Kidney Beans vs Fava Beans – 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 kidney beans to fava beans, we picked the kidney beans.

Why?

It’s a simple and straightforward one today!

The macronutrient profiles are mostly comparable, but kidney beans do have a little more protein and a little more fiber.

In the category of vitamins, kidney beans have more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B9, C, E, & K, while fava beans boast only more of vitamins B2 and B3. They are both equally good sources of choline, but the general weight of vitamins is very much in kidney beans’ favor, with a 7:2 lead, most of which have generous margins.

When it comes to minerals, kidney beans have more iron, phosphorus, and potassium, while fava beans have more copper and selenium. They’re both equally good sources of other minerals they both contain. Still, a 3:2 victory for kidney beans on the mineral front.

Adding up the moderate victory on macros, the strong victory on vitamins, and the slight victory on minerals, all in all makes for a clear win for kidney beans.

Still, enjoy both! Diversity is healthy.

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

Chickpeas vs Black Beans – Which is Healthier?

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Xylitol vs Erythritol – Which is Healthier?
  • Imposter Syndrome (and why almost everyone has it)
    Imposter Syndrome: Feeling inadequate and fearing exposure is common in various aspects of life, not just work. Remember, everyone makes mistakes and seeks help. We’re all doing our best.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • When Doctors Make House Calls, Modern-Style!

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

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you foryour opinion of telehealth for primary care consultations*, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 46% said “It is no substitute for an in-person meeting with a doctor; let’s keep the human touch”
    • About 29% said “It means less waiting and more accessibility, while avoiding transmission of diseases”
    • And 25 % said “I find that the pros and cons of telehealth vs in-person balance out, so: no preference”

    *We specified that by “primary care” we mean the initial consultation with a non-specialist doctor, before receiving treatment or being referred to a specialist. By “telehealth” we mean by videocall or phonecall.

    So, what does the science say?

    A quick note first

    Because telehealth was barely a thing (statistically speaking) before the first stages of the COVID pandemic, compared to how it is now, most of the science for this is young, and a lot of the science simply hasn’t been done yet, and/or has not been published yet, because the process can take years.

    Because of this, some studies we do have aren’t specifically about primary care, and are sometimes about specialists. We think this should not affect the results much, but it bears highlighting.

    Nevertheless, we’ll do what we can with the science we have!

    Telehealth is more accessible than in-person consultations: True or False?

    True, for most people. For example…

    ❝Data was found from a variety of emergency and non-emergency departments of primary, secondary, and specialised healthcare.

    Satisfaction was high among recipients of healthcare, scoring 9-10 on a scale of 0-10 or ranging from 73.3% to 100%.

    Convenience was rated high in every specialty examined. Satisfaction of clinicians was high throughout the specialities despite connection failure and concerns about confidentiality of information.❞

    Dr. Wiam Alashek et al.

    whereas…

    ❝Nonetheless, studies reported perception of increased barriers to accessing care and inequalities for vulnerable patients especially in older people❞

    Ibid.

    Source: Satisfaction with telemedicine use during COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a systematic review

    Now, perception of those things does necessarily equate to an actual increased barrier, but it is reasonable that someone who thinks something is inaccessible will be less inclined to try to access it.

    The quality of care provided via telehealth is as good as in-person: True or False?

    True, ostensibly, with caveats. The caveats are:

    • We’re going offreported patient satisfactionnot objective patient health outcomes (we found little* science as yet for the relative incidence of misdiagnosis, for example—which kind of thing will take time to be revealed).
    • We’re also therefore speaking (as statistics do) for the significant majority of people. However, if we happen to be (statistically speaking) an insignificant minority, well, that just sucks for us personally.

    *we did find some, but it wasn’t very helpful yet. For example:

    An electronic trigger to detect telemedicine-related diagnostic errors

    this one does look at the incidence of diagnostic errors, but provides no control group (i.e. otherwise-comparable in-person consultations) for comparison.

    While most oft-considered demographic groups reported comparable patient satisfaction (per racegender, and socioeconomic status, for example), there was one outlier variable, which was age (as we quoted from that first study above).

    However!

    Looking under the hood of these stats, it seems that age is not the real culprit, so much as technological illiteracy, which is heavily correlated with age:

    ❝Lower eHealth literacy is associated with more negative attitudes towards I/C technology in healthcare. This trend is consistent across diverse demographics and regions. ❞

    Dr. Raghad Elgamal

    Source: Meta-analysis: eHealth literacy and attitudes towards internet/computer technology

    There are things that can be done at an in-person consultation that can’t be done by telehealth: True or False?

    True, of course. It is incredibly rare that we will cite “common sense”, (as sometimes “common sense” is actually “common mistakes” and is simply and verifiably wrong), but in this case, as one 10almonds subscriber put it:

    ❝The doctor uses his five senses to assess. This cannot be attained over the phone❞

    ~ 10almonds subscriber

    A quick note first: if your doctor is using their sense of taste to diagnose you, please get a different doctor, because they should definitely not be doing that!

    Not in this century, anyway… Once upon a time, diabetes was diagnosed by urine-tasting (and yes, that was a fairly reliable method).

    However, nowadays indeed a doctor will use sightsoundtouch, and sometimes even smell.

    In a videocall we’re down to two of those senses (sight and sound), and in a phonecall, down to one (sound) and even that is hampered. Your doctor cannot, for example, use a stethoscope over the phone.

    With this in mind, it really comes down to what you need from your doctor in that consultation.

    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is to be prescribed an antidepressant, that probably doesn’t need a full physical.
    • If you’re 99% sure that what you need is a referral, chances are that’ll be fine by telehealth too.
    • If your doctor is 99% sure that what you need is a verbal check-up (e.g. “How’s it been going for you, with the medication that I prescribed for you a month ago?”, then again, a call is probably fine.

    If you have a worrying lump, or an unhappy bodily discharge, or an unexplained mysterious pain? These things, more likely an in-person check-up is in order.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Could the shingles vaccine lower your risk of dementia?

    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.

    A recent study has suggested Shingrix, a relatively new vaccine given to protect older adults against shingles, may delay the onset of dementia.

    This might seem like a bizarre link, but actually, research has previously shown an older version of the shingles vaccine, Zostavax, reduced the risk of dementia.

    In this new study, published last week in the journal Nature Medicine, researchers from the United Kingdom found Shingrix delayed dementia onset by 17% compared with Zostavax.

    So how did the researchers work this out, and how could a shingles vaccine affect dementia risk?

    Melinda Nagy/Shutterstock

    From Zostavax to Shingrix

    Shingles is a viral infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus. It causes painful rashes, and affects older people in particular.

    Previously, Zostavax was used to vaccinate against shingles. It was administered as a single shot and provided good protection for about five years.

    Shingrix has been developed based on a newer vaccine technology, and is thought to offer stronger and longer-lasting protection. Given in two doses, it’s now the preferred option for shingles vaccination in Australia and elsewhere.

    In November 2023, Shingrix replaced Zostavax on the National Immunisation Program, making it available for free to those at highest risk of complications from shingles. This includes all adults aged 65 and over, First Nations people aged 50 and older, and younger adults with certain medical conditions that affect their immune systems.

    What the study found

    Shingrix was approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration in October 2017. The researchers in the new study used the transition from Zostavax to Shingrix in the United States as an opportunity for research.

    They selected 103,837 people who received Zostavax (between October 2014 and September 2017) and compared them with 103,837 people who received Shingrix (between November 2017 and October 2020).

    By analysing data from electronic health records, they found people who received Shingrix had a 17% increase in “diagnosis-free time” during the follow-up period (up to six years after vaccination) compared with those who received Zostavax. This was equivalent to an average of 164 extra days without a dementia diagnosis.

    The researchers also compared the shingles vaccines to other vaccines: influenza, and a combined vaccine for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. Shingrix and Zostavax performed around 14–27% better in lowering the risk of a dementia diagnosis, with Shingrix associated with a greater improvement.

    The benefits of Shingrix in terms of dementia risk were significant for both sexes, but more pronounced for women. This is not entirely surprising, because we know women have a higher risk of developing dementia due to interplay of biological factors. These include being more sensitive to certain genetic mutations associated with dementia and hormonal differences.

    Why the link?

    The idea that vaccination against viral infection can lower the risk of dementia has been around for more than two decades. Associations have been observed between vaccines, such as those for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and influenza, and subsequent dementia risk.

    Research has shown Zostavax vaccination can reduce the risk of developing dementia by 20% compared with people who are unvaccinated.

    But it may not be that the vaccines themselves protect against dementia. Rather, it may be the resulting lack of viral infection creating this effect. Research indicates bacterial infections in the gut, as well as viral infections, are associated with a higher risk of dementia.

    Notably, untreated infections with herpes simplex (herpes) virus – closely related to the varicella-zoster virus that causes shingles – can significantly increase the risk of developing dementia. Research has also shown shingles increases the risk of a later dementia diagnosis.

    A woman receives a vaccination from a female nurse.
    This isn’t the first time research has suggested a vaccine could reduce dementia risk. ben bryant/Shutterstock

    The mechanism is not entirely clear. But there are two potential pathways which may help us understand why infections could increase the risk of dementia.

    First, certain molecules are produced when a baby is developing in the womb to help with the body’s development. These molecules have the potential to cause inflammation and accelerate ageing, so the production of these molecules is silenced around birth. However, viral infections such as shingles can reactivate the production of these molecules in adult life which could hypothetically lead to dementia.

    Second, in Alzheimer’s disease, a specific protein called Amyloid-β go rogue and kill brain cells. Certain proteins produced by viruses such as COVID and bad gut bacteria have the potential to support Amyloid-β in its toxic form. In laboratory conditions, these proteins have been shown to accelerate the onset of dementia.

    What does this all mean?

    With an ageing population, the burden of dementia is only likely to become greater in the years to come. There’s a lot more we have to learn about the causes of the disease and what we can potentially do to prevent and treat it.

    This new study has some limitations. For example, time without a diagnosis doesn’t necessarily mean time without disease. Some people may have underlying disease with delayed diagnosis.

    This research indicates Shingrix could have a silent benefit, but it’s too early to suggest we can use antiviral vaccines to prevent dementia.

    Overall, we need more research exploring in greater detail how infections are linked with dementia. This will help us understand the root causes of dementia and design potential therapies.

    Ibrahim Javed, Enterprise and NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, UniSA Clinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Reishi Mushrooms: Which Benefits Do They Really Have?

    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.

    Reishi Mushrooms

    Another Monday Research Review, another mushroom! If we keep this up, we’ll have to rename it “Mushroom Monday”.

    But, there’s so much room for things to say, and these are fun guys to write about, as we check the science for any spore’ious claims…

    Why do people take reishi?

    Popular health claims for the reishi mushroom include:

    • Immune health
    • Cardiovascular health
    • Protection against cancer
    • Antioxidant qualities
    • Reduced fatigue and anxiety

    And does the science agree?

    Let’s take a look, claim by claim:

    Immune health

    A lot of research for this has been in vitro (ie, with cell cultures in labs), but promising, for example:

    Immunomodulating Effect of Ganoderma lucidum (Lingzhi) and Possible Mechanism

    (that is the botanical name for reishi, and the Chinese name for it, by the way)

    That’s not to say there are no human studies though; here it was found to boost T-cell production in stressed athletes:

    Effect of Ganoderma lucidum capsules on T lymphocyte subsets in football players on “living high-training low”

    Cardiovascular health

    Here we found a stack of evidence for statistically insignificant improvements in assorted measures of cardiovascular health, and some studies where reishi did not outperform placebo.

    Because the studies were really not that compelling, instead of taking up room (and your time) with them, we’re going to move onto more compelling, exciting science, such as…

    Protection against cancer

    There’s a lot of high quality research for this, and a lot of good results. The body of evidence here is so large that even back as far as 2005, the question was no longer “does it work” or even “how does it work”, but rather “we need more clinical studies to find the best doses”. Researchers even added:

    ❝At present, lingzhi is a health food supplement to support cancer patients, yet the evidence supporting the potential of direct in vivo anticancer effects should not be underestimated.❞

    ~ Yuen et al.

    Check it out:

    Anticancer effects of Ganoderma lucidum: a review of scientific evidence

    Just so you know we’re not kidding about the weight of evidence, let’s drop a few extra sources:

    By the way, we shortened most of those titles for brevity, but almost all of the continued with “by” followed by a one-liner of how it does it.

    So it’s not a “mysterious action” thing, it’s a “this is a very potent medicine and we know how it works” thing.

    Antioxidant qualities

    Here we literally only found studies to say no change was found, one that found a slight increase of antioxidant levels in urine. It’s worth noting that levels of a given thing (or its metabolites, in the case of some things) in urine are often quite unhelpful regards knowing what’s going on in the body, because we get to measure only what the body lost, not what it gained/kept.

    So again, let’s press on:

    Reduced fatigue and anxiety

    Most of the studies for this that we could find pertained to health-related quality of life for cancer patients specifically, so (while they universally give glowing reports of reishi’s benefits to health and happiness of cancer patients), that’s a confounding factor when it comes to isolating its effects on reduction of fatigue and anxiety in people without cancer.

    Here’s one that looked at it in the case of reduction of fatigue, anxiety, and other factors, in patients without cancer (but with neurathenia), in which they found it was “significantly superior to placebo with respect to the clinical improvement of symptoms”.

    Summary:

    • Reishi mushroom’s anti-cancer properties are very, very clear
    • There is also good science to back immune health claims
    • It also has been found to significantly reduce fatigue and anxiety in unwell patients (we’d love to see more studies on its benefits in otherwise healthy people, though)

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Xylitol vs Erythritol – Which is Healthier?
  • A Correction, And A New, Natural Way To Boost Daily Energy Levels

    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? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    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

    First: a correction and expansion!

    After yesterday’s issue of 10almonds covering breast cancer risks and checks, a subscriber wrote to say, with regard to our opening statement, which was:

    Anyone (who has not had a double mastectomy, anyway) can get breast cancer”

    ❝I have been enjoying your newsletter. This statement is misleading and should have a disclaimer that says even someone who has had a double mastectomy can get breast cancer, again. It is true and nothing…nothing is 100% including a mastectomy. I am a 12 year “thriver” (I don’t like to use the term survivor) who has had a double mastectomy. I work with a local hospital to help newly diagnosed patients deal with their cancer diagnosis and the many decisions that follow. A double mastectomy can help keep recurrence from happening but there are no guarantees. I tried to just delete this and let it go but it doesn’t feel right. Thank you!❞

    Thank you for writing in about this! We wouldn’t want to mislead, and we’re always glad to hear from people who have been living with conditions for a long time, as (assuming they are a person inclined to learning) they will generally know topics far more deeply than someone who has researched it for a short period of time.

    Regards a double mastectomy (we’re sure you know this already, but noting here for greater awareness, prompted by your message), a lot of circumstances can vary. For example, how far did a given cancer spread, and especially, did it spread to the lymph nodes at the armpits? And what tissue was (and wasn’t) removed?

    Sometimes a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy will leave the lymph nodes partially or entirely intact, and a cancer could indeed come back, if not every last cancerous cell was removed.

    A total double mastectomy, by definition, should have removed all tissue that could qualify as breast tissue for a breast cancer, including those lymph nodes. However, if the cancer spread unnoticed somewhere else in the body, then again, you’re quite correct, it could come back.

    Some people have a double mastectomy without having got cancer first. Either because of a fear of cancer due to a genetic risk (like Angelina Jolie), or for other reasons (like Elliot Page).

    This makes a difference, because doing it for reasons of cancer risk may mean surgeons remove the lymph nodes too, while if that wasn’t a factor, surgeons will tend to leave them in place.

    In principle, if there is no breast tissue, including lymph nodes, and there was no cancer to spread, then it can be argued that the risk of breast cancer should now be the same “zero” as the risk of getting prostate cancer when one does not have a prostate.

    But… Surgeries are not perfect, and everyone’s anatomy and physiology can differ enough from “textbook standard” that surprises can happen, and there’s almost always a non-zero chance of certain health outcomes.

    For any unfamiliar, here’s a good starting point for learning about the many types of mastectomy, that we didn’t go into in yesterday’s edition. It’s from the UK’s National Health Service:

    NHS: Mastectomy | Types of Mastectomy

    And for the more sciency-inclined, here’s a paper about the recurrence rate of cancer after a prophylactic double mastectomy, after a young cancer was found in one breast.

    The short version is that the measured incidence rate of breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy was zero, but the discussion (including notes about the limitations of the study) is well worth reading:

    Breast Cancer after Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation

    ❝[Can you write about] the availability of geriatric doctors Sometimes I feel my primary isn’t really up on my 70 year old health issues. I would love to find a doctor that understands my issues and is able to explain them to me. Ie; my worsening arthritis in regards to food I eat; in regards to meds vs homeopathic solutions.! Thanks!❞

    That’s a great topic, worthy of a main feature! Because in many cases, it’s not just about specialization of skills, but also about empathy, and the gap between studying a condition and living with a condition.

    About arthritis, we’re going to do a main feature specifically on that quite soon, but meanwhile, you might like our previous article:

    Keep Inflammation At Bay (arthritis being an inflammatory condition)

    As for homeopathy, your question prompts our poll today!

    (and then we’ll write about that tomorrow)

    Don’t Forget…

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

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The Salt Fix – by Dr. James DiNicolantonio

    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.

    This book has a bold premise: high salt consumption is not, as global scientific consensus holds, a serious health risk, but rather, as the title suggests, a health fix.

    Dr. DiNicolantonio, a pharmacist, explains how “our ancestors crawled out of the sea millions of years ago and we still crave that salt”, giving this as a reason why we should consume salt ad libitum, aiming for 8–10g per day, and thereafter a fair portion of the book is given over to discussing how many health conditions are caused/exacerbated by sugar, and that therefore we have demonized the wrong white crystal (scientific consensus is that there are many white crystals that can cause us harm).

    Indeed, sugar can be a big health problem, but reading it at such length felt a lot like when all a politician can talk about is how their political rival is worse.

    A lot of the studies the author cites to support the idea of healthy higher salt consumption rates were on non-human animals, and it’s always a lottery as to whether those results translate to humans or not. Also, many of the studies he’s citing are old and have methodological flaws, while others we could not find when we looked them up.

    One of the sources cited is “my friend Jose tried this and it worked for him”.

    Bottom line: sodium is an essential mineral that we do need to live, but we are not convinced that this book’s ideas have scientific merit. But are they well-argued? Also no.

    Click here to check out The Salt Fix for yourself! It’s a fascinating book.

    (Usually, if we do not approve of a book, we simply do not review it. We like to keep things positive. However, this one came up in Q&A, so it seemed appropriate to share our review. Also, the occasional negative review may reassure you, dear readers, that when we praise a book, we mean it)

    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 do I need to take some medicines with food?

    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.

    Have you ever been instructed to take your medicine with food and wondered why? Perhaps you’ve wondered if you really need to?

    There are varied reasons, and sometimes complex science and chemistry, behind why you may be advised to take a medicine with food.

    To complicate matters, some similar medicines need to be taken differently. The antibiotic amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (sold as Amoxil Duo Forte), for example, is recommended to be taken with food, while amoxicillin alone (sold as Amoxil), can be taken with or without food.

    Different brands of the same medicine may also have different recommendations when it comes to taking it with food.

    Ron Lach/Pexels

    Food impacts drug absorption

    Food can affect how fast and how much a drug is absorbed into the body in up to 40% of medicines taken orally.

    When you have food in your stomach, the makeup of the digestive juices change. This includes things like the fluid volume, thickness, pH (which becomes less acidic with food), surface tension, movement and how much salt is in your bile. These changes can impair or enhance drug absorption.

    Eating a meal also delays how fast the contents of the stomach move into the small intestine – this is known as gastric emptying. The small intestine has a large surface area and rich blood supply – and this is the primary site of drug absorption.

    Quinoa salad and healthy pudding
    Eating a meal with medicine will delay its onset. Farhad/Pexels

    Eating a larger meal, or one with lots of fibre, delays gastric emptying more than a smaller meal. Sometimes, health professionals will advise you to take a medicine with food, to help your body absorb the drug more slowly.

    But if a drug can be taken with or without food – such as paracetamol – and you want it to work faster, take it on an empty stomach.

    Food can make medicines more tolerable

    Have you ever taken a medicine on an empty stomach and felt nauseated soon after? Some medicines can cause stomach upsets.

    Metformin, for example, is a drug that reduces blood glucose and treats type 2 diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome. It commonly causes gastrointestinal symptoms, with one in four users affected. To combat these side effects, it is generally recommended to be taken with food.

    The same advice is given for corticosteroids (such as prednisolone/prednisone) and certain antibiotics (such as doxycycline).

    Taking some medicines with food makes them more tolerable and improves the chance you’ll take it for the duration it’s prescribed.

    Can food make medicines safer?

    Ibuprofen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medicines, with around one in five Australians reporting use within a two-week period.

    While effective for pain and inflammation, ibuprofen can impact the stomach by inhibiting protective prostaglandins, increasing the risk of bleeding, ulceration and perforation with long-term use.

    But there isn’t enough research to show taking ibuprofen with food reduces this risk.

    Prolonged use may also affect kidney function, particularly in those with pre-existing conditions or dehydration.

    The Australian Medicines Handbook, which guides prescribers about medicine usage and dosage, advises taking ibuprofen (sold as Nurofen and Advil) with a glass of water – or with a meal if it upsets your stomach.

    Pharmacist gives medicine to customer
    If it doesn’t upset your stomach, ibuprofen can be taken with water. Tbel Abuseridze/Unsplash

    A systematic review published in 2015 found food delays the transit of ibuprofen to the small intestine and absorption, which delays therapeutic effect and the time before pain relief. It also found taking short courses of ibuprofen without food reduced the need for additional doses.

    To reduce the risk of ibuprofen causing damage to your stomach or kidneys, use the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration, stay hydrated and avoid taking other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines at the same time.

    For people who use ibuprofen for prolonged periods and are at higher risk of gastrointestinal side effects (such as people with a history of ulcers or older adults), your prescriber may start you on a proton pump inhibitor, a medicine that reduces stomach acid and protects the stomach lining.

    How much food do you need?

    When you need to take a medicine with food, how much is enough?

    Sometimes a full glass of milk or a couple of crackers may be enough, for medicines such as prednisone/prednisolone.

    However, most head-to-head studies that compare the effects of a medicine “with food” and without, usually use a heavy meal to define “with food”. So, a cracker may not be enough, particularly for those with a sensitive stomach. A more substantial meal that includes a mix of fat, protein and carbohydrates is generally advised.

    Your health professional can advise you on which of your medicines need to be taken with food and how they interact with your digestive system.

    Mary Bushell, Clinical Associate Professor in Pharmacy, University of Canberra

    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: