What You Should Have Been Told About The Menopause Beforehand

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.

What You Should Have Been Told About Menopause Beforehand

Dr. Jen Gunter provides important information on menopause.

This is Dr. Jen Gunter. She’s a gynecologist, specializing in chronic pain and vulvovaginal disorders. She’s also a woman on a mission to demystify things that popular culture, especially in the US, would rather not talk about.

When was the last time you remember the menopause being referenced in a movie or TV show? If you can think of one at all, was it just played for laughs?

And of course, the human body can be funny, so that’s not necessarily the problem, but it sure would be nice if that weren’t all that there is!

So, what does Dr. Gunter want us to know?

It’s a time of changes, not an end

The name “menopause” is misleading. It’s not a “pause”, and those menses aren’t coming back.

And yet, to call it a “menostop” would be differently misleading, because there’s a lot more going on than a simple cessation of menstruation.

Estrogen levels will drop a lot, testosterone levels may rise slightly, mood and sleep and appetite and sex drive will probably be affected (progesterone can improve all these things!) and not to mention but we’re going to mention: vaginal atrophy, which is very normal and very treatable with a topical estrogen cream. Untreated menopause can also bring a whole lot of increased health risks (for example, heart disease, osteoporosis, and, counterintuitively given the lower estrogen levels, breast cancer).

However, with a little awareness and appropriate management, all these things can usually be navigated with minimal adverse health outcomes.

Dr Gunter, for this reason, refers to it interchangeably as “the menopausal transition”. She describes it as being less like a cliff edge we fall off, and more like a bridge we cross.

Bridges can be dangerous to cross! But they can also get us safely where we’re going.

Ok, so how do we manage those things?

Dr. Gunter is a big fan of evidence-based medicine, so we’ll not be seeing any yonic crystals or jade eggs. Or “goop”.

See also: Meet Goop’s Number One Enemy

For most people, she recommends Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT), which falls under the more general category of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

This is the most well-evidenced, science-based way to avoid most of the risks associated with menopause.

Nevertheless, there are scare-stories out there, ranging from painful recommencement of bleeding, to (once again) increased risk of breast cancer. However, most of these are either misunderstandings, or unrelated to menopause and MHT, and are rather signs of other problems that should not be ignored.

To get a good grounding in this, you might want to read her Hormone Therapy Guide, freely available as a standalone section on her website. This series of posts is dedicated to hormone therapy. It starts with some basics and builds on that knowledge with each post:

Dr. Gunter’s Guide To The Hormone Menoverse

What about natural therapies?

There are some non-hormonal things that work, but these are mostly things that:

  • give a statistically significant reduction in symptoms
  • give the same statistically significant reduction in symptoms as placebo

As Dr. Gunter puts it:

❝While most of the studies of prescription medications for hot flashes have an appropriate placebo arm, this is rarely the case with so-called alternative therapies.

In fact, the studies here are almost always low quality, so it’s often not possible to conclude much.

Many reviews that look at these studies often end with a line that goes something like, “Randomized trials with a placebo arm, a low risk of bias, and adequate sample sizes are urgently needed.”

You should interpret this kind of conclusion as the polite way of saying, “We need studies that aren’t BS to say something constructive.”❞

~ Gunter, 2023

However, if it works, it works, whatever its mechanism. It’s just good, when making medical decisions, to do so with the full facts!

For that matter, even Dr. Gunter acknowledges that while MHT can be lifechanging (in a positive way) for many, it’s not for everyone:

Informed Decisions: When Menopause Hormone Therapy Isn’t Recommended

Want to know more?

Dr. Gunter also has an assortment of books available, including The Menopause Manifesto (which we’ve reviewed previously), and some others that we haven’t, such as “Blood” and “The Vagina Bible”.

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • What To Leave Off Your Table (To Stay Off This Surgeon’s)
  • Applesauce vs Cranberry Sauce – Which is Healthier?
    Applesauce beats cranberry sauce with less sugar, more vitamins B and C, and a healthier mineral profile. Choose wisely, health seekers!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Rose Hips vs Blueberries – 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 rose hips to blueberries, we picked the rose hips.

    Why?

    Both of these fruits are abundant sources of antioxidants and other polyphenols, but one of them stands out for overall nutritional density:

    In terms of macros, rose hips have about 2x the carbohydrates, and/but about 10x the fiber. That’s an easy calculation and a clear win for rose hips.

    When it comes to vitamins, rose hips have a lot more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B6, C, E, K, and choline. On the other hand, blueberries boast more of vitamins B1 and B9. That’s a 9:2 lead for rose hips, even before we consider rose hips’ much greater margins of difference (kicking off with 80x the vitamin A, for instance, and many multiples of many of the others).

    In the category of minerals, rose hips have a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Meanwhile, blueberries are not higher in any minerals.

    In short: as ever, enjoy both, but if you’re looking for nutritional density, there’s a clear winner here and it’s rose hips.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    It’s In The Hips: Rosehip’s Benefits, Inside & Out

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Move – by Caroline Williams

    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.

    • Get 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week, says the American Heart Association
    • There are over 10,000 minutes per week, says the pocket calculator

    Is 150/10,000 really the goal here? Really?

    For Caroline Williams, the answer is no.

    In this book that’s practically a manifesto, she outlines the case that:

    • Humans evolved to move
    • Industrialization and capitalism scuppered that
    • We now spend far too long each day without movement

    Furthermore, for Williams this isn’t just an anthropological observation, it’s a problem to be solved, because:

    • Our lack of movement is crippling us—literally
    • Our stagnation affects not just our bodies, but also our minds
      • (again literally—there’s a direct correlation with mental health)
    • We urgently need to fix this

    So, what now, do we need to move in to the gym and become full-time athletes to clock up enough hours of movement? No.

    Williams convincingly argues the case (using data from supercentenarian “blue zones” around the world) that even non-exertive movement is sufficient. In other words, you don’t have to be running; walking is great. You don’t have to be lifting weights; doing the housework or gardening will suffice.

    From that foundational axiom, she calls on us to find ways to build our life around movement… rather than production-efficiency and/or convenience. She gives plenty of tips for such too!

    Bottom line: some books are “I couldn’t put it down!” books. This one’s more of a “I got the urge to get up and get moving!” book.

    Get your get-up-and-go up and going with “Move”—order yours from Amazon today!

    Share This Post

  • Why Many Nonprofit (Wink, Wink) Hospitals Are Rolling in Money

    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 owns a for-profit insurer, a venture capital company, and for-profit hospitals in Italy and Kazakhstan; it has just acquired its fourth for-profit hospital in Ireland. Another owns one of the largest for-profit hospitals in London, is partnering to build a massive training facility for a professional basketball team, and has launched and financed 80 for-profit start-ups. Another partners with a wellness spa where rooms cost $4,000 a night and co-invests with “leading private equity firms.”

    Do these sound like charities?

    These diversified businesses are, in fact, some of the country’s largest nonprofit hospital systems. And they have somehow managed to keep myriad for-profit enterprises under their nonprofit umbrella — a status that means they pay little or no taxes, float bonds at preferred rates, and gain numerous other financial advantages.

    Through legal maneuvering, regulatory neglect, and a large dollop of lobbying, they have remained tax-exempt charities, classified as 501(c)(3)s.

    “Hospitals are some of the biggest businesses in the U.S. — nonprofit in name only,” said Martin Gaynor, an economics and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. “They realized they could own for-profit businesses and keep their not-for-profit status. So the parking lot is for-profit; the laundry service is for-profit; they open up for-profit entities in other countries that are expressly for making money. Great work if you can get it.”

    Many universities’ most robust income streams come from their technically nonprofit hospitals. At Stanford University, 62% of operating revenue in fiscal 2023 was from health services; at the University of Chicago, patient services brought in 49% of operating revenue in fiscal 2022.

    To be sure, many hospitals’ major source of income is still likely to be pricey patient care. Because they are nonprofit and therefore, by definition, can’t show that thing called “profit,” excess earnings are called “operating surpluses.” Meanwhile, some nonprofit hospitals, particularly in rural areas and inner cities, struggle to stay afloat because they depend heavily on lower payments from Medicaid and Medicare and have no alternative income streams.

    But investments are making “a bigger and bigger difference” in the bottom line of many big systems, said Ge Bai, a professor of health care accounting at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. Investment income helped Cleveland Clinic overcome the deficit incurred during the pandemic.

    When many U.S. hospitals were founded over the past two centuries, mostly by religious groups, they were accorded nonprofit status for doling out free care during an era in which fewer people had insurance and bills were modest. The institutions operated on razor-thin margins. But as more Americans gained insurance and medical treatments became more effective — and more expensive — there was money to be made.

    Not-for-profit hospitals merged with one another, pursuing economies of scale, like joint purchasing of linens and surgical supplies. Then, in this century, they also began acquiring parts of the health care systems that had long been for-profit, such as doctors’ groups, as well as imaging and surgery centers. That raised some legal eyebrows — how could a nonprofit simply acquire a for-profit? — but regulators and the IRS let it ride.

    And in recent years, partnerships with, and ownership of, profit-making ventures have strayed further and further afield from the purported charitable health care mission in their community.

    “When I first encountered it, I was dumbfounded — I said, ‘This not charitable,’” said Michael West, an attorney and senior vice president of the New York Council of Nonprofits. “I’ve long questioned why these institutions get away with it. I just don’t see how it’s compliant with the IRS tax code.” West also pointed out that they don’t act like charities: “I mean, everyone knows someone with an outstanding $15,000 bill they can’t pay.”

    Hospitals get their tax breaks for providing “charity care and community benefit.” But how much charity care is enough and, more important, what sort of activities count as “community benefit” and how to value them? IRS guidance released this year remains fuzzy on the issue.

    Academics who study the subject have consistently found the value of many hospitals’ good work pales in comparison with the value of their tax breaks. Studies have shown that generally nonprofit and for-profit hospitals spend about the same portion of their expenses on the charity care component.

    Here are some things listed as “community benefit” on hospital systems’ 990 tax forms: creating jobs; building energy-efficient facilities; hiring minority- or women-owned contractors; upgrading parks with lighting and comfortable seating; creating healing gardens and spas for patients.

    All good works, to be sure, but health care?

    What’s more, to justify engaging in for-profit business while maintaining their not-for-profit status, hospitals must connect the business revenue to that mission. Otherwise, they pay an unrelated business income tax.

    “Their CEOs — many from the corporate world — spout drivel and turn somersaults to make the case,” said Lawton Burns, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “They do a lot of profitable stuff — they’re very clever and entrepreneurial.”

    The truth is that a number of not-for-profit hospitals have become wealthy diversified business organizations. The most visible manifestation of that is outsize executive compensation at many of the country’s big health systems. Seven of the 10 most highly paid nonprofit CEOs in the United States run hospitals and are paid millions, sometimes tens of millions, of dollars annually. The CEOs of the Gates and Ford foundations make far less, just a bit over $1 million.

    When challenged about the generous pay packages — as they often are — hospitals respond that running a hospital is a complicated business, that pharmaceutical and insurance execs make much more. Also, board compensation committees determine the payout, considering salaries at comparable institutions as well as the hospital’s financial performance.

    One obvious reason for the regulatory tolerance is that hospital systems are major employers — the largest in many states (including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arizona, and Delaware). They are big-time lobbying forces and major donors in Washington and in state capitals.

    But some patients have had enough: In a suit brought by a local school board, a judge last year declared that four Pennsylvania hospitals in the Tower Health system had to pay property taxes because its executive pay was “eye popping” and it demonstrated “profit motives through actions such as charging management fees from its hospitals.”

    A 2020 Government Accountability Office report chided the IRS for its lack of vigilance in reviewing nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit and recommended ways to “improve IRS oversight.” A follow-up GAO report to Congress in 2023 said, “IRS officials told us that the agency had not revoked a hospital’s tax-exempt status for failing to provide sufficient community benefits in the previous 10 years” and recommended that Congress lay out more specific standards. The IRS declined to comment for this column.

    Attorneys general, who regulate charity at the state level, could also get involved. But, in practice, “there is zero accountability,” West said. “Most nonprofits live in fear of the AG. Not hospitals.”

    Today’s big hospital systems do miraculous, lifesaving stuff. But they are not channeling Mother Teresa. Maybe it’s time to end the community benefit charade for those that exploit it, and have these big businesses pay at least some tax. Communities could then use those dollars in ways that directly benefit residents’ health.

    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.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • What To Leave Off Your Table (To Stay Off This Surgeon’s)
  • Mental Health Courts Can Struggle to Fulfill Decades-Old Promise

    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.

    GAINESVILLE, Ga. — In early December, Donald Brown stood nervously in the Hall County Courthouse, concerned he’d be sent back to jail.

    The 55-year-old struggles with depression, addiction, and suicidal thoughts. He worried a judge would terminate him from a special diversion program meant to keep people with mental illness from being incarcerated. He was failing to keep up with the program’s onerous work and community service requirements.

    “I’m kind of scared. I feel kind of defeated,” Brown said.

    Last year, Brown threatened to take his life with a gun and his family called 911 seeking help, he said. The police arrived, and Brown was arrested and charged with a felony of firearm possession.

    After months in jail, Brown was offered access to the Health Empowerment Linkage and Possibilities, or HELP, Court. If he pleaded guilty, he’d be connected to services and avoid prison time. But if he didn’t complete the program, he’d possibly face incarceration.

    “It’s almost like coercion,” Brown said. “‘Here, sign these papers and get out of jail.’ I feel like I could have been dealt with a lot better.”

    Advocates, attorneys, clinicians, and researchers said courts such as the one Brown is navigating can struggle to live up to their promise. The diversion programs, they said, are often expensive and resource-intensive, and serve fewer than 1% of the more than 2 million people who have a serious mental illness and are booked into U.S. jails each year.

    People can feel pressured to take plea deals and enter the courts, seeing the programs as the only route to get care or avoid prison time. The courts are selective, due in part to political pressures on elected judges and prosecutors. Participants must often meet strict requirements that critics say aren’t treatment-focused, such as regular hearings and drug screenings.

    And there is a lack of conclusive evidence on whether the courts help participants long-term. Some legal experts, like Lea Johnston, a professor of law at the University of Florida, worry the programs distract from more meaningful investments in mental health resources.

    Jails and prisons are not the place for individuals with mental disorders, she said. “But I’m also not sure that mental health court is the solution.”

    The country’s first mental health court was established in Broward County, Florida, in 1997, “as a way to promote recovery and mental health wellness and avoid criminalizing mental health problems.” The model was replicated with millions in funding from such federal agencies as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Department of Justice.

    More than 650 adult and juvenile mental health courts were operational as of 2022, according to the National Treatment Court Resource Center. There’s no set way to run them. Generally, participants receive treatment plans and get linked to services. Judges and mental health clinicians oversee their progress.

    Researchers from the center found little evidence that the courts improve participants’ mental health or keep them out of the criminal justice system. “Few studies … assess longer-term impacts” of the programs “beyond one year after program exit,” said a 2022 policy brief on mental health courts.

    The courts work best when paired with investments in services such as clinical treatment, recovery programs, and housing and employment opportunities, said Kristen DeVall, the center’s co-director.

    “If all of these other supports aren’t invested in, then it’s kind of a wash,” she said.

    The courts should be seen as “one intervention in that larger system,” DeVall said, not “the only resource to serve folks with mental health needs” who get caught up in the criminal justice system.

    Resource limitations can also increase the pressures to apply for mental health court programs, said Lisa M. Wayne, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. People seeking help might not feel they have alternatives.

    “It’s not going to be people who can afford mental health intervention. It’s poor people, marginalized folks,” she said.

    Other court skeptics wonder about the larger costs of the programs.

    In a study of a mental health court in Pennsylvania, Johnston and a University of Florida colleague found participants were sentenced to longer time under government supervision than if they’d gone through the regular criminal justice system.

    “The bigger problem is they’re taking attention away from more important solutions that we should be investing in, like community mental health care,” Johnston said.

    When Melissa Vergara’s oldest son, Mychael Difrancisco, was arrested on felony gun charges in Queens in May 2021, she thought he would be an ideal candidate for the New York City borough’s mental health court because of his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and other behavioral health conditions.

    She estimated she spent tens of thousands of dollars to prepare Difrancisco’s case for consideration. Meanwhile, her son sat in jail on Rikers Island, where she said he was assaulted multiple times and had to get half a finger amputated after it was caught in a cell door.

    In the end, his case was denied diversion into mental health court. Difrancisco, 22, is serving a prison sentence that could be as long as four years and six months.

    “There’s no real urgency to help people with mental health struggles,” Vergara said.

    Critics worry such high bars to entry can lead the programs to exclude people who could benefit the most. Some courts don’t allow those accused of violent or sexual crimes to participate. Prosecutors and judges can face pressure from constituents that may lead them to block individuals accused of high-profile offenses.

    And judges often aren’t trained to make decisions about participants’ care, said Raji Edayathumangalam, senior policy social worker with New York County Defender Services.

    “It’s inappropriate,” she said. “We’re all licensed to practice in our different professions for a reason. I can’t show up to do a hernia operation just because I read about it or sat next to a hernia surgeon.”

    Mental health courts can be overly focused on requirements such as drug testing, medication compliance, and completing workbook assignments, rather than progress toward recovery and clinical improvement, Edayathumangalam said.

    Completing the programs can leave some participants with clean criminal records. But failing to meet a program’s requirements can trigger penalties — including incarceration.

    During a recent hearing in the Clayton County Behavioral Health Accountability Court in suburban Atlanta, one woman left the courtroom in tears when Judge Shana Rooks Malone ordered her to report to jail for a seven-day stay for “being dishonest” about whether she was taking court-required medication.

    It was her sixth infraction in the program — previous consequences included written assignments and “bench duty,” in which participants must sit and think about their participation in the program.

    “I don’t like to incarcerate,” Malone said. “That particular participant has had some challenges. I’m rooting for her. But all the smaller penalties haven’t worked.”

    Still, other participants praised Malone and her program. And, in general, some say such diversion programs provide a much-needed lifeline.

    Michael Hobby, 32, of Gainesville was addicted to heroin and fentanyl when he was arrested for drug possession in August 2021. After entry into the HELP Court program, he got sober, started taking medication for anxiety and depression, and built a stable life.

    “I didn’t know where to reach out for help,” he said. “I got put in handcuffs, and it saved my life.”

    Even as Donald Brown awaited his fate, he said he had started taking medication to manage his depression and has stayed sober because of HELP Court.

    “I’ve learned a new way of life. Instead of getting high, I’m learning to feel things now,” he said.

    Brown avoided jail that early December day. A hearing to decide his fate could happen in the next few weeks. But even if he’s allowed to remain in the program, Brown said, he’s worried it’s only a matter of time before he falls out of compliance.

    “To try to improve myself and get locked up for it is just a kick in the gut,” he said. “I tried really hard.”

    KFF Health News senior correspondent Fred Clasen-Kelly 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.

    USE OUR CONTENT

    This story can be republished for free (details).

    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:

  • PFAS Exposure & Cancer: The Numbers Are High

    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.

    PFAS & Cancer Risk: The Numbers Are High

    Dr Maaike Van Gerwen studies the effects of exposure to PFAS on cancer development.
    Image Credits Mount Sinai

    This is Dr. Maaike van Gerwen. Is that an MD or a PhD, you wonder? It’s both.

    She’s also Director of Research in the Department of Otolaryngology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, Scientific Director of the Program of Personalized Management of Thyroid Disease, and Member of the Institute for Translational Epidemiology and the Transdisciplinary Center on Early Environmental Exposures.

    What does she want us to know?

    She’d love for us to know about her latest research published literally today, about the risks associated with PFAS, such as the kind widely found in non-stick cookware:

    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure and thyroid cancer risk

    Dr. van Gerwen and her team tested this several ways, and the very short and simple version of the findings is that per doubling of exposure, there was a 56% increased rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis.

    (The rate of exposure was not just guessed based on self-reports; it was measured directly from PFAS levels in the blood of participants)

    • PFAS exposure can come from many sources, not just non-stick cookware, but that’s a “biggie” since it transfers directly into food that we consume.
    • Same goes for widely-available microwaveable plastic food containers.
    • Relatively less dangerous exposures include waterproofed clothing.

    To keep it simple and look at the non-stick pans and microwavable plastic containers, doubling exposure might mean using such things every day vs every second day.

    Practical take-away: PFAS may be impossible to avoid completely, but even just cutting down on the use of such products is already reducing your cancer risk.

    Isn’t it too late, by this point in life? Aren’t they “forever chemicals”?

    They’re not truly “forever”, but they do have long half-lives, yes.

    See: Can we take the “forever” out of forever chemicals?

    The half-lives of PFOS and PFOA in water are 41 years and 92 years, respectively.

    In the body, however, because our body is constantly trying to repair itself and eliminate toxins, it’s more like 3–7 years.

    That might seem like a long time, and perhaps it is, but the time will pass anyway, so might as well get started now, rather than in 3–7 years time!

    Read more: National Academies Report Calls for Testing People With High Exposure to “Forever Chemicals”

    What should we use instead?

    In place of non-stick cookware, cast iron is fantastic. It’s not everyone’s preference, though, so you might also like to know that ceramic cookware is a fine option that’s functionally non-stick but without needing a non-stick coating. Check for PFAS-free status; they should advertise this.

    In place of plastic microwaveable containers, Pyrex (or equivalent) glass dishes (you can get them with lids) are a top-tier option. Ceramic containers (without metallic bits!) are also safely microwaveable.

    See also:

    Here’s a List of Products with PFAS (& How to Avoid Them)

    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:

  • Dates vs Raisins – 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 dates to raisins, we picked the dates.

    Why?

    There are benefits for each fruit, but we say dates come out on top. See what you think:

    In terms of macros, while they’re both dried fruits, dates contain more water (unless you leave them sitting open for a while), which will tend to mathematically lower the relative percentages of other components because they’re being held against water weight too. However, even though this is the case (i.e. dates are being mathematically disadvantaged), dates contain more than twice the fiber that raisins do (8g/100g compared to raisins’ 3.7g/100g).

    While we’re talking macros, dates are also lower in total carbs, as well as obviously net carbs, and have a much lower glycemic index than raisins (dates have a glycemic index of 42, considered low, while raisins have a glycemic index of 64, considered medium; their respective glycemic loads are even more telling: 13 for raisins and just 2 for dates!).

    About those carbs… For dates, it’s an approximately equal mix of sucrose, glucose, and fructose, while for raisins it’s 49% glucose and 49% fructose. Because sucrose is the only disaccharide here, this (as well as the fiber difference) is one of the reasons for the different glycemic indices and glycemic loads, since glucose and fructose are more quickly absorbed.

    That’s more than we usually write about macros, but in this case, both fruits are ones especially often hit with the “aren’t they full of sugar though?” question, so it was important to cover the critical distinctions between the two, because they really are very different.

    Summary of macros: dates win easily in every aspect we looked at

    In the category of vitamins, raisins get a tally in their favor. Raisins are higher in vitamins B1, B2, C, E, K, and choline, while dates are higher in vitamins A, B3, B5, and B9, giving raisins a 6:4 lead here. In dates’ defense, the difference in vitamin K is marginal, and it’d make it a 5:4 lead if we considered that within the margin of error (because all these figures are of course based on averages), and the vitamins that dates are higher in, the margins are much wider indeed, meaning that both fruits have approximately the same overall levels of vitamins when looked at in total, but still, we’ll call this category a nominal win for raisins.

    When it comes to minerals, dates have more magnesium, selenium, and zinc, while raisins have more copper, iron, phosphorus, and potassium. Nominally that’s a 4:3 lead for raisins, but if we consider that raisins also contain more sodium, it’s more like a tie here. If we have to pick one though, this is a very slight win for raisins.

    Adding up the sections, we have one huge win for dates (macros) with two very marginal wins for raisins—hence, we say that dates win out.

    Still, of course enjoy both; diversity is good for the health.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    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: