What is silicosis and what does research say about it?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Silicosis is a progressive, debilitating and sometimes fatal lung disease caused by breathing silica dust from cutting, drilling, chipping or grinding materials such as granite, sandstone, slate or artificial stone. The dust gets trapped in the lung tissue, causing inflammation, scarring and permanent damage.
Silicosis is a job-related lung disease and has no cure. The disease mostly affects workers in construction, stone countertop fabrication, mining, and even those who sandblast and stonewash denim jeans to create a ‘worn out’ look.
Silica is one of the most common minerals in nature. About 59% of the Earth’s crust is made of silica, found in quartz, granite, sandstone, slate and sand. Historically, people at the highest risk for the disease have worked in natural environments — mining, digging tunnels or doing quarry work. The disease was first documented by the Greek physician Hippocrates, who in 430 B.C. described breathing disorders in metal diggers.
But in recent decades there’s been renewed attention to the disease due to its more rapid progression and severity among younger workers. Research has shown that the culprit is artificial stone mostly used for countertops for kitchens and bathrooms, which has a very high silica content.
The new generation of coal miners is also at an increased risk of silicosis, in addition to black lung, because layers of coal have become thinner, forcing them to dig deeper into rock, as explained in a joint investigation by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Medill Investigative Lab at Northwestern University published on Dec. 4. CBS Sunday Morning also had a report on the same issue among West Virginia coal miners, aired as part of its Dec. 10 episode.
Silicosis in modern industries
Artificial, or engineered, stone used for countertops, also known as “quartz,” is formed from finely crushed rocks mixed with resin. Quartz is a natural mineral, but man-made products like many quartz countertops consist of not just quartz, but also resin, colors and other materials that are used to style and strengthen them.
The silica content of artificial stone is about 90%, compared with the 3% silica content of natural marble and 30% silica content in granite stones, according to the authors of a 2019 systematic review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
The first reported case of silicosis associated with working with artificial stone was from Italy in 2010, according to a 2020 study published in Allergy. Since then, more studies have documented the growing number of cases among artificial stone workers, many of whom are from marginalized populations, such as immigrants.
A July 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that in California, the disease mainly occurred among young Latino immigrant men. The disease was severe in most men by the time they sought care.
An August 2022 study, published in Occupational & Environmental Medicine, analyzing the Global Silicosis Registry, with workers in Israel, Spain, Australia and the U.S., found “a substantial emerging population of workers worldwide with severe and irreversible silica-associated diseases,” due to exposure from silica dust from engineered stone.
Other modern occupations such as denim sandblasting, work on dental prostheses, manufacturing of electrical cables and working on jewelry and semi-precious stones also put workers at risk of silicosis.
In the wake of modern-day silicosis cases, researchers have called for larger studies to better understand the disease and the discovery of effective treatments.
In the U.S. about 2.3 million workers are exposed to silica dust on the job, according to the American Lung Association. Other estimates show approximately 10 million workers in India, 3.2 million in the European Union and 2 million in Brazil work with material containing silica.
However, “the reporting system for occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States fails to capture many cases, leading to a poor understanding of silicosis incidence and prevalence,” writes Ryan F. Hoy, who has published extensively on the topic, in a June 2022 article in Respirology.
A 2015 study in the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report found the annual number of silicosis deaths declined from 185 people in 1999 to 111 in 2013, but the decline appeared to have leveled off between 2010 and 2013, the authors write. Another 2015 study in MMWR, examining silicosis deaths between 2001 and 2010, found the death rate from silicosis was significantly higher among Black people compared with whites and other races. Men also have a significantly higher death rate from silicosis than women.
The 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study estimates that more than 12,900 people worldwide die from silicosis each year.
Silicosis has no cure, but it’s preventable when workers have access to proper respiratory protection and are educated on safe practices set by regulatory bodies such as the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The European Network on Silica also has guidelines on handling and using materials containing silica. A March 2023 study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research International finds that “education, training, and marketing strategies improve respirator use, while training and education motivate workers to use dust control measures.”
Silicosis symptoms and treatment
Symptoms of silicosis include cough, fatigue, shortness of breath and chest pain. There’s no specific test for silicosis. The first signs may show in an abnormal chest X-ray and a slowly developing cough, according to the American Lung Association.
Silicosis symptoms don’t appear right away in most cases, usually taking several years to develop working with silica dust. However, studies indicate that symptoms of silicosis due to exposure to artificial stone appear quicker than exposure to natural silica sources, potentially due to the higher concentration of silica in artificial stone.
There are three types of silicosis: acute (most commonly caused by working with artificial stone), accelerated and chronic, depending on the level of exposure to silica dust, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which explains the severity of each type on its website.
Complications from silicosis can include tuberculosis, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, kidney disease and autoimmune disorders. In some cases, silicosis can cause severe scarring of the lung tissue, leading to a condition called progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF. Some patients may require a lung transplant.
Lung damage from silicosis is irreversible, so treatment of silicosis is aimed at slowing down the disease and relieving its symptoms.
In 1995, the World Health Organization called for the elimination of silicosis by 2030, but research studies and news stories show it remains a threat to many workers.
Below, we have gathered several studies on the topic to help journalists bolster their reporting with academic research.
Research roundup
Artificial Stone Associated Silicosis: A Systematic Review
Veruscka Leso, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2019.
This systematic review aims to verify the association between exposure to silica dust in artificial stone and the development of silicosis.
Researchers narrowed down their selection from 75 papers to seven studies that met their inclusion criteria. The seven studies were from Australia, Israel and Spain. Most of the studies are observational and impede a definite association between exposure to silica while working with artificial stone and developing silicosis, the authors note.
However, “the unusually high incidence of the disease that was reported over short periods of investigations, and the comparable occupational histories of affected workers, all being involved in the manufacture and manipulation of engineered stones, may indicate a cause-effect relationship of this type.”
The review of studies reveals a lack of basic preventive measures such as lack of access to disposable masks; lack of information and training on the dangers of silica dust; and lack of periodic medical examinations, including a chest X-ray, among workers. There was limited environmental monitoring of dust levels at the workplace. Also, there was no dust suppression system, such as the use of water when polishing the stones, or effective ventilation. Machinery and tools weren’t properly set up and didn’t undergo routine checks, the authors write.
The authors recommend environmental monitoring for assessing silica levels in the workplace and verifying the effectiveness of personal protections. They also recommend the health surveillance of workers exposed to silica dust.
“Stakeholders, manufacturers, occupational risk prevention services, insurance companies for occupational accidents and diseases, business owners, occupational health physicians, general practitioners, and also employees should be engaged, not only in designing/planning processes and operational working environments, but also in assessing the global applicability of proactive preventive and protective measures to identify and control crystalline silica exposure, especially in new and unexpected exposure scenarios, the full extent of which cannot yet be accurately predicted,” they write.
Silica-Related Diseases in the Modern World
Ryan F. Hoy and Daniel C. Chambers. Allergy, November 2020.
The study is a review of the mineralogy of silica, epidemiology, clinical and radiological features of the various forms of silicosis and other diseases associated with exposure to silica.
The primary factor associated with the development of silicosis is the intensity and duration of cumulative exposure to silica dust. Most countries regulate silica dust occupational exposure limits, generally in the range of 0.05 mg/m3 to 0.1 mg/m3, although the risk of dust exposure to workers still remains high at those levels.
The study provides a list of activities that could expose workers to silica dust. They include abrasive blasting of sand and sandstone; cement and brick manufacturing; mixing, glazing or sculpting of china, ceramic and pottery; construction involving bricklaying, concrete cutting, paving and demolition; sandblasting denim jeans; working with and polishing dental materials; mining and related milling; handling raw material during paint manufacturing; road and highway construction and repair; soap and cosmetic production; blasting and drilling tunnels; and waste incineration.
“Despite the large number of workers in the construction sector, there have been few studies of [silica dust] exposure in this industry,” the authors note.
Other than silicosis, conditions associated with silica exposure include sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease that commonly affects the lungs and lymph nodes, autoimmune disease, lung cancer and pulmonary infections.
“Recent outbreaks of silica-associated disease highlight the need for constant vigilance to identify and control new and well-established sources of silica exposure. While there are currently no effective treatments for silicosis, it is a completely preventable lung disease,” the authors write.
A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Dust Control Measures Adopted to Reduce Workplace Exposure
Frederick Anlimah, Vinod Gopaldasani, Catherine MacPhail and Brian Davies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, March 2023.
This study provides an overview of various interventions and their effectiveness in preventing exposure to silica dust based on a review of 133 studies from 16 countries, including the U.S., Canada, China, India, Taiwan and Australia, and published between 2010 and 2020.
These dust control measures range from simple work practices such as the use of respirators to more sophisticated technologies, such as water and air curtains and foam technology, the authors note.
The review finds increasing research interest in dust reduction, mainly in China. But overall, regulatory influence remains inadequate in preventing miners’ exposure to silica dust.
“Results from the review suggest that adopted interventions increase knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about respirator usage and generate positive perceptions about respirator usage while reducing misconceptions,” the authors write. “Interventions can increase the use, proper use, and frequency of use of respirators and the adoption readiness for dust controls but may not provide sustained motivation in workers for the continual use of dust controls or [personal protective equipment.]”
Notes from the Field: Surveillance of Silicosis Using Electronic Case Reporting — California, December 2022–July 2023
Jennifer Flattery, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, November 2023.
This study examines the use of electronic case reporting to identify silicosis cases in California. Electronic case reporting, or eCR, is the automated, real-time exchange of case report information between electronic health records at health facilities at state and local public health agencies in the U.S. It is a joint effort between the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the CDC. Currently, 208 health conditions can be reported using eCR. All 50 states and other U.S.-affiliated jurisdictions are connected to eCR. Once a public health agency receives a case report, it reaches out to the patient for contact tracing or other actions.
From October 2022 to July 2023, the California Department of Public Health received initial silicosis case reports for 41 individuals. A review of medical records confirmed 19 cases and 16 probable cases. Six of the 41 cases were considered unlikely to be silicosis after a review of medical records.
Notably, engineered stone countertop fabrication was a significant source of exposure, especially among Hispanic and Latino workers.
At least seven of the 19 confirmed cases were associated with the fabrication of engineered stone — quartz — countertops. The 19 patients’ ages ranged from 33 to 51 and all were Hispanic or Latino. One patient died and two had both lungs replaced. One was evaluated for a lung transplant.
The median age of the 35 patients with probable or confirmed silicosis was 65, ranging from 33 to 89 years, and 91% were men.
“It is important that health care providers routinely ask patients about their work as an important determinant of health,” the authors write. “Being aware of the risks associated with work exposures, as well as the regulations, medical monitoring, and prevention strategies that address those risks can help guide patient care.”
Additional research
Understanding the Pathogenesis of Engineered Stone-Associated Silicosis: The Effect of Particle Chemistry on the Lung Cell Response
Chandnee Ramkissoon, et al. Respirology, December 2023.
Silicosis, Tuberculosis and Silica Exposure Among Artisanal and Small-Scale Miners: A Systematic Review and Modelling Paper
Patrick Howlett, et al. PLOS Global Public Health, September 2023.
Silicosis Among Immigrant Engineered Stone (Quartz) Countertop Fabrication Workers in California
Jane C. Fazio, et al. JAMA Internal Medicine, July 2023.
Silicosis and Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
P. Jamshidi, et al. Pulmonology, June 2023.
From Basic Research to Clinical Practice: Considerations for Treatment Drugs for Silicosis
Rou Li, Huimin Kang and Shi Chen. International Journal of Molecular Science, May 2023.
Silicosis After Short-Term Exposure
J. Nowak-Pasternak, A. Lipińska-Ojrzanowska and B. Świątkowska. Occupational Medicine, January 2023.
Occupational Silica Exposure and Dose-Response for Related Disorders—Silicosis, Pulmonary TB, AIDs and Renal Diseases: Results of a 15-Year Israeli Surveillance
Rachel Raanan, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, November 2022.
Demographic, Exposure and Clinical Characteristics in a Multinational Registry of Engineered Stone Workers with Silicosis
Jeremy Tang Hua, et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, August 2022.
Current Global Perspectives on Silicosis — Convergence of Old and Newly Emergent Hazards
Ryan F. Hoy, et al. Respirology, March 2022.
The Association Between Silica Exposure, Silicosis and Tuberculosis: A systematic Review and Metal-Analysis
Rodney Ehrlich, Paula Akugizibwe, Nandi Siegfried and David Rees. BMC Public Health, May 2021.
Silicosis, Progressive Massive Fibrosis and Silico-Tuberculosis Among Workers with Occupational Exposure to Silica Dusts in Sandstone Mines of Rajasthan State
Subroto Nandi, Sarang Dhatrak, Kamalesh Sarkar. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, February 2021.
Artificial Stone Silicosis: Rapid Progression Following Exposure Cessation
Antonio León-Jiménez, et al. Chest, September 2020.
Silica-Associated Lung Disease: An Old-World Exposure in Modern Industries
Hayley Barnes, Nicole S.L. Goh, Tracy L. Leong and Ryan Hoy. Respirology, September 2019.
Australia Reports on Audit of Silicosis for Stonecutters
Tony Kirby. The Lancet, March 2019.
Artificial Stone-Associated Silicosis: A Rapidly Emerging Occupational Lung Disease
Ryan F. Hoy, et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, December 2017.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
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:
-
Brown Rice vs Buckwheat – 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 brown rice to buckwheat, we picked the buckwheat.
Why?
In terms of macros, brown rice has more carbs, while buckwheat has nearly 2x the fiber, and more protein. An easy choice here: buckwheat for the win.
In the category of vitamins, brown rice has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, and E, while buckwheat has more of vitamins B9, K, and choline. A win for brown rice this time, although as a point in buckwheat’s favor, while most of the margins of difference are comparable, buckwheat has nearly 10x the vitamin K.
When it comes to minerals, brown rice has more manganese, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc, while buckwheat has more calcium, copper, iron, and magnesium. A win for buckwheat again this time.
A quick note on gluten: both of these are naturally gluten-free, so that’s not an issue here. Buckwheat, despite its name, is not a wheat, nor even closely related to wheat. It’s not even technically a grain; it’s a flowering plant of which we eat the groats. In taxonomic terms, buckwheat is about as related to wheat as a lionfish is to a lion.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall 2:1 win for buckwheat, though even if it weren’t for that, which is someone more likely to hear from a doctor, “you need to eat more fiber”, or “you need to eat more vitamin E”? Thus, even had the categories been tied (let’s imagine it had been tied on minerals, say) that’d have been a tiebreaker in favor of buckwheat. As it is, buckwheat already won by strength of numbers anyway.
Of course, do enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
A Correction, And A New, Natural Way To Boost Daily Energy Levels
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? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
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
First: a correction and expansion!
After yesterday’s issue of 10almonds covering breast cancer risks and checks, a subscriber wrote to say, with regard to our opening statement, which was:
“Anyone (who has not had a double mastectomy, anyway) can get breast cancer”
❝I have been enjoying your newsletter. This statement is misleading and should have a disclaimer that says even someone who has had a double mastectomy can get breast cancer, again. It is true and nothing…nothing is 100% including a mastectomy. I am a 12 year “thriver” (I don’t like to use the term survivor) who has had a double mastectomy. I work with a local hospital to help newly diagnosed patients deal with their cancer diagnosis and the many decisions that follow. A double mastectomy can help keep recurrence from happening but there are no guarantees. I tried to just delete this and let it go but it doesn’t feel right. Thank you!❞
Thank you for writing in about this! We wouldn’t want to mislead, and we’re always glad to hear from people who have been living with conditions for a long time, as (assuming they are a person inclined to learning) they will generally know topics far more deeply than someone who has researched it for a short period of time.
Regards a double mastectomy (we’re sure you know this already, but noting here for greater awareness, prompted by your message), a lot of circumstances can vary. For example, how far did a given cancer spread, and especially, did it spread to the lymph nodes at the armpits? And what tissue was (and wasn’t) removed?
Sometimes a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy will leave the lymph nodes partially or entirely intact, and a cancer could indeed come back, if not every last cancerous cell was removed.
A total double mastectomy, by definition, should have removed all tissue that could qualify as breast tissue for a breast cancer, including those lymph nodes. However, if the cancer spread unnoticed somewhere else in the body, then again, you’re quite correct, it could come back.
Some people have a double mastectomy without having got cancer first. Either because of a fear of cancer due to a genetic risk (like Angelina Jolie), or for other reasons (like Elliot Page).
This makes a difference, because doing it for reasons of cancer risk may mean surgeons remove the lymph nodes too, while if that wasn’t a factor, surgeons will tend to leave them in place.
In principle, if there is no breast tissue, including lymph nodes, and there was no cancer to spread, then it can be argued that the risk of breast cancer should now be the same “zero” as the risk of getting prostate cancer when one does not have a prostate.
But… Surgeries are not perfect, and everyone’s anatomy and physiology can differ enough from “textbook standard” that surprises can happen, and there’s almost always a non-zero chance of certain health outcomes.
For any unfamiliar, here’s a good starting point for learning about the many types of mastectomy, that we didn’t go into in yesterday’s edition. It’s from the UK’s National Health Service:
NHS: Mastectomy | Types of Mastectomy
And for the more sciency-inclined, here’s a paper about the recurrence rate of cancer after a prophylactic double mastectomy, after a young cancer was found in one breast.
The short version is that the measured incidence rate of breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy was zero, but the discussion (including notes about the limitations of the study) is well worth reading:
Breast Cancer after Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation
❝[Can you write about] the availability of geriatric doctors Sometimes I feel my primary isn’t really up on my 70 year old health issues. I would love to find a doctor that understands my issues and is able to explain them to me. Ie; my worsening arthritis in regards to food I eat; in regards to meds vs homeopathic solutions.! Thanks!❞
That’s a great topic, worthy of a main feature! Because in many cases, it’s not just about specialization of skills, but also about empathy, and the gap between studying a condition and living with a condition.
About arthritis, we’re going to do a main feature specifically on that quite soon, but meanwhile, you might like our previous article:
Keep Inflammation At Bay (arthritis being an inflammatory condition)
As for homeopathy, your question prompts our poll today!
(and then we’ll write about that tomorrow)
Share This Post
-
Natto vs Tofu – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing nattō to tofu, we picked the nattō.
Why?
In other words, in the comparison of fermented soy to fermented soy, we picked the fermented soy. But the relevant difference here is that nattō is fermented whole soybeans, while tofu is fermented soy milk of which the coagulated curds are then compressed into a block—meaning that the nattō is the one that has “more food per food”.
Looking at the macros, it’s therefore no surprise that nattō has a lot more fiber to go with its higher carb count; it also has slightly more protein. You may be wondering what tofu has more of, and the answer is: water.
In terms of vitamins, nattō has more of vitamins B2, B4, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while tofu has more of vitamins A, B3, and B9. So, a 7:3 win for nattō, even before considering that that vitamin C content of nattō is 65x more than what tofu has.
When it comes to minerals, nattō has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and zinc, while tofu has more calcium, phosphorus, and selenium. So, a 6:3 win for nattō, and yes, the margins of difference are comparable (being 2–3x more for most of these minerals).
In short, both of these foods are great, but nattō is better.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Brown Rice vs Buckwheat – 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 brown rice to buckwheat, we picked the buckwheat.
Why?
In terms of macros, brown rice has more carbs, while buckwheat has nearly 2x the fiber, and more protein. An easy choice here: buckwheat for the win.
In the category of vitamins, brown rice has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, and E, while buckwheat has more of vitamins B9, K, and choline. A win for brown rice this time, although as a point in buckwheat’s favor, while most of the margins of difference are comparable, buckwheat has nearly 10x the vitamin K.
When it comes to minerals, brown rice has more manganese, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc, while buckwheat has more calcium, copper, iron, and magnesium. A win for buckwheat again this time.
A quick note on gluten: both of these are naturally gluten-free, so that’s not an issue here. Buckwheat, despite its name, is not a wheat, nor even closely related to wheat. It’s not even technically a grain; it’s a flowering plant of which we eat the groats. In taxonomic terms, buckwheat is about as related to wheat as a lionfish is to a lion.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall 2:1 win for buckwheat, though even if it weren’t for that, which is someone more likely to hear from a doctor, “you need to eat more fiber”, or “you need to eat more vitamin E”? Thus, even had the categories been tied (let’s imagine it had been tied on minerals, say) that’d have been a tiebreaker in favor of buckwheat. As it is, buckwheat already won by strength of numbers anyway.
Of course, do enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
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:
-
Life Is in the Transitions – by Bruce Feiler
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Change happens. Sometimes, because we choose it. More often, we don’t get a choice.
Our bodies change; with time, with illness, with accident or incident, or even, sometimes, with effort. People in our lives change; they come, they go, they get sick, they die. Our working lives change; we get a job, we lose a job, we change jobs, our jobs change, we retire.
Whether we’re undergoing cancer treatment or a religious conversion, whether our families are growing or down to the last few standing, change is inescapable.
Our author makes the case that on average, we each undergo at least 5 major “lifequakes”; changes that shake our lives to the core. Sometimes one will come along when we’ve barely got back on our feet from the previous—if we have at all.
What, then, to do about this? We can’t stop change from occurring, and some changes aren’t easy to “roll with”. Feiler isn’t prescriptive about this, but rather, descriptive:
By looking at the stories of hundreds of people he interviewed for this book, he looks at how people pivoted on the spot (or picked up the pieces!) and made the best of their situation—or didn’t.
Bottom line: zooming out like this, looking at many people’s lives, can remind us that while we don’t get to choose what winds we get swept by, we at least get to choose how we set the sails. The examples of others, as this book gives, can help us make better decisions.
Click here to check out Life Is In The Transitions, and get conscious about how you handle yours!
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:
-
Tomatoes vs Carrots – 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 tomatoes to carrots, we picked the carrots.
Why?
Both known for being vitamin-A heavyweights, there is nevertheless a clear winner:
In terms of macros, carrots have a little over 2x the carbs, and/but also a little over 2x the fiber, so we consider category this a win for carrots.
In the category of vitamins, tomatoes have more vitamin C, while carrots have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, E, K, and choline. And about that vitamin A specifically: carrots have over 20x the vitamin A of tomatoes. An easy win for carrots here!
When it comes to minerals, tomatoes have a little more copper, while carrots have more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Another clear win for carrots.
Looking at polyphenols, carrots are good but tomatoes have more, including a good healthy dose of quercetin; they also have more lycopene, not technically a polyphenol by virtue of its chemical structure (it’s a carotenoid), but a powerful phytochemical nonetheless (and much more prevalent in sun-dried tomatoes, in any case, which is not what we were looking at today—perhaps another day we’ll do sun-dried tomatoes and carrots head-to-head!).
Still, a) carrots are not short of carotenoids either (including lycopene), and b) we don’t think the moderate win on polyphenols is enough to outdo carrots having won all the other categories.
All in all, carrots win the day, but of course, do enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Lycopene’s Benefits For The Gut, Heart, Brain, & More
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:
