Regular Nail Polish vs Gel Nail Polish – 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 regular nail polish to gel nail polish, we picked the regular.

Why?

This one’s less about what’s in the bottle, and more about what gets done to your hands:

  • Regular nail polish application involves carefully brushing it on.
  • Regular nail polish removal involves wiping with acetone.

…whereas:

  • Gel nail polish application involves deliberately damaging (roughing up) the nail to allow the color coat to adhere, then when the top coat is applied, holding the nails (and thus, the attached fingers) under a UV light to set it. That UV lamp exposure is very bad for the skin.
  • Gel nail polish removal involves soaking in acetone, which is definitely worse than wiping with acetone. Failure to adequately soak it will result in further damage to the nail while trying to get the base coat off the nail that you already deliberately damaged when first applying it.

All in all, regular nail polish isn’t amazing for nail health (healthiest is for nails to be free and naked), but for those of us who like a little bit of color there, regular is a lot better than gel.

Gel nail polish damages the nail itself by necessity, and presents a cumulative skin cancer risk and accelerated aging of the skin, by way of the UV lamp use.

For your interest, here are the specific products that we compared, but the above goes for any of this kind:

Regular nail polish | Gel nail polish

If you’d like to read more about nail health, you might enjoy reading:

The Counterintuitive Dos and Don’ts of Nail Health

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Chickpeas vs Pinto Beans – Which is Healthier?
  • Sesame Oil vs Almond Oil – Which is Healthier?
    Almond oil wins with more monounsaturated fat, less saturated fat, and a significant vitamin E advantage over sesame oil.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Debunking the vitamin D fad

    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.

    Throughout the pandemic, many unproven miracle COVID-19 “cures” emerged, and vitamin D claims have been one of the most persistent. This is not new for the vitamin. It’s been touted in recent decades as a way to “boost” the immune system, improve overall health, prevent a host of diseases, and allegedly even substitute for vaccines. 

    But as with many internet-popular health “remedies,” the reality is far less flashy and far more nuanced.

    What is vitamin D, and why is it important?

    Vitamin D is a nutrient that helps the body absorb calcium, which is essential for bone health. In the sunlight, your skin naturally produces vitamin D that is then stored in fat cells until it is used.

    The skin pigment melanin absorbs the UV rays necessary for vitamin D production, meaning that more highly pigmented or darker skin produces less vitamin D than lighter skin with the same amount of sun exposure. Thus, people with darker skin are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.

    Most of our vitamin D comes from the sun. An additional 10 percent to 20 percent of our vitamin D comes from foods like fatty fish (such as salmon), eggs, and mushrooms. Vitamin D supplements are another source of the nutrient for people who are unable to get enough from sun exposure and diet.

    Vitamin D deficiency is real, but there’s no epidemic

    Some people who promote vitamin D supplements claim that vitamin D deficiency is an epidemic causing widespread health issues. There is little evidence to support this claim. A 2022 analysis of 2001-2018 data found that 2.6 percent of people in the U.S. had severe vitamin D deficiency. 

    Severe vitamin D deficiency can cause serious health issues, such as muscle weakness, bone loss in adults, and rickets (weak bones) in children. Some people are at higher risk for the deficiency, including individuals with certain disorders that prevent the body from absorbing or processing vitamin D or those with a family history of vitamin D deficiency. 

    Black Americans have the highest rates of severe vitamin D deficiency at nearly 12 percent. Severe vitamin D deficiency is also slightly higher in the U.S. during the winter when people get less sun exposure. Rates of moderate vitamin D deficiency are higher at 22 percent overall and are highest among Black Americans (49 percent) and Mexican Americans (35 percent). 

    Although severe vitamin D deficiency exists in the U.S., it is far from common. Most tellingly, conditions that are directly linked to vitamin D deficiency are not widespread. There is no epidemic of rickets, for example, or bone loss in adults. 

    There’s little evidence that vitamin D supplements improve overall health

    Vitamin D supplements have clear, proven positive effects for people with vitamin D deficiency. Other health benefits of vitamin D supplements are less certain. 

    There is some evidence that the supplement may reduce the risk of fracture in adults with osteoporosis, a condition that causes weak, fragile bones. However, the benefit appears to be limited to people who have low vitamin D levels. In adults with normal vitamin D levels, supplements have no effect on fracture risk.

    The largest randomized controlled trial of vitamin D, called VITAL, investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation in people without an existing deficiency. The study found that vitamin D supplements had no effects on the risk of cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke. The study concluded that more research is necessary to determine who may benefit from vitamin D supplements. 

    Independent analyses found that vitamin D supplementation may be associated with a long-term decrease in cancer mortality, but results are mixed and also require more investigation.

    A 2021 analysis of past vitamin D trials found no overall health benefits from vitamin D supplements in people with normal vitamin D levels. Most large-scale studies have found no link between vitamin D supplements and lower all-cause mortality (deaths from any cause), except in older adults and those with vitamin D deficiency.

    Vitamin D provides modest protection against respiratory infections

    Vitamin D is important for immune function, but this is often misconstrued as vitamin D “boosting” the immune system. 

    Some people falsely believe that taking vitamin D supplements will keep them healthy and prevent infections like the flu or COVID-19. In reality, clinical trials and large-scale studies of vitamin D have found only minimal protective effects against respiratory infections. 

    A 2021 analysis of 46 trials found that 61.3 percent of participants who took daily vitamin D supplements got respiratory infections during the study periods—compared to 62.3 percent of people who did not take the supplements. A 2024 meta-analysis of 43 trials found no overall protective effect against respiratory infections, but it detected a slight decrease in risk among people who took specific doses daily. 

    In young children, there is some evidence that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the length of respiratory infections. However, it does not affect the number or severity of infections that children have.

    Despite claims that taking vitamin D can protect against COVID-19, two clinical trials found that taking daily vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk or severity of COVID-19 infections, even at high doses. 

    Context is key when considering vitamin D’s benefits

    None of these studies contradict the well-established evidence that people with vitamin D deficiency benefit from vitamin D supplements. But it’s important to remember that many of the most popular health claims about vitamin D’s benefits are based on research in people with vitamin D deficiency.

    Research in vitamin D-deficient populations is important, but it tells us little about how vitamin D will affect people with normal or close to normal vitamin D levels. A closer look at vitamin D research in people without low levels reveals little evidence to support the idea that the general population benefits from taking vitamin D supplements. 

    For more information, or to learn about your vitamin D levels, talk to your health care provider.

    This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    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.

    From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs

    We asked you for your (health-related) policy on sugar. The trends were as follows:

    • About half of all respondents voted for “I try to limit sugar intake, but struggle because it’s in everything”
    • About a quarter of all respondents voted for “Refined sugar is terrible; natural sugars (e.g. honey, agave) are fine”
    • About a quarter of all respondents voted for “Sugar is sugar and sugar is bad; I avoid it entirely”
    • One (1) respondent voted for “Sugar is an important source of energy, so I consume plenty”

    Writer’s note: I always forget to vote in these, but I’d have voted for “I try to limit sugar intake, but struggle because it’s in everything”.

    Sometimes I would like to make my own [whatever] to not have the sugar, but it takes so much more time, and often money too.

    So while I make most things from scratch (and typically spend about an hour cooking each day), sometimes store-bought is the regretfully practical timesaver/moneysaver (especially when it comes to condiments).

    So, where does the science stand?

    There has, of course, been a lot of research into the health impact of sugar.

    Unfortunately, a lot of it has been funded by sugar companies, which has not helped. Conversely, there are also studies funded by other institutions with other agendas to push, and some of them will seek to make sugar out to be worse than it is.

    So for today’s mythbusting overview, we’ve done our best to quality-control studies for not having financial conflicts of interest. And of course, the usual considerations of favoring high quality studies where possible Large sample sizes, good method, human subjects, that sort of thing.

    Sugar is sugar and sugar is bad: True or False?

    False and True, respectively.

    • Sucrose is sucrose, and is generally bad.
    • Fructose is fructose, and is worse.

    Both ultimately get converted into glycogen (if not used immediately for energy), but for fructose, this happens mostly* in the liver, which a) taxes it b) goes very unregulated by the pancreas, causing potentially dangerous blood sugar spikes.

    This has several interesting effects:

    • Because fructose doesn’t directly affect insulin levels, it doesn’t cause insulin insensitivity (yay)
    • Because fructose doesn’t directly affect insulin levels, this leaves hyperglycemia untreated (oh dear)
    • Because fructose is metabolized by the liver and converted to glycogen which is stored there, it’s one of the main contributors to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (at this point, we’re retracting our “yay”)

    Read more: Fructose and sugar: a major mediator of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

    *”Mostly” in the liver being about 80% in the liver. The remaining 20%ish is processed by the kidneys, where it contributes to kidney stones instead. So, still not fabulous.

    Fructose is very bad, so we shouldn’t eat too much fruit: True or False?

    False! Fruit is really not the bad guy here. Fruit is good for you!

    Fruit does contain fructose yes, but not actually that much in the grand scheme of things, and moreover, fruit contains (unless you have done something unnatural to it) plenty of fiber, which mitigates the impact of the fructose.

    • A medium-sized apple (one of the most sugary fruits there is) might contain around 11g of fructose
    • A tablespoon of high-fructose corn syrup can have about 27g of fructose (plus about 3g glucose)

    Read more about it: Effects of high-fructose (90%) corn syrup on plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and normal subjects

    However! The fiber content (in fruit) mitigates the impact of the fructose almost entirely anyway.

    And if you take fruits that are high in sugar and/but high in polyphenols, like berries, they now have a considerable net positive impact on glycemic health:

    You may be wondering: what was that about “unless you have done something unnatural to it”?

    That’s mostly about juicing. Juicing removes much (or all) of the fiber, and if you do that, you’re basically back to shooting fructose into your veins:

    Natural sugars like honey, agave, and maple syrup, are healthier than refined sugars: True or False?

    TrueSometimes, and sometimes marginally.

    This is partly because of the glycemic index and glycemic load. The glycemic index scores tail off thus:

    • table sugar = 65
    • maple syrup = 54
    • honey = 46
    • agave syrup = 15

    So, that’s a big difference there between agave syrup and maple syrup, for example… But it might not matter if you’re using a very small amount, which means it may have a high glycemic index but a low glycemic load.

    Note, incidentally, that table sugar, sucrose, is a disaccharide, and is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

    The other more marginal health benefits come from that fact that natural sugars are usually found in foods high in other nutrients. Maple syrup is very high in manganese, for example, and also a fair source of other minerals.

    But… Because of its GI, you really don’t want to be relying on it for your nutrients.

    Wait, why is sugar bad again?

    We’ve been covering mostly the more “mythbusting” aspects of different forms of sugar, rather than the less controversial harms it does, but let’s give at least a cursory nod to the health risks of sugar overall:

    That last one, by the way, was a huge systematic review of 37 large longitudinal cohort studies. Results varied depending on what, specifically, was being examined (e.g. total sugar, fructose content, sugary beverages, etc), and gave up to 200% increased cancer risk in some studies on sugary beverages, but 95% increased risk is a respectable example figure to cite here, pertaining to added sugars in foods.

    And finally…

    The 56 Most Common Names for Sugar (Some Are Tricky)

    How many did you know?

    Share This Post

  • Dreams: Relevance, Meanings, Interpretations

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝I have a question or a suggestion for coverage in your “Psychology Sunday”. Dreams: their relevance, meanings ( if any) interpretations? I just wondered what the modern psychological opinions are about dreams in general.❞

    We’ll indeed do that one of these Psychology Sundays! Thanks for suggesting it.

    What we can say in advance is that there’s certainly not a single unified scientific consensus yet, but there are two or three prevailing views definitely worth covering, e.g. randomly generated, a by-product of reorganizing information in the brain, or expressions of subconscious thoughts/feelings.

    There are also differences between a top-down/bottom-up approach to understanding dreaming, and efforts to tie those two together.

    Watch this space!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Chickpeas vs Pinto Beans – Which is Healthier?
  • The Other Significant Others – by Rhaina Cohen

    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.

    As we get older, it’s a function of statistics that increasingly many of us are divorced or widowed. While some will—after whatever time seems right to them—get back into dating, what about those of us who decide that we won’t?

    Rhaina Cohen explores the importance of friendship, mutual support, and (Platonic!) closeness and yes, even kinds of intimacy (for that too can be Platonic!) as we go on.

    Even from a purely evolutionary approach, we are fundamentally social creatures, and while as individuals we may exist on a spectrum from reclusive to extroverted, we all thrive better when we at least have access to community and friends.

    The style of the book is easy-reading and exploratory, and is very compelling as a call-to-arms for those who may wish to give/receive support to/from those with whom we are not necessarily sleeping.

    Because at the end of the day, why should sex and/or romance be a required feature for legal protections? Aren’t we adults who can make our own decisions about whom we trust to care for us?

    Bottom line: if you’re happily partnered and expect to pre-decease your partner, this book might not be directly important for you (it might for your partner, though). Everyone else? This book may be important at some point. That point might even be now already; only you know.

    Click here to check out The Other Significant Others, and make your own choices in life!

    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:

  • Body Sculpting with Kettlebells for Women – by Lorna Kleidman

    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.

    For those of us who are more often lifting groceries or pots and pans than bodybuilding trophies, kettlebells provide a way of training functional strength. This book does (as per the title) offer both sides of things—the body sculpting, and thebody maintenance free from pain and injury.

    Kleidman first explains the basics of kettlebell training, and how to get the most from one’s workouts, before discussing what kinds of exercises are best for which benefits, and finally moving on to provide full exercise programs.

    The exercise programs themselves are fairly comprehensive without being unduly detailed, and give a week-by-week plan for getting your body to where you want it to be.

    The style is fairly personal and relaxed, while keeping things quite clear—the photographs are also clear, though if there’s a weakness here, it’s that we don’t get to see which muscles are being worked in the same as we do when there’s an illustration with a different-colored part to show that.

    Bottom line: if you’re looking for an introductory course for kettlebell training that’ll take you from beginner through to the “I now know what I’m doing and can take it from here, thanks” stage.

    Click here to check out Body Sculpting With Kettlebells For Women, and get sculpting!

    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:

  • Xylitol vs Erythritol – 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 xylitol to erythritol, we picked the xylitol.

    Why?

    They’re both sugar alcohols, which so far as the body is concerned are neither sugars nor alcohols in the way those words are commonly understood; it’s just a chemical term. The sugars aren’t processed as such by the body and are passed as dietary fiber, and nor is there any intoxicating effect as one might expect from an alcohol.

    In terms of macronutrients, while technically they both have carbs, for all functional purposes they don’t and just have a little fiber.

    In terms of micronutrients, they don’t have any.

    The one thing that sets them apart is their respective safety profiles. Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=1.57, range=1.12-2.21), while erythritol is also prothrombotic and more strongly associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=2.21, range=1.20-4.07).

    So, xylitol is bad and erythritol is worse, which means the relatively “healthier” is xylitol. We don’t recommend either, though.

    Studies for both:

    Links for the specific products we compared, in case our assessment hasn’t put you off them:

    Xylitol | Erythritol

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    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: