Ras El-Hanout
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 spice blend, and its name (رأس الحانوت) means “head of the shop”. It’s popular throughout Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, but can often be found elsewhere. The exact blend will vary a little from place to place and even from maker to maker, but the general idea is the same. The one we provide here today is very representative (and for an example of its use, see our Marrakesh Sorghum Salad recipe!).
Note: we’re giving all the quantities in whole tsp today, to make multiplying/dividing easier if you want to make more/less ras el-hanout.
You will need
- 6 tsp ground ginger
- 6 tsp ground coriander seeds
- 4 tsp ground turmeric
- 4 tsp ground sweet cinnamon
- 4 tsp ground cumin
- 2 tsp ground allspice ← not a spice mix! This is the name of a spice!
- 2 tsp ground cardamom
- 2 tsp ground anise
- 2 tsp ground black pepper
- 1 tsp ground cayenne pepper
- 1 tsp ground cloves
Note: you may notice that garlic and salt are conspicuous by their absence. The reason for this is that they are usually added separately per dish, if desired.
Method
1) Mix them thoroughly
That’s it! Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits?
- A Tale Of Two Cinnamons ← this is important, to understand why it’s critical to use sweet cinnamon specifically
- Sweet Cinnamon vs Regular Cinnamon – Which is Healthier? ← not even exaggerating; one is health-giving and the other contains a compound that is toxic at 01.mg/kg; guess which one is easier to find in the US and Canada?
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:
Vaccines and cancer: The myth that won’t die
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.
Two recent studies reported rising cancer rates among younger adults in the U.S. and worldwide. This prompted some online anti-vaccine accounts to link the studies’ findings to COVID-19 vaccines.
But, as with other myths, the data tells a very different story.
What you need to know
- Baseless claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have persisted online for several years and gained traction in late 2023.
- Two recent reports finding rising cancer rates among younger adults are based on pre-pandemic cancer incidence data. Cancer rates in the U.S. have been on the rise since the 1990s.
- There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk.
False claims about COVID-19 vaccines began circulating months before the vaccines were available. Chief among these claims was misinformed speculation that vaccine mRNA could alter or integrate into vaccine recipients’ DNA.
It does not. But that didn’t prevent some on social media from spinning that claim into a persistent myth alleging that mRNA vaccines can cause or accelerate cancer growth. Anti-vaccine groups even coined the term “turbo cancer” to describe a fake phenomenon of abnormally aggressive cancers allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
They used the American Cancer Society’s 2024 cancer projection—based on incidence data through 2020—and a study of global cancer trends between 1999 and 2019 to bolster the false claims. This exposed the dishonesty at the heart of the anti-vaccine messaging, as data that predated the pandemic by decades was carelessly linked to COVID-19 vaccines in viral social media posts.
Some on social media cherry-pick data and use unfounded evidence because the claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer are not true. According to the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society, there is no evidence of any link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in cancer diagnosis, progression, or remission.
Why does the vaccine cancer myth endure?
At the root of false cancer claims about COVID-19 vaccines is a long history of anti-vaccine figures falsely linking vaccines to cancer. Polio and HPV vaccines have both been the target of disproven cancer myths.
Not only do HPV vaccines not cause cancer, they are one of only two vaccines that prevent cancer.
In the case of polio vaccines, some early batches were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), a virus that is known to cause cancer in some mammals but not humans. The contaminated batches were discovered, and no other vaccine has had SV40 contamination in over 60 years.
Follow-up studies found no increase in cancer rates in people who received the SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. Yet, vaccine opponents have for decades claimed that polio vaccines cause cancer.
Recycling of the SV40 myth
The SV40 myth resurfaced in 2023 when vaccine opponents claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain the virus. In reality, a small, nonfunctional piece of the SV40 virus is used in the production of some COVID-19 vaccines. This DNA fragment, called the promoter, is commonly used in biomedical research and vaccine development and doesn’t remain in the finished product.
Crucially, the SV40 promoter used to produce COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus and is associated with cancer-causing properties in some animals. The promoter also lacks the ability to survive on its own inside the cell or interact with DNA. In other words, it poses no risk to humans.
Over 5.6 billion people worldwide have received COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020. At that scale, even the tiniest increase in cancer rates in vaccinated populations would equal hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths. The evidence for alleged vaccine-linked cancer would be observed in real incidence, treatment, and mortality data, not social media anecdotes or unverifiable reports.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
Hearing loss is twice as common in Australia’s lowest income groups, our research shows
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.
Around one in six Australians has some form of hearing loss, ranging from mild to complete hearing loss. That figure is expected to grow to one in four by 2050, due in a large part to the country’s ageing population.
Hearing loss affects communication and social engagement and limits educational and employment opportunities. Effective treatment for hearing loss is available in the form of communication training (for example, lipreading and auditory training), hearing aids and other devices.
But the uptake of treatment is low. In Australia, publicly subsidised hearing care is available predominantly only to children, young people and retirement-age people on a pension. Adults of working age are mostly not eligible for hearing health care under the government’s Hearing Services Program.
Our recent study published in the journal Ear and Hearing showed, for the first time, that working-age Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at much greater risk of hearing loss than those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
We believe the lack of socially subsidised hearing care for adults of working age results in poor detection and care for hearing loss among people from disadvantaged backgrounds. This in turn exacerbates social inequalities.
Population data shows hearing inequality
We analysed a large data set called the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey that collects information on various aspects of people’s lives, including health and hearing loss.
Using a HILDA sub-sample of 10,719 working-age Australians, we evaluated whether self-reported hearing loss was more common among people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than for those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds between 2008 and 2018.
Relying on self-reported hearing data instead of information from hearing tests is one limitation of our paper. However, self-reported hearing tends to underestimate actual rates of hearing impairment, so the hearing loss rates we reported are likely an underestimate.
We also wanted to find out whether people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to develop hearing loss in the long run.
We found people in the lowest income groups were more than twice as likely to have hearing loss than those in the highest income groups. Further, hearing loss was 1.5 times as common among people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods than in the most affluent areas.
For people reporting no hearing loss at the beginning of the study, after 11 years of follow up, those from a more deprived socioeconomic background were much more likely to develop hearing loss. For example, a lack of post secondary education was associated with a more than 1.5 times increased risk of developing hearing loss compared to those who achieved a bachelor’s degree or above.
Overall, men were more likely to have hearing loss than women. As seen in the figure below, this gap is largest for people of low socioeconomic status.
Why are disadvantaged groups more likely to experience hearing loss?
There are several possible reasons hearing loss is more common among people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Noise exposure is one of the biggest risks for hearing loss and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds may be more likely to be exposed to damaging levels of noise in jobs in mining, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture.
Lifestyle factors which may be more prevalent in lower socioeconomic communities such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and a lack of regular exercise are also related to the risk of hearing loss.
Finally, people with lower incomes may face challenges in accessing timely hearing care, alongside competing health needs, which could lead to missed identification of treatable ear disease.
Why does this disparity in hearing loss matter?
We like to think of Australia as an egalitarian society – the land of the fair go. But nearly half of people in Australia with hearing loss are of working age and mostly ineligible for publicly funded hearing services.
Hearing aids with a private hearing care provider cost from around A$1,000 up to more than $4,000 for higher-end devices. Most people need two hearing aids.
Lack of access to affordable hearing care for working-age adults on low incomes comes with an economic as well as a social cost.
Previous economic analysis estimated hearing loss was responsible for financial costs of around $20 billion in 2019–20 in Australia. The largest component of these costs was productivity losses (unemployment, under-employment and Jobseeker social security payment costs) among working-age adults.
Providing affordable hearing care for all Australians
Lack of affordable hearing care for working-age adults from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may significantly exacerbate the impact of hearing loss among deprived communities and worsen social inequalities.
Recently, the federal government has been considering extending publicly subsidised hearing services to lower income working age Australians. We believe reforming the current government Hearing Services Program and expanding eligibility to this group could not only promote a more inclusive, fairer and healthier society but may also yield overall cost savings by reducing lost productivity.
All Australians should have access to affordable hearing care to have sufficient functional hearing to achieve their potential in life. That’s the land of the fair go.
Mohammad Nure Alam, PhD Candidate in Economics, Macquarie University; Kompal Sinha, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Macquarie University, and Piers Dawes, Professor, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Track Your Blood Sugars For Better Personalized Health
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.
There Will Be Blood
Are you counting steps? Counting calories? Monitoring your sleep? Heart rate zones? These all have their merits:
- Steps: One More Resource Against Osteoporosis!
- Calories: Is Cutting Calories The Key To Healthy Long Life?
- Sleep: A Head-To-Head Of Google and Apple’s Top Apps For Getting Your Head Down
- Heart Rate Zones: Heart Rate Zones, Oxalates, & More
About calories: this writer (it’s me, hi) opines that intermittent fasting has the same benefits as caloric restriction, without the hassle of counting, and is therefore superior. I also personally find fasting psychologically more pleasant. However, our goal here is to be informative, not prescriptive, and some people may have reasons to prefer CR to IF!
Examples that come to mind include ease of adherence in the case of diabetes management, especially Type 1, or if one’s schedule (and/or one’s “medications that need to be taken with food” schedule) does not suit IF.
And now for the blood…
A rising trend in health enthusiasts presently is the use of Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs), which do exactly what is sounds like they do: they continually monitor glucose. Specifically, the amount of it in your blood.
Of course, these have been in use in diabetes management for years; the technology is not new, but the application of the technology is.
A good example of what benefits a non-diabetic person can gain from the use of a CGM is Jessie Inchauspé, the food scientist of “Glucose Revolution” and “The Glucose Goddess Method” fame.
By wearing a CGM, she was able to notice what things did and didn’t spike her blood sugars, and found that a lot of the things were not stuff that people knew/advised about!
For example, much of diabetes management (including avoiding diabetes in the first place) is based around paying attention to carbs and little else, but she found that it made a huge difference what she ate (or didn’t) with the carbs. By taking many notes over the course of her daily life, she was eventually able to isolate these patterns, showed her working-out in The Glucose Revolution (there’s a lot of science in that book), and distilled that information into bite-size (heh) advice such as:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
That’s great, but since people like Inchauspé have done the work, I don’t have to, right?
You indeed don’t have to! But you can still benefit from it. For example, fastidious as her work was, it’s a sample size of one. If you’re not a slim white 32-year-old French woman, there may be some factors that are different for you.
All this to say: glucose responses, much like nutrition in general, are not a one-size-fits-all affair.
With a CGM, you can start building up your own picture of what your responses to various foods are like, rather than merely what they “should” be like.
This, by the way, is also one of the main aims of personalized health company ZOE, which crowdsourced a lot of scientific data about personalized metabolic responses to standardized meals:
Not knowing these things can be dangerous
We don’t like to scaremonger here, but we do like to point out potential dangers, and in this case, blindly following standardized diet advice, if your physiology is not standard, can have harmful effects, see for example:
Diabetic-level glucose spikes seen in non-diabetic people
Where can I get a CGM?
We don’t sell them, and neither does Amazon, but you can check out some options here:
The 4 Best CGM Devices For Measuring Blood Sugar in 2024
…and if your doctor is not obliging with a prescription, note that the device that came out top in the above comparisons, will be available OTC soon:
The First OTC Continuous Glucose Monitor Will Be Available Summer 2024
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
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:
Eating For Energy (In Ways That Actually Work)
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.
Snacks & Hacks: The Real Energy Boosters
Declining energy levels are a common complaint of people getting older, and this specific kind of “getting older” is starting earlier and earlier (even Gen-Z are already getting in line for this one). For people of all ages, however, diet is often a large part of the issue.
The problem:
It can sometimes seem, when it comes to food and energy levels, that we have a choice:
- Don’t eat (energy levels decline)
- Eat quick-release energy snacks (energy spikes and crashes)
- Eat slow-release energy meals (oh hi, post-dinner slump)
But, this minefield can be avoided! Advice follows…
Skip the quasi-injectables
Anything the supermarket recommends for rapid energy can be immediately thrown out (e.g. sugary energy drinks, glucose tablets, and the like).
Same goes for candy of most sorts (if the first ingredient is sugar, it’s not good for your energy levels).
Unless you are diabetic and need an emergency option to keep with you in case of a hypo, the above things have no place on a healthy shopping list.
Aside from that, if you have been leaning on these heavily, you might want to check out yesterday’s main feature:
The Not-So-Sweet Science Of Sugar Addiction
…and if your knee-jerk response is “I’m not addicted; I just enjoy…” then ok, test that! Skip it for this month.
- If you succeed, you’ll be in better health.
- If you don’t, you’ll be aware of something that might benefit from more attention.
Fruit and nuts are your best friends
Unless you are allergic, in which case, obviously skip your allergen(s).
But for most of us, we were born to eat fruit and nuts. Literally, those two things are amongst the oldest and most well-established parts of human diet, which means that our bodies have had a very long time to evolve the perfect fruit-and-nut-enjoying abilities, and reap the nutritional benefits.
Nuts are high in fat (healthy fats) and that fat is a great source of energy’s easy for the body to get from the food, and/but doesn’t result in blood sugar spikes (and thus crashes) because, well, it’s not a sugar.
See also: Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Fruit is high in sugars, and/but high in fiber that slows the absorption into a nice gentle curve, and also contains highly bioavailable vitamins to perk you up and polyphenols to take care of your long-term health too.
Be warned though: fruit juice does not work the same as actual fruit; because the fiber has been stripped and it’s a liquid, those sugars are zipping straight in exactly the same as a sugary energy drink.
See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
Slow release carbs yes, but…
Eating a bowl of wholegrain pasta is great if you don’t have to do anything much immediately afterwards, but it won’t brighten your immediately available energy much—on the contrary, energy will be being used for digestion for a while.
So if you want to eat slow-release carbs, make it a smaller portion of something more-nutrient dense, like oats or lentils. This way, the metabolic load will be smaller (because the portion was smaller) but the higher protein content will prompt satiety sooner (so you addressed your hunger with a smaller portion) and the iron and B vitamins will be good for your energy too.
See also: Should You Go Light Or Heavy On Carbs?
Animal, vegetable, or mineral?
At the mention of iron and B vitamins, you might be thinking about various animal products that might work too.
If you are vegetarian or vegan: stick to that; it’s what your gut microbiome is used to now, and putting an animal product in will likely make you feel ill.
If you have them in your diet already, here’s a quick rundown of how broad categories of animal product work (or not) for energy:
- Meat: nope. Well, the fat, if applicable, will give you some energy, but less than you need just to digest the meat. This, by the way, is a likely part of why the paleo diet is good for short term weight loss. But it’s not very healthy.
- Fish: healthier than the above, but for energy purposes, just the same.
- Dairy: high-fat dairy, such as cream and butter, are good sources of quick energy. Be aware if they contain lactose though, that this is a sugar and can be back to spiking blood sugars.
- As an aside for diabetics: this is why milk can be quite good for correcting a hypo: the lactose provides immediate sugar, and the fat keeps it more balanced afterwards
- Eggs: again the fat is a good source of quick energy, and the protein is easier to digest than that of meat (after all, egg protein is literally made to be consumed by an embryo, while meat protein is made to be a functional muscle of an animal), so the metabolic load isn’t too strenuous. Assuming you’re doing a moderate consumption (under 3 eggs per day) and not Sylvester Stallone-style 12-egg smoothies, you’re good to go.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
…and while you’re at it, check out:
Eggs: Nutritional Powerhouse
or Heart-Health Timebomb?(spoiler: it’s the former; the title was because it was a mythbusting edition)
Hydration considerations
Lastly, food that is hydrating will be more energizing than food that is not, so how does your snack/meal rank on a scale of watermelon to saltines?
You may be thinking: “But you said to eat nuts! They’re not hydrating at all!”, in which case, indeed, drink water with them, or better yet, enjoy them alongside fruit (hydration from food is better than hydration from drinking water).
And as for those saltines? Salt is not your friend (unless you are low on sodium, because then that can sap your energy)
How to tell if you are low on sodium: put a little bit (e.g. ¼ tsp) of salt into a teaspoon and taste it; does it taste unpleasantly salty? If not, you were low on sodium. Have a little more at five minute intervals, until it tastes unpleasantly salty. Alternatively have a healthy snack that nonetheless contains a little salt.
If you otherwise eat salty food as an energy-giving snack, you risk becoming dehydrated and bloated, neither of which are energizing conditions.
Dehydrated and bloated at once? Yes, the two often come together, even though it usually doesn’t feel like it. Basically, if we consume too much salty food, our homeostatic system goes into overdrive to try to fix it, borrows a portion of our body’s water reserves to save us from the salt, and leaves us dehydrated, bloated, and sluggish.
For more on salt in general, check out:
How Too Much Salt Can Lead To Organ Failure: Lesser-Known Salt Health Risks
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:
What To Eat, Take, And Do Before A Workout
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.
What to eat, take, and do before a workout
We’ve previously written about how to recover quickly after a workout:
Overdone It? How To Speed Up Recovery After Exercise
Today we’ll look at the flipside: how to prepare for exercise.
Pre-workout nutrition
As per what we wrote (and referenced) above, a good dictum is “protein whenever; carbs after”. See also:
Pre- versus post-exercise protein intake has similar effects on muscular adaptations
It’s recommended to have a light, balanced meal a few hours before exercising, though there are nuances:
International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutrient timing
Hydration
You will not perform well unless you are well-hydrated:
Influence of Dehydration on Intermittent Sprint Performance
However, you also don’t want to just be sloshing around when exercising because you took care to get in your two litres before hitting the gym.
For this reason, quality can be more important than quantity, and sodium and other electrolytes can be important and useful, but will not be so for everyone in all circumstances.
Here’s what we wrote previously about that:
Are Electrolyte Supplements Worth It?
Pre-workout supplements
We previously wrote about the use of creatine specifically:
Creatine: Very Different For Young & Old People
Caffeine is also a surprisingly effective pre-workout supplement:
International society of sports nutrition position stand: caffeine and exercise performance
Depending on the rate at which you metabolize caffeine (there are genes for this), the effects will come/go earlier/later, but as a general rule of thumb, caffeine should work within about 20 minutes, and will peak in effect 1–2 hours after consumption:
Nutrition Supplements to Stimulate Lipolysis: A Review in Relation to Endurance Exercise Capacity
Branched Chain Amino Acids, or BCAAs, are commonly enjoyed as pre-workout supplement to help reduce creatine kinase and muscle soreness, but won’t accelerate recovery:
…but will help boost muscle-growth (or maintenance, depending on your exercise and diet) in the long run:
Where can I get those?
We don’t sell them, but here’s an example product on Amazon, for your convenience
There are also many multi-nutrient pre-workout supplements on the market (like the secondary product offered with the BCAA above). We’d need a lot more room to go into all of those (maybe we’ll include some in our Monday Research Review editions), but meanwhile, here’s some further reading:
The 11 Best Pre-Workout Supplements According to a Dietitian
(it’s more of a “we ranked these commercial products” article than a science article, but it’s a good starting place for understanding about what’s on offer)
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: