Popcorn vs Peanuts – 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 air-popped popcorn to peanuts (without an allergy), we picked the peanuts.
Why?
Peanuts, if we were to list popular nuts in order of healthfulness, would not be near the top of the list. Many other nuts have more nutrients and fewer/lesser drawbacks.
But the comparison to popcorn shines a different light on it:
Popcorn has very few nutrients. It’s mostly carbs and fiber; it’s just not a lot of carbs because the manner of its consumption makes it a very light snack (literally). You can eat a bowlful and it was perhaps 30g. It has some small amounts of some minerals, but nothing that you could rely on it for. It’s mostly fresh air wrapped in fiber.
Peanuts, in contrast, are a much denser snack. High in calories yes, but also high in protein, their fats are mostly healthy, and they have not only a fair stock of vitamins and minerals, but also a respectable complement of beneficial phytochemicals: mostly assorted antioxidant polyphenols, but also oleic acid (as in olives, good for healthy triglyceride levels).
Another thing worth a mention is their cholesterol-reducing phytosterols (these reduce the absorption of dietary cholesterol, “good” and “bad”, so this is good for most people, bad for some, depending on the state of your cholesterol and what you ate near in time to eating the nuts)
Peanuts do have their clear downsides too: its phytic acid content can reduce the bioavailability of iron and zinc taken at the same time.
In summary: while popcorn’s greatest claim to dietary beneficence is its fiber content and that it’s close to being a “zero snack”, peanuts (eaten in moderation, say, the same 30g as the popcorn) have a lot to contribute to our daily nutritional requirements.
We do suggest enjoying other nuts though!
Read more: Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!
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:
-
Ovarian cancer is hard to detect. Focusing on these 4 symptoms can help with diagnosis
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.
Ovarian cancers are often found when they are already advanced and hard to treat.
Researchers have long believed this was because women first experienced symptoms when ovarian cancer was already well-established. Symptoms can also be hard to identify as they’re vague and similar to other conditions.
But a new study shows promising signs ovarian cancer can be detected in its early stages. The study targeted women with four specific symptoms – bloating, abdominal pain, needing to pee frequently, and feeling full quickly – and put them on a fast track to see a specialist.
As a result, even the most aggressive forms of ovarian cancer could be detected in their early stages.
So what did the study find? And what could it mean for detecting – and treating – ovarian cancer more quickly?
Ground Picture/Shutterstock Why is ovarian cancer hard to detect early?
Ovarian cancer cannot be detected via cervical cancer screening (which used to be called a pap smear) and pelvic exams aren’t useful as a screening test.
Current Australian guidelines recommend women get tested for ovarian cancer if they have symptoms for more than a month. But many of the symptoms – such as tiredness, constipation and changes in menstruation – are vague and overlap with other common illnesses.
This makes early detection a challenge. But it is crucial – a woman’s chances of surviving ovarian cancer are associated with how advanced the cancer is when she is diagnosed.
If the cancer is still confined to the original site with no spread, the five-year survival rate is 92%. But over half of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer first present when the cancer has already metastatised, meaning it has spread to other parts of the body.
If the cancer has spread to nearby lymph nodes, the survival rate is reduced to 72%. If the cancer has already metastasised and spread to distant sites at the time of diagnosis, the rate is only 31%.
There are mixed findings on whether detecting ovarian cancer earlier leads to better survival rates. For example, a trial in the UK that screened more than 200,000 women failed to reduce deaths.
That study screened the general public, rather than relying on self-reported symptoms. The new study suggests asking women to look for specific symptoms can lead to earlier diagnosis, meaning treatment can start more quickly.
What did the new study look at?
Between June 2015 and July 2022, the researchers recruited 2,596 women aged between 16 and 90 from 24 hospitals across the UK.
They were asked to monitor for these four symptoms:
- persistent abdominal distension (women often refer to this as bloating)
- feeling full shortly after starting to eat and/or loss of appetite
- pelvic or abdominal pain (which can feel like indigestion)
- needing to urinate urgently or more often.
Women who reported at least one of four symptoms persistently or frequently were put on a fast-track pathway. That means they were sent to see a gynaecologist within two weeks. The fast track pathway has been used in the UK since 2011, but is not specifically part of Australia’s guidelines.
Some 1,741 participants were put on this fast track. First, they did a blood test that measured the cancer antigen 125 (CA125). If a woman’s CA125 level was abnormal, she was sent to do a internal vaginal ultrasound.
What did they find?
The study indicates this process is better at detecting ovarian cancer than general screening of people who don’t have symptoms. Some 12% of women on the fast-track pathway were diagnosed with some kind of ovarian cancer.
A total of 6.8% of fast-tracked patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. It is the most aggressive form of cancer and responsible for 90% of ovarian cancer deaths.
Out of those women with the most aggressive form, one in four were diagnosed when the cancer was still in its early stages. That is important because it allowed treatment of the most lethal cancer before it had spread significantly through the body.
There were some promising signs in treating those with this aggressive form. The majority (95%) had surgery and three quarters (77%) had chemotherapy. Complete cytoreduction – meaning all of the cancer appears to have been removed – was achieved in six women out of ten (61%).
It’s a promising sign that there may be ways to “catch” and target ovarian cancer before it is well-established in the body.
What does this mean for detection?
The study’s findings suggest this method of early testing and referral for the symptoms leads to earlier detection of ovarian cancer. This may also improve outcomes, although the study did not track survival rates.
It also points to the importance of public awareness about symptoms.
Clinicians should be able to recognise all of the ways ovarian cancer can present, including vague symptoms like general fatigue.
But empowering members of the general public to recognise a narrower set of four symptoms can help trigger testing, detection and treatment of ovarian cancer earlier than we thought.
This could also save GPs advising every woman who has general tiredness or constipation to undergo an ovarian cancer test, making testing and treatment more targeted and efficient.
Many women remain unaware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer. This study shows recognising them may help early detection and treatment.
Jenny Doust, Clinical Professorial Research Fellow, Australian Women and Girls’ Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Most People Try The Wrong Way To Unshrimp Their Posture (Here’s How To Do It Better)
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.
Many people try to correct posture by pulling the shoulders back and tucking in the chin, but that doesn’t work. Happily, there is a way that does! Kinesiologist Kyle Waugh demonstrates:
Defying gravity
The trick is simple, and is about how maintaining good posture needs to be unconscious and natural, not forced. After all, who is maintaining singular focus for 16 waking hours a day?
Instead, pay attention to how the body relates to gravity without excessive muscle tension, aligning the (oft-forgotten!) hips, and maintaining balance. The importance of hip position is really not to be underestimated, since in many ways the hips are a central axis of the body just as the spine is, and the spine itself sits in the hips.
A lot of what holds the body in poor posture tends to be localized muscle tensions, so address those with stretches and relaxation exercises.
For a few quick tests and exercises to try, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
6 Ways To Look After Your Back ← no video on this one, just 6 concepts that you can apply to your daily life
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Blue Cheese vs Brunost – 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 blue cheese to brunost, we picked the brunost.
Why?
First, for the unfamiliar, as brunost isn’t necessarily as popular as blue cheese in N. America where most of our readers are:
Brunost, literally “brown cheese” is a traditional Norwegian affair made from aggressively boiling milk, cream, and whey in an iron cauldron. Whereas the blue in blue cheese comes from mold, the brown in brown cheese comes from caramelizing the milk sugars in the cauldron. When we say “cauldron”, yes, there is nowadays mass-produced brunost that is no longer made in something that could be mistaken for a witch’s brew, but the use of cast iron is actually important to the process, and has been the subject of regulatory controversy in Norway; first the cast iron was abandoned, then because that changed the cheese they fortified the product with added iron supplementation, then that was banned, then they reversed it because it affected iron levels in the general population. Nowadays, it is usually made with iron, one way or another.
Ok, so let’s see how they stack up against each other:
In terms of macronutrients, the two cheeses are comparable in fat, but brunost has more carbs—because whereas bacteria (and to a lesser extent, the mold) ate nearly all the carbs in the blue cheese, the caramelization of the milk sugars in brunost meant the result stayed higher in carbs. Both are considered “low GI” foods, but this category is still at least a moderate win for blue cheese.
When it comes to vitamins, brunost is higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, and B12, while blue cheese is higher in vitamin B9. In other words, a clear and easy win for brunost.
In the category of minerals, brunost has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and potassium. Meanwhile, blue cheese contains more zinc, although we can also mention that blue cheese has about 2x the sodium, which is generally not considered a benefit. The two cheeses are about equal in calcium and selenium. Adding these up makes for another clear and easy win for brunost.
In short, unless you are strongly avoiding [even low-GI foods’] carbs for some reason, brunost wins the day by virtue of its overwhelmingly better vitamin and mineral content.
Still, like most fermented dairy products, both cheeses can be enjoyed in moderation as part of a healthy diet (assuming you don’t have an allergy/intolerance).
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
What is type 1.5 diabetes? It’s a bit like type 1 and a bit like type 2 – but it’s often misdiagnosed
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.
While you’re likely familiar with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, you’ve probably heard less about type 1.5 diabetes.
Also known as latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), type 1.5 diabetes has features of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
More people became aware of this condition after Lance Bass, best known for his role in the iconic American pop band NSYNC, recently revealed he has it.
So, what is type 1.5 diabetes? And how is it diagnosed and treated?
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock There are several types of diabetes
Diabetes mellitus is a group of conditions that arise when the levels of glucose (sugar) in our blood are higher than normal. There are actually more than ten types of diabetes, but the most common are type 1 and type 2.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition where the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells in the pancreas that make the hormone insulin. This leads to very little or no insulin production.
Insulin is important for moving glucose from the blood into our cells to be used for energy, which is why people with type 1 diabetes need insulin medication daily. Type 1 diabetes usually appears in children or young adults.
Type 2 diabetes is not an autoimmune condition. Rather, it happens when the body’s cells become resistant to insulin over time, and the pancreas is no longer able to make enough insulin to overcome this resistance. Unlike type 1 diabetes, people with type 2 diabetes still produce some insulin.
Type 2 is more common in adults but is increasingly seen in children and young people. Management can include behavioural changes such as nutrition and physical activity, as well as oral medications and insulin therapy.
People with diabetes may need to regularly monitor their blood sugar levels. Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock How does type 1.5 diabetes differ from types 1 and 2?
Like type 1 diabetes, type 1.5 occurs when the immune system attacks the pancreas cells that make insulin. But people with type 1.5 often don’t need insulin immediately because their condition develops more slowly. Most people with type 1.5 diabetes will need to use insulin within five years of diagnosis, while those with type 1 typically require it from diagnosis.
Type 1.5 diabetes is usually diagnosed in people over 30, likely due to the slow progressing nature of the condition. This is older than the typical age for type 1 diabetes but younger than the usual diagnosis age for type 2.
Type 1.5 diabetes shares genetic and autoimmune risk factors with type 1 diabetes such as specific gene variants. However, evidence has also shown it may be influenced by lifestyle factors such as obesity and physical inactivity which are more commonly associated with type 2 diabetes.
What are the symptoms, and how is it treated?
The symptoms of type 1.5 diabetes are highly variable between people. Some have no symptoms at all. But generally, people may experience the following symptoms:
- increased thirst
- frequent urination
- fatigue
- blurred vision
- unintentional weight loss.
Typically, type 1.5 diabetes is initially treated with oral medications to keep blood glucose levels in normal range. Depending on their glucose control and the medication they are using, people with type 1.5 diabetes may need to monitor their blood glucose levels regularly throughout the day.
When average blood glucose levels increase beyond normal range even with oral medications, treatment may progress to insulin. However, there are no universally accepted management or treatment strategies for type 1.5 diabetes.
Type 1.5 diabetes might be managed with oral medications, at least initially. Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock Type 1.5 diabetes is often misdiagnosed
Lance Bass said he was initially diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but later learned he actually has type 1.5 diabetes. This is not entirely uncommon. Estimates suggest type 1.5 diabetes is misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes 5–10% of the time.
There are a few possible reasons for this.
First, accurately diagnosing type 1.5 diabetes, and distinguishing it from other types of diabetes, requires special antibody tests (a type of blood test) to detect autoimmune markers. Not all health-care professionals necessarily order these tests routinely, either due to cost concerns or because they may not consider them.
Second, type 1.5 diabetes is commonly found in adults, so doctors might wrongly assume a person has developed type 2 diabetes, which is more common in this age group (whereas type 1 diabetes usually affects children and young adults).
Third, people with type 1.5 diabetes often initially make enough insulin in the body to manage their blood glucose levels without needing to start insulin medication. This can make their condition appear like type 2 diabetes, where people also produce some insulin.
Finally, because type 1.5 diabetes has symptoms that are similar to type 2 diabetes, it may initially be treated as type 2.
We’re still learning about type 1.5
Compared with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, there has been much less research on how common type 1.5 diabetes is, especially in non-European populations. In 2023, it was estimated type 1.5 diabetes represented 8.9% of all diabetes cases, which is similar to type 1. However, we need more research to get accurate numbers.
Overall, there has been a limited awareness of type 1.5 diabetes and unclear diagnostic criteria which have slowed down our understanding of this condition.
A misdiagnosis can be stressful and confusing. For people with type 1.5 diabetes, being misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes might mean they don’t get the insulin they need in a timely manner. This can lead to worsening health and a greater likelihood of complications down the road.
Getting the right diagnosis helps people receive the most appropriate treatment, save money, and reduce diabetes distress. If you’re experiencing symptoms you think may indicate diabetes, or feel unsure about a diagnosis you’ve already received, monitor your symptoms and chat with your doctor.
Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University and Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland
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:
-
Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be Enough?
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.
Polyphasic Sleep… Super-Schedule Or An Idea Best Put To Rest?
What is it?
Let’s start by defining some terms:
- Monophasic sleep—sleeping in one “chunk” per day. For example, a good night’s “normal” sleep.
- Biphasic sleep—sleeping in two “chunks” per day. Typically, a shorter night’s sleep, with a nap usually around the middle of the day / early afternoon.
- Polyphasic sleep—sleeping in two or more “chunks per day”. Some people do this in order to have more hours awake per day, to do things. The idea is that sleeping this way is more efficient, and one can get enough rest in less time. The most popular schedules used are:
- The Überman schedule—six evenly-spaced 20-minute naps, one every four hours, throughout the 24-hour day. The name is a semi-anglicized version of the German word Übermensch, “Superman”.
- The Everyman schedule—a less extreme schedule, that has a three-hours “long sleep” during the night, and three evenly-spaced 20-minute naps during the day, for a total of 4 hours sleep.
There are other schedules, but we’ll focus on the most popular ones here.
Want to learn about the others? Visit: Polyphasic.Net (a website by and for polyphasic sleep enthusiasts)
Some people have pointed to evidence that suggests humans are naturally polyphasic sleepers, and that it is only modern lifestyles that have forced us to be (mostly) monophasic.
There is at least some evidence to suggest that when environmental light/dark conditions are changed (because of extreme seasonal variation at the poles, or, as in this case, because of artificial changes as part of a sleep science experiment), we adjust our sleeping patterns accordingly.
The counterpoint, of course, is that perhaps when at the mercy of long days/nights at the poles, or no air-conditioning to deal with the heat of the day in the tropics, that perhaps we were forced to be polyphasic, and now, with modern technology and greater control, we are free to be monophasic.
Either way, there are plenty of people who take up the practice of polyphasic sleep.
Ok, But… Why?
The main motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is simply to have more hours in the day! It’s exciting, the prospect of having 22 hours per day to be so productive and still have time over for leisure.
A secondary motivation for trying polyphasic sleep is that when the brain is sleep-deprived, it will prioritize REM sleep. Here’s where the Überman schedule becomes perhaps most interesting:
The six evenly-spaced naps of the Überman schedule are each 20 minutes long. This corresponds to the approximate length of a normal REM cycle.
Consequently, when your head hits the pillow, you’ll immediately begin dreaming, and at the end of your dream, the alarm will go off.
Waking up at the end of a dream, when one hasn’t yet entered a non-REM phase of sleep, will make you more likely to remember it. Similarly, going straight into REM sleep will make you more likely to be aware of it, thus, lucid dreaming.
Read: Sleep fragmentation and lucid dreaming (actually a very interesting and informative lucid dreaming study even if you don’t want to take up polyphasic sleep)
Six 20-minute lucid-dreaming sessions per day?! While awake for the other 22 hours?! That’s… 24 hours per day of wakefulness to use as you please! What sorcery is this?
Hence, it has quite an understandable appeal.
Next Question: Does it work?
Can we get by without the other (non-REM) kinds of sleep?
According to Überman cycle enthusiasts: Yes! The body and brain will adapt.
According to sleep scientists: No! The non-REM slow-wave phases of sleep are essential
Read: Adverse impact of polyphasic sleep patterns in humans—Report of the National Sleep Foundation sleep timing and variability consensus panel
(if you want to know just how bad it is… the top-listed “similar article” is entitled “Suicidal Ideation”)
But what about, for example, the Everman schedule? Three hours at night is enough for some non-REM sleep, right?
It is, and so it’s not as quickly deleterious to the health as the Überman schedule. But, unless you are blessed with rare genes that allow you to operate comfortably on 4 hours per day (you’ll know already if that describes you, without having to run any experiment), it’s still bad.
Adults typically need 7–9 hours of sleep per night, and if you don’t get it, you’ll accumulate a sleep debt. And, importantly:
When you accumulate sleep debt, you are borrowing time at a very high rate of interest!
And, at risk of laboring the metaphor, but this is important too:
Not only will you have to pay it back soon (with interest), you will be hounded by the debt collection agents—decreased cognitive ability and decreased physical ability—until you pay up.
In summary:
- Polyphasic sleep is really very tempting
- It will give you more hours per day (for a while)
- It will give the promised lucid dreaming benefits (which is great until you start micronapping between naps, this is effectively a mini psychotic break from reality lasting split seconds each—can be deadly if behind the wheel of a car, for instance!)
- It is unequivocally bad for the health and we do not recommend it
Bottom line:
Some of the claimed benefits are real, but are incredibly short-term, unsustainable, and come at a cost that’s far too high. We get why it’s tempting, but ultimately, it’s self-sabotage.
(Sadly! We really wanted it to work, too…)
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:
-
100 Things Productive People Do – by Nigel Cumberland
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.
This is a book of a hundred small chapters (the book is 396 pages, so 2–3 pages per chapter) which makes for a feeling of quick reading, and definitely gives an option of “light bites”, dipping into the book here and there.
Cumberland offers a wide range of practical wisdom here, and while the book is (per the title) focused on productivity, it also includes all due weight to not burning out and/or breaking down. Because things productive people do does not, it turns out, include working themselves directly into an early grave.
But—despite the author’s considerable and obvious starting point of social privilege—nor is this a tome of “offer your genius leadership and otherwise just coast while everyone does your work for you”, either. This is a “brass tacks” book and highly relatable whether your to-do list most prominently features “personally manage the merger of these Fortune 500 companies” or “sort out that junk in the spare room”
Bottom line: we’d be surprised if this book with 100 pieces of advice failed to bring you enough value to more than pay for itself!
Pick up your copy of 100 Things Productive People Do from Amazon today!
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:
