Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Nuts'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forums
    • CR Science & Theory
    • CR Practice
    • Chitchat
    • General Health and Longevity
    • CR Recipes
    • Members-Only Area
  • Community

Blogs

  • Paul McGlothin's Blog
  • News
  • Calorie Restriction News Update

Categories

  • Supporting Members Only
  • Recipes
  • Research

Product Groups

  • CR IX
  • CRSI Membership
  • Conference DVDs

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL

Found 13 results

  1. CarstenR

    Carsten's Current Diet

    Hey, I would be glad about all sorts of suggestions and questions about my diet. I do not have fixed times for meals. Most of the time I start eating around 10 in the morning and eat the last one at 10 in the evening.
  2. Dean Pomerleau

    Dean's Current Diet

    Someone asked me off-list what my current diet looks like, and I realized I haven't updated the on-line information about it in a long time, although I've alluded to it in scattered places on this forum. I figured I consolidate and expand on what I've shared, for others to criticize : These days I eat the following (by calories): ~30% vegetables ~15% starch, ~35% fruit, ~20% nuts/seeds by calories a few other miscellaneous things. Vegetables The vegetables are a huge variety, and prepared once per week into a big mix. Its a combination of 'chunky' vegetables (just about any veggie in the produce aisle), and greens - where the greens typical include a mix of Kale, collards, chard, spinach, and spring mix - mostly organic. I also eat about 80g of homegrown sprouts and microgreens per day, a mix of broccoli, fenugreek, radish, and arugula sprouts. Starches The starches are about 1/2 sweet potatoes, and the other half and even mix of lentils, black beans, chickpeas, wild & brown rice, quinoa, and barley, all cooked al dente. Fruit My fruit calories come from the following. Below the first two, which are the biggest calorie contributors, the others are probably similar in calorie contributions: Berries - Mix of strawberries, blueberries, wild blackberries, cranberries, sour cherries every day Bananas - I modulate these depending on my weight trajectory - I'm around 2-3 per day these days. Melon - Alternating between cantaloupe, honeydew, mango, papaya, pineapple Durian - I admit it, I'm addicted to durian... Orange - 1/2 an small orange per day, with a bit of the peal/pith Apples - One small-to-medium (crabapple-like) wild apple per day, picked in the fall from wild trees near my house Other Tree Fruit - Persimmons (one of my favorites), plums, peaches, nectarines, pears, pomegranate. Depending on the season. About 1/2 of one of these per day. Note - this does not include the non-standard fruits I eat, like avocado (1/2 per day), cucumber, zucchini, tomato (~100g / day), etc. Nuts / Seeds The nuts I eat include: Hazelnuts, Almonds and Walnuts, in equal parts. The seeds I eat are a mix of the following (in descending order of calories): Flax, chia, hemp, sunflower, pumpkin, sesame. Miscellaneous The miscellaneous category includes the following per day: 1/3 ear of corn - 'buttered' with avocado and 'salted' with curry powder, because its tasty. 12g of natto - for vitamin K2 and amyloid breaking. 1.5 tsp of fresh chopped mix of garlic, ginger, tumeric root & horseradish 2 tbsp of cider vinegar 2 tbsp of my ketchup - a homemade mix of cider vinegar, water, tomato paste, sriracha, hot mustard and psyllium as a thickener ~2 tbsp of wide mix of herbs and spices, heavy on the tumeric, but just about anything from the spice aisle you can think of, in a mixture I sprinkle into my "salad dressing" and on my starch mix. 1 Tbsp of fiber & resistant starch - Used as thickener for my salad dressing. Even mix of psyllium husks, plantain flour and potato starch. A small amount of sweetener in my salad dressing (see below) - erythritol & pure stevia. Other Notes: The dressing I make to put on my salad is taken from some of the items listed above, blended together until smooth in my Vitamix. It includes: About 150g of the salad greens - so I don't have to eat them all in leaf form :-) 60g of berry mix The 1/2 orange ~60g of cucumber 100g of tomato 2 tbsp of cider vinegar ~100ml of water 1 Tbsp fiber / resistant starch ~1 tbsp of spice mix A bit of sweetener - erythritol & pure stevia - to make it a little tastier. I eat the exact same thing every day - except for minor variations in fruits and veggies depending on seasonal availability The macronutrient ratio of my diet is about 70:15:15 C:P:F I eat one meal per day, from 6-7:30am. I also drink a lot of lemon water (distilled) before and after my meal from this stainless steel tumbler to avoid coffee/tea close to meal which impedes mineral absorption - ~40oz per day. I also drink a mix of cold & hot brewed, heavily filtered, coffee, black/green/rooibos/herb tea, & ground cacao - about 40-50oz per day. I haven't been counting calories - but it is probably shockingly high, given that I'm weight stable at a BMI of 17.3 (115lbs @ 5'8.5" tall) and my Fitbit tells me I'm exercising in one form or another for an average of about 8-9 hours per day, about 5 hours of that pedaling leisurely at my bike desk. That's it (I think). Criticize away! --Dean
  3. Zeta

    Nuts: which are best?

    Hi everyone, I've been meaning to make a couple posts about nuts for a long time now. I keep waiting until the archives are up so I can reference an older discussion about the virtues of various nuts, but I keep missing the archives' uptime. So I'll just fire away now. I think I'm going to break up the nut-related posts into three or so. The first, this one, is about which nuts (and I'm including two seeds, and a few other items) are "good" -- scare quotes because after a lot of digging around, I've concluded that all nuts, and most (maybe all?) seeds, have something good about them. (2nd post: how eat/prepare; 3rd: how/where buy.) (Another prefatory note: I'm on the very steep part of my learning curve, actually now coming off it a bit, with Microsoft Excel, and am almost tempted to start over with a new, more complete dump of data from CRON-O-Meter for the creation of the spreadsheet referenced below. We'll see. For now, I'll post what I have written, and upload the spreadsheet in its current incarnation. But it might be worth starting over, and, in particular, not rearranging the order of the nutrients from a CRON-O-Meter dump, so that adding new food items later would be easier. 2015-09-27. Edit: I am going to start over.) Background: after going off my lowish-fat diet via massive quantities of avocado and olive oil, I finally decided upping my nut intake instead might be a wiser way to get my dietary fat percentage to where I want it. (Though after the investigations outlined here I've upped my avocado intake again, but not olive oil.) I created a fake daily entry in CRON-O-Meter with 250 calorie portions of a bunch of nuts, and a couple seeds, that I rotate among, as well a few other fatty items, and then some vegetables, as well, for comparison. Then I downloaded the data and created an Excel spreadsheet. I also added data on a few items from the USDA database that CRON-O-Meter doesn't track (some individual fatty acids), and I made copies of a few columns (nutrients) and pasted them near the beginning (the left), to make it easy to survey the most important nutrients. I'm still learning Excel (I became such a sophisticated user of Word's Visual Basic I never felt I needed to learn Excel, but I see now how powerful it is!), but I was able to do some basic sorting, and I saw some helpful things. First, the file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-jAMGxHPyw7UmJYZGRYc3JqQVU/view?usp=sharing The CR Society also agreed to host a version of the same file that Google Docs converted to its own (Google) format: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VZTZe2mu40Z9UCsnMsn8MIFZfkp-Lsng3VRA97CQ40M/edit?usp=sharing Edit, 2015-10-05: All nut-related files, including an explanatory note about them, will be in this directory: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-jAMGxHPyw7NTc4RTdTUlY3aGs&usp=sharing Perhaps we could manipulate/add to that Google version. Otherwise, feel free to download the original Excel version (2015-10-26: which now is being updated periodically, so it's not really "original" anymore, though the CR Society will, for now, keep all older versions here) and play around with it. The basics in Microsoft Excel (2003 is the version I use): hit ctrl-A (or the Apple/Linux, etc. equivalent) twice, to select everything, then click Data, then Sort, select "Header Row", and then the column by which you want to sort. I did this for several nutrients, and created a couple ratios based on simple formulas (for example ω-6:3), marking bad numbers as red, good as blue (really good or bad, also bolded). There are some inconsistencies in the color-coding, apparent and real (laziness, desire to post this instead of waiting for perfection, etc.), especially relating to ω-3 and -6 values ("bad" ratio doesn't matter if absolute amount of ω-6 is low). I entered some zeros in blank areas (sometimes "0.001" to avoid divide-by-zero errors), and colored them brown to remember it's not a real number. Then one can just read from left to right for a particular item and get a quick sense of its virtues and vices -- well, I can, according to my criteria. To do: add more individual fatty acids (if one added palmitoleic acid -- the ω-7 FA macadamias are rich in -- macadamias would appear even better than they do), add more food items (flax seeds would be important to others, for ex. -- I hate the taste of them). Non-nut related things that stand out: basic, non-stellar vegetables ("stellar" = arugula, various brassica, etc.) are stellar compared with nuts and seeds in most ways; also: sardines are great! Now, some conclusions about the nuts/seeds/etc., taking items in decreasing order of goodness, according to criteria that matter to me: Chia seeds. Amazing. Lots of ω-3; lots of minerals; lots of B vitamins; lots of fiber. Downsides: some people worry about PUFAs and oxidation; Mn isn't very low; I don't love the taste. See also Chia seed post. How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: it wouldn't (aside from the concerns in the post about chia seeds, which I'm completely unconvinced by -- but need to investigate; could be a big "aside"). Walnuts. Very good. Lots of ω-3; low SFA; good amount of lots of minerals; lots of fiber; various phytochemicals that are likely healthy (not shown in CRON-O-Meter). Tasty. Downsides: Some people (sort of including me) worry about PUFAs and oxidation; not a tiny amount of ω-6; Mn isn't very low; really hard to find good quality (see coming post about purchasing). How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I could be certain about quality, and, to a lesser degree, if I thought Mn didn't matter much, I'd eat tons of these. TONS! Pistachios. Very good. Not so high SFA, low Mn; decent overall "B-score" ("B" as in B vitamins); curiously high amounts of phytochemicals (not in spreadsheet) and even carotenoids (not all in spreadsheet or CRON-O-Meter). Downsides: zero ω-3; middling levels of ω-6; Mn isn't very low. Cost per calorie highest of nuts/seeds/oils (if that matters). How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If they were cheaper, and I thought Mn didn't matter much, I'd probably put up with the bad ω-6:3 ratio and eat more of these. Avocados. Good. Decent "B-score". Lots of MUFA. Lots of E. Low Mn, low Cu. Very cheap per calorie. Tasty! Downsides: Like olive oil, fairly high SFA (and, also like olive oil, the vast majority as 16:0!). How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I thought the 16:0, while high compared to most nuts, is still low enough not to cause problems, I'd eat lots of avocados. Almonds. Good. OK "B-score". Low SFA. Lots of MUFA. Lots of E. Very cheap per calorie. Fairly tasty. Downsides: zero ω-3; non-tiny (though not huge) amount of ω-6. How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I thought Mn didn't matter much, I'd probably put up with the bad ω-6:3 ratio and eat more of these. (Eating a fair amount as it is.) Hazelnuts. Not so great (mostly because of the Mn). Low-fat, very low SFA, fair amount of MUFA, but that's it. Downsides: Low B-score; really high levels of Mn. How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I thought Mn didn't matter much, I'd eat more of these. Olive oil. Lots of MUFA, polyphenols. Very cheap per calorie. Tasty. Downsides: Do I really want to be scarfing down tons of refined oil? The "it's not natural" isn't a completely brainless argument, esp. in light of the weakness of observational studies. Like avocados, fairly high SFA (and, also like avocados, the vast majority as 16:0!). How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: ? My plan is to get the massively high polyphenol olive oil and have 15-20 g day. Macadamias. Lots of B1 (though not other Bs); tons of oleic; lots of ω-7. Really tasty. Downsides: Middling levels of Mn; high SFA, for a nut. How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I thought the SFA didn't matter so much, and, to some degree, that dietary Mn didn't matter much, I'd eat tons of these. I love them. Sesame seeds. Lots of possibly good plant sterols. Decent B1 (though not other Bs). Good Ca, lots of gamma-tocopherol. Really tasty. Downsides: Tons of ω-6, low B-score (aside from B1). Lots of Cu, not so low Mn. High SFA, for a nut. How criteria adjustment would affect ranking: If I thought the Ca were fairly absorbable, and important to get via food instead of supplements, and if Cu concerns really can be "Zn-supplemented away", would eat more, almost entirely because of the taste. The others. Unsure. More research needed. Cashews? Lost of Cu, lots of SFA, but as 18:0, not 16:0. Salmon and sardines: good! Occurs to me a wiki or a Google Doc, that can be updated and manipulated by lots of people, would be good here, since discussion will lead to frequent tweakings of the above list and criteria. Questions. Does dietary Mn matter? If not, or not much, I'd greatly increase my hazelnut consumption, and generally eat more nuts with less worry! Does saturated fatty acid (mostly palmitic) matter, at the levels seen in nuts/etc. (compare goat cheese!)? If not, or not much, I'd increase my macadamia consumption (greatly, if Mn also doesn't matter much) -- and would also increase avocado consumption. Zeta
  4. I had missed this affirmation of what the estimable Dr. Greger started tackling in an earlier video series on the subject of nuts. Walnuts Consumed by Healthy Adults Provide Less Available Energy than Predicted by the Atwater FactorsResults: One 28-g serving of walnuts contained 146 kcal (5.22 kcal/g), 39 kcal/serving less than the calculated value of 185 kcal/serving (6.61 kcal/g). The ME of the walnuts was 21% less than that predicted by the Atwater factors (P < 0.0001). So now we have both almonds and walnuts confirmed to be -20% of estimated calories. Pistachios less so, but -5% if I recall. So for at least walnuts and almonds, which are mainstay nuts for me, I am thinking to modify Cronometer with a custom nut entry to account for the reduced calories to ensure greater accuracy in daily tracking. Would welcome opinions for/against this! I don't know if we can assume the -5% for pistachios would be a safe lower bound to apply to all nuts, or if any folks on the forum know why there would be such a discrepancy...
  5. Dean Pomerleau

    The Calorie Controversy

    All, There is a good article out today in the Atlantic on just how difficult it is to accurately calculate the energy value available from food. It talks about how the USDA does it, and how it varies from food-to-food (e.g. almonds & walnuts provide 20-33% fewer calories than expected), and person-to-person depending on one's genetics and microbiome. It talks about eating for satiety rather than targeting a certain calorie level is likely to be more effective for regular people trying to lose weight. Here is a passage I found quite interesting, given my advocacy of fruit: Since 2005, David Wishart of the University of Alberta has been cataloguing the hundreds of thousands of chemical compounds in our bodies, which make up what’s known as the human metabolome... According to Wishart, these chemicals and their interactions affect energy balance. He points to research demonstrating that high-fructose corn syrup and other forms of added fructose (as opposed to fructose found in fruit) can trigger the creation of compounds that lead us to form an excess of fat cells, unrelated to additional calorie consumption. “If we cut back on some of these things,” he says, “it seems to revert our body back to more appropriate, arguably less efficient metabolism, so that we aren’t accumulating fat cells in our body. An interesting article worth reading in its entirety. --Dean
  6. Dean Pomerleau

    Nuts and Mortality

    Al Pater posted the following prospective study [1] (thanks Al!) on the association between nut intake and mortality amongst a group of 20,000 middle aged Italians. It found that compared with people who didn't consume nuts, people who consumed them more than 8 times per month had about a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality risk during the 4 years of followup, largely due to reduced cancer risk. They found the nut eaters also had lower levels of inflammation. Not surprisingly, nut consumption was more beneficial for those who otherwise didn't adhere to a Mediterranean diet. More evidence that nuts are a very healthy food! --Dean ------------- [1] Br J Nutr. 2015 Sep;114(5):804-11. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515002378. Nut consumption is inversely associated with both cancer and total mortality in a Mediterranean population: prospective results from the Moli-sani study. Bonaccio M(1), Di Castelnuovo A(1), De Curtis A(1), Costanzo S(1), Bracone F(1), Persichillo M(1), Donati MB(1), de Gaetano G(1), Iacoviello L(1). Author information: (1)1Department of Epidemiology and Prevention,IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Mediterraneo,Neuromed,86077 Pozzilli,Isernia,Italy. Nut intake has been associated with reduced inflammatory status and lower risk of CVD and mortality. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between nut consumption and mortality and the role of inflammation. We conducted a population-based prospective investigation on 19 386 subjects enrolled in the Moli-sani study. Food intake was recorded by the Italian version of the European Project Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition FFQ. C-reactive protein, leucocyte and platelet counts and the neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were used as biomarkers of low-grade inflammation. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. During a median follow-up of 4·3 years, 334 all-cause deaths occurred. As compared with subjects who never ate nuts, rare intake (≤2 times/month) was inversely associated with mortality (multivariable HR=0·68; 95 % CI 0·54, 0·87). At intake ≥8 times/month, a greater protection was observed (HR=0·53; 0·32, 0·90). Nut intake (v. no intake) conveyed a higher protection to individuals poorly adhering to the Mediterranean diet (MD). A significant reduction in cancer deaths (HR=0·64; 95 % CI 0·44, 0·94) was also observed, whereas the impact on CVD deaths was limited to an inverse, but not significant, trend. Biomarkers of low-grade inflammation were reduced in nut consumers but did not account for the association with mortality. In conclusion, nut intake was associated with reduced cancer and total mortality. The protection was stronger in individuals with lower adherence to MD, whereas it was similar in high-risk groups (diabetics, obese, smokers or those with the metabolic syndrome), as compared with low-risk subjects. Inflammation did not explain the observed relationship. PMID: 26313936 [PubMed - in process]
  7. Saul

    "Frozen" Raw Nuts

    Dear ALL, In his many valuable posts, Dean has speculated that nuts do not deliver as many calories as the nutritional information indicates. In fact, as I recall, previous posts to the old CR List provided some evidence that this is true, at least for almonds. However, I'm skeptical that that will be significantly true for nuts that are softer (and therefore I'd guess more digestible) than almonds. Like many of you, I store my nuts in the freezer. There, I keep raw almonds, raw cashews, raw hazelnuts, raw peanuts and dry-roasted peanuts. For the past several months, when I eat nuts (which is daily), I've been eating them right out of the freezer -- "frozen" (not really -- actually "directly from the freezer") nuts. They're delicious -- I may even prefer them "frozen". I speculate that Dean's hypothesis may be more true for the "frozen" nuts -- which are probably harder to digest than when at room temperature. -- Saul
  8. Zeta

    Best source for nuts

    I wanted to do more research before making this post, but time is of the essence (given the time of year). (By the way, here, again, is where we need a wiki!!) Options: Large quantities: Haag Farm (walnuts only) - Quality? Excellent. - Variety? Walnuts only (but many kinds of walnuts). - Prices? Excellent. - Transparency? Good (at least good; not enough info to know whether it's excellent -- they're in the middle of the harvest season, didn't want to harass them with a bunch of questions.). - BBB rating: F. Sun Organic Farm - Quality? Full report when I receive my 10 lbs. each of pistachios and almonds (probably Monday). 2015-10-28 Update: Quality: excellent! Details in separate new post in this thread. - Variety? Excellent. - Prices? Good. - Transparency? Excellent. (I called and got no nonsense answers about harvest times and other matters -- not hard sell as in "We won't have this year's pecans for another month but you can rest assured ... yada yada."). - BBB rating: A. Smaller quantities: Nuts.com - Quality? Average. - Variety? Excellent. - Prices? A bit high, not including shipping. (But shipping is cheap.) - Transparency? Good, according to Michael Rae (not his term - he might say "excellent"). - BBB rating: D+ (http://www.bbb.org/new-jersey/business-reviews/nuts-edible/nuts-com-inc-in-cranford-nj-27000320 [1]). Living Nutz - Quality? Excellent. - Variety? Somewhat limited. - Prices? Good to excellent, but shipping adds a lot (proportionally) to an order of a few pounds or less. Buying more than a few pound bags of nuts means you save over Nuts.com. - Transparency? Excellent (based on my own experience). - BBB rating: A+. Sun Organic Farm (See above.) FAQ. - You recommend Living Nutz over Nuts.com, the favorite of at least several people in the CR Society - say what?! Yes, strongly. I challenge Michael and Dean and anyone else who uses nuts.com to order walnuts from Living Nutz and compare to the walnuts you've ordered from Nuts.com. A good 1/5 of my walnuts from Nuts.com were not really "light" grade, but close to amber, which generally (not always, though) means older and more exposed to oxygen. Several were actually dried up and shriveled (not edible). Only once have I had a walnut from Living Nutz that wasn't essentially perfect. Maybe I had bad luck with that one bag of walnuts, or maybe I have higher standards (though I doubt it). In a pound bag of hazelnuts from Nuts.com, I had around 12-15 "bad" ones (often not noticeable if you don't soak for several hours). That indicates bad quality control somewhere along the line. In a total of maybe 15 pound bags of nuts from Living Nutz, I've had one bad walnut ("sunburned"), and one bad almond. That's it. Don't want to go all hippy on you but I also like the fact that Living Nutz doesn't sell any candied or damaged (i.e., roasted!) nuts or seeds. I also encourage you to email the owner Davy Colin (indo@) or call (207-780-1101) and pose whatever questions you want. Zeta [1] I'm getting an error message: "You have entered a link to website the admin. doesn't allow ...". WTF?
  9. Thanks once again to Al Pater for finding this new study [1]. Researchers followed 2400 Chinese people for 3 years and compared their adherence to a Mediterranean diet (MD) with their bone mineral density (BMD) score. From the full text, Al pulled out the key passage: Of the nine components, higher intakes of whole grain, fruit, nuts, and a lower intake of red and processed meats were significantly associated with a higher BMD at several bone sites. No significant associations were found for the other five components (vegetable, legume, fish, MUF/SF, and alcohol) in this study (Supplemental Table 1). After excluding the non-significant components from the calculation of the aMed scores, more significant associations were observed. It was interesting that some foods considered healthy (whole grains, fruit and nuts) were associated with higher BMD, but others (vegetables, legumes, fish, olive oil) were not. This would seem to suggest something else is going on besides the simple explanation that people who eat a better diet are more likely to engage other health (and bone) promoting practices too, like exercise. --Dean --------------------------- [1] Sci Rep. 2016 May 9;6:25662. doi: 10.1038/srep25662. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet is associated with a higher BMD in middle-aged and elderly Chinese. Chen GD, Dong XW, Zhu YY, Tian HY, He J, Chen YM. Free Full text: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25662 Abstract Previous studies showed that better adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD) is associated with lower risk of chronic diseases, but limited data are available on bone health. We investigated the association of the MD with bone mineral density (BMD) in Chinese adults. We included 2371 participants aged 40-75 years in this community-based cross-sectional study. Dietary information was assessed at baseline and a 3-year follow-up. Alternate Mediterranean diet (aMed) scores were calculated. BMD was determined at the second survey. After adjusting for potential covariates, higher aMed scores were positively and dose-dependently associated with BMD (all P-trends < 0.05). The BMD values were 1.94% (whole body), 3.01% (lumbar spine), 2.80% (total hip), 2.81% (femur neck), 2.62% (trochanter), and 2.85% (intertrochanter) higher in the quintile 5 (highest, vs. quintile 1) aMed scores for all of the subjects (all P-values < 0.05). Similar associations were found after stratifying by gender (P-interaction = 0.338-0.968). After excluding the five non-significant components of vegetables, legumes, fish, monounsaturated to saturated fat ratio, and alcohol intake from the aMed scores, the percentage mean differences were substantially increased by 69.1-150% between the extreme quintiles. In conclusion, increased adherence to the MD shows protective associations with BMD in Chinese adults. PMID: 27157300
  10. Al Pater posted [1], a study single-blind clinical trial comparing breast cancer rates among subjects assigned to two version of a Mediterranean diet (one supplemented with EVOO and one supplemented with nuts) or to a "low-fat" control diet. Actually the controls only received advice to reduce dietary fat. They didn't actually comply, since (from supplemental material) the end of trial fat intake as a percentage of total cal: Med-EVOO 41%, Med-Nut 39%, Control Diet 37%. So its really comparing a breast cancer risk between a Mediterranean diet with nuts or EVOO to a standard crappy diet. What they found was that women on either the Med-EVOO diet or the Med-Nut diet had a lower risk of breast cancer, but only the Med-EVOO groups risk reduction (0.32, 95% CI, 0.13-0.79) was statistically significant. The Med-Nut group's risk was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.26-1.35) compared with controls. So once again, a Mediterranean diet is shown to be good for avoiding cancer, this time breast cancer. --Dean ---------- [1] JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov 1;175(11):1752-60. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4838. Mediterranean Diet and Invasive Breast Cancer Risk Among Women at High Cardiovascular Risk in the PREDIMED Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Toledo E, Salas-Salvadó J, Donat-Vargas C, Buil-Cosiales P, Estruch R, Ros E, Corella D, Fitó M, Hu FB, Arós F, Gómez-Gracia E, Romaguera D, Ortega-Calvo M, Serra-Majem L, Pintó X, Schröder H, Basora J, Sorlí JV, Bulló M, Serra-Mir M, Martínez-González MA. Full text via sci-hub.io: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com.sci-hub.io/article.aspx?articleid=2434738 Abstract IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer is the leading cause of female cancer burden, and its incidence has increased by more than 20% worldwide since 2008. Some observational studies have suggested that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 2 interventions with Mediterranean diet vs the advice to follow a low-fat diet (control) on breast cancer incidence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The PREDIMED study is a 1:1:1 randomized, single-blind, controlled field trial conducted at primary health care centers in Spain. From 2003 to 2009, 4282 women aged 60 to 80 years and at high cardiovascular disease risk were recruited after invitation by their primary care physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil, a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts, or a control diet (advice to reduce dietary fat). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast cancer incidence was a prespecified secondary outcome of the trial for women without a prior history of breast cancer (n = 4152). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 4.8 years, we identified 35 confirmed incident cases of breast cancer. Observed rates (per 1000 person-years) were 1.1 for the Mediterranean diet with extra-virgin olive oil group, 1.8 for the Mediterranean diet with nuts group, and 2.9 for the control group. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios vs the control group were 0.32 (95% CI, 0.13-0.79) for the Mediterranean diet with extra-virgin olive oil group and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.26-1.35) for the Mediterranean diet with nuts group. In analyses with yearly cumulative updated dietary exposures, the hazard ratio for each additional 5% of calories from extra-virgin olive oil was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.90). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is the first randomized trial finding an effect of a long-term dietary intervention on breast cancer incidence. Our results suggest a beneficial effect of a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil in the primary prevention of breast cancer. These results come from a secondary analysis of a previous trial and are based on few incident cases and, therefore, need to be confirmed in longer-term and larger studies. PMID: 26365989
  11. Many CR practitioners, including me, consume a lot of nuts, for their benefits to health (e.g. reduced CVD) and mortality. And it is been pretty common knowledge among those who follow this stuff closely, that it is surprisingly hard to get fat eating nuts. In fact, several years ago, Dr. Greger had did a 7-part video series (beginning here) seeking to explain the missing calories in nuts by looking at all the various theories. I highly recommend watching for those who haven't. Now, it finally looks like the USDA is waking up to the issue of missing calories in nuts, specifically walnuts. In this new study [1], discussed here, researchers at the FDA tracked 18 people in very controlled conditions on a diet lacking or supplemented with walnuts. They took samples of what they ate, and what they excreted, and determined that walnuts, "consistent with other tree nuts", contained 21% fewer available calories than predicted by the Atwater method typically used to compute calorie content of foods, basically a sophisticated version of the 9-4-4 Fat-Carb-Protein method for estimating calories. They found walnuts contained 5.22 kcal/g, rather than 6.61 kcal/g as predicted by Atwater. They said their finding could result in changes to food labelling practices. And as the authors indicate, this lower calorie content than predicted is almost certainly true of other nuts as well. No word on seeds though... As of now, the USDA food database, and hence CRON-O-Meter and other diet tracking tools, still used 6.61 kcal/g (actually I just checked, CRON-O-Meter uses 6.54 kcal/g) rather than the lower, more realistic, 5.22 kcal/g. --Dean ----------- [1] J Nutr. 2015 Nov 18. pii: jn217372. [Epub ahead of print] Walnuts Consumed by Healthy Adults Provide Less Available Energy than Predicted by the Atwater Factors. Baer DJ(1), Gebauer SK(2), Novotny JA(2). Author information: (1)USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD David.Baer@ars.usda.gov. (2)USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that the metabolizable energy (ME) content (energy available to the body) of certain nuts is less than predicted by the Atwater factors. However, very few nuts have been investigated to date, and no information is available regarding the ME of walnuts. OBJECTIVE: A study was conducted to determine the ME of walnuts when consumed as part of a typical American diet. METHODS: Healthy adults (n = 18; mean age = 53.1 y; body mass index = 28.8 kg/m(2)) participated in a randomized crossover study with 2 treatment periods (3 wk each). The study was a fully controlled dietary feeding intervention in which the same base diet was consumed during each treatment period; the base diet was unsupplemented during one feeding period and supplemented with 42 g walnuts/d during the other feeding period. Base diet foods were reduced in equal proportions during the walnut period to achieve isocaloric food intake during the 2 periods. After a 9 d diet acclimation period, subjects collected all urine and feces for ∼1 wk (as marked by a Brilliant Blue fecal collection marker) for analysis of energy content. Administered diets, walnuts, and fecal and urine samples were subjected to bomb calorimetry, and the resulting data were used to calculate the ME of the walnuts. RESULTS: One 28-g serving of walnuts contained 146 kcal (5.22 kcal/g), 39 kcal/serving less than the calculated value of 185 kcal/serving (6.61 kcal/g). The ME of the walnuts was 21% less than that predicted by the Atwater factors (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with other tree nuts, Atwater factors overestimate the metabolizable energy value of walnuts. These results could help explain the observations that consumers of nuts do not gain excessive weight and could improve the accuracy of food labeling. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01832909. © 2016 American Society for Nutrition. PMID: 26581681
  12. I "owe" you all my two other posts on nuts - where to buy, how to eat - but it's been proving time-consuming to do the needed research (but I'm getting there). For now, a quick note about what I've heard is, and somehow looks to be, a great source of walnuts: Haag Farm. Low-budget website and weird system for ordering, but I have a good feeling about them. Will report back when I've received and partaken of my order. Anyone else have experience with them? Zeta
  13. BrianMDelaney

    "Veronica Foods for nuts?"

    I just spent several hours trying to figure out how to get high quality nuts here in Sweden. I learned a lot. One of the things I learned is that most nuts available to the typical consumer, at least here in Sweden, are not the highest grade available. This seems particularly true in the case of walnuts. (Technically, the color isn't the grade, but it ends up being a good proxy: it's impossible to find "extra light" walnuts here, and very difficult to find even "light". One is generally stuck with "amber", which means the nuts have been oxidized to a significant degree.) So, before I do more research, I'm wondering whether anyone knows of a seller or distributor of nuts, in the US, Europe, or anywhere, that functions like Veronica Foods: 1) has exacting standards 2) is open with their measurements of the quality of their products, 3) advocates for very high quality across the industry. Anyone know? For example, I'd love to go to https://nuts.com/nuts/walnuts/ or to Living Nuts and be able to read what grade of walnut I'm looking at, and the harvest date. The situation is much worse in Sweden, of course, because people here are generally not as concerned with their health (partly, perhaps, because they're healthier). Brian
×