Strawberries vs Cherries – 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 strawberries to cherries, we picked the cherries.
Why?
Both are great, and an argument could be made for either! But here’s our rationale:
In terms of macros, as with most fruits they are both mostly water, and have similar carbs and fiber. Nominally, cherries have the lower glycemic index, so we could call this category nominally a win for cherries, but honestly, they’re both low-GI foods and nobody is getting metabolic disease from eating strawberries, so it’s fairer to consider this category a tie.
Looking at the vitamins, strawberries have more of vitamins C, B9, E, and K, while cherries have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, and choline. Thus, a modest win for cherries here.
When it comes to minerals, strawberries see their day: strawberries have more iron, magnesium, manganese, and phosphorus, while cherries have more calcium, copper, and potassium. By the numbers, a win for strawberries.
So far, so tied!
What swings it into cherries’ favor is cherries’ slew of specific phytochemical benefits, including cherry-specific anti-inflammatory properties, sleep-improving abilities, and post-exercise recovery boosts, as well as anti-diabetic benefits above and beyond the normal “this is a fruit” level.
In short, both are very respectable fruits, but cherries have some extra qualities that are just special.
Of course, as ever, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Cherries’ Health Benefits Simply Pop
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:
-
Spelt vs Bulgur – 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 spelt to bulgur, we picked the spelt.
Why?
An argument could be made for bulgur, but we say spelt comes out on top. Speaking of “sorting the wheat from the chaff”, be aware: spelt is a hulled wheat product and bulgur is a cracked wheat product.
Looking at macros first, it’s not surprising therefore that spelt has proportionally more carbs and bulgur has proportionally more fiber, resulting in a slightly lower glycemic index. That said, for the exact same reason, spelt is proportionally higher in protein. Still, fiber is usually the most health-relevant aspect in the macros category, so we’re going to call this a moderate win for bulgur.
When it comes to micronutrients, however, spelt is doing a lot better:
In the category of vitamins, spelt is higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, and E (with the difference in E being 26x more!), while bulgur is higher only in vitamin B9 (and that, only slightly). A clear win for spelt here.
Nor are the mineral contents less polarized; spelt has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while bulgur is not higher in any minerals. Another easy win for spelt.
Adding these up makes a win for spelt, but again we’d urge to not underestimate the importance of fiber. Enjoy both in moderation, unless you are avoiding wheat/gluten in which case don’t, and for almost everyone, mixed whole grains are always going to be best.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
How To Lower Your Blood Pressure (Cardiologists Explain)
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.
Today we enjoy the benefit of input from Dr. Zalzal, Dr. Weeing, and Dr. Hefferman!
If the thought of being in an operating room with three cardiologists in scrubs doesn’t raise your blood pressure too much, the doctors in question have a lot to offer for bringing those numbers down and keeping them down! They recommend…
150 mins of Exercise
This isn’t exactly controversial, but: move your body!
See also: Exercise Less; Move More
Reduce salt
Most people eating the Standard American Diet (SAD) are getting far too much—mostly because it’s in so many processed foods already.
See also: How Too Much Salt May Lead To Organ Failure
Eating habits
There’s a lot more to eating healthily for the heart than just reducing salt, and over all, the Mediterranean diet comes out scoring highest:
- What Is The Mediterranean Diet Anyway? ← a primer for the uncertain
- Four Ways To Upgrade The Mediterranean ← includes a heart-specialized version!
Reduce alcohol
According to the WHO, the only healthy amount of alcohol is zero. According to these cardiologists: at the very least cut down. However much or little you’re drinking right now, less is better.
See also: How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol
Maintain healthy weight
While the doctors agree that BMI isn’t a great method of measuring metabolic health, it is clear that carrying excessive weight isn’t good for the heart.
See also: Lose Weight (Healthily!)
No smoking
This one’s pretty straight forward: just don’t.
See also: Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit
Reduce stress
Chronic stress has a big impact on chronic health in general and that includes its effect on blood pressure. So, improving one improves the other.
See also: Lower Your Cortisol! (Here’s Why & How)
Good sleep
Quality matters as much as quantity, and that goes for its effect on your blood pressure too, so take the time to invest in your good health!
See also: The 6 Dimensions Of Sleep (And Why They Matter)
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
How was the video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
Share This Post
-
CLA for Weight Loss?
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.
Conjugated Linoleic Acid for Weight Loss?
You asked us to evaluate the use of CLA for weight loss, so that’s today’s main feature!
First, what is CLA?
Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) is a fatty acid made by grazing animals. Humans don’t make it ourselves, and it’s not an essential nutrient.
Nevertheless, it’s a popular supplement, mostly sold as a fat-burning helper, and thus enjoyed by slimmers and bodybuilders alike.
❝CLA reduces bodyfat❞—True or False?
True! Contingently. Specifically, it will definitely clearly help in some cases. For example:
- This study found it doubled fat loss in chickens
- It significantly increased delipidation of white adipose tissue in these mice
- The mice in this study enjoyed a 43–88% reduction in (fatty) weight gain
- Over the course of a six-week weight-loss program, these mice got 70% more weight loss on CLA, compared to placebo
- In this study, pigs that took CLA on a high-calorie diet gained 50% less weight than those not taking CLA
- On a heart-unhealthy diet, these hamsters taking CLA gained much less white adipose tissue than their comrades not taking CLA
- Another study with pigs found that again, CLA supplementation resulted in much less weight gained
- These hamsters being fed a high-cholesterol diet found that those taking CLA ended up with a leaner body mass than those not taking CLA
- This study with mice found that CLA supplementation promoted fat loss and lean muscle gain
Did you notice a theme? It’s Animal Farm out there!
❝CLA reduces bodyfat in humans❞—True or False?
False—practically. Technically it appears to give non-significantly better results than placebo.
A comprehensive meta-analysis of 18 different studies (in which CLA was provided to humans in randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials and in which body composition was assessed by using a validated technique) found that, on average, human CLA-takers lost…
Drumroll please…
00.00–00.05 kg per week. That’s between 0–50g per week. That’s less than two ounces. Put it this way: if you were to quickly drink an espresso before stepping on the scale, the weight of your very tiny coffee would cover your fat loss.
The reviewers concluded:
❝CLA produces a modest loss in body fat in humans❞
Modest indeed!
See for yourself: Efficacy of conjugated linoleic acid for reducing fat mass: a meta-analysis in humans
But what about long-term? Well, as it happens (and as did show up in the non-human animal studies too, by the way) CLA works best for the first four weeks or so, and then effects taper off.
Another review of longer-term randomized clinical trials (in humans) found that over the course of a year, CLA-takers enjoyed on average a 1.33kg total weight loss benefit over placebo—so that’s the equivalent of about 25g (0.8 oz) per week. We’re talking less than a shot glass now.
They concluded:
❝The evidence from RCTs does not convincingly show that CLA intake generates any clinically relevant effects on body composition on the long term❞
A couple of other studies we’ll quickly mention before closing this section:
- CLA supplementation does not affect waist circumference in humans (at all).
- Amongst obese women doing aerobic exercise, CLA supplementation has no effect (at all) on body fat reduction compared to placebo
What does work?
You may remember this headline from our “What’s happening in the health world” section a few days ago:
Research reveals self-monitoring behaviors and tracking tools key to long-term weight loss success
On which note, we’ve mentioned before, we’ll mention again, and maybe one of these days we’ll do a main feature on it, there’s a psychology-based app/service “Noom” that’s very personalizable and helps you reach your own health goals, whatever they might be, in a manner consistent with any lifestyle considerations you might want to give it.
Curious to give it a go? Check it out at Noom.com (you can get the app there too, if you want)
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Ear Candling: Is It Safe & Does It Work?
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.
Does This Practice Really Hold A Candle To Evidence-Based Medicine?
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you your opinion of ear candling, and got the above-depicted, below-described set of responses:
- Exactly 50% said “Under no circumstances should you put things in your ear and set fire to them”
- About 38% said “It is a safe, drug-free way to keep the ears free from earwax and pathogens”
- About 13% said “Done correctly, thermal-auricular therapy is harmless and potentially beneficial”
This means that if we add the two positive-to-candling answers together, it’s a perfect 50:50 split between “do it” and “don’t do it”.
(Yes, 38%+13%=51%, but that’s because we round to the nearest integer in these reports, and more precisely it was 37.5% and 12.5%)
So, with the vote split, what does the science say?
First, a quick bit of background: nobody seems keen to admit to having invented this. One of the major manufacturers of ear candles refers to them as “Hopi” candles, which the actual Hopi tribe has spent a long time asking them not to do, as it is not and never has been used by the Hopi people. Other proposed origins offered by advocates of ear candling include Traditional Chinese Medicine (not used), Ancient Egypt (no evidence of such whatsoever), and Atlantis:
Quackwatch | Why Ear Candling Is Not A Good Idea
It is a safe, drug-free way to keep the ears free from earwax and pathogens: True or False?
False! In a lot of cases of alternative therapy claims, there’s an absence of evidence that doesn’t necessarily disprove the treatment. In this case, however, it’s not even an open matter; its claims have been actively disproven by experimentation:
- It doesn’t remove earwax; on the contrary, experimentation “showed no removal of cerumen from the external auditory canal. Candle wax was actually deposited in some“
- It doesn’t remove pathogens, and the proposed mechanism of action for removing pathogens, that of the “chimney effect”: the idea that the burning candle creates a vacuum that draws wax out of the ear along with debris and bacteria, simply does not work; on the contrary, “Tympanometric measurements in an ear canal model demonstrated that ear candles do not produce negative pressure”.
- It isn’t safe; on the contrary, “Ear candles have no benefit in the management of cerumen and may result in serious injury”
In a medium-sized survey (n=122), the following injuries were reported:
- 13 x burns
- 7 x occlusion of the ear canal
- 6 x temporary hearing loss
- 3 x otitis externa (this also called “swimmer’s ear”, and is an inflammation of the ear, accompanied by pain and swelling)
- 1 x tympanic membrane perforation
Indeed, authors of one paper concluded:
❝Ear candling appears to be popular and is heavily advertised with claims that could seem scientific to lay people. However, its claimed mechanism of action has not been verified, no positive clinical effect has been reliably recorded, and it is associated with considerable risk.
No evidence suggests that ear candling is an effective treatment for any condition. On this basis, we believe it can do more harm than good and we recommend that GPs discourage its use❞
Source: Canadian Family Physician | Ear Candling
Under no circumstances should you put things in your ear and set fire to them: True or False?
True! It’s generally considered good advice to not put objects in general in your ears.
Inserting flaming objects is a definite no-no. Please leave that for the Cirque du Soleil.
You may be thinking, “but I have done this and suffered no ill effects”, which seems reasonable, but is an example of survivorship bias in action—it doesn’t make the thing in question any safer, it just means you were one of the one of the ones who got away unscathed.
If you’re wondering what to do instead… Ear oils can help with the removal of earwax (if you don’t want to go get it sucked out at a clinic—the industry standard is to use a suction device, which actually does what ear candles claim to do). For information on safely getting rid of earwax, see our previous article:
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:
-
Plums vs Strawberries – 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 plums to strawberries, we picked the strawberries.
Why?
Both are great! Absolutely top-tier fruits. However, even within the top tier, there are distinctions:
In terms of of macros, plums have more carbs while strawberries have more fiber; we’ll take the extra fiber for the win here.
In the category of vitamins, plums have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, and K, while strawberries have more of vitamins B6, B9, C, E, and choline, thus scoring a marginal win for strawberries in this round.
When it comes to minerals, plums have (slightly) more copper, while strawberries have more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc. One more win for strawberries.
In terms of phytochemicals, plums have a higher total mass of polyphenols, and so win this round, although strawberries scored well too.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for strawberries, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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:
-
Easing Lower Back Pain
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.
Lower back pain often originates from an unexpected culprit: your pelvis. Similar to how your psoas can contribute to lower back pain, when your pelvis tilts forward due to tight hip flexors, it can misalign your spine, leading to discomfort and pain. As WeShape shows us in the below video, one simple stretch can help realign your pelvis and significantly ease lower back pain.
Why Your Pelvis Matters
Sitting for long periods causes your hip flexors to shorten, leading to an anterior pelvic tilt. This forward tilt puts pressure on your spine and SI joint, causing pain and discomfort in the lower back. To help resolve this, you can work on correcting your pelvic alignment, helping to significantly reduce this pressure and alleviate related pain. And no, this doesn’t require any spinal cord stimulation.
Easy Variations for All
A lot of you recognise the stretch in this video; it’s quite a well-known kneeling stretch. But, unlike other guides, WeShape also provides a fantastic variation for those who aren’t mobile enough for the kneeling variation
So, if you can’t comfortably get down on the ground, WeShape outlines a brilliant standing variation. So, regardless of your mobility, there’s an option for you!
See both variations here:
Excited to reduce your lower back pain? We hope so! Let us know if you have any tips that you’d like to share with us.
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: