Why is toddler milk so popular? Follow the money

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.

Toddler milk is popular and becoming more so. Just over a third of Australian toddlers drink it. Parents spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it globally. Around the world, toddler milk makes up nearly half of total formula milk sales, with a 200% growth since 2005. Growth is expected to continue.

We’re concerned about the growing popularity of toddler milk – about its nutritional content, cost, how it’s marketed, and about the impact on the health and feeding of young children. Some of us voiced our concerns on the ABC’s 7.30 program recently.

But what’s in toddler milk? How does it compare to cow’s milk? How did it become so popular?

What is toddler milk? Is it healthy?

Toddler milk is marketed as appropriate for children aged one to three years. This ultra-processed food contains:

  • skim milk powder (cow, soy or goat)
  • vegetable oil
  • sugars (including added sugars)
  • emulsifiers (to help bind the ingredients and improve the texture)
  • added vitamins and minerals.

Toddler milk is usually lower in calcium and protein, and higher in sugar and calories than regular cow’s milk. Depending on the brand, a serve of toddler milk can contain as much sugar as a soft drink.

Even though toddler milks have added vitamins and minerals, these are found in and better absorbed from regular foods and breastmilk. Toddlers do not need the level of nutrients found in these products if they are eating a varied diet.

Global health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO), and Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, do not recommend toddler milk for healthy toddlers.

Some children with specific metabolic or dietary medical problems might need tailored alternatives to cow’s milk. However, these products generally are not toddler milks and would be a specific product prescribed by a health-care provider.

Toddler milk is also up to four to five times more expensive than regular cow’s milk. “Premium” toddler milk (the same product, with higher levels of vitamins and minerals) is more expensive.

With the cost-of-living crisis, this means families might choose to go without other essentials to afford toddler milk.

Woman holding blue plastic spoon of formula powder over open tin of formula, milk bottle in background
Toddler milk is more expensive than cow’s milk and contains more sugar.
Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock

How toddler milk was invented

Toddler milk was created so infant formula companies could get around rules preventing them from advertising their infant formula.

When manufacturers claim benefits of their toddler milk, many parents assume these claimed benefits apply to infant formula (known as cross-promotion). In other words, marketing toddler milks also boosts interest in their infant formula.

Manufacturers also create brand loyalty and recognition by making the labels of their toddler milk look similar to their infant formula. For parents who used infant formula, toddler milk is positioned as the next stage in feeding.

How toddler milk became so popular

Toddler milk is heavily marketed. Parents are told toddler milk is healthy and provides extra nutrition. Marketing tells parents it will benefit their child’s growth and development, their brain function and their immune system.

Toddler milk is also presented as a solution to fussy eating, which is common in toddlers.

However, regularly drinking toddler milk could increase the risk of fussiness as it reduces opportunities for toddlers to try new foods. It’s also sweet, needs no chewing, and essentially displaces energy and nutrients that whole foods provide.

Toddler wearing bib with food smeared on face
Toddler milk is said to help fussy eating, but it may make things worse.
zlikovec/Shutterstock

Growing concern

The WHO, along with public health academics, has been raising concerns about the marketing of toddler milk for years.

In Australia, moves to curb how toddler milk is promoted have gone nowhere. Toddler milk is in a category of foods that are allowed to be fortified (to have vitamins and minerals added), with no marketing restrictions. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission also has concerns about the rise of toddler milk marketing. Despite this, there is no change in how it’s regulated.

This is in contrast to voluntary marketing restrictions in Australia for infant formula.

What needs to happen?

There is enough evidence to show the marketing of commercial milk formula, including toddler milk, influences parents and undermines child health.

So governments need to act to protect parents from this marketing, and to put child health over profits.

Public health authorities and advocates, including us, are calling for the restriction of marketing (not selling) of all formula products for infants and toddlers from birth through to age three years.

Ideally, this would be mandatory, government-enforced marketing restrictions as opposed to industry self-regulation in place currently for infant formulas.

We musn’t blame parents

Toddlers are eating more processed foods (including toddler milk) than ever because time-poor parents are seeking a convenient option to ensure their child is getting adequate nutrition.

Formula manufacturers have used this information, and created a demand for an unnecessary product.

Parents want to do the best for their toddlers, but they need to know the marketing behind toddler milks is misleading.

Toddler milk is an unnecessary, unhealthy, expensive product. Toddlers just need whole foods and breastmilk, and/or cow’s milk or a non-dairy, milk alternative.

If parents are worried about their child’s eating, they should see a health-care professional.

Anthea Rhodes, a paediatrician from Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne and a lecturer at the University of Melbourne, co-authored this article.The Conversation

Jennifer McCann, Lecturer Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University; Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, and Naomi Hull, PhD candidate, 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!

Recommended

  • Sesame & Peanut Tofu
    Transform basic baked tofu into a gourmet meal with our new recipe that combines aromatic spices, vibrant vegetables, and rich sauces for a flavor-packed, satisfying dish!

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Nicotine pouches are being marketed to young people on social media. But are they safe, or even legal?

    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.

    Flavoured nicotine pouches are being promoted to young people on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

    Although some viral videos have been taken down following a series of reports in The Guardian, clips featuring Australian influencers have claimed nicotine pouches are a safe and effective way to quit vaping. A number of the videos have included links to websites selling these products.

    With the rapid rise in youth vaping and the subsequent implementation of several reforms to restrict access to vaping products, it’s not entirely surprising the tobacco industry is introducing more products to maintain its future revenue stream.

    The major trans-national tobacco companies, including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco, all manufacture nicotine pouches. British American Tobacco’s brand of nicotine pouches, Velo, is a leading sponsor of the McLaren Formula 1 team.

    But what are nicotine pouches, and are they even legal in Australia?

    Like snus, but different

    Nicotine pouches are available in many countries around the world, and their sales are increasing rapidly, especially among young people.

    Nicotine pouches look a bit like small tea bags and are placed between the lip and gum. They’re typically sold in small, colourful tins of about 15 to 20 pouches. While the pouches don’t contain tobacco, they do contain nicotine that is either extracted from tobacco plants or made synthetically. The pouches come in a wide range of strengths.

    As well as nicotine, the pouches commonly contain plant fibres (in place of tobacco, plant fibres serve as a filler and give the pouches shape), sweeteners and flavours. Just like for vaping products, there’s a vast array of pouch flavours available including different varieties of fruit, confectionery, spices and drinks.

    The range of appealing flavours, as well as the fact they can be used discreetly, may make nicotine pouches particularity attractive to young people.

    Two teenage girls vaping on a blanket in a park.
    Vaping has recently been subject to tighter regulation in Australia.
    Aleksandr Yu/Shutterstock

    Users absorb the nicotine in their mouths and simply replace the pouch when all the nicotine has been absorbed. Tobacco-free nicotine pouches are a relatively recent product, but similar style products that do contain tobacco, known as snus, have been popular in Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, for decades.

    Snus and nicotine pouches are however different products. And given snus contains tobacco and nicotine pouches don’t, the products are subject to quite different regulations in Australia.

    What does the law say?

    Pouches that contain tobacco, like snus, have been banned in Australia since 1991, as part of a consumer product ban on all forms of smokeless tobacco products. This means other smokeless tobacco products such as chewing tobacco, snuff, and dissolvable tobacco sticks or tablets, are also banned from sale in Australia.

    Tobacco-free nicotine pouches cannot legally be sold by general retailers, like tobacconists and convenience stores, in Australia either. But the reasons for this are more complex.

    In Australia, under the Poisons Standard, nicotine is a prescription-only medicine, with two exceptions. Nicotine can be used in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking, such as cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, and cigars, as well as in preparations for therapeutic use as a smoking cessation aid, such as nicotine patches, gum, mouth spray and lozenges.

    If a nicotine-containing product does not meet either of these two exceptions, it cannot be legally sold by general retailers. No nicotine pouches have currently been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as a therapeutic aid in smoking cessation, so in short they’re not legal to sell in Australia.

    However, nicotine pouches can be legally imported for personal use only if users have a prescription from a medical professional who can assess if the product is appropriate for individual use.

    We only have anecdotal reports of nicotine pouch use, not hard data, as these products are very new in Australia. But we do know authorities are increasingly seizing these products from retailers. It’s highly unlikely any young people using nicotine pouches are accessing them through legal channels.

    Health concerns

    Nicotine exposure may induce effects including dizziness, headache, nausea and abdominal cramps, especially among people who don’t normally smoke or vape.

    Although we don’t yet have much evidence on the long term health effects of nicotine pouches, we know nicotine is addictive and harmful to health. For example, it can cause problems in the cardiovascular system (such as heart arrhythmia), particularly at high doses. It may also have negative effects on adolescent brain development.

    The nicotine contents of some of the nicotine pouches on the market is alarmingly high. Certain brands offer pouches containing more than 10mg of nicotine, which is similar to a cigarette. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, pouches deliver enough nicotine to induce and sustain nicotine addiction.

    Pouches are also being marketed as a product to use when it’s not possible to vape or smoke, such as on a plane. So instead of helping a person quit they may be used in addition to smoking and vaping. And importantly, there’s no clear evidence pouches are an effective smoking or vaping cessation aid.

    A Velo product display at Dubai airport in October 2022.
    A Velo product display at Dubai airport in October 2022. Nicotine pouches are marketed as safe to use on planes.
    Becky Freeman

    Further, some nicotine pouches, despite being tobacco-free, still contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines. These compounds can damage DNA, and with long term exposure, can cause cancer.

    Overall, there’s limited data on the harms of nicotine pouches because they’ve been on the market for only a short time. But the WHO recommends a cautious approach given their similarities to smokeless tobacco products.

    For anyone wanting advice and support to quit smoking or vaping, it’s best to talk to your doctor or pharmacist, or access trusted sources such as Quitline or the iCanQuit website.The Conversation

    Becky Freeman, Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Dentists Are Pulling ‘Healthy’ and Treatable Teeth To Profit From Implants, Experts Warn

    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.

    Becky Carroll was missing a few teeth, and others were stained or crooked. Ashamed, she smiled with lips pressed closed. Her dentist offered to fix most of her teeth with root canals and crowns, Carroll said, but she was wary of traveling a long road of dental work.

    Then Carroll saw a TV commercial for another path: ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers. The company advertises that it can give patients “a new smile in as little as one day” by surgically replacing teeth instead of fixing them.

    So Carroll saved and borrowed for the surgery, she said. In an interview and a lawsuit, Carroll said that at a ClearChoice clinic in New Jersey in 2021, she agreed to pay $31,000 to replace all her natural upper teeth with pearly-white prosthetic ones. What came next, Carroll said, was “like a horror movie.”

    Carroll alleged that her anesthesia wore off during implant surgery, so she became conscious as her teeth were removed and titanium screws were twisted into her jawbone. Afterward, Carroll’s prosthetic teeth were so misaligned that she was largely unable to chew for more than two years until she could afford corrective surgery at another clinic, according to a sworn deposition from her lawsuit.

    ClearChoice has denied Carroll’s claims of malpractice and negligence in court filings and did not respond to requests for comment on the ongoing case.

    “I thought implants would be easier, and all at once, so you didn’t have to keep going back to the dentist,” Carroll, 52, said in an interview. “But I should have asked more questions … like, Can they save these teeth?”

    Dental implants have been used for more than half a century to surgically replace missing or damaged teeth with artificial duplicates, often with picture-perfect results. While implant dentistry was once the domain of a small group of highly trained dentists and specialists, tens of thousands of dental providers now offer the surgery and place millions of implants each year in the U.S.

    Amid this booming industry, some implant experts worry that many dentists are losing sight of dentistry’s fundamental goal of preserving natural teeth and have become too willing to remove teeth to make room for expensive implants, according to a months-long investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News. In interviews, 10 experts said they had each given second opinions to multiple patients who had been recommended for mouths full of implants that the experts ultimately determined were not necessary. Separately, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that implant patients like Carroll have experienced painful complications that have required corrective surgery, while other lawsuits alleged dentists at some implant clinics have persuaded, pressured, or forced patients to remove teeth unnecessarily.

    The experts warn that implants, for a single tooth or an entire mouth, expose patients to costs and surgery complications, plus a new risk of future dental problems with fewer treatment options because their natural teeth are forever gone.

    “There are many cases where teeth, they’re perfectly fine, and they’re being removed unnecessarily,” said William Giannobile, dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. “I really hate to say it, but many of them are doing it because these procedures, from a monetary standpoint, they’re much more beneficial to the practitioner.”

    Giannobile and nine other experts say they are combating a false public perception that implants are more durable and longer-lasting than natural teeth, which some believe stems in part from advertising on TV and social media. Implants require upkeep, and although they can’t get cavities, studies have shown that patients can be susceptible to infections in the gums and bone around their implants.

    “Just because somebody can afford implants doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a good candidate,” said George Mandelaris, a Chicago-area periodontist and member of the American Academy of Periodontology Board of Trustees. “When an implant has infection, or when an implant has bone loss, an implant dies a much quicker death than do teeth.”

    In its simplest form, implant surgery involves extracting a single tooth and replacing it with a metal post that is screwed into the jaw and then affixed with a prosthetic tooth commonly made of porcelain, also known as a crown. Patients can also use “full-arch” or “All-on-4” implants to replace all their upper or lower teeth — or all their teeth.

    For this story, KFF Health News and CBS News sought interviews with large dental chains whose clinics offer implant surgery — ClearChoice, Aspen Dental, Affordable Care, and Dental Care Alliance — each of which declined to be interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Association of Dental Support Organizations, which represents these companies and others like them, also declined an interview request.

    ClearChoice, which specializes in full-arch implants, did not answer more than two dozen questions submitted in writing. In an emailed statement, the company said full-arch implants “have become a well-accepted standard of care for patients with severe tooth loss and teeth with poor prognosis.”

    “The use of full-arch restorations reflects the evolution of modern dentistry, offering patients a solution that restores their ability to eat, speak, and live comfortably — far beyond what traditional dentures can provide,” the company said.

    Carroll said she regrets not letting her dentist try to fix her teeth and rushing to ClearChoice for implants.

    “Because it was a nightmare,” she said.

    ‘They Are Not Teeth’

    Dental implant surgery can be a godsend for patients with unsalvageable teeth. Several experts said implants can be so transformative that their invention should have contended for a Nobel Prize. And yet, these experts still worry that implants are overused, because it is generally better for patients to have their natural teeth.

    Paul Rosen, a Pennsylvania periodontist who said he has worked with implants for more than three decades, said many patients believe a “fallacy” that implants are “bulletproof.”

    “You can’t just have an implant placed and go off riding into the sunset,” Rosen said. “In many instances, they need more care than teeth because they are not teeth.”

    Generally, a single implant costs a few thousand dollars while full-arch implants cost tens of thousands. Neither procedure is well covered by dental insurance, so many clinics partner with credit companies that offer loans for implant surgeries. At ClearChoice, for example, loans can be as large as $65,000 paid off over 10 years, according to the company’s website.

    Despite the price, implants are more popular than ever. Sales increased by more than 6% on average each year since 2010, culminating in more than 3.7 million implants sold in the U.S. in 2022, according to a 2023 report produced by iData Research, a health care market research firm.

    Some worry implant dentistry has gone too far. In 10 interviews, dentists and dental specialists with expertise in implants said they had witnessed the overuse of implants firsthand. Each expert said they’d examined multiple patients in recent years who were recommended for full-arch implants by other dentists despite their teeth being treatable with conventional dentistry.

    Giannobile, the Harvard dean, said he had given second opinions to “dozens” of patients who were recommended for implants they did not need.

    “I see many of these patients now that are coming in and saying, ‘I’ve been seen, and they are telling me to get my entire dentition — all of my teeth — extracted.’ And then I’ll take a look at them and say that we can preserve most of your teeth,” Giannobile said.

    Tim Kosinski, who is a representative of the Academy of General Dentistry and said he has placed more than 19,000 implants, said he examines as many as five patients a month who have been recommended for full-arch implants that he deems unnecessary.

    “There is a push in the profession to remove teeth that could be saved,” Kosinski said. “But the public isn’t aware.”

    Luiz Gonzaga, a periodontist and prosthodontist at the University of Florida, said he, too, had turned away patients who wanted most or all their teeth extracted. Gonzaga said some had received implant recommendations that he considered “an atrocity.”

    “You don’t go to the hospital and tell them ‘I broke my finger a couple of times. This is bothering me. Can you please cut my finger off?’ No one will do that,” Gonzaga said. “Why would I extract your tooth because you need a root canal?”

    Jaime Lozada, director of an elite dental implant residency program at Loma Linda University, said he’d not only witnessed an increase in dentists extracting “perfectly healthy teeth” but also treated a rash of patients with mouths full of ill-fitting implants that had to be surgically replaced.

    Lozada said in August that he’d treated seven such patients in just three months.

    “When individuals just make a decision of extracting teeth to make it simple and make money quick, so to speak, that’s where I have a problem,” Lozada said. “And it happens quite often.”

    When full-arch implants fail, patients sometimes don’t have enough jawbone left to anchor another set. These patients have little choice but to get implants that reach into cheekbones, said Sohail Saghezchi, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at the University of California-San Francisco.

    “It’s kind of like a last resort,” Saghezchi said. “If those fail, you don’t have anywhere else to go.”

    ‘It Was Horrendous Dentistry’

    Most of the experts interviewed for this article said their rising alarm corresponded with big changes in the availability of dental implants. Implants are now offered by more than 70,000 dental providers nationwide, two-thirds of whom are general dentists, according to the iData Research report.

    Dentists are not required to learn how to place implants in dental school, nor are they required to complete implant training before performing the surgery in nearly all states. This year, Oregon started requiring dentists to complete 56 hours of hands-on training before placing any implants. Stephen Prisby, executive director of the Oregon Board of Dentistry, said the requirement — the first and only of its kind in the U.S. — was a response to dozens of investigations in the state into botched surgeries and other implant failures, split evenly between general dentists and specialists.

    “I was frankly stunned at how bad some of these dentists were practicing,” Prisby said. “It was horrendous dentistry.”

    Many dental clinics that offer implants have consolidated into chains owned by private equity firms that have bought out much of implant dentistry. In health care, private equity investment is sometimes criticized for overtreatment and prioritizing short-term profit over patients.

    Private equity firms have spent about $5 billion in recent years to buy large dental chains that offer implants at hundreds of clinics owned by individual dentists and dental specialists. ClearChoice was bought for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2020 by Aspen Dental, which is owned by three private equity firms, according to PitchBook, a research firm focused on the private equity industry. Private equity firms also bought Affordable Care, whose largest clinic brand is Affordable Dentures & Implants, for an estimated $2.7 billion in 2021, according to PitchBook. And the private equity wing of the Abu Dhabi government bought Dental Care Alliance, which offers implants at many of its affiliated clinics, for an estimated $1 billion in 2022, according to PitchBook.

    ClearChoice and Aspen Dental each said in email statements that the companies’ private equity owners “do not have influence or control over treatment recommendations.” Both companies said dentists or dental specialists make all clinical decisions.

    Private equity deals involving dental practices increased ninefold from 2011 to 2021, according to an American Dental Association study published in August. The study also said investors showed an interest in oral surgery, possibly because of the “high prices” of implants.

    “Some argue this is a negative thing,” said Marko Vujicic, vice president of the association’s Health Policy Institute, who co-authored the study. “On the other hand, some would argue that involvement of private equity and outside capital brings economies of scale, it brings efficiency.”

    Edwin Zinman, a San Francisco dental malpractice attorney and former periodontist who has filed hundreds of dental lawsuits over four decades, said he believed many of the worst fears about private equity owners had already come true in implant dentistry.

    “They’ve sold a lot of [implants], and some of it unnecessarily, and too often done negligently, without having the dentists who are doing it have the necessary training and experience,” Zinman said. “It’s for five simple letters: M-O-N-E-Y.”

    Hundreds of Implant Clinics With No Specialists

    For this article, journalists from KFF Health News and CBS News analyzed the webpages for more than 1,000 clinics in the nation’s largest private equity-owned dental chains, all of which offer some implants. The analysis found that more than 70% of those clinics listed only general dentists on their websites and did not appear to employ the specialists — oral surgeons, periodontists, or prosthodontists — who traditionally have more training with implants.

    Affordable Dentures & Implants listed specialists at fewer than 5% of its more than 400 clinics, according to the analysis. The rest were staffed by general dentists, most of whom did not list credentialing from implant training organizations, according to the analysis.

    ClearChoice, on the other hand, employs at least one oral surgeon or prosthodontist at each of its more than 100 centers, according to the analysis. But its new parent company, Aspen Dental, which offers implants in many of its more than 1,100 clinics, does not list any specialists at many of those locations.

    Not everyone is worried about private equity in implant dentistry. In interviews arranged by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, which trains dentists to use implants, two other implant experts did not express concerns about private equity firms.

    Brian Jackson, a former academy president and implant specialist in New York, said he believed dentists are too ethical and patients are too smart to be pressured by private equity owners “who will never see a patient.”

    Jumoke Adedoyin, a chief clinical officer for Affordable Care, who has placed implants at an Affordable Dentures & Implants clinic in the Atlanta suburbs for 15 years, said she had never felt pressure from above to sell implants.

    “I’ve actually felt more pressure sometimes from patients who have gone around and been told they need to take their teeth out,” she said. “They come in and, honestly, taking a look at them, maybe they don’t need to take all their teeth out.”

    Still, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that dentists at implant clinics have extracted patients’ teeth unnecessarily.

    For example, in Texas, a patient alleged in a 2020 lawsuit that an Affordable Care dentist removed “every single tooth from her mouth when such was not necessary,” then stuffed her mouth with gauze and left her waiting in the lobby as he and his staff left for lunch. In Maryland, a patient alleged in a 2021 lawsuit that ClearChoice “convinced” her to extract “eight healthy upper teeth,” by “greatly downplay[ing] the risks.” In Florida, a patient alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that ClearChoice provided her with no other treatment options before extracting all her teeth, “which was totally unnecessary.”

    ClearChoice and Affordable Care denied wrongdoing in their respective lawsuits, then privately settled out of court with each patient. ClearChoice and Affordable Care did not respond to requests for comment submitted to the companies or attorneys. Lawyers for all three plaintiffs declined to comment on these lawsuits or did not respond to requests for comment.

    Fred Goldberg, a Maryland dental malpractice attorney who said he has represented at least six clients who sued ClearChoice, said each of his clients agreed to get implants after meeting with a salesperson — not a dentist.

    “Every client I’ve had who has gone to ClearChoice has started off meeting a salesperson and actually signing up to get their financing through ClearChoice before they ever meet with a dentist,” Goldberg said. “You meet with a salesperson who sells you on what they like to present as the best choice, which is almost always that they’re going to take out all your natural teeth.”

    Becky Carroll, the ClearChoice patient from New Jersey, told a similar story.

    Carroll said in her lawsuit that she met first with a ClearChoice salesperson referred to as a “patient education consultant.” In an interview, Carroll said the salesperson encouraged her to borrow money from family members for the surgery and it was not until after she agreed to a loan and passed a credit check that a ClearChoice dentist peered into her mouth.

    “It seems way backwards,” Carroll said. “They just want to know you’re approved before you get to talk to a dentist.”

    CBS News producer Nicole Keller contributed to this report.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Spinach vs Chard – 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 spinach to chard, we picked the spinach.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, spinach has slightly more fiber and protein, while chard has slightly more carbs. Now, those carbs are fine; nobody is getting metabolic disease from eating greens. But, by the numbers, this is a clear, albeit marginal, win for spinach.

    In the category of vitamins, spinach has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, E, and K, while chard has more of vitamins C and choline. An even clearer victory for spinach this time.

    When it comes to minerals, spinach has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc, while chard has more potassium. Once again, a clear win for spinach.

    You may be wondering about oxalates, in which spinach is famously high. However, chard is nearly 2x higher in oxalates. In practical terms, this doesn’t mean too much for most people. If you have kidney problems or a family history of such, it is recommended to avoid oxalates. For everyone else, the only downside is that oxalates diminish calcium bioavailability, which is a pity, as spinach is (by the numbers) a good source of calcium.

    However, oxalates are broken down by heat, so this means that cooked spinach (lightly steamed is fine; you don’t need to do anything drastic) will be much lower in oxalates (if you have kidney problems, do still check with your doctor/dietician, though).

    All in all, spinach beats chard by most metrics, and by a fair margin. Still, enjoy either or both, unless you have kidney problems, in which case maybe go for kale or collard greens instead!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Make Your Vegetables Work Better Nutritionally ← includes a note on breaking down oxalates, and lots of other information besides!

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Feeling Squeamish About A Fecal Microbiota Transplant? You Might Be Right

    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.

    Breaking news: poop-swapping might spread harmful germs!

    Ok, when we say it like that, it sounds obvious. But in seriousness, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have been lauded as a magic bullet to alleviate many conditions including:

    • Alcohol use disorder
    • Anxiety
    • Autoimmune diseases
    • Depression
    • Inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBS)
    • Obesity
    • Type 2 diabetes

    The premise is that a lot of our health (good or bad) starts in the gut, and our gut microbiome is a huge part of various systems including our immune response, reward processing, moods, and metabolism. Consequently, transplanting part of a healthy person’s gut microbiome is like taking a very direct very definitely living probiotic without it having to brave the hydrochloric acid of the stomach on the way in.

    However…

    It might be too powerful

    Based on recent research (we’ll link shortly), the problem is that FMT introduces microbes mostly from the colon in a way that allows them to proliferate too far up, such as into the small intestine, which can disrupt local ecosystems and lead to persistent microbial mismatches.

    In the study, different microbial transplants colonized the entire gut, not just their native niches, and caused changes in metabolism, energy expenditure, and eating behaviors—not always in good ways, as they indiscriminately reshape the intestinal environment around them, altering tissue identity and gene expression to resemble their original habitat, with system-wide effects (sometimes adverse ones due to the mismatches) far beyond the gut.

    The researchers conclude:

    ❝Thus, regional microbial mismatches after FMTs can lead to unintended consequences and require rethinking of microbiome-based interventions.❞

    You can read about it in full, here: Microbiome mismatches from microbiota transplants lead to persistent off-target metabolic and immunomodulatory effects

    What to do instead?

    One proposal the researchers offered was “omni-microbial transplants” (OMT), which involve using microbes from across the entire intestinal tract to ensure natural niche-matching and safer colonization.

    However, for a more at-home approach and not relying on techniques that have not yet been developed, we have written a fair bit about gut health before, such as:

    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:

  • Unfuck Your Brain – by Dr. Faith Harper

    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.

    This book takes a trauma-informed care approach, which is relatively novel in the mental health field and it’s quickly becoming the industry standard because of its effectiveness.

    The basic premise of trauma-informed care is that you had a bad experience (possibly even more than one—what a thought!) and that things that remind you of that will tend to prompt reactivity from you in a way that probably isn’t healthy. By identifying each part of that process, we can then interrupt it, much like we might with CBT (the main difference being that CBT, for all its effectiveness, tends to assume that the things that are bothering you are not true, while TIC acknowledges that they might well be, and that especially historically, they probably were).

    A word of warning: if something that triggers a trauma-based reactivity response in you is people swearing, then this book will either cure you by exposure therapy or leave you a nervous wreck, because it’s not just the title; Dr. Harper barely gets through a sentence without swearing. It’s a lot, even by this (European) reviewer’s standards (we’re a lot more relaxed about swearing over here, than people tend to be in America).

    On the other hand, something that Dr. Harper excels at is actually explaining stuff very well. So while it sometimes seems like she’s “trying too hard” style-wise in terms of being “not like other therapists”, in her defence she’s nevertheless a very good writer; she knows her stuff, and knows how to communicate it clearly.

    Bottom line: if you don’t mind a writer who swears more than 99% of soldiers, then this book is an excellent how-to guide for self-administered trauma-informed care.

    Click here to check out Unfuck Your Brain, and indeed unfuck it!

    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:

  • The Japanese Health Initiative That Lowers Blood Sugars

    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 talked before about Good (Or Bad) Health Starts With Your Blood, and how a lot of human disease begins with, or is exacerbated by, diabetes or even pre-diabetes, and that in the US, this is even more strongly true than in the rest of the world, what with the US being #1 for diabetes.

    However! That does not mean if you’re not prediabetic, there is no threat. This is because it is usually insulin resistance, and not the high blood sugar content itself, that is the main driver of disease. It just so happens that blood sugars are a lot quicker and easier to test, and the correlation between them is high. On the other hand, insulin resistance will often go unnoticed for many years, because the pancreas just cranks out more and more extra insulin to compensate and keep the blood sugars balanced—until one day it can’t because the body is so resistant to insulin that the pancreas just can’t produce enough to get it to care adequately, and that’s when the blood sugars will finally rise (and get noticed).

    We reviewed an excellent book about precisely this (very, very common) phenomenon: Why We Get Sick – by Dr. Benjamin Bikman

    The good news is, there are things can be done to Improve Your Insulin Sensitivity.

    And with regard to blood sugars themselves, an excellent list is: 10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars

    Number 8 in that list was:

    After you eat, move

    The glucose you eat will be used to replace lost muscle glycogen, before any left over is stored as fat… and, while it’s waiting to be stored as fat, just sitting in your bloodstream being high blood sugars. So, this whole thing will go a lot better if you are actively using muscle glycogen (by moving your body).

    Inchauspé gives a metaphor: imagine a steam train worker, shoveling coal into the furnace. Meanwhile, other workers are bringing more coal. If the train is moving quickly, the coal can be shoveled into the furnace and burned and won’t build up so quickly. But if the train is moving slowly or not at all, that coal is just going to build up and build up, until the worker can shovel no more because of being neck-deep in coal.

    Same with your blood sugars!

    But that—sound advice as it is—remains a little vague, leaving us with questions such as:

    • How much movement?
    • For how long?
    • And what’s the window of opportunity to enjoy this effect?

    With those questions in mind…

    Japan’s “Plus 10” Initiative

    The government of Japan has a “plus 10” initiative, whose goal is to encourage everyone to add just 10 minutes of extra activity to each day. You might think that won’t make a big difference, but in fact it all adds up, for example: Cumulative Exercise vs Neurodegeneration ← which shows how it is cumulative exercise over time that matters the most in this regard, which means that “little and often” really does count for a lot.

    We’ve also written before about How Useful Is “Exercise Snacking”, Really?, with some very specific protocols there for those who like to truly optimize everything.

    Most recently, a Japanese research team investigated the effects of two different approaches to post-dinner exercise, on blood sugars:

    1. Walk for 10 minutes, immediately after eating
    2. Walk for 30 minutes, 30 minutes after eating

    There was also a control condition (rest only, no walking).

    They measured the effect of these conditions on blood glucose in three ways:

    • 2‑hour blood glucose area under the curve (AUC)*
    • mean average glucose
    • peak glucose

    *that’s a way of looking at the total impact of it over the course of the recording period

    They additionally measured heart rate, perceived exertion, and gastrointestinal discomfort.

    They found that both walking conditions significantly reduced 2‑hour blood glucose AUC and mean glucose versus control:

    • 10-min walk: the AUC was 15,607 mg·min/dL (control was 16,605), and mean glucose = 127.9 mg/dL (control was 135.8mg/dL)
    • 30-min walk: also effective, but no significant difference compared to the 10‑min walk immediately after eating.

    However! Only the immediate 10‑min walk significantly lowered peak glucose (164.3 mg/dL, compared to the control condition’s 181.9 mg/dL).

    Which means that the immediate 10-minute walk not only equals the delayed 30-minute walk in most ways, but also outright beats that in a third way. And that third way, the peak glucose? That’s where the insulin resistance starts, so this is critical.

    As for the other things they measured: both walking conditions were rated as low perceived effort, with the 10‑min walk feeling the relatively easier of the two. No increase in gastrointestinal discomfort was reported for either walking condition.

    You may be wondering about the pace of this walking:

    ❝The walking speed was self-selected by the participants to be comfortable. The participants were instructed to walk at their usual relaxed pace as in their daily life. The walking speed was set on a treadmill and was implemented at the same speed for the two walking conditions.❞

    You can read the paper in full, here: Positive impact of a 10-min walk immediately after glucose intake on postprandial glucose levels

    If walking isn’t your thing, or you don’t have a treadmill and the weather outside is frightful, then you might like:

    No-Exercise Exercise! ← for a veritable buffet of exercise snacking ideas

    Want to learn more?

    Consider:

    15 Easy Japanese Habits That Will Transform Your Health

    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: