White Bread vs White Pasta – 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 a white bread to a white pasta, we picked the pasta.
Why?
Neither are great for the health! But like for like, the glycemic index of the bread is usually around 150% of the glycemic index for pasta.
All that said, we heartily recommend going for wholegrain in either case!
Bonus tip: cooking pasta “al dente”, so it is still at least a little firm to the bite, results in a lower GI compared to being boiled to death.
Bonus bonus tip: letting pasta cool increases resistant starches. You can then reheat the pasta without losing this benefit.
Please don’t put it in the microwave though; you will make an Italian cry. Instead, simply put it in a colander and pour boiling water over it, and then serve in your usual manner (a good approach if serving it separately is: put it in the serving bowl/dish/pan, drizzle a little extra virgin olive oil and a little cracked black pepper, stir to mix those in, and serve)
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:
-
Barley Malt Flour vs chickpea flour – 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 barley malt flour to chickpea flour, we picked the chickpea.
Why?
First, some notes:
About chickpea flour: this is also called besan flour, gram flour, and garbanzo bean flour; they are all literally the same thing by different names, and are all flour made from ground chickpeas.
About barley malt flour: barley is a true grain, and does contain gluten. We’re not going to factor that into today’s decision, but if you are avoiding gluten, avoid barley. As for “malt”; malting grains means putting them in an environment (with appropriate temperature and humidity) that they can begin germination, and then drying them with hot air to stop the germination process from continuing, so that we still have grains to make flour out of, and not little green sprouting plants. It improves the nutritional qualities and, subjectively, the flavor.
To avoid repetition, we’re just going to write “barley” instead of “barley malt” now, but it’s still malted.
Now, let’s begin:
Looking at the macros first, chickpea flour has 2x the protein and also more fiber, while barley flour has more carbs. An easy win for chickpea flour.
In the category of vitamins, chickpea flour has more of vitamins A, B1, B5, B9, E, and K, while barley flour has more of vitamins B2, B3, B6, and C. A modest 6:4 victory for chickpea flour.
When it comes to minerals, things are much more one-sided; chickpea flour has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while barley flour has more selenium. An overwhelming win for chickpea flour.
Adding up these three wins for chickpea flour makes for a convincing story in favor of using that where reasonably possible as a flour! It has a slight nutty taste, so you might not want to use it in everything, but it is good for a lot of things.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
- Sprout Your Seeds, Grains, Beans, Etc
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Glycemic Index vs Glycemic Load vs Insulin Index
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.
How To Actually Use Those Indices
Carbohydrates are essential for our life, and/but often bring about our early demise. It would be a very conveniently simple world if it were simply a matter of “enjoy in moderation”, but the truth is, it’s not that simple.
To take an extreme example, for the sake of clearest illustration: The person who eats an 80% whole fruit diet (and makes up the necessary protein and fats etc in the other 20%) will probably be healthier than the person who eats a “standard American diet”, despite not practising moderation in their fruit-eating activities. The “standard American diet” has many faults, and one of those faults is how it promotes sporadic insulin spikes leading to metabolic disease.
If your breakfast is a glass of orange juice, this is a supremely “moderate” consumption, but an insulin spike is an insulin spike.
Quick sidenote: if you’re wondering why eating immoderate amounts of fruit is unlikely to cause such spikes, but a single glass of orange juice is, check out:
Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
Glycemic Index
The first tool in our toolbox here is glycemic index, or GI.
GI measures how much a carb-containing food raises blood glucose levels, also called blood sugar levels, but it’s just glucose that’s actually measured, bearing in mind that more complex carbs will generally get broken down to glucose.
Pure glucose has a GI of 100, and other foods are ranked from 0 to 100 based on how they compare.
Sometimes, what we do to foods changes its GI.
- Some is because it changed form, like the above example of whole fruit (low GI) vs fruit juice (high GI).
- Some is because of more “industrial” refinement processes, such as whole grain wheat (medium GI) vs white flour and white flour products (high GI)
- Some is because of other changes, like starches that were allowed to cool before being reheated (or eaten cold).
Broadly speaking, a daily average GI of 45 is considered great.
But that’s not the whole story…
Glycemic Load
Glycemic Load, or GL, takes the GI and says “ok, but how much of it was there?”, because this is often relevant information.
Refined sugar may have a high GI, but half a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee isn’t going to move your blood sugar levels as much as a glass of Coke, say—the latter simply has more sugar in, and just the same zero fiber.
GL is calculated by (grams of carbs / 100) x GI, by the way.
But it still misses some important things, so now let’s look at…
Insulin Index
Insulin Index, which does not get an abbreviation (probably because of the potentially confusing appearance of “II”), measures the rise in insulin levels, regardless of glucose levels.
This is important, because a lot of insulin response is independent of blood glucose:
- Some is because of other sugars, some some is in response to fats, and yes, even proteins.
- Some is a function of metabolic base rate.
- Some is a stress response.
- Some remains a mystery!
Another reason it’s important is that insulin drives weight gain and metabolic disorders far more than glucose.
Note: the indices of foods are calculated based on average non-diabetic response. If for example you have Type 1 Diabetes, then when you take a certain food, your rise in insulin is going to be whatever insulin you then take, because your body’s insulin response is disrupted by being too busy fighting a civil war in your pancreas.
If your diabetes is type 2, or you are prediabetic, then a lot of different things could happen depending on the stage and state of your diabetes, but the insulin index is still a very good thing to be aware of, because you want to resensitize your body to insulin, which means (barring any urgent actions for immediate management of hyper- or hypoglycemia, obviously) you want to eat foods with a low insulin index where possible.
Great! What foods have a low insulin index?
Many factors affect insulin index, but to speak in general terms:
- Whole plant foods are usually top-tier options
- Lean and/or white meats generally have lower insulin index than red and/or fatty ones
- Unprocessed is generally lower than processed
- The more solid a food is, generally the lower its insulin index compared to a less solid version of the same food (e.g. baked potatoes vs mashed potatoes; cheese vs milk, etc)
But do remember the non-food factors too! This means where possible:
- reducing/managing stress
- getting frequent exercise
- getting good sleep
- practising intermittent fasting
See for example (we promise you it’s relevant):
Fix Chronic Fatigue & Regain Your Energy, By Science
…as are (especially recommendable!) the two links we drop at the bottom of that page; do check them out if you can
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Artichoke vs Heart of Palm– 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 artichoke to heart of palm, we picked the artichoke.
Why?
If you were thinking “isn’t heart of palm full of saturated fat?” then no… Palm oil is, but heart of palm itself has 0.62g/100g fat, of which, 0.13g saturated fat. So, negligible.
As for the rest of the macros, artichoke has more protein, carbs, and fiber, thus being the “more food per food” option. Technically heart of palm has the lower glycemic index, but they are both low-GI foods, so it’s really not a factor here.
Vitamins are where artichoke shines; artichoke has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while heart of palm is not higher in any vitamins.
The minerals situation is more balanced: artichoke has more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium, while heart of palm has more iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc.
Adding up the categories, the winner of this “vegetables with a heart” face-off is clearly artichoke.
Fun fact: in French, “to have the heart of an artichoke” (avoir le coeur d’un artichaut) means to fall in love easily. Perfect vegetable for a romantic dinner, perhaps (especially with all those generous portions of B-vitamins)!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Artichoke vs Cabbage – Which is Healthier?
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Hemp Seeds vs Flax Seeds – 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 hemp seeds to flax seeds, we picked the flax.
Why?
Both are great, but quite differently so! In other words, they both have their advantages, but on balance, we prefer the flax’s advantages.
Part of this come from the way in which they are sold/consumed—hemp seeds must be hulled first, which means two things as a result:
- Flax seeds have much more fiber (about 8x more)
- Hemp seeds have more protein (about 2x more), proportionally, at least ← this is partly because they lost a bunch of weight by losing their fiber to the hulling, so the “per 100g” values of everything else go up, even though the amount per seed didn’t change
Since people’s diets are more commonly deficient in fiber than protein, and also since 8x is better than 2x, we consider this a win for flax.
Of course, many people enjoy hemp or flax specifically for the healthy fatty acids, so how do they stack up in that regard?
- Flax seeds have more omega-3s
- Hemp seeds have more omega-6s
This, for us, is a win for flax too, as the omega-3s are generally what we need more likely to be deficient in. Hemp enthusiasts, however, may argue that the internal balance of omega-3s to omega-6s is closer to an ideal ratio in hemp—but nutrition doesn’t exist in a vacuum, so we have to consider things “as part of a balanced diet” (because if one were trying to just live on hemp seeds, one would die), and most people’s diets are skewed far too far in favor or omega-6 compared to omega-3. So for most people, the higher levels of omega-3s are the more useful.
Want to learn more?
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:
-
Elon Musk says ‘disc replacement’ worked for him. But evidence this surgery helps chronic pain is lacking
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.
Last week in a post on X, owner of the platform Elon Musk recommended people look into disc replacement if they’re experiencing severe neck or back pain.
According to a biography of the billionaire, he’s had chronic back and neck pain since he tried to “judo throw” a 350-pound sumo wrestler in 2013 at a Japanese-themed party for his 42nd birthday, and blew out a disc at the base of his neck.
In comments following the post, Musk said the surgery was a “gamechanger” and reduced his pain significantly.
Musk’s original post has so far had more than 50 million views and generated controversy. So what is disc replacement surgery and what does the evidence tells us about its benefits and harms?
What’s involved in a disc replacement?
Disc replacement is a type of surgery in which one or more spinal discs (a cushion between the spine bones, also known as vertebrae) are removed and replaced with an artificial disc to retain movement between the vertebrae. Artificial discs are made of metal or a combination of metal and plastic.
Disc replacement may be performed for a number of reasons, including slipped discs in the neck, as appears to be the case for Musk.
Disc replacement is major surgery. It requires general anaesthesia and the operation usually takes 2–4 hours. Most people stay in hospital for 2–7 days. After surgery patients can walk but need to avoid things like strenuous exercise and driving for 3–6 weeks. People may be required to wear a neck collar (following neck surgery) or a back brace (following back surgery) for about 6 weeks.
Costs vary depending on whether you have surgery in the public or private health system, if you have private health insurance, and your level of coverage if you do. In Australia, even if you have health insurance, a disc replacement surgery may leave you more than A$12,000 out of pocket.
Disc replacement surgery is not performed as much as other spinal surgeries (for example, spinal fusion) but its use is increasing.
In New South Wales for example, rates of privately-funded disc replacement increased six-fold from 6.2 per million people in 2010–11 to 38.4 per million in 2019–20.
What are the benefits and harms?
People considering surgery will typically weigh that option against not having surgery. But there has been very little research comparing disc replacement surgery with non-surgical treatments.
Clinical trials are the best way to determine if a treatment is effective. You first want to show that a new treatment is better than doing nothing before you start comparisons with other treatments. For surgical procedures, the next step might be to compare the procedure to non-surgical alternatives.
Unfortunately, these crucial first research steps have largely been skipped for disc replacement surgery for both neck and back pain. As a result, there’s a great deal of uncertainty about the treatment.
There are no clinical trials we know of investigating whether disc replacement is effective for neck pain compared to nothing or compared to non-surgical treatments.
For low back pain, the only clinical trial that has been conducted to our knowledge comparing disc replacement to a non-surgical alternative found disc replacement surgery was slightly more effective than an intensive rehabilitation program after two years and eight years.
Many people experience chronic pain. Yan Krukau/Pexels Complications are not uncommon, and can include disclocation of the artificial disc, fracture (break) of the artificial disc, and infection.
In the clinical trial mentioned above, 26 of the 77 surgical patients had a complication within two years of follow up, including one person who underwent revision surgery that damaged an artery leading to a leg needing to be amputated. Revision surgery means a re-do to the primary surgery if something needs fixing.
Are there effective alternatives?
The first thing to consider is whether you need surgery. Seeking a second opinion may help you feel more informed about your options.
Many surgeons see disc replacement as an alternative to spinal fusion, and this choice is often presented to patients. Indeed, the research evidence used to support disc replacement mainly comes from studies that compare disc replacement to spinal fusion. These studies show people with neck pain may recover and return to work faster after disc replacement compared to spinal fusion and that people with back pain may get slightly better pain relief with disc replacement than with spinal fusion.
However, spinal fusion is similarly not well supported by evidence comparing it to non-surgical alternatives and, like disc replacement, it’s also expensive and associated with considerable risks of harm.
Fortunately for patients, there are new, non-surgical treatments for neck and back pain that evidence is showing are effective – and are far cheaper than surgery. These include treatments that address both physical and psychological factors that contribute to a person’s pain, such as cognitive functional therapy.
While Musk reported a good immediate outcome with disc replacement surgery, given the evidence – or lack thereof – we advise caution when considering this surgery. And if you’re presented with the choice between disc replacement and spinal fusion, you might want to consider a third alternative: not having surgery at all.
Giovanni E Ferreira, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney; Christine Lin, Professor, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney; Christopher Maher, Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney; Ian Harris, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, UNSW Sydney, and Joshua Zadro, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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:
-
Indistractable – by Nir Eyal
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.
Have you ever felt that you could accomplish anything you wanted/needed, if only you didn’t get distracted?
This book lays out a series of psychological interventions for precisely that aim, and it goes a lot beyond the usual “download/delete these apps to help you stop checking social media every 47 seconds”.
Some you’ll have heard of before, some you won’t have, and if even one method works for you, it’ll have been well worth your while reading this book. This reviewer, for example, enjoyed the call to identity-based strength, e.g. adopting an “I am indistractable*” perspective going into tasks. This is akin to the strength of, for example, “I don’t drink” over “I am a recovering alcoholic”.
*the usual spelling of this, by the way, is “undistractable”, but we use the author’s version here for consistency. It’s a great marketing gimmick, as all searches for the word “indistractable” will bring up his book.
Nor is the book just about maximizing productivity to the detriment of everything else; this is not about having a 25 hours per day “grindset”. Rather, it even makes sure to cover such things as focusing on one’s loved ones, for instance.
Bottom line: if you’ve tried blocking out the distractions but still find you can’t focus, this book offers next-level solutions
Click here to check out Indistractible, and become indeed indistractable!
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:
