
Codependency Isn’t What Most People Think It Is
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.
Codependency isn’t what most people think it is
In popular parlance, people are often described as “codependent” when they rely on each other to function normally. That’s interdependent mutualism, and while it too can become a problem if a person is deprived of their “other half” and has no idea how to do laundry and does not remember to take their meds, it’s not codependency.
Codependency finds its origins in the treatment and management of alcoholism, and has been expanded to encompass other forms of relationships with dependence on substances and/or self-destructive behaviors—which can be many things, including the non-physical, for example a pattern of irresponsible impulse-spending, or sabotaging one’s own relationship(s).
We’ll use the simplest example, though:
- Person A is (for example) an alcoholic. They have a dependency.
- Person B, married to A, is not an alcoholic. However, their spouse’s dependency affects them greatly, and they do what they can to manage that, and experience tension between wanting to “save” their spouse, and wanting their spouse to be ok, which latter, superficially, often means them having their alcohol.
Person B is thus said to be “codependent”.
The problem with codependency
The problems of codependency are mainly twofold:
- The dependent partner’s dependency is enabled and thus perpetuated by the codependent partner—they might actually have to address their dependency, if it weren’t for their partner keeping them from too great a harm (be it financially, socially, psychologically, medically, whatever)
- The codependent partner is not having a good time of it either. They have the stress of two lives with the resources (e.g. time) of one. They are stressing about something they cannot control, understandably worrying about their loved one, and, worse: every action they might take to “save” their loved one by reducing the substance use, is an action that makes their partner unhappy, and causes conflict too.
Note: codependency is often a thing in romantic relationships, but it can appear in other relationships too, e.g. parent-child, or even between friends.
See also: Development and validation of a revised measure of codependency
How to deal with this
If you find yourself in a codependent position, or are advising someone who is, there are some key things that can help:
- Be a nurturer, not a rescuer. It is natural to want to “rescue” someone we care about, but there are some things we cannot do for them. Instead, we must look for ways to build their strength so that they can take the steps that only they can take to fix the problem.
- Establish boundaries. Practise saying “no”, and also be clear over what things you can and cannot control—and let go of the latter. Communicate this, though. An “I’m not the boss of you” angle can prompt a lot of people to take more personal responsibility.
- Schedule time for yourself. You might take some ideas from our previous tangentially-related article:
How To Avoid Carer Burnout (Without Dropping Care)
Want to read more?
That’s all we have space for today, but here’s a very useful page with a lot of great resources (including questionnaires and checklist and things, in case you’re thinking “is it, or…?”)
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:
-
Broccoli 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 broccoli to cauliflower, we picked the broccoli.
Why?
This one is quite straightforward. Superficially, they’re very similar:
Both are great cruciferous vegetables with many health benefits to offer. Even for those keen to avoid oxalates, which cruciferous vegetables in general can be high in, these ones are quite low.
However, if you have IBS, you might want to avoid both, for their raffinose content that may cause problems for you.
For pretty much everyone else, unless you have a special reason why it’s not the case for you, both are a good source of abundant vitamins and minerals, and yet…
Anything cauliflower can do, broccoli can do better!
Broccoli contains more of the vitamins they both contain, and more of the minerals they both contain.
Broccoli also beats cauliflower on amino acids (except lysine), and contains a lot more lutein and zeaxanthin, carotenoids important for healthy eyes and brain.
So by all means enjoy both, but if you’re going to pick one, pick broccoli!
Want to know more?
Check out: Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?
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.
Toothpastes and mouthwashes: which kinds help, and which kinds harm?
You almost certainly brush your teeth. You might use mouthwash. A lot of people floss for three weeks at a time, often in January.
There are a lot of options for oral hygiene; variations of the above, and many alternatives too. This is a big topic, so rather than try to squeeze it all in one, this will be a several-part series.
For today, let’s look at toothpastes and mouthwashes, to start!
Toothpaste options
Toothpastes may contain one, some, or all of the following, so here are some notes on those:
Fluoride
Most toothpastes contain fluoride; this is generally recognized as safe though is not without its controversies. The fluoride content is the reason it’s recommended not to swallow toothpaste, though.
The fluoride in toothpaste can cause some small problems if overused; if you see unusually white patches on your teeth (your teeth are supposed to be ivory-colored, not truly white), that is probably a case of localized overcalcification because of the fluoride, and yes, you can have too much of a good thing.
Overall, the benefits are considered to far outweigh the risks, though.
Baking soda
Whether by itself or as part of a toothpaste, baking soda is a safe and effective choice, not just for cosmetic purposes, but for boosting genuine oral hygiene too:
- Enhanced plaque removal to improve gingival health: 3-month randomized clinical study of the effects of baking soda toothpaste on plaque and gingivitis
- The effects of two baking-soda toothpastes in enhancing mechanical plaque removal and improving gingival health: A 6-month randomized clinical study
- The efficacy of baking soda dentifrice in controlling plaque and gingivitis: A systematic review
Activated charcoal
Activated charcoal is great at removing many chemicals from things it touches. That includes the kind you might see on your teeth in the form of stains.
A topical aside on safety: activated charcoal is a common ingredient in a lot of black-colored Halloween-themed foods and drinks around this time of year. Beware, if you ingest these, there’s a good chance of it also cleaning out any meds you are taking. Ask your pharmacist about your own personal meds, but meds that (ingested) activated charcoal will usually remove include:
- Oral HRT / contraceptives
- Antidepressants (many kinds)
- Heart medications (at least several major kinds)
Toothpaste, assuming you are spitting-not-swallowing, won’t remove your medications though. Nor, in case you were worrying, will it strip tooth enamel, even if you have extant tooth enamel erosion:
Source: Activated charcoal toothpastes do not increase erosive tooth wear
However, it’s of no special extra help when it comes to oral hygiene itself, just removing stains.
So, if you’d like to use it for cosmetic reasons, go right ahead. If not, no need.
Hydrogen peroxide
This is generally not a good idea, speaking for the health. For whitening, yes, it works. But for health, not so much:
To be clear, when they say “alter”, they mean “in a bad way”. It increases inflammation and tissue damage.
If buying commercially-available whitening toothpaste made with hydrogen peroxide, the academic answer is that it’s a lottery, because brands’ proprietorial compounding processes vary widely and constantly with little oversight and even less transparency:
Is whitening toothpaste safe for dental health?: RDA-PE method
Mouthwash options
In the case of fluoride and hydrogen peroxide, the same advice (for and against) goes as per toothpaste.
Alcohol
There has been some concern about the potential carcinogenic effect of alcohol-based mouthwashes. According to the best current science, this one’s not an easy yes-or-no, but rather:
- If there are no other cancer risk factors, it does not seem to increase cancer risk
- If there are other cancer risk factors, it does make the risk worse
Read more:
- Does the use of alcohol mouthwash increase the risk of developing oral cancer?
- Alcohol-based mouthwash as a risk factor of oral cancer: A systematic review
Non-Alcohol
Non-alcoholic mouthwashes are not without their concerns either. In this case, the potential problem is changing the oral microbiome (we are supposed to have one!), and specifically, that the spread of what it kills and what it doesn’t may result in an imbalance that causes a lowering of the pH of the mouth.
Put differently: it makes your saliva more acidic.
Needless to say, that can cause its own problems for teeth. The research on this is still emerging, with regard to whether the benefits outweigh the problems, but the fact that it has this effect seems to be a consensus. Here’s an example paper; there are others:
Effects of Chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome
Flossing, scraping, and alternatives
These are important (and varied, and interesting) enough to merit their own main feature, rather than squeezing them in at the end.
So, watch this space for a main feature on these soon!
Share This Post
-
How To Get Your First Pull-Up
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.
Pull-ups are a great compound exercise that works most of the upper body. However, it can be frustrating for many, if unable to do more than dangle and struggle while not going anywhere. That’s not actually bad, by the way! Of course it’s not great athletic performance, but in terms of exercise, “dangling and struggling while not going anywhere” is an isometric exercise that has plenty of benefits of its own. However, for those who would rather go up in the world, personal trainer Meg Gallagher shows the way:
The Only Way Is Up?
Gallagher offers a few methods; the first is simply an improvement on the “dangling and struggling while not going anywhere” method, but doing it with good form. It’s called the…
Hollow body hold:
- Hang from the bar with legs and feet together.
- Maintain a posterior pelvic tilt (i.e. don’t let your hips roll forwards, and don’t let your butt stick out more than is necessary by mere virtue of having a butt)
- Engage your core by shortening the space between your ribs and pelvis.
- Turn on your abs and lats, with your head slightly behind the bar.
- Practice the hollow body hang instead of dead hangs to build grip and core strength.
Another method is now moving on from the hollow body hold, and shows that in fact, up is not the only way. It’s called…
Negative pull-ups:
- Jump up to get your chin over the bar, then slowly lower yourself in a controlled manner.
- Prioritize negative pull-ups over other exercises to build strength.
- You can use modifications like resistance bands or feet assistance if necessary to extend the duration of your negative pull-up, but these are “crutches”, so try to move on from them as soon as you reasonably can—same if your gym has an “assisted pull-up” machine, consisting of a moving platform with a variable counterweight, mimicking how a pull-up would feel if your body were lighter.
- Practice resisting throughout the entire range of motion.
To give a sense of direction, Gallagher offers the following program:
- On day 1, test how long you can resist the negative pull-up (e.g., 10 seconds).
- For each session, multiply your time by 2 (e.g., 10 seconds × 2 = 20 seconds total).
- Break the total volume into as many sets as needed (e.g., 2 sets of 10 seconds or 4 sets of 5 seconds).
- After each session, add 2 seconds to the total volume for the next session.
- Aim for 3 sessions per week for 3–4 weeks, increasing by 2 seconds each session.
- When you reach about 25 seconds, you should be close to performing your first pull-up.
For more on all of this, plus a few other things to try, plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Goat Milk Greek Yogurt vs Almond Milk Greek Yogurt – 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 goat milk yogurt to almond milk yogurt, we picked the almond milk yogurt.
Why?
Surprised? Honestly, we were too!
Much as we love almonds, we were fully expecting to write about how they’re very close in nutritional value, but the dairy yogurt has more probiotics, but no, as it turns out when we looked into them, they’re quite comparable in that regard.
It’s easy to assume “goat milk yogurt is more natural and therefore healthier”, but in both cases, it was a case of taking a fermentable milk, and fermenting it (an ancient process). “But almond milk is a newfangled thing”, well, new-ish…
So what was the deciding factor?
In this case, the almond milk yogurt has about twice the protein per (same size) serving, compared to the goat milk; all the other macros are about the same, and the micronutrients are similar. Like many plant-based milks and yogurts, this one is fortified with calcium and vitamin D, so that wasn’t an issue either.
In short: the only meaningful difference was the protein, and the almond came out on top.
However!
The almond came out on top only because it is strained; this can be done (or not) with any kind of yogurt, be it from an animal or a plant.
In other words: if it had been different brands, the goat milk yogurt could have come out on top!
The take-away idea here is: always read labels, because as you’ve just seen, even we can get surprised sometimes!
seriously if you only remember one thing from this today, make it the above
Other thing worth mentioning: yogurts, and dairy products in general, are often made with common allergens (e.g. dairy, nuts, soy, etc). So if you are allergic or intolerant, obviously don’t choose the one to which you are allergic or intolerant.
That said… If you are lactose-intolerant, but not allergic, goat’s milk does have less lactose than cow’s milk. But of course, you know your limits better than we can in this regard.
Want to try some?
Amazon is not coming up with the goods for this one (or anything even similar, at time of writing), so we recommend trying your local supermarket (and reading labels, because products vary widely!)
What you’re looking for (be it animal- or plant-based):
- Live culture probiotic bacteria
- No added sugar
- Minimal additives in general
- Lastly, check out the amounts for protein, calcium, vitamin D, etc.
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:
-
From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
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 2013, the FDA approved an implantable device to treat leaky heart valves. Among its inventors was Mehmet Oz, the former television personality and former U.S. Senate candidate widely known as “Dr. Oz.”
In online videos, Oz has called the process that brought the MitraClip device to market an example of American medicine firing “on all cylinders,” and he has compared it to “landing a man on the moon.”
MitraClip was designed to spare patients from open-heart surgery by snaking hardware into the heart through a major vein. Its manufacturer, Abbott, said it offered new hope for people severely ill with a condition called mitral regurgitation and too frail to undergo surgery.
“It changed the face of cardiac medicine,” Oz said in a video.
But since MitraClip won FDA approval, versions of the device have been the subject of thousands of reports to the agency about malfunctions or patient injuries, as well as more than 1,100 reports of patient deaths, FDA records show. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three recalls. A former employee has alleged in a federal lawsuit that Abbott promoted the device through illegal inducements to doctors and hospitals. The case is pending, and Abbott has denied illegally marketing the device.
The MitraClip story is, in many ways, a cautionary tale about the science, business, and regulation of medical devices.
Manufacturer-sponsored research on the device has long been questioned. In 2013, an outside adviser to the FDA compared some of the data marshaled in support of its approval to “poop.”
The FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients in 2019, based on a clinical trial in which Abbott was deeply involved and despite conflicting findings from another study.
In the three recalls, the first of which warned of potentially deadly consequences, neither the manufacturer nor the FDA withdrew inventory from the market. The company told doctors it was OK for them to continue using the recalled products.
In response to questions for this article, both Abbott and the FDA described MitraClip as safe and effective.
“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” Abbott spokesperson Brent Tippen said. “Patients suffering from mitral regurgitation have severely limited quality of life. MitraClip can significantly improve survival, freedom for hospitalization and quality of life via a minimally invasive, now common procedure.”
An FDA spokesperson, Audra Harrison, said patient safety “is the FDA’s highest priority and at the forefront of our work in medical device regulation.”
She said reports to the FDA about malfunctions, injuries, and deaths that the device may have caused or contributed to are “consistent” with study results the FDA reviewed for its 2013 and 2019 approvals.
In other words: They were expected.
Inspiration in Italy
When a person has mitral regurgitation, blood flows backward through the mitral valve. Severe cases can lead to heart failure.
With MitraClip, flaps of the valve — known as “leaflets” — are clipped together at one or more points to achieve a tighter seal when they close. The clips are deployed via a catheter threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin. The procedure offers an alternative to connecting the patient to a heart-lung machine and repairing or replacing the mitral valve in open-heart surgery.
Oz has said in online videos that he got the idea after hearing a doctor describe a surgical technique for the mitral valve at a conference in Italy. “And on the way home that night, on a plane heading back to Columbia University, where I was on the faculty, I wrote the patent,” he told KFF Health News.
A patent obtained by Columbia in 2001, one of several associated with MitraClip, lists Oz first among the inventors.
But a Silicon Valley-based startup, Evalve, would develop the device. Evalve was later acquired by Abbott for about $400 million.
“I think the engineers and people at Evalve always cringe a little bit when they see Mehmet taking a lot of, you know, basically claiming responsibility for what was a really extraordinary team effort, and he was a small to almost no player in that team,” one of the company’s founders, cardiologist Fred St. Goar, told KFF Health News.
Oz did not respond to a request for comment on that statement.
As of 2019, the MitraClip device cost $30,000 per procedure, according to an article in a medical journal. According to the Abbott website, more than 200,000 people around the world have been treated with MitraClip.
Oz filed a financial disclosure during his unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 2022 that showed him receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual MitraClip royalties.
Abbott recently received FDA approval for TriClip, a variation of the MitraClip system for the heart’s tricuspid valve.
Endorsed ‘With Trepidation’
Before the FDA said yes to MitraClip in 2013, agency staffers pushed back.
Abbott had originally wanted the device approved for “patients with significant mitral regurgitation,” a relatively broad term. After the FDA objected, the company narrowed its proposal to patients at too-high risk for open-heart surgery.
Even then, in an analysis, the FDA identified “fundamental” flaws in Abbott’s data.
One example: The data compared MitraClip patients with patients who underwent open-heart surgery for valve repair — but the comparison might have been biased by differences in the expertise of doctors treating the two groups, the FDA analysis said. While MitraClip was implanted by a highly select, experienced group of interventional cardiologists, many of the doctors doing the open-heart surgeries had performed only a “very low volume” of such operations.
FDA “approval is not appropriate at this time as major questions of safety and effectiveness, as well as the overall benefit-risk profile for this device, remain unanswered,” the FDA said in a review prepared for a March 2013 meeting of a committee of outside advisers to the agency.
Some committee members expressed misgivings. “If your right shoe goes into horse poop and your left shoe goes into dog poop, it’s still poop,” cardiothoracic surgeon Craig Selzman said, according to a transcript.
The committee voted 5-4 against MitraClip on the question of whether it proved effective. But members voted 8-0 that they considered the device safe and 5-3 that the benefits of the device outweighed its risks.
Selzman voted yes on the last question “with trepidation,” he said at the time.
In October 2013, the FDA approved the MitraClip Clip Delivery System for a narrower group of patients: those with a particular type of mitral regurgitation who were considered a surgery risk.
“The reality is, there is no perfect procedure,” said Jason Rogers, an interventional cardiologist and University of California-Davis professor who is an Abbott consultant. The company referred KFF Health News to Rogers as an authority on MitraClip. He called MitraClip “extremely safe” and said some patients treated with it are “on death’s door to begin with.”
“At least you’re trying to do something for them,” he said.
Conflicting Studies
In 2019, the FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients.
The agency based that decision on a clinical trial in the United States and Canada that Abbott not only sponsored but also helped design and manage. It participated in site selection and data analysis, according to a September 2018 New England Journal of Medicine paper reporting the trial results. Some of the authors received consulting fees from Abbott, the paper disclosed.
A separate study in France reached a different conclusion. It found that, for some patients who fit the expanded profile, the device did not significantly reduce deaths or hospitalizations for heart failure over a year.
The French study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2018, was funded by the government of France and Abbott. As with the North American study, some of the researchers disclosed they had received money from Abbott. However, the write-up in the journal said Abbott played no role in the design of the French trial, the selection of sites, or in data analysis.
Gregg Stone, one of the leaders of the North American study, said there were differences between patients enrolled in the two studies and how they were medicated. In addition, outcomes were better in the North American study in part because doctors in the U.S. and Canada had more MitraClip experience than their counterparts in France, Stone said.
Stone, a clinical trial specialist with a background in interventional cardiology, acknowledged skepticism toward studies sponsored by manufacturers.
“There are some people who say, ‘Oh, well, you know, these results may have been manipulated,’” he said. “But I can guarantee you that’s not the truth.”
‘Nationwide Scheme’
A former Abbott employee alleges in a lawsuit that after MitraClip won approval, the company promoted the device to doctors and hospitals using inducements such as free marketing support, the chance to participate in Abbott clinical trials, and payments for participating in “sham speaker programs.”
The former employee alleges that she was instructed to tell referring physicians that if they observed mitral regurgitation in their patients to “just send it” for a MitraClip procedure because “everything can be clipped.” She also alleges that, using a script, she was told to promote the device to hospital administrators based on financial advantages such as “growth opportunities through profitable procedures, ancillary tests, and referral streams.”
The inducements were part of a “nationwide scheme” of illegal kickbacks that defrauded government health insurance programs including Medicare and Medicaid, the lawsuit claims.
The company denied doing anything illegal and said in a court filing that “to help its groundbreaking therapy reach patients, Abbott needed to educate cardiologists and other healthcare providers.”
Those efforts are “not only routine, they are laudable — as physicians cannot use, or refer a patient to another doctor who can use, a device that they do not understand or in some cases even know about,” the company said in the filing.
Under federal law, the person who filed the suit can receive a share of any money the government recoups from Abbott. The suit was filed by a company associated with a former employee in Abbott’s Structural Heart Division, Lisa Knott. An attorney for the company declined to comment and said Knott had no comment.
Reports to the FDA
As doctors started using MitraClip, the FDA began receiving reports about malfunctions and cases in which the product might have caused or contributed to a death or an injury.
According to some reports, clips detached from valve flaps. Flaps became damaged. Procedures were aborted. Mitral leakage worsened. Doctors struggled to control the device. Clips became “entangled in chordae” — cord-like structures also known as heartstrings that connect the valve flaps to the heart muscle. Patients treated with MitraClip underwent corrective operations.
As of March 2024, the FDA had received more than 17,000 reports documenting more than 22,000 “events” involving mitral valve repair devices, FDA data shows. All but about 200 of those reports mention one iteration of MitraClip or another, a KFF Health News review of FDA data found.
Almost all the reports came from Abbott. The FDA requires manufacturers to submit reports when they learn of mishaps potentially related to their devices.
The reports are not proof that devices caused problems, and the same event might be reported multiple times. Other events may go unreported.
Despite the reports’ limitations, the FDA provides an analysis of them for the public on its website.
MitraClip’s risks weren’t a surprise.
Like the rapid-fire fine print in television ads for prescription drugs, the original product label for the device listed more than 60 types of potential complications.
Indeed, during clinical research on the device, about 6% of patients implanted with MitraClip died within 30 days, according to the label. Almost 1 in 4 — 23.6% – were dead within a year.
The FDA spokesperson, Harrison, pointed to a study originally published in 2021 in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, based on a central registry of mitral valve procedures, that found lower rates of death after MitraClip went on the market.
“These data confirmed that the MitraClip device remains safe and effective in the real-world setting,” Harrison said.
But the study’s authors, several of whom disclosed financial or other connections to Abbott, said data was missing for more than a quarter of patients one year after the procedure.
A major measure of success would be the proportion of MitraClip patients who are alive “with an acceptable quality of life” a year after undergoing the procedure, the study said. Because such information was available for fewer than half of the living patients, “we have omitted those outcomes from this report,” the authors wrote.
If you’ve had an experience with MitraClip or another medical device and would like to tell KFF Health News about it, click here to share your story with us.
KFF Health News audience engagement producer Tarena Lofton contributed to this report.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
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:
-
Tofu vs Seitan – 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 tofu to seitan, we picked the tofu.
Why?
This one is not close!
In terms of macros, seitan does have about 2x the protein, but it also has 6x the carbs and 6x the sodium of tofu, as well as less fiber than tofu.. So we’ll call it a tie on macros. But…
Seitan is also much more processed than tofu, as tofu has usually just been fermented and possibly pressed (depending on kind). Seitan, in contrast, is processed gluten that has been extracted from wheat and usually had lots of things happen to it on the way (depending on kind).
About that protein… Tofu is a complete protein, meaning it has all of the essential amino acids. Seitain, meanwhile, is lacking in lysine.
When it comes to vitamins and minerals, again tofu easily comes out on top; tofu has 5x the calcium, similar iron, more magnesium, 2x the phosphorous, 150% of the potassium, and contains several other nutrients that seitan doesn’t, such as folate and choline.
So, easy winning for tofu across the board on micronutrients.
Tofu is also rich in isoflavones, antioxidant phytonutrients, while seitan has no such benefits.
So, another win for tofu.
There are two reasons you might choose seitan:
- prioritizing bulk protein above all other health considerations
- you are allergic to soy and not allergic to gluten
If neither of those things are the case, then tofu is the healthier choice!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Tempeh vs Tofu – Which is Healthier? ← tempeh is, nutritionally speaking, tofu but better. Of course on a culinary level, there are many recipes where tofu will work and tempeh wouldn’t, though.
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
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: