You May Also Like

See what happened when this school replaced detention with meditation

Why Gwyneth Paltrow’s on board with the #nomakeup movement

This could be sabotaging your metabolism without you knowing it

My wellness hangover: How “empowering” memes bummed me out

The beauty queen Donald Trump used as a “fat” punchline is not backing down

I met with a medium to find inner peace—here’s what happened

Good news: Study says almonds have less calories than we thought


By Briana Rognlin for Blisstree.com

Almonds are a perennial favorite on healthy snack lists, but when you’re watching portion size carefully, a single serving can be depressingly small. And although we could munch the damn things all day long, most of us fear that we’re doing ourselves harm with the calorie- and fat-dense food.

But a new study says we can be at least a little less concerned; apparently, almonds have less calories than we thought.

The study authors set out to determine whether the traditional measure of calories–called “Atwater factors”–might be inaccurate for certain food groups. To do so, they measured the “metabolizable energy content” of almonds by analyzing fecal matter, urine, and blood samples of study subjects who ate consistent, specifically set amounts of almonds.

Their findings show that 30 almonds contain 165 calories, where Atwater factors said that only 23 almonds contain 165 calories.

Keep reading…

More reading from Blisstree.com:

Derek Flanzraich got six-pack abs in six weeks (and it sucked)
It’s ok to admire Olympic athletes, just don’t aspire to look like them