Unbroken – by Dr. MaryCatherine McDonald
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 reviewed books about trauma before, so what makes this one different? Mostly, it’s the different framing.
Dr. McDonald advocates for a neurobiological understanding of trauma, which really levels the playing field when it comes to different types of trauma that are often treated very differently, when the end result in the brain is more or less the same.
Does this mean she proposes a “one-size fits all” approach? Kind of!
Insofar as she offers a one-size fits all approach that is then personalized by the user, but most of her advices will go for most kinds of trauma in any case. This is particularly useful for any of us who’ve ever hit a wall with therapists when they expect a person to only be carrying one major trauma.
Instead, with Dr. McDonald’s approach, we can take her methods and use them for each one.
After an introduction and overview, each chapter contains a different set of relevant psychological science explored through a case study, and then at the end of the chapter, tools to use and try out.
The style is very light and readable, notwithstanding the weighty subject matter.
Bottom line: if you’ve been trying to deal with (or avoid dealing with) some kind(s) of trauma, this book will doubtlessly contain at least a few new tools for you. It did for this reviewer, who reads a lot!
Click here to check out Unbroken, because it’s never too late to heal!
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:
-
Edamame vs Natto – 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 edamame to nattō, we picked the nattō.
Why?
Yes, they are both soy beans, but in the battle of young and green vs old and fermented, there are some important differences:
In terms of macros, nattō has nearly 2x the protein for only slightly more carbs, and slightly more fiber, as well as more fat, but it’s not much and it’s a healthy profile, mostly polyunsaturated. All in all, a win for nattō in the macros category.
In the category of vitamins, edamame has more of vitamins B1, B5, B9, E, and K, while nattō has more of vitamins B2, B6, and C, this a 5:3 win for edamame in this round.
When it comes to minerals, edamame is not higher in any minerals, while nattō has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. An overwhelming win for nattō.
A word on phytoestrogens: soy in general contains these, including both of these iterations of soy, and/but the human body can’t use plant estrogens as such. What it can do, however, is break them down and use the bits to make human estradiol, if and only if you have ovaries that are present and operational (so, no menopause and/or bilateral ovariectomy). Either way, there’s nothing to set one ahead of the other in this matter in this head-to-head.
As an extra point in nattō’s favor, nattō is, like many fermented foods, extra-good for gut health by bringing a wealth of beneficial bacteria. Edamame is also good for gut health (just by virtue of being an edible plant and containing fiber), but not on the same level as nattō.
Adding up the sections makes a clear win for nattō, but by all means enjoy either or both—diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!) ← nattō features in the method!
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Blood, urine and other bodily fluids: how your leftover pathology samples can be used for medical research
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.
A doctor’s visit often ends with you leaving with a pathology request form in hand. The request form soon has you filling a sample pot, having blood drawn, or perhaps even a tissue biopsy taken.
After that, your sample goes to a clinical pathology lab to be analysed, in whichever manner the doctor requested. All this is done with the goal of getting to the bottom of the health issue you’re experiencing.
But after all the tests are done, what happens with the leftover sample? In most cases, leftover samples go in the waste bin, destined for incineration. Sometimes though, they may be used again for other purposes, including research.
Kaboompics.com/Pexels Who can use my leftover samples?
The samples we’re talking about here cover the range of samples clinical labs receive in the normal course of their testing work. These include blood and its various components (including plasma and serum), urine, faeces, joint and spinal fluids, swabs (such as from the nose or a wound), and tissue samples from biopsies, among others.
Clinical pathology labs often use leftover samples to practise or check their testing methods and help ensure test accuracy. This type of use is a vital part of the quality assurance processes labs need to perform, and is not considered research.
Leftover samples can also be used by researchers from a range of agencies such as universities, research institutes or private companies.
They may use leftover samples for research activities such as trying out new ideas or conducting small-scale studies (more on this later). Companies that develop new or improved medical diagnostic tests can also use leftover samples to assess the efficacy of their test, generating data needed for regulatory approval.
What about informed consent?
If you’ve ever participated in a medical research project such as a clinical trial, you may be familiar with the concept of informed consent. In this process, you have the opportunity to learn about the study and what your participation involves, before you decide whether or not to participate.
So you may be surprised to learn using leftover samples for research purposes without your consent is permitted in most parts of Australia, and elsewhere. However, it’s only allowed under certain conditions.
In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) offers guidance around the use of leftover pathology samples.
One of the conditions for using leftover samples without consent for research is that they were received and retained by an accredited pathology service. This helps ensure the samples were collected safely and properly, for a legitimate clinical reason, and that no additional burdens or risk of harm to the person who provided the sample will be created with their further use.
Another condition is anonymity: the leftover samples must be deidentified, and not easily able to be reidentified. This means they can only be used in research if the identity of the donor is not needed.
Leftover pathology samples are sometimes used in medical research. hedgehog94/Shutterstock The decision to allow a particular research project to use leftover pathology samples is made by an independent human research ethics committee which includes consumers and independent experts. The committee evaluates the project and weighs up the risks and potential benefits before permitting an exemption to the need for informed consent.
Similar frameworks exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, India and elsewhere.
What research might be done on my leftover samples?
You might wonder how useful leftover samples are, particularly when they’re not linked to a person and their medical history. But these samples can still be a valuable resource, particularly for early-stage “discovery” research.
Research using leftover samples has helped our understanding of antibiotic resistance in a bacterium that causes stomach ulcers, Helicobacter pylori. It has helped us understand how malaria parasites, Plasmodium falciparum, damage red blood cells.
Leftover samples are also helping researchers identify better, less invasive ways to detect chronic diseases such as pulmonary fibrosis. And they’re allowing scientists to assess the prevalence of a variant in haemoglobin that can interfere with widely used diagnostic blood tests.
All of this can be done without your permission. The kinds of tests researchers do on leftover samples will not harm the person they were taken from in any way. However, using what would otherwise be discarded allows researchers to test a new method or treatment and avoid burdening people with providing fresh samples specifically for the research.
When considering questions of ethics, it could be argued not using these samples to derive maximum benefit is in fact unethical, because their potential is wasted. Using leftover samples also minimises the cost of preliminary studies, which are often funded by taxpayers.
The use of leftover pathology samples in research has been subject to some debate. Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock Inconsistencies in policy
Despite NHMRC guidance, certain states and territories have their own legislation and guidelines which differ in important ways. For instance, in New South Wales, only pathology services may use leftover specimens for certain types of internal work. In all other cases consent must be obtained.
Ethical standards and their application in research are not static, and they evolve over time. As medical research continues to advance, so too will the frameworks that govern the use of leftover samples. Nonetheless, developing a nationally consistent approach on this issue would be ideal.
Striking a balance between ensuring ethical integrity and fostering scientific discovery is essential. With ongoing dialogue and oversight, leftover pathology samples will continue to play a crucial role in driving innovation and advances in health care, while respecting the privacy and rights of individuals.
Christine Carson, Senior Research Fellow, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia and Nikolajs Zeps, Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
The push for Medicare to cover weight-loss drugs: An explainer
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 largest U.S. insurer, Medicare, does not cover weight-loss drugs, making it tougher for older people to get access to promising new medications.
If you cover stories about drug costs in the U.S., it’s important to understand why Medicare’s Part D pharmacy program, which covers people aged 65 and older and people with certain disabilities, doesn’t cover weight-loss drugs today. It’s also important to consider what would happen if Medicare did start covering weight loss drugs. This explainer will give you a brief overview of the issues and then summarize some recent publications the benefits and costs of drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide.
First, what are these new and newsy weight loss drugs?
Semaglutide is a medication used for both the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for long-term weight management in adults with obesity. It debuted in the United States in 2017 as an injectable diabetes drug called Ozempic, manufactured by Novo Nordisk. It’s part of a class of drugs that mimics the action of glucagon, a substance that the human body makes to aid digestion.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs like semaglutide help prompt the body to release insulin. But they also cause a minor delay in the pace of digestion, helping people feel sated after eating.
That second effect turned Ozempic into a widely used weight-loss drug, even before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave its okay for this use. Doctors in the United States can prescribe medicines for uses beyond those approved by the FDA. This is known as off-label use.
In writing about her own experience in using the medicine to help her shed 40 pounds, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus in June noted that Novo Nordisk mentioned the potential for weight loss in its “ubiquitous cable ads (‘Oh-oh-oh, Ozempic!’)”
The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists has reported shortages of semaglutide due to demand, leaving some people with diabetes struggling to find supply of the medicine.
Novo Nordisk won Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2021 to market semaglutide as an injectable weight loss drug under the name Wegovy, but with a different dosing regimen than Ozempic. Rival Eli Lilly first won FDA approval of its similar GLP-1 diabetes drug, tirzepatide, in the United States in 2022 and sells it under the brand name Mounjaro.
In November of 2023, Eli Lilly won FDA approval to sell tirzepatide as a weight-loss drug, soon-to-be marketed under the brand name Zepbound. The company said it will set a monthly list price for a month’s supply of the drug at $1,059.87, which the company described as 20% discount to the cost of rival Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy. Wegovy has a list price of $1,349.02, according to the Novo Nordisk website.
Even when their insurance plans officially cover costs for weight loss drugs, consumers may face barriers in seeking that coverage for these drugs. Commercial health plans have in place prior authorization requirements to try to limit coverage of new weight-loss shots to those who qualify for these treatments. The Wegovy shot, for example, is intended for people whose weight reaches a certain benchmark for obesity or who are overweight and have a condition related to excess weight, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
State Medicaid programs, meanwhile, have taken approaches that vary by state. For example, the most populous U.S. state, California, provides some coverage to new weight-loss injections through its Medicaid program, but many others, including Texas, the No. 2 state in terms of population, do not, according to an online tool that Novo Nordisk created to help people check on coverage.
Medicare does cover semaglutide for treatment of diabetes, and the insurer reported $3 billion in 2021 spending on the drug under Medicare Part D. Congress last year gave Medicare new tools that might help it try to lower the cost of semaglutide.
Medicare is in the midst of implementing new authority it gained through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 to negotiate with companies about the cost of certain medicines.
This legislation gave Medicare, for the first time, tools to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on the cost of some medicines. Congress tailored this program to spare drug makers from negotiations for the first few years they put new medicines on the market, allowing them to recoup investment in these products.
Why doesn’t Medicare cover weight-loss drugs?
Congress created the Medicare Part D pharmacy program in 2003 to address a gap in coverage that had existed since the creation of Medicare in 1965. The program long covered the costs of drugs administered by doctors and those given in hospitals, but not the kinds of medicines people took on their own, like Wegovy shots.
In 2003, there seemed to be good reasons to leave weight-loss drugs out of the benefit, write Inmaculada Hernandez of the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors in their September 2023 editorial in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Medicare Part D Coverage of Anti-obesity Medications: a Call for Forward-Looking Policy Reform.”
When members of Congress worked on the Part D benefit, the drugs available on the market were known to have limited effectiveness and unpleasant side effects. And those members of Congress were aware of how a drug combination called fen-phen, once touted as a weight-loss miracle medicine, turned out in rare cases to cause fatal heart valve damage. In 1997, American Home Products, which later became Wyeth, took its fen-phen product off the market.
But today GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide appear to offer significant benefits, with far less risk and milder side effects, write Hernandez and coauthors.
“Other than budget impact, it is hard to find a reason to justify the historical statutory exclusion of weight loss drugs from coverage other than the stigma of the condition itself,” they write.
What’s happening today that could lead Medicare to start covering weight loss drugs?
Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly both have hired lobbyists to try to persuade lawmakers to reverse this stance, according to Senate records. Pro tip: You can use the Senate’s lobbying disclosure database to track this and other issues. Type in the name of the company of interest and then read through the forms.
Some members of Congress already have been trying for years to strike the Medicare Part D restriction on weight-loss drugs. Over the past decade, senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Bill Cassidy, MD, (R-LA) have repeatedly introduced bills that would do that. They introduced the current version, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023, in July. It has the support of 10 other Republican senators and seven Democratic ones, as of Dec. 19. The companion House measure has the support of 41 Democrats and 23 Republicans in that chamber, which has 435 seats.
The influential nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review conducts in-depth analyses of drugs and medical treatments in the United States. ICER last year recommended passage of a law allowing Medicare Part D to cover weight-loss medications. ICER also called for broader coverage of weight-loss medications in state Medicaid programs. Insurers, including Medicare, consider ICER’s analyses in deciding whether to cover treatments.
While offering these calls for broader coverage as part of a broad assessment of obesity management, ICER also urged companies to reduce the costs of weight-loss medicines.
Most people with obesity can’t achieve sustained weight loss through diet and exercise alone, said David Rind, ICER’s chief medical officer in an August 2022 statement. The development of newer obesity treatments represents the achievement of a long-standing goal of medical research, but prices of these new products must be reasonable to allow broad access to them, he noted.
After an extensive process of reviewing studies, engaging in public debate and processing feedback, ICER concluded that semaglutide for weight loss should have an annual cost of $7,500 to $9,800, based on its potential benefits.
What does academic research say about the benefits and the potential costs of new obesity drugs?
Here are a couple of studies to consider when covering the ongoing story of weight-loss drug costs:
Medicare Part D Coverage of Antiobesity Medications — Challenges and Uncertainty Ahead
Khrysta Baig, Stacie B. Dusetzina, David D. Kim and Ashley A. Leech. New England Journal of Medicine, March 2023In this Perspective piece, researchers at Vanderbilt University create a series of estimates about how much Medicare may have to spend annually on weight-loss drugs if the program eventually covers these drugs.
These include a high estimate — $268 billion — based on an extreme calculation, one reflecting the potential cost if virtually all people on Medicare who have obesity used semaglutide. In an announcement of the study on the Vanderbilt website, lead author Khrysta Baig described this as a “purely hypothetical scenario,” but one that “ underscores that at current prices, these medications cannot be the only way – or even the main way – we address obesity as a society.”
In a more conservative estimate, Bhaig and coauthors consider a case where only about 10% of those eligible for obesity treatment opted for semaglutide, which would result in $27 billion in new costs.
(To put these numbers in context, consider that the federal government now spends about $145 billion a year on the entire Part D program.)
It’s likely that all people enrolled in Part D would have to pay higher monthly premiums if Medicare were to cover weight-loss injections, Baig and coauthors write.
Baig and coauthors note that the recent ICER review of weight-loss drugs focused on patients younger than the Medicare population. The balance of benefits and risks associated with weight-loss drugs may be less favorable for older people than the younger ones, making it necessary to study further how these drugs work for people aged 65 and older, they write. For example, research has shown older adults with a high blood sugar level called prediabetes are less likely to develop diabetes than younger adults with this condition.
SELECTing Treatments for Cardiovascular Disease — Obesity in the Spotlight
Amit Khera and Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley. New England Journal of Medicine, Dec. 14, 2023
Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients Without Diabetes
A Michael Lincoff, et. al. New England Journal of Medicine, Dec. 14, 2023.An editorial accompanies the publication of a semaglutide study that drew a lot of coverage in the media. The Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes (SELECT) study was a randomized controlled trial, conducted by Novo Nordisk, which looked at rates of cardiovascular events in people who already had known heart risk and were overweight, but not diabetic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a once-weekly dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) or a placebo.
In the study, the authors report that of the 8,803 patients who took Wegovy in the trial, 569 (6.5%)
The study also reports a mean 9.4% reduction in body weight among patients taking Wegovy, while those on placebo had a mean loss of 0.88%.
The findings suggest Wegovy may be a welcome new treatment option for many people who have coronary disease and are overweight, but are not diabetic, write Khera and Powell-Wiley in their editorial.
But the duo, both of whom focus on disease prevention in their research, also call for more focus on the prevention and root causes of obesity and on the use of proven treatment approaches other than medication.
“Socioeconomic, environmental, and psychosocial factors contribute to incident obesity, and therefore equity-focused obesity prevention and treatment efforts must target multiple levels,” they write. “For instance, public policy targeting built environment features that limit healthy behaviors can be coupled with clinical care interventions that provide for social needs and access to treatments like semaglutide.”
Additional information:
The nonprofit KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, has done recent reports looking at the potential for expanded coverage of semaglutide:
Medicaid Utilization and Spending on New Drugs Used for Weight Loss, Sept. 8, 2023
What Could New Anti-Obesity Drugs Mean for Medicare? May 18, 2023
And KFF held an Aug. 4 webinar, New Weight Loss Drugs Raise Issues of Coverage, Cost, Access and Equity, for which the recording is posted here.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Is Dairy Scary?
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.
Is Dairy Scary?
Milk and milk products are popularly enjoyed as a good source of calcium and vitamin D.
In contrast, critics of dairy products (for medical reasons, rather than ethical, which is another matter entirely and beyond the scope of this article) point to risks of cancer, heart disease, and—counterintuitively—osteoporosis. We’ll focus more on the former, but touch on the latter two before closing.
Dairy & Cancer
Evidence is highly conflicting. There are so many studies with so many different results. This is partially explicable by noting that not only is cancer a many-headed beast that comes in more than a hundred different forms and all or any of them may be affected one way or another by a given dietary element, but also… Not all milk is created equal, either!
Joanna Lampe, of the Public Health Sciences division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, writes:
❝Dairy products are a complex group of foods and composition varies by region, which makes evaluation of their association with disease risk difficult. For most cancers, associations between cancer risk and intake of milk and dairy products have been examined only in a small number of cohort studies, and data are inconsistent or lacking❞
In her systematic review of studies, she noted, for example, that:
- Milk and dairy products contain micronutrients and several bioactive constituents that may influence cancer risk and progression
- There’s probable association between milk intake and lower risk of colorectal cancer
- There’s a probable association between diets high in calcium and increased risk of prostate cancer
- Some studies show an inverse association between intake of cultured dairy products and bladder cancer (i.e., if you eat yogurt you’re less likely to get bladder cancer)
Since that systemic review was undertaken, more research has been conducted, and the results are… Not conclusive, but converging towards a conclusion:
- Dairy products can increase or decrease cancer risk
- The increase in cancer risk seems strongest when milk is consumed in quantities that result in too much calcium. When it comes to calcium, you can absolutely have too much of a good thing—just ask your arteries!
- The decrease in cancer seems to be mostly, if not exclusively, from fermented dairy products. This usually means yogurts. The benefit here is not from the milk itself, but rather from the gut-friendly bacteria.
You may be wondering: “Hardened arteries, gut microbiome health? I thought we were talking about cancer?” and yes we are. No part of your health is an island unrelated to other parts of your health. One thing can lead to another. Sometimes we know how and why, sometimes we don’t, but it’s best to not ignore the data.
The bottom line on dairy products and cancer is:
- Consuming dairy products in general is probably fine
- Yogurt, specifically, is probably beneficial
Dairy and Heart Disease
The reason for the concern is clear enough: it’s largely assumed to be a matter of saturated fat intake.
The best combination of “large” and “recent” that we found was a three-cohort longitudinal study in 2019, which pretty much confirms what was found in smaller or less recent studies:
- There is some evidence to suggest that consumption of dairy can increase all-cause mortality in general, and death from (cancer and) cardiovascular disease in particular
- The evidence is not, however, overwhelming. It is marginal.
Dairy and Osteoporosis
Does dairy cause osteoporosis? Research here tends to fall into one of two categories when it comes to conclusions, so we’ll give an example of each:
- “Results are conflicting, saying yes/no/maybe, and basically we just don’t know”
- “Results are conflicting, but look: cross-sectional and case-control studies say yes; cohort studies say maybe or no; we prefer the cohort studies”
See them for yourself:
- Osteoporosis: Is milk a kindness or a curse?
- Consumption of milk and dairy products and risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture
Conclusion: really, the jury is very much still out on this one
Summary:
- Moderate consumption of dairy products is almost certainly fine
- More specifically: it probably has some (small) pros and some (small) cons
- Yogurt is almost certainly healthier than other dairy products, and is almost universally considered a healthy food (assuming not being full of added sugar etc, of course)
- If you’re going to have non-dairy alternatives to milk, choose wisely!
That’s all we have time for today, but perhaps in a future edition we’ll do a run-down of the pros and cons of various dairy alternatives!
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:
-
Brain Benefits in 3 Months…through walking?
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.
Keeping it Simple
Today’s video (below) is another Big Think production (can you tell that we love their work?). Wendy Suzuki does a wonderful job of breaking down the brain benefits of exercise into three categories, within three minutes.
The first question to ask yourself is: what is your current level of fitness?
Low Fitness
Exercising, even if it’s just going on a walk, 2-3 times a week improves baseline mood state, as well as enhances prefrontal and hippocampal function. These areas of the brain are crucial for complex behaviors like planning and personality development, as well as memory and learning.
Mid Fitness
The suggested regimen is, without surprise, to slightly increase your regular workouts over three months. Whilst you’re already getting the benefits from the low-fitness routine, there is a likelihood that you’ll increase your baseline dopamine and serotonin levels–which, of course, we love! Read more on dopamine here, here, or here.
High Fitness
If you consider yourself in the high fitness bracket then well done, you’re doing an amazing job! Wendy Suzuki doesn’t make many suggestions for you; all she mentions is that there is the possibility of “too much” exercise actually having negative effects on the brain. However, if you’re not competing at an Olympic level, you should be fine.
Fitness and Exercise in General
Of course, fitness and exercise are both very broad terms. We would suggest that you find an exercise routine that you genuinely enjoy–something that is easy to continue over the long term. Try browsing different areas of exercise to see what resonates with you. For instance, Total Fitness After 40 is a great book on all things fitness in the second half of your life. Alternatively, search through our archive for fitness-related material.
Anyway, without further ado, here is today’s video:
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!
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:
-
Tofu vs Seitan – 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 tofu to seitan, we picked the tofu.
Why?
This one is not close!
In terms of macros, seitan does have about 2x the protein, but it also has 6x the carbs and 6x the sodium of tofu, as well as less fiber than tofu.. So we’ll call it a tie on macros. But…
Seitan is also much more processed than tofu, as tofu has usually just been fermented and possibly pressed (depending on kind). Seitan, in contrast, is processed gluten that has been extracted from wheat and usually had lots of things happen to it on the way (depending on kind).
About that protein… Tofu is a complete protein, meaning it has all of the essential amino acids. Seitain, meanwhile, is lacking in lysine.
When it comes to vitamins and minerals, again tofu easily comes out on top; tofu has 5x the calcium, similar iron, more magnesium, 2x the phosphorous, 150% of the potassium, and contains several other nutrients that seitan doesn’t, such as folate and choline.
So, easy winning for tofu across the board on micronutrients.
Tofu is also rich in isoflavones, antioxidant phytonutrients, while seitan has no such benefits.
So, another win for tofu.
There are two reasons you might choose seitan:
- prioritizing bulk protein above all other health considerations
- you are allergic to soy and not allergic to gluten
If neither of those things are the case, then tofu is the healthier choice!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Tempeh vs Tofu – Which is Healthier? ← tempeh is, nutritionally speaking, tofu but better. Of course on a culinary level, there are many recipes where tofu will work and tempeh wouldn’t, though.
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
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: