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
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How Science News Outlets Can Lie To You (Yes, Even If They Cite Studies!)
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.
Each Monday, we’re going to be bringing you cutting-edge research reviews to not only make your health and productivity crazy simple, but also, constantly up-to-date.
But today, in this special edition, we want to lay out plain and simple how to see through a lot of the tricks used not just by popular news outlets, but even sometimes the research publications themselves.
That way, when we give you health-related science news, you won’t have to take our word for it, because you’ll be able to see whether the studies we cite really support the claims we make.
Of course, we’ll always give you the best, most honest information we have… But the point is that you shouldn’t have to trust us! So, buckle in for today’s special edition, and never have to blindly believe sci-hub (or Snopes!) again.
The above now-famous Tumblr post that became a meme is a popular and obvious example of how statistics can be misleading, either by error or by deliberate spin.
But what sort of mistakes and misrepresentations are we most likely to find in real research?
Spin Bias
Perhaps most common in popular media reporting of science, the Spin Bias hinges on the fact that most people perceive numbers in a very “fuzzy logic” sort of way. Do you?
Try this:
- A million seconds is 11.5 days
- A billion seconds is not weeks, but 13.2 months!
…just kidding, it’s actually nearly thirty-two years.
Did the months figure seem reasonable to you, though? If so, this is the same kind of “human brains don’t do large numbers” problem that occurs when looking at statistics.
Let’s have a look at reporting on statistically unlikely side effects for vaccines, as an example:
- “966 people in the US died after receiving this vaccine!” (So many! So risky!)
- “Fewer than 3 people per million died after receiving this vaccine!” (Hmm, I wonder if it is worth it?)
- “Half of unvaccinated people with this disease die of it” (Oh)
How to check for this: ask yourself “is what’s being described as very common really very common?”. To keep with the spiders theme, there are many (usually outright made-up) stats thrown around on social media about how near the nearest spider is at any given time. Apply this kind of thinking to medical conditions.. If something affects only 1% of the population (So few! What a tiny number!), how far would you have to go to find someone with that condition? The end of your street, perhaps?
Selection/Sampling Bias
Diabetes disproportionately affects black people, but diabetes research disproportionately focuses on white people with diabetes. There are many possible reasons for this, the most obvious being systemic/institutional racism. For example, advertisements for clinical trial volunteer opportunities might appear more frequently amongst a convenient, nearby, mostly-white student body. The selection bias, therefore, made the study much less reliable.
Alternatively: a researcher is conducting a study on depression, and advertises for research subjects. He struggles to get a large enough sample size, because depressed people are less likely to respond, but eventually gets enough. Little does he know, even the most depressed of his subjects are relatively happy and healthy compared with the silent majority of depressed people who didn’t respond.
See This And Many More Educational Cartoons At Sketchplanations.com!
How to check for this: Does the “method” section of the scientific article describe how they took pains to make sure their sample was representative of the relevant population, and how did they decide what the relevant population was?
Publication Bias
Scientific publications will tend to prioritise statistical significance. Which seems great, right? We want statistically significant studies… don’t we?
We do, but: usually, in science, we consider something “statistically significant” when it hits the magical marker of p=0.05 (in other words, the probability of getting that result is 1/20, and the results are reliably coming back on the right side of that marker).
However, this can result in the clinic stopping testing once p=0.05 is reached, because they want to have their paper published. (“Yay, we’ve reached out magical marker and now our paper will be published”)
So, you can think of publication bias as the tendency for researchers to publish ‘positive’ results.
If it weren’t for publication bias, we would have a lot more studies that say “we tested this, and here are our results, which didn’t help answer our question at all”—which would be bad for the publication, but good for science, because data is data.
To put it in non-numerical terms: this is the same misrepresentation as the technically true phrase “when I misplace something, it’s always in the last place I look for it”—obviously it is, because that’s when you stop looking.
There’s not a good way to check for this, but be sure to check out sample sizes and see that they’re reassuringly large.
Reporting/Detection/Survivorship Bias
There’s a famous example of the rise in “popularity” of left-handedness. Whilst Americans born in ~1910 had a bit under a 3.5% chance of being left handed, those born in ~1950 had a bit under a 12% change.
Why did left-handedness become so much more prevalent all of a sudden, and then plateau at 12%?
Simple, that’s when schools stopped forcing left-handed children to use their right hands instead.
In a similar fashion, countries have generally found that homosexuality became a lot more common once decriminalized. Of course the real incidence almost certainly did not change—it just became more visible to research.
So, these biases are caused when the method of data collection and/or measurement leads to a systematic error in results.
How to check for this: you’ll need to think this through logically, on a case by case basis. Is there a reason that we might not be seeing or hearing from a certain demographic?
And perhaps most common of all…
Confounding Bias
This is the bias that relates to the well-known idea “correlation ≠ causation”.
Everyone has heard the funny examples, such as “ice cream sales cause shark attacks” (in reality, both are more likely to happen in similar places and times; when many people are at the beach, for instance).
How can any research paper possibly screw this one up?
Often they don’t and it’s a case of Spin Bias (see above), but examples that are not so obviously wrong “by common sense” often fly under the radar:
“Horse-riding found to be the sport that most extends longevity”
Should we all take up horse-riding to increase our lifespans? Probably not; the reality is that people who can afford horses can probably afford better than average healthcare, and lead easier, less stressful lives overall. The fact that people with horses typically have wealthier lifestyles than those without, is the confounding variable here.
See This And Many More Educational Cartoons on XKCD.com!
In short, when you look at the scientific research papers cited in the articles you read (you do look at the studies, yes?), watch out for these biases that found their way into the research, and you’ll be able to draw your own conclusions, with well-informed confidence, about what the study actually tells us.
Science shouldn’t be gatekept, and definitely shouldn’t be abused, so the more people who know about these things, the better!
So…would one of your friends benefit from this knowledge? Forward it to them!
Share This Post
-
Continuous Glucose Monitors Without Diabetes: Pros & Cons
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The “Glucose Goddess”, biochemist Jessie Inchauspé, gives us the low-down:
Knowledge is power (but watch out)
A continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is a device that continually monitors glucose levels, without the need to stab one’s finger every few hours to test blood.
It was designed for diabetics, especially for those with Type 1 Diabetes, where around-the-clock monitoring is necessary for appropriate insulin dosing.
For non-diabetics, they can be a good way of learning what our body’s response to various foods and activities is like, the better to be able to tweak our habits to avoid undue glucose spikes (which are harmful for our pancreas, liver, heart, brain, kidneys, and more).
How it works: there’s a sensor that sits on the arm (or elsewhere, but the arm is a popular placement) with a little probe that goes under the skin. It’s applied using a device that inserts it automatically using a needle (you only need to press a button, you don’t need to guide the needle yourself); the needle then retracts, leaving the soft, flexible probe in place. Having been attached, that sensor can now stay in place for 2 weeks (usually; depends on brand, but for example FreeStyle Libre, the most popular brand, the sensors last 2 weeks), and yes, it’s fine to bathe/shower/etc with it. When you want an update from your CGM, you scan it with your phone (or you can buy a dedicated reader, but that is more expensive and unnecessary), and it uploads the data since your last scan.
Pros: it’s convenient and gives a lot of data, so even if you only use it for a short period of time (for example, a month) you can get a very good idea of what affects your blood sugar levels and how. Also, because of the constant nature of the monitoring, it helps avoid accidental sample bias of the kind that can occur with manual testing, by testing a little too soon or too late, and missing a spike/dip.
Cons: it can be expensive, depending on where you live and what options are available for you locally, so you might not want to do it long-term (since that would require buying two sensors per month). It’s also, for all its wealth of data, slightly less accurate than fingerprick testing—that’s because it takes an interstitial reading instead of directly from the blood. For this reason, if you test both ways, you may find a discrepancy of about 3mg/dL. Given that the healthy range is about 70–140mg/dL, a discrepancy of 3mg/dL is probably not going to be important, but it is a thing to mention can (and probably will) happen.
Patterns to bear in mind (with any kind of blood sugar monitoring):
- Dawn phenomenon: a natural glucose rise upon waking.
- Exercise-induced spikes (normal due to energy demands).
- Fat in meals slowing glucose absorption.
- Different foods can sometimes cause a double-wave after dinner (because glucose from different foods is absorbed differently, and/or different foods affect insulin response independent of glucose)
- Steep, rapid spikes that are more harmful than gradual, sustained increases.
- Vitamin C spikes: temporary chemical interference with the sensor, not actual glucose rises.
- Nighttime glucose dips (often false readings caused by sleeping position).
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
Take care!
Share This Post
-
What Macronutrient Balance Is Right For You?
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 want to learn more about macros. Can you cover that topic?❞
That’s a little broader than we usually go for, given the amount of space we have, but let’s give it a go!
Macronutrients, or “macros”, are the nutrients that we typically measure in grams rather than milligrams or micrograms, and are:
- Carbohydrates
- …and what kinds, of which usually the focus is on how much is sugars as opposed to more complex carbs that take longer to break down. See also: Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?
- …and of the sugars, the interested may further categorize them into sucrose, fructose, etc. See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
- Proteins
- …of which, the amino acid make-up is generally considered a matter of micronutrients. See also: Protein: How Much Do We Need, Really?
- Fats
- …and what kinds, i.e. monounsaturated vs polyunsaturated vs saturated. See also: Saturated Fat: What’s The Truth?
- …and then the interested may further categorize them for their fatty acids / triglycerides profile, etc. See also: What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
- Fiber
- …which often gets ignored by people counting macros, as “stuff that doesn’t do anything”, despite it in fact being very important for health. See also: Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Water
- …which again tends to get disregarded but is very arguably a critical macronutrient. See also: Busting The Myth of “Eight Glasses Of Water A Day”
In terms of how much we need of each, you can read more in the above-linked articles, but:
- General scientific consensus is we need plenty of fiber (30 or 40g per day is good) and water (highly dependent on climate and activity), and there’s a clear minimum requisite for protein (usually put at around 1g of protein per day per 1kg of body weight).
- There is vigorous debate in the general health community about what the best ratio of carbs to fat is.
The reality is that humans are quite an adaptable species, and while we absolutely do need at least some of both (carbohydrates and fats), we can play around with the ratios quite a bit, provided we don’t get too extreme about it.
While some influence is social and often centered around weight loss (see for example keto which seeks to minimize carbs, and volumetrics, which seeks maximise volume-to-calorie ratio, which de facto tends to minimize fats), some of what drives us to lean one way or the other will be genetics, too—dependent on what our ancestors ate more or less of.
Writer’s example: my ancestors could not grow much grain (or crops in general) where they were, so they got more energy from such foods as whale and seal fat (with protein coming more from reindeer). Now, biology is not destiny, and I personally enjoy a vegan diet, but my genes are probably why I am driven to get most of my daily calories from fat (of which, a lot of fatty nuts (don’t tell almonds, but I prefer walnuts and cashews) and healthy oils such as olive oil, avocado oil, and coconut oil).
However! About that adaptability. Provided we make changes slowly, we can usually adjust our diet to whatever we want it to be, including whether we get our energy more from carbs or fats. The reason we need to make changes slowly is because our gut needs time to adjust. For example, if your vegan writer here were to eat her ancestrally-favored foods now, I’d be very ill, because my gut microbiome has no idea what to do with animal products anymore, no matter what genes I have. In contrast, if an enthusiastic enjoyer of a meat-heavy diet were to switch to my fiber-rich diet overnight, they’d be very ill.
So: follow your natural inclinations, make any desired changes slowly, and if in doubt, it’s hard to go wrong with enjoying carbs and fats in moderation.
Learn more: Intuitive Eating Might Not Be What You Think
Take care!
Share This Post
- Carbohydrates
Related Posts
-
Yoga that Helps You on the Loo
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.
How This Video Helps You Poo
When you’re feeling a bit bloated, Yoga With Bird’s 10-minute yoga routine promises to help you release…your gas. And, perhaps, more.
From a tabletop flow to soothing twists, each pose allows you to sync your breath with movement, helping to promote organic relief.
With options to modify with pillows for extra support, this video (below) caters to everyone needing a digestive reset.
Other Toilet Tricks
If yoga isn’t your thing, or you’re interested in trying to use different methods to make your visits to the bathroom a bit easier, we’ve spoken about the ways to manage gut health, and use of probiotics or fiber, and even the prevention of hemorrhoids.
Namaste and goodbye to bloat!
How was the video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
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:
-
A short history of sunscreen, from basting like a chook to preventing skin cancer
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.
Australians have used commercial creams, lotions or gels to manage our skin’s sun exposure for nearly a century.
But why we do it, the preparations themselves, and whether they work, has changed over time.
In this short history of sunscreen in Australia, we look at how we’ve slathered, slopped and spritzed our skin for sometimes surprising reasons.
At first, suncreams helped you ‘tan with ease’
This early sunscreen claimed you could ‘tan with ease’.
Trove/NLASunscreens have been available in Australia since the 30s. Chemist Milton Blake made one of the first.
He used a kerosene heater to cook batches of “sunburn vanishing cream”, scented with French perfume.
His backyard business became H.A. Milton (Hamilton) Laboratories, which still makes sunscreens today.
Hamilton’s first cream claimed you could “
Sunbathe in Comfort and TAN with ease”. According to modern standards, it would have had an SPF (or sun protection factor) of 2.The mirage of ‘safe tanning’
A tan was considered a “modern complexion” and for most of the 20th century, you might put something on your skin to help gain one. That’s when “safe tanning” (without burning) was thought possible.
This 1967 Coppertone advertisement urged you to ‘tan, not burn’.
SenseiAlan/Flickr, CC BY-SASunburn was known to be caused by the UVB component of ultraviolet (UV) light. UVA, however, was thought not to be involved in burning; it was just thought to darken the skin pigment melanin. So, medical authorities advised that by using a sunscreen that filtered out UVB, you could “safely tan” without burning.
But that was wrong.
From the 70s, medical research suggested UVA penetrated damagingly deep into the skin, causing ageing effects such as sunspots and wrinkles. And both UVA and UVB could cause skin cancer.
Sunscreens from the 80s sought to be “broad spectrum” – they filtered both UVB and UVA.
Researchers consequently recommended sunscreens for all skin tones, including for preventing sun damage in people with dark skin.
Delaying burning … or encouraging it?
Up to the 80s, sun preparations ranged from something that claimed to delay burning, to preparations that actively encouraged it to get that desirable tan – think, baby oil or coconut oil. Sun-worshippers even raided the kitchen cabinet, slicking olive oil on their skin.
One manufacturer’s “sun lotion” might effectively filter UVB; another’s merely basted you like a roast chicken.
Since labelling laws before the 80s didn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients, it was often hard for consumers to tell which was which.
At last, SPF arrives to guide consumers
In the 70s, two Queensland researchers, Gordon Groves and Don Robertson, developed tests for sunscreens – sometimes experimenting on students or colleagues. They printed their ranking in the newspaper, which the public could use to choose a product.
An Australian sunscreen manufacturer then asked the federal health department to regulate the industry. The company wanted standard definitions to market their products, backed up by consistent lab testing methods.
In 1986, after years of consultation with manufacturers, researchers and consumers, Australian Standard AS2604 gave a specified a testing method, based on the Queensland researchers’ work. We also had a way of expressing how well sunscreens worked – the sun protection factor or SPF.
This is the ratio of how long it takes a fair-skinned person to burn using the product compared with how long it takes to burn without it. So a cream that protects the skin sufficiently so it takes 40 minutes to burn instead of 20 minutes has an SPF of 2.
Manufacturers liked SPF because businesses that invested in clever chemistry could distinguish themselves in marketing. Consumers liked SPF because it was easy to understand – the higher the number, the better the protection.
Australians, encouraged from 1981 by the Slip! Slop! Slap! nationwide skin cancer campaign, could now “slop” on a sunscreen knowing the degree of protection it offered.
How about skin cancer?
It wasn’t until 1999 that research proved that using sunscreen prevents skin cancer. Again, we have Queensland to thank, specifically the residents of Nambour. They took part in a trial for nearly five years, carried out by a research team led by Adele Green of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Using sunscreen daily over that time reduced rates of squamous cell carcinoma (a common form of skin cancer) by about 60%.
Follow-up studies in 2011 and 2013 showed regular sunscreen use almost halved the rate of melanoma and slowed skin ageing. But there was no impact on rates of basal cell carcinoma, another common skin cancer.
By then, researchers had shown sunscreen stopped sunburn, and stopping sunburn would prevent at least some types of skin cancer.
What’s in sunscreen today?
An effective sunscreen uses one or more active ingredients in a cream, lotion or gel. The active ingredient either works:
-
“chemically” by absorbing UV and converting it to heat. Examples include PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and benzyl salicylate, or
-
“physically” by blocking the UV, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.
Physical blockers at first had limited cosmetic appeal because they were opaque pastes. (Think cricketers with zinc smeared on their noses.)
With microfine particle technology from the 90s, sunscreen manufacturers could then use a combination of chemical absorbers and physical blockers to achieve high degrees of sun protection in a cosmetically acceptable formulation.
Where now?
Australians have embraced sunscreen, but they still don’t apply enough or reapply often enough.
Although some people are concerned sunscreen will block the skin’s ability to make vitamin D this is unlikely. That’s because even SPF50 sunscreen doesn’t filter out all UVB.
There’s also concern about the active ingredients in sunscreen getting into the environment and whether their absorption by our bodies is a problem.
Sunscreens have evolved from something that at best offered mild protection to effective, easy-to-use products that stave off the harmful effects of UV. They’ve evolved from something only people with fair skin used to a product for anyone.
Remember, slopping on sunscreen is just one part of sun protection. Don’t forget to also slip (protective clothing), slap (hat), seek (shade) and slide (sunglasses).
Laura Dawes, Research Fellow in Medico-Legal History, Australian National University
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:
-
-
How To Ease Neck Pain At Home
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.
Dr. Bang is offering exercises to alleviate neck pain, which pain can be a real… Well, if only there were a good phrase for expressing how troublesome pain in that part of the body can be.
To be clear, he’s a doctor of chiropractic, not a medical doctor, but his advice has clearly been helping people alleviate pain, so without further ado, he advises the following things:
- Taking the head and neck slowly and carefully through the full range of motion available
- Contracting the neck muscles while repeating the above exercise, three times each way
- Backing off a little if it hurts at any point, but noting where the limits lie
- Repeating again the range of motion exercise, this time adding gentle resistance
- Holding each end of this for twenty seconds before releasing and doing the other side, three times each way
- Finally, stabilizing the head centrally and pushing into one’s hands, as an isometric strengthening exercise
He demonstrates each part clearly in this short (5:58) video:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to know more about chiropractic?
You might like our previous main feature:
Is Chiropractic All It’s Cracked Up To Be?
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: