Grapefruit vs Orange – 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 grapefruit to orange, we picked the orange.
Why?
It’s easy, when guessing which is the healthier out of two things, to guess that the more expensive or perhaps less universally available one is the healthier. But it’s not always so, and today is one of those cases!
In terms of macros, they are very similar fruits, with almost identical levels of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, as well as water. Looking more carefully, we find that grapefruit’s sugars contain a slightly high proportion of fructose; not enough to make it unhealthy by any means (indeed, no whole unprocessed fruit is unhealthy unless it’s literally poisonous), but it is a thing to note if we’re micro-analysing the macronutrients. Also, oranges have slightly more fiber, which is always a plus.
When it comes to vitamins, oranges stand out with more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and E, while grapefruit boasts more vitamin A (hence its color). Still, we’re calling this category another win for oranges.
In the category of minerals, oranges again sweep with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and selenium, while grapefruit has just a little more phosphorus. So, another easy win for oranges.
One final consideration that’s not shown in the nutritional values, is that grapefruit contains furanocoumarin, which can inhibit cytochrome P-450 3A4 isoenzyme and P-glycoptrotein transporters in the intestine and liver—slowing down their drug metabolism capabilities, thus effectively increasing the bioavailability of many drugs manifold. It can also be found in lower quantities in Seville (sour) oranges, and it’s not present (or at least, if it is, it’s in truly tiny quantities) in most oranges.
This may sound superficially like a good thing (improving bioavailability of things we want), but in practice it means that in the case of many drugs, if you take them with (or near in time to) grapefruit or grapefruit juice, then congratulations, you just took an overdose. This happens with a lot of meds for blood pressure, cholesterol (including statins), calcium channel-blockers, anti-depressants, benzo-family drugs, beta-blockers, and more. Oh, and Viagra, too. Which latter might sound funny, but remember, Viagra’s mechanism of action is blood pressure modulation, and that is not something you want to mess around with unduly. So, do check with your pharmacist to know if you’re on any meds that would be affected by grapefruit or grapefruit juice!
All in all, today’s sections add up to an overwhelming win for oranges!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
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:
-
Healthy Choco-Banoffee Ice Cream
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.
Chocolate, banana, and coffee—quite a threesome, whether for breakfast or dessert, and this is healthy enough for breakfast while being decadent enough for dessert! With no dairy or added sugar, and lots of antioxidants, this is a healthy way to start or end your day.
You will need
- 3 bananas
- 2 tbsp cocoa powder, no additives
- 2 shots espresso, chilled
- 1 tsp vanilla extract
- On standby: milk of your choice—we recommend almond or hazelnut
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Peel, slice, and freeze the bananas (let them freeze for at least 2–3 hours)
2) Blend the ingredients, except the milk. Add milk as necessary if the mixture is too thick to blend. Be careful not to add too much at once though, or it will become less of an ice cream and more of a milkshake!
3) Scoop into a sundae glass to serve:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Which Plant Milk?
- The Bitter Truth About Coffee (or is it?)
- Cacao vs Carob – Which is Healthier?
- Apples vs Bananas – Which is Healthier?
- Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
- Tasty Polyphenols
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Brazil Nuts vs Pecans – 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 Brazil nuts to pecans, we picked the pecans.
Why?
In terms of macros, Brazil nuts have more protein while pecans have more fiber. Both of these nuts are equally fatty, though Brazil nuts have much more saturated fat per 100g, which still isn’t terrible, but it does make pecans’ profile (mostly monounsaturated with some polyunsaturated) the healthier. They’re about equal in carbs. All in all, a win for pecans here.
In the category of vitamins, Brazil nuts have more vitamin E, while pecans have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, K, and choline. An easy win for pecans.
The category of minerals is an interesting one. Brazil nuts have more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium, while pecans have more iron, manganese, and zinc. Before we crown Brazil nuts with the win in this category, though, let’s take a closer look at those selenium levels:
- A cup of pecans contains 21% of the RDA of selenium. Your hair will be luscious and shiny.
- A cup of Brazil nuts contains 10,456% of the RDA of selenium. This is way past the point of selenium toxicity, and your (luscious, shiny) hair will fall out.
For this reason, it’s recommended to eat no more than 3–4 Brazil nuts per day.
We consider that a point against Brazil nuts.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for pecans; of course, enjoy either or both, just be sure to practise moderation when it comes to the Brazil nuts!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
If you’re worried about inflammation, stop stressing about seed oils and focus on the basics
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.
You’ve probably seen recent claims online seed oils are “toxic” and cause inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. But what does the research say?
Overall, if you’re worried about inflammation, cancer, diabetes and heart disease there are probably more important things to worry about than seed oils.
They may or may not play a role in inflammation (the research picture is mixed). What we do know, however, is that a high-quality diet rich in unprocessed whole foods (fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains and lean meats) is the number one thing you can to do reduce inflammation and your risk of developing diseases.
Rather than focusing on seed oils specifically, reduce your intake of processed foods more broadly and focus on eating fresh foods. So don’t stress out too much about using a bit of seed oils in your cooking if you are generally focused on all the right things.
What are seed oils?
Seed oils are made from whole seeds, such as sunflower seeds, flax seeds, chia seeds and sesame seeds. These seeds are processed to extract oil.
The most common seed oils found at grocery stores include sesame oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, flaxseed oil, corn oil, grapeseed oil and soybean oil.
Seed oils are generally affordable, easy to find and suitable for many dishes and cuisines as they often have a high smoke point.
However, most people consume seed oils in larger amounts through processed foods such as biscuits, cakes, chips, muesli bars, muffins, dipping sauces, deep-fried foods, salad dressings and margarines.
These processed foods are “discretionary”, meaning they’re OK to have occasionally. But they are not considered necessary for a healthy diet, nor recommended in our national dietary guidelines, the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Seed oils often have a high smoke point.
Gleb Usovich/ShutterstockI’ve heard people say seed oils ‘promote inflammation’. Is that true?
There are two essential types of omega fatty acids: omega-3 and omega-6. These are crucial for bodily functions, and we must get them through our diet since our bodies cannot produce them.
While all oils contain varying levels of fatty acids, some argue an excessive intake of a specific omega-6 fatty acid in seed oils called “linoleic acid” may contribute to inflammation in the body.
There is some evidence linoleic acid can be converted to arachidonic acid in the body and this may play a role in inflammation. However, other research doesn’t support the idea reducing dietary linoleic acid affects the amount of arachidonic acid in your body. The research picture is not clear cut.
But if you’re keen to reduce inflammation, the best thing you can do is aim for a healthy diet that is:
- high in antioxidants (found in fruits and vegetables)
- high in “healthy”, unsaturated fatty acids (found in fatty fish, some nuts and olive oil, for example)
high in fibre (found in carrots, cauliflower, broccoli and leafy greens) and prebiotics (found in onions, leeks, asparagus, garlic and legumes)
low in processed foods.
If reducing inflammation is your goal, it’s probably more meaningful to focus on these basics than on occasional use of seed oils.
Choose foods high in fibre (like many vegetables) and prebiotics (like legumes).
Kiian Oksana/ShutterstockWhat about seed oils and heart disease, cancer or diabetes risk?
Some popular arguments against seed oils come from data from single studies on this topic. Often these are observational studies where researchers do not make changes to people’s diet or lifestyle.
To get a clearer picture, we should look at meta-analyses, where scientists combine all the data available on a topic. This helps us get a better overall view of what’s going on.
A 2022 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the relationship between supplementation with omega-6 fatty acid (often found in seed oils) and cardiovascular disease risk (meaning disease relating to the heart and blood vessels).
The researchers found omega-6 intake did not affect the risk for cardiovascular disease or death but that further research is needed for firm conclusions. Similar findings were observed in a 2019 review on this topic.
The World Health Organization published a review and meta-analysis in 2022 of observational studies (considered lower quality evidence compared to randomised controlled trials) on this topic.
They looked at omega-6 intake and risk of death, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, mental health conditions and type 2 diabetes. The findings show both advantages and disadvantages of consuming omega-6.
The findings reported that, overall, higher intakes of omega-6 were associated with a 9% reduced risk of dying (data from nine studies) but a 31% increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (data from six studies).
One of the key findings from this review was about the ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids. A higher omega 6:3 ratio was associated with a greater risk of cognitive decline and ulcerative colitis (an inflammatory bowel condition).
A higher omega 3:6 ratio was linked to a 26% reduced risk of depression. These mixed outcomes may be a cause of confusion among health-conscious consumers about the health impact of seed oils.
Overall, the evidence suggests that a high intake of omega-6 fatty acids from seed oils is unlikely to increase your risk of death and disease.
However, more high-quality intervention research is needed.
The importance of increasing your omega-3 fatty acids
On top of the mixed outcomes, there is clear evidence increasing the intake of omega-3 fatty acids (often found in foods such as fatty fish and walnuts) is beneficial for health.
While some seed oils contain small amounts of omega-3s, they are not typically considered rich sources.
Flaxseed oil is an exception and is one of the few seed oils that is notably high in alpha-linolenic acid (sometimes shortened to ALA), an omega-3 fatty acid.
If you are looking to increase your omega-3 intake, it’s better to focus on other sources such as fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines), chia seeds, hemp seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements. These foods are known for their higher omega-3 content compared to seed oils.
The bottom line
At the end of the day, it’s probably OK to include small quantities of seed oils in your diet, as long as you are mostly focused on eating fresh, unprocessed foods.
The best way to reduce your risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer or diabetes is not to focus so much on seed oils but rather on doing your best to follow the Australian Guide for Healthy Eating.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Lecturer, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Mythbusting The Big O
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.
“Early To Bed…”
In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) views on orgasms.
But what does the science say?
Orgasms are essential to good health: True or False?
False, in the most literal sense. One certainly won’t die without them. Anorgasmia (the inability to orgasm) is a condition that affects many postmenopausal women, some younger women, and some men. And importantly, it isn’t fatal—just generally considered unfortunate:
Anorgasmia Might Explain Why You’re Not Orgasming When You Want To
That article focuses on women; here’s a paper focusing on men:
Orgasms are good for the health, but marginally: True or False?
True! They have a wide array of benefits, depending on various factors (including, of course, one’s own sex). That said, the benefits are so marginal that we don’t have a flock of studies to cite, and are reduced to pop-science sources that verbally cite studies that are, alas, nowhere to be found, for example:
- For women: 9 Orgasm Benefits That Might Surprise You
- For men: 9 Ways Orgasms May Benefit Your Health
Doubtlessly the studies do exist, but are sparse enough that finding them is a nightmare as the keywords for them will bring up a lot of studies about orgasms and health that aren’t answering the above question (usually: health’s affect on orgasms, rather than the other way around).
There is some good science for post-menopausal women, though! Here it is:
Misconceptions About Sexual Health in Older Women
(if you have the time to read this, this also covers many very avoidable things that can disrupt sexual function, in ways that people will errantly chalk up to old age, not knowing that they are missing out needlessly)
Orgasms are good or bad, depending on being male or female: True or False
False, broadly. The health benefits are extant and marginal for almost everyone, as indicated above.
What’s that “almost” about, then?
There are a very few* people (usually men) for whom it doesn’t go well. In such cases, they have a chronic and lifelong problem whereby orgasm is followed by 2–7 days of flu-like and allergic symptoms. Little is known about it, but it appears to be some sort of autoimmune disorder.
Read more: Post-orgasmic illness syndrome: history and current perspectives
*It’s hard to say for sure how few though, as it is surely under-reported and thus under-diagnosed; likely even misdiagnosed if the patient doesn’t realize that orgasms are the trigger for such episodes, and the doctor doesn’t think to ask. Instead, they will be busy trying to eliminate foods from the diet, things like that, while missing this cause.
Orgasms are better avoided for optimal health: True or False?
Aside from the above, False. There is a common myth for men of health benefits of “semen retention”, but it is not based in science, just tradition. You can read a little about it here:
The short version is: do it if you want; don’t if you don’t; the body will compensate either way so it won’t make a meaningful difference to anything for most people, healthwise.
Small counterpoint: while withholding orgasm (and ejaculation) is not harmful to health, what does physiologically need draining sometimes is prostate fluid. But that can also be achieved mechanically through prostate milking, or left to fend for itself (as it will in nocturnal emissions, popularly called wet dreams). However, if you have problems with an enlarged prostate, it may not be a bad idea to take matters into your own hands, so to speak. As ever, do check with your doctor if you have (or think you may have) a condition that might affect this.
One final word…
We’re done with mythbusting for today, but we wanted to share this study that we came across (so to speak) while researching, as it’s very interesting:
On which note: if you haven’t already, consider getting a “magic wand” style vibe; you can thank us later (this writer’s opinion: everyone should have one!).
Top tip: do get the kind that plugs into the wall, not rechargeable. The plug-into-the-wall kind are more powerful, and last much longer (both “in the moment”, and in terms of how long the device itself lasts).
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:
-
Why is cancer called cancer? We need to go back to Greco-Roman times for the answer
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 earliest descriptions of someone with cancer comes from the fourth century BC. Satyrus, tyrant of the city of Heracleia on the Black Sea, developed a cancer between his groin and scrotum. As the cancer spread, Satyrus had ever greater pains. He was unable to sleep and had convulsions.
Advanced cancers in that part of the body were regarded as inoperable, and there were no drugs strong enough to alleviate the agony. So doctors could do nothing. Eventually, the cancer took Satyrus’ life at the age of 65.
Cancer was already well known in this period. A text written in the late fifth or early fourth century BC, called Diseases of Women, described how breast cancer develops:
hard growths form […] out of them hidden cancers develop […] pains shoot up from the patients’ breasts to their throats, and around their shoulder blades […] such patients become thin through their whole body […] breathing decreases, the sense of smell is lost […]
Other medical works of this period describe different sorts of cancers. A woman from the Greek city of Abdera died from a cancer of the chest; a man with throat cancer survived after his doctor burned away the tumour.
Where does the word ‘cancer’ come from?
Why does the word ‘cancer’ have its roots in the ancient Greek and Latin words for crab? The physician Galen offers one explanation. Pierre Roche Vigneron/Wikimedia The word cancer comes from the same era. In the late fifth and early fourth century BC, doctors were using the word karkinos – the ancient Greek word for crab – to describe malignant tumours. Later, when Latin-speaking doctors described the same disease, they used the Latin word for crab: cancer. So, the name stuck.
Even in ancient times, people wondered why doctors named the disease after an animal. One explanation was the crab is an aggressive animal, just as cancer can be an aggressive disease; another explanation was the crab can grip one part of a person’s body with its claws and be difficult to remove, just as cancer can be difficult to remove once it has developed. Others thought it was because of the appearance of the tumour.
The physician Galen (129-216 AD) described breast cancer in his work A Method of Medicine to Glaucon, and compared the form of the tumour to the form of a crab:
We have often seen in the breasts a tumour exactly like a crab. Just as that animal has feet on either side of its body, so too in this disease the veins of the unnatural swelling are stretched out on either side, creating a form similar to a crab.
Not everyone agreed what caused cancer
The physician Erasistratus didn’t think black bile was to blame. Didier Descouens/Musée Ingres-Bourdelle/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA In the Greco-Roman period, there were different opinions about the cause of cancer.
According to a widespread ancient medical theory, the body has four humours: blood, yellow bile, phlegm and black bile. These four humours need to be kept in a state of balance, otherwise a person becomes sick. If a person suffered from an excess of black bile, it was thought this would eventually lead to cancer.
The physician Erasistratus, who lived from around 315 to 240 BC, disagreed. However, so far as we know, he did not offer an alternative explanation.
How was cancer treated?
Cancer was treated in a range of different ways. It was thought that cancers in their early stages could be cured using medications.
These included drugs derived from plants (such as cucumber, narcissus bulb, castor bean, bitter vetch, cabbage); animals (such as the ash of a crab); and metals (such as arsenic).
Galen claimed that by using this sort of medication, and repeatedly purging his patients with emetics or enemas, he was sometimes successful at making emerging cancers disappear. He said the same treatment sometimes prevented more advanced cancers from continuing to grow. However, he also said surgery is necessary if these medications do not work.
Surgery was usually avoided as patients tended to die from blood loss. The most successful operations were on cancers of the tip of the breast. Leonidas, a physician who lived in the second and third century AD, described his method, which involved cauterising (burning):
I usually operate in cases where the tumours do not extend into the chest […] When the patient has been placed on her back, I incise the healthy area of the breast above the tumour and then cauterize the incision until scabs form and the bleeding is stanched. Then I incise again, marking out the area as I cut deeply into the breast, and again I cauterize. I do this [incising and cauterizing] quite often […] This way the bleeding is not dangerous. After the excision is complete I again cauterize the entire area until it is dessicated.
Cancer was generally regarded as an incurable disease, and so it was feared. Some people with cancer, such as the poet Silius Italicus (26-102 AD), died by suicide to end the torment.
Patients would also pray to the gods for hope of a cure. An example of this is Innocentia, an aristocratic lady who lived in Carthage (in modern-day Tunisia) in the fifth century AD. She told her doctor divine intervention had cured her breast cancer, though her doctor did not believe her.
Innocentia from Carthage, in modern-day Tunisia, believed divine intervention cured her breast cancer. Valery Bareta/Shutterstock From the past into the future
We began with Satyrus, a tyrant in the fourth century BC. In the 2,400 years or so since then, much has changed in our knowledge of what causes cancer, how to prevent it and how to treat it. We also know there are more than 200 different types of cancer. Some people’s cancers are so successfully managed, they go on to live long lives.
But there is still no general “cure for cancer”, a disease that about one in five people develop in their lifetime. In 2022 alone, there were about 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer deaths globally. We clearly have a long way to go.
Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne
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:
-
Metformin For Weight-Loss & More
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.
Metformin Without Diabetes?
Metformin is a diabetes drug; it works by:
- decreasing glucose absorption from the gut
- decreasing glucose production in the liver
- increasing glucose sensitivity
It doesn’t change how much insulin is secreted, and is unlikely to cause hypoglycemia, making it relatively safe as diabetes drugs go.
It’s a biguanide drug, and/but so far as science knows (so far), its mechanism of action is unique (i.e. no other drug works the same way that metformin does).
Today we’ll examine its off-label uses and see what the science says!
A note on terms: “off-label” = when a drug is prescribed to treat something other than the main purpose(s) for which the drug was approved.
Other examples include modafinil against depression, and beta-blockers against anxiety.
Why take it if not diabetic?
There are many reasons people take it, including just general health and life extension:
However, its use was originally expanded (still “off-label”, but widely prescribed) past “just for diabetes” when it showed efficacy in treating pre-diabetes. Here for example is a longitudinal study that found metformin use performed similarly to lifestyle interventions (e.g. diet, exercise, etc). In their words:
❝ Lifestyle intervention or metformin significantly reduced diabetes development over 15 years. There were no overall differences in the aggregate microvascular outcome between treatment groups❞
But, it seems it does more, as this more recent review found:
❝Long-term weight loss was also seen in both [metformin and intensive lifestyle intervention] groups, with better maintenance under metformin.
Subgroup analyses from the DPP/DPPOS have shed important light on the actions of metformin, including a greater effect in women with prior gestational diabetes, and a reduction in coronary artery calcium in men that might suggest a cardioprotective effect.
Long-term diabetes prevention with metformin is feasible and is supported in influential guidelines for selected groups of subjects.❞
Source: Metformin for diabetes prevention: update of the evidence base
We were wondering about that cardioprotective effect, so…
Cardioprotective effect
In short, another review (published a few months after the above one) confirmed the previous findings, and also added:
❝Patients with BMI > 35 showed an association between metformin use and lower incidence of CVD, including African Americans older than age 65. The data suggest that morbidly obese patients with prediabetes may benefit from the use of metformin as recommended by the ADA.❞
We wondered about the weight loss implications of this, and…
For weight loss
The short version is, it works:
- Effectiveness of metformin on weight loss in non-diabetic individuals with obesity
- Metformin for weight reduction in non-diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Metformin induces weight loss associated with gut microbiota alteration in non-diabetic obese women
…and many many more where those came from. As a point of interest, it has also been compared and contrasted to GLP-1 agonists.
Compared/contrasted with GLP-1 agonists
It’s not quite as effective for weight loss, and/but it’s a lot cheaper, is tablets rather than injections, has fewer side effects (for most people), and doesn’t result in dramatic yoyo-ing if there’s an interruption to taking it:
Or if you prefer a reader-friendly pop-science version:
Ozempic vs Metformin: Comparing The Two Diabetes Medications
Is it safe?
For most people yes, but there are a stack of contraindications, so it’s best to speak with your doctor. However, particular things to be aware of include:
- Usually contraindicated if you have kidney problems of any kind
- Usually contraindicated if you have liver problems of any kind
- May be contraindicated if you have issues with B12 levels
See also: Metformin: Is it a drug for all reasons and diseases?
Where can I get it?
As it’s a prescription-controlled drug, we can’t give you a handy Amazon link for this one.
However, many physicians are willing to prescribe it for off-label use (i.e., for reasons other than diabetes), so speak with yours (telehealth options may also be available).
If you do plan to speak with your doctor and you’re not sure they’ll be agreeable, you might want to get this paper and print it to take it with you:
Off-label indications of Metformin – Review of Literature
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:
