Nuts May Be Good for the Heart, but Are Hardly a Miracle Food

Walnuts have been shown in actual controlled studies to reduce heart disease. This is just an associational study, not even as good as the ones it is criticizing.

This blurb blames the absence of finding a statistically-significant effect of high nut consumption on things like heart attacks in this particular dataset on “previous studies [not] control[ling] for as many factors as we did.” That is incorrect and hubris. See the confounders similarly controlled for in, for example, PMID 25646339, 24256379, or 26066329, among many others. Just about the same as here. Moreover, the differences between those here who ate lots of nuts (>/= 3 times/week) and those who never ate nuts were only marginal: Avg. age at baseline: 57 versus 60. Avg. BMI: 24.6 versus 25.6. % exercising >2 hrs/wk: 70% versus 63%. % current smokers: 22.6% versus 25.7%. These are surprisingly small differences. And, of course, they were controlled for in the multivariate model anyway, presumably rendering them irrelevant. Finally, when adding all of the potential confounders to the basic model of only age and sex, the multivariable model’s relative hazard rate for the high nut-consumers, compared to those who ate zero nuts, only changed from 0.77 to 0.86. That’s not much and on par with the other 20 such studies that have been done. It ain’t controlling for more factors. This study is not somehow more truthful. So just average it in with the many other prospective cohort studies done previously: e.g. PMID 27916000 or PMID 26548503 or 24898241 for compilations. And for best evidence—go to the PREDIMED randomized controlled trial, described elsewhere here.

X is good for you. No, now X is bad for you. No, now X is good for you again. Now it is neutral... While it is always good to have another dataset, the NYTimes needs to quit reporting on every little new food study, like this one. In this study less than 2% of the sample were regular nut-eaters. 2%. It is going to be awfully difficult to prove a statistically-significant effect with so few regular nut-eaters (i.e. >/= 3 times/wk). Indeed, these Swedish nut-eaters did see 14% fewer total heart attacks than abstainers, but this was not statistically-significant enough. A 14% reduction would be good enough for me, even if it is less than the average results of TWENTY previous prospective cohort studies: 29% less CHD. See PMID 27916000 (or PMID 26548503 or 24898241). Much, much, much better for reaching conclusions about nut-consumption effects is the large, long-term, hard-outcome Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) called the PREDIMED Trial. Search for “PMID 23432189”. (Also PMID 23866098 and 27100393). This was a GIANT EXPERIMENT where 2,500 people were essentially force-fed a combination of tree nuts, essentially daily for 5 years, and their health outcomes eventually compared to 2,500 similar people who were told to avoid nuts and other high-fat foods. The 1 ounce of nuts provided each day to the "treatment" group resulted in 26% fewer heart attacks. Wow. Such an RCT is the “gold standard” and awfully definitive.

So peanuts and beer is out? Actually, if eating nuts diminishes the likelihood of eating junk (i.e., you get your salt, caloric and fat satisfaction through healthy means), it may not just be reflective of what these researchers cite as an otherwise "healthful lifestyle," but causative in achieving that healthful style. Still, that nut eaters tend to be "younger," is perplexing and counter to individually "collected" observational data. Perhaps it is just reflective of the "beer and nuts" phenomenon? Science is beautiful!

This is not news. Nuts are a nutritious part of a human diet. The 'miracle' label is from the growers/marketing folks. Nuts are a great choice for convenience when it comes to preparation and satiating factor rather than hitting the drive thru at the local fast food establishment. The crunch of a toasted nut in your salad is a better choice than an oily crouton. Bring back home economics/ health & wellness education to our primary and secondary schools so in the future articles like this will be unnecessary.

I think people engage in too much wishful thinking. There really is no such thing as a “superfood”; that’s just a marketing ploy. Nuts lower the risk of a-fib and are a better substitute than M&Ms. That alone should be good enough. Your health will depend on the totality of what you eat (and other lifestyle choices), not some miracle food that will cure all ills.

Ohmygosh, who woulda thought that med advice would be based on a mere epidemiological association rather than physiological cause and effect. Now, hows about the great veggie hoax?

Despite the disheartening news, I will continue eating my four walnuts (from my own trees) every morning for breakfast. They are completely organic, and I use the shells to start the fire in our soapstone oven every evening. And if the alternative is having sugar pops for breakfast, then I am better off with the walnuts.

A study which raises a known,but all too often unmentioned considerations when assessing guidelines of any sort; empirically underpinned or not.When is the focused on X: indicated.Not indicated. Irrelevant.Or even harmful.What are the necessary conditions, internal as well as external, interacting , or not, for the targeted,sought-after outcome to operate?Or not? At what levels? Qualities?Temporary or more permanent sustainability?Lastly, we continue in so many research efforts to design to achieve successful, predicted hypotheses and outcomes. We enable, and reinforce, as we do so, a culture of fear of failure. A toxic,"failure-blindness" disorder, of individuals, their institutions, policies, traditions, norms and values, which do not embrace failure as an opportunity to learn. What NOT to DO. Again. And again. To make needed changes. "To fail better," as Samuel Beckett caveated us.To more effectively use limited human and nonhuman resources. Failure is related to as being a four-letter word even tho' it is longer and the harbinger of unexpected, much needed, successes.And one of the everpresent failures in our daily, violating, WE-THEY society, and culture, is mixing up identity-"I,"(self-created as well as externally imposed) with the range of a person's overt behaviors, characteristics, etc.The result, for a reality of diverse, nuanced multi-dimensional people,is the uni-dimensional, unnuanced, either/or, binary-banal, successful/failed label.Failed conceptualization.

It is easy to criticize nutrition research thanks many small, poorly designed studies, but we often forget WHY we have these small, poorly designed studies. Americans consume >100+ different foods every day; no one wants nor can consume a single food diet for long enough (years, decades?) to produce reliable results. From a 2015 NYT article on the frailty of nutrition research, --Unexpected Honey Study Shows Woes of Nutrition Research-- "Although it’s easy to point fingers and make a case that there are huge gaps in our evidence when it comes to food, it should be kept in mind that it’s incredibly hard to do this kind of work. The reason that we have to rely on small, poorly designed trials is because that’s often all we can get."

Ok, so a handful of walnuts each day along with Fish Fillets and Big Macs won’t do your body good, but as the atudy says, if those consuming most nuts are also engaging in other healthy behaviors, then nuts are icing on the cake. Somewhat like wine and the French paradox where red wine along with smaller portions, food grown without round up and more physical acotovry than Americans leads French to have less disease than Americans.

Trying to find some miracle food that will solve your health problems is .. nuts.

Well, nuts! Thought I had a strategy.

At age 82, I find that nuts tend to tear up my gastrointestinal system to the point that my colon is leaking blood. So while I love the little nuts, I avoid them, sniff.

The real benefit of nuts is that while you're eating them you aren't eating something full of sugar.

This just in, studies like this have been found to be, well, just nuts. Let's bottom line it guys. All foods when eaten in moderation will have no effect on your health. If you have allergies, under a doctor's care or certain foods don't agree with you etc. you may have to adjust the above rule, but in general it is the best advice re food.

For me the missing nutrient in the western diet is adequate fiber. A one ounce serving of almonds has 3.5 grams of it. We should be consuming 35 to 40 grams of fiber per day to keep our gut friends happy. So eat nuts, and whole grains and fruits and vegetables. Eating nuts doesn't have to be analyzed separately. They are part of a whole and healthy diet. Plus their satisfying as a snack due to their healthy fats.

With a thousand things affecting our health, it’s hard to show any one is making a big difference. The fat people in line buying cokes and cookies at Safeway have different eating habits than the skinny people buying beans and broccoli at the food co-op, but it’s hard to single out one food to explain it.

Eh, they're storable, portable and a good snack for people like me who have diabetes. I eat a lot of nuts and plan to continue.

summary: most nutrition research is poorly conducted and when a study like these teases out other healthy behaviors that are associated with the consumption of the purported "healthy" food the benefits disappear.