Muir Glen Organic vs First Field Original – 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 Muir Glen Organic Ketchup to First Field Original Ketchup, we picked the First Field.

Why?

This one was a little unfair to you, as you can’t turn them around to read the ingredients here. But the point we want to share the most today is: you have to turn them around and read the ingredients! You absolutely cannot rely on appearances!

While the Muir Glen Organic may have a very “greenwashed” aesthetic going on and the word “organic” is more eye-catching than any other word on the label, it contains 4x as much sugar and 4x as much sodium.

Side-by-side, they have, per tablespoon:

First Field Original: 1g sugar, 60mg sodium
Muir Glen Organic: 4g sugar, 240mg sodium

But what about the importance of being organic?

Well, we have one more surprise for you: the First Field ketchup is organic too, non-GMO, and contains no added concentrates either.

This isn’t an ad for First Field (by all means enjoy their products or don’t; we’re not invested), but it is a heartfelt plea to always check the backs of products and read the labels, because fronts of products can’t be relied upon at all.

I’m sure we all get caught out sometimes, but the less often, the better!

PS: we write this, of course, before seeing the results of your voting. Maybe it won’t be a “Muir Glen Organic” sweep in the polls. But either way, it’s a call to vigilance, and a “very good, carry on” to everyone who does this already

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Dates vs Figs – Which is Healthier?
  • Enjoy Bitter Foods For Your Heart & Brain
    Embrace the bitterness for a better you—polyphenols in foods like coffee, dark chocolate, and berries pack a punch for heart and brain health!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • The Wandering Mind – by Dr. Michael Corballis

    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 mind’s tendency to wander can be a disability, but could it also be a superpower? Dr. Corballis makes the case for such.

    While many authors focus on, well, how to focus, Dr. Corballis argues in this book that our wandering imagination can be more effective at problem-solving and creative tasks, than a focused, blinkered mind.

    The book’s a quick read (184 pages of quite light reading), and yet still quite dense with content. He takes us on a tour of the brain, theory of mind, the Default Mode Network (where a lot of the brain’s general ongoing organization occurs), learning, memory, forgetting, and creativity.

    Furthermore, he cites (and explains) studies showing what kinds of “breaks” from mental work allow the wandering mind to do its thing at peak efficiency, and what kinds of breaks are counterproductive. Certainly this has practical applications for all of us!

    Bottom line: if you’d like to be less frustrated by your mind’s tendency to wander, this is a fine book to show how to leverage that trait to your benefit.

    Click here to check out The Wandering Mind, and set yours onto more useful tracks!

    Share This Post

  • Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain – by Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett

    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 neurology before, and we always try to review books that bring something new/different. So, what makes this one stand out?

    Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, one of the world’s foremost neuroscientists, starts with an overview of how our unusual brain (definitely our species’ defining characteristic) came to be, and then devotes the rest of the book to mostly practical information.

    She explains, in clear terms and without undue jargon, how the brain goes about such things as making constant predictions and useful assumptions about our environment, and reports these things to us as facts—which process is usually useful, and sometimes counterproductive.

    We learn about how the apparently mystical trait of empathy works, in real flesh-and-blood terms, and why some kinds of empathy are more metabolically costly than others, and what that means for us all.

    Unlike many such books, this one also looks at what is going on in the case of “different minds” that operate very dissimilarly to our own, and how this neurodiversity is important for our species.

    Critically, she also looks at what else makes our brains stand out, the symphony of “5 Cs” that aren’t often found to the same extent all in the same species: creativity, communication, copying, cooperation, and compression. This latter being less obvious, but perhaps the most important; Dr. Feldman Barrett explains how we use this ability to layer summaries of our memories, perceptions, and assumptions, to allow us to think in abstractions—something that powers much of what we do that separates us from other animals.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to learn more about that big wet organ between your ears, what it does for you, and how it goes about doing it, then this book gives a very practical foundation from which to build.

    Click here to check out Seven and a Half Lessons about the Brain, and learn more about yours!

    Share This Post

  • We created a VR tool to test brain function. It could one day help diagnose 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.

    If you or a loved one have noticed changes in your memory or thinking as you’ve grown older, this could reflect typical changes that occur with ageing. In some cases though, it might suggest something more, such as the onset of dementia.

    The best thing to do if you have concerns is to make an appointment with your GP, who will probably run some tests. Assessment is important because if there is something more going on, early diagnosis can enable prompt access to the right interventions, supports and care.

    But current methods of dementia screening have limitations, and testing can be daunting for patients.

    Our research suggests virtual reality (VR) could be a useful cognitive screening tool, and mitigate some of the challenges associated with current testing methods, opening up the possibility it may one day play a role in dementia diagnosis.

    Where current testing is falling short

    If someone is worried about their memory and thinking, their GP might ask them to complete a series of quick tasks that check things like the ability to follow simple instructions, basic arithmetic, memory and orientation.

    These sorts of screening tools are really good at confirming cognitive problems that may already be very apparent. But commonly used screening tests are not always so good at detecting early and more subtle difficulties with memory and thinking, meaning such changes could be missed until they get worse.

    A clinical neuropsychological assessment is better equipped to detect early changes. This involves a comprehensive review of a patient’s personal and medical history, and detailed assessment of cognitive functions, including attention, language, memory, executive functioning, mood factors and more. However, this can be costly and the testing can take several hours.

    Testing is also somewhat removed from everyday experience, not directly tapping into activities of daily living.

    Enter virtual reality

    VR technology uses computer-generated environments to create immersive experiences that feel like real life. While VR is often used for entertainment, it has increasingly found applications in health care, including in rehabilitation and falls prevention.

    Using VR for cognitive screening is still a new area. VR-based cognitive tests generally create a scenario such as shopping at a supermarket or driving around a city to ascertain how a person would perform in these situations.

    Notably, they engage various senses and cognitive processes such as sight, sound and spatial awareness in immersive ways. All this may reveal subtle impairments which can be missed by standard methods.

    VR assessments are also often more engaging and enjoyable, potentially reducing anxiety for those who may feel uneasy in traditional testing environments, and improving compliance compared to standard assessments.

    A senior woman sitting on a bed with her hand to her face.
    Millions of people around the world have dementia.
    pikselstock/Shutterstock

    Most studies of VR-based cognitive tests have explored their capacity to pick up impairments in spatial memory (the ability to remember where something is located and how to get there), and the results have been promising.

    Given VR’s potential for assisting with diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia remains largely untapped, our team developed an online computerised game (referred to as semi-immersive VR) to see how well a person can remember, recall and complete everyday tasks. In our VR game, which lasts about 20 minutes, the user role plays a waiter in a cafe and receives a score on their performance.

    To assess its potential, we enlisted more than 140 people to play the game and provide feedback. The results of this research are published across three recent papers.

    Testing our VR tool

    In our most recently published study, we wanted to verify the accuracy and sensitivity of our VR game to assess cognitive abilities.

    We compared our test to an existing screening tool (called the TICS-M) in more than 130 adults. We found our VR task was able to capture meaningful aspects of cognitive function, including recalling food items and spatial memory.

    We also found younger adults performed better in the game than older adults, which echoes the pattern commonly seen in regular memory tests.

    A senior man sitting outdoors using a laptop.
    Adults of a range of ages tried our computerised game.
    pikselstock/Shutterstock

    In a separate study, we followed ten adults aged over 65 while they completed the game, and interviewed them afterwards. We wanted to understand how this group – who the tool would target – perceived the task.

    These seniors told us they found the game user-friendly and believed it was a promising tool for screening memory. They described the game as engaging and immersive, expressing enthusiasm to continue playing. They didn’t find the task created anxiety.

    For a third study, we spoke to seven health-care professionals about the tool. Overall they gave positive feedback, and noted its dynamic approach to age-old diagnostic challenges.

    However, they did flag some concerns and potential barriers to implementing this sort of tool. These included resource constraints in clinical practice (such as time and space to carry out the assessment) and whether it would be accessible for people with limited technological skills. There was also some scepticism about whether the tool would be an accurate method to assist with dementia diagnosis.

    While our initial research suggests this tool could be a promising way to assess cognitive performance, this is not the same as diagnosing dementia. To improve the test’s ability to accurately detect those who likely have dementia, we’ll need to make it more specific for that purpose, and carry out further research to validate its effectiveness.

    We’ll be conducting more testing of the game soon. Anyone interested in giving it a go to help with our research can register on our team’s website.The Conversation

    Joyce Siette, Research Theme Fellow in Health and Wellbeing, Western Sydney University and Paul Strutt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Western Sydney University

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

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Dates vs Figs – Which is Healthier?
  • Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    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.

    From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’s

    We asked you for your (health-related) policy on sugar. The trends were as follows:

    • About half of all respondents voted for “I try to limit sugar intake, but struggle because it’s in everything”
    • About a quarter of all respondents voted for “Refined sugar is terrible; natural sugars (e.g. honey, agave) are fine”
    • About a quarter of all respondents voted for “Sugar is sugar and sugar is bad; I avoid it entirely”
    • One (1) respondent voted for “Sugar is an important source of energy, so I consume plenty”

    Writer’s note: I always forget to vote in these, but I’d have voted for “I try to limit sugar intake, but struggle because it’s in everything”.

    Sometimes I would like to make my own [whatever] to not have the sugar, but it takes so much more time, and often money too.

    So while I make most things from scratch (and typically spend about an hour cooking each day), sometimes store-bought is the regretfully practical timesaver/moneysaver (especially when it comes to condiments).

    So, where does the science stand?

    There has, of course, been a lot of research into the health impact of sugar.

    Unfortunately, a lot of it has been funded by sugar companies, which has not helped. Conversely, there are also studies funded by other institutions with other agendas to push, and some of them will seek to make sugar out to be worse than it is.

    So for today’s mythbusting overview, we’ve done our best to quality-control studies for not having financial conflicts of interest. And of course, the usual considerations of favoring high quality studies where possible Large sample sizes, good method, human subjects, that sort of thing.

    Sugar is sugar and sugar is bad: True or False?

    False and True, respectively.

    • Sucrose is sucrose, and is generally bad.
    • Fructose is fructose, and is worse.

    Both ultimately get converted into glycogen (if not used immediately for energy), but for fructose, this happens mostly* in the liver, which a) taxes it b) goes very unregulated by the pancreas, causing potentially dangerous blood sugar spikes.

    This has several interesting effects:

    • Because fructose doesn’t directly affect insulin levels, it doesn’t cause insulin insensitivity (yay)
    • Because fructose doesn’t directly affect insulin levels, this leaves hyperglycemia untreated (oh dear)
    • Because fructose is metabolized by the liver and converted to glycogen which is stored there, it’s one of the main contributors to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (at this point, we’re retracting our “yay”)

    Read more: Fructose and sugar: a major mediator of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

    *”Mostly” in the liver being about 80% in the liver. The remaining 20%ish is processed by the kidneys, where it contributes to kidney stones instead. So, still not fabulous.

    Fructose is very bad, so we shouldn’t eat too much fruit: True or False?

    False! Fruit is really not the bad guy here. Fruit is good for you!

    Fruit does contain fructose yes, but not actually that much in the grand scheme of things, and moreover, fruit contains (unless you have done something unnatural to it) plenty of fiber, which mitigates the impact of the fructose.

    • A medium-sized apple (one of the most sugary fruits there is) might contain around 11g of fructose
    • A tablespoon of high-fructose corn syrup can have about 27g of fructose (plus about 3g glucose)

    Read more about it: Effects of high-fructose (90%) corn syrup on plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and normal subjects

    However! The fiber content (in fruit) mitigates the impact of the fructose almost entirely anyway.

    And if you take fruits that are high in sugar and/but high in polyphenols, like berries, they now have a considerable net positive impact on glycemic health:

    You may be wondering: what was that about “unless you have done something unnatural to it”?

    That’s mostly about juicing. Juicing removes much (or all) of the fiber, and if you do that, you’re basically back to shooting fructose into your veins:

    Natural sugars like honey, agave, and maple syrup, are healthier than refined sugars: True or False?

    TrueSometimes, and sometimes marginally.

    This is partly because of the glycemic index and glycemic load. The glycemic index scores tail off thus:

    • table sugar = 65
    • maple syrup = 54
    • honey = 46
    • agave syrup = 15

    So, that’s a big difference there between agave syrup and maple syrup, for example… But it might not matter if you’re using a very small amount, which means it may have a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load.

    Note, incidentally, that table sugar, sucrose, is a disaccharide, and is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

    The other more marginal health benefits come from that fact that natural sugars are usually found in foods high in other nutrients. Maple syrup is very high in manganese, for example, and also a fair source of other minerals.

    But… Because of its GI, you really don’t want to be relying on it for your nutrients.

    Wait, why is sugar bad again?

    We’ve been covering mostly the more “mythbusting” aspects of different forms of sugar, rather than the less controversial harms it does, but let’s give at least a cursory nod to the health risks of sugar overall:

    That last one, by the way, was a huge systematic review of 37 large longitudinal cohort studies. Results varied depending on what, specifically, was being examined (e.g. total sugar, fructose content, sugary beverages, etc), and gave up to 200% increased cancer risk in some studies on sugary beverages, but 95% increased risk is a respectable example figure to cite here, pertaining to added sugars in foods.

    And finally…

    The 56 Most Common Names for Sugar (Some Are Tricky)

    How many did you know?

    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:

  • Menopause: 50 Things You Need to Know – by Dr. Felice Gersh

    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.

    Can you list 50 important facts about the menopause? If not, you’ll surely find things to learn in here.

    The book is divided into three main sections:

    1. What to expect in perimenopause
    2. What to expect in early menopause
    3. What to expect in late menopause

    Each section comes with an alarming array of symptoms, ranging from perimenopause fatigue and acne to late menopause tooth loss and vaginal prolapse. This is not to say that everyone will experience everything (fortunately), but rather, that these are the things that can happen and should not arrive unexpected.

    Helpfully, of course, Dr. Gersh also gives advice on how to improve your energy and skin health, as well as keep your teeth and vagina in place. And similar professional insights for the rest of the “50 things you need to know”.

    The style is like one big (182 pages) patient information leaflet—thus, very clear, explaining everything, and offering reassurance where possible and also what things are reasonable cause for seeking personalized medical attention.

    Bottom line: if menopause is in your future, present, or very near past, this is an excellent book for you.

    Click here to check out Menopause: 50 Things You Need To Know, and know them!

    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:

  • Walnuts vs Cashews – 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 walnuts to cashews, we picked the walnuts.

    Why?

    It was close! In terms of macros, walnuts have about 2x the fiber, while cashews have slightly more protein. In the specific category of fats, walnuts have more fat. Looking further into it: walnuts’ fats are mostly polyunsaturated, while cashews’ fats are mostly monounsaturated, both of which are considered healthy.

    Notwithstanding being both high in calories, neither nut is associated with weight gain—largely because of their low glycemic indices (of which, walnuts enjoy the slightly lower GI, but both are low-GI foods)

    When it comes to vitamins, walnuts have more of vitamins A, B2, B3 B6, B9, and C, while cashews have more of vitamins B1, B5, E, and K. Because of the variation in their respective margins of difference, this is at best a moderate victory for walnuts, though.

    In the category of minerals, cashews get their day, as walnuts have more calcium and manganese, while cashews have more copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc.

    In short: unless you’re allergic, we recommend enjoying both of these nuts (and others) for a full range of benefits. However, if you’re going to pick one, walnuts win the day.

    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!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

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