Working Smarter < Working Brighter!

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.

When it comes to working smarter, not harder, there’s plenty of advice and honestly, it’s mostly quite sensible. For example:

(Nice to see they featured a method we talked about last week—great minds!)

But, as standards of productivity rise, the goalposts get moved too, and the treadmill just keeps on going

Not that these things are confined to Millennials, by any stretch, but Millennials make up a huge portion of working people. Ideally, this age group should be able to bring the best of both worlds to the workplace by combining years of experience with youthful energy.

So clearly something is going wrong; the question is: what can be done about it?

Workers of the World, Unwind

A knee-jerk response might be “work to rule”—a tactic long-used by disgruntled exploited workers to do no more than the absolute minimum required to not get fired. And it’s arguably better for them than breaking themselves at work, but that’s not exactly enriching, is it?

This is Brittany Berger, founder of “Work Brighter”.

She’s a content marketing consultant, mental health advocate, and (in her words) a highly ridiculous human who always has a pop culture reference at the ready.

What, besides pop culture references, is she bringing to the table? What is Working Brighter?

❝Working brighter means going beyond generic “work smarter” advice on the internet and personalizing it to work FOR YOU. It means creating your own routines for work, productivity, and self-care.❞

Brittany Berger

Examples of working brighter include…

Asking:

  • What would your work involve, if it were more fun?
  • How can you make your work more comfortable for you?
  • What changes could you make that would make your work more sustainable (i.e., to avoid burnout)?

Remembering:

  • Mental health is just health
  • Self-care is a “soft skill”
  • Rest is work when it’s needed

This is not one of those “what workers really want is not more pay, it’s beanbags” things, by the way (but if you want a beanbag, then by all means, get yourself a beanbag).

It’s about making time to rest, it’s about having the things that make you feel good while you’re working, and making sure you can enjoy working. You’re going to spend a lot of your life doing it; you might as well enjoy it.

❝Nobody goes to their deathbed wishing they’d spent more time at the office❞

Anon

On the contrary, having worked too hard is one of the top reported regrets of the dying!

Article: The Top Five Regrets Of The Dying

And no, they don’t wish they’d “worked smarter, not harder”. They wish (also in the above list, in fact) that they’d had the courage to live a life more true to themselves.

You can do that in your work. Whatever your work is. And if your work doesn’t permit that (be it the evil boss trope, or even that you are the boss and your line of work just doesn’t work that way), time to change that up. Stop focusing on what you can’t do, and look for what you can do.

Spoiler: you can have a blast just trying things out!

That doesn’t mean you should quit your job, or replace your PC with a Playstation, or whatever.

It just means that you deserve comfort and happiness while working, and around your work!

Need a helping hand getting started?

Like A Boss

And pssst, if you’re a business-owner who is thinking “but I have quotas to meet”, your customers are going to love your staff being happier, and will enjoy their interactions with your company much more. Or if your staff aren’t customer-facing, then still, they’ll work better when they enjoy doing it. This isn’t rocket science, but all too many companies give a cursory nod to it before proceeding to ignore it for the rest of the life of the company.

So where do you start, if you’re in those particular shoes?

Read on…

*straightens tie because this is the serious bit* —just kidding, I’m wearing my comfiest dress and fluffy-lined slipper-socks. But that makes this absolutely no less serious:

The Institute for Health and Productivity Management (IHPM) and WorkPlace Wellness Alliance (WPWA) might be a good place to get you on the right track!

❝IHPM/WPWA is a global nonprofit enterprise devoted to establishing the full economic value of employee health as a business asset—a neglected investment in the increased productivity of human capital.

IHPM helps employers identify the full economic cost impact of employee health issues on business performance, design and implement the best programs to reduce this impact by improving functional health and productivity, and measure the success of their efforts in financial terms.❞

The Institute for Health and Productivity Management

They offer courses and consultations, but they also have free downloadables and videos, which are awesome and in many cases may already be enough to seriously improve things for your business already:

Check Out IHPM’s Resources Here!

What can you do to make your working life better for you? We’d love to hear about any changes you make inspired by Brittany’s work—you can always just hit reply, and we’re always glad to hear from you!

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Strategic Wellness
  • Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects
    Semaglutide’s weight loss effects lack research on dietary changes and long-term health impacts – a call for caution and more studies.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • America Worries About Health Costs — And Voters Want to Hear From Biden and Republicans

    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.

    President Joe Biden is counting on outrage over abortion restrictions to help drive turnout for his reelection. Former President Donald Trump is promising to take another swing at repealing Obamacare.

    But around America’s kitchen tables, those are hardly the only health topics voters want to hear about in the 2024 campaigns. A new KFF tracking poll shows that health care tops the list of basic expenses Americans worry about — more than gas, food, and rent. Nearly 3 in 4 adults — and majorities of both parties — say they’re concerned about paying for unexpected medical bills and other health costs.

    “Absolutely health care is something on my mind,” Rob Werner, 64, of Concord, New Hampshire, said in an interview at a local coffee shop in January. He’s a Biden supporter and said he wants to make sure the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is retained and that there’s more of an effort to control health care costs.

    The presidential election is likely to turn on the simple question of whether Americans want Trump back in the White House. (Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, remained in the race for the Republican nomination ahead of Super Tuesday, though she had lost the first four primary contests.) And neither major party is basing their campaigns on health care promises.

    But in the KFF poll, 80% of adults said they think it’s “very important” to hear presidential candidates talk about what they’d do to address health care costs — a subject congressional and state-level candidates can also expect to address.

    “People are most concerned about out-of-pocket expenses for health care, and rightly so,” said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive think tank.

    Here’s a look at the major health care issues that could help determine who wins in November.

    Abortion

    Less than two years after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, it is shaping up to be the biggest health issue in this election.

    That was also the case in the 2022 midterm elections, when many voters rallied behind candidates who supported abortion rights and bolstered Democrats to an unexpectedly strong showing. Since the Supreme Court’s decision, voters in six states — including Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio, where Republicans control the legislatures — have approved state constitutional amendments protecting abortion access.

    Polls show that abortion is a key issue to some voters, said Robert Blendon, a public opinion researcher and professor emeritus at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He said up to 30% across the board see it as a “personal” issue, rather than policy — and most of those support abortion rights.

    “That’s a lot of voters, if they show up and vote,” Blendon said.

    Proposals to further protect — or restrict — abortion access could drive voter turnout. Advocates are working to put abortion-related measures on the ballot in such states as Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and South Dakota this November. A push in Washington toward a nationwide abortion policy could also draw more voters to the polls, Blendon said.

    A surprise ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court in February that frozen embryos are children could also shake up the election. It’s an issue that divides even the anti-abortion community, with some who believe that a fertilized egg is a unique new person deserving of full legal rights and protections, and others believing that discarding unused embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process is a morally acceptable way for couples to have children.

    Pricey Prescriptions

    Drug costs regularly rank high among voters’ concerns.

    In the latest tracking poll, more than half — 55% — said they were very worried about being able to afford prescription drugs.

    Biden has tried to address the price of drugs, though his efforts haven’t registered with many voters. While its name doesn’t suggest landmark health policy, the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which the president signed in August 2022, included a provision allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for some of the most expensive drugs. It also capped total out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs for all Medicare patients, while capping the price of insulin for those with diabetes at $35 a month — a limit some drugmakers have extended to patients with other kinds of insurance.

    Drugmakers are fighting the Medicare price negotiation provision in court. Republicans have promised to repeal the IRA, arguing that forcing drugmakers to negotiate lower prices on drugs for Medicare beneficiaries would amount to price controls and stifle innovation. The party has offered no specific alternative, with the GOP-led House focused primarily on targeting pharmacy benefit managers, the arbitrators who control most Americans’ insurance coverage for medicines.

    Costs of Coverage

    Health care costs continue to rise for many Americans. The cost of employer-sponsored health plans have hit new highs in the past few months, raising costs for employers and workers alike. Experts have attributed the increase to high demand and expensive prices for certain drugs and treatments, notably weight loss drugs, as well as to medical inflation.

    Meanwhile, the ACA is popular. The KFF poll found that more adults want to see the program expanded than scaled back. And a record 21.3 million people signed up for coverage in 2024, about 5 million of them new customers.

    Enrollment in Republican-dominated states has grown fastest, with year-over-year increases of 80% in West Virginia, nearly 76% in Louisiana, and 62% in Ohio, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    Public support for Obamacare and record enrollment in its coverage have made it politically perilous for Republicans to pursue the law’s repeal, especially without a robust alternative. That hasn’t stopped Trump from raising that prospect on the campaign trail, though it’s hard to find any other Republican candidate willing to step out on the same limb.

    “The more he talks about it, the more other candidates have to start answering for it,” said Jarrett Lewis, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, a GOP polling firm.

    “Will a conversation about repeal-and-replace resonate with suburban women in Maricopa County?” he said, referring to the populous county in Arizona known for being a political bellwether. “I would steer clear of that if I was a candidate.”

    Biden and his campaign have pounced on Trump’s talk of repeal. The president has said he wants to make permanent the enhanced premium subsidies he signed into law during the pandemic that are credited with helping to increase enrollment.

    Republican advisers generally recommend that their candidates promote “a market-based system that has the consumer much more engaged,” said Lewis, citing short-term insurance plans as an example. “In the minds of Republicans, there is a pool of people that this would benefit. It may not be beneficial for everyone, but attractive to some.”

    Biden and his allies have criticized short-term insurance plans — which Trump made more widely available — as “junk insurance” that doesn’t cover care for serious conditions or illnesses.

    Entitlements Are Off-Limits

    Both Medicaid and Medicare, the government health insurance programs that cover tens of millions of low-income, disabled, and older people, remain broadly popular with voters, said the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. That makes it unlikely either party would pursue a platform that includes outright cuts to entitlements. But accusing an opponent of wanting to slash Medicare is a common, and often effective, campaign move.

    Although Trump has said he wouldn’t cut Medicare spending, Democrats will likely seek to associate him with other Republicans who support constraining the program’s costs. Polls show that most voters oppose reducing any Medicare benefits, including by raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65. However, raising taxes on people making more than $400,000 a year to shore up Medicare’s finances is one idea that won strong backing in a recent poll by The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

    Brian Blase, a former Trump health adviser and the president of Paragon Health Institute, said Republicans, if they win more control of the federal government, should seek to lower spending on Medicare Advantage — through which commercial insurers provide benefits — to build on the program’s efficiencies and ensure it costs taxpayers less than the traditional program.

    So far, though, Republicans, including Trump, have expressed little interest in such a plan. Some of them are clear-eyed about the perils of running on changing Medicare, which cost $829 billion in 2021 and is projected to consume nearly 18% of the federal budget by 2032.

    “It’s difficult to have a frank conversation with voters about the future of the Medicare program,” said Lewis, the GOP pollster. “More often than not, it backfires. That conversation will have to happen right after a major election.”

    Addiction Crisis

    Many Americans have been touched by the growing opioid epidemic, which killed more than 112,000 people in the United States in 2023 — more than gun deaths and road fatalities combined. Rural residents and white adults are among the hardest hit.

    Federal health officials have cited drug overdose deaths as a primary cause of the recent drop in U.S. life expectancy.

    Republicans cast addiction as largely a criminal matter, associating it closely with the migration crisis at the U.S. southern border that they blame on Biden. Democrats have sought more funding for treatment and prevention of substance use disorders.

    “This affects the family, the neighborhood,” said Blendon, the public opinion researcher.

    Billions of dollars have begun to flow to states and local governments from legal settlements with opioid manufacturers and retailers, raising questions about how to best spend that money. But it isn’t clear that the crisis, outside the context of immigration, will emerge as a campaign issue.

    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.

    Share This Post

  • Solitary Fitness – by Charles Bronson

    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.

    Sometimes it can seem that every new diet and/or exercise regime you want to try will change your life, if just you first max out your credit card on restocking your kitchen and refurbishing your home gym, not to mention buying all the best supplements, enjoying the latest medical gadgets, and so on and so forth.

    And often… Most of those things genuinely are good! And it’s great that such things are becoming more accessible and available.

    But… Wouldn’t it be nice to know how to have excellent strength and fitness without any of that, even if just as a “bare bones” protocol to fall back on? That’s what Manson provides in this book.

    The writing style is casual and friendly; Manson is not exactly an academic, but he knows his stuff when it comes to what works. And a good general rule of thumb is: if it’s something that he can do in his jail cell, we can surely do it in the comfort of our homes.

    Bottom line: if you want functional strength and fitness with zero gimmicks, this is the book for you (as an aside, it’s also simply an interesting and recommendable read, sociologically speaking, but that’s another matter entirely).

    Click here to check out Solitary Fitness, and get good functional strength and fitness with nothing fancy!

    Share This Post

  • Stick with It – by Dr. Sean Young

    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.

    Most of us know the theory when it comes to building new habits and/or replacing old ones, and maybe we even implement those ideas. So why is our success rate still not as high as we think it should be?

    Dr. Sean Young is here to do science to it!

    This book comes with advice and explanations that rely a lot less on “that sounds reasonable” and a lot more on “in this recent high-quality study, researchers found…”

    And, at 10almonds, we love that. We’re all for trying new things that sound reasonable in general… but we definitely prefer when there’s a stack of solid science to point to, and that’s the kind of thing we recommend!

    Dr. Young is big on using that science to find ways to trick our brains and get them working the way we want.

    Each chapter has lots of science, lots of explanations, and lots of actionable step-by-step advice.

    Bottom line: if you’re all over “Atomic Habits”, this one’s the science-based heavy-artillery for your practical neurohacking.

    Click here to check out “Stick With It” on Amazon today, and start enjoying the much easier (and more lasting) rewards!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Strategic Wellness
  • We looked at over 166,000 psychiatric records. Over half showed people were admitted against their will

    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.

    Picture two people, both suffering from a serious mental illness requiring hospital admission. One was born in Australia, the other in Asia.

    Hopefully, both could be treated on a voluntary basis, taking into account their individual needs, preferences and capacity to consent. If not, you might imagine they should be equally likely to receive treatment against their will (known colloquially as being “sectioned” or “scheduled”).

    However, our research published in British Journal of Psychiatry Open suggests this is not the case.

    In the largest study globally of its kind, we found Australians are more likely to be treated in hospital for their acute mental illness against their will if they are born overseas, speak a language other than English or are unemployed.

    What we did and what we found

    We examined more than 166,000 episodes of voluntary and involuntary psychiatric care in New South Wales public hospitals between 2016 and 2021. Most admissions (54%) included at least one day of involuntary care.

    Being brought to hospital via legal means, such as by police or via a court order, was strongly linked to involuntary treatment.

    While our study does not show why this is the case, it may be due to mental health laws. In NSW, which has similar laws to most jurisdictions in Australia, doctors may treat a person on an involuntary basis if they present with certain symptoms indicating serious mental illness (such as hallucinations and delusions) which cause them to require protection from serious harm, and there is no other less-restrictive care available. Someone who has been brought to hospital by police or the courts may be more likely to meet the legal requirement of requiring protection from serious harm.

    The likelihood of involuntary care was also linked to someone’s diagnosis. A person with psychosis or organic brain diseases, such as dementia and delirium, were about four times as likely to be admitted involuntarily compared to someone with anxiety or adjustment disorders (conditions involving a severe reaction to stressors).

    However, our data suggest non-clinical factors contribute to the decision to impose involuntary care.

    Compared with people born in Australia, we found people born in Asia were 42% more likely to be treated involuntarily.

    People born in Africa or the Middle East were 32% more likely to be treated this way.

    Overall, people who spoke a language other than English were 11% more likely to receive involuntary treatment compared to those who spoke English as their first language.

    Some international researchers have suggested higher rates of involuntary treatment seen in people born overseas might be due to higher rates of psychotic illness. But our research found a link between higher rates of involuntary care in people born overseas or who don’t speak English regardless of their diagnosis.

    We don’t know why this is happening. It is likely to reflect a complex interplay of factors about both the people receiving treatment and the way services are provided to them.

    People less likely to be treated involuntarily included those who hold private health insurance, and those referred through a community health centre or outpatients unit.

    Our findings are in line with international studies. These show higher rates of involuntary treatment among people from Black and ethnic minority groups, and people living in areas of higher socioeconomic disadvantage.

    A last resort? Or should we ban it?

    Both the NSW and Australian mental health commissions have called involuntary psychiatric care an avoidable harm that should only be used as a last resort.

    Despite this, one study found Australia’s rate of involuntary admissions has increased by 3.4% per year and it has one of the highest rates of involuntary admissions in the world.

    Involuntary psychiatric treatment is also under increasing scrutiny globally.

    When Australia signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it added a declaration noting it would allow for involuntary treatment of people with mental illness where such treatments are “necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards”.

    However, the UN has rejected this, saying it is a fundamental human right “to be free from involuntary detention in a mental health facility and not to be forced to undergo mental health treatment”.

    Others question if involuntary treatment could ever be removed entirely.

    Where to from here?

    Our research not only highlights concerns regarding how involuntary psychiatric treatment is implemented, it’s a first step towards decreasing its use. Without understanding how and when it is used it will be difficult to create effective interventions to reduce it.

    But Australia is still a long way from significantly reducing involuntary treatment.

    We need to provide more care options outside hospital, ones accessible to all Australians, including those born overseas, who don’t speak English, or who come from disadvantaged communities. This includes intervening early enough that people are supported to not become so unwell they end up being referred for treatment via police or the criminal justice system.

    More broadly, we need to do more to reduce stigma surrounding mental illness and to ensure poverty and discrimination are tackled to help prevent more people becoming unwell in the first place.

    Our study also shows we need to do more to respect the autonomy of someone with serious mental illness to choose if they are treated. That’s whether they are in NSW or other jurisdictions.

    And legal reform is required to ensure more states and territories more fully reflect the principal that people who have the capacity to make such decisions should have the right to decline mental health treatment in the same way they would any other health care.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

    Amy Corderoy, Medical doctor and PhD candidate studying involuntary psychiatric treatment, School of Psychiatry, UNSW 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:

  • Stop Cancer 20 Years Ago

    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.

    Get Abreast And Keep Abreast

    This is Dr. Jenn Simmons. Her specialization is integrative oncology, as she—then a breast cancer surgeon—got breast cancer, decided the system wasn’t nearly as good from the patients’ side of things as from the doctors’ side, and took to educate herself, and now others, on how things can be better.

    What does she want us to know?

    Start now

    If you have breast cancer, the best time to start adjusting your lifestyle might be 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. We realize our readers with breast cancer (or a history thereof) probably have indeed started already—all strength to you.

    What this means for those of us without breast cancer (or a history therof) is: start now

    Even if you don’t have a genetic risk factor, even if there’s no history of it in your family, there’s just no reason not to start now.

    Start what, you ask? Taking away its roots. And how?

    Inflammation as the root of cancer

    To oversimplify: cancer occurs because an accidentally immortal cell replicates and replicates and replicates and takes any nearby resources to keep on going. While science doesn’t know all the details of how this happens, it is a factor of genetic mutation (itself a normal process, without which evolution would be impossible), something which in turn is accelerated by damage to the DNA. The damage to the DNA? That occurs (often as not) as a result of cellular oxidation. Cellular oxidation is far from the only genotoxic thing out there, and a lot of non-food “this thing causes cancer” warnings are usually about other kinds of genotoxicity. But cellular oxidation is a big one, and it’s one that we can fight vigorously with our lifestyle.

    Because cellular oxidation and inflammation go hand-in-hand, reducing one tends to reduce the other. That’s why so often you’ll see in our Research Review Monday features, a line that goes something like:

    “and now for those things that usually come together: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and anti-aging”

    So, fight inflammation now, and have a reduced risk of a lot of other woes later.

    See: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    Don’t settle for “normal”

    People are told, correctly but not always helpfully, such things as:

    • It’s normal to have less energy at your age
    • It’s normal to have a weaker immune system at your age
    • It’s normal to be at a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc

    …and many more. And these things are true! But that doesn’t mean we have to settle for them.

    We can be all the way over on the healthy end of the distribution curve. We can do that!

    (so can everyone else, given sufficient opportunity and resources, because health is not a zero-sum game)

    If we’re going to get a cancer diagnosis, then our 60s are the decade where we’re most likely to get it. Earlier than that and the risk is extant but lower; later than that and technically the risk increases, but we probably got it already in our 60s.

    So, if we be younger than 60, then now’s a good time to prepare to hit the ground running when we get there. And if we missed that chance, then again, the second-best time is now:

    See: Focusing On Health In Our Sixties

    Fast to live

    Of course, anything can happen to anyone at any age (alas), but this is about the benefits of living a fasting lifestyle—that is to say, not just fasting for a 4-week health kick or something, but making it one’s “new normal” and just continuing it for life.

    This doesn’t mean “never eat”, of course, but it does mean “practice intermittent fasting, if you can”—something that Dr. Simmons strongly advocates.

    See: Intermittent Fasting: We Sort The Science From The Hype

    While this calls back to the previous “fight inflammation”, it deserves its own mention here as a very specific way of fighting it.

    It’s never too late

    All of the advices that go before a cancer diagnosis, continue to stand afterwards too. There is no point of “well, I already have cancer, so what’s the harm in…?”

    The harm in it after a diagnosis will be the same as the harm before. When it comes to lifestyle, preventing a cancer and preventing it from spreading are very much the same thing, which is also the same as shrinking it. Basically, if it’s anticancer, it’s anticancer, no matter whether it’s before, during, or after.

    Dr. Simmons has seen too many patients get a diagnosis, and place their lives squarely in the hands of doctors, when doctors can only do so much.

    Instead, Dr. Simmons recommends taking charge of your health as best you are able, today and onwards, no matter what. And that means two things:

    1. Knowing stuff
    2. Doing stuff

    So it becomes our responsibility (and our lifeline) to educate ourselves, and take action accordingly.

    Want to know more?

    We recently reviewed her book, and heartily recommend it:

    The Smart Woman’s Guide to Breast Cancer – by Dr. Jenn Simmons

    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:

  • Pistachios vs Peanuts – 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 pistachios to peanuts, we picked the peanuts.

    Why?

    The choice might be surprising; after all, peanuts are usually the cheapest and most readily available nuts, popularly associated with calories and not much else. However! This one was super-close, and peanuts won very marginally, as you’ll see.

    In terms of macros, pistachios have slightly more fiber and nearly 2x the carbs, while peanuts have slightly more protein and fats. What we all as individuals might prioritize more there is subjective, but this could arguably be considered a tie. About the fiber and carbs: peanuts have the lower glycemic index, but not by much. And about those fats: yes, they are healthy, and the fat breakdown for each is almost identical: pistachios have 53% monounsaturated, 33% polyunsaturated, and 14% saturated, while peanuts have 53% monounsaturated, 34% polyunsaturated, and 14% saturated. Yes, that adds up to 101% in the case of peanuts, but that’s what happens with rounding things to integers. However, the point is clear: both of these nuts have almost identical fats.

    In the category of vitamins, pistachios have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, and C, while peanuts have more of vitamins B3, B5, B9, E, and choline, So, a 5:5 tie on vitamins.

    When it comes to minerals, pistachios have more calcium, copper, phosphorus, and potassium, while peanuts have more iron, magnesium, manganese, selenium, and zinc. So, a marginal victory for peanuts (and yes, the margins of difference were similar in each case).

    Adding up the tie, the other tie, and the marginal victory for peanuts, means a marginal victory for peanuts in total.

    A quick note in closing though: this was comparing raw unsalted nuts in both cases, so do take that into account when buying nuts, and at the very least, skip the salted, unless you are deficient in sodium. Or if you’re using them for cooking, then buying salted nuts because they’re usually cheaper is fine; just soak and rinse them to remove the salt.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts

    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: