Red Lentils vs Oats – 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 red lentils to oats, we picked the oats.

Why?

In terms of macros, oats have more protein, carbs, fiber, and even a little fat—mostly healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats, thus making them the more nutritionally dense. That said, red lentils have the lower glycemic index, (low GI compared to oats’ medium GI) which offsets that, so we’ll call this category a tie.

In the category of vitamins, red lentils have more of vitamins B6, B9, and choline, while oats have more of vitamins B1, B2, and B5. Another tie!

When it comes to minerals, however, we have a tiebreaker category: red lentils have more selenium, while oats have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. An easy win for oats this time!

So, thanks to the minerals, oats are the clear winner in total. But by all means, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

Want to learn more?

You might like to read:

The Best Kind Of Fiber For Overall Health? ← it’s β-glucan, the kind find in oats!

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Strawberries vs Cherries – Which is Healthier?
  • Anchovies vs Sardines – Which is Healthier?
    Sardines trump anchovies with higher omega-3, vitamins A, B1, B6, B12, E, K, and essential minerals like calcium and selenium.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Why are tall people more likely to get cancer? What we know, don’t know and suspect

    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.

    People who are taller are at greater risk of developing cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund reports there is strong evidence taller people have a higher chance of of developing cancer of the:

    • pancreas
    • large bowel
    • uterus (endometrium)
    • ovary
    • prostate
    • kidney
    • skin (melanoma) and
    • breast (pre- and post-menopausal).

    But why? Here’s what we know, don’t know and suspect.

    Pexels/Andrea Piacquadio
    A tall woman and her partner are silhoutted against the sunset.
    Height does increase your cancer risk – but only by a very small amount. Christian Vinces/Shutterstock

    A well established pattern

    The UK Million Women Study found that for 15 of the 17 cancers they investigated, the taller you are the more likely you are to have them.

    It found that overall, each ten-centimetre increase in height increased the risk of developing a cancer by about 16%. A similar increase has been found in men.

    Let’s put that in perspective. If about 45 in every 10,000 women of average height (about 165 centimetres) develop cancer each year, then about 52 in each 10,000 women who are 175 centimetres tall would get cancer. That’s only an extra seven cancers.

    So, it’s actually a pretty small increase in risk.

    Another study found 22 of 23 cancers occurred more commonly in taller than in shorter people.

    Why?

    The relationship between height and cancer risk occurs across ethnicities and income levels, as well as in studies that have looked at genes that predict height.

    These results suggest there is a biological reason for the link between cancer and height.

    While it is not completely clear why, there are a couple of strong theories.

    The first is linked to the fact a taller person will have more cells. For example, a tall person probably has a longer large bowel with more cells and thus more entries in the large bowel cancer lottery than a shorter person.

    Scientists think cancer develops through an accumulation of damage to genes that can occur in a cell when it divides to create new cells.

    The more times a cell divides, the more likely it is that genetic damage will occur and be passed onto the new cells.

    The more damage that accumulates, the more likely it is that a cancer will develop.

    A person with more cells in their body will have more cell divisions and thus potentially more chance that a cancer will develop in one of them.

    Some research supports the idea having more cells is the reason tall people develop cancer more and may explain to some extent why men are more likely to get cancer than women (because they are, on average, taller than women).

    However, it’s not clear height is related to the size of all organs (for example, do taller women have bigger breasts or bigger ovaries?).

    One study tried to assess this. It found that while organ mass explained the height-cancer relationship in eight of 15 cancers assessed, there were seven others where organ mass did not explain the relationship with height.

    It is worth noting this study was quite limited by the amount of data they had on organ mass.

    A tall older man leans against a wall while his bicycle is parked nearby.
    Is it because tall people have more cells? Halfpoint/Shutterstock

    Another theory is that there is a common factor that makes people taller as well as increasing their cancer risk.

    One possibility is a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). This hormone helps children grow and then continues to have an important role in driving cell growth and cell division in adults.

    This is an important function. Our bodies need to produce new cells when old ones are damaged or get old. Think of all the skin cells that come off when you use a good body scrub. Those cells need to be replaced so our skin doesn’t wear out.

    However, we can get too much of a good thing. Some studies have found people who have higher IGF-1 levels than average have a higher risk of developing breast or prostate cancer.

    But again, this has not been a consistent finding for all cancer types.

    It is likely that both explanations (more cells and more IGF-1) play a role.

    But more research is needed to really understand why taller people get cancer and whether this information could be used to prevent or even treat cancers.

    I’m tall. What should I do?

    If you are more LeBron James than Lionel Messi when it comes to height, what can you do?

    Firstly, remember height only increases cancer risk by a very small amount.

    Secondly, there are many things all of us can do to reduce our cancer risk, and those things have a much, much greater effect on cancer risk than height.

    We can take a look at our lifestyle. Try to:

    • eat a healthy diet
    • exercise regularly
    • maintain a healthy weight
    • be careful in the sun
    • limit alcohol consumption.

    And, most importantly, don’t smoke!

    If we all did these things we could vastly reduce the amount of cancer.

    You can also take part in cancer screening programs that help pick up cancers of the breast, cervix and bowel early so they can be treated successfully.

    Finally, take heart! Research also tells us that being taller might just reduce your chance of having a heart attack or stroke.

    Susan Jordan, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, The University of Queensland and Karen Tuesley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

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

    Share This Post

  • Our family is always glued to separate devices. How can we connect again?

    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 Saturday afternoon and the kids are all connected to separate devices. So are the parents. Sounds familiar?

    Many families want to set ground rules to help them reduce their screen time – and have time to connect with each other, without devices.

    But it can be difficult to know where to start and how to make a plan that suits your family.

    First, look at your own screen time

    Before telling children to “hop off the tech”, it’s important parents understand how much they are using screens themselves.

    Globally, the average person spends an average of six hours and 58 minutes on screens each day. This has increased by 13%, or 49 minutes, since 2013.

    Parents who report high screen time use tend to see this filtering down to the children in their family too. Two-thirds of primary school-aged children in Australia have their own mobile screen-based device.

    Australia’s screen time guidelines recommended children aged five to 17 years have no more than two hours of sedentary screen time (excluding homework) each day. For those aged two to five years, it’s no more than one hour a day. And the guidelines recommend no screen time at all for children under two.

    Yet the majority of children, across age groups, exceed these maximums. A new Australian study released this week found the average three-year-old is exposed to two hours and 52 minutes of screen time a day.

    Some screen time is OK, too much increases risks

    Technology has profoundly impacted children’s lives, offering both opportunities and challenges.

    On one hand, it provides access to educational resources, can develop creativity, facilitates communication with peers and family members, and allows students to seek out new information.

    On the other hand, excessive screen use can result in too much time being sedentary, delays in developmental milestones, disrupted sleep and daytime drowsiness.

    Tired boy looks out the window
    Disrupted sleep can leave children tired the next day.
    Yulia Raneva/Shutterstock

    Too much screen time can affect social skills, as it replaces time spent in face-to-face social interactions. This is where children learn verbal and non-verbal communication, develop empathy, learn patience and how to take turns.

    Many families also worry about how to maintain a positive relationship with their children when so much of their time is spent glued to screens.

    What about when we’re all on devices?

    When families are all using devices simultaneously, it results in less face-to-face interactions, reducing communication and resulting in a shift in family dynamics.

    The increased use of wireless technology enables families to easily tune out from each other by putting in earphones, reducing the opportunity for conversation. Family members wearing earphones during shared activities or meals creates a physical barrier and encourages people to retreat into their own digital worlds.

    Wearing earphones for long periods may also reduce connection to, and closeness with, family members. Research from video gaming, for instance, found excessing gaming increases feelings of isolation, loneliness and the displacement of real-world social interactions, alongside weakened relationships with peers and family members.

    How can I set screen time limits?

    Start by sitting down as a family and discussing what limits you all feel would be appropriate when using TVs, phones and gaming – and when is an appropriate time to use them.

    Have set rules around family time – for example, no devices at the dinner table – so you can connect through face-to-face interactions.

    Mother talks to her family at the dinner table
    One rule might be no devices at the dinner table.
    Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

    Consider locking your phone or devices away at certain periods throughout the week, such as after 9pm (or within an hour of bedtime for younger children) and seek out opportunities to balance your days with physical activities, such kicking a footy at the park or going on a family bush walk.

    Parents can model healthy behaviour by regulating and setting limits on their own screen time. This might mean limiting your social media scrolling to 15 or 30 minutes a day and keeping your phone in the next room when you’re not using it.

    When establishing appropriate boundaries and ensuring children’s safety, it is crucial for parents and guardians to engage in open communication about technology use. This includes teaching critical thinking skills to navigate online content safely and employing parental control tools and privacy settings.

    Parents can foster a supportive and trusting relationship with children from an early age so children feel comfortable discussing their online experiences and sharing their fears or concerns.

    For resources to help you develop your own family’s screen time plan, visit the Raising Children Network.The Conversation

    Elise Waghorn, Lecturer, School of Education, RMIT University

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

    Share This Post

  • Healing After Loss – by Martha Hickman

    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.

    Mental health is also just health, and this book’s about an underexamined area of mental health. We say “underexamined”, because for something that affects almost everyone sooner or later, there’s not nearly so much science being done about it as other areas of mental health.

    This is not a book of science per se, but it is a very useful one. The format is:

    Each calendar day of the year, there’s a daily reflection, consisting of:

    • A one-liner insight about grief, quoted from somebody
    • A page of thoughts about this
    • A one-liner summary, often formulated as a piece of advice

    The book is not religious in content, though the author does occasionally make reference to God, only in the most abstract way that shouldn’t be offputting to any but the most stridently anti-religious readers.

    Bottom line: if this is a subject near to your heart, then you will almost certainly benefit from this daily reader.

    Click here to check out Healing After Loss, and indeed heal after loss

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Strawberries vs Cherries – Which is Healthier?
  • HIIT, But Make It HIRT

    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 May HIRT A Bit

    This is Ingrid Clay. She’s a professional athlete, personal trainer, chef*, and science writer.

    *A vegan bodybuilding chef, no less:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    For those who prefer reading…

    This writer does too 😉

    We’ve previously reviewed her book, “Science of HIIT”, and we’re going to be talking a bit about High Intensity Interval Training today.

    If you’d like to know a little more about the woman herself first, then…

    Centr | Meet Ingrid: Your HIIT HIRT trainer

    Yes, that is Centr, as in Chris Hemsworth’s personal training app, where Clay is the resident HIIT & HIRT expert & trainer.

    What’s this HIIT & HIRT?

    HIIT” is High Intensity Interval Training, which we’ve written about before:

    How To Do HIIT (Without Wrecking Your Body)

    Basically, it’s a super-efficient way of working out, that gets better results than working out for longer with other methods, especially because of how it raises the metabolism for a couple of hours after training (this effect is called EPOC, by the way—Excessive Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption), and is a good thing.

    You can read more about the science of it, in the above-linked main feature.

    And HIRT?

    HIRT” is High Intensity Resistance Training, and is resistance training performed with HIIT principles.

    See also: Chris Hemsworth’s Trainer Ingrid Clay Explains HIRT

    An example is doing 10 reps of a resistance exercise (e.g., a dumbbell press) every minute on odd-numbered minutes, and 10 reps of a different resistance exercise (e.g. dumbbell squats) on even-numbered minutes.

    If dumbbells aren’t your thing, it could be resistance bands, or even the floor (press-ups are a resistance exercise!)

    For HIRT that’s not also a cardio exercise, gaps between different exercises can be quite minimal, as we only need to confuse the muscles, not the heart. So, effectively, it becomes a specially focused kind of circuit training!

    If doing planks though, you might want to check out Clay’s troubleshooting guide:

    Expert trainer Ingrid Clay identifies the mistakes many people make when doing the plank, and how to correct them.

    Want more from Clay?

    Here she gives a full 20-minute full-body HIIT HIRT workout:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    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:

  • Do we need animal products to be healthy?

    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.

    Do we need animal products to be healthy?

    We asked you for your (health-related) perspective on plant-based vs anima-based foods, and got the above-pictured spread of answers.

    “Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products” came out on top with more votes than the two more meat-eatery options combined, and the second most popular option was the hard-line “We can all live healthily and happily on just plants”.

    Based on these answers, it seems our readership has quite a lot of vegans, vegetarians, and perhaps “flexitarians” who just have a little of animal products here and there.

    Perhaps we should have seen this coming; the newsletter is “10almonds”, not “10 rashers of bacon”, after all.

    But what does the science say?

    We are carnivores and are best eating plenty of meat: True or False?

    False. Let’s just rip the band-aid off for this one.

    In terms of our anatomy and physiology, we are neither carnivores nor herbivores:

    • We have a mid-length digestive tract (unlike carnivores and herbivores who have short and long ones, respectively)
    • We have a mouthful of an assortment of teeth; molars and premolars for getting through plants from hard nuts to tough fibrous tubers, and we have incisors for cutting into flesh and (vestigial, but they’re there) canines that really serve us no purpose now but would have been a vicious bite when they were bigger, like some other modern-day primates.
    • If we look at our closest living relatives, the other great apes, they are mostly frugivores (fruit-eaters) who supplement their fruity diet with a small quantity of insects and sometimes other small animals—of which they’ll often eat only the fatty organ meat and discard the rest.

    And then, there’s the health risks associated with meat. We’ll not linger on this as we’ve talked about it before, but for example:

    If we avoid processed and/or red meat, that’s good enough: True or False?

    True… Ish.

    Really this one depends on one’s criteria for “good enough”. The above-linked studies, and plenty more like them, give the following broad picture:

    • Red and/or processed meats are unequivocally terrible for the health in general
    • Other mammalian meats, such as from pigs, are really not much better
    • Poultry, on the other hand, the science is less clear on; the results are mixed, and thus so are the conclusions. The results are often barely statistically significant. In other words, when it comes to poultry, in the matter of health, the general consensus is that you can take it or leave it and will be fine. Some studies have found firmly for or against it, but the consensus is a collective scientific shrug.
    • Fish, meanwhile, has almost universally been found to be healthful in moderation. You may have other reasons for wanting to avoid it (ethics, environmentalism, personal taste) but those things are beyond the scope of this article.

    Some or all of us may need small amounts of animal products: True or False?

    True! With nuances.

    Let’s divide this into “some” and “all”. Firstly, some people may have health conditions and/or other mitigating circumstances that make an entirely plant-based diet untenable.

    We’re going light on quotations from subscriber comments today because otherwise this article will get a bit long, but here’s a great example that’s worth quoting, from a subscriber who voted for this option:

    ❝I have a rare genetic disease called hereditary fructose intolerance. It means I lack the enzyme, Aldolase B, to process fructose. Eating fruits and veggies thus gives me severe hypoglycemia. I also have anemia caused by two autoimmune diseases, so I have to eat meat for the iron it supplies. I also supplement with iron pills but the pills alone can’t fix the problem entirely.❞

    And, there’s the thing. Popular vegan talking-points are very good at saying “if you have this problem, this will address it; if you have that problem, that will address it”, etc. For every health-related objection to a fully plant-based diet there’s a refutation… Individually.

    But actual real-world health doesn’t work like that; co-morbidities are very common, and in some cases, like our subscriber above, one problem undermines the solution to another. Add a third problem and by now you really just have to do what you need to do to survive.

    For this reason, even the Vegan Society’s definition of veganism includes the clause “so far as is possible and practicable”.

    Now, as for the rest of us “all”.

    What if we’re really healthy and are living in optimal circumstances (easy access to a wide variety of choice of food), can we live healthily and happily just on plants?

    No—on a technicality.

    Vegans famously need to supplement vitamin B12, which is not found in plants. Ironically, much of the B12 in animal products comes from the animals themselves being given supplements, but that’s another matter. However, B12 can also be enjoyed from yeast. Popular options include the use of yeast extract (e.g. Marmite) and/or nutritional yeast in cooking.

    Yeast is a single-celled microorganism that’s taxonomically classified as a fungus, even though in many ways it behaves like an animal (which series of words may conjure an amusing image, but we mean, biologically speaking).

    However, it’s also not technically a plant, hence the “No—on a technicality”

    Bottom line:

    By nature, humans are quite versatile generalists when it comes to diet:

    • Most of us can live healthily and happily on just plants if we so choose.
    • Some people cannot, and will require varying kinds (and quantities) of animal products.
    • As for red and/or processed meats, we’re not the boss of you, but from a health perspective, the science is clear: unless you have a circumstance that really necessitates it, just don’t.
      • Same goes for pork, which isn’t red and may not be processed, but metabolically it’s associated with the same problems.
    • The jury is out on poultry, but it strongly appears to be optional, healthwise, without making much of a difference either way
    • Fish is roundly considered healthful in moderation. Enjoy it if you want, don’t if you don’t.

    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:

  • Tight Hamstrings? Here’s A Test To Know If It’s Actually Your Sciatic Nerve

    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.

    Tight hamstrings are often not actually due to hamstring issues, but rather, are often being limited by the sciatic nerve. This video offers a home test to determine if the sciatic nerve is causing mobility problems (and how to improve it, if so):

    The Connection

    Try this test:

    • Sit down with a slumped posture.
    • Extend one leg with the ankle flexed.
    • Note any stretching or pulling sensation behind the knee or in the calf.
    • Bring your head down to your chest

    If this increases the sensation, it likely indicates sciatic nerve involvement.

    If only the hamstrings are tight, head movement won’t change the stretch sensation.

    This is because the nervous system is a continuous structure, so head movement can affect nerve tension throughout the body. While this can cause problems, it can also be integral in the solution. Here are two ways:

    • Flossing method: sit with “poor” slumped posture, extend the knee, keep the ankle flexed, and lift the head to relieve nerve tension. This movement helps the sciatic nerve slide without stretching it.
    • Even easier method: lie on your back, grab behind the knee, and extend the leg while extending the neck. This position avoids compression in the gluteal area, making it suitable for severely compromised nerves. Perform the movement without significant stretching or pain.

    In both cases: move gently to avoid straining the nerve, which can worsen muscle tension. Do 10 repetitions per leg, multiple times a day; after a week, increase to 20 reps.

    A word of caution: speak with your doctor before trying these exercises if you have underlying neurological diseases, cut or infected nerves, or other severe conditions.

    For more on all of this, plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Exercises for Sciatica Pain Relief

    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: