Natto vs Tofu – 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 nattō to tofu, we picked the nattō.
Why?
In other words, in the comparison of fermented soy to fermented soy, we picked the fermented soy. But the relevant difference here is that nattō is fermented whole soybeans, while tofu is fermented soy milk of which the coagulated curds are then compressed into a block—meaning that the nattō is the one that has “more food per food”.
Looking at the macros, it’s therefore no surprise that nattō has a lot more fiber to go with its higher carb count; it also has slightly more protein. You may be wondering what tofu has more of, and the answer is: water.
In terms of vitamins, nattō has more of vitamins B2, B4, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while tofu has more of vitamins A, B3, and B9. So, a 7:3 win for nattō, even before considering that that vitamin C content of nattō is 65x more than what tofu has.
When it comes to minerals, nattō has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and zinc, while tofu has more calcium, phosphorus, and selenium. So, a 6:3 win for nattō, and yes, the margins of difference are comparable (being 2–3x more for most of these minerals).
In short, both of these foods are great, but nattō is better.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!)
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:
-
What is ‘doll therapy’ for people with dementia? And is it backed by 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.
The way people living with dementia experience the world can change as the disease progresses. Their sense of reality or place in time can become distorted, which can cause agitation and distress.
One of the best ways to support people experiencing changes in perception and behaviour is to manage their environment. This can have profound benefits including reducing the need for sedatives.
One such strategy is the use of dolls as comfort aids.
Jack Cronkhite/Shutterstock What is ‘doll therapy’?
More appropriately referred to as “child representation”, lifelike dolls (also known as empathy dolls) can provide comfort for some people with dementia.
Memories from the distant past are often more salient than more recent events in dementia. This means that past experiences of parenthood and caring for young children may feel more “real” to a person with dementia than where they are now.
Hallucinations or delusions may also occur, where a person hears a baby crying or fears they have lost their baby.
Providing a doll can be a tangible way of reducing distress without invalidating the experience of the person with dementia.
Some people believe the doll is real
A recent case involving an aged care nurse mistreating a dementia patient’s therapy doll highlights the importance of appropriate training and support for care workers in this area.
For those who do become attached to a therapeutic doll, they will treat the doll as a real baby needing care and may therefore have a profound emotional response if the doll is mishandled.
It’s important to be guided by the person with dementia and only act as if it’s a real baby if the person themselves believes that is the case.
What does the evidence say about their use?
Evidence shows the use of empathy dolls may help reduce agitation and anxiety and improve overall quality of life in people living with dementia.
Child representation therapy falls under the banner of non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care. More specifically, the attachment to the doll may act as a form of reminiscence therapy, which involves using prompts to reconnect with past experiences.
Interacting with the dolls may also act as a form of sensory stimulation, where the person with dementia may gain comfort from touching and holding the doll. Sensory stimulation may support emotional well-being and aid commnication.
However, not all people living with dementia will respond to an empathy doll.
It depends on a person’s background. Shutterstock The introduction of a therapeutic doll needs to be done in conjunction with careful observation and consideration of the person’s background.
Empathy dolls may be inappropriate or less effective for those who have not previously cared for children or who may have experienced past birth trauma or the loss of a child.
Be guided by the person with dementia and how they respond to the doll.
Are there downsides?
The approach has attracted some controversy. It has been suggested that child representation therapy “infantilises” people living with dementia and may increase negative stigma.
Further, the attachment may become so strong that the person with dementia will become upset if someone else picks the doll up. This may create some difficulties in the presence of grandchildren or when cleaning the doll.
The introduction of child representation therapy may also require additional staff training and time. Non-pharmacological interventions such as child representation, however, have been shown to be cost-effective.
Could robots be the future?
The use of more interactive empathy dolls and pet-like robots is also gaining popularity.
While robots have been shown to be feasible and acceptable in dementia care, there remains some contention about their benefits.
While some studies have shown positive outcomes, including reduced agitation, others show no improvement in cognition, behaviour or quality of life among people with dementia.
Advances in artificial intelligence are also being used to help support people living with dementia and inform the community.
Viv and Friends, for example, are AI companions who appear on a screen and can interact with the person with dementia in real time. The AI character Viv has dementia and was co-created with women living with dementia using verbatim scripts of their words, insights and experiences. While Viv can share her experience of living with dementia, she can also be programmed to talk about common interests, such as gardening.
These companions are currently being trialled in some residential aged care facilities and to help educate people on the lived experience of dementia.
How should you respond to your loved one’s empathy doll?
While child representation can be a useful adjunct in dementia care, it requires sensitivity and appropriate consideration of the person’s needs.
People living with dementia may not perceive the social world the same way as a person without dementia. But a person living with dementia is not a child and should never be treated as one.
Ensure all family, friends and care workers are informed about the attachment to the empathy doll to help avoid unintentionally causing distress from inappropriate handling of the doll.
If using an interactive doll, ensure spare batteries are on hand.
Finally, it is important to reassess the attachment over time as the person’s response to the empathy doll may change.
Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Life Is in the Transitions – by Bruce Feiler
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.
Change happens. Sometimes, because we choose it. More often, we don’t get a choice.
Our bodies change; with time, with illness, with accident or incident, or even, sometimes, with effort. People in our lives change; they come, they go, they get sick, they die. Our working lives change; we get a job, we lose a job, we change jobs, our jobs change, we retire.
Whether we’re undergoing cancer treatment or a religious conversion, whether our families are growing or down to the last few standing, change is inescapable.
Our author makes the case that on average, we each undergo at least 5 major “lifequakes”; changes that shake our lives to the core. Sometimes one will come along when we’ve barely got back on our feet from the previous—if we have at all.
What, then, to do about this? We can’t stop change from occurring, and some changes aren’t easy to “roll with”. Feiler isn’t prescriptive about this, but rather, descriptive:
By looking at the stories of hundreds of people he interviewed for this book, he looks at how people pivoted on the spot (or picked up the pieces!) and made the best of their situation—or didn’t.
Bottom line: zooming out like this, looking at many people’s lives, can remind us that while we don’t get to choose what winds we get swept by, we at least get to choose how we set the sails. The examples of others, as this book gives, can help us make better decisions.
Click here to check out Life Is In The Transitions, and get conscious about how you handle yours!
Share This Post
-
Vibration Plate, Review After 6 Months: Is It Worth 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.
Is it push-button exercise, or an expensive fad, or something else entirely? Robin, from “The Science of Self-Care”, has insights:
Science & Experience
According to the science (studies cited in the video and linked-to in the video description, underneath it on YouTube), vibration therapy does have some clear benefits, namely:
- Bone health (helps with bone density, particularly beneficial for postmenopausal women)
- Muscle recovery (reduces lactate levels, aiding faster recovery)
- Joint health (reduces pain and improves function in osteoarthritis patients)
- Muscle stimulation (helps older adults maintain muscle mass)
- Cognitive function (due to increased blood flow to the brain)
And from her personal experience, the benefits included:
- Improved recovery after exercise, reducing muscle soreness and stiffness
- Reduced back pain and improved posture (not surprising, given the need for stabilizing muscles when using one of these)
- Better circulation and (likely resulting from same) skin clarity
She did not, however, notice:
- Any reduction in cellulite
- Any change in body composition (fat loss or muscle gain)
For a deeper look into these things and more, plus a demonstration of how the machine actually operates, 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
Related Posts
-
Women Rowing North – by Dr. Mary Pipher
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.
Ageism is rife, as is misogyny. And those can be internalized too, and compounded as they intersect.
Clinical psychologist Dr. Mary Pipher, herself 75, writes for us a guidebook of, as the subtitle goes, “navigating life’s currents and flourishing as we age”.
The book does assume, by the way, that the reader is…
- a woman, and
- getting old (if not already old)
However, the lessons the book imparts are vital for women of any age, and valuable as a matter of insight and perspective for any reader.
Dr. Pipher takes us on a tour of aging as a woman, and what parts of it we can make our own, do things our way, and take what joy we can from it.
Nor is the book given to “toxic positivity” though—it also deals with themes of hardship, frustration, and loss.
When it comes to those elements, the book is… honest, human, and raw. But also, an exhortation to hope, beauty, and a carpe diem attitude.
Bottom line: this book is highly recommendable to anyone of any age; life is precious and can be short. And be we blessed with many long years, this book serves as a guide to making each one of them count.
Click here to check out Women Rowing North—it really is worth 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:
-
Hoisin Sauce vs Teriyaki Sauce – 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 hoisin sauce to teriyaki sauce, we picked the teriyaki sauce.
Why?
Neither are great! But spoonful for spoonful, the hoisin sauce has about 5x as much sugar.
Of course, exact amounts will vary by brand, but the hoisin will invariably be much more sugary than the teriyaki.
On the flipside, the teriyaki sauce may sometimes have slightly more salt, but they are usually in approximately the same ballpark of saltiness, so this is not a big deciding factor.
As a general rule of thumb, the first few ingredients will look like this for each, respectively:
Hoisin:
- Sugar
- Water
- Soybeans
Teriyaki:
- Soy sauce (water, soybeans, salt)
- Rice wine
- Sugar
In essence: hoisin is a soy-flavored syrup, while teriyaki is a sweetened soy sauce
Wondering about that rice wine? The alcohol content is negligible, sufficiently so that teriyaki sauce is not considered alcoholic. For health purposes, it is well under the 0.05% required to be considered alcohol-free.
For religious purposes, we are not your rabbi or imam, but to our best understanding, teriyaki sauce is generally considered kosher* (the rice wine being made from rice) and halal (the rice wine being de-alcoholized by the processing, making the sauce non-intoxicating).
Want to try some?
You can compare these examples side-by-side yourself:
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:
-
Why scrapping the term ‘long COVID’ would be harmful for people with the condition
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 assertion from Queensland’s chief health officer John Gerrard that it’s time to stop using the term “long COVID” has made waves in Australian and international media over recent days.
Gerrard’s comments were related to new research from his team finding long-term symptoms of COVID are similar to the ongoing symptoms following other viral infections.
But there are limitations in this research, and problems with Gerrard’s argument we should drop the term “long COVID”. Here’s why.
A bit about the research
The study involved texting a survey to 5,112 Queensland adults who had experienced respiratory symptoms and had sought a PCR test in 2022. Respondents were contacted 12 months after the PCR test. Some had tested positive to COVID, while others had tested positive to influenza or had not tested positive to either disease.
Survey respondents were asked if they had experienced ongoing symptoms or any functional impairment over the previous year.
The study found people with respiratory symptoms can suffer long-term symptoms and impairment, regardless of whether they had COVID, influenza or another respiratory disease. These symptoms are often referred to as “post-viral”, as they linger after a viral infection.
Gerrard’s research will be presented in April at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
After the research was publicised last Friday, some experts highlighted flaws in the study design. For example, Steven Faux, a long COVID clinician interviewed on ABC’s television news, said the study excluded people who were hospitalised with COVID (therefore leaving out people who had the most severe symptoms). He also noted differing levels of vaccination against COVID and influenza may have influenced the findings.
In addition, Faux pointed out the survey would have excluded many older people who may not use smartphones.
The authors of the research have acknowledged some of these and other limitations in their study.
Ditching the term ‘long COVID’
Based on the research findings, Gerrard said in a press release:
We believe it is time to stop using terms like ‘long COVID’. They wrongly imply there is something unique and exceptional about longer term symptoms associated with this virus. This terminology can cause unnecessary fear, and in some cases, hypervigilance to longer symptoms that can impede recovery.
But Gerrard and his team’s findings cannot substantiate these assertions. Their survey only documented symptoms and impairment after respiratory infections. It didn’t ask people how fearful they were, or whether a term such as long COVID made them especially vigilant, for example.
Tens of thousands of Australians, and millions of people worldwide, have long COVID.
New Africa/ShutterstockIn discussing Gerrard’s conclusions about the terminology, Faux noted that even if only 3% of people develop long COVID (the survey found 3% of people had functional limitations after a year), this would equate to some 150,000 Queenslanders with the condition. He said:
To suggest that by not calling it long COVID you would be […] somehow helping those people not to focus on their symptoms is a curious conclusion from that study.
Another clinician and researcher, Philip Britton, criticised Gerrard’s conclusion about the language as “overstated and potentially unhelpful”. He noted the term “long COVID” is recognised by the World Health Organization as a valid description of the condition.
A cruel irony
An ever-growing body of research continues to show how COVID can cause harm to the body across organ systems and cells.
We know from the experiences shared by people with long COVID that the condition can be highly disabling, preventing them from engaging in study or paid work. It can also harm relationships with their friends, family members, and even their partners.
Despite all this, people with long COVID have often felt gaslit and unheard. When seeking treatment from health-care professionals, many people with long COVID report they have been dismissed or turned away.
Last Friday – the day Gerrard’s comments were made public – was actually International Long COVID Awareness Day, organised by activists to draw attention to the condition.
The response from people with long COVID was immediate. They shared their anger on social media about Gerrard’s comments, especially their timing, on a day designed to generate greater recognition for their illness.
Since the start of the COVID pandemic, patient communities have fought for recognition of the long-term symptoms many people faced.
The term “long COVID” was in fact coined by people suffering persistent symptoms after a COVID infection, who were seeking words to describe what they were going through.
The role people with long COVID have played in defining their condition and bringing medical and public attention to it demonstrates the possibilities of patient-led expertise. For decades, people with invisible or “silent” conditions such as ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) have had to fight ignorance from health-care professionals and stigma from others in their lives. They have often been told their disabling symptoms are psychosomatic.
Gerrard’s comments, and the media’s amplification of them, repudiates the term “long COVID” that community members have chosen to give their condition an identity and support each other. This is likely to cause distress and exacerbate feelings of abandonment.
Terminology matters
The words we use to describe illnesses and conditions are incredibly powerful. Naming a new condition is a step towards better recognition of people’s suffering, and hopefully, better diagnosis, health care, treatment and acceptance by others.
The term “long COVID” provides an easily understandable label to convey patients’ experiences to others. It is well known to the public. It has been routinely used in news media reporting and and in many reputable medical journal articles.
Most importantly, scrapping the label would further marginalise a large group of people with a chronic illness who have often been left to struggle behind closed doors.
Deborah Lupton, SHARP Professor, Vitalities Lab, Centre for Social Research in Health and Social Policy Centre, and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, UNSW Sydney
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:
