Re: Walnuts, Flax, and ALMONDS?

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

Well, " beneficial relative to what? " seems like an appropriate

question. If a study shows benefit when used instead of SAD

ingredients then it would not mean much. Any more than olive oil is

shown to be better than trans fats and saturated fats, yet is a

notable component of the diets of the (minority of) people in Crete

who get CVD.

And imo you also need to be cautious about (quite a few) recently

published studies financed by the Californian nut industry. That does

not PROVE they are invalid, but it helps (!)

If someone can post relevant studies I would certainly be interested

in reading the abstracts.

Rodney.

>

> What about almonds? Have they not been shown in recent studies to be

> beneficial as well? I don't have the studies up my sleeve, which is

> why I'm posing this as a question.

>

[Guest guest]

OK, I found a few references:

Almonds very rich in antioxidants:

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=14ade752-b8cb-4043-92c0\

-4ef9d8de8852 & k=39223

http://www.market-day.net/article_27343/20060921/Almonds-Join-Green-Tea-Broccoli\

-as-Powerful-Antioxidants.php

Almonds lower LDL cholesterol better than non-fat foods do:

http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=xtras & subsection=healthcheck\

& xfile=October2006_extraspecial_standard981 & child=extraspecial

> >

> > What about almonds? Have they not been shown in recent studies to be

> > beneficial as well? I don't have the studies up my sleeve, which is

> > why I'm posing this as a question.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

A reference with regards to almonds, satiety and BMI.

Mike

*** http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice & dbid=20

A study published in the November 2003 issue of the International

Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders that included 65

overweight and obese adults suggests that an almond-enriched low

calorie diet (which is high in monounsaturated fats), can help

overweight individuals shed pounds more effectively than a low

calorie diet high in complex carbohydrates. Those on the almond-

enriched low calorie diet consumed 39% of their calories in the form

of fat, 25% of which was monounsaturated fat. In contrast, those on

the low calorie diet high in complex carbohydrates consumed only 18%

of their calories as fat, of which 5% was monounsaturated fat, while

53% of their calories were derived from carbohydrate. Both diets

supplied the same number of calories and equivalent amounts of

protein. After 6 months, those on the almond-enriched diet had

greater reductions in weight (-18 vs. -11%), their waistlines (-14

vs. -9%), body fat (-30 vs. -20%), total body water (-8 vs. -1%),

and systolic blood pressure (-11 vs. 0%). Those eating almonds

experienced a 62% greater reduction in their weight/BMI (body mass

index), 50% greater reduction in waist circumference, and 56%

greater reduction in body fat compared to those on the low calorie

high carbohydrate diet! Among those subjects who had type 1

diabetes, diabetes medication reductions were sustained or further

reduced in 96% of those on the almond-enriched diet versus in 50% of

those on the complex carbohydrate diet. (January 2, 2004)

--- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@...>

wrote:

>

> OK, I found a few references:

>

> Almonds very rich in antioxidants:

>

> http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=14ade752-

b8cb-4043-92c0-4ef9d8de8852 & k=39223

>

> http://www.market-day.net/article_27343/20060921/Almonds-Join-

Green-Tea-Broccoli-as-Powerful-Antioxidants.php

>

> Almonds lower LDL cholesterol better than non-fat foods do:

>

> http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?

section=xtras & subsection=healthcheck & xfile=October2006_extraspecial_s

tandard981 & child=extraspecial

>

>

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Orb:

> >

> > Well, " beneficial relative to what? " seems like an appropriate

> > question. If a study shows benefit when used instead of SAD

> > ingredients then it would not mean much. Any more than olive

oil is

> > shown to be better than trans fats and saturated fats, yet is a

> > notable component of the diets of the (minority of) people in

Crete

> > who get CVD.

> >

> > And imo you also need to be cautious about (quite a few)

recently

> > published studies financed by the Californian nut industry.

That does

> > not PROVE they are invalid, but it helps (!)

> >

> > If someone can post relevant studies I would certainly be

interested

> > in reading the abstracts.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> > --- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > What about almonds? Have they not been shown in recent

studies to be

> > > beneficial as well? I don't have the studies up my sleeve,

which is

> > > why I'm posing this as a question.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

If I may respond to my own post...

Albeit anecdotal, with regards to " satiety " , I have found that 1/2

an ounce of almonds (approx. 80 cals) per day seems to curb my

appetite and keep the CR aspect of my CR-ON adventure on cruise

control. Not exactly the theme of the article sited below, as the

subjects consumed the same number of calories.

Regardless, almonds are a good return on (nutritional) investment,

at least for me. :-)

Mike

> > > >

> > > > What about almonds? Have they not been shown in recent

> studies to be

> > > > beneficial as well? I don't have the studies up my sleeve,

> which is

> > > > why I'm posing this as a question.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Its always much better to look at the original

reference than a promo page by a health food

companies.

As with all the olive oil studies, that Rodney and i

have dissected here, the glowing news reports are not

accurately reflected in the original papers.

Calories were not accurately measured in this study.

In addition, the main purpose of the study, which can

missed by the news, was to show that you can add

texture and variety to a Liquid Diet weight loss

regime, (which the nut group was on) without

compromising weight loss, if the calories are

adequately accounted for.

But, having said that...

The almond group received a powder premixed formula

for 2 of their meals and for the third they were given

an exact recipe for a salad to which they added the

pre measured almonds.

The other group " self selected " their food and thier

food intake was " Self reported " .. As we have showed

here many times, even trained professionals usually

underestimate their calorie intake by around 50%. So,

while they may have reported eating only 1000

calories, they may have been eating upwards of 1500.

If they were eating just 300 calories more per day,

1300 calories, instead of the 1000 they reported, this

would explain 100% of the difference.

Without the exact food being provided for them, or a

controlled feeding study, there is no way anyone can

say the calories were the same with any sort of

accurary.

Actitivity levels were also " Self " reported.

And, as I mentioned in my original response... part

of the issue is that the nuts were not fully digested,

which the authors alluded to...

" The fiber matrix of the nut may have compromised the

absorption of the fat from the almonds yielding an

imbalance of energy sources between the groups. "

and concluded by saying...

" Our findings call for additional studies in larger

numbers of subjects to allow evaluation of different

fat to CHO ratios and whether consumption of almonds

(or other nuts) as the delivery vehicle were

responsible for the disparity in weight loss. "

Unfortunately, in controlled feeding studies, they can

not replicate these results, nor have they been able

to repeat those same results in over 3 years.

The only FDA health claim approved for nuts/seeds,

which means there is at least some consistant evidence

for it, is for the reduction of lipids and says....

" Scientific evidence suggests but does not prove that

eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts [, such as name

of specific nut,] as part of a diet low in saturated

fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart

disease. [see nutrition information for fat content.] "

And, this is also only when they are substituted for

other " unhealthy " fats.

So, again, there is plenty of room for including up to

an ounce of nuts/seeds in a CRON diet, for whatever

reason someone wants to, (which seems to be inline

with what most of you are saying you eat), but more

than that and you begin to compromise nutrient

density. The more you add, the more you compromise.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

PS

almonds have more fiber than most other nuts (almost

50% more than some), which is why they may be more

" filling " .

[Guest guest]

Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or nearly fat-free

diet, right? On CRON, it is easy to get caught up in eating

high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e. vegetables, fruits, whole

grains, etc.) Given that we all need to consume *some* fat, what are

the best sources? I would think that flax and nuts would be the best

answer, no?

>

> Its always much better to look at the original

> reference than a promo page by a health food

> companies.

>

> As with all the olive oil studies, that Rodney and i

> have dissected here, the glowing news reports are not

> accurately reflected in the original papers.

>

> Calories were not accurately measured in this study.

> In addition, the main purpose of the study, which can

> missed by the news, was to show that you can add

> texture and variety to a Liquid Diet weight loss

> regime, (which the nut group was on) without

> compromising weight loss, if the calories are

> adequately accounted for.

>

> But, having said that...

>

> The almond group received a powder premixed formula

> for 2 of their meals and for the third they were given

> an exact recipe for a salad to which they added the

> pre measured almonds.

>

> The other group " self selected " their food and thier

> food intake was " Self reported " .. As we have showed

> here many times, even trained professionals usually

> underestimate their calorie intake by around 50%. So,

> while they may have reported eating only 1000

> calories, they may have been eating upwards of 1500.

> If they were eating just 300 calories more per day,

> 1300 calories, instead of the 1000 they reported, this

> would explain 100% of the difference.

>

> Without the exact food being provided for them, or a

> controlled feeding study, there is no way anyone can

> say the calories were the same with any sort of

> accurary.

>

> Actitivity levels were also " Self " reported.

>

> And, as I mentioned in my original response... part

> of the issue is that the nuts were not fully digested,

> which the authors alluded to...

>

> " The fiber matrix of the nut may have compromised the

> absorption of the fat from the almonds yielding an

> imbalance of energy sources between the groups. "

>

> and concluded by saying...

>

> " Our findings call for additional studies in larger

> numbers of subjects to allow evaluation of different

> fat to CHO ratios and whether consumption of almonds

> (or other nuts) as the delivery vehicle were

> responsible for the disparity in weight loss. "

>

> Unfortunately, in controlled feeding studies, they can

> not replicate these results, nor have they been able

> to repeat those same results in over 3 years.

>

> The only FDA health claim approved for nuts/seeds,

> which means there is at least some consistant evidence

> for it, is for the reduction of lipids and says....

>

> " Scientific evidence suggests but does not prove that

> eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts [, such as name

> of specific nut,] as part of a diet low in saturated

> fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart

> disease. [see nutrition information for fat content.] "

>

> And, this is also only when they are substituted for

> other " unhealthy " fats.

>

> So, again, there is plenty of room for including up to

> an ounce of nuts/seeds in a CRON diet, for whatever

> reason someone wants to, (which seems to be inline

> with what most of you are saying you eat), but more

> than that and you begin to compromise nutrient

> density. The more you add, the more you compromise.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

I guess these responses miss the fact that I keep

recommending IMHO up to one oz of nuts/seeds per day.

>>Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or

> nearly fat-free

> diet, right?

That would be impossible to do. See next comment

>>On CRON, it is easy to get caught up

> in eating

> high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e.

> vegetables, fruits, whole

> grains, etc.)

The average percentage fat in fruits, vegetables,

whole grains, legumes, is around 10-15%, and is made

up of almost entirely of unsaturated fats, with no

cholesterol, and if eaten in sufficient quantities

(even to meet CRON needs) will supply the needed

Eseential Fats. Green leafy vegetables happen to be

an excellent source of EFAs.

Add in a small amount of nuts/seeds or lean animal

protein, and a serving or two or reduced fat dairy or

soy, and your total diet would be around 15-20% fat on

average.

Enjoy

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Past discussions (and our files and links) discuss this. Yes we highly recommend some healthy fat.

As Jeff points out, a small amt of nuts, some avocado, and some fatty fish (salmon, herring for example) are among the healthy fats. Tony often recommends sunflower seeds for lower cholesterol (see Tony's " scientific psychic " website). I had a small amount pf seeds to my daily salad which also includes some canned (wild) salmon and often a small amount of avocado.

on 10/11/2006 11:07 AM, Jeff Novick at chefjeff40@... wrote:

I guess these responses miss the fact that I keep

recommending IMHO up to one oz of nuts/seeds per day.

>>Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or

> nearly fat-free

> diet, right?

That would be impossible to do. See next comment

>>On CRON, it is easy to get caught up

> in eating

> high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e.

> vegetables, fruits, whole

> grains, etc.)

The average percentage fat in fruits, vegetables,

whole grains, legumes, is around 10-15%, and is made

up of almost entirely of unsaturated fats, with no

cholesterol, and if eaten in sufficient quantities

(even to meet CRON needs) will supply the needed

Eseential Fats. Green leafy vegetables happen to be

an excellent source of EFAs.

Add in a small amount of nuts/seeds or lean animal

protein, and a serving or two or reduced fat dairy or

soy, and your total diet would be around 15-20% fat on

average.

Enjoy

Jeff

[Guest guest]

OK, sure, though the key words " up to " imply to

some newer board users that none is acceptable too.

At a very low intake of 15% of calories from fat and 1800

calories per day, that's still 30 grams of fat

per day. One ounce of almonds provides only half

that amount.

>

> I guess these responses miss the fact that I keep

> recommending IMHO up to one oz of nuts/seeds per day.

>

>

>

> >>Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or

> > nearly fat-free

> > diet, right?

>

> That would be impossible to do. See next comment

>

> >>On CRON, it is easy to get caught up

> > in eating

> > high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e.

> > vegetables, fruits, whole

> > grains, etc.)

>

> The average percentage fat in fruits, vegetables,

> whole grains, legumes, is around 10-15%, and is made

> up of almost entirely of unsaturated fats, with no

> cholesterol, and if eaten in sufficient quantities

> (even to meet CRON needs) will supply the needed

> Eseential Fats. Green leafy vegetables happen to be

> an excellent source of EFAs.

>

> Add in a small amount of nuts/seeds or lean animal

> protein, and a serving or two or reduced fat dairy or

> soy, and your total diet would be around 15-20% fat on

> average.

>

> Enjoy

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

There are very few foods that contain no fat at all. Even in plain

tomatoes, for example, about 10% of the calories are derived from

fat. Whole grain bread 12%. So if I eat just 100 g of fish and a

small amount of nuts daily I have trouble staying under 20% of

calories from fat, pretty much no matter what else I eat. So the

vast majority of people don't need " to make sure they get some fat " .

It is very nearly everywhere.

But the issue is to get the kind of fat your body requires - that is

the 'essential' fats. Monounstaurated fats are not essential, so

they are not a good source of the fats you do need. Neither of

course are saturated or trans fats essential.

Linoleic is essential. So is some 'omega-3'. But it is unclear

which type of omega-3 - whether ALA is essential in its own right, or

only to generate DHA and EPA.

But many nuts contain a lot more of the unessential, and therefore

empty calories, fats than the ones you need. If you believe your

diet is fat-deficient, then a tiny amount of regular 'high-linoleic'

safflower oil and a little fish, or a fish oil supplement, would seem

to me to be the best route to get the amount of essential fats you

need without a whole lot of other fats that serve no function except

add more calories.

Rodney.

--- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@...>

wrote:

>

> OK, sure, though the key words " up to " imply to

> some newer board users that none is acceptable too.

> At a very low intake of 15% of calories from fat and 1800

> calories per day, that's still 30 grams of fat

> per day. One ounce of almonds provides only half

> that amount.

>

> --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@>

wrote:

> >

> > I guess these responses miss the fact that I keep

> > recommending IMHO up to one oz of nuts/seeds per day.

> >

> >

> >

> > >>Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or

> > > nearly fat-free

> > > diet, right?

> >

> > That would be impossible to do. See next comment

> >

> > >>On CRON, it is easy to get caught up

> > > in eating

> > > high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e.

> > > vegetables, fruits, whole

> > > grains, etc.)

> >

> > The average percentage fat in fruits, vegetables,

> > whole grains, legumes, is around 10-15%, and is made

> > up of almost entirely of unsaturated fats, with no

> > cholesterol, and if eaten in sufficient quantities

> > (even to meet CRON needs) will supply the needed

> > Eseential Fats. Green leafy vegetables happen to be

> > an excellent source of EFAs.

> >

> > Add in a small amount of nuts/seeds or lean animal

> > protein, and a serving or two or reduced fat dairy or

> > soy, and your total diet would be around 15-20% fat on

> > average.

> >

> > Enjoy

> > Jeff

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>>OK, sure, though the key words " up to " imply to some newer board users that

none is acceptable too.

Correct. No added nuts (or avocado) is acceptable. Nuts are one of top causes

of food allergies so many humans can't eat them. They are not required.

>>At a very low intake of 15% of calories from fat and 1800>

calories per day, that's still 30 grams of fat

That is not 'very low'. Maybe compared to the pathetic american diet.. But not

when compared to other healthier populations.

The issue isn't the percentage of fat or total fat. The issue is ensuring

adequate intake of essential fats.

>> One ounce of almonds provides only half that amount.

And little if any essential fats. Most all nuts are high in MUFA which is not

essential nor does it confer additional health benefits once EFAs are met or

when it 'displaces' other healthy foods.

Enjoy the almonds!

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

In the case of almonds, which you seem to favor, 100g of almonds

contain 48g of fat. Of that, 71% of it is saturated or

monounsaturated, which at best you do not need and is serving no

purpose except empty calories, and at worst is clogging your arteries.

About 25% is linoleic, which you do need. But there are far better

sources for it (better because they contain much more of the fat

types you need and less of those you certainly do not want). Almonds

also appear to contain no DHA, EPA or ALA, all of which would be

beneficial if they were there.

Have you ever tracked your intake and found you have a fat

deficiency? I doubt many people have one. I aim for 15% of calories

from fat and have trouble reaching it. Suppose you are eating 1700

calories a day. And you eat 100g of sardines, which is almost 200

total calories and 100 calories of fat. If *all* the other 1500

calories you eat contain as little fat as tomatoes, you will still be

getting 15% of your total calories from fat - simple arithmetic.

But the issue is not to get " some " of any old fat. The issue is to

get a little of the fats you need. Almonds aren't a good way of

doing that, imo.

Perhaps you will say: " well what about the antioxidants in

almonds? " . That is a different argument. But there are also

probably much better places to get antioxidants too.

But they taste good : ^ )))

Rodney.

> > >

> > > I guess these responses miss the fact that I keep

> > > recommending IMHO up to one oz of nuts/seeds per day.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >>Certainly, no one here is recommending a fat-free or

> > > > nearly fat-free

> > > > diet, right?

> > >

> > > That would be impossible to do. See next comment

> > >

> > > >>On CRON, it is easy to get caught up

> > > > in eating

> > > > high-nutrient nearly fat-free foods (i.e.

> > > > vegetables, fruits, whole

> > > > grains, etc.)

> > >

> > > The average percentage fat in fruits, vegetables,

> > > whole grains, legumes, is around 10-15%, and is made

> > > up of almost entirely of unsaturated fats, with no

> > > cholesterol, and if eaten in sufficient quantities

> > > (even to meet CRON needs) will supply the needed

> > > Eseential Fats. Green leafy vegetables happen to be

> > > an excellent source of EFAs.

> > >

> > > Add in a small amount of nuts/seeds or lean animal

> > > protein, and a serving or two or reduced fat dairy or

> > > soy, and your total diet would be around 15-20% fat on

> > > average.

> > >

> > > Enjoy

> > > Jeff

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Just to clarify, for those that choose not to consume fish

(vegans/vegetarians), walnuts and flax seeds are excellent sources of

omega-3. Almonds are not so great for omega-3, though they have been

shown to decrease LDL levels better than eating non-fat foods alone

and are very rich in antioxidants (as already stated), so they are

certainly a healthy source of fat in the diet -- and 30 grams of fat

per day is low by any nutritional standard.

--- In , Novick <chefjeff40@...>

wrote:

>

> >>OK, sure, though the key words " up to " imply to some newer board

users that none is acceptable too.

>

> Correct. No added nuts (or avocado) is acceptable. Nuts are one of

top causes of food allergies so many humans can't eat them. They are

not required.

>

> >>At a very low intake of 15% of calories from fat and 1800>

> calories per day, that's still 30 grams of fat

>

> That is not 'very low'. Maybe compared to the pathetic american

diet.. But not when compared to other healthier populations.

>

> The issue isn't the percentage of fat or total fat. The issue is

ensuring adequate intake of essential fats.

>

> >> One ounce of almonds provides only half that amount.

>

> And little if any essential fats. Most all nuts are high in MUFA

which is not essential nor does it confer additional health benefits

once EFAs are met or when it 'displaces' other healthy foods.

>

> Enjoy the almonds!

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

And that is not to be dismissed lightly. Every CRONIE should have room in their diet (in the tradition of Dr W himself) for enjoyment of food and life without guilt.

on 10/11/2006 5:00 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

But they taste good : ^ )))

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

>> Almonds are not so great for omega-3,

> though they have been

> shown to decrease LDL levels better than eating

> non-fat foods alone

I dont know where you get this concept of " non fat "

foods from. I dont know of any.

If you are talking about all the " junk " that is sold

in the food stores as " fat free " , well then, almost

anything is better than that " junk " but I dont think

anyone is really considering any of that " junk " to be

part of a healthy CRON diet.

And, BTW, it isnt " Fat free " anyway, as the percent

fat and weight of fat are just rounded down. Plus

there are other labeling tricks they use. You can

check Tonys website for more info on this

Also, unsaturated fats like MUFAS, have really only

been shown to lower LDL levels when substituted for

saturated, hydrogenated or trans fats, on an equal

calorie basis. It's the " substitution " for the worse

fat, not the " addition " of the MUFA, as already

stated.

If my LDL is 70 and I eat no almonds, and I add an

ounce of almonds to my diet, my LDL is not going down

any lower. If I susbtitute it for some unhealthier

fat I may find in my diet (though with an LDL of 70

that would be hard to do), then it might.

30 grams of fat is 270 calories from fat, which is a

lot of calories. If you want, I would glady compare

the nutrient density of of any nut/seed and the equal

calories of green leafyies and as you will see (as I

have already done here many times) there is no

comparsion.

You really should do the experiment Rodney is talking

about and what I beleive to be that ultimate criteria

of CRON...., enter you diet into a nutrition software

and see how well you do. If you are missing

nutrients, make adjustments till you can reach

nutrient adequacy with a reduced caloric intake,

without consuming too much of anything that may not be

good for you.

As you will see, once you get the % fat over 15-20%,

the nutrient density of the diet ONLY goes down, the

more fat you eat. Regardless of the source.

Yes, nuts/seeds are " dense " in antioixidants " per

gram " but not " per calorie " . And, yes, nuts/seeds are

a way healthier choice than using an " oil " .

And, as Francesca and Rodney and Dr W said, we should

enjoy our food.

So, again, enjoy the almonds.

I am about to go enjoy a TB of fresh ground raw

unsalted almond butter.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I think I'm not making my points clearly. See below.

>

> >> Almonds are not so great for omega-3,

> > though they have been

> > shown to decrease LDL levels better than eating

> > non-fat foods alone

>

>

> I dont know where you get this concept of " non fat "

> foods from. I dont know of any.

On the contrary, there are so many *whole foods*

that have trace levels of fat -- not 100% fat-free,

but close (many fruits, in particular, which I do

enjoy and are quite healthy).

>

> If you are talking about all the " junk " that is sold

> in the food stores as " fat free " , well then, almost

> anything is better than that " junk " but I dont think

> anyone is really considering any of that " junk " to be

> part of a healthy CRON diet.

I never implied that one should be eating non-fat

junk food as part of the CRON diet, except occasionally

if one desires. I believe strongly in a whole-food

vegan diet (ethical concerns come into play here, not

only health).

>

> And, BTW, it isnt " Fat free " anyway, as the percent

> fat and weight of fat are just rounded down. Plus

> there are other labeling tricks they use. You can

> check Tonys website for more info on this

Sure, we've all seen the tricks that the food industry

is good at playing.

>

> Also, unsaturated fats like MUFAS, have really only

> been shown to lower LDL levels when substituted for

> saturated, hydrogenated or trans fats, on an equal

> calorie basis. It's the " substitution " for the worse

> fat, not the " addition " of the MUFA, as already

> stated.

There you are incorrect. See previous post.

>

> If my LDL is 70 and I eat no almonds, and I add an

> ounce of almonds to my diet, my LDL is not going down

> any lower. If I susbtitute it for some unhealthier

> fat I may find in my diet (though with an LDL of 70

> that would be hard to do), then it might.

Most likely, unless one has poor genetics, cholesterol

won't really be a problem if you're following CRON

accurately.

>

> 30 grams of fat is 270 calories from fat, which is a

> lot of calories. If you want, I would glady compare

> the nutrient density of of any nut/seed and the equal

> calories of green leafyies and as you will see (as I

> have already done here many times) there is no

> comparsion.

270 calories is not a lot, when you're eating 1700-1800

per day, IMHO. Of course, leafy greens beat perhaps any foods

in terms of nutrient density per calorie, but you're not

going to eat only leafy greens, right? Perhaps substitute

some good nuts (walnut or almonds) for calories from

grains, but I never implied that you should cut any

greens out of your diet! I'm not some kind of almond

nut (pun intended) either. In fact, I do eat less than an ounce

per day and very often none at all. I also eat soy,

flax, whole grains, etc., which provide fat -- not to mention

the occasional small-serving dessert (I'm only human).

>

> You really should do the experiment Rodney is talking

> about and what I beleive to be that ultimate criteria

> of CRON...., enter you diet into a nutrition software

> and see how well you do. If you are missing

> nutrients, make adjustments till you can reach

> nutrient adequacy with a reduced caloric intake,

> without consuming too much of anything that may not be

> good for you.

>

> As you will see, once you get the % fat over 15-20%,

> the nutrient density of the diet ONLY goes down, the

> more fat you eat. Regardless of the source.

That's obvious enough. I consume less than 20% of

calories per day from fat and I avoid trans fats and

am low in saturated, so I think I'm all set.

>

> Yes, nuts/seeds are " dense " in antioixidants " per

> gram " but not " per calorie " . And, yes, nuts/seeds are

> a way healthier choice than using an " oil " .

>

> And, as Francesca and Rodney and Dr W said, we should

> enjoy our food.

>

> So, again, enjoy the almonds.

>

> I am about to go enjoy a TB of fresh ground raw

> unsalted almond butter.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

I think we essentially agree. Thanks for your reply.

[Guest guest]

> > Also, unsaturated fats like MUFAS, have really

> only

> > been shown to lower LDL levels when substituted

> for

> > saturated, hydrogenated or trans fats, on an equal

> > calorie basis. It's the " substitution " for the

> worse

> > fat, not the " addition " of the MUFA, as already

> > stated.

>

> There you are incorrect. See previous post.

Please post the citations/references.

(not the public lay articles as others did, which are

not always right)

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

You may want to spend some time reading Tony's

wesbite.. especially his section on fats and the

effects of fats on lipids.

He has a great explantation and examples of documented

equations which you can use to calculate what the

change in cholesterol will be from the change in the

type of fat.

As you will see MUFAs have little if any effect, in

and of themselves, on lowering cholesterol

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cholesterol1.html

As a vegan, are you concerned about EPA and DHA and if

so, how do you address these concerns?

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

A healthy vegan (or non-vegan) produces ample levels of DHA and EPA

from omega-3 and omega-6. No concern there for me, though there are

vegan supplements out there too, produced from algae. (I *do*

supplement B12 rather than leaving it to chance by eating unwashed

root vegetables!)

>

> You may want to spend some time reading Tony's

> wesbite.. especially his section on fats and the

> effects of fats on lipids.

>

> He has a great explantation and examples of documented

> equations which you can use to calculate what the

> change in cholesterol will be from the change in the

> type of fat.

>

> As you will see MUFAs have little if any effect, in

> and of themselves, on lowering cholesterol

>

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/cholesterol1.html

>

> As a vegan, are you concerned about EPA and DHA and if

> so, how do you address these concerns?

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

In the subject line of this thread walnuts, flax and almonds are

mentioned. The latter even capitalized.

Just so that I understand where we are in this discussion, is there

still an issue as to whether almonds are a " good source of fats " , or

instead whether 71% of the fats they contain are of the artery-

clogging and/or empty calorie types?

Second, walnuts and flax contain a large amount of ALA which has been

shown in several studies to be associated with a doubling in the rate

of metastatic prostate cancer. (Giovannucci et al, Health

Professionals follow up study, which has been posted here a number of

times). So, as a male, I avoid the foods, like walnuts and flax,

which contain copious amounts of this fat, because prostate cancer is

a very common form of cancer in males. There are very nearly as many

new cases of it, and very nearly as many deaths from it in males, as

there are from breast cancer in females. If you are female, however,

I know of no good reason for you to avoid ALA.

As regards your point about veganism:

" I believe strongly in a whole-food vegan diet (ethical concerns come

into play here, not only health). "

Almost always when someone starts a sentance with the words: " I

believe in ............ " it means, in effect, " this is my view, I

don't have any evidence to support it, but kindly accept it and don't

ask questions about it or challenge it. "

Is this your approach too? Or do you have a rational basis for

your " belief " in veganism? It appears, based on studies relating to

prostate cancer posted here, that for males eating a little fish, or

taking fish oil capsules, is likely to be preferable to consuming

foods with a high ALA content. I personally cannot see any objection

to eating small amounts of fish in order to avoid this problem. But

perhaps you have valid reasons?

Rodney.

--- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@...>

wrote:

>

> I think I'm not making my points clearly. See below.

>

> --- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@>

wrote:

> >

> > >> Almonds are not so great for omega-3,

> > > though they have been

> > > shown to decrease LDL levels better than eating

> > > non-fat foods alone

> >

> >

> > I dont know where you get this concept of " non fat "

> > foods from. I dont know of any.

>

> On the contrary, there are so many *whole foods*

> that have trace levels of fat -- not 100% fat-free,

> but close (many fruits, in particular, which I do

> enjoy and are quite healthy).

> >

> > If you are talking about all the " junk " that is sold

> > in the food stores as " fat free " , well then, almost

> > anything is better than that " junk " but I dont think

> > anyone is really considering any of that " junk " to be

> > part of a healthy CRON diet.

>

> I never implied that one should be eating non-fat

> junk food as part of the CRON diet, except occasionally

> if one desires. I believe strongly in a whole-food

> vegan diet (ethical concerns come into play here, not

> only health).

>

> >

> > And, BTW, it isnt " Fat free " anyway, as the percent

> > fat and weight of fat are just rounded down. Plus

> > there are other labeling tricks they use. You can

> > check Tonys website for more info on this

>

> Sure, we've all seen the tricks that the food industry

> is good at playing.

>

> >

> > Also, unsaturated fats like MUFAS, have really only

> > been shown to lower LDL levels when substituted for

> > saturated, hydrogenated or trans fats, on an equal

> > calorie basis. It's the " substitution " for the worse

> > fat, not the " addition " of the MUFA, as already

> > stated.

>

> There you are incorrect. See previous post.

>

> >

> > If my LDL is 70 and I eat no almonds, and I add an

> > ounce of almonds to my diet, my LDL is not going down

> > any lower. If I susbtitute it for some unhealthier

> > fat I may find in my diet (though with an LDL of 70

> > that would be hard to do), then it might.

>

> Most likely, unless one has poor genetics, cholesterol

> won't really be a problem if you're following CRON

> accurately.

>

> >

> > 30 grams of fat is 270 calories from fat, which is a

> > lot of calories. If you want, I would glady compare

> > the nutrient density of of any nut/seed and the equal

> > calories of green leafyies and as you will see (as I

> > have already done here many times) there is no

> > comparsion.

>

> 270 calories is not a lot, when you're eating 1700-1800

> per day, IMHO. Of course, leafy greens beat perhaps any foods

> in terms of nutrient density per calorie, but you're not

> going to eat only leafy greens, right? Perhaps substitute

> some good nuts (walnut or almonds) for calories from

> grains, but I never implied that you should cut any

> greens out of your diet! I'm not some kind of almond

> nut (pun intended) either. In fact, I do eat less than an ounce

> per day and very often none at all. I also eat soy,

> flax, whole grains, etc., which provide fat -- not to mention

> the occasional small-serving dessert (I'm only human).

>

> >

> > You really should do the experiment Rodney is talking

> > about and what I beleive to be that ultimate criteria

> > of CRON...., enter you diet into a nutrition software

> > and see how well you do. If you are missing

> > nutrients, make adjustments till you can reach

> > nutrient adequacy with a reduced caloric intake,

> > without consuming too much of anything that may not be

> > good for you.

> >

> > As you will see, once you get the % fat over 15-20%,

> > the nutrient density of the diet ONLY goes down, the

> > more fat you eat. Regardless of the source.

>

> That's obvious enough. I consume less than 20% of

> calories per day from fat and I avoid trans fats and

> am low in saturated, so I think I'm all set.

> >

> > Yes, nuts/seeds are " dense " in antioixidants " per

> > gram " but not " per calorie " . And, yes, nuts/seeds are

> > a way healthier choice than using an " oil " .

> >

> > And, as Francesca and Rodney and Dr W said, we should

> > enjoy our food.

> >

> > So, again, enjoy the almonds.

> >

> > I am about to go enjoy a TB of fresh ground raw

> > unsalted almond butter.

> >

> > Regards

> > Jeff

> >

> I think we essentially agree. Thanks for your reply.

>

[Guest guest]

> A healthy vegan (or non-vegan) produces ample levels

> of DHA and EPA

> from omega-3 and omega-6.

You seem much more confident in your statement than

many of the vegan MDs, RDs, and scientists.

Studies done on vegans have shown that while they do

produce EPA and DHA, their levels are much lower than

than average. Whether this is " ample " is yet to be

determined.

Mezzano D, Munoz X, ez C, Cuevas A, Panes O,

Aranda E, Guasch V, Strobel P, Munoz B, S,

Pereira J, Leighton F. Vegetarians and cardiovascular

risk factors: hemostasis, inflammatory markers and

plasma homocysteine. Thromb Haemost 1999

Jun;81(6):913-7.

From a second study on vegans and vegetarians showed

the following fatty acid levels in blood:

Meat Veg Vegans

N 196 231 232

EPA (mg/l) 23 14 8

DHA (mg/l) 53 31 16

The differences were all statistically significant.

It is not clear whether these lower blood levels in

vegetarians and vegans is a problem. Length of time

since becoming a vegetarian or vegan did not affect

blood levels, indicating that once someone becomes

vegetarian or vegan for a short time, their levels

stabilize.

Rosell MS, et al. Long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty

acids in plasma in British meat-eating, vegetarian,

and vegan men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):327-34

If you are healthy, the body does a pretty good job of

converting ALA into EPA, but the conversion rate of

EPA into DHA is not good. , a well

respected vegan RD says.. " only about 4-10% of

alpha-linolenic acid is converted into EPA, and just

2-5% becomes DHA. Worse, high intakes of omega-6 fatty

acids can competitively block this conversion by up to

50% "

Supplementing with DHA (which you said you dont do)

can raise DHA levels in vegetarians..

Conquer JA, Holub BJ. Supplementation with an algae

source of docosahexaenoic acid increases (n-3) fatty

acid status and alters selected risk factors for heart

disease in vegetarian subjects. J Nutr. 1996

Dec;126(12):3032-9.

Having been a vegan for over 30 years, I have to say

that the DHA, like B12, may actually be one issue that

needs to be addressed with a algae based DHA vegan

supplement, or if one doesnt mind, a capsule of fish

oil.

I am including the latest results from the longterm

study on vegetarian and vegans from Keys and Applby.

Overall, they are no healthier than the " health

conscious " non vegetarians. And B12 and Omega 3s, seem

to be real issues.

Regards

Jeff

Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41. Links

Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.Key TJ,

Appleby PN, Rosell MS.

Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of

Oxford, Doll Building. tim.key@...

Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish;

vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs.

Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the

empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional

content and health effects of the average diet of

well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries,

together with some information on vegetarians in

non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets

provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses,

nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients,

vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates,

n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic

acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low

in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids,

retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have

particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low

intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians

and vegans have shown that on average they have a

relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol

concentration; recent studies have also shown higher

plasma homocysteine concentrations than in

non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have

shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but

little difference in other major causes of death or

all-cause mortality in comparison with

health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same

population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear

differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and

non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on

the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on

health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids

and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the

health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to

that of comparable non-vegetarians.

PMID: 16441942

[Guest guest]

I don't want to get into all the details here of why I am vegan

because this is not the appropriate forum, but they involve a

combination of animal welfare, environmental, and health issues.

As for prostate cancer -- and I'll see if I can find you the reference

-- vegans have a low incidence of it. Also, keep in mind that we are

not consuming huge amounts of ALA (and my total fat intake is very low

compared with most) and that the enormous levels of antioxidants

consumed on CRON have protective effects as well, I'm sure you realize.

> > >

> > > >> Almonds are not so great for omega-3,

> > > > though they have been

> > > > shown to decrease LDL levels better than eating

> > > > non-fat foods alone

> > >

> > >

> > > I dont know where you get this concept of " non fat "

> > > foods from. I dont know of any.

> >

> > On the contrary, there are so many *whole foods*

> > that have trace levels of fat -- not 100% fat-free,

> > but close (many fruits, in particular, which I do

> > enjoy and are quite healthy).

> > >

> > > If you are talking about all the " junk " that is sold

> > > in the food stores as " fat free " , well then, almost

> > > anything is better than that " junk " but I dont think

> > > anyone is really considering any of that " junk " to be

> > > part of a healthy CRON diet.

> >

> > I never implied that one should be eating non-fat

> > junk food as part of the CRON diet, except occasionally

> > if one desires. I believe strongly in a whole-food

> > vegan diet (ethical concerns come into play here, not

> > only health).

> >

> > >

> > > And, BTW, it isnt " Fat free " anyway, as the percent

> > > fat and weight of fat are just rounded down. Plus

> > > there are other labeling tricks they use. You can

> > > check Tonys website for more info on this

> >

> > Sure, we've all seen the tricks that the food industry

> > is good at playing.

> >

> > >

> > > Also, unsaturated fats like MUFAS, have really only

> > > been shown to lower LDL levels when substituted for

> > > saturated, hydrogenated or trans fats, on an equal

> > > calorie basis. It's the " substitution " for the worse

> > > fat, not the " addition " of the MUFA, as already

> > > stated.

> >

> > There you are incorrect. See previous post.

> >

> > >

> > > If my LDL is 70 and I eat no almonds, and I add an

> > > ounce of almonds to my diet, my LDL is not going down

> > > any lower. If I susbtitute it for some unhealthier

> > > fat I may find in my diet (though with an LDL of 70

> > > that would be hard to do), then it might.

> >

> > Most likely, unless one has poor genetics, cholesterol

> > won't really be a problem if you're following CRON

> > accurately.

> >

> > >

> > > 30 grams of fat is 270 calories from fat, which is a

> > > lot of calories. If you want, I would glady compare

> > > the nutrient density of of any nut/seed and the equal

> > > calories of green leafyies and as you will see (as I

> > > have already done here many times) there is no

> > > comparsion.

> >

> > 270 calories is not a lot, when you're eating 1700-1800

> > per day, IMHO. Of course, leafy greens beat perhaps any foods

> > in terms of nutrient density per calorie, but you're not

> > going to eat only leafy greens, right? Perhaps substitute

> > some good nuts (walnut or almonds) for calories from

> > grains, but I never implied that you should cut any

> > greens out of your diet! I'm not some kind of almond

> > nut (pun intended) either. In fact, I do eat less than an ounce

> > per day and very often none at all. I also eat soy,

> > flax, whole grains, etc., which provide fat -- not to mention

> > the occasional small-serving dessert (I'm only human).

> >

> > >

> > > You really should do the experiment Rodney is talking

> > > about and what I beleive to be that ultimate criteria

> > > of CRON...., enter you diet into a nutrition software

> > > and see how well you do. If you are missing

> > > nutrients, make adjustments till you can reach

> > > nutrient adequacy with a reduced caloric intake,

> > > without consuming too much of anything that may not be

> > > good for you.

> > >

> > > As you will see, once you get the % fat over 15-20%,

> > > the nutrient density of the diet ONLY goes down, the

> > > more fat you eat. Regardless of the source.

> >

> > That's obvious enough. I consume less than 20% of

> > calories per day from fat and I avoid trans fats and

> > am low in saturated, so I think I'm all set.

> > >

> > > Yes, nuts/seeds are " dense " in antioixidants " per

> > > gram " but not " per calorie " . And, yes, nuts/seeds are

> > > a way healthier choice than using an " oil " .

> > >

> > > And, as Francesca and Rodney and Dr W said, we should

> > > enjoy our food.

> > >

> > > So, again, enjoy the almonds.

> > >

> > > I am about to go enjoy a TB of fresh ground raw

> > > unsalted almond butter.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Jeff

> > >

> > I think we essentially agree. Thanks for your reply.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Of course, most of the vegans in the studies were not on CRON and

probably not concerned enough with their diets to consume ample flax.

I have no proof of that, but if almost all the vegans I know are any

indication, I am correct.

>

> > A healthy vegan (or non-vegan) produces ample levels

> > of DHA and EPA

> > from omega-3 and omega-6.

>

> You seem much more confident in your statement than

> many of the vegan MDs, RDs, and scientists.

>

> Studies done on vegans have shown that while they do

> produce EPA and DHA, their levels are much lower than

> than average. Whether this is " ample " is yet to be

> determined.

>

> Mezzano D, Munoz X, ez C, Cuevas A, Panes O,

> Aranda E, Guasch V, Strobel P, Munoz B, S,

> Pereira J, Leighton F. Vegetarians and cardiovascular

> risk factors: hemostasis, inflammatory markers and

> plasma homocysteine. Thromb Haemost 1999

> Jun;81(6):913-7.

>

> From a second study on vegans and vegetarians showed

> the following fatty acid levels in blood:

>

> Meat Veg Vegans

> N 196 231 232

> EPA (mg/l) 23 14 8

> DHA (mg/l) 53 31 16

>

> The differences were all statistically significant.

> It is not clear whether these lower blood levels in

> vegetarians and vegans is a problem. Length of time

> since becoming a vegetarian or vegan did not affect

> blood levels, indicating that once someone becomes

> vegetarian or vegan for a short time, their levels

> stabilize.

>

> Rosell MS, et al. Long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty

> acids in plasma in British meat-eating, vegetarian,

> and vegan men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;82(2):327-34

>

>

> If you are healthy, the body does a pretty good job of

> converting ALA into EPA, but the conversion rate of

> EPA into DHA is not good. , a well

> respected vegan RD says.. " only about 4-10% of

> alpha-linolenic acid is converted into EPA, and just

> 2-5% becomes DHA. Worse, high intakes of omega-6 fatty

> acids can competitively block this conversion by up to

> 50% "

>

>

> Supplementing with DHA (which you said you dont do)

> can raise DHA levels in vegetarians..

>

> Conquer JA, Holub BJ. Supplementation with an algae

> source of docosahexaenoic acid increases (n-3) fatty

> acid status and alters selected risk factors for heart

> disease in vegetarian subjects. J Nutr. 1996

> Dec;126(12):3032-9.

>

> Having been a vegan for over 30 years, I have to say

> that the DHA, like B12, may actually be one issue that

> needs to be addressed with a algae based DHA vegan

> supplement, or if one doesnt mind, a capsule of fish

> oil.

>

> I am including the latest results from the longterm

> study on vegetarian and vegans from Keys and Applby.

> Overall, they are no healthier than the " health

> conscious " non vegetarians. And B12 and Omega 3s, seem

> to be real issues.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

> Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41. Links

> Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.Key TJ,

> Appleby PN, Rosell MS.

> Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of

> Oxford, Doll Building. tim.key@...

>

> Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish;

> vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs.

> Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the

> empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional

> content and health effects of the average diet of

> well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries,

> together with some information on vegetarians in

> non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets

> provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses,

> nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients,

> vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates,

> n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic

> acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low

> in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids,

> retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have

> particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low

> intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians

> and vegans have shown that on average they have a

> relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol

> concentration; recent studies have also shown higher

> plasma homocysteine concentrations than in

> non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have

> shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but

> little difference in other major causes of death or

> all-cause mortality in comparison with

> health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same

> population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear

> differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and

> non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on

> the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on

> health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids

> and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the

> health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to

> that of comparable non-vegetarians.

>

> PMID: 16441942

>

[Guest guest]

Do you see the paradox here??

>>Also, keep in mind that we are not consuming huge

amounts of ALA

The articles i just posted suggest that in order to

optimize the conversion of ALA to EPA and to DHA, that

a vegan needs to take in much " higher " levels of ALA

than recommended for the general population. The

recommended amount in the article i posted was around

2-4x the amount recommended by the NAS for ALA.

So, on one hand, you have to keep ALA " down " , to avoid

prostate cancer, but you have to keep ALA " up " to

ensure ALA > EPA > DHA conversion.

That is why the DHA supplement may be the solution to

this paradox for someone wanting to be a 100% vegan.

>>As for prostate cancer -- and I'll see if I can find

you the reference, -- vegans have a low incidence of

it.

The larger studies don't show the reduced " incidence " .

There are studies going on right now showing that

intensive diet changes, some of them being vegan, can

Lower PSA leveles, but this is just a biomarker.

Another one on vegans tested levels of IGF-1, whichis

again, a bio marker. We are actually involved in

some of these studies and doing some of them

ourselves. I am also sure that the one being done by

Dean Ornish, which gets media attention as being

" vegan " also includes fish oil supplements. I will

double check when I find the article.

Dean Ornish himself, the lead researcher in the vegan

study was quoted as saying.. " Ornish said diet alone

has not been shown to affect cancer progression. "

Remember there is a difference between reduced

biomarkers and reduced incidence and occurence.

Regards

Jeff