Jeff hi I just read another article in the national health asso. magazine advocating theuse of nuts/seeds , anywhere from 1-4 oz. daily the use of this amount is supposed 2 replace carbs such as brown rice , potatoes , bread , etc. these carb foods are responsible for higher rates of heart dx , cancer as opposed 2 people who consume nuts/seeds. the crux of this article was that there was an impreeive amount of footnotes with what appeared to be solid research . my secomd question 2 u then jeff is that according 2 the author , he has seen enough people that followed low fat diets ( below 10 % ) who coulnt lose weight had heart dx , etc. and once they were switched to a diet lower in grains , potatoes , other starches and replaced it with 1 - 4oz. nuts/seeds they were able 2 lose weight , normalize heart problems , etc. have u ever seen anybody respond like this jeff ? I know u have covered fats , nuts/seeds numerous times , but these r new claims with new and improved studies
I missed your call and will get you tomorrow.
The studies quoted in the article are not new, they are old. They are the same studies I have discussed here (and elsewhere) many times.
BTW, as you know, I have no problem with anyone following such a diet, if they can adhere to it, and thrive on it, and it helps them improve their numbers and their health. However, we do not know of any populations or have any longterm published studies on anyone who has done so. There are only 2 short term studies of 2 weeks each. The "low fat" diets used as a comparison in one of the studies was not a healthy low fat diet.
http://www.jeffnovick.com/component/opt ... d,498/#498
Also, once again, the criticisms of low fat diets are misplaced. There are a few things to remember
1) The "low fat" diets in the studies cited were not healthy low fat diets like the one recommended here, or the one you are following. The "low fat" diets criticized were the typical American low fat diet, which is based on refined processed carbs, is around 29-33% fat, about 10-12% saturated fat, low in fiber at around 12-15 grams, and high in cholesterol at around 300 mgs and low in omega 3, high in omega 6s, and had a poor omega 6/3 ratio.
2) Substituting out some of these refined processed carbs in such a diet, with nuts, will show some benefit.
3) Substituting out some of these saturated fats in such a diet, with nuts, will show some benefit.
4) However, how will adding nuts to the following healthy low fat diet help it?
5) I have reviewed the studies that are being cited and none of them recommend 3-4 oz of nuts a day. In most of them, the amount consumed was 1 oz, 2- 5x a week. The national recommendation, as a result of all those studies, is 1-2 oz a day as a substitute for other unhealthy foods. And they all caution about the concern with the calorie density of nuts and weight management. I have no problem with that recommendation and have made it for decades. I also make it in my talks at the McD program. (BTW, the low fat diet in point number 4, has 1 oz of nuts in it and is still 8% fat).
Please read through this thread, where I discuss the studies and the recommended amounts.
6) Using nuts to replace unrefined unprocessed healthy carbs, like sweet potatoes, or corn etc, will result in a diet that is higher in overall calorie density and lower in overall nutrient density. Diets that are higher in nutrient density can lead to over consumption of calories.
7) There are many people who did not do well on low fat diets mainly because a) they were never on a real low fat diet b) the low fat diet they were on was high in refined processed carbs. Those criticisms are valid, but do not apply here to the diet recommended here.
8 ) There is no published data anywhere, were people on a healthy low fat 10% diet (or less) as recommended here, were directly compared to the exact same diet but where 4 oz of nuts replaced some healthy carbs like sweet potatoes. Anecdotal evidence does not count. If it does, we have to accept it from everyone and not just selectively.
9) The only diet in the medical literature to reverse heart disease is the Ornish low fat diet of 10% and now the Esselstyne. In addition, over 100,000 people have gone through the Pritikin Program and they have published the results in over 120 articles in the leading medical journals. Their diet for most of the original studies for the first 15-20 years and over 75 of those studies was below 10%. There was no evidence of them not doing well or any increased risk or occurrence of arrhythmia's, heart disease or sudden death. Just the opposite. That program is very similar to the one recommended here.
10) The diet of the long-lived Okinawan’s is under 10% fat, and they are the longest-lived healthiest people on the planet. But they eat a healthy low fat diet based on unprocessed unrefined carbs. Same with the native diet of the Tarahumara (which has been called "anti atherogenic" in the medical literature) and the Pima Indians of the Sierra Madre mountains in Mexico and the native Hawaiian diet.
11) if you download the CRON-O-Meter, you can directly compare the nutrient density of many healthy starches with many nuts and seeds. As you will see, many starches are WAY more nutrient dense then many nuts and seeds
You can also go to www.nutritiondata.com
and use their online tools. They use a proprietary system to rate foods on Nutrient Density, Nutrient Balance, Protein Quality. They also rate on glycemic index (which is irrelevant) and inflammation (which is partly based on the GI, so can not be accurate).
Nutrient Density (Score 1-5)
Sweet Potato 4.5
Nutrient Balance (0-100)
Sweet Potato 65
Protein Quality/Amino Acid Score (higher is better)
Sweet Potato 82
The CRON-O- Meter, which does not use any proprietary methods, will confirm these numbers.
As someone who has spent some considerable time on both diets, what is your personal experience and opinion?