Kidney Beans vs White 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 white beans, we picked the white.
Why?
It was close, and each has its strengths! Bear in mind, these are very closely-related beans. But as we say, there are distinguishing factors…
In terms of macros, kidney beans have very slightly more fiber and white beans have very slightly more protein. But both are close enough in both of those things to call this a tie in this category.
When it comes to vitamins, there are two ways of looking at this:
- kidney beans have more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and K, while white beans have more vitamin B5, E, and choline
- kidney beans have slightly more of some vitamins that don’t usually see a deficiency, while white beans have 31x more vitamin E
Nevertheless, we’re sticking by our usual method of noting that this is a 7:3 win for kidney beans in this category; we just wanted to note that in practical health terms, an argument can be made for white beans on the vitamin front too.
In the category of minerals, kidney beans have slightly more phosphorus, while white beans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An easy win for white beans this time.
(In case you’re wondering about the margin on phosphorus, it was 0.2x more, so we’re not seeing a situation like white beans’ 31x more vitamin E)
In short: both are great and both have their strengths. Enjoy both, together if you like! But if we have to pick one, we’re going with white beans.
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!
Recommended
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 disinfectants only kill 99.9% of germs? Here’s the science
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 wondered why most disinfectants indicate they kill 99.9% or 99.99% of germs, but never promise to wipe out all of them? Perhaps the thought has crossed your mind mid-way through cleaning your kitchen or bathroom.
Surely, in a world where science is able to do all sorts of amazing things, someone would have invented a disinfectant that is 100% effective?
The answer to this conundrum requires understanding a bit of microbiology and a bit of mathematics.
Davor Geber/Shutterstock What is a disinfectant?
A disinfectant is a substance used to kill or inactivate bacteria, viruses and other microbes on inanimate objects.
There are literally millions of microbes on surfaces and objects in our domestic environment. While most microbes are not harmful (and some are even good for us) a small proportion can make us sick.
Although disinfection can include physical interventions such as heat treatment or the use of UV light, typically when we think of disinfectants we are referring to the use of chemicals to kill microbes on surfaces or objects.
Chemical disinfectants often contain active ingredients such as alcohols, chlorine compounds and hydrogen peroxide which can target vital components of different microbes to kill them.
Diseinfectants can contain a range of ingredients. Maridav/Shutterstock The maths of microbial elimination
In the past few years we’ve all become familiar with the concept of exponential growth in the context of the spread of COVID cases.
This is where numbers grow at an ever-accelerating rate, which can lead to an explosion in the size of something very quickly. For example, if a colony of 100 bacteria doubles every hour, in 24 hours’ time the population of bacteria would be more than 1.5 billion.
Conversely, the killing or inactivating of microbes follows a logarithmic decay pattern, which is essentially the opposite of exponential growth. Here, while the number of microbes decreases over time, the rate of death becomes slower as the number of microbes becomes smaller.
For example, if a particular disinfectant kills 90% of bacteria every minute, after one minute, only 10% of the original bacteria will remain. After the next minute, 10% of that remaining 10% (or 1% of the original amount) will remain, and so on.
Because of this logarithmic decay pattern, it’s not possible to ever claim you can kill 100% of any microbial population. You can only ever scientifically say that you are able to reduce the microbial load by a proportion of the initial population. This is why most disinfectants sold for domestic use indicate they kill 99.9% of germs.
Other products such as hand sanitisers and disinfectant wipes, which also often purport to kill 99.9% of germs, follow the same principle.
You might have noticed none of the cleaning products in your laundry cupboard kill 100% of germs. Africa Studio/Shutterstock Real-world implications
As with a lot of science, things get a bit more complicated in the real world than they are in the laboratory. There are a number of other factors to consider when assessing how well a disinfectant is likely to remove microbes from a surface.
One of these factors is the size of the initial microbial population that you’re trying to get rid of. That is, the more contaminated a surface is, the harder the disinfectant needs to work to eliminate the microbes.
If for example you were to start off with only 100 microbes on a surface or object, and you removed 99.9% of these using a disinfectant, you could have a lot of confidence that you have effectively removed all the microbes from that surface or object (called sterilisation).
In contrast, if you have a large initial microbial population of hundreds of millions or billions of microbes contaminating a surface, even reducing the microbial load by 99.9% may still mean there are potentially millions of microbes remaining on the surface.
Time is is a key factor that determines how effectively microbes are killed. So exposing a highly contaminated surface to disinfectant for a longer period is one way to ensure you kill more of the microbial population.
This is why if you look closely at the labels of many common household disinfectants, they will often suggest that to disinfect you should apply the product then wait a specified time before wiping clean. So always consult the label on the product you’re using.
Disinfectants won’t necessarily work in your kitchen exactly like they work in a lab. Ground Picture/Shutterstock Other factors such as temperature, humidity and the type of surface also influence how well a disinfectant works outside the lab.
Similarly, microbes in the real world may be either more or less sensitive to disinfection than those used for testing in the lab.
Disinfectants are one part infection control
The sensible use of disinfectants plays an important role in our daily lives in reducing our exposure to pathogens (microbes that cause illness). They can therefore reduce our chances of getting sick.
The fact disinfectants can’t be shown to be 100% effective from a scientific perspective in no way detracts from their importance in infection control. But their use should always be complemented by other infection control practices, such as hand washing, to reduce the risk of infection.
Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Dentists Debunk 15 Teeth Myths
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.
Dentists Dr. John Yoo and Dr. Jason Lin leave no gaps in the truth:
The tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth
Not only is there no tooth fairy (we are shocked), but also…
- “Baby teeth aren’t important.”
False! Baby teeth act as space holders for permanent teeth, affect speech development, and influence a child’s psychological well-being. - “Acidic fruits will whiten your smile.”
False! In any practical sense, anyway: acidic fruits may temporarily make teeth appear whiter by dispersing stains but cause enamel erosion and weaken teeth over time. - “Fillings last forever.”
False! Fillings can wear down, fail, or develop cavities underneath if oral hygiene isn’t maintained, requiring replacement over time. - “Cavities are irreversible.”
False! Cavities in the enamel can be reversed with fluoride and good oral hygiene, but cavities that reach the dentin are typically irreversible. - “Braces are just for crooked teeth.”
False! Braces also correct functional issues like overbites, underbites, crossbites, and prevent future complications like tooth impaction. - “A knocked-out tooth is gone for good.”
False! A knocked-out tooth can be reimplanted if done quickly (ideally within an hour); storing it in whole milk or saliva helps preserve it. - “Diet sodas won’t give you cavities.”
False! Diet sodas can still cause cavities due to their acidic pH, which erodes enamel, even without sugar. - “Dental cleanings aren’t necessary.”
False! Dental cleanings help remove plaque and tartar that regular brushing can’t, and allow for regular oral health checkups. - “Retainers aren’t for life.”
False! To maintain teeth alignment after braces, retainers should be worn long-term as teeth can shift even years later. - “You should floss before brushing.”
False! The order doesn’t matter, but do floss regularly. - “Everyone has wisdom teeth.”
False! Not everyone is born with wisdom teeth; they are the most commonly missing teeth, and not everyone needs them removed. - “Hydrogen peroxide and baking soda are good toothpaste replacements.”
False! While they are common components in toothpaste, they lack fluoride, which is essential for remineralizing and protecting enamel. - “You’re too old to get braces.”
False! There’s no age limit for braces or aligners; adults often seek them for both aesthetic and functional reasons. - “Teeth that have had root canals can’t feel.”
False! Teeth with root canals can’t feel pain from nerves, but you can still sense pressure due to surrounding ligaments. - “You’ll inevitably lose all your teeth when you’re old.”
False! Good oral hygiene and regular dental care can preserve natural teeth into old age, though genetics also play a role.
For more on each of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
- “Baby teeth aren’t important.”
-
Air Purifiers & Sleep
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
❝I’ve read that air pollution has a negative effect on sleep quality and duration. Since I live next to a busy road, I was wondering whether I should invest in an air purifier. What are 10Almonds’s views?❞
Going straight to the science, there are two questions here:
- Does air pollution negatively affect sleep quality and duration?
- Does the use of an air purify actually improve the air quality in the way(s) necessary to make a difference?
We thought we’d have to tackle these questions separately, but we did find one study that addressed your question directly. It was a small study (n=30 if you believe the abstract; n=29 if you read the paper itself—one person dropped out); the results were modest but clear:
❝The purifier filter was associated with increased total sleep time for an average of 12 min per night, and increased total time in bed for an average of 19 min per night relative to the placebo.
There were several sleep and mood outcomes for which no changes were observed, and time awake after sleep onset was higher for the purifier filter. Air quality was better during the high-efficiency particulate air filter condition.
These findings offer positive indications that environmental interventions that improve air quality can have benefits for sleep outcomes in healthy populations who are not exhibiting clinical sleep disturbances.❞
In the above-linked paper’s introduction, it does establish the deleterious effect of air pollution on a wide variety of health metrics, including sleep, this latter evidenced per Caddick et al. (2018): A review of the environmental parameters necessary for an optimal sleep environment
Now, you may be wondering: is an extra 12 minutes per night worth it?
That’s your choice to make, but we would argue that it is. We can make many choices in our lives that affect our health slightly for the better or the worse. If we make a stack of choices in a particular direction, the effects will also stack, if not outright compound.
So in the case of sleep, it might be (arbitrary numbers for the sake of illustration):
- Get good exercise earlier in the day (+3%)
- Get good food earlier in the day (+2.5%)
- Practice mindfulness/meditation before bed (+2.5%)
- Have a nice dark room (+5%)
- Have fresh bedding (+2.5%)
- Have an air purifier running (+3%)
Now, those numbers are, as we said, arbitrary*, but remember that percentages don’t add up; they compound. So that “+3%” starts being a lot more meaningful than if it were just by itself.
*Confession: the figure of 3% for the air purifier wasn’t entirely arbitrary; it was based on 100(12/405) = 80/27 ≈ 3, wherein the 405 figure was an approximation of the average total time (in minutes) spent sleeping with placebo, based on a peep at their results graph. There are several ways the average could be reasonably calculated, but 6h45 (i.e., 405 minutes) was an approximate average of those reasonable approximate averages.
So, 12 minutes is a 3% improvement on that.
Don’t have an air purifier and want one?
We don’t sell them, but here’s an example on Amazon, for your convenience
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Black Beans vs Soy 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 black beans to soy beans, we picked the soy.
Why?
Quite some heavyweights competing here today, as both have been the winners of other comparisons!
Comparing these two’s macros first, black beans have 3x the carbs and slightly more fiber, while soy has more than 2x the protein. We’ll call this a win for soy.
As a tangential note, it’s worth remembering also that soy is a complete protein (contains a full set of the amino acids we need), whereas black beans… Well, technically they are too, but in practicality, they only have much smaller amounts of some amino acids.
In terms of vitamins, black beans have more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B9, and E, while soy beans have more of vitamins A, B2, B6, C, K, and choline. A marginal win for soy here.
In the category of minerals, however, it isn’t close: black beans are not higher in any minerals, while soy beans are higher in calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An overwhelming win for soy.
It should be noted, however, that black beans are still very good for minerals! They just look bad when standing next to soy, that’s all.
So, enjoy either or both, but for nutritional density, soy wins the day.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Plant vs Animal Protein: Head to Head
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:
-
Goji Berries vs Cherries – 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 goji berries to cherries, we picked the goji berries.
Why?
Looking at the macros first, goji berries have more protein, fiber, and carbs, as well as the lower glycemic index, although cherries are great too. Still, a clear and easy win here.
In the category of vitamins, goji berries have more of vitamins A and C, while cherries have more of vitamin K; in the other vitamins these two fruits are close enough to equal that variants in what kind of cherry it is will push it slightly one way or the other. However, it’s worth noting that goji berries have 1,991% more vitamin A and 16,033% more vitamin C, while cherries have only 20% more vitamin K. So, all in all, another clear win for goji berries.
When it comes to minerals, goji berries have more calcium and iron, while cherries have more copper. Again, the margins of difference are very much in goji berries’ favor, with 1,088% more calcium and 2,025% more iron, while cherries have 35% more copper. So, again, a win for goji berries.
The polyphenol contents of cherries differ far too much to comment here, but as a general rule of thumb, goji berries have more antioxidant powers than cherries, but cherries are also excellent for this.
In short, enjoy either or both, but goji berries are the more nutritionally dense!
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:
-
Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
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.
Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!
This is Dr. Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, of “Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen” and “How Not To Die” fame, and he wants us to protect our brains (and while we’re at it, our eyesight).
And the secret is…
Lutein.
This is a carotenoid, which is super important for the eyes and brain. Not to be confused with carrots, which despite the name are usually not a good source of carotenoids!
They do however contain lots of beta-carotene, a form of vitamin A, but that (and the famous WW2-era myth born of deliberate disinformation by the British government) isn’t what we’re covering today.
We say “eyes and brain” but really, the eyes are just an extension of the brain in any case.
Pedantry aside, what Dr. Greger wants you to know about lutein is how important it is for the protection of your brain/eyes, both against cognitive decline and against age-related macular degeneration (the most common cause of eyesight loss in old age).
Important take-away info:
- Two things that hasten brain aging are inflammation and oxidative stress. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory foods mitigate those.
- Researchers investigated eight different dietary antioxidants, including vitamins A and E. Only lutein was “significantly related to better cognition”.
- The macula in the middle of our retina is packed with lutein, and levels in the retina correspond to levels in the rest of our brain.
- Alzheimer’s patients have significantly less lutein in their eyes and in their blood, and a higher occurrence of macular degeneration.
- Dark green leafy vegetables are lutein superstars. A half cup of kale has 50 times more lutein than an egg.
Want to know more about the Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen approach to health?
See the Website / Get the App (Android & iOS) / Get the Science Book / Get the Cookbook!
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: