Nut Consumption

[Kasper]

During 3,038,853 person-years of follow-up, 16,200 women and 11,229 men died. Nut consumption was inversely associated with total mortality among both women and men, after adjustment for other known or suspected risk factors. The pooled multivariate hazard ratios for death among participants who ate nuts, as compared with those who did not, were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96) for the consumption of nuts less than once per week, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93) for once per week, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90) for two to four times per week, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) for five or six times per week, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.86) for seven or more times per week (P<0.001 for trend). Significant inverse associations were also observed between nut consumption and deaths due to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352

According to ray peat nuts are toxic, but the pufa content of nuts doesn't seem to cause them to be toxic. Is Ray Peat wrong here ? Or can somebody explain my why I can't conclude from this study that it is healthy to add nuts to my diet ?

 

[j.]

That's just idiotic, really, asking someone to debunk that piece of non-evidence.

 

[j.]

In case we have some really slow person here, there are many variables. The difference could be completely random. The difference could be because people who eat nuts tend to be more health conscious and avoid other hazards. It could be that sick people can't digest nuts as well, so healthy people tend to eat them more.

You will never learn or deduce anything useful with that methodology. Learn some physiology, chemistry, the components of nuts and their effects on different systems of the body.

 

[Mittir]

Without reading the article, i can say that a right comparison would be between
two groups getting exact same amount of vitamins and minerals, one from nuts
and other from non-nuts. Toxic part of nuts are the PUFA and natural defensive chemicals
found in seeds .Processing can minimize some of these chemicals, sprouting is widely used.
Nuts are rich source of protein, vitamin E, magnesium and there are other vitamins and minerals.
This is not a good evidence supporting PUFA. Nuts and seeds are also high in phosphorus.
An ounce nut does not have a huge amount of PUFA. One oz of almond has about
3.5 grams PUFA,6 grams protein, 80 mg magnesium, 36% RDA of vitamin E,
35% RDA of manganese. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut ... cts/3087/2
These is a difference between hard science and soft science. Debunking does not work
in soft science.

 

[Kasper]

@j. Are you irritated or something ? I don't really liked to be called 'idiotic' or a ' really slow person'. Can we switch to the more sophisticated, open-minded discussion ?

[tab=30]You will never learn or deduce anything useful with that methodology.

Really ? So, all those scientist that study the effects of different sort of diets are just stupid, and you are smart. Maybe I shouldn't have said "debunk this study", maybe I should have said, "what are you guys thoughts about this study". But anyway, of course we can learn from studies like these, there is a strong correlation between nut consumption and many aspects of health (mortality, heart disease and many more). This is not something completely random.

Of course, we can't be sure that if those people that eat no nuts at all, would have lived longer if they did eat nuts. But, they did look at other variables:

"In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death."

[tab=30]Learn some physiology, chemistry, the components of nuts and their effects on different systems of the body.

I don't know where you learned about the scientific method, but how I've learned, it's completely the opposite. By learning the theoratical aspects of nuts, you can try to make a model, a hypothesis about what the effects of nuts would be on health, but you can't deduce/prove anything in this way, science is not like mathematics :p You need to test the model, and see how good it represents reality. I totally agree with Mittir that you could test the hypothesis that nuts would be good for your health in a better way, but still... there must be explanation for this fact that people that include nuts in their diet live longer, and I haven't heard any.

Besides that, the group with the lowest mortality where eating: once a day, two or three times a day, four to six times a day, or more than six times a day, 28 gram of nuts.
That is up to 28-168 gram of nuts or even more.
If we consider allmonds (which average amount of PUFAS for nuts) then this is 3.5-21 gram of PUFAS. If you consider cashews then this is half of that, if you take wallnuts then you have 4 times as much PUFAS.

[tab=30]It could be that sick people can't digest nuts as well, so healthy people tend to eat them more.

Let's assume that if you can't digest nuts, then you eat no nuts, and if you can digest nuts, then you eat 1 or more portion a week. Then still, if you only look at people that can digest nuts, the more portions they eat a week, the longer they live.

 

[j.]

@j. Are you irritated or something ?

It's one of my better days.

I don't really liked to be called 'idiotic' or a ' really slow person'. Can we switch to the more sophisticated, open-minded discussion?

Yeah, I know, teachers today care so much about students' self-esteem that their mistakes, stupidity, or harmful habits are never corrected.

 

[Suikerbuik]

As compared with participants who consumed nuts less frequently, those who consumed nuts more frequently were leaner, less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, and more likely to use multivitamin supplements; they also consumed more fruits and vegetables and drank more alcohol/

These are important findings.

In addition, nutrients in nuts, such as unsaturated fatty acids, high-quality protein, fiber, vitamins (e.g., folate, niacin, and vitamin E), minerals (e.g., potassium, calcium, and magnesium), and phytochemicals (e.g., carotenoids, flavonoids, and phytosterols), may confer cardioprotective, anticarcinogenic, antiinflammatory, and antioxidant properties.1,2 Indeed, clinical trials have shown that nut consumption has beneficial effects on some intermediate markers of chronic diseases, such as high cholesterol levels,3 oxidation,6,7 endothelial dysfunction,13 hyperglycemia,6,10 and insulin resistance.11,12 Moreover, recent findings from the PREDIMED trial have shown a protective effect of a Mediterranean diet against cardiovascular disease, and one component of the diet was the availability of an average of 30 g of nuts per day.5

- Nuts in my opinion are not comparable to sunflower oil or any other vegetable oil. Nuts are difficult to digest for most people so some PUFA is lost in the stool.
- The references you see on endothelial disfunction and other ailments is mainly on diabetics and other people with disease, not really reliable..
- Nuts have definitely some good components in them that can mask the negatives
- Too little is known about the people who enrolled.
- Most nuts are quite allergenic

So all in all nuts are better than a chips fried in sunflower oil for example and in diabetics it lead to better lipid profile and endothelial function, but if these (sometimes radiated) nuts are healthy? They're not super bad that's something that I can conclude. Anyhow no doubt you better get your minerals and other stuff from something else if possible.

the mediteranean diet:
There were small between-group differences in some baseline characteristics in our trial, which were not clinically meaningful but were statistically significan

Second, we had losses to follow-up, predominantly in the control group, but the participants who dropped out had a worse cardiovascular risk profile at baseline than those who remained in the study, suggesting a bias toward a benefit in the control group. Third, the generalizability of our findings is limited because all the study participants lived in a Mediterranean country and were at high cardiovascular risk; whether the results can be generalized to persons at lower risk or to other settings requires further research.

Not convinced about this either... So far we better conclude things from the perpective of biology instead of these immensly complicated studies, with seemingly statiscally irrelevant but made relevant data (by the authors). By the way see fig, 2 on mortality, are nuts really better?? (I doubt..) Oh and about olive oil no complainments, but that's part of Peat too!

I would like to see some studies comparing Peat-only and Peat+nuts, would be interesting.

 

[j.]

What this study makes me wonder is why we ended up with this system where people are paid to use their time and energy to make worthless statistical manipulations which don't represent reality and have so little use, if any.

 

[juanitacarlos]

This study is nut very good.

They seem to be reaching to find any positive health outcome of nut consumption. Also:

"The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with additional support from The International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research & Education Foundation (INC NREF)"

I wouldn't dismiss this study outright because it is partially funded by the Nut Lobby, but it's just not convincing anyway. Seems like they've done their best to exclude anyone who might go against the outcome they are seeking.

I walnut be adding nuts to my diet based on this study.

Cashew later!

 

[Kasper]

Yeah, I know, teachers today care so much about students' self-esteem that their mistakes, stupidity, or harmful habits are never corrected.

... Are you my teacher ? No. Are you some all knowing god that can make bold statements without any justification ? No. Are you adding anything interesting to this discussion? No.

Please. If you want to troll, find some other topic (or forum)... Or wait. You could also take part of a discussion. This doesn't mean writing down bold isolated statements, such as:

1. You will never learn or deduce anything useful with those kind of studies.
2. This study is worthless statistical manipulation.

This means justifying the statements you make. So you write down a statement, and after that, you write down why you think that is true. For example,

"This study is worthless statistical manipulation. How do I know that ? Well I believe in everything Ray peat says, and Ray Peat says the exact opposite, besides that I feel great without any nuts, so... ppffff... eating nuts is bad for you !"

And then we can have a discussion. But seriously, so this study is worthless, but what about some study of rats that produce mead acid ... that is usefull... why ? because it supports ray peats theories? .. No, they are both usefull and interesting, but we need to be carefull in what we conclude from it.

As compared with participants who consumed nuts less frequently, those who consumed nuts more frequently were leaner, less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, and more likely to use multivitamin supplements; they also consumed more fruits and vegetables and drank more alcohol

They did compensate for those positive factors ... and still eating nuts caused people to live longer.

Maybe it is like sugar. Sugar water alone raises endotoxins, but together with orange juice it lowers endotoxins. Maybe someting similar is true for PUFAs, processed and alone, they cause all kind of ***t, but together with vitamin E and other anti oxidants in nuts they just don't cause so much problems.

Besides that, from my own experience, the higher my diet is in orange juice or sugar, the better I feel with less PUFAs. I feel like my body can't absorb sugar when my diet is high in PUFAs. So I avoid nuts and other stuff rich in PUFA and I will continue to do this.

 

[Kasper]

Seems like they've done their best to exclude anyone who might go against the outcome they are seeking.

Why do you think that ? Already since 1999 they are doing research about this:

Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):500S-503S.
"Perhaps one of the most unexpected and novel findings in nutritional epidemiology in the past 5 y has been that nut consumption seems to protect against ischemic heart disease (IHD). Frequency and quantity of nut consumption have been documented to be higher in vegetarian than in nonvegetarian populations. Nuts also constitute an important part of other plant-based diets, such as Mediterranean and Asian diets. In a large, prospective epidemiologic study of Seventh-day Adventists in California, we found that frequency of nut consumption had a substantial and highly significant inverse association with risk of myocardial infarction and death from IHD. The Iowa Women's Health Study also documented an association between nut consumption and decreased risk of IHD. The protective effect of nuts on IHD has been found in men and women and in the elderly. Importantly, nuts have similar associations in both vegetarians and nonvegetarians. The protective effect of nut consumption on IHD is not offset by increased mortality from other causes. Moreover, frequency of nut consumption has been found to be inversely related to all-cause mortality in several population groups such as whites, blacks, and the elderly. Thus, nut consumption may not only offer protection against IHD, but also increase longevity."

It is not like this is one study, and this is coming out of the blue.

 

[juanitacarlos]

You keep offering epidemiological studies. I'm pretty sure they can be manipulated to support whatever hair-brained idea the establishment has. It's fish oil; it's broccoli; it's nuts; it's goji berries blah blah. I think most of us were drawn to Peat because his work is based on how the human body actually works, not some guess based on what people reported they ate last year.

From the original study you posted:

Given the observational nature of our study, it is not possible to conclude that the observed inverse association between nut consumption and mortality reflects cause and effect.

Says it all really.

 

[Suikerbuik]

I stop answering on these questions, ttramone said it all! Just accept the fact that there will always be studies saying otherwise, if you learn biology it will get clear.

Sorry for the wrong figure yesterday. See fig. 1 of the mediteranean diet http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303 (see mortality, second chart - almost no difference between nut eating group and control)

Oh And if you're worried about ischemic heart problems, look for thyroid hormone, much more potent than some nuts I think!
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/4/385.full
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jtr/2013/312104/

 

[Kasper]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303
that one is interesting suikerbuik

I'm not worried about ischemic heart problems, I just don't ignore studies that say something different then Ray Peat says. I've said all the times that study doesn't prove a cause effect relationship. But that doesn't mean you can just ignore it. It is still a fact that people that eat nuts live longer, than people that don't eat nuts.

I think most of us were drawn to Peat because his work is based on how the human body actually works, not some guess based on what people reported they ate last year.

Really ? I guess that if you were drawn to Peat and you felt like ***t trying his ideas, at some point you would conclude, this guy must be wrong about something.

Some people do feel ***t with peats ideas, and feel great with brocolli, nuts and goji berries. Then they begin to study the articles of for example mercola, and after a while they begin to feel like they really know things and say things like: Hey, just read the stuff of mercola. he will explain it all to you. If you read all that stuff of mercola, you will understand why Ray Peat is completely wrong, and mercola is completely right.

And then some people feel ***t with peats ideas and mercola ideas. And then after a while they find the gaps diet, and then they feel great on that. And then they begin to read the theory of the gaps diet. And after a while they feel like they know everything, and say things like: Hey just read those articles of Natasha Campbell, she will explain it all to you. She will explain why mercola and Ray Peat are completely wrong, and she is completely right.

Etc. Etc. But you know what. You guys are not offering me anything else, then 1) you are stupid, 2) just read ray peat articles and it will get clear, 3) just ignore studies that aren't in line with peats ideas. Thanks for the help ! I'm done with this. Maybe one time I will try to read all those stuff of all those health experts, and see if I can really conclude that Ray Peat is right and the rest is all wrong.

But in the mean time, I just will eat the things I feel great with. And for the record. I think I said it already, I don't eat nuts, and I'm not going to eat more nuts now. That is just just because the higher my diet is in orange juice or sugar, the better I feel with less PUFAs. I feel like my body can't absorb sugar when my diet is high in PUFAs. So I avoid nuts and other stuff rich in PUFA and I will continue to do this.

 

[juanitacarlos]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303
that one is interesting suikerbuik

I'm not worried about ischemic heart problems, I just don't ignore studies that say something different then Ray Peat says. I've said all the times that study doesn't prove a cause effect relationship. But that doesn't mean you can just ignore it. It is still a fact that people that eat nuts live longer, than people that don't eat nuts.

What you say makes no sense. You say the study doesn't prove a cause-effect relationship, but it is a FACT that people who eat nuts live longer. So which one is it? You have come to the wrong place if you think the people on this forum are going to blindly believe the results of an epidemiological study on nut consumption, sponsored by the nut lobby. This study proves nothing, in my opinion. If you think differently, good for you. Just don't be upset if you are challenged on it.

I think most of us were drawn to Peat because his work is based on how the human body actually works, not some guess based on what people reported they ate last year.

Really ? I guess that if you were drawn to Peat and you felt like s*** trying his ideas, at some point you would conclude, this guy must be wrong about something.

Of course - who wouldn't? But hey, doing Peat stuff get results. And his science is sound. Unlike the stuff you have presented.

Etc. Etc. But you know what. You guys are not offering me anything else, then 1) you are stupid, 2) just read ray peat articles and it will get clear, 3) just ignore studies that aren't in line with peats ideas. Thanks for the help ! I'm done with this. Maybe one time I will try to read all those stuff of all those health experts, and see if I can really conclude that Ray Peat is right and the rest is all wrong.

This forum is full of amazing people who offer the most amazing support. But nobody is here to do the work for you. You've just posted some sh*t and demanded that everyone do your research for you because you are too busy. That's probably why you haven't received the group hug you want. The study you presented was not ignored - a few us took the time and effort to read it and respond to you. You just didn't like the responses.

But in the mean time, I just will eat the things I feel great with. And for the record. I think I said it already, I don't eat nuts, and I'm not going to eat more nuts now. That is just just because the higher my diet is in orange juice or sugar, the better I feel with less PUFAs. I feel like my body can't absorb sugar when my diet is high in PUFAs. So I avoid nuts and other stuff rich in PUFA and I will continue to do this.

Let me assure you - nobody cares about the nuts. Eat as many nuts as you want. The problem is that your "evidence" that people who eat nuts live longer is not convincing at all, and you will have to provide something a little more concrete to convince most people otherwise.

I don't know what your age is or your background is, but most people here have been royally f*cked by the medical industry and mainstream science advice, so we're a cynical, yet lovable and adorable bunch. I hope you stay on the forum - there is a wealth of information here - feel free to read it. But I think your approach needs massaging a little. We're not here to convince you to do "Peat", or to validate his work. We all have access to the internet and know of the studies showing how great fish oil is, nuts are our saviour, sugar is the devil, canola oil is heart healthy etc etc etc etc. We just ask for more proof now. And I think Peat provides that. So if you think Peat's on the right track, and what he offers works for you, then dive in. Otherwise head over to Mercola like you said.

 

[Kasper]

Maybe my tone is wrong. I'm a little bit in a hurry, I'm a little bit stressed of things I need to do.
So sorry for that. A year ago, I promised to myself, to stop discussing health with people, because discussing health is one of the worst things for my health, by far. Now, I couldn't resist it, so if someone can delete those 2 topics, I would not complain.

What you say makes no sense. You say the study doesn't prove a cause-effect relationship, but it is a FACT that people who eat nuts live longer. So which one is it? You have come to the wrong place if you think the people on this forum are going to blindly believe the results of an epidemiological study on nut consumption, sponsored by the nut lobby. This study proves nothing, in my opinion. If you think differently, good for you. Just don't be upset if you are challenged on it.

There is a correlation between eating nuts and lower mortality. That is just fact. It's not only show in this study, but already from the 1999 they did find a correlation between nut consumption and lower mortality. That doesn't mean that people have lower mortality because of the nuts. It could be something else. It could be that people that eat nuts also eat more salt, I'm just saying something random. It could be that they do other healthy things. They did compensate for that nut eaters smoke less and other stuff like that, but maybe they didn't compensate for some other crucial factor, like a general mediterean diet kind of things as suikerbuik suggested. (they did compensate for fruit/vegetable consumption etc. in that study)

I just don't want to throw away the option, that maybe nut consumption isn't that bad, as there is only some speculation of Ray Peat side, that because of the PUFA content, they are toxic. But there is no evidence that eating nuts will do anything bad for your health. Maybe nuts do compensate with other ingredients they have, and maybe overall they are positive for health.

[tab=30]And his science is sound. Unlike the stuff you have presented.

Come on, much of ray peat stuff, is speculation and guessing. One of the thing I've studied really well, is his mead acid theory, and that really isn't that sound. Still very interesting, but it is not like those mead acid studies are so much better done then this nut consumption study. This study is at least done with humans, and not with rats.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Well if you like nuts indeed eat them! To be honest, when I sometimes (lately not much) feel like I want to eat nuts I just eat them.. The stress is way more detrimental. In eggs is PUFA too, PUFA is dose dependant and besides that digesting nuts isn´t so easy, part of the fat will certainly be lost in the stool, even in people with good digestion. Remember that Peat is not 0,000000 PUFA just have to be balanced with (mono-un)saturated fat.

Anyway I am not convinced on longlivety. See the chart again, do they really live longer? It's the whole picture, life, place in social community, etc.

Perhaps I am not 100% Peater then.. Broccoli is fine if you ask me and I do eat it occasionally, like other vegetables but just not much.. Not 9-20 servings some mercola or any other advices!! Just eat what you want.. Food is just part of the whole, though PUFA is certainly something not to be consumed to much.

Peat's articles are by far not the only thing I have read. Peat's work on immune system and microbiota misses some points for sure. I think the reason why people don't do good on Peat is gut flora/ disbiosis or state of chronic disease. Not sure a Peat inspired diet resolves all chronic disease states.. no.. unfortunately not, but it helps you understand biology. But for this reason people leave Peat because they want to be cured. Anyway see mercola, when you understand biology, you will come back haha . As said before:

Peat in my opinion could be a bit to simplistic about microflora, well most likely not Peat himself (I think Peat knows it, but due to the complexity and many uknown things he doesn't say much about it) anyway then the simplicity some people here speak about microflora. Bacteria like us, want to thrive and they are seemingly everywhere, IMO Peating won't solve the problem so easy when there's disbiosis.

By the way Kasper you are Dutch? (your name sounds Dutch)

 

[j.]

Maybe my tone is wrong. I'm a little bit in a hurry

Exactly, you sound like an entitled idiot.

 

[Kasper]

Yes, I'm dutch.

@j. I promised to not react like troll like comments anymore. But it seems like you really have some problems. Assuming Danny Roddy is right about serotonin, then your behavior is something typical seen if you have too high serotonin levels. Quote from Danny Roddy:

[tab=30]I tend to associate the authoritarian personality with a ridgid, seemingly immovable [tab=30]viewpoint. For example, there is no room to maneuver around the 'official narrative' or [tab=30]see things for what they may be.

Do you know your serotonin levels ? Here Danny Roddy explains more about this:
http://www.dannyroddy.com/04-14/

In addition to depression, serotonin is also connected to traits of the authoritarian behavior. In 2011, it was found that low levels of serotonin were associated with "novelty-seeking" behavior while higher levels were associated behavioral inhibition and harm avoidance.[8] Additionally, serotonin is associated with aggression and anxiety,[9] while lower levels induce playfulness.[10]

I tend to associate the authoritarian personality with a ridgid, seemingly immovable viewpoint. For example, there is no room to maneuver around the 'official narrative' or see things for what they may be. If LSD does lower serotonin, I think it's of great interest that "acid therapy" was able to momentarily (or permanently) suspend a person's belief system.

If one was interested in maintaining an elastic viewpoint supporting a high metabolic rate may be the first line of defense. Hypothyroidism is associated with higher levels of serotonin,[11,12] which is kept in cells by the so-called "waste product," carbon dioxide. (Hypothyroidism is a common cause of insomnia, anxiety, depression, and a general disinterest in life.) Digestible food, satisfying cravings for sweet and salty, and surrounding yourself with others who are interested in the demystification of the universe may be just as important.

 

[charlie]

[img=center]http://breaktru.com/smf/Smileys/aaron/stirpot.gif[/img]