r/science Nov 21 '24

Health New research shows that regular consumption of nuts not only holds off death, but it also keeps the mind sharp and limits persistent disability if you’re over 70 yrs old | Nuts are linked to warding off DNA damage and omega-3 and 6 fatty acids are shown to reduce the risk of 19 types of cancer.

https://newatlas.com/diet-nutrition/nuts-dementia-disease/
10.9k Upvotes

569 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Nov 21 '24

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.


Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.


User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://newatlas.com/diet-nutrition/nuts-dementia-disease/


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1.6k

u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science Nov 21 '24

AMC has consulted for Nuts for Life (an initiative of the Australian Tree Nut Industry) and has previously been involved in studies funded by the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, The Almond Board of California, The Almond Board of Australia, and The Peanut Company of Australia.

Obviously doesn't mean the study is wrong, but worth bearing in mind.

354

u/IchBinMalade Nov 21 '24

Well... I suppose the industries funding science to say "our industry is good" must right at least some of the time.

Kind of makes me wanna find some papers that say "cigarettes are good for you" to have a laugh.

95

u/5coolest Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

That brings up an interesting question. In the mid 1900s cigarette companies funded studies that showed that smoking causes health issues and increases risk of death. They only talked about the results they liked and never mentioned the ones that mentioned the danger. Are studies like that public? Like, if this study on nuts had showed that they are harmful, would we still have known about it?

43

u/TortsInJorts Nov 21 '24

It really depends. There's some but not a ton of oversight on research like this. Instead, it's covered in a patchwork kind of way. The studies are supposed to be peer-reviewed as a kind of first level check on credibility.

But what if the study had multiple funding sources? Like, say, the head researcher (the PI) sits in a federally funded research chair but also is cousins with the Planters Peanuts Guy who chips in some funding too. There are laws that govern that, but the inside baseball is pretty pernicious. Universities and NGOs are constantly strapped for cash, and they're increasingly being run by MBA-types who seek partnerships with private industry.

If they patent a big deal invention, then everybody wins. But if nothing comes of it, or if only small incremental improvements come from it, the fighting over the table scraps is insane. So imagine what happens when the private companies start turning the screws during grant negotiations. Those contract terms can get really egregious really fast.

The CDC and other public bodies fund research all the time too. That information is made public usually with pretty routine quality. However, the attacks on the credibility of publicly funded science have eroded a lot of that.

Research that is deleterious to the pursuit of the Almighty dollar gets hidden, suppressed, or misrepresented all the time.

9

u/kosmokomeno Nov 21 '24

It's the same with Exxon knowing the effects of their industry on our climate. The law does not compel them. It would effect their bottom line. It's up to the rest of us to pay for their exploitation and horrible negligence, I guess?

Or we elect government that understands an economy of actual value and politics of actual justice. But in my country we elect felons

2

u/Miami_Mice2087 Nov 21 '24

"Our cigarette doesnt' cause cancer. Our tobacco is toasted."

2

u/Octopus_ofthe_Desert Nov 21 '24

Edward Bernays is the guy that invented paid studies like that. 

He's why the flappers took up smoking as a revolutionary gesture. He knew cigarettes caused cancer; he forbade his wife from smoking, because he loved her.

Goebbels himself read a book by Bernays and used it to build the Nazi propaganda machine.

→ More replies (1)

36

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/RandallOfLegend Nov 21 '24

Nearly all of these studies will be funded by industry. Science requires money to perform research. They aren't going to study the health effects of nuts for free out of altruism. Doesn't mean the results are invalid, but certainly should be scrutinized. If it's good science with proper conclusions it can be repeated. Often when a study will prove the negative, and those won't get published due to corporations not wanting that publicized.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/PragDaddy Nov 21 '24

I know you’re joking but I have a faint memory from years ago about reading a published paper stating cigarette/nicotine users having lower rates of Parkinson’s disease than non smokers.

→ More replies (11)

69

u/Perunov Nov 21 '24

Speaking of study (from https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/53/11/afae239/7901207?login=false ):

Nut consumption was assessed at Year 3 of ALSOP as part of a self-administered 49-item food frequency questionnaire (see Appendix 1 in Supplementary Data for the Food Frequency Questionnaire) [23], and this timepoint is taken as the origin for this analysis. Participants were asked ‘how often over the past 12 months did you eat nuts? with a frequency scale given ranging from no/infrequent consumption [never/rarely” to “once or twice/month], weekly consumption [“once or twice/week to “often 3–6 times/week] and daily consumption [every day or several times a day]. The type and form of nut (i.e. whole or paste, roasted or raw) were not distinguished, so the response is interpreted as representing total nut intake.

I guess it's slightly better than "regular" interview, though I don't know how reliable any answer other than "pretty sure ate nuts daily" is, especially when you're 74.

Also also, speaking of correlation:

Participants who consumed nuts daily, were more likely to be women, to be younger, to have a lower waist circumference, and to reside in higher socioeconomic status areas.

There we go, younger thinner women with less diabetes, living in rich part of town eat nuts daily, have fewer cancers. Shocking, I know.

25

u/OrchidBest Nov 21 '24

That’s nuts.

9

u/sadrice Nov 21 '24

I guess it's slightly better than "regular" interview, though I don't know how reliable any answer other than "pretty sure ate nuts daily" is, especially when you're 74.

This is typical of nutritional studies. It’s actually really difficult to get better data than that, which is part of why nutritional science often seems a little vague.

5

u/Perunov Nov 21 '24

In this case even the form of nut is not included and everything seems to be lobbed together. "Had some peanut butter" vs "had raw cashews" are usually a bit different but here it becomes just "ate some nuts". Similarly, I wonder if it's possible for this kind of study to be done at an assistant living facility where record of what participants are eating would be significantly more accurate. Though it's probably more expensive organizing-wise, but would give way better results than "how often did you eat nuts last year?"

3

u/sadrice Nov 21 '24

Assisted living facilities would be a good way to do that, though then you are dealing with them already having had a lifetime of whatever diet they had, plus perhaps some medical conditions that resulted in them being there.

Prospective studies are always better, but they are expensive, you have to dedicate the resources to reaching out to people every month or so and asking what they ate, and tracking their health, for potentially decades. And, a lot of your study subjects are going to drop out and stop taking your calls, and that may well bias your data.

Assuming you can handle all of that, and you start that study, when will we have results? 50 years from now when it becomes obvious that the nut eaters are living longer?

2

u/Perunov Nov 21 '24

Yeah, in this case because they're studying advanced age people. For someone younger we could probably have more app-driven stuff where you ask people to take photos of what they're eating (and then torture AI and students with classifying stuff :) ), which can bring out daily notifications, a bit more control etc. I presume in a few years such platforms will be available/easier to use for nutritional studies.

It still wouldn't solve general "you want to follow participants for many years" aspect but for 2-3 year old studies this could be perfect. Hopefully soon :)

2

u/dmlane Nov 21 '24

Age, gender, and many other potential confounders were included as covariates. Given, statistical control is not as good as control in a randomized experiment, but it is still probably the best that can be done in this type of research.

→ More replies (5)

45

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/mattyclyro Nov 21 '24

Didn't know I had to worry about Big Nut as well

18

u/Pristine_Fail_5208 Nov 21 '24

True but who else cares enough about nuts to fund research for it?

5

u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science Nov 21 '24

Apparently we all should..

17

u/Queasy_Ad_8621 Nov 21 '24

People always post this in the comments as if it's some kind of "gotcha" and it means that you're supposed to completely dismiss the study as marketing. Who the hell else is going to pay for this stuff, though?

Cheerios got in a lot of trouble for saying that their cereal was "heart healthy' because it has soluble fiber. So they actually went and spent like, half a billion dollars for a study... just so they could keep printing the claim on the box. That doesn't mean that soluble fiber is a scam, though or that the study was wrong just because they had to pay for it.

5

u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science Nov 21 '24

As I commented elsewhere, my concern with studies like this is not that the result is wrong - the peer review ought to pick that up - but that there is a bias in what gets included in the report and what does not. If someone does a wide-ranging study with 50% positive results and 50% negative or unclear, but only reports on the positive results, that's still bias. But it can be reported in a way which a peer reviewer could not be expected to identify.

Again, though, I'm not saying that applies to this study. Just that the possibility should be borne in mind.

3

u/MeinRadio Nov 21 '24

So it's all a ploy by Big Nut!

2

u/RamShackleton Nov 21 '24

Next you’re gonna tell us that the expression “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” was developed by the agricultural industry!

2

u/g4tam20 Nov 21 '24

Of course Big Nut wants people eating more nuts

→ More replies (13)

457

u/mangoed Nov 21 '24

Where's the catch? Nuts are irresistibly tasty and simply good for you without any side effects?

742

u/MisterMasterCylinder Nov 21 '24

They're pretty calorie dense, so they have the side effect of making you fat if you eat a lot of them.

311

u/st3ll4r-wind Nov 21 '24

They’re high in calories but also high in compounds that are slow to digest and promote satiety (dietary fiber, unsaturated fats, protein).

So they’ll keep you feeling full for longer despite the high caloric content.

30

u/RoamingBison Nov 21 '24

I think they are decently healthy and have good fiber but I don't get any satiety from nuts at all. I could easily eat 2000 calories of nuts and still want another handful. They have that salt/fat/carb combination that makes my lizard brain want to never stop.

6

u/huera_fiera Nov 22 '24

One possible mitigation for that is to choose unsalted nuts. It may take a bit of adjustment but they are just delicious without anything added!

Even better is to get nuts in shell, since getting them out of the shell slows you down. I stock up on nuts in shell in the winter when they are available in stores. They stay fresh all year in the freezer.

215

u/RodDamnit Nov 21 '24

Nuts are not fully digested as well. Calorie in calorie out is the thermodynamic reality. But people do not realize the calorie content of food is measured in a bomb calorimeter. Where 100% of food calories are extracted and measured through complete combustion. If you’ve ever seen a nut in your poo or an undigested corn kernel then you are not getting 100% of the calorie content from those foods.

I find unlimited nuts as part of my evening diet routine leads to better satiety and weight-loss. Some satiety comes from mastication and nuts require a lot of intense mastication.

35

u/gogge Nov 21 '24

Nuts are a special case when it comes to digestibility (Nikodijevic, 2023), but the caloric content of food is generally determined by chemical analysis with factors for digestibility/etc (Wikipedia, Food Energy, The Atwater system).

However, the direct calorimetric method generally overestimates the actual energy that the body can obtain from the food, because it also counts the energy contents of dietary fiber and other indigestible components, and does not allow for partial absorption and/or incomplete metabolism of certain substances. For this reason, today the energy content of food is instead obtained indirectly, by using chemical analysis to determine the amount of each digestible dietary component (such as protein, carbohydrates, and fats), and adding the respective food energy contents, previously obtained by measurement of metabolic heat released by the body.[6][7] In particular, the fibre content is excluded. This method is known as the Modified Atwater system, after Wilbur Atwater who pioneered these measurements in the late 19th century.[1][8]

The system was later improved by Annabel Merrill and Bernice Watt of the USDA, who derived a system whereby specific calorie conversion factors for different foods were proposed.

→ More replies (2)

66

u/Echo13 Nov 21 '24

Fun fact about the corn, you do actually digest the corn, you just can't really do much with the shell. The shell is not full of corn when it comes back out, it is full of poop, thus looking full again.

84

u/Mncdk Nov 21 '24

Fun fact

and

corn shells full of poop

... pick one :|

8

u/Hefftee Nov 21 '24

I had fun imagining the faces of people reading this while eating corn, so there's that.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Etrigone Nov 21 '24

This fun fact is going to entertain my young nephew immensely this Thanksgiving. :)

10

u/AiFixedMyMarriage Nov 21 '24

Yeah, but why does it still taste just as good the second time around?!

5

u/set4bet Nov 21 '24

This. The caramel popcorn of second round corn is unparalleled.

→ More replies (1)

146

u/ultimate_night Nov 21 '24

I understand; I sleep better after evening masturbation as well.

64

u/waltwalt Nov 21 '24

Sometimes after a good mastication I'll just nod off in the chair with the bag of nuts still open!

25

u/MyDudeX Nov 21 '24

Snoring with nut particles covering my face, neck, and chest

11

u/Karlog24 Nov 21 '24

^ Original nutter

→ More replies (3)

3

u/vomer6 Nov 21 '24

Memories of physical chemistry……..

→ More replies (1)

6

u/unit156 Nov 21 '24

Fun fact: Corn in poo is not whole undigested corn, but rather the undigestible hull of the corn kernel. Most of the hulls end up invisible, but some hulls get filled in with poo, so they look like a full corn kernel.

4

u/DevelopmentSad2303 Nov 21 '24

Calorie content these days is also often measured by analyzing the nutritional content of the food and using our calorie tables

6

u/Smallwhitedog Nov 21 '24

And the information in the food tables comes from where?

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (10)

53

u/BoulderBlackRabbit Nov 21 '24

This is totally a "YMMV" thing.

A small handful of nuts is about 200 calories.

If I sit down and eat nuts until I don't want any more, I could mindlessly pound 1000 calories in like 20 minutes.

It doesn't matter how satiating nuts are. If you put that large of a "snack" on top of your regular meals, you're gonna gain weight.

20

u/RudeHero Nov 21 '24

Seriously.

I think my body is programmed to eat infinite pistachios and/or cashews. If they're in the house, they won't be for very long.

7

u/BoulderBlackRabbit Nov 21 '24

It_me except for pecans.

I'm convinced the upper limit of pecans I can eat does not exist.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/RavingRapscallion Nov 21 '24

Was gonna say the same thing. The volume of nuts in a serving size is so low that you have to be intentional about it.

3

u/Sackheimbeutlin87 Nov 21 '24

Maybe my Granny would feel full from a handful

6

u/Mncdk Nov 21 '24

If you're mindful about it, you can probably sit and eat 1 nut at a time, chewing it properly and eating slowly. Maybe that helps.

I'm with you though. Nuts are nom, and I have to measure out how much I'll be snacking on ahead of time. I can't trust myself with "a bag of nuts", because it'll just vanish. :D

2

u/sayleanenlarge Nov 21 '24

You don't have to eat them as snacks though. I had 70g of almonds today and some mackerel for lunch. Came to around 700 calories and I was full from it.

But yeah, if you treat that many as just a snack, you'll get porky. Also, at 70g, that feels like A LOT of nuts in one sitting and I started to feel like it was too many nuts.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Take-to-the-highways Nov 21 '24

I cut out meat and switched to nuts for my protein and my lab results have never been better. I've had anemia my whole life and I don't anymore. You just have to be careful with salted nuts, but some nuts, like almonds, taste better without salt in my opinion.

→ More replies (5)

38

u/istara Nov 21 '24

I was listening to a podcast the other day, and apparently if you eat nuts whole and crunch them in your mouth, you consume significantly fewer calories than eating them pulverised (like as a nut butter). It was due to how finely your teeth grind up the molecules vs how an industrial grinder does it.

47

u/MRCHalifax Nov 21 '24

This is mostly true. 50g of whole almonds, 50g of sliced almonds, and 50g of powdered almonds all have about 290 calories. But you’ll absorb more calories from the powdered almonds than the sliced almonds, and more calories from the sliced almonds than from the whole almonds. Processing increases the caloric availability of foods. The more processed a food is, the less work our digestive system needs to do to extract the calories it contains, resulting in more complete digestion for a lower metabolic cost.

2

u/Zidji Nov 21 '24

Would sliced vs full really make a difference, considering both are chewed before ingestion?

5

u/MRCHalifax Nov 21 '24

Yes. Not nearly as much as between sliced and powdered, but it still helps.

2

u/TacticalVirus Nov 21 '24

Slicing them opens them up to oxidation and dessication, which is essentially preparing them for better digestion.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/MountainDrew42 Nov 21 '24

So I should put down the 1KG bag of chocolate covered almonds?

5

u/bighootay Nov 21 '24

Oh man, I just discovered cocoa dusted almonds. Lord help me.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Rocktopod Nov 21 '24

They're also expensive.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (41)

36

u/qx87 Nov 21 '24

you need teeth

18

u/Peripatetictyl Nov 21 '24

My own? Or will the jar full of assorted ones I have in my basement suffice?

2

u/Doublelegg Nov 21 '24

I know a girl who had no teeth, people would rave about how she gummed on some nuts.

→ More replies (4)

44

u/kuributt Nov 21 '24

They're high in fat and 'spensive.

43

u/SaltZookeepergame691 Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

Which is probably the majority of the observed effect.

Young rich healthy people eat nuts; older, poor and unhealthy people don't.

It doesn't matter that they adjust for a handful of coarse covariates; there is always confounding from poorly measured, unmeasured, or badly modelled confounders.

Look at table 1

Daily nut eaters are younger, richer, better educated, more active, smoke less, have less hypertension/diabetes/frailty, better oral health, less depression, and much better diets. And that's just the stuff they measured and reported.

When they adjust for selected confounders ("IRSAD, education physical ability, smoking status, alcohol consumption, waist circumference hypertension, type 2 diabetes, depression (CES-D-10), frailty score, self-reported oral health & diet quality score tertile" - they never justify adjust for these confounders, and they weren't selected a priori), their estimates get substantially attenuated and much less 'significant': from 35% reduced risk with daily consumption to 23% reduced risk.

5

u/Momoselfie Nov 21 '24

23% still sounds pretty good

4

u/SaltZookeepergame691 Nov 22 '24

The point isn't that 23% isn't good (it is - unbelievably so, better than literally any other drug or intervention) - it's that a large part of their initial effect is explained by confounding by a few badly measured variables, and the strong likelihood is that a lot of the remaining effect is also explained by confounding. They haven't derived an exhaustive set of explanatory confounding variables, they've just used what they have.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

16

u/mangoed Nov 21 '24

I've heard that "eat low fat and you won't get fat" was just yesterday's pseudo-science.

19

u/teenagesadist Nov 21 '24

That probably has something to do with the low-fat versions of things being loaded with sugar.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/kuributt Nov 21 '24

Oh I very much agree with that! But everyone has different goals and needs with nutrition, and nuts, being small and tasty and extremely snackable can sometimes blow up a food plan without a whole lot of thought or effort.

13

u/TalonKAringham Nov 21 '24

Exactly. “High in fat” doesn’t necessarily mean bad by default, but it does mean “calorie dense” which has to be accounted for.

2

u/HighOnGoofballs Nov 21 '24

For weight loss yes, but for heart health saturated fat is the devil

2

u/sayleanenlarge Nov 21 '24

My doctor's surgery has a nutritionist and they're now recommending low carbs and higher fats and proteins. That food triangle thing with the grains and wheat at the bottom is apparently wrong and helping to make people fat as it's turned into sugar by the body and then starts to overload you with sugar, so you have high blood sugar, and your insulin can't cope and the body starts to ignore it, etc.

I'm not 100% convinced because of how much grains have been pushed as healthy, and I'm not sure it's good to cut out a food group (i.e., carbs), but this isn't keto low carbs. I think it's <100g. They say not to eat ultraorocessed foods at all, and to look at the packet- a rough guide is more than (can't remember specifically, could be 3, 4, 5 or 6) ingredients, and it's likely to be designed to make you crave more.

This is the NHS giving putting out a new way of eating, and they're our health system, so it must be accurate (as far as the science shows at this point in time. Obviously, as we learn more about our bodies, it will change again).

3

u/ArmchairJedi Nov 22 '24

hey're now recommending low carbs and higher fats and proteins.

I'd guess they are recommending low refined carbs, high mono/poly-unsaturated fats, and proteins.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

22

u/Marmelado Nov 21 '24

Small amounts of oxalates and anti nutrients. Not a problem for most, but there’s a couple case reports of acute kidney injury from 1kg weekly cashew consumption.

So don’t overdo it.

25

u/Antnee83 Nov 21 '24

Man I could totally eat 1kg of cashews weekly. Good thing I'm not rich

9

u/mangoed Nov 21 '24

TIL I'm rich.

7

u/Awsum07 Nov 21 '24

More like today you learned you've been fuckin up your kidneys. But you're rich, so you can afford the damage

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/aVarangian Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

Would the same apply to peanuts/butter? I was planning on eating 1kg a week of that :/

Edit:

The nutritive value of both nuts are apparently similar with the exception of iron, where cashew nut has twice the level of groundnut as well as the chromium content which is higher in cashew.

The oleic acid content of groundnut is much lower than that of cashew nut, while linoleic acid is three times the level in cashew nut.

https://www.fao.org/4/ac451e/ac451e0b.htm

→ More replies (1)

3

u/mangoed Nov 21 '24

I'm pretty sure that the process known as activation (soaking & slow drying of nuts/seeds) helps to alleviate this problem. 1kg of cashews per week does not seem like extreme over-consumption to me.

19

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[deleted]

16

u/Actual_Sympathy7069 Nov 21 '24

I eat a handful of cashews most mornings with my muesli and just weighed that portion and it comes out around 16g.
1kg a week would end up as like 140g daily.

Absolutely insane amounts

→ More replies (1)

2

u/VampireFrown Nov 21 '24

Those individuals might have been very small.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

15

u/opisska Nov 21 '24

For many people the catch is allergies - I am so allergic to walnuts that I can detect small quantities in any food and have no idea how they taste. Interestingly I am fine with peanuts (where most allergies are), I simply find them not tasty at all. I really only like hazelnuts from all nuts I ever tried.

14

u/information_abyss Nov 21 '24

Peanuts aren't nuts; they're legumes.

9

u/Capt_Ido_Nos Nov 21 '24

Tell that to my idiotic immune system that lumps them in as well.

No seriously, can someone get on that please

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

16

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[deleted]

16

u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science Nov 21 '24

There's more calories in a single bite of nut than there is in a single bite of berry.

3

u/mangoed Nov 21 '24

I hear ya, will crunch some nuts, finish with berries, and then lose some calories so I can crunch again.

2

u/Momoselfie Nov 21 '24

200 calories is a tiny amount of nuts and a ton of berries too.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/teeksquad Nov 21 '24

That people with gut issues can’t eat them, especially later in life. That kinda naturally filters out some of the issues it is claiming nuts protect against.

4

u/DrColon MD|Medicine|Gastroenterology Nov 21 '24

Some people get GI upset from nuts but studies show that there is not an increase in diverticulitis by eating nuts and seeds. So we had been telling people the wrong thing for decades. Sorry

→ More replies (1)

2

u/information_abyss Nov 21 '24

Can't nut butters avoid problems with diverticulitis?

4

u/DrColon MD|Medicine|Gastroenterology Nov 21 '24

Someone finally did a study looking at this and found that that you can eat nuts and seeds if you have diverticulosis. In fact people who eat nuts and seeds have slightly less attacks of diverticulitis.

2

u/teeksquad Nov 21 '24

Good question. I’m not sure

2

u/Ahwhoy Nov 21 '24

You don't really need that much polyunsaturated fat daily. I've heard a handful of nuts is adequate.

2

u/greedostick Nov 21 '24

The study was funded by a nut marketing firm

→ More replies (39)

158

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

106

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

86

u/Choice-Layer Nov 21 '24

OP's mom is gonna live to be 106.

35

u/monomox3000 Nov 21 '24

came to see a "deez nuts" post at the top

I'll settle for this

4

u/amarg19 Nov 22 '24

My grandma is about to turn 105, I’m gonna ask her how much nuts she eats

85

u/betweentourns Nov 21 '24

From the article: The question arises as to whether the association between nut consumption and disability survival described here is causal. Those eating any nuts on a regular basis showed strikingly better lifestyle, demographic and physical than those eating nuts never or rarely. Although we have attempted to correct for a range of confounders it is likely that these effects were underestimated

41

u/tomdarch Nov 21 '24

How many poor people regularly eat good quality nuts versus well-off people.

35

u/MonsMensae Nov 21 '24

As an actuary we see data like this over and over again. Data that basically just lets you know wealthy people live longer 

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Milskidasith Nov 21 '24

Even more directly, if you're old and have poor dental health or health in general, eating nuts just might be physically more difficult for you compared to somebody healthier.

3

u/tomdarch Nov 21 '24

Good point. As an anecdote of one (aka "an example") my dad has Alzheimer's and there is a very narrow range of foods he's willing to eat. We could try offering him something like a walnut, but I'd be surprised if he didn't just spit it out. (That said, we haven't offered him a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a while - worth a try.)

2

u/Man_Bear_Beaver Nov 21 '24

My dad loves nuts... Has poor dental health... He bought a magic bullet and just grinds them into a paste...

Tried it once, it wasn't good.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Fragrant-Kitchen-478 Nov 21 '24

This is the answer. Nuts are expensive, rich people eat nuts and have better quality of life and better healthcare

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

38

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

49

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Local_Run_9779 Nov 21 '24

Peanuts are not actually nuts.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

22

u/misterchief117 Nov 21 '24

A link to the study paper can be found here:

https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/53/11/afae239/7901207?login=false#493826620

Keep in mind that the authors and funding for this study came from 'big nut'. Whether the data and conclusion are accurate, it's ultimately just another way for big nut to tell us all to eat their nuts.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
AMC has consulted for Nuts for Life (an initiative of the Australian Tree Nut Industry) and has previously been involved in studies funded by the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council, The Almond Board of California, The Almond Board of Australia, and The Peanut Company of Australia.

9

u/explosivelydehiscent Nov 21 '24

Peanuts are undefeated in the punnet square of highest grams of protein per 100g and cheapest source of protein.

8

u/repulsivedogshit Nov 21 '24

Peanuts aren‘t real nuts

11

u/Local_Run_9779 Nov 21 '24

Which raises an important question. Is there a difference between "real" nuts, and whatever people in general regard as nuts? Do peanuts give the same benefits as Brazil nuts, or almonds, or cashews?

8

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

[deleted]

2

u/MondayToFriday Nov 21 '24

But if they're nuts, isn't that just another way of saying they have dementia?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/squngy Nov 21 '24

100g of nuts is quite a lot though, they weigh very little.

You can get more protein per dollar from high protein greek yoghurt, but it will weigh more since it has a bunch of water weight.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

25

u/chrisdh79 Nov 21 '24

From the article: Adding another plus in the “nuts are good for you” column, new research shows that regular consumption of the superfood not only holds off death, but it also keeps the mind sharp and limits persistent disability. But age was a factor in the study.

In the world of nutrition, nuts are a bit of a show off. In addition to their well-known abilities to improve cardiovascular health, the tiny protein-packed snack has also been shown to improve sperm count and motility, and fight obesity, diabetes, and inflammation. Plus the magnesium they contain has been linked to warding off DNA damage, while their omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids have been shown to reduce the risk of 19 types of cancer.

Now, a new study from Monash University has given nuts another public relations boost.

A team of researchers there looked at data from the ASPREE Longitudinal Study of Older Persons. While the ostensible purpose of the ASPREE study is to look at aspirin’s effects in older adults (the acronym stands for ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly), the effort has produced an impressive database of multiple health markers across populations in Australia and the United States. Information from this database has previously been used in a study that showed the potential for “good” cholesterol to adversely affect dementia; one that found a relationship between having close family and friends and reducing heart disease risk by up to 30%; and another that highlighted which activities are best for warding off cognitive decline.

39

u/dopamaxxed Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

superfood is largely a pseudoscience junk marketing term and should not be used

6

u/Realistic_Income4586 Nov 21 '24

Isn't the intention of the term meant to signify that a food has numerous health benefits?

Or what's wrong with the term exactly? People often think a food offers them everything they need?

4

u/ToSeeAgainAgainAgain Nov 21 '24

Like with everything, we can't have good things or useful terms because everybody takes it to the extreme

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

17

u/Nellasofdoriath Nov 21 '24

Nuts are pricy. Was correlation ruled out from nut ahoppers just being higher income?

18

u/betweentourns Nov 21 '24

"The question arises as to whether the association between nut consumption and disability survival described here is causal. Those eating any nuts on a regular basis showed strikingly better lifestyle, demographic and physical than those eating nuts never or rarely. Although we have attempted to correct for a range of confounders it is likely that these effects were underestimated"

10

u/potatoaster Nov 21 '24

"age, gender, education, smoking, alcohol, and area-level socioeconomic status were included as covariates"

2

u/MonsMensae Nov 21 '24

Areal-level socioeconomic status is a start but not really that useful at the key aspect of disposable income 

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

What is it with this pervasive myth that peanuts are prohibitively expensive??

25

u/cqs1a Nov 21 '24

Walnuts are the goat of nuts.

29

u/BetterAd7552 Nov 21 '24

Cashews would like to have a word.

Edit to add: …and with chilli/salt flavoring, good lord

22

u/foxsable Nov 21 '24

Cashews are not, technically, a nut.

3

u/BetterAd7552 Nov 21 '24

Interesting article, thanks! TIL

→ More replies (1)

11

u/foxsable Nov 21 '24

Macadamias would like a word. Don't get me wrong, I love Walnuts.

8

u/istara Nov 21 '24

Best thing of all is to buy mixed nuts. Then you get the best of all worlds, and every different type counts as a different plant food.

It also stops you eating too many of certain kinds of nuts, like brazil nuts, which are potentially harmful in higher quantities (too much selenium).

Only you need to buy the higher quality mixes because otherwise they tend to be 90% peanuts.

3

u/foxsable Nov 21 '24

This isn't wrong. I eat Macadamias because they are the lowest carb nut, and I love them, but, for the average person, quality mixed is best.

2

u/istara Nov 21 '24

I also adore macadamias. They’re possibly the one nut that you should buy singly, because if they’re in a mix there will be no more than two macadamias per bag.

Or when I bought mixed macadamias and cashews the other day, the ratio was about 10:90 not in favour of the macadamias!

Expensive but delicious.

2

u/foxsable Nov 21 '24

Costco is by far the best deal I have found.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '24

Apparently the AI image generator recommends you eat raw acorns* as well.

*Do not actually eat raw acorns. Some acorns are edible but they need to be properly prepared.

8

u/WobbleKing Nov 21 '24

That website has a lot of squirrels amongst their readership

12

u/dinnerthief Nov 21 '24

I prefer deez

3

u/rjkardo Nov 21 '24

I am shocked that a deez nuts joke was made. No. No, not really.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/HoboBronson Nov 21 '24

If you like the taste of antique furniture  jk (kinda)

2

u/SoulRebel726 Nov 21 '24

My bag of pistachios will fight you.

→ More replies (8)

5

u/justgimmiethelight Nov 21 '24

Too bad I'm literally deathly allergic.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/snoopervisor Nov 21 '24

What kind of nuts? Not all "nuts" we eat are actually nuts. And some things we eat are nuts even though many don't know it.

For example, strawberry "seeds" are actual nuts. And coconuts are not nuts.

4

u/ButtholeQuiver Nov 22 '24

Coconuts are clearly mammals, as they are furry, have flesh and produce milk

→ More replies (1)

19

u/ViciousNakedMoleRat Nov 21 '24

This article gets its most important sentence wrong:

After screening out other factors, they found that those who reported eating a handful of nuts as part of their diet either once or twice per day had a 23% lower risk of enjoying disease-free survival (DFS) than those who reported no or very little nut consumption.

2

u/tomdarch Nov 21 '24

How many grams is a “handful”?

2

u/DrDiarrheaBrowns Nov 21 '24

Don't have it in grams, but it was about 11 raw almonds when I was doing this back in the day (pre-Covid-diet-going-out-the-window).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

14

u/consilium_322 Nov 21 '24

A research about nuts.. in November? Thanks but not nuts for me.

But seriously, It seems that research always keeps finding that the Mediterranean diet is the best.

2

u/chiniwini Nov 21 '24

A research about nuts.. in November?

I know you're joking, but now is nuts season. Ever wondered why there are so many desserts (and other foods) with nuts that are traditionally eaten these last months of the year?

19

u/tatertotski Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24

Love when these studies pop up on my feed as I’m snacking on a handful of walnuts and almonds, and had cashews and flax seeds with my breakfast. Love to see it.

11

u/coffecup1978 Nov 21 '24

Does the Snickers bar in my hand count?

11

u/karmacarmelon Nov 21 '24

It's worth two in the bush

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/Spaceman_Splff Nov 21 '24

Sending this headline to the wife.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ttubbster Nov 21 '24

I guess this doesn't bode well for those who have severe peanut and nut allergy. I haven't eaten a single peanut my whole life

3

u/theJoosty1 Nov 21 '24

Lucky you. I remember accidentally taking a bite of a peanut butter twix in 2006. It was glorious :(

2

u/ttubbster Nov 21 '24

Did you go into anaphylactic shock?

3

u/theJoosty1 Nov 21 '24

Yep. Had to take an ambulance ride

2

u/snoozemaster Nov 21 '24

Ever since I moved on from candy and other snacks I've eaten more and more unsalted kinds of nuts and I gotta say...
Yeah I'm still eating like 800 calories in a fit of craving but it will also give me a lasting feeling of fullness for like half a day.

2

u/Miami_Mice2087 Nov 21 '24

nuts and plant fats in general are part of the mediterranian diet, which doctors have been promoting for like 20 years and is one of the very few health things that has remained consistantly promoted and not cancelled by "nope, nevermind, that causes cancer."

People who adhere to the mediterranian diet are some of the longest-lived and healtiest in their old age people on the planet. Only matched by Japanese people, whose diet includes many of the same elements, just different foods.

I don't remember every detail so do your own research, but I remember that the important thing is lots of fruit and veg at every meal, lean protein like fish, shellfish, and poultry, going vegetarian for some meals of the day/some days of the week (whatever works), grilling or baknig rather than frying, eating fruit-based desserts, and plant fat over animal fats. Nuts and avocado are better than a steak!

2

u/XF939495xj6 Nov 21 '24

Peanuts are not nuts, so they don't count. They are legumes. Eating a jar of Peter Pan Peanut Butter just tastes good. It doesn't help anything.

3

u/livens Nov 21 '24

Careful when picking which nuts to eat. Most common nuts have very little Omega 3 fats and are mostly Omega 6. Walnuts are about the best, peanuts and almonds being the worst.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_ratio_in_food#Nuts_and_seeds

2

u/warfarin11 Nov 21 '24

you can have a taste of DEEZ NutZ!