What Macronutrient Balance Is Right For You?

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.

It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small 😎

❝I want to learn more about macros. Can you cover that topic?❞

That’s a little broader than we usually go for, given the amount of space we have, but let’s give it a go!

Macronutrients, or “macros”, are the nutrients that we typically measure in grams rather than milligrams or micrograms, and are:

In terms of how much we need of each, you can read more in the above-linked articles, but:

  • General scientific consensus is we need plenty of fiber (30 or 40g per day is good) and water (highly dependent on climate and activity), and there’s a clear minimum requisite for protein (usually put at around 1g of protein per day per 1kg of body weight).
  • There is vigorous debate in the general health community about what the best ratio of carbs to fat is.

The reality is that humans are quite an adaptable species, and while we absolutely do need at least some of both (carbohydrates and fats), we can play around with the ratios quite a bit, provided we don’t get too extreme about it.

While some influence is social and often centered around weight loss (see for example keto which seeks to minimize carbs, and volumetrics, which seeks maximise volume-to-calorie ratio, which de facto tends to minimize fats), some of what drives us to lean one way or the other will be genetics, too—dependent on what our ancestors ate more or less of.

Writer’s example: my ancestors could not grow much grain (or crops in general) where they were, so they got more energy from such foods as whale and seal fat (with protein coming more from reindeer). Now, biology is not destiny, and I personally enjoy a vegan diet, but my genes are probably why I am driven to get most of my daily calories from fat (of which, a lot of fatty nuts (don’t tell almonds, but I prefer walnuts and cashews) and healthy oils such as olive oil, avocado oil, and coconut oil).

However! About that adaptability. Provided we make changes slowly, we can usually adjust our diet to whatever we want it to be, including whether we get our energy more from carbs or fats. The reason we need to make changes slowly is because our gut needs time to adjust. For example, if your vegan writer here were to eat her ancestrally-favored foods now, I’d be very ill, because my gut microbiome has no idea what to do with animal products anymore, no matter what genes I have. In contrast, if an enthusiastic enjoyer of a meat-heavy diet were to switch to my fiber-rich diet overnight, they’d be very ill.

So: follow your natural inclinations, make any desired changes slowly, and if in doubt, it’s hard to go wrong with enjoying carbs and fats in moderation.

Learn more: Intuitive Eating Might Not Be What You Think

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Dreams: Relevance, Meanings, Interpretations
  • Galveston Diet Cookbook for Beginners – by Martha McGrew
    Dive into the keto-leaning, anti-inflammatory recipes of the Galveston Diet Cookbook – simple, adaptable, with a colorful beginning if you choose wisely.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • One More Resource Against Osteoporosis!

    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.

    Your Bones Were Made For Moving Too!

    We know that to look after bone health, resistance training is generally what’s indicated. Indeed, we mentioned it yesterday, and we’ve talked about it before:

    Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)

    We also know that if you have osteoporosis already, some exercises are a better or worse idea than others:

    Osteoporosis & Exercises: Which To Do (And Which To Avoid)

    However! New research suggests that also getting in your recommended 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise slows bone density loss.

    The study by Dr. Tiina Savikangas et al. looked at 299 people in their 70s (just over half being women) and found that, over the course of a year, bone mineral density loss was inversely correlated with moderate exercise as recorded by an accelerometer (as found in most fitness-tracking wearables and smartphones).

    In other words: those who got more minutes of exercise, kept more bone mineral density.

    As well as monitoring bone mineral density, the study also looked at cross-sectional area, but that remained stable throughout.

    As for how much is needed:

    ❝Even short bursts of activity can be significant for the skeleton, so we also looked at movement in terms of the number and intensity of individual impacts. For example, walking and running cause impacts of different intensities.

    We found that impacts that were comparable to at least brisk walking were associated with better preservation of bone mineral density.❞

    ~ Dr. Tiina Savikangas

    Read more: Impacts during everyday physical activity can slow bone loss ← pop-science source, interviewing the lead researcher

    On which note, we’ve a small bone to pick…

    As a small correction, the pop-science source says that the subjects’ ages ranged from 70 to 85 years; the paper, meanwhile, clearly shows that the age-range was 74.4±3.9 years (shown in the “Results” table), rounded to 74.4 ± 4 years, in the abstract. So, certainly no participant was older than 78 years and four months.

    Why this matters: the age range itself may be critical or it might not, but what is important is that this highlights how we shouldn’t just believe figures cited in pop-science articles, and it’s always good to click through to the source!

    Read the study: Changes in femoral neck bone mineral density and structural strength during a 12-month multicomponent exercise intervention among older adults – Does accelerometer-measured physical activity matter?

    This paper is a particularly fascinating read if you have time, because—unlike a lot of studies—they really took great care to note what exactly can and cannot be inferred from the data, and how and why.

    Especially noteworthy was the diligence with which they either controlled for, or recognized that they could not control for, far more variables than most studies even bother to mention.

    This kind of transparency is critical for good science, and we’d love to see more of it!

    Want to apply this to your life?

    Tracking minutes-of-movement is one of the things that fitness trackers are best at, so connect your favourite app (one of these days we’ll do a fitness tracker comparison article) and get moving!

    And as for the other things that fitness trackers do? As it turns out, they do have their strengths and weaknesses, which are good to bear in mind:

    Thinking of using an activity tracker to achieve your exercise goals? Here’s where it can help—and where it probably won’t

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • The Worst Way to Wake Up (and What to Do Instead)

    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.

    Not everyone is naturally inclined to be a morning person, but there are things we can do to make things go more easily for our brains!

    Cause for alarm?

    Dr. Tracey Marks, psychiatrist, explains the impact of our first moments upon awakening, and what that can do to/for us in terms of sleep inertia (i.e. grogginess).

    Sleep inertia is worse when waking from deep sleep—and notably, we don’t naturally wake directly from deep sleep unless we are externally aroused (e.g. by an alarm clock).

    Dr. Marks suggests the use of more gradual alarms, including those with soft melodies, perhaps birdsong or other similarly gentle things (artificial sunlight alarms are also good), to ease our transition from sleeping to waking. It might take us a few minutes longer to be woken from sleep, but we’re not going to spend the next hour in a bleary-eyed stupor.

    For more details on these things and more (including why not to hit “snooze”), enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Hawthorn For The Heart (& More)

    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.

    Hawthorn, The Heart-Healthy Helper

    Hawthorn, a berry of the genus Crataegus (there are many species, but they seem to give more or less the same benefits), has been enjoyed for hundreds of years, if not thousands, as a herbal remedy for many ailments, mostly of the cardiovascular, digestive, and/or endocrine systems:

    Crataegus pinnatifida: Chemical Constituents, Pharmacology, and Potential Applications

    Antioxidant & Anti-inflammatory

    Like most berries, it’s full of helpful polyphenols, with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Indeed, as Dr. Nabavi et al. wrote,

    Crataegus monogyna Jacq. (hawthorn) is one of the most important edible plants of the Rosaceae family and is also used in traditional medicine.

    Growing evidence has shown that this plant has various interesting physiological and pharmacological activities due to the presence of different bioactive natural compounds.

    In addition, scientific evidence suggests that the toxicity of hawthorn is negligible. ❞

    ~ Dr. Nabavi et al.

    Read in full: Polyphenolic Composition of Crataegus monogyna Jacq.: From Chemistry to Medical Applications

    While “the toxicity of hawthorn is negligible” may be reasonably considered a baseline for recommending an edible plant, it’s still important as just that: a baseline. It’s good to know that berries are safe, after all!

    More positively, about those antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties:

    Polyphenols from hawthorn peels and fleshes differently mitigate dyslipidemia, inflammation and oxidative stress

    This one was a mouse study, but it’s important as it about modulating liver injury after being fed a high fructose diet.

    In other words: it a) helps undo the biggest cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, b) logically, likely guards against diabetes also (by the same mechanism)

    Anti-Diabetes Potential

    Curious about that latter point, we looked for studies, and found, for example:

    Noteworthily, those studies are from the past couple of years, which is probably why we’re not seeing many human trials for this yet—everything has to be done in order, and there’s a lengthy process between each.

    We did find some human trials with hawthorn in diabetes patients, for example:

    Hypotensive effects of hawthorn for patients with diabetes taking prescription drugs: a randomised controlled trial

    …but as you see, that’s testing not its antidiabetic potential, so far demonstrated only in mice and rats (so far as we could find), but rather its blood pressure lowering effects, using diabetic patients as a sample.

    Blood pressure benefits

    Hawthorn has been studied specifically for its hypotensive effect, for example:

    Promising hypotensive effect of hawthorn extract: a randomized double-blind pilot study of mild, essential hypertension

    As an extra bonus, did you notice in the conclusion,

    ❝Furthermore, a trend towards a reduction in anxiety (p = 0.094) was also observed in those taking hawthorn compared with the other groups.

    These findings warrant further study, particularly in view of the low dose of hawthorn extract used.❞

    ~ Dr. Ann Walker et al.

    …it seems that not a lot more study has been done yet, but that is promising too!

    Other blood metrics

    So, it has antidiabetic and antihypertensive benefits, what of blood lipids?

    Hawthorn Fruit Extract Elevates Expression of Nrf2/HO-1 and Improves Lipid Profiles

    And as for arterial plaque?

    Clinical study on treatment of carotid atherosclerosis with extraction of polygoni cuspidati rhizoma et radix and crataegi fructus: a randomized controlled trial

    here it was tested alongside another herb, and performed well (also against placebo).

    In summary…

    Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) is…

    • a potent berry containing many polyphenols with good antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects
    • looking promising against diabetes, but research for this is still in early stages
    • found to have other cardioprotective effects (antihypertensive, improves lipid profiles), too
    • considered to have negligible toxicity

    Where can I get it?

    As ever, we don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Dreams: Relevance, Meanings, Interpretations
  • Statins: His & Hers?

    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 Hidden Complexities of Statins and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

    This is Dr. Barbara Roberts. She’s a cardiologist and the Director of the Women’s Cardiac Center at one of the Brown University Medical School teaching hospitals. She’s an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and takes care of patients, teaches medical students, and does clinical research. She specializes in gender-specific aspects of heart disease, and in heart disease prevention.

    We previously reviewed Dr. Barbara Roberts’ excellent book “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs”. It prompted some requests to do a main feature about Statins, so we’re doing it today. It’s under the auspices of “Expert Insights” as we’ll be drawing almost entirely from Dr. Roberts’ work.

    So, what are the risks of statins?

    According to Dr. Roberts, one of the biggest risks is not just drug side-effects or anything like that, but rather, what they simply won’t treat. This is because statins will lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, without necessarily treating the underlying cause.

    Imagine you got Covid, and it’s one of the earlier strains that’s more likely deadly than “merely” debilitating.

    You’re coughing and your throat feels like you gargled glass.

    Your doctor gives you a miracle cough medicine that stops your coughing and makes your throat feel much better.

    (Then a few weeks later, you die, because this did absolutely nothing for the underlying problem)

    You see the problem?

    Are there problematic side-effects too, though?

    There can be. But of course, all drugs can have side effects! So that’s not necessarily news, but what’s relevant here is the kind of track these side-effects can lead one down.

    For example, Dr. Roberts cites a case in which a woman’s LDL levels were high and she was prescribed simvastatin (Zocor), 20mg/day. Here’s what happened, in sequence:

    1. She started getting panic attacks. So, her doctor prescribed her sertraline (Zoloft) (a very common SSRI antidepressant) and when that didn’t fix it, paroxetine (Paxil). This didn’t work either… because the problem was not actually her mental health. The panic attacks got worse…
    2. Then, while exercising, she started noticing progressive arm and leg weakness. Her doctor finally took her off the simvastatin, and temporarily switched to ezetimibe (Zetia), a less powerful nonstatin drug that blocks cholesterol absorption, which change eased her arm and leg problem.
    3. As the Zetia was a stopgap measure, the doctor put her on atorvastatin (Lipitor). Now she got episodes of severe chest pressure, and a skyrocketing heart rate. She also got tremors and lost her body temperature regulation.
    4. So the doctor stopped the atorvastatin and tried rosovastatin (Crestor), on which she now suffered exhaustion (we’re not surprised, by this point) and muscle pains in her arms and chest.
    5. So the doctor stopped the rosovastatin and tried lovastatin (Mevacor), and now she had the same symptoms as before, plus light-headedness.
    6. So the doctor stopped the lovastatin and tried fluvastatin (Lescol). Same thing happened.
    7. So he stopped the fluvastatin and tried pravastatin (Pravachol), without improvement.
    8. So finally he took her off all these statins because the high LDL was less deleterious to her life than all these things.
    9. She did her own research, and went back to the doctor to ask for cholestyramine (Questran), which is a bile acid sequestrent and nothing to do with statins. She also asked for a long-acting niacin. In high doses, niacin (one of the B-vitamins) raises HDL (good) cholesterol, lowers LDL, and lowers tryglycerides.
    10. Her own non-statin self-prescription (with her doctor’s signature) worked, and she went back to her life, her work, and took up running.

    Quite a treatment journey! Want to know more about the option that actually worked?

    Read: Bile Acid Resins or Sequestrants

    What are the gender differences you/she mentioned?

    Actually mostly sex differences, since this appears to be hormonal (which means that if your hormones change, so will your risk). A lot of this is still pending more research—basically it’s a similar problem in heart disease to one we’ve previously talked about with regard to diabetes. Diabetes disproportionately affects black people, while diabetes research disproportionately focuses on white people.

    In this case, most heart disease research has focused on men, with women often not merely going unresearched, but also often undiagnosed and untreated until it’s too late. And the treatments, if prescribed? Assumed to be the same as for men.

    Dr. Roberts tells of how medicine is taught:

    ❝When I was in medical school, my professors took the “bikini approach” to women’s health: women’s health meant breasts and reproductive organs. Otherwise the prototypical patient was presented as a man.❞

    There has been some research done with statins and women, though! Just, still not a lot. But we do know for example that some statins can be especially useful for treating women’s atherosclerosis—with a 50% success rate, rather than 31% for men.

    For lowering LDL itself, however, it can work but is generally not so hot in women.

    Fun fact:

    In men:

    • High total cholesterol
    • High non-HDL cholesterol
    • High LDL cholesterol
    • Low HDL cholesterol

    …are all significantly associated with an increased risk of death from CVD.

    In women:

    …levels of LDL cholesterol even more than 190 were associated with only a small, statistically insignificant increased risk of dying from CVD.

    So…

    The fact that women derive less benefit from a medicine that mainly lowers LDL cholesterol, may be because elevated LDL cholesterol is less harmful to women than it is to men.

    And also: Treatment and Response to Statins: Gender-related Differences

    And for that matter: Women Versus Men: Is There Equal Benefit and Safety from Statins?*

    Definitely a case where Betteridge’s Law of Headlines applies!

    What should women do to avoid dying of CVD, then?

    First, quick reminder of our general disclaimer: we can’t give medical advice and nothing here comprises such. However… One particularly relevant thing we found illuminating in Dr. Roberts’ work was this observation:

    The metabolic syndrome is diagnosed if you have three (or more) out of five of the following:

    1. Abdominal obesity (waist >35″ if a woman or >40″ if a man)
    2. Fasting blood sugars of 100mg/dl or more
    3. Fasting triglycerides of 150mg/dl or more
    4. Blood pressure of 130/85 or higher
    5. HDL <50 if a woman or <40 if a man

    And yet… because these things can be addressed with exercise and a healthy diet, which neither pharmaceutical companies nor insurance companies have a particular stake in, there’s a lot of focus instead on LDL levels (since there are a flock of statins that can be sold be lower them)… Which, Dr. Roberts says, is not nearly as critical for women.

    So women end up getting prescribed statins that cause panic attacks and all those things we mentioned earlier… To lower our LDL, which isn’t nearly as big a factor as the other things.

    In summary:

    Statins do have their place, especially for men. They can, however, mask underlying problems that need treatment—which becomes counterproductive.

    When it comes to women, statins are—in broad terms—statistically not as good. They are a little more likely to be helpful specifically in cases of atherosclerosis, whereby they have a 50/50 chance of helping.

    For women in particular, it may be worthwhile looking into alternative non-statin drugs, and, for everyone: diet and exercise.

    Further reading: How Can I Safely Come Off Statins?

    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:

  • Spreading Mental Health Awareness

    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.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    Request: more people need to be aware of suicidal tendencies and what they can do to ward them off

    That’s certainly a very important topic! We’ll cover that properly in one of our Psychology Sunday editions. In the meantime, we’ll mention a previous special that we did, that was mostly about handling depression (in oneself or a loved one), and obviously there’s a degree of crossover:

    The Mental Health First-Aid That You’ll Hopefully Never Need

    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:

  • Chickpeas vs Soybeans – 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 chickpeas to soybeans, we picked the soybeans.

    Why?

    Both are great! But:

    In terms of macros, chickpeas have more than 3x the carbs and only very slightly more fiber, while soybeans have more than 2x the protein. Given the ratio of carbs to fiber in each, soybeans also have the lower glycemic index, so all in all, we’re calling this a win for soybeans.

    In the category of vitamins, chickpeas have more of vitamins A, B3, B5, and B9, while soybeans have more of vitamins B1, B2, B6, C, K, and choline—another win for soybeans.

    When it comes to minerals, chickpeas have more manganese and zinc, while soybeans have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium—meaning soybeans win yet again.

    Two extra things to know:

    • Chickpeas are naturally high in FODMAPs, which can be problematic for a minority of people—however, canned chickpeas are not.
    • Soybeans are famously high in phytoestrogens, however, the human body cannot actually use these as estrogen (we are not plants and our physiology is different). This means that on the one hand they won’t help against menopause (aside from the ways in which any nutrient-dense food would help), but on the other, they aren’t a cancer risk, and no, they won’t feminize men/boys in the slightest. You/they would be more at risk from beef and dairy, as the cows have usually been given extra estrogen, and those are animal hormones, not plant hormones.

    All in all, chickpeas are a wonderful food, but soybeans beat them by most nutritional metrics.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Why You Can’t Skimp On Amino Acids ← soybeans also have a great amino acid profile!

    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: