Consumers of nuts: lower body weight and lower prevalence of health risks

[Korn]

From Consumers Of Tree Nuts Likely To Have Lower Body Weight And Lower Prevalence Of Health Risks (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/244079.php) (excerpt):



In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition[i], researchers compared risk factors for heart disease (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/237191.php), type 2 diabetes (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/diabetes/) and metabolic syndrome of nut consumers versus those who did not consume nuts. Tree nut (almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios and walnuts) consumption specifically, was associated with higher levels of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (good cholesterol (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9152.php)) and lower levels of C-reactive protein, a marker for inflammation which can lead to a variety of chronic diseases including heart disease.

"One of the more interesting findings was the fact that tree nut consumers had lower body weight (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160316.php), as well as lower body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference compared to nonconsumers. The mean weight, BMI, and waist circumference were 4.19 pounds, 0.9kg/m2 and 0.83 inches lower in consumers than non-consumers, respectively," stated Carol O'Neil, PhD, MPH, RD, lead author on the paper and Professor at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.

The study looked at 13,292 men and women (19+ years) participating in the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Intake was from 24-hour recall data and tree nut consumers were defined as those who consumed ≥ ¼ ounce/day.

[soilman]

That doesn't seem particularly impressive to me. The nutters were an average of 4.2 pounds lighter? With a difference that small, it seems that almost undoubtedly, there were quite a few nutters who were actually heavier than many of the non-nutters. The nutter waists were, on average, less than an inch lower in circumferance than the non-nuttters. Not an awful lot thinner. It is all meaningless anyway, unless nut consumption was the only difference, and everything else about their diet was exactly the same.

That said, I love many kinds of tree nuts, especially black walnuts, they are so fragrant, and blanched almonds, and roasted (and unsalted) pistachios. Actually a little salt is good, but they always use too much. So I buy the unsalted, and put my own salt on them.

[Korn]

I take all such studies with a grain of salt, both because they sometimes are vague (or say nothing) about other differences between the compared groups, and because even if one can prove that people who consume X are healthier than people who don't, the actual reason isn't necessarily that the consume X. Plus: mass media and researchers tend to tweak the interpretation of studies to fit their own viewpoints anyway.

Some studies eg. claim that it's healthy to eat fish - based on studies comparing fish eaters (who don't eat red meat) with people who eat red meat. Maybe fish isn't particularly healthy at all, but that they are doing well in such studies because they don't eat red meat, and that they would have been doing ever better if they didn't eat fish either.

The most interesting thing for me re. that study above is that it's an interesting comment to people who avoid buts because they assume that eating nuts will make you fat.