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:
-
Dealing with Thirst!
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.
Busting The Myth of “Eight Glasses Of Water A Day”
Everyone knows we must drink 8 glasses of water a day, or else we’re going to get a failing grade at being a healthy human—like not flossing, or not using adequate sunscreen.
But… Do we? And does tea count? How about (we dare but whisper it) coffee? And soda drinks are mostly water, right? But aren’t some drinks dehydrating? Are special electrolyte drinks really better? There are so many things to consider, so many differing advices, and it’s easy to give up, or just choose what to believe in as a leap of faith.
A quick brain-teaser for you first, though:
If coffee and soda don’t count because they’re dehydrating, then what if you were to take:
– A concentrated tiny cup of espresso, and then a glass of water, would the glass of water count?
– Or (we don’t relish the thought) what if you took a spoonful of soda syrup, and then a glass of water, would the glass of water count?
If your answer was “yes, it’s a glass of water”, then why would it not count if it were taken all at once (e.g. as an Americano coffee, or a regular soda)?
If your answer was “yes, but that water might only offset the dehydration caused by the coffee/syrup, so I might only be breaking even”, then you were thinking about this the right way:
How much water you need depends on many factors that can be affected by what else you are consuming and what else you are doing. Science loves averages, so eight glasses a day may be great if you are of average health, and average body size, in a temperate climate, doing moderate exercise, and so on and so on.
If you’re not the most average person of all time? You may need to take into account a lot of factors, ranging from what you ate for dinner to how much you perspired during your morning exercises. As you (probably) don’t live in laboratory conditions, this can become an impossible task—and if you missed (or guessed incorrectly) even one factor, the whole calculation will be thrown off. But is there any other way to know?
What of the infamous pee test? Drink enough to make your urine as clear as possible, and if it’s dark, you’re dehydrated, common wisdom says.
In reality, however, that tells you not what’s in your body, but rather, what got ejected from your body. If your urine is dark, it might mean you had too little water, but it also could just mean you had the right amount of water but too much sodium, for instance. A study of this was done on athletes, and found no correlation between urine color and actual bodily hydration when measured directly via a blood test.
So, if we can’t just have an app tell us “drink this many glasses of water”, and we can’t trust urine color, what can we do?
What we can do is trust that our body comes with (for free!) a wonderful homeostatic system and it will try to correct any imbalances. If you are thirsty, you’re dehydrated. Drink something with plenty of water in, if not plain water.
But what about special electrolyte drinks? If you need salts, you will crave them. Craving a salty snack? Go for it! Or if you prefer not to snack, do a salt lick test (just put a little salt on your finger, and taste it; if it tastes good, wait a minute or two, and then have a little more, and repeat until it doesn’t).
Bonus Tip:
- Make sure you always have a source of hydration (that you enjoy!) to hand. Maybe it’s chilled water, maybe it’s a pot of tea, maybe it’s a sports drink, it doesn’t matter too much. Even coffee is actually fine, by the way (but don’t overdo it).
- Make a personal rule: “I will always make time for hydration”. That means, if you’re thirsty, have something with water in it now. Not when you’ve finished what you’re doing (unless you really can’t stop, because you are a racecar driver mid-race, or a surgeon mid-operation, or something), but now. Do not postpone it until after you’ve done some other thing first; you will forget and it will keep getting postponed. Always make time for water.
Share This Post
-
Cognitive Enhancement Without Drugs
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.
Cognitive Enhancement Without Drugs
This is Elizabeth Ricker. She’s a Harvard-and-MIT-trained neuroscientist and researcher, who now runs the “Citizen Science” DIY-neurohacking organization, NeuroEducate.
Sounds fun! What’s it about?
The philosophy that spurs on her research and practice can be summed up as follows:
❝I’m not going to leave my brain up to my doctor or [anyone else]… My brain is my own responsibility, and I’m going to do the best that I can to optimize it❞
Her goal is not just to optimize her own brain though; she wants to make the science accessible to everyone.
What’s this about Citizen Science?
“Citizen Science” is the idea that while there’s definitely an important role in society for career academics, science itself should be accessible to all. And, not just the conclusions, but the process too.
This can take the form of huge experiments, often facilitated these days by apps where we opt-in to allow our health metrics (for example) to be collated with many thousands of others, for science. It can also involve such things as we talked about recently, getting our own raw genetic data and “running the numbers” at home to get far more comprehensive and direct information than the genetic testing company would ever provide us.
For Ricker, her focus is on the neuroscience side of biohacking, thus, neurohacking.
I’m ready to hack my brain! Do I need a drill?
Happily not! Although… Bone drills for the skull are very convenient instruments that make it quite hard to go wrong even with minimal training. The drill bit has a little step/ledge partway down, which means you can only drill through the thickness of the skull itself, before the bone meeting the wider part of the bit stops you from accidentally drilling into the brain. Still, please don’t do this at home.
What you can do at home is a different kind of self-experimentation…
If you want to consider which things are genuinely resulting in cognitive enhancement and which things are not, you need to approach the matter like a scientist. That means going about it in an organized fashion, and recording results.
There are several ways cognitive enhancement can be measured, including:
- Learning and memory
- Executive function
- Emotional regulation
- Creative intelligence
Let’s look at each of them, and what can be done. We don’t have a lot of room here; we’re a newsletter not a book, but we’ll cover one of Ricker’s approaches for each:
Learning and memory
This one’s easy. We’re going to leverage neuroplasticity (neurons that fire together, wire together!) by simple practice, and introduce an extra element to go alongside your recall. Perhaps a scent, or a certain item of clothing. Tell yourself that clinical studies have shown that this will boost your recall. It’s true, but that’s not what’s important; what’s important is that you believe it, and bring the placebo effect to bear on your endeavors.
You can test your memory with word lists, generated randomly by AI, such as this one:
You’ll soon find your memory improving—but don’t take our word for it!
Executive function
Executive function is the aspect of your brain that tells the other parts how to work, when to work, and when to stop working. If you’ve ever spent 30 minutes thinking “I need to get up” but you were stuck in scrolling social media, that was executive dysfunction.
This can be trained using the Stroop Color and Word Test, which shows you words, specifically the names of colors, which will themselves be colored, but not necessarily in the color the word pertains to. So for example, you might be shown the word “red”, colored green. Your task is to declare either the color of the word only, ignoring the word itself, or the meaning of the word only, ignoring its appearance. It can be quite challenging, but you’ll get better quite quickly:
The Stroop Test: Online Version
Emotional Regulation
This is the ability to not blow up angrily at the person with whom you need to be diplomatic, or to refrain from laughing when you thought of something funny in a sombre situation.
It’s an important part of cognitive function, and success or failure can have quite far-reaching consequences in life. And, it can be trained too.
There’s no online widget for this one, but: when and if you’re in a position to safely* do so, think about something that normally triggers a strong unwanted emotional reaction. It doesn’t have to be something life-shattering, but just something that you feel in some way bad about. Hold this in your mind, sit with it, and practice mindfulness. The idea is to be able to hold the unpleasant idea in your mind, without becoming reactive to it, or escaping to more pleasant distractions. Build this up.
*if you perchance have PTSD, C-PTSD, or an emotional regulation disorder, you might want to talk this one through with a qualified professional first.
Creative Intelligence
Another important cognitive skill, and again, one that can be cultivated and grown.
The trick here is volume. A good, repeatable test is to think of a common object (e.g. a rock, a towel, a banana) and, within a time constraint (such as 15 minutes) list how many uses you can think of for that item.
Writer’s storytime: once upon a time, I was sorting through an inventory of medical equipment with a colleague, and suggested throwing out our old arterial clamps, as we had newer, better ones—in abundance. My colleague didn’t want to part with them, so I challenged him “Give me one use for these, something we could in some possible world use them for that the new clamps don’t do better, and we’ll keep them”. He said “Thumbscrews”, and I threw my hands up in defeat, saying “Fine!”, as he had technically fulfilled my condition.
What’s the hack to improve this one? Just more volume. Creativity, as it turns out, isn’t something we can expend—like a muscle, it grows the more we use it. And because the above test is repeatable (with different objects), you can track your progress.
And if you feel like using your grown creative muscle to write/paint/compose/etc your magnum opus, great! Or if you just want to apply it to the problem-solving of everyday life, also great!
In summary…
Our brain is a wonderful organ with many functions. Society expects us to lose these as we get older, but the simple, scientific truth is that we can not only maintain our cognitive function, but also enhance and grow it as we go.
Want to know more from today’s featured expert?
You might enjoy her book, “Smarter Tomorrow”, which we reviewed back in March
Share This Post
-
Can Medical Schools Funnel More Doctors Into the Primary Care Pipeline?
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 her childhood, Julia Lo Cascio dreamed of becoming a pediatrician. So, when applying to medical school, she was thrilled to discover a new, small school founded specifically to train primary care doctors: NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine.
Now in her final year at the Mineola, New York, school, Lo Cascio remains committed to primary care pediatrics. But many young doctors choose otherwise as they leave medical school for their residencies. In 2024, 252 of the nation’s 3,139 pediatric residency slots went unfilled and family medicine programs faced 636 vacant residencies out of 5,231 as students chased higher-paying specialties.
Lo Cascio, 24, said her three-year accelerated program nurtured her goal of becoming a pediatrician. Could other medical schools do more to promote primary care? The question could not be more urgent. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 20,200 to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036. This means many Americans will lose out on the benefits of primary care, which research shows improves health, leading to fewer hospital visits and less chronic illness.
Many medical students start out expressing interest in primary care. Then they end up at schools based in academic medical centers, where students become enthralled by complex cases in hospitals, while witnessing little primary care.
The driving force is often money, said Andrew Bazemore, a physician and a senior vice president at the American Board of Family Medicine. “Subspecialties tend to generate a lot of wealth, not only for the individual specialists, but for the whole system in the hospital,” he said.
A department’s cache of federal and pharmaceutical-company grants often determines its size and prestige, he said. And at least 12 medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, don’t even have full-fledged family medicine departments. Students at these schools can study internal medicine, but many of those graduates end up choosing subspecialties like gastroenterology or cardiology.
One potential solution: eliminate tuition, in the hope that debt-free students will base their career choice on passion rather than paycheck. In 2024, two elite medical schools — the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine — announced that charitable donations are enabling them to waive tuition, joining a handful of other tuition-free schools.
But the contrast between the school Lo Cascio attends and the institution that founded it starkly illustrates the limitations of this approach. Neither charges tuition.
In 2024, two-thirds of students graduating from her Long Island school chose residencies in primary care. Lo Cascio said the tuition waiver wasn’t a deciding factor in choosing pediatrics, among the lowest-paid specialties, with an average annual income of $260,000, according to Medscape.
At the sister school, the Manhattan-based NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the majority of its 2024 graduates chose specialties like orthopedics (averaging $558,000 a year) or dermatology ($479,000).
Primary care typically gets little respect. Professors and peers alike admonish students: If you’re so smart, why would you choose primary care? Anand Chukka, 27, said he has heard that refrain regularly throughout his years as a student at Harvard Medical School. Even his parents, both PhD scientists, wondered if he was wasting his education by pursuing primary care.
Seemingly minor issues can influence students’ decisions, Chukka said. He recalls envying the students on hospital rotations who routinely were served lunch, while those in primary care settings had to fetch their own.
Despite such headwinds, Chukka, now in his final year, remains enthusiastic about primary care. He has long wanted to care for poor and other underserved people, and a one-year clerkship at a community practice serving low-income patients reinforced that plan.
When students look to the future, especially if they haven’t had such exposure, primary care can seem grim, burdened with time-consuming administrative tasks, such as seeking prior authorizations from insurers and grappling with electronic medical records.
While specialists may also face bureaucracy, primary care practices have it much worse: They have more patients and less money to hire help amid burgeoning paperwork requirements, said Caroline Richardson, chair of family medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School.
“It’s not the medical schools that are the problem; it’s the job,” Richardson said. “The job is too toxic.”
Kevin Grumbach, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, spent decades trying to boost the share of students choosing primary care, only to conclude: “There’s really very little that we can do in medical school to change people’s career trajectories.”
Instead, he said, the U.S. health care system must address the low pay and lack of support.
And yet, some schools find a way to produce significant proportions of primary care doctors — through recruitment and programs that provide positive experiences and mentors.
U.S. News & World Report recently ranked 168 medical schools by the percentage of graduates who were practicing primary care six to eight years after graduation.
The top 10 schools are all osteopathic medical schools, with 41% to 47% of their students still practicing primary care. Unlike allopathic medical schools, which award MD degrees, osteopathic schools, which award DO degrees, have a history of focusing on primary care and are graduating a growing share of the nation’s primary care physicians.
At the bottom of the U.S. News list is Yale, with 10.7% of its graduates finding lasting careers in primary care. Other elite schools have similar rates: Johns Hopkins, 13.1%; Harvard, 13.7%.
In contrast, public universities that have made it a mission to promote primary care have much higher numbers.
The University of Washington — No. 18 in the ranking, with 36.9% of graduates working in primary care — has a decades-old program placing students in remote parts of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. UW recruits students from those areas, and many go back to practice there, with more than 20% of graduates settling in rural communities, according to Joshua Jauregui, assistant dean for clinical curriculum.
Likewise, the University of California-Davis (No. 22, with 36.3% of graduates in primary care) increased the percentage of students choosing family medicine from 12% in 2009 to 18% in 2023, even as it ranks high in specialty training. Programs such as an accelerated three-year primary care “pathway,” which enrolls primarily first-generation college students, help sustain interest in non-specialty medical fields.
The effort starts with recruitment, looking beyond test scores to the life experiences that forge the compassionate, humanistic doctors most needed in primary care, said Mark Henderson, associate dean for admissions and outreach. Most of the students have families who struggle to get primary care, he said. “So they care a lot about it, and it’s not just an intellectual, abstract sense.”
Establishing schools dedicated to primary care, like the one on Long Island, is not a solution in the eyes of some advocates, who consider primary care the backbone of medicine and not a separate discipline. Toyese Oyeyemi Jr., executive director of the Social Mission Alliance at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity, worries that establishing such schools might let others “off the hook.”
Still, attending a medical school created to produce primary care doctors worked out well for Lo Cascio. Although she underwent the usual specialty rotations, her passion for pediatrics never flagged — owing to her 23 classmates, two mentors, and her first-year clerkship shadowing a community pediatrician. Now, she’s applying for pediatric residencies.
Lo Cascio also has deep personal reasons: Throughout her experience with a congenital heart condition, her pediatrician was a “guiding light.”
“No matter what else has happened in school, in life, in the world, and medically, your pediatrician is the person that you can come back to,” she said. “What a beautiful opportunity it would be to be that for someone else.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
AC: The Power of Appetite Correction – by Dr. Bert Herring
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.
“Appetite Correction” is an intriguing concept, and so it intrigued us sufficiently to read this book. So what’s it about?
It’s about modifying our response to hunger, and treating it as a messenger to whom we may say “thank you for your opinion” and then do as we already planned to do. And what is that?
Simply, this book is about intermittent fasting, specifically, 19:5 fasting, i.e., fast for 19 hours and eat during a 5hr window each day (the author proposes 5pm–10pm, but honestly, go with what works for you).
During the fasting period, drinking water, or consuming other non insulin-signalling things (e.g. black coffee, black tea, herbal tea, etc) is fine, but not so much as a bite of anything else (nor calorific drinks, e.g. with milk/cream or sugar in, and certainly not sodas, juices, etc).
During the eating period, the idea is to eat at will without restriction (even unhealthy things, if such is your desire) during those 5 hours, with the exception that one should start with something healthy. In other words, you can line up that take-out if you want, but eat a carrot first to break the fast. Or some nuts. Or whatever, but healthy.
The “appetite correction” part of it comes in with how, after a short adjustment period, you will get used to not suffering from hunger during the fasting period, and during the eating period, you will—paradoxically—be more able to practise moderation in your portions.
Most of the book is given over the dealing with psychological difficulties/objections, as well as some social objections, but he does also explain some of the science at hand too (i.e. how intermittent fasting works, on a physiological level). On which note…
The style is on the very light end of pop-science, and unusually, he doesn’t cite any sources for his claims at all. Now, no science that he claimed struck this reviewer as out of the ordinary, but it would have been nice to see a good few pages of bibliography at the back.
Bottom line: this is a super quick-and-easy read that makes a strong (albeit unsourced) case for intermittent fasting. It’s probably best for someone who would like the benefits and needs some persuading, but who is not very interested in delving into the science beyond being content to understand what is explained and put it into practice.
Click here to check out AC: The Power of Appetite Correction, and get yours where you want it!
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:
-
HRT Side Effects & Troubleshooting
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This is Dr. Heather Hirsch. She’s a board-certified internist, and her clinical expertise focuses on women’s health, particularly in midlife and menopause, and its intersection with chronic diseases (ranging from things associated with sexual health, to things like osteoporosis and heart disease).
So, what does she want us to know?
HRT can be life-changingly positive, but it can be a shaky start
Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), and in this context she’s talking specifically about the most common kind, Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT), involves taking hormones that our body isn’t producing enough of.
If these are “bioidentical hormones” as used in most of the industrialized world and increasingly also in N. America, then this is by definition a supplement rather than a drug, for what it’s worth, whereas some non-bioidentical hormones (or hormone analogs, which by definition function similarly to hormones but aren’t the same thing) can function more like drugs.
We wrote a little about his previously:
Hormone Replacement Therapy: A Tale Of Two Approaches
For most people most of the time, bioidentical hormones are very much the best way to go, as they are not only more effective, but also have fewer side effects.
That said, even bioidentical hormones can have some undesired effects, so, how to deal with those?
Don’t worry; bleed happy
A reprise of (usually quite light) menstrual bleeding is the most common side effect of menopausal HRT.
This happens because estrogen affects* the uterus, leading to a build-up and shedding of the uterine lining.
*if you do not have a uterus, estrogen can effect uterine tissue. That’s not a typo—here we mean the verb “effect”, as in “cause to be”. It will not grow a new uterus, but it can cause some clumps of uterine tissue to appear; this means that it becomes possible to get endometriosis without having a uterus. This information should not be too shocking, as endometriosis is a matter of uterine tissue growing inconveniently, often in places where it shouldn’t, and sometimes quite far from the uterus (if present, or its usual location, if absent). However, the risk of this happening is far lower than if you actually have a uterus:
What you need to know about endometriosis
Back to “you have a uterus and it’s making you wish you didn’t”:
This bleeding should, however, be light. It’ll probably be oriented around a 28-day cycle even if you are taking your hormones at the same dose every day of the month, and the bleeding will probably taper off after about 6 months of this.
If the bleeding is heavier, all the time, or persists longer than 6 months, then speak to your gynecologist about it. Any of those three; it doesn’t have to be all three!
Bleeding outside of one’s normal cycle can be caused by anything from fibroids to cancer; statistically speaking it’s probably nothing too dire,but when your safety is in question, don’t bet on “probably”, and do get it checked out:
When A Period Is Very Late (i.e., Post-Menopause)
Dr. Hirsch recommends, as possible remedies to try (preferably under your gynecologist’s supervision):
- lowering your estrogen dose
- increasing your progesterone dose
- taking progesterone continuously instead of cyclically
And if you’re not taking progesterone, here’s why you might want to consider taking this important hormone that works with estrogen to do good things, and against estrogen to rein in some of estrogen’s less convenient things:
Progesterone Menopausal HRT: When, Why, And How To Benefit
(the above link contains, as well as textual information, an explanatory video from Dr. Hirsch herself)
Get the best of the breast
Calm your tits. Soothe your boobs. Destress your breasts. Hakuna your tatas. Undo the calamity beleaguering your mammaries.
Ok, more seriously…
Breast tenderness is another very common symptom when starting to take estrogen. It can worry a lot of people (à la “aagh, what is this and is it cancer!?”), but is usually nothing to worry about. But just to be sure, do also check out:
Keeping Abreast Of Your Cancer Risk: How To Triple Your Breast Cancer Survival Chances
Estrogen can cause feelings of breast fullness, soreness, nipple irritation, and sometimes lactation, but this later will be minimal—we’re talking a drop or two now and again, not anything that would feed a baby.
Basically, it happens when your body hasn’t been so accustomed to normal estrogen levels in a while, and suddenly wakes up with a jolt, saying to itself “Wait what are we doing puberty again now? I thought we did menopause? Are we pregnant? What’s going on? Ok, checking all systems!” and then may calm down not too long afterwards when it notes that everything is more or less as it should be already.
If this persists or is more than a minor inconvenience though, Dr. Hirsch recommends looking at the likely remedies of:
- Adjust estrogen (usually the cause)
- Adjust progesterone (less common)
- If it’s progesterone, changing the route of administration can ameliorate things
What if it’s not working? Is it just me?
Dr. Hirsch advises the most common reasons are simply:
- wrong formulation (e.g. animal-derived estrogen or hormone analog, instead of bioidentical)
- wrong dose (e.g. too low)
- wrong route of administration (e.g. oral vs transdermal; usually transdermal estradiol is most effective but many people do fine on oral; progesterone meanwhile is usually best as a pessary/suppository, but many people do fine on oral)
Writer’s example: in 2022 there was an estrogen shortage in my country, and while I had been on transdermal estradiol hemihydrate gel, I had to go onto oral estradiol valerate tablets for a few months, because that’s what was available. And the tablets simply did not work for me at all. I felt terrible and I have a good enough intuitive sense of my hormones to know when “something wrong is not right”, and a good enough knowledge of the pharmacology & physiology to know what’s probably happening (or not happening). And sure enough, when I got my blood test results, it was as though I’d been taking nothing. It was such a relief to get back on the gel once it became available again!
So, if something doesn’t seem to be working for you, speak up and get it fixed if at all possible.
See also: What You Should Have Been Told About Menopause Beforehand
Want to know more from Dr. Hirsch?
You might like this book of hers, which we haven’t reviewed yet, but present here for your interest:
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:
-
Vitamin C (Drinkable) vs Vitamin C (Chewable) – 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 vitamin C (drinkable) to vitamin C (chewable), we picked the drinkable.
Why?
First let’s look at what’s more or less the same in each:
- The usable vitamin C content is comparable
- The bioavailability is comparable
- The additives to hold it together are comparable
So what’s the difference?
With the drinkable, you also drink a glass of water
If you’d like to read more about how to get the most out of the vitamins you take, you can do so here:
Are You Wasting Your Vitamins? Maybe, But You Don’t Have To
If you’d like to get some of the drinkable vitamin C, 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: