Hazelnuts vs Chestnuts – 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 hazelnuts to chestnuts, we picked the hazelnuts.

Why?

This one’s not close.

In terms of macros, we have some big difference to start with, since chestnuts contain a lot more water and carbs whereas hazelnuts contain a lot more protein, fats, and fiber. The fats, as with most nuts, are healthy; in this case mostly being monounsaturated fat.

Because of the carbs and fiber being so polarized (i.e., chestnuts have most of the carbs and hazelnuts have most of the fiber), there’s a big difference in glycemic index; hazelnuts have a GI of 15 while chestnuts have a GI of 52.

In the category of vitamins, hazelnuts contain more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B9, while chestnuts contain more vitamin C.

When it comes to minerals, the story is similar: hazelnuts contain a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc, while chestnuts contain a tiny bit more potassium.

All in all, enjoy either or both, but nutritionally speaking, hazelnuts are a lot better in almost every way.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Oranges vs Lemons – Which is Healthier?
  • California Is Investing $500M in Therapy Apps for Youth. Advocates Fear It Won’t Pay Off.
    California launches free mental health apps for youth, sparking debate over efficacy and the $498 million investment amidst a provider shortage and increasing depression rates.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Fall Asleep In 2 Minutes (Doctor Explains)

    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.

    Beyond “sleep hygiene”, Dr. Siobhan Deshauer has insights to share:

    Rest for your body and mind

    First, do still do the basics. That means dimming/filtering lights for an hour before bed, lowering the room temperature a little, ensuring you have nice fresh sheets, not having alcohol or caffeine before bed, and getting out of bed if you’re not asleep within half an hour, to avoid associating being in bed with wakefulness.

    Next, the extra tips:

    • Progressive relaxation: tense and relax each muscle group from toes to head
    • Box breathing: inhale, hold, exhale, and hold for 4 seconds each; helps calm the nervous system (it’s called “box breathing” because of the 4:4:4:4 setup)
    • Diaphragmatic breathing: focus on belly breathing, with longer exhalation to activate the parasympathetic nervous system (note that this can, and even ideally should, be done at the same time as the previous)
    • Cognitive shuffling: think of words starting with each letter of a chosen word while visualizing them (this is like “counting sheep”, but does the job better—the job in question being preventing your brain from moving to anything more strenuous or stressful)

    For more on all of these plus some extra side-along advice, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Non-Sleep Deep Rest: A Neurobiologist’s Take ← a way to get many of the benefits of sleep, while awake

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Should We Skip Shampoo?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small 😎

    ❝What’s the science on “no poo”? Is it really better for hair? There are so many mixed reports out there.❞

    First, for any unfamiliar: this is not about constipation; rather, it is about skipping shampoo, and either:

    • Using an alternative cleaning agent, such as vinegar and/or sodium bicarbonate
    • Using nothing at all, just conditioner when wet and brushing when dry

    Let’s examine why the trend became a thing: the thinking went “shampoo does not exist in nature, and most of our body is more or less self-cleaning; shampoos remove oils from hair, and the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair”.

    Now let’s fact-check each of those:

    • shampoo does not exist in nature: true (except in the sense that everything that exists can be argued to exist in nature, since nature encompasses everything—but the point is that shampoo is a purely artificial human invention)
    • most of our body is more or less self-cleaning: true, but our hair is not, for the same reason our nails are not: they’re not really a living part of the overall organism that is our body, so much as a keratinous protrusion of neatly stacked and hardened dead cells from our body. Dead things are not self-cleaning.
    • shampoos remove oils from hair: true; that is what they were invented for and they do it well
    • the body has to produce more sebum to compensate, resulting in a rapid cycle of dry and greasy hair: false; or at least, there is no evidence for this.

    Our hair’s natural oils are great at protecting it, and also great at getting dirt stuck in it. For the former reason we want the oil there; for the latter reason, we don’t.

    So the trick becomes: how to remove the oil (and thus the dirt stuck in it) and then put clean oil back (but not too much, because we don’t want it greasy, just, shiny and not dry)?

    The popular answer is: shampoo to clean the hair, conditioner to put an appropriate amount of oil* back.

    *these days, mostly not actually oil, but rather silicon-based substitutes, that do the same job of protecting hair and keeping it shiny and not brittle, without attracting so much dirt. Remember also that silicon is inert and very body safe; its molecules are simply too large to be absorbed, which is why it gets used in hair products, some skin products, and lube.

    See also: Water-based Lubricant vs Silicon-based Lubricant – Which is Healthier?

    If you go “no poo”, then what will happen is either you dry your hair out much worse by using vinegar or (even worse) bicarbonate of soda, or you just have oil (and any dirt stuck in it) in your hair for the life of the hair. As in, each individual strand of hair has a lifespan, and when it falls out, the dirt will go with it. But until that day, it’s staying with you, oil and dirt and all.

    If you use a conditioner after using those “more natural” harsh cleaners* that aren’t shampoo, then you’ll undo a lot of the damage done, and you’ll probably be fine.

    *in fact, if you’re going to skip shampoo, then instead of vinegar or bicarbonate of soda, dish soap from your kitchen may actually do less damage, because at least it’s pH-balanced. However, please don’t use that either.

    If you’re going to err one way or the other with regard to pH though, erring on the side of slightly acidic is much better than slightly alkaline.

    More on pH: Journal of Trichology | The Shampoo pH can Affect the Hair: Myth or Reality?

    If you use nothing, then brushing a lot will mitigate some of the accumulation of dirt, but honestly, it’s never going to be clean until you clean it.

    Our recommendation

    When your hair seems dirty, and not before, wash it with a simple shampoo (most have far too many unnecessary ingredients; it just needs a simple detergent, and the rest is basically for marketing; to make it foam completely unnecessarily but people like foam, to make it thicker so it feels more substantial, to make it smell nice, to make it a color that gives us confidence it has ingredients in it, etc).

    Then, after rinsing, enjoy a nice conditioner. Again there are usually a lot of unnecessary ingredients, but an argument can be made this time for some being more relevant as unlike with the shampoo, many ingredients are going to remain on your hair after rinsing.

    Between washes, if you have long hair, consider putting some hair-friendly oil (such as argan oil or coconut oil) on the tips daily, to avoid split ends.

    And if you have tight curly hair, then this advice goes double for you, because it takes a lot longer for natural oils to get from your scalp to the ends of your hair. For those of us with straight hair, it pretty much zips straight on down there within a day or two; not so if you have beautiful 4C curls to take care of!

    For more on taking care of hair gently, check out:

    Gentler Hair Care Options, According To Science

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • The Brain As A Work-In-Progress

    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.

    And The Brain Goes Marching On!

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you “when does the human brain stop developing?” and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 64% of people said “Never”
    • About 16% of people said “25 years”
    • About 9% of people said “65 years”
    • About 5% of people said “13 years”
    • About 3% of people said “18 years”
    • About 3% of people said “45 years”

    Some thoughts, before we get into the science:

    An alternative wording for the original question was “when does the human brain finish developing”; the meaning is the same but the feeling is slightly different:

    • “When does the human brain stop developing?” focuses attention on the idea of cessation, and will skew responses to later ages
    • When does the human brain finish developing?” focuses on attention on a kind of “is it done yet?” and will skew responses to earlier ages

    Ultimately, since we had to chose one word or another, we picked the shortest one, but it would have been interesting if we could have done an A/B test, and asked half one way, and half the other way!

    Why we picked those ages

    We picked those ages as poll options for reasons people might be drawn to them:

    • 13 years: in English-speaking cultures, an important milestone of entering adolescence (note that the concept of a “teenager” is not precisely universal as most languages do not have “-teen” numbers in the same way; the concept of “adolescent” may thus be tied to other milestones)
    • 18 years: age of legal majority in N. America and many other places
    • 25 years: age popularly believed to be when the brain is finished developing, due to a study that we’ll talk about shortly (we guess that’s why there’s a spike in our results for this, too!)
    • 45 years: age where many midlife hormonal changes occur, and many professionals are considered to have peaked in competence and start looking towards retirement
    • 65 years: age considered “senior” in much of N. America and many other places, as well as the cut-off and/or starting point for a lot of medical research

    Notice, therefore, how a lot of things are coming from places they really shouldn’t. For example, because there are many studies saying “n% of people over 65 get Alzheimer’s” or “n% of people over 65 get age-related cognitive decline”, etc, 65 becomes the age where we start expecting this—because of an arbitrary human choice of where to draw the cut-off for the study enrollment!

    Similarly, we may look at common ages of legal majority, or retirement pensions, and assume “well it must be for a good reason”, and dear reader, those reasons are more often economically motivated than they are biologically reasoned.

    So, what does the science say?

    Our brains are never finished developing: True or False?

    True! If we define “finished developing” as “we cease doing neurogenesis and neuroplasticity is no longer in effect”.

    Glossary:

    • Neurogenesis: the process of creating new brain cells
    • Neuroplasticity: the process of the brain adapting to changes by essentially rebuilding itself to suit our perceived current needs

    We say “perceived” because sometimes neuroplasticity can do very unhelpful things to us (e.g: psychological trauma, or even just bad habits), but on a biological level, it is always doing its best to serve our overall success as an organism.

    For a long time it was thought that we don’t do neurogenesis at all as adults, but this was found to be untrue:

    How To Grow New Brain Cells (At Any Age)

    Summary of conclusions of the above: we’re all growing new brain cells at every age, even if we be in our 80s and with Alzheimer’s disease, but there are things we can do to enhance our neurogenic potential along the way.

    Neuroplasticity will always be somewhat enhanced by neurogenesis (after all, new neurons get given jobs to do), and we reviewed a great book about the marvels of neuroplasticity including in older age:

    The Brain’s Way of Healing: Remarkable Discoveries and Recoveries from the Frontiers of Neuroplasticity – by Dr. Norman Doidge

    Our brains are still developing up to the age of 25: True or False?

    True! And then it keeps on developing after that, too. Now this is abundantly obvious considering what we just talked about, but see what a difference the phrasing makes? Now it makes it sound like it stops at 25, which this statement doesn’t claim at all—it only speaks for the time up to that age.

    A lot of the popular press about “the brain isn’t fully mature until the age of 25” stems from a 2006 study that found:

    ❝For instance, frontal gray matter volume peaks at about age 11.0 years in girls and 12.1 years in boys, whereas temporal gray matter volume peaks at about age at 16.7 years in girls and 16.2 years in boys. The dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, important for controlling impulses, is among the latest brain regions to mature without reaching adult dimensions until the early 20s.❞

    ~ Dr. Jay Giedd

    Source: Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Adolescent Brain

    There are several things to note here:

    • The above statement is talking about the physical size of the brain growing
    • Nowhere does he say “and stops developing at 25”

    However… The study only looked at brains up to the age of 25. After that, they stopped looking, because the study was about “the adolescent brain” so there has to be a cut-off somewhere, and that was the cut-off they chose.

    This is the equivalent of saying “it didn’t stop raining until four o’clock” when the reality is that four o’clock is simply when you gave up on checking.

    The study didn’t misrepresent this, by the way, but the popular press did!

    Another 2012 study looked at various metrics of brain development, and found:

    • Synapse overproduction into the teens
    • Cortex pruning into the late 20s
    • Prefrontal pruning into middle age at least (they stopped looking)
    • Myelination beyond middle age (they stopped looking)

    Source: Experience and the developing prefrontal cortexcheck out figure 1, and make sure you’re looking at the human data not the rat data

    So how’s the most recent research looking?

    Here’s a 2022 study that looked at 123,984 brain scans spanning the age range from mid-gestation to 100 postnatal years, and as you can see from its own figure 1… Most (if not all) brain-things keep growing for life, even though most slow down at some point, they don’t stop:

    Brain charts for the human lifespancheck out figure 1; don’t get too excited about the ventricular volume column as that is basically “brain that isn’t being a brain”. Do get excited about the rest, though!

    Want to know how not to get caught out by science being misrepresented by the popular press? Check out:

    How Science News Outlets Can Lie To You (Yes, Even If They Cite Studies!)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Oranges vs Lemons – Which is Healthier?
  • Why You Don’t Need 8 Glasses Of Water Per Day

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The idea that you need to drink eight glasses of water daily is a myth. For most people most of the time, this practice will not make your skin brighter, improve mental clarity, or boost energy levels. All that will happen as a result of drinking beyond your thirst, is that you’ll pee more.

    A self-regulating system

    Our kidneys regulate hydration by monitoring blood volume and salt levels. When blood becomes slightly saltier or its volume drops, such as through sweating, the kidneys absorb more water into the bloodstream. If needed, the body triggers thirst signals to encourage fluid intake.

    In most cases, you can rely on your body’s natural thirst cues to manage hydration. Thirst is a reliable indicator of when you need to drink water, making constant monitoring of water intake unnecessary for most people.

    There are some exceptions, though! Some people, such as those with kidney stones, especially older adults, or those with specific medical considerations and resultant advice from your doctor, may need to pay closer attention to their water intake.

    Nor does hydration have to be a matter of “drinking water”: many foods and drinks, such as fruit, coffee, soups, etc, contribute to your daily water intake and (because the body processes it more slowly) are often more hydrating than plain water (which can just pass straight through if you take more than a certain amount at once). If you listen to your body’s thirst signals, there’s no need to rigidly count eight glasses of water each day.

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Hydration Mythbusting ← this also covers why urine color is not as good a guide as your thirst

    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:

  • What’s the difference between physical and chemical sunscreens? And which one should you choose?

    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.

    Sun exposure can accelerate ageing, cause skin burns, erythema (a skin reaction), skin cancer, melasmas (or sun spots) and other forms of hyperpigmentation – all triggered by solar ultraviolet radiation.

    Approximately 80% of skin cancer cases in people engaged in outdoor activities are preventable by decreasing sun exposure. This can be done in lots of ways including wearing protective clothing or sunscreens.

    But not all sunscreens work in the same way. You might have heard of “physical” and “chemical” sunscreens. What’s the difference and which one is right for you?

    How sunscreens are classified

    Sunscreens are grouped by their use of active inorganic and organic ultraviolet (UV) filters. Chemical sunscreens use organic filters such as cinnamates (chemically related to cinnamon oil) and benzophenones. Physical sunscreens (sometimes called mineral sunscreens) use inorganic filters such as titanium and zinc oxide.

    These filters prevent the effects of UV radiation on the skin.

    Organic UV filters are known as chemical filters because the molecules in them change to stop UV radiation reaching the skin. Inorganic UV filters are known as physical filters, because they work through physical means, such as blocking, scattering and reflection of UV radiation to prevent skin damage.

    Nano versus micro

    The effectiveness of the filters in physical sunscreen depends on factors including the size of the particle, how it’s mixed into the cream or lotion, the amount used and the refraction index (the speed light travels through a substance) of each filter.

    When the particle size in physical sunscreens is large, it causes the light to be scattered and reflected more. That means physical sunscreens can be more obvious on the skin, which can reduce their cosmetic appeal.

    Nanoparticulate forms of physical sunscreens (with tiny particles smaller than 100 nanometers) can improve the cosmetic appearance of creams on the skin and UV protection, because the particles in this size range absorb more radiation than they reflect. These are sometimes labelled as “invisible” zinc or mineral formulations and are considered safe.

    So how do chemical sunscreens work?

    Chemical UV filters work by absorbing high-energy UV rays. This leads to the filter molecules interacting with sunlight and changing chemically.

    When molecules return to their ground (or lower energy) state, they release energy as heat, distributed all over the skin. This may lead to uncomfortable reactions for people with skin sensitivity.

    Generally, UV filters are meant to stay on the epidermis (the first skin layer) surface to protect it from UV radiation. When they enter into the dermis (the connective tissue layer) and bloodstream, this can lead to skin sensitivity and increase the risk of toxicity. The safety profile of chemical UV filters may depend on whether their small molecular size allows them to penetrate the skin.

    Chemical sunscreens, compared to physical ones, cause more adverse reactions in the skin because of chemical changes in their molecules. In addition, some chemical filters, such as dibenzoylmethane tend to break down after UV exposure. These degraded products can no longer protect the skin against UV and, if they penetrate the skin, can cause cell damage.

    Due to their stability – that is, how well they retain product integrity and effectiveness when exposed to sunlight – physical sunscreens may be more suitable for children and people with skin allergies.

    Although sunscreen filter ingredients can rarely cause true allergic dermatitis, patients with photodermatoses (where the skin reacts to light) and eczema have higher risk and should take care and seek advice.

    What to look for

    The best way to check if you’ll have a reaction to a physical or chemical sunscreen is to patch test it on a small area of skin.

    And the best sunscreen to choose is one that provides broad-spectrum protection, is water and sweat-resistant, has a high sun protection factor (SPF), is easy to apply and has a low allergy risk.

    Health authorities recommend sunscreen to prevent sun damage and cancer. Chemical sunscreens have the potential to penetrate the skin and may cause irritation for some people. Physical sunscreens are considered safe and effective and nanoparticulate formulations can increase their appeal and ease of use.The Conversation

    Yousuf Mohammed, Dermatology researcher, The University of Queensland and Khanh Phan, Postdoctoral research associate, Frazer Institute, The University of Queensland

    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:

  • Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be Enough?

    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.

    Polyphasic Sleep… Super-Schedule Or An Idea Best Put To Rest?

    What is it?

    Let’s start by defining some terms:

    • Monophasic sleep—sleeping in one “chunk” per day. For example, a good night’s “normal” sleep.
    • Biphasic sleep—sleeping in two “chunks” per day. Typically, a shorter night’s sleep, with a nap usually around the middle of the day / early afternoon.
    • Polyphasic sleep—sleeping in two or more “chunks per day”. Some people do this in order to have more hours awake per day, to do things. The idea is that sleeping this way is more efficient, and one can get enough rest in less time. The most popular schedules used are:
      • The Überman schedule—six evenly-spaced 20-minute naps, one every four hours, throughout the 24-hour day. The name is a semi-anglicized version of the German word Übermensch, “Superman”.
      • The Everyman schedule—a less extreme schedule, that has a three-hours “long sleep” during the night, and three evenly-spaced 20-minute naps during the day, for a total of 4 hours sleep.

    There are other schedules, but we’ll focus on the most popular ones here.

    Want to learn about the others? Visit: Polyphasic.Net (a website by and for polyphasic sleep enthusiasts)

    Some people have pointed to evidence that suggests humans are naturally polyphasic sleepers, and that it is only modern lifestyles that have forced us to be (mostly) monophasic.

    There is at least some evidence to suggest that when environmental light/dark conditions are changed (because of extreme seasonal variation at the poles, or, as in this case, because of artificial changes as part of a sleep science experiment), we adjust our sleeping patterns accordingly.

    The counterpoint, of course, is that perhaps when at the mercy of long days/nights at the poles, or no air-conditioning to deal with the heat of the day in the tropics, that perhaps we were forced to be polyphasic, and now, with modern technology and greater control, we are free to be monophasic.

    Either way, there are plenty of people who take up the practice of polyphasic sleep.

    Ok, But… Why?

    The main motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is simply to have more hours in the day! It’s exciting, the prospect of having 22 hours per day to be so productive and still have time over for leisure.

    A secondary motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is that when the brain is sleep-deprived, it will prioritize REM sleep. Here’s where the Überman schedule becomes perhaps most interesting:

    The six evenly-spaced naps of the Überman schedule are each 20 minutes long. This corresponds to the approximate length of a normal REM cycle.

    Consequently, when your head hits the pillow, you’ll immediately begin dreaming, and at the end of your dream, the alarm will go off.

    Waking up at the end of a dream, when one hasn’t yet entered a non-REM phase of sleep, will make you more likely to remember it. Similarly, going straight into REM sleep will make you more likely to be aware of it, thus, lucid dreaming.

    Read: Sleep fragmentation and lucid dreaming (actually a very interesting and informative lucid dreaming study even if you don’t want to take up polyphasic sleep)

    Six 20-minute lucid-dreaming sessions per day?! While awake for the other 22 hours?! That’s… 24 hours per day of wakefulness to use as you please! What sorcery is this?

    Hence, it has quite an understandable appeal.

    Next Question: Does it work?

    Can we get by without the other (non-REM) kinds of sleep?

    According to Überman cycle enthusiasts: Yes! The body and brain will adapt.

    According to sleep scientists: No! The non-REM slow-wave phases of sleep are essential

    Read: Adverse impact of polyphasic sleep patterns in humans—Report of the National Sleep Foundation sleep timing and variability consensus panel

    (if you want to know just how bad it is… the top-listed “similar article” is entitled “Suicidal Ideation”)

    But what about, for example, the Everman schedule? Three hours at night is enough for some non-REM sleep, right?

    It is, and so it’s not as quickly deleterious to the health as the Überman schedule. But, unless you are blessed with rare genes that allow you to operate comfortably on 4 hours per day (you’ll know already if that describes you, without having to run any experiment), it’s still bad.

    Adults typically need 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and if you don’t get it, you’ll accumulate a sleep debt. And, importantly:

    When you accumulate sleep debt, you are borrowing time at a very high rate of interest!

    And, at risk of laboring the metaphor, but this is important too:

    Not only will you have to pay it back soon (with interest), you will be hounded by the debt collection agents—decreased cognitive ability and decreased physical ability—until you pay up.

    In summary:

    • Polyphasic sleep is really very tempting
    • It will give you more hours per day (for a while)
    • It will give the promised lucid dreaming benefits (which is great until you start micronapping between naps, this is effectively a mini psychotic break from reality lasting split seconds each—can be deadly if behind the wheel of a car, for instance!)
    • It is unequivocally bad for the health and we do not recommend it

    Bottom line:

    Some of the claimed benefits are real, but are incredibly short-term, unsustainable, and come at a cost that’s far too high. We get why it’s tempting, but ultimately, it’s self-sabotage.

    (Sadly! We really wanted it to work, too…)

    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: