If you bring him here again, I will refuse you entrance
    • If you bring up that topic again, I will ask you to leave
    • If you do that, I will never speak to you again
    • If you don’t stop drinking, I will divorce you

    This “if-this-then-that” model does the very first thing that any good boundary does: make itself clear.

    It doesn’t rely on moral arguments; it doesn’t invite debate. For example in that last case, it doesn’t argue that the partner doesn’t have the right to drink—it simply expresses what the speaker will exercise their own right to do, in that eventuality.

    (as an aside, the situation that occurs when one is enmeshed with someone who is dependent on a substance is a complex topic, and if you’re interested in that, check out: Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think)

    Back on track: boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that.

    We can also, in particularly personal boundary-setting (such as with sexual boundaries’ oft-claimed “gray areas”), fix an improperly-set boundary that forgot to do the above, e.g:

    “How about [proposition]?”
    “No thank you” ← casually worded answer; contextually reasonable, and yet not a clear boundary per what we discussed above
    “Come on, I think you’d like it”
    “I said no. No means no. Ask me again and I will [consequences that are appropriate and actionable]”

    What’s “appropriate and actionable” may vary a lot from one situation to another, but it’s important that it’s something you can do and are prepared to do and will do if the condition for doing it is met.

    Anything less than that is not a boundary—it’s just a request.

    Note: this does not require that we have power, by the way. If we have zero power in a situation, well, that definitely sucks, but even then we can still express what is actionable, e.g. “I will never trust you again”.

    “Price of entry”

    You may have wondered, upon reading “boundary-setting is not about what’s right or good—it’s about nothing more nor less than a clear delineation between what we will and won’t accept, and how we’ll enforce that”, can’t that be used to control and manipulate people, essentially coercing them to do or not do things with the threat of consequences (specifically: bad ones)?

    And the answer is: yes, yes it can.

    But that’s where the flipside comes into play—the other person gets to set their boundaries, too.

    For all of us, if we have any boundaries at all, there is a “price of entry” and all who want to be in our lives, or be close to us, have to decide for themselves whether that price of entry is worth it.

    • If a person says “do not talk about topic xyz to me or I will leave”, that is a price of entry for being close to them.
    • If you are passionate about talking about topic xyz to the point that you are unwilling to shelve it when in their presence, then that is the price of entry for being close to you.
    • If one or more of you is not willing to pay the price of entry, then guess what, you’re just not going to be close.

    In cases of forced proximity (e.g. workplaces or families) this is likely to get resolved by the workplace’s own rules (i.e. the price of entry that you agreed to when signing a contract to work there), and if something like that doesn’t exist (such as in families), well, that forced proximity is going to reach a breaking point, and somebody may discover it wasn’t enforceable after all.

    See also: Family Estrangement: More Common Than Most People Think

    …which also details how to fix it, where possible.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Lettuce vs Arugula – 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 lettuce to arugula, we picked the arugula.

    Why?

    These two salad leaves that often fulfil quite similar culinary roles (base of a green salad) are actually of different families, and it shows…

    In terms of macros, arugula is lower in carbs, and much higher in protein and fiber—to the point that the protein content in arugula is almost equal to the carb content, which for leaves, is not that common a thing to see.

    When it comes to vitamins, things are more even: lettuce has more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B6, and K, while arugula has more of vitamins B5, B9, C, E, and choline. All in all, we can comfortably call it a tie on the vitamin front.

    In the category of minerals, things are once again more decided: arugula has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. In contrast, lettuce boasts only more selenium. An easy win for arugula.

    Both of these plants have plenty of health-giving phytochemicals, including flavonoids and carotenoids along with other less talked-about things, and while the profiles are quite different for each of them, they stack up about the same in terms of overall benefits in this category.

    Taking the various categories into account, this of course adds up to an easy win for arugula, but do enjoy both, especially as lettuce brings benefits that arugula doesn’t in the two categories where they tied!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Apples vs Bananas – 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 apples to bananas, we picked the bananas.

    Why?

    Both apples and bananas contain lots of vitamins, but bananas contain far more of Vitamins A, B, and C.

    Apples beat bananas only for vitamins E and K.

    This may seem like “well that’s 2 vs 3; that’s pretty close” until one remembers that vitamin B is actually eight vitamins in a trenchcoat. Bananas have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B9.

    If you’re wondering about the other numbers: neither fruit contains vitamins B7 (biotin) or B12 (cobalamins of various kinds). Vitamins B4, B8, B10, and B11 do not exist as such (due to changes in how vitamins are classified).

    Both apples and bananas contain lots of minerals, but bananas contain far more of iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, copper, manganese, and selenium.

    Apples beat bananas only for calcium (and then, only very marginally)

    Both apples and bananas have plenty of fiber.

    Apples have marginally less sugar, but given the fiber content, this is pretty much moot when it comes to health considerations, and apples are higher in fructose in any case.

    In short, both are wonderful fruits (and we encourage you to enjoy both!), and/but bananas beat apples healthwise in almost all measures.

    PS: top tip if you find it challenging to get bananas at the right level of ripeness for eating… Try sun-dried! Not those hard chip kinds (those are mechanically and/or chemically dried, and usually have added sugar and preservatives), but sun-dried.

    Here’s an example product on Amazon

    Warning: since there aren’t many sun-dried bananas available on Amazon, double-check you haven’t been redirected to mechanically/chemically dried ones, as Amazon will try that sometimes!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Sugary Food That Lowers Blood Sugars
  • What Teas To Drink Before Bed (By 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.

    Which Sleepy Tea?

    Herbal “tea” preparations (henceforth we will write it without the quotation marks, although these are not true teas) are popular for winding down at the end of a long day ready for a relaxing sleep.

    Today we’ll look at the science for them! We’ll be brief for each, because we’ve selected five and have only so much room, but here goes:

    Camomile

    Simply put, it works and has plenty of good science for it. Here’s just one example:

    ❝Noteworthy, our meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in sleep quality after chamomile administration❞

    ~ Dr. Hieu et al.

    Therapeutic efficacy and safety of chamomile for state anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, insomnia, and sleep quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and quasi-randomized trials

    Also this writer’s favourite relaxation drink!

    (example on Amazon if you want some)

    Lavender

    We didn’t find robust science for its popularly-claimed sedative properties, but it does appear to be anxiolytic, and anxiety gets in the way of sleep, so while lavender may not be a sedative, it may calm a racing mind all the same, thus facilitating better sleep:

    The effect of lavender herbal tea on the anxiety and depression of the elderly: A randomized clinical trial

    (example on Amazon if you want some)

    Magnolia

    Animal study for the mechanism:

    Magnolol, a major bioactive constituent of the bark of Magnolia officinalis, induces sleep via the benzodiazepine site of GABA(A) receptor in mice

    Human study for “it is observed to help humans sleep better”:

    A randomized controlled pilot study of the effectiveness of magnolia tea on alleviating depression in postnatal women

    As you can see from the title, its sedative properties weren’t the point of the study, but if you click through to read it, you can see that they found (and recorded) this benefit anyway

    (example on Amazon if you want some)

    Passionflower

    There’s not a lot of evidence for this one, but there is some. Here’s a small study (n=41) that found:

    ❝Of six sleep-diary measures analysed, sleep quality showed a significantly better rating for passionflower compared with placebo (t(40) = 2.70, p < 0.01). These initial findings suggest that the consumption of a low dose of Passiflora incarnata, in the form of tea, yields short-term subjective sleep benefits for healthy adults with mild fluctuations in sleep quality.❞

    ~ Dr. Ngan & Dr. Conduit

    A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the effects of Passiflora incarnata (passionflower) herbal tea on subjective sleep quality

    So, that’s not exactly a huge body of evidence, but it is promising.

    (example on Amazon if you want some)

    Valerian

    We’ll be honest, the science for this one is sloppy. It’s very rare to find Valerian tested by itself (or sold by itself; we had to dig a bit to find one for the Amazon link below), and that skews the results of science and renders any conclusions questionable.

    And the studies that were done? Dubious methods, and inconclusive results:

    Valerian Root in Treating Sleep Problems and Associated Disorders-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Nevertheless, if you want to try it for yourself, you can do a case study (i.e., n=1 sample) if not a randomized controlled trial, and let us know how it goes 🙂

    (example on Amazon if you want some)

    Summary

    • Valerian we really don’t have the science to say anything about it
    • Passionflower has some nascent science for it, but not much
    • Lavender is probably not soporific, but it is anxiolytic
    • Magnolia almost certainly helps, but isn’t nearly so well-backed as…
    • Camomile comes out on top, easily—by both sheer weight of evidence, and by clear conclusive uncontroversial results.

    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:

  • The Truth About 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.

    The Truth About Vaccines

    Yesterday we asked your views on vaccines, and we got an interesting spread of answers. Of those who responded to the poll, most were in favour of vaccines. We got quite a lot of comments this time too; we can’t feature them all, but we’ll include extracts from a few in our article today, as they raised interesting points!

    Vaccines contain dangerous ingredients that will harm us more than the disease would: True or False?

    False, contextually.

    Many people are very understandably wary of things they know full well to be toxic, being injected into them.

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are poison, and/or are some manner of conspiracy ” wrote:

    ❝I think vaccines from 50–60 years ago are true vaccines and were safer than vaccines today. I have not had a vaccine for many, many years, and I never plan to have any kind of vaccine/shot again.❞

    They didn’t say why they personally felt this way, but the notion that “things were simpler back in the day” is a common (and often correct!) observation regards health, especially when it comes to unwanted additives and ultraprocessing of food.

    Things like aluminum or mercury in vaccines are much like sodium and chlorine in table salt. Sodium and chlorine are indeed both toxic to us. But in the form of sodium chloride, it’s a normal part of our diet, provided we don’t overdo it.

    Additionally, the amount of unwanted metals (e.g. aluminum, mercury) in vaccines is orders of magnitude smaller than the amount in dietary sources—even if you’re a baby and your “dietary sources” are breast milk and/or formula milk.

    In the case of formaldehyde (an inactivating agent), it’s also the dose that makes the poison (and the quantity in vaccines is truly miniscule).

    This academic paper alone cites more sources than we could here without making today’s newsletter longer than it already is:

    Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation

    I have a perfectly good immune system, it can handle the disease: True or False?

    True! Contingently.

    In fact, our immune system is so good at defending against disease, that the best thing we can do to protect ourselves is show our immune system a dead or deactivated version of a pathogen, so that when the real pathogen comes along, our immune system knows exactly what it is and what to do about it.

    In other words, a vaccine.

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are important but in some cases the side effects can be worse ” wrote:

    ❝In some ways I’m vacd out. I got COVid a few months ago and had no symptoms except a cough. I have asthma and it didn’t trigger a lot of congestion. No issues. I am fully vaccinated but not sure I’ll get one in fall.❞

    We’re glad this subscriber didn’t get too ill! A testimony to their robust immune system doing what it’s supposed to, after being shown a recent-ish edition of the pathogen, in deactivated form.

    It’s very reasonable to start wondering: “surely I’m vaccinated enough by now”

    And, hopefully, you are! But, as any given pathogen mutates over time, we eventually need to show our immune system what the new version looks like, or else it won’t recognize it.

    See also: Why Experts Think You’ll Need a COVID-19 Booster Shot in the Future

    So why don’t we need booster shots for everything? Often, it’s because a pathogen has stopped mutating at any meaningful rate. Polio is an example of this—no booster is needed for most people in most places.

    Others, like flu, require annual boosters to keep up with the pathogens.

    Herd immunity will keep us safe: True or False?

    True! Ish.

    But it doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. For example, in the UK, “herd immunity” was the strategy promoted by Prime Minister of the hour, Boris Johnson. But he misunderstood what it meant:

    • What he thought it meant: everyone gets the disease, then everyone who doesn’t die is now immune
    • What it actually means: if most people are immune to the disease (for example: due to having been vaccinated), it can’t easily get to the people who aren’t immune

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are critical for our health; vax to the max! ” wrote:

    ❝I had a chiropractor a few years ago, who explained to me that if the general public took vaccines, then she would not have to vaccinate her children and take a risk of having side effects❞

    Obviously, we can’t speak for this subscriber’s chiropractor’s children, but this raises a good example: some people can’t safely have a given vaccine, due to underlying medical conditions—or perhaps it is not available to them, for example if they are under a certain age.

    In such cases, herd immunity—other people around having been vaccinated and thus not passing on the disease—is what will keep them safe.

    Here’s a useful guide from the US Dept of Health and Human Services:

    How does community immunity (a.k.a. herd immunity) work?

    And, for those who are more visually inclined, here’s a graphical representation of a mathematical model of how herd immunity works (you can run a simulation)!

    Stay safe!

    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:

  • Is Ant Oil Just “Snake Oil”?

    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 Tested Out “Ant Egg Oil”

    Did you know?! There’s a special protein found only in the eggs of a particular species of ant found in Turkey, that can painlessly and permanently stop (not just slow!) hair regrowth in places you’d rather not have hair.

    Neither did we, and when we heard about it, we did our usual research, and discovered a startling secret.

    …there probably isn’t.

    We decided to dig deeper, and the plot (unlike the hair in question) thickens:

    We could not find any science for or against (or even generally about) the use of ant egg oil to prevent hair regrowth. Not a peep. What we did find though was a cosmetic chemist who did an analysis of the oil as sold, and found its main ingredient appears to be furan-2-carbaldehyde, or Furfural, to its friends.

    Surprise! There’s also no science that we could find about the effect of Furfural (we love the name, though! Fur for all!) on hair, except that it’s bad for rodents (and their hair) if they eat a lot of it. So please don’t eat it. Especially if you’re a mouse.

    And yet, many ostensibly real reviews out in the wild claim it works wonders. So, we took the investigative reporting approach and tried it ourselves.

    That’s right, a plucky member of our team tried it, and she reports:

    ❝ At first glance, it seems like olive oil. There’s something else though, adding a darker colour and a slight bitterness to the smell.

    After waxing, I applied a little every few days. When the hair eventually regrew (and it did), it grew back thinner, and removing the new hairs was a strangely easy experience, like pulling hairs out of soft soap instead of out of skin. It didn’t hurt at all, either.

    I had more of the oil, so I kept going with the treatment, and twelve weeks later there are very few hairs regrowing at all; probably there will be none left soon. Whatever’s in this, be it from ant eggs or wheat bran or something else entirely, it worked for me!❞

    So in short: it remains a mystery for now! If you try it, let us know how it went for you.

    Here’s the “interesting” website that sells it, though you may find it for less on eBay or similar. (Note, we aren’t earning any commissions from these links. We just wanted to make it easier for you to dive deeper).

    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: