Spinach vs Kale – 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 spinach to kale, we picked the spinach.
Why?
In terms of macros, spinach and kale are very similar. They are mostly water wrapped in fiber, with very small amounts of carbohydrates and protein and trace amounts of fat.
Spinach has a lot more vitamins and minerals—a wider variety, and in most cases, more of them.
Kale is notably higher in vitamin C, though. Everything else, spinach is higher or close to equal.
Spinach is especially notably a lot higher in B vitamins, as well as iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc.
One downside to spinach, though, which is that it’s high in oxalates, which can increase the risk of kidney stones. If your kidneys are in good health and you eat spinach in moderation, this is not a problem for most people—but if your kidneys aren’t in good health (or you are, for whatever reason, consuming Popeye levels of spinach), you might consider switching to kale.
While spinach swept the board in most categories, kale remains a very good option too, and a diet diverse in many kinds of plants is usually best.
Want to learn more?
Spinach and kale are very both good sources of carotenoids; check out:
Enjoy!
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:
-
Coenzyme Q10 From Foods & Supplements
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.
Coenzyme Q10 and the difference it makes
Coenzyme Q10, often abbreviated to CoQ10, is a popular supplement, and is often one of the more expensive supplements that’s commonly found on supermarket shelves as opposed to having to go to more specialist stores or looking online.
What is it?
It’s a compound naturally made in the human body and stored in mitochondria. Now, everyone remembers the main job of mitochondria (producing energy), but they also protect cells from oxidative stress, among other things. In other words, aging.
Like many things, CoQ10 production slows as we age. So after a certain age, often around 45 but lifestyle factors can push it either way, it can start to make sense to supplement.
Does it work?
The short answer is “yes”, though we’ll do a quick breakdown of some main benefits, and studies for such, before moving on.
First, do bear in mind that CoQ10 comes in two main forms, ubiquinol and ubiquinone.
Ubiquinol is much more easily-used by the body, so that’s the one you want. Here be science:
What is it good for?
Benefits include:
- Against aging
- Against skin cancer
- Against breast cancer
- Against prostate cancer
- Against heart failure
- Against obesity
- Against diabetes
- Against Alzheimer’s
- Against Parkinson’s
Can we get it from foods?
Yes, and it’s equally well-absorbed through foods or supplementation, so feel free to go with whichever is more convenient for you.
Read: Intestinal absorption of coenzyme Q10 administered in a meal or as capsules to healthy subjects
If you do want to get it from food, you can get it from many places:
- Organ meats: the top source, though many don’t want to eat them, either because they don’t like them or some of us just don’t eat meat. If you do, though, top choices include the heart, liver, and kidneys.
- Fatty fish: sardines are up top, along with mackerel, herring, and trout
- Vegetables: leafy greens, and cruciferous vegetables e.g. cauliflower, broccoli, sprouts
- Legumes: for example soy, lentils, peanuts
- Nuts and seeds: pistachios come up top; sesame seeds are great too
- Fruit: strawberries come up top; oranges are great too
If supplementing, how much is good?
Most studies have used doses in the 100mg–200mg (per day) range.
However, it’s also been found to be safe at 1200mg (per day), for example in this high-quality study that found that higher doses resulted in greater benefit, in patients with early Parkinson’s Disease:
Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline
Wondering where you can get it?
We don’t sell it (or anything else for that matter), and you can probably find it in your local supermarket or health food store. However, if you’d like to buy it online, here’s an example product on Amazon
Share This Post
-
Wouldn’t It Be Nice To Have Regenerative Superpowers?
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.
The Best-Laid Schemes of Mice and Medical Researchers…
This is Dr. Ellen Heber-Katz. She’s an internationally-renowned immunologist and regeneration biologist, but her perhaps greatest discovery was accidental.
Unlike in Robert Burns’ famous poem, this one has a happy ending!
But it did involve the best-laid schemes of mice and medical researchers, and how they did indeed “gang gagly“ (or in the English translation, “go awry”).
How it started…
Back in 1995, she was conducting autoimmune research, and doing a mouse study. Her post-doc assistant was assigned to punch holes in the ears of mice that had received an experimental treatment, to distinguish them from the control group.
However, when the mice were later checked, none of them had holes (nor even any indication there ever had been holes punched)—the experiment was ruined, though the post-doc swore she did her job correctly.
So, they had to start from scratch in the new year, but again, a second batch of mice repeated the trick. No holes, no wounds, no scarring, not disruption to their fur, no damage to the cartilage that had been punched through.
In a turn of events worthy of a superhero origin story, they discovered that their laboratory-made autoimmune disease had accidentally given the mice super-healing powers of regeneration.
In the animal kingdom, this is akin to a salamander growing a new tail, but it’s not something usually found in mammals.
Read: A New Murine Model for Mammalian Wound Repair and Regeneration
How it’s going…
Dr. Heber-Katz and colleagues took another 20 years of work to isolate hypoxia-inducible factor-1a (HIF-1a) as a critical molecule that, if blocked, would eliminate the regenerative response.
Further, a drug (which they went on to patent), 1,4-dihydrophenonthrolin-4-one-3-carboxylic acid (1,4-DPCA), chemically induced this regenerative power:
See: Drug-induced regeneration in adult mice
Another 5 years later, they found that this same drug can be used to stimulate the regrowth of bones, too:
And now…
The research is continuing. Here’s the latest, a little over a month ago:
Epithelial–mesenchymal transition: an organizing principle of mammalian regeneration
Regrowing nerves has also been added into the list of things the drug can do.
What about humans?
Superpowered mice are all very well and good, but when can we expect this in humans?
The next step is testing the drug in larger animals, which she hopes to do next year, followed eventually by studies in humans.
Read the latest:
Regrowing nerves and healing without scars? A scientist’s career-long quest comes closer to fruition
Very promising!
Share This Post
-
You, Happier – by Dr. Daniel Amen
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.
The implicit question “what’s your brain type?” makes this book sound a little like a horoscope for science-enjoyers, but really, the “brain type” in question is simply a way of expressing which neurochemicals one’s brain makes most and/or least easily.
That’s something that a) really does differ from one person to another b) isn’t necessarily fixed forever, but will tend to remain mostly the same most of the time for most people.
And yes, the book does cover figuring out which neurotransmitter(s) it might be for you. On a secondary level, it also talks about more/less active parts of the brain for each of us, but the primary focus is on neurotransmitters.
It’s easy to assume “everyone wants more [your favorite neurotransmitter here]” but in fact, most people most of the time have most of what they need.
For those of us who don’t, those of us who perhaps have to work more to keep our level(s) of one or more neurotransmitters where they should be, this book is a great guide to optimizing aspects of our diet and lifestyle to compensate for what our brains might lack—potentially reducing the need to go for pharmaceutical approaches.
The style of the book is very much pop-science, but it is all well-informed and well-referenced.
Bottom line: if you sometimes (or often!) think “if only my brain would just make/acknowledge more [neurotransmitter], this book is for you.
Click here to check out You, Happier, and discover a happier you!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Stevia vs Acesulfame Potassium – 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 stevia to acesulfame potassium, we picked the stevia.
Why?
You may be wondering: is acesulfame potassium a good source of potassium?
And the answer is: no, it is not. Obviously, it does contain potassium, but let’s do some math here:
- Acesulfame potassium is 200x sweeter than sugar
- Therefore replacing a 15g teaspoon of sugar = 75mg acesulfame potassium
- Acesulfame potassium’s full name is “potassium 6-methyl-2,2-dioxo-2H-1,2λ6,3-oxathiazin-4-olate”
- That’s just one potassium atom in there with a lot of other stuff
- Acesulfame potassium has a molar mass of 201.042 g/mol
- Potassium itself has a molar mass of 39.098 g/mol
- Therefore acesulfame potassium is 100(39.098/201.042) = 19.45% potassium by mass
- So that 75mg of acesulfame potassium contains just under 15mg of potassium, which is less than 0.5% of your recommended daily amount of potassium. Please consider eating a fruit instead.
So, that’s that, and the rest of the nutritional values of both sweeteners are just a lot of zeros.
What puts stevia ahead? Simply, based on studies available so far, moderate consumption of stevia improves gut microdiversity, whereas acesulfame potassium harms gut microdiversity:
- The Effects of Stevia Consumption on Gut Bacteria: Friend or Foe?
- The Artificial Sweetener Acesulfame Potassium Affects the Gut Microbiome
Want to give stevia a try?
Here’s an example product on Amazon
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:
-
When Carbs, Proteins, & Fats Switch Metabolic Roles
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.
Strange Things Happening In The Islets Of Langerhans
It is generally known and widely accepted that carbs have the biggest effect on blood sugar levels (and thus insulin response), fats less so, and protein least of all.
And yet, there was a groundbreaking study published yesterday which found:
❝Glucose is the well-known driver of insulin, but we were surprised to see such high variability, with some individuals showing a strong response to proteins, and others to fats, which had never been characterized before.
Insulin plays a major role in human health, in everything from diabetes, where it is too low*, to obesity, weight gain and even some forms of cancer, where it is too high.
These findings lay the groundwork for personalized nutrition that could transform how we treat and manage a range of conditions.❞
*saying ”too low” here is potentially misleading without clarification; yes, Type 1 Diabetics will have too little [endogenous] insulin (because the pancreas is at war with itself and thus isn’t producing useful quantities of insulin, if any). Type 2, however, is more a case of acquired insulin insensitivity, because of having too much at once too often, thus the body stops listening to it, “boy who cried wolf”-style, and the pancreas also starts to get fatigued from producing so much insulin that’s often getting ignored, and does eventually produce less and less while needing more and more insulin to get the same response, so it can be legitimately said “there’s not enough”, but that’s more of a subjective outcome than an objective cause.
Back to the study itself, though…
What they found, and how they found it
Researchers took pancreatic islets from 140 heterogenous donors (varied in age and sex; ostensibly mostly non-diabetic donors, but they acknowledge type 2 diabetes could potentially have gone undiagnosed in some donors*) and tested cell cultures from each with various carbs, proteins, and fats.
They found the expected results in most of the cases, but around 9% responded more strongly to the fats than the carbs (even more strongly than to glucose specifically), and even more surprisingly 8% responded more strongly to the proteins.
*there were also some known type 2 diabetics amongst the donors; as expected, those had a poor insulin response to glucose, but their insulin response to proteins and fats were largely unaffected.
What this means
While this is, in essence, a pilot study (the researchers called for larger and more varied studies, as well as in vivo human studies), the implications so far are important:
It appears that, for a minority of people, a lot of (generally considered very good) antidiabetic advice may not be working in the way previously understood. They’re going to (for example) put fat on their carbs to reduce the blood sugar spike, which will technically still work, but the insulin response is going to be briefly spiked anyway, because of the fats, which very insulin response is what will lower the blood sugars.
In practical terms, there’s not a lot we can do about this at home just yet—even continuous glucose monitors won’t tell us precisely, because they’re monitoring glucose, not the insulin response. We could probably measure everything and do some math and work out what our insulin response has been like based on the pace of change in blood sugar levels (which won’t decrease without insulin to allow such), but even that is at best grounds for a hypothesis for now.
Hopefully, more publicly-available tests will be developed soon, enabling us all to know our “insulin response type” per the proteome predictors discovered in this study, rather than having to just blindly bet on it being “normal”.
Ironically, this very response may have hidden itself for a while—if taking fats raised insulin response without raising blood sugar levels, then if blood sugar levels are the only thing being measured, all we’ll see is “took fats at dinner; blood sugars returned to normal more quickly than when taking carbs without fats”.
You can read the study in full here:
Proteomic predictors of individualized nutrient-specific insulin secretion in health and disease
Want to know more about blood sugar management?
You might like to catch up on:
- 10 Ways To Balance Your Blood Sugars
- Track Your Blood Sugars For Better Personalized Health
- How To Turn Back The Clock On Insulin Resistance
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:
-
Heart Healthy Diet Plan – by Stephen William
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.
We’ve covered heart-healthy cooking books before, but variety is good, and boredom is an enemy of health, so let’s shake it up with a fresh stack of recipes!
After a brief overview of the relevant science (which if you’re a regular 10almonds reader, probably won’t be new to you), the author takes the reader on a 28-day journey. Yes, we know the subtitle says 30 days, but unless they carefully hid the other two days somewhere we didn’t find, there are “only” 28 inside. Perhaps the publisher heard it was a month and took creative license. Or maybe there’s a different edition. Either way…
Rather than merely giving a diet plan (though yes, he also does that), he gives a wide range of “spotlight ingredients”, such that many of the recipes, while great in and of themselves, can also be jumping-off points for those of us who like to take recipes and immediately do our own things to them.
Each day gets a breakfast, lunch, dinner, and he also covers drinks, desserts, and such like.
Notwithstanding the cover art being a lot of plants, the recipes are not entirely plant-based; there are a selection of fish dishes (and other seafood, e.g. shrimp) and also some dairy products (e.g. Greek yoghurt). The recipes are certainly very “plant-forward” though and many are just plants. If you’re a strict vegan though, this probably isn’t the book for you.
Bottom line: if you’d like to cook heart-healthy but are often stuck wondering “aaah, what to cook again today?”, then this is the book to get you out of any culinary creative block!
Click here to check out the Heart Healthy Diet Plan, and widen your heart-healthy repertoire!
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:
