Nuts Prevent Dementia

[Ltldogg]

First, what you have cited is in regards to cognition, NOT nutrition. And though this article is in regards to the link of cognition function in Chinese Adults 55+, recalling accurately and honestly what a person ate over 3 days is not the same as determining overall cognition levels. Many people forget, exaggerate or flat out lie in regards to what they eat; especially when you are asking for measured amounts of food in grams.

Here is an article ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601897/) about how new, recent, methods are used to offset survey errors, but these were created after the survey was performed in the study we are discussing. It's a great article that I encourage you to read to understand that there are specific methods that can be employed to help offset survey errors, but these methods have been created more recently, probably past the collection time frame mentioned in the nut study. Additionally, it only mentions phone interviews as being valid if they are a follow up to questionnaires sent in advance and as a means to clarify the questions.

Next, and most importantly is the lack of explanation in regards to this so called correlation and proof that nuts help with cognition in older people. Again, no mechanism of action has been explained as to why nuts would be protective against cognitive decline. So again the burden of proof is on those making such claims. As usual additional studies are needed to explore this possible link and my money is on the usual outcome that the correlation is irrelevant and nuts have no such protective power. After all, look at what is happening with Fish oil, Omega 3s, vitamin D, vitamin C and a ton of other nutritional claims over the last few decades that have been busted and disproved when further studied!

Lastly, although the journal links the authors and their scholarly affiliations, they do not list sources of funding. So it is not clear if part or all of this study was funded by the nut industry; a tactic they are known for to skew results in their favor.

[sirdle]

Thank you for your detailed response, Scott. Much appreciated.

Cheers,

[Ltldogg]

Thank you for your detailed response, Scott. Much appreciated.

Cheers,

Thank you sirdle!

[f00die]

First, what you have cited is in regards to cognition, NOT nutrition. And though this article is in regards to the link of cognition function in Chinese Adults 55+, recalling accurately and honestly what a person ate over 3 days is not the same as determining overall cognition levels. Many people forget, exaggerate or flat out lie in regards to what they eat; especially when you are asking for measured amounts of food in grams.

Here is an article ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601897/) about how new, recent, methods are used to offset survey errors, but these were created after the survey was performed in the study we are discussing. It's a great article that I encourage you to read to understand that there are specific methods that can be employed to help offset survey errors, but these methods have been created more recently, probably past the collection time frame mentioned in the nut study. Additionally, it only mentions phone interviews as being valid if they are a follow up to questionnaires sent in advance and as a means to clarify the questions.

Next, and most importantly is the lack of explanation in regards to this so called correlation and proof that nuts help with cognition in older people. Again, no mechanism of action has been explained as to why nuts would be protective against cognitive decline. So again the burden of proof is on those making such claims. As usual additional studies are needed to explore this possible link and my money is on the usual outcome that the correlation is irrelevant and nuts have no such protective power. After all, look at what is happening with Fish oil, Omega 3s, vitamin D, vitamin C and a ton of other nutritional claims over the last few decades that have been busted and disproved when further studied!

Lastly, although the journal links the authors and their scholarly affiliations, they do not list sources of funding. So it is not clear if part or all of this study was funded by the nut industry; a tactic they are known for to skew results in their favor.

it doesnt matter whether they exaggerated or misrecalled their nut use
the researchers are telling us that those ppl who simply said that they had eaten nuts
did better on the cognitive test
so unless simply claiming to eat nuts has a positive effect on passing a cognition test
id say their data is on to something

as for the new research methods, they are not new
that article is a review of what researchers do already
from the data collection methods sections
we see that the questionnaire first then followup phone interview
is just one example of the mixed method of data collection
a phone interview is just as good

Conducting interviews is another approach to data collection used in survey research. Interviews may be conducted by phone, computer, or in person and have the benefit of visually identifying the nonverbal response(s) of the interviewee and subsequently being able to clarify the intended question. An interviewer can use probing comments to obtain more information about a question or topic and can request clarification of an unclear response (Singleton & Straits, 2009). Interviews can be costly and time intensive, and therefore are relatively impractical for large samples.

Some authors advocate for using mixed methods for survey research when no one method is adequate to address the planned research aims, to reduce the potential for measurement and non-response error, and to better tailor the study methods to the intended sample (Dillman et al., 2014; Singleton & Straits, 2009). For example, a mixed methods survey research approach may begin with distributing a questionnaire and following up with telephone interviews to clarify unclear survey responses (Singleton & Straits, 2009). Mixed methods might also be used when visual or auditory deficits preclude an individual from completing a questionnaire or participating in an interview.

[Ltldogg]

it doesnt matter whether they exaggerated or misrecalled their nut use
the researchers are telling us that those ppl who simply said that they had eaten nuts
did better on the cognitive test
so unless simply claiming to eat nuts has a positive effect on passing a cognition test
id say their data is on to something

What are you talking about??? Yes, it absolutely does matter how accurate and valid their nut use was. The whole study is about correlation of cognitive ability due to nuts intake. If the main variable, nuts intake, is not accurate then the implication is not valid. Again, this is such a poor correlation since there is absolutely no explanation as to what mechanism of action in nuts would prevent or slow cognitive decline nor do we know the source of the funding for such a study, but we do know that the data was collected using a very poor method (despite what you want to argue). And, could the affect on cognition be due to some other confounding factor? We cannot be sure until further, better defined and controlled studies are performed and repeated. So it is absolutely irresponsible to make an absolute statement as was stated in the conclusion of the study:

Nut consumption was inversely associated with cognition decline.

Instead, readers should be seeing something to the affect of:

There is a possible inverse correlation between nut intake and cognitive decline, but further studies are needed.

as for the new research methods, they are not new
that article is a review of what researchers do already
from the data collection methods sections
we see that the questionnaire first then followup phone interview
is just one example of the mixed method of data collection
a phone interview is just as good

No, it's not. And the methods are not new, but are more recent than the study in question.

[LuckyToBeAlive]

Looks like nuts might have some value after all.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-1122-5

I've been seeing this in the news recently, too. The Alzheimer's Foundation is currently touting "The MIND diet", which includes walnuts based on their omega 3 content. I know I read that Dr. Esselstyn recommends them in small amounts (read 1/4 c., no more), for the same reason in his book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease". Is the research there to give them superfood status? I'd say no. It's something to file under, "they won't hurt, and might help" category, as long as you kept to a tiny amount as they are very high in fat.

Hello keithswife,

If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to look up and post the page number in "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" where Dr. Esselstyn recommends nuts of any type in any amount? To my knowledge there's been only one edition published, so the page number should be the same for all of us who own the book.

Thank you!

[abit]

...

[keithswife]

Looks like nuts might have some value after all.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-1122-5

I've been seeing this in the news recently, too. The Alzheimer's Foundation is currently touting "The MIND diet", which includes walnuts based on their omega 3 content. I know I read that Dr. Esselstyn recommends them in small amounts (read 1/4 c., no more), for the same reason in his book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease". Is the research there to give them superfood status? I'd say no. It's something to file under, "they won't hurt, and might help" category, as long as you kept to a tiny amount as they are very high in fat.

Hello keithswife,

If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to look up and post the page number in "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" where Dr. Esselstyn recommends nuts of any type in any amount? To my knowledge there's been only one edition published, so the page number should be the same for all of us who own the book.

Thank you!

Sure thing. Pages 68 and 69 when he gives his guidelines. Also at the beginning of chapter 15 when Ann gives guidelines for her recipes. She includes walnuts in many of her recipes, but only for healthy individuals. But Dr. Essy does state on page 69 that walnuts provide considerable amounts of omega 3's to the individual without heart disease, but as I said, they are included in many of the recipes listed in the book.

[LuckyToBeAlive]

Sure thing. Pages 68 and 69 when he gives his guidelines. Also at the beginning of chapter 15 when Ann gives guidelines for her recipes. She includes walnuts in many of her recipes, but only for healthy individuals. But Dr. Essy does state on page 69 that walnuts provide considerable amounts of omega 3's to the individual without heart disease, but as I said, they are included in many of the recipes listed in the book.

Thank you very much. For complete clarity, a quote from this section of Dr. Ess's book I think might be helpful to those visiting this discussion:

"Those who have heart disease should avoid all nuts. Those without disease can consume walnuts in moderation because they can provide considerable omega-3 fatty acids, which are important for many essential bodily functions. But I am extremely wary of nuts. Although short-term studies funded by nut companies show that they may positively affect good and bad cholesterol, I know of no long-term studies indicating that they can arrest and reverse heart disease, and patients may easily overingest them, elevating their cholesterol levels."

[Willijan]

Thanks for the page numbers, keithswife. I went to my book, p. 68-69, and there it was. Here is the quote from Dr. E's book, p. 69-70:

5. Nuts. Those who have heart disease should avoid all nuts. Those without disease can consume walnuts in moderation because they can provide considerable omega-3 fatty acids, which are important for many essential bodily functions. BUT I AM EXTREMELY WARY OF NUTS. (Capitalization mine.) Although short-term studies funded by nut companies show that they may positively affect good and bad cholesterol, I know of no long-term studies indicating that they can arrest and reverse heart disease, and patients may easily overingest them, elevating their cholesterol levels.
The above quote was listed under the heading, First, foods to avoid:

Another quote, from page 68:"If you have retained only one fact from my explanations of the science behind this program, I hope it is this: that just a little bit of forbidden food--fats, dairy products, oils, animal proteins--can hurt, and will. Think of it this way: if you adopt a healthy diet overall, but allow yourself to have fats just two or three times a week, that means you are abusing and injuring yourself on one hundred and fifty or so days of the year. (from Dr. Esselstyn's book)