Walden Farms Caesar Dressing vs. Primal Kitchen Caesar Dressing – 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 Walden Farms Caesar Dressing to Primal Kitchen Caesar Dressing, we picked the Primal Kitchen.
Why?
As you can see from the front label, the Walden Farms product has 0 net carbs, 0 calories, and 0 fat. In fact, its ingredients list begins:
Water, white distilled vinegar, erythritol, corn fiber, salt, microcrystalline cellulose, xanthan gum, titanium dioxide (color)
…before it gets to something interesting (garlic purée), by which point the amount must be miniscule.
The Primal Kitchen product, meanwhile, has 140 calories per serving and 15g fat (of which, 1.5g is saturated). However! The ingredients list this time begins:
Avocado oil, water, organic coconut aminos (organic coconut sap, sea salt), organic apple cider vinegar, organic distilled vinegar, mushroom extract, organic gum acacia, organic guar gum
…before it too gets to garlic, which this time, by the way, is organic roasted garlic.
In case you’re wondering about the salt content in both, they add up to 190mg for the Walden Farms product, and 240mg for the Primal Kitchen product. We don’t think that the extra 50mg (out of a daily allowance of 2300–5000mg, depending on whom you ask) is worthy of note.
In short, the Walden Farms product is made of mostly additives of various kinds, whereas the Primal Kitchen product is made of mostly healthful ingredients.
So, the calories and fat are nothing to fear.
For this reason, we chose the product with more healthful ingredients—but we acknowledge that if you are specifically trying to keep your calories down, then the Walden Farms product may be a valid choice.
Read more:
• Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?
• Caloric Restriction with Optimal Nutrition
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:
-
Almonds vs Cashews – 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 almonds to cashews, we picked the almonds.
Why?
Both are great! But here’s why we picked the almonds:
In terms of macros, almonds have a little more protein and more than 4x the fiber. Given how critical fiber is to good health, and how most people in industrialized countries in general (and N. America in particular) aren’t getting enough, we consider this a major win for almonds.
Things are closer to even for vitamins, but almonds have a slight edge. Almonds are higher in vitamins A, B2, B3, B9, and especially 27x higher in vitamin E, while cashews are higher in vitamins B1, B5, B6, C & K. So, a moderate win for almonds.
In the category of minerals, cashews do a bit better on average. Cashews have moderately more copper, iron, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc, while almonds boast 6x more calcium, and slightly more manganese and potassium. We say this one’s a slight win for cashews.
Adding the categories up, however, makes it clear that almonds win the day.
However, of course, enjoy both! Diversity is healthy. Just, if you’re going to choose between them, we recommend almonds.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
- Almonds vs Walnuts – Which is Healthier?
- Pistachios vs Cashews – Which is Healthier?
- Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!
- What Matters Most For Your Heart?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Caffeine: Cognitive Enhancer Or Brain-Wrecker?
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 Two Sides Of Caffeine
We asked you for your health-related opinions on caffeine itself, not necessarily the coffee, tea, energy drinks, etc that might contain it.
We have, by the way previously written about the health effects of coffee and tea specifically:
As for our question about caffeine itself, though, we got the above-depicted, below-described, set of results:
- About 59% said “caffeine is a safe stimulant and cognitive enhancer”
- About 31% said “caffeine is a moderately safe recreational drug”
- About 8% said “caffeine’s addictive properties make it de facto bad”
- One (1) person said “caffeine will leave you a trembling exhausted wreck”
But what does the science say?
Caffeine is addictive: True or False?
True, though one will find occasional academics quibbling the definition. Most of the studies into the mechanisms of caffeine addiction have been conducted on rats, but human studies exist too and caffeine is generally considered addictive for humans, for example:
See also:
Notwithstanding its addictive status, caffeine is otherwise safe: True or False?
True-ish, for most people. Some people with heart conditions or a hypersensitivity to caffeine may find it is not safe for them at all, and for the rest of us, the dose makes the poison. For example:
❝Can too much caffeine kill you? Although quite rare, caffeine can be fatal in cases of overdose; such circumstances are generally not applicable to healthy individuals who typically consume caffeine via beverages such as tea or coffee.❞
this paper, by the way, also includes a good example of academics quibbling the definition of addiction!
Caffeine is a cognitive enhancer: True or False?
True, but only in the case of occasional use. If you are using it all the time, your physiology will normalize it and you will require caffeine in order to function at your normal level. To attain higher than that, once addicted to caffeine, would now require something else.
Read more: Caffeine: benefits and drawbacks for technical performance
Caffeine will leave you a trembling exhausted wreck: True or False?
True or False depending on usage:
- The famously moderate 3–5 cups per day will not, for most people, cause any such problems.
- Using/abusing it to make up for lost sleep (or some other source of fatigue, such as physical exhaustion from exertion), however, is much more likely to run into problems.
In the latter case, caffeine really is the “payday loan” of energy! It’ll give you an adrenal boost now (in return, you must suffer the adrenal dumping later, along with lost energy expended in the adrenaline surge), and also, the tiredness that you thought was gone, was just caffeine’s adenosine-blocking activities temporarily preventing you from being able to perceive the tiredness. So you’ll have to pay that back later, with interest, because of the extra time/exertion too.
Want to make caffeine a little more gentle on your system?
Taking l-theanine alongside caffeine can ameliorate some of caffeine’s less wonderful effects—and as a bonus, l-theanine has some nifty benefits of its own, too:
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
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 speak often about the importance of dietary diversity, and of that, especially diversity of plants in one’s diet, but we’ve never really focused on it as a main feature, so that’s what we’re going to do today.
Specifically, you may have heard the advice to “eat 30 different kinds of plants per week”. But where does that come from, and is it just a number out of a hat?
The magic number?
It is not, in fact, a number out of a hat. It’s from a big (n=11,336) study into what things affect the gut microbiome for better or for worse. It was an observational population study, championing “citizen science” in which volunteers tracked various things and collected and sent in various samples for analysis.
The most significant finding of this study was that those who consumed more than 30 different kinds of plants per week, had a much better gut microbiome than those who consumed fewer than 10 different kinds of plants per week (there is a bell curve at play, and it gets steep around 10 and 30):
American Gut: an Open Platform for Citizen Science Microbiome Research
Why do I care about having a good gut microbiome?
Gut health affects almost every other kind of health; it’s been called “the second brain” for the various neurotransmitters and other hormones it directly makes or indirectly regulates (which in turn affect every part of your body), and of course there is the vagus nerve connecting it directly to the brain, impacting everything from food cravings to mood swings to sleep habits.
See also:
Any other benefits?
Yes there are! Let’s not forget: as we see often in our “This or That” section, different foods can be strong or weak in different areas of nutrition, so unless we want to whip out a calculator and database every time we make food choices, a good way to cover everything is to simply eat a diverse diet.
And that goes not just for vitamins and minerals (which would be true of animal products also), but in the case of plants, a wide range of health-giving phytochemicals too:
Measuring Dietary Botanical Diversity as a Proxy for Phytochemical Exposure
Ok, I’m sold, but 30 is a lot!
It is, but you don’t have to do all 30 in your first week of focusing on this, if you’re not already accustomed to such diversity. You can add in one or two new ones each time you go shopping, and build it up.
As for “what counts”: we’re counting unprocessed or minimally-processed plants. So for example, an apple is an apple, as are dried apple slices, as is apple sauce. Any or all of those would count as 1 plant type.
Note also that we’re counting types, not totals. If you’re having apple slices with apple sauce, for some reason? That still only counts as 1.
However, while apple sauce still counts as apples (minimally processed), you cannot eat a cake and say “that’s 2 because there was wheat and sugar cane somewhere in its dim and distant history”.
Nor is your morning espresso a fruit (by virtue of coffee beans being the fruit of the plant, botanically speaking). However, it would count as 1 plant type if you eat actual coffee beans—this writer has been known to snack on such; they’re only healthy in very small portions though, because their saturated fat content is a little high.
You, however, count grains in general, as well as nuts and seeds, not just fruits and vegetables. As for herbs and spices, they count for ¼ each, except for salt, which might get lumped in with spices but is of course not a plant.
How to do it
There’s a reason we’re doing this in our Saturday Life Hacks edition. Here are some tips for getting in far more plants than you might think, a lot more easily than you might think:
- Buy things ready-mixed. This means buying the frozen mixed veg, the frozen mixed chopped fruit, the mixed nuts, the mixed salad greens etc. This way, when you’re reaching for one pack of something, you’re getting 3–5 different plants instead of one.
- Buy things individually, and mix them for storage. This is a more customized version of the above, but in the case of things that keep for at least a while, it can make lazy options a lot more plentiful. Suddenly, instead of rice with your salad you’re having sorghum, millet, buckwheat, and quinoa. This trick also works great for dried berries that can just be tipped into one’s morning oatmeal. Or, you know, millet, oats, rye, and barley. Suddenly, instead of 1 or 2 plants for breakfast you have maybe 7 or 8.
- Keep a well-stocked pantry of shelf-stable items. This is good practice anyway, in case of another supply-lines shutdown like at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. But for plant diversity, it means that if you’re making enchiladas, then instead using kidney beans because that’s what’s in the cupboard, you can raid your pantry for kidney beans, black beans, pinto beans, fava beans, etc etc. Yes, all of them; that’s a list, not a menu.
- Shop in the discount section of the supermarket. You don’t have shop exclusively there, but swing by that area, see what plants are available for next to nothing, and buy at least one of each. Figure out what to do with it later, but the point here is that it’s a good way to get suggestions of plants that you weren’t actively looking for—and novelty is invariably a step into diversity.
- Shop in a different store. You won’t be able to beeline the products you want on autopilot, so you’ll see other things on the way. Also, they may have things your usual store doesn’t.
- Shop in person, not online—at least as often as is practical. This is because when shopping for groceries online, the store will tend to prioritize showing you items you’ve bought before, or similar items to those (i.e. actually the same item, just a different brand). Not good for trying new things!
- Consider a meal kit delivery service. Because unlike online grocery shopping, this kind of delivery service will (usually) provide you with things you wouldn’t normally buy. Our sometimes-sponsor Purple Carrot is a fine option for this, but there are plenty of others too.
- Try new recipes, especially if they have plants you don’t normally use. Make a note of the recipe, and go out of your way to get the ingredients; if it seems like a chore, reframe it as a little adventure instead. Honestly, it’s things like this that keep us young in more ways than just what polyphenols can do!
- Hide the plants. Whether or not you like them; hide them just because it works in culinary terms. By this we mean; blend beans into that meaty sauce; thicken the soup with red lentils, blend cauliflower into the gravy. And so on.
One more “magic 30”, while we’re at it…
30g fiber per day makes a big (positive) difference to many aspects of health. Obviously, plants are where that comes from, so there’s a big degree of overlap here, but most of the tips we gave are different, so for double the effectiveness, check out:
Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Dark Calories – by Dr. Catherine Shanahan
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.
You may be wondering: do we really need a 416-page book to say “don’t use vegetable oils”?
The author, who was a biochemist before becoming a family physician, takes a lot of care to explain in ways the non-chemists amongst us can understand (with molecular diagrams very well-labelled), exactly why certain seed/vegetable oils (both of those names being imprecise and unhelpful as umbrella terms) cause metabolic problems for us, when in contrast olive oil, avocado oil, and even peanut oil, do not.
Understanding is, for many, the root foundation of compliance. We are more likely to abide by rules we understand the logic behind, than seemingly arbitrary “thou shalt not…” proclamations.
So that’s an important strength of the book, demystifying various fats and how our body responds to them on a biochemical level, not just “is associated with such-and-such, based on observational population studies”. This kind of explanation clears up why, for example, seed oils correlate with obesity more than calories, sugar, wheat, or beef—having as it does to do with affecting our body’s ability to generate and use energy.
She also offers practical tips/reminders throughout, such as how “organic” does not necessarily mean “healthy” (indeed, many poisonous plants can be grown “organically”), and nor does “organic” mean “unrefined”, it speaks only for the conditions in which the raw product was first made, before other things were done to it later.
We learn a lot, too, about the processes of oxidation, the biochemistry behind that (more diagrams!), and of course the inflammatory response to same (an important factor in most if not all chronic disease).
The style is mostly very easy-to-read pop-science, though if you’re not a chemist, you’ll probably need to slow down for the biochemistry explanations (this reviewer certainly did).
Bottom line: this is more than just a litany against vegetable oils; it’s a ground-upwards education in metabolic biochemistry for the layperson, and what that means for us in terms of chronic disease risks.
Click here to check out Dark Calories, and learn what’s going on with these oils!
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:
-
Mythbusting The Mask Debate
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.
Mythbusting The Mask Debate
We asked you for your mask policy this respiratory virus season, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- A little under half of you said you will be masking when practical in indoor public places
- A little over a fifth of you said you will mask only if you have respiratory virus symptoms
- A little under a fifth of you said that you will not mask, because you don’t think it helps
- A much smaller minority of you (7%) said you will go with whatever people around you are doing
- An equally small minority of you said that you will not mask, because you’re not concerned about infections
So, what does the science say?
Wearing a mask reduces the transmission of respiratory viruses: True or False?
True…with limitations. The limitations include:
- The type of mask
- A homemade polyester single-sheet is not the same as an N95 respirator, for instance
- How well it is fitted
- It needs to be a physical barrier, so a loose-fitting “going through the motions” fit won’t help
- The condition of the mask
- And if applicable, the replaceable filter in the mask
- What exactly it has to stop
- What kind of virus, what kind of viral load, what kind of environment, is someone coughing/sneezing, etc
More details on these things can be found in the link at the end of today’s main feature, as it’s more than we could fit here!
Note: We’re talking about respiratory viruses in general in this main feature, but most extant up-to-date research is on COVID, so that’s going to appear quite a lot. Remember though, even COVID is not one beast, but many different variants, each with their own properties.
Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is “it does help, but is not a magical amulet”:
- 2021: Effectiveness of Face Masks in Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Model-Based Analysis
- 2022: Why Masks are Important during COVID‐19 Pandemic
- 2023: The mitigating effect of masks on the spread of COVID-19
Wearing a mask is actually unhygienic: True or False?
False, assuming your mask is clean when you put it on.
This (the fear of breathing more of one’s own germs in a cyclic fashion) was a point raised by some of those who expressed mask-unfavorable views in response to our poll.
There have been studies testing this, and they mostly say the same thing, “if it’s clean when you put it on, great, if not, then well yes, that can be a problem”:
❝A longer mask usage significantly increased the fungal colony numbers but not the bacterial colony numbers.
Although most identified microbes were non-pathogenic in humans; Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Cladosporium, we found several pathogenic microbes; Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Aspergillus, and Microsporum.
We also found no associations of mask-attached microbes with the transportation methods or gargling.
We propose that immunocompromised people should avoid repeated use of masks to prevent microbial infection.❞
Source: Bacterial and fungal isolation from face masks under the COVID-19 pandemic
Wearing a mask can mean we don’t get enough oxygen: True or False?
False, for any masks made-for-purpose (i.e., are by default “breathable”), under normal conditions:
- COVID‐19 pandemic: do surgical masks impact respiratory nasal functions?
- Performance Comparison of Single and Double Masks: Filtration Efficiencies, Breathing Resistance and CO2 Content
However, wearing a mask while engaging in strenuous best-effort cardiovascular exercise, will reduce VO₂max. To be clear, you will still have more than enough oxygen to function; it’s not considered a health hazard. However, it will reduce peak athletic performance:
…so if you are worrying about whether the mask will impede you breathing, ask yourself: am I engaging in an activity that requires my peak athletic performance?
Also: don’t let it get soaked with water, because…
Writer’s anecdote as an additional caveat: in the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, I had a simple cloth mask on, the one-piece polyester kind that we later learned quite useless. The fit wasn’t perfect either, but one day I was caught in heavy rain (I had left it on while going from one store to another while shopping), and suddenly, it fitted perfectly, as being soaked through caused it to cling beautifully to my face.
However, I was now effectively being waterboarded. I will say, it was not pleasant, but also I did not die. I did buy a new mask in the next store, though.
tl;dr = an exception to “no it won’t impede your breathing” is that a mask may indeed impede your breathing if it is made of cloth and literally soaked with water; that is how waterboarding works!
Want up-to-date information?
Most of the studies we cited today were from 2022 or 2023, but you can get up-to-date information and guidance from the World Health Organization, who really do not have any agenda besides actual world health, here:
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Masks | Frequently Asked Questions
At the time of writing this newsletter, the above information was last updated yesterday.
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:
-
Change Your Brain, Change Your Life – by Dr. Daniel G. 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.
To what extent can we change our brains, and to what extent are we stuck with what we have?
Dr. Amen tells us that being mindful of both ends of this is critical:
- Neuroplasticity means we can, indeed, change our brains
- We do, however, have fundamental “brain types” based on our neurochemistry and physical brain structure
He argues for the use of brain imaging technology to learn more about the latter… In order to better go about doing what we can with the former.
The book looks at how these different brain types can lead to situations where what works as a treatment for one person can often not work for another. It’s also prescriptive, about what sorts of treatments (and lifestyle adjustments) are more likely to do better for each.
Where the book excels is in giving ideas and pointers for exploration… Things to take to one’s doctor, and—for example—request certain tests, and then what to do with those.
Where the book is a little light is on including hard science in the explanations. The hard science is referred to, but is considered beyond the scope of the book, or perhaps beyond the interest of the reader. That’s unfortunate, as we’d have liked to have seen more of it, rather than taking claims at face value without evidence.
Bottom line: this is distinctly “pop science” in presentation, but can give a lot of great ideas for learning more about our own brains and brain health… And then optimizing such.
Click here to check out “Change Your Brain; Change Your Life” on Amazon today!
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: