Mango vs Pineapple – 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 mango to pineapple, we picked the pineapple.
Why?
It was close! Both of these tropical fruits have almost identical macros, and when it comes to vitamins and minerals, mango has slightly more vitamins while pineapple has slightly more minerals, so that balances out too. Their glycemic loads are 11 and 13 respectively, so: very low, and very similar.
See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
In terms of what sets them apart:
Mango has a lot of vitamin A, to the point that it can interfere with blood-thinners if you take those.
Pineapple has bromelain, an enzyme with unique anti-inflammatory properties that we must devote a Research Review Monday to one of these days, because there’s a lot to say, but the short version is, it’s very powerful.
Since bromelain is found only in pineapples, whereas vitamin A is easy to find in abundance in many foods, we went with the pineapple.
Enjoy!
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:
4 Critical Things Female Runners Should Know
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.
When it comes to keeping up performance in the face of menopause, Shona Hendricks has advice:
Don’t let menopause run you down
- Prioritize recovery! Overtraining without adequate recovery just leads to decreased performance in the long term, and remember, you may not recover as quickly as you used to. If you’re still achey from your previous run, give it another day, or at least make it a lighter run.
- Slow down in easy and long runs! This isn’t “taking the easy way out”; it will improve your overall performance, reducing muscle damage, allowing for quicker recovery and ultimately better fitness gains.
- Focus on nutrition! And that means carbs too. A lot of people fighting menopausal weight gain reduce their intake of food, but without sufficient energy availability, you will not be able to run well. In particular, carbohydrates are vital for energy. Consume them sensibly and with fiber and proteins and fats rather than alone, but do consume them.
- Incorporate strength training! Your run is not “leg day” by itself. Furthermore, do whole-body strength training, to prevent injuries and improve overall performance. A strong core is particularly important.
For more on each of these (and some bonus comments about mobility training for runners), 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
Zero Sugar / One Month – by Becky Gillaspy
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.
We’ve reviewed books about the evils of sugar before, so what makes this one different?
This one has a focus on helping the reader quit it. It assumes we already know the evils of sugar (though it does cover that too).
It looks at the mechanisms of sugar addiction (habits-based and physiological), and how to safely and painlessly cut through those to come out the other side, free from sugar.
The author gives a day-by-day plan, for not only eliminating sugar, but also adding and including things to fill the gap it leaves, keeping us sated, energized, and happy along the way.
In the category of subjective criticism, it does also assume we want to lose weight, which may not be the case for many readers. But that’s a by-the-by and doesn’t detract from the useful guide to quitting sugar, whatever one’s reasons.
Bottom line: if you would like to quit sugar but find it hard, this book thinks of everything and walks you by the hand, making it easy.
Click here to check out Zero Sugar / One Month, and reap the health benefits!
Share This Post
What’s the difference between autism and Asperger’s disorder?
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.
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg describes herself as having Asperger’s while others on the autism spectrum, such as Australian comedian Hannah Gatsby, describe themselves as “autistic”. But what’s the difference?
Today, the previous diagnoses of “Asperger’s disorder” and “autistic disorder” both fall within the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.
Autism describes a “neurotype” – a person’s thinking and information-processing style. Autism is one of the forms of diversity in human thinking, which comes with strengths and challenges.
When these challenges become overwhelming and impact how a person learns, plays, works or socialises, a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder is made.
Where do the definitions come from?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) outlines the criteria clinicians use to diagnose mental illnesses and behavioural disorders.
Between 1994 and 2013, autistic disorder and Asperger’s disorder were the two primary diagnoses related to autism in the fourth edition of the manual, the DSM-4.
In 2013, the DSM-5 collapsed both diagnoses into one autism spectrum disorder.
How did we used to think about autism?
The two thinkers behind the DSM-4 diagnostic categories were Baltimore psychiatrist Leo Kanner and Viennese paediatrician Hans Asperger. They described the challenges faced by people who were later diagnosed with autistic disorder and Asperger’s disorder.
Kanner and Asperger observed patterns of behaviour that differed to typical thinkers in the domains of communication, social interaction and flexibility of behaviour and thinking. The variance was associated with challenges in adaptation and distress.
Between the 1940s and 1994, the majority of those diagnosed with autism also had an intellectual disability. Clinicians became focused on the accompanying intellectual disability as a necessary part of autism.
The introduction of Asperger’s disorder shifted this focus and acknowledged the diversity in autism. In the DSM-4 it superficially looked like autistic disorder and Asperger’s disorder were different things, with the Asperger’s criteria stating there could be no intellectual disability or delay in the development of speech.
Today, as a legacy of the recognition of the autism itself, the majority of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder – the new term from the DSM-5 – don’t a have an accompanying intellectual disability.
What changed with ‘autism spectrum disorder’?
The move to autism spectrum disorder brought the previously diagnosed autistic disorder and Asperger’s disorder under the one new diagnostic umbrella term.
It made clear that other diagnostic groups – such as intellectual disability – can co-exist with autism, but are separate things.
The other major change was acknowledging communication and social skills are intimately linked and not separable. Rather than separating “impaired communication” and “impaired social skills”, the diagnostic criteria changed to “impaired social communication”.
The introduction of the spectrum in the diagnostic term further clarified that people have varied capabilities in the flexibility of their thinking, behaviour and social communication – and this can change in response to the context the person is in.
Why do some people prefer the old terminology?
Some people feel the clinical label of Asperger’s allowed a much more refined understanding of autism. This included recognising the achievements and great societal contributions of people with known or presumed autism.
The contraction “Aspie” played an enormous part in the shift to positive identity formation. In the time up to the release of the DSM-5, Tony Attwood and Carol Gray, two well known thinkers in the area of autism, highlighted the strengths associated with “being Aspie” as something to be proud of. But they also raised awareness of the challenges.
What about identity-based language?
A more recent shift in language has been the reclamation of what was once viewed as a slur – “autistic”. This was a shift from person-first language to identity-based language, from “person with autism spectrum disorder” to “autistic”.
The neurodiversity rights movement describes its aim to push back against a breach of human rights resulting from the wish to cure, or fundamentally change, people with autism.
The movement uses a “social model of disability”. This views disability as arising from societies’ response to individuals and the failure to adjust to enable full participation. The inherent challenges in autism are seen as only a problem if not accommodated through reasonable adjustments.
However the social model contrasts itself against a very outdated medical or clinical model.
Current clinical thinking and practice focuses on targeted supports to reduce distress, promote thriving and enable optimum individual participation in school, work, community and social activities. It doesn’t aim to cure or fundamentally change people with autism.
A diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder signals there are challenges beyond what will be solved by adjustments alone; individual supports are also needed. So it’s important to combine the best of the social model and contemporary clinical model.
Andrew Cashin, Professor of Nursing, School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
An Unexpected Extra Threat Of Alcohol
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.
If You Could Use Some Exotic Booze…
…then for health reasons, we’re going to have to say “nay”.
We’ve written about alcohol before, and needless to say, it’s not good:
(the answer is “no, we cannot”)
In fact, the WHO (which unlike government regulatory bodies setting “safe” limits on drinking, makes no profit from taxes on alcohol sales) has declared that “the only safe amount of alcohol is zero”:
WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
Up there, where the air is rarefied…
If you’re flying somewhere this summer (Sinatra-style flying honeymoon or otherwise), you might want to skip the alcohol even if you normally do imbibe, because:
❝…even in young and healthy individuals, the combination of alcohol intake with sleeping under hypobaric conditions poses a considerable strain on the cardiac system and might lead to exacerbation of symptoms in patients with cardiac or pulmonary diseases.
These effects might be even greater in older people; cardiovascular symptoms have a prevalence of 7% of inflight medical emergencies, with cardiac arrest causing 58% of aircraft diversions.❞
Source: Alcohol plus cabin pressure at higher altitude may threaten sleeping plane passengers’ heart health
The experiment divided subjects into a control group and a study group; the study group were placed in simulated cabin pressure as though at altitude, which found, when giving some of them two small(we’re talking the kind given on flights) alcoholic drinks:
❝The combination of alcohol and simulated cabin pressure at cruising altitude prompted a fall in SpO2 to an average of just over 85% and a compensatory increase in heart rate to an average of nearly 88 beats/minute during sleep.❞
In contrast, that was 77 beats/minute for those who had alcohol but weren’t at altitude pressure, or 64 beats/minute for those who neither drank nor were at altitude pressure.
Lots more metrics were recorded and the study is interesting to read; if you’ve ever slept on a plane and thought “that sleep was not restful at all”, then know: it wasn’t just the seat’s fault, nor the engine, nor the recycled nature of the air—it was the reduced pressure causing hypoxia (defined as having oxygen levels lower than the healthy clinical norm of 90%) and almost halving your sleep’s effectiveness for a less than 10% drop in available oxygen in the blood (the sleepers not at altitude pressure averaged 96% SpO2, compared to the 85% at altitude).
We say “almost halving” because the deep sleep phase of sleep was reduced from 84 minutes (control) to 67.5 minutes at altitude without alcohol, or 46.5 minutes at altitude with alcohol.
Again, this was a pressure cabin in a lab—so this wasn’t about the other conditions of an airplane (seats, engine hundreds of other people, etc).
Which means: in an actual airplane it’s probably even worse.
Oh, and the study participants? All healthy individuals aged 18–40, so again probably worse for those older (or younger) than that range, or with existing health conditions!
Want to know more?
You can read the study in full here:
Want to drop the drink at any altitude? Check out:
Want to get that vacation feel without alcohol? You’re going to love:
Mocktails – by Moira Clark (book)
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:
Grain Brain – by Dr. David Perlmutter
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.
If you’re a regular 10almonds reader, you probably know that refined flour, and processed food in general, is not great for the health. So, what does this book offer more?
Dr. Perlmutter sets out the case against (as the subtitle suggests) wheat, carbs, and sugar. Yes, including wholegrain wheat, and including starchy vegetables such as potatoes and parsnips. Fruit does also come under scrutiny, a clear distinction is made between whole fruits and juices. In the latter case, the lack of fiber (along with the more readily absorbable liquid state) allows for those sugars to zip straight into our blood.
The book includes lots of stats and facts, and many study citations, along with infographics and clear explanations.
If the book has a weakness, it’s when it forgets to clarify something that was obvious to the author. For example, when he talks about our ancestors’ diets being 75% fat and 5% carbs, he neglects to mention that this is 75% by calorie count, not by mass or volume. This makes a huge difference! It’s the difference between a fat-guzzling engine, and someone who eats mostly fruit and oily nuts but also some very high-fat meat/organs.
The book’s strengths, on the other hand, are found in its explanation, backed by good science, of what wheat, along with excessive carbohydrates (especially sugar) can do to our body, including (and most focusedly, hence the title) our brain, leading the way to not just obvious metabolic disorders like diabetes, but also inflammatory diseases like Alzheimer’s.
Bottom line: you don’t have to completely revamp your diet if it’s working for you, but data is data, and this book has lots, making it well-worth a read.
Click here to check out Grain Brain, and learn about how to avoid inflaming yours!
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:
Breast Milk’s Benefits That Are (So Far) Not Replicable
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.
Simply The Breast 🎶
In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinion on breast vs formula milk (for babies!), and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- 80% said “Breast is best, as the slogan goes, and should be first choice”
- 20% said “They both have their strengths and weaknesses; use whatever”
- 0% said “Formula is formulated to be best, and should be first choice”
That’s the first time we’ve ever had a possible poll option come back with zero votes whatsoever! It seems this topic is relatively uncontentious amongst our readership, so we’ll keep things brief today, but there is still a little mythbusting to be done.
So, what does the science say?
[Breast milk should be the first choice] at least for the few few weeks and months for the benefit of baby’s health as breast milk has protective factors formula does not: True or False?
True! The wording here was taken from one of our readers’ responses, by the way (thank you, Robin). There are a good number of those protective factors, the most well-known of which is passing on immune cells and cell-like things; in other words, immune-related information being passed from parent* to child.
*usually the mother, though in principle it could be someone else and in practice sometimes it is; the only real requirements are that the other person be healthy, lactating, and willing.
As for immune benefits, see for example:
Perspectives on Immunoglobulins in Colostrum and Milk
And for that matter, also:
(Colostrum is simply the milk that is produced for a short period after giving birth; the composition of milk will tend to change later)
In any case, immunoglobulin A is a very important component in breast milk (colostrum and later), as well as lactoferrin (has an important antimicrobial effect and is good for the newborn’s gut), and a plethora of cytokines:
As for that about the gut, lactoferrin isn’t the only breast milk component that benefits this, by far, and there’s a lot that can’t be replicated yet:
Human Breast Milk and the Gastrointestinal Innate Immune System
As long as your infant/child is nutritiously fed, it shouldn’t matter if it comes from breast or formula: True or False?
False! Formula milk will not convey those immune benefits.
This doesn’t mean that formula-feeding is neglectful; as several people who commented mentioned*, there are many reasons a person may not be able to breastfeed, and they certainly should not be shamed for that.
*(including the reader whose words we borrowed for this True/False item; the words we quoted above were prefaced with: “Not everyone is able to breastfeed for many different reasons”)
But, while formula milk is a very good second choice, and absolutely a respectable choice if breast milk isn’t an option (or an acceptable option) for whatever reason, it still does not convey all the health benefits of breast milk—yet! The day may come when they’ll find a way to replicate the immune benefits, but today is not that day.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses: True or False?
True! But formula’s strengths are only in the category of convenience and sometimes necessity—formula conveys no health benefits that breast milk could not do better, if available.
For many babies, formula means they get to eat, when without it they would starve due to non-availability of breast milk. That’s a pretty important role!
Note also: this is a health science publication, not a philosophical publication, but we’d be remiss not to mention one thing; let’s bring it in under the umbrella of sociology:
The right to bodily autonomy continues to be the right to bodily autonomy even if somebody else wants/needs something from your body.
Therefore, while there are indeed many good reasons for not being able to breastfeed, or even just not being safely* able to breastfeed, it is at the very least this writer’s opinion that nobody should be pressed to give their reason for not breastfeeding; “no” is already a sufficient answer.
*Writer’s example re safety: when I was born, my mother was on such drugs that it would have been a very bad idea for her to breastfeed me. There are plenty of other possible reasons why it might be unsafe for someone one way or another, but “on drugs that have a clear ‘do not take while pregnant or nursing’ warning” is a relatively common one.
All that said, for those who are willing and safely able, the science is clear: breast is best.
Want to read more?
The World Health Organization has a wealth of information (including explanations of its recommendations of, where possible, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months, ideally continuing some breastfeeding for the first 2 years), here:
World Health Organization | Breastfeeding
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: