Is the fat you eat always the fat that you wear?

[GeoffreyLevens]

This might help clarify things a bit~

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14103&p=147381

Carbs to fat

[Skip]

If one has a healthy BMI, lifestyle and diet, then there shouldn't be a concern about eating nuts and seeds in moderation (1-2 oz per day). In fact, it may be closer to optimum for long term health.....

[Ltldogg]

If one has a healthy BMI, lifestyle and diet, then there shouldn't be a concern about eating nuts and seeds in moderation (1-2 oz per day). In fact, it may be closer to optimum for long term health.....

What are you basing this on? I know of no studies or data that supports this.

[Skip]

If one has a healthy BMI, lifestyle and diet, then there shouldn't be a concern about eating nuts and seeds in moderation (1-2 oz per day). In fact, it may be closer to optimum for long term health.....

What are you basing this on? I know of no studies or data that supports this.

These guys have reviewed the many studies on this topic:

Jeff Novick ("Nuts and Health" DVD)
Micheal Greger ("How not to Die" he has a chapter on Nuts and Seeds)
Joel Fuhrman

[Ltldogg]

These guys have reviewed the many studies on this topic:

Jeff Novick ("Nuts and Health" DVD)
Micheal Greger ("How not to Die" he has a chapter on Nuts and Seeds)
Joel Fuhrman

Yes, and of those 3 only Jeff has properly reviewed the data, which no where do the studies show that eating nuts and seeds in moderation may be optimum for long term health.

[Ltldogg]

I wasn't going to post this video, but since Jeff posted this in another thread just now (https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=40295&p=593913#p593913 , I will do the same.

https://youtu.be/IvFHuqI-TCw

This is an excellent video.

[Skip]

I agree that the subject of eating nuts is a controversial one. My comment was that eating nuts for a certain populations "MAY BE" closer to an optimum diet. I agree that this has not been proven nor disproven, hence the wording "MAY BE". Jeff Novick, Michael McGreger, and Joel Fuhrman say that eating nuts, under certain conditions, at the very least is an OK thing to do. I agree that they don't say that eating nuts will optimize your health but they also aren't saying that eating nuts, under certain conditions, are harmful. The absolute proof on the beneficial/harmful effects of nuts does not exist. Yes, you are fighting industry funded studies, and differing advice for differing populations (for example, no nuts for the Esselstyn population).

Jeff Novick's view follows given In the thread that you submitted, Jeff states:

"POINT 7 - My Recommendations

If you have seen my presentation, From Oil to Nuts and/or Nuts and Health, or have spent time in these forums, then you know my recommendations which I have taught for over 20 years, which are also taught at the McDougall program (and I taught at the Pritikin Program from 1998-2007 and at the E2 Immersions), are that for most people, the inclusion of "up to" 1-2 oz of nuts per day is fine. In the Nuts and Health talk, I even go "up to" 4 oz/day for certain populations in certain situations. A serving is 1 oz. So, that means, for most everyone, I am allowing 7-14 servings a week and for some populations, up to 28 servings a week."

[Ltldogg]

I agree that the subject of eating nuts is a controversial one. My comment was that eating nuts for a certain populations "MAY BE" closer to an optimum diet. I agree that this has not been proven nor disproven, hence the wording "MAY BE".

First off, you have accidentally credited Jeff Nelson for Jeff Novick's work in your last post.

Secondly, I'm glad you agree there is no evidence that eating nuts and seeds is necessary for long term health. The confusion is when you and others like Fuhrman and Greger make statements to the contrary. Case in point, you use the words "In fact...", which by definition points to absolute proof, even if you also had the word maybe (which is a contradiction) in the same sentence. Now, even if you take the words "in fact" out of your statement, you are still presenting an unproven statement with bias leaning towards it being true. But as you stated above there is no proof. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

So, let's stick to the evidence and the advice of the experts on this site, which is that inclusion of a small amount is fine, but that they are NOT necessary for good health (short or long term).

~Scott

[Skip]

I agree that the subject of eating nuts is a controversial one. My comment was that eating nuts for a certain populations "MAY BE" closer to an optimum diet. I agree that this has not been proven nor disproven, hence the wording "MAY BE".

First off, you have accidentally credited Jeff Nelson for Jeff Novick's work in your last post.

My responses to you are in RED. You are right, I meant to say Jeff Novick's stance is described (not Jeff Nelson) and it has been corrected

Secondly, I'm glad you agree there is no evidence that eating nuts and seeds is necessary for long term health.
The confusion is when you and others like Fuhrman and Greger make statements to the contrary. Case in point, you use the words "In fact...", which by definition points to absolute proof, even if you also had the word maybe (which is a contradiction) in the same sentence. Now, even if you take the words "in fact" out of your statement, you are still presenting an unproven statement with bias leaning towards it being true. But as you stated above there is no proof. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

There is evidence that eating nuts and seeds for the right population, in the right amount is beneficial for long term health. Absolute proof does not exist, but there is proof.


So, let's stick to the evidence and the advice of the experts on this site, which is that inclusion of a small amount is fine, but that they are NOT necessary for good health (short or long term).

I assume that an expert who tells me that the inclusion of a small amount of nuts is fine, wouldn't do so if there was a doubt about the health risk of the advice.

~Scott

[Ltldogg]

Skip,

You are confusing the evidence. There is ZERO proof that eating nuts and seeds is necessary for long term health. Have some populations who eat nuts and seeds had long term health, yes. Was it the nuts and seeds that caused this, NO. Again, nuts and seeds are NOT necessary for long term health. They provide calories, macro and micro nutrients, vitamins, and fiber that are healthy, BUT these same substances can be obtained in other plant foods.

That is the difference between the fact-based advice that Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novick provide on this site vs what Greger and Fuhrman (wrongly) state.

To summarize, no one has to eat nuts and seeds for long term health. All of the health to be had can be obtained in other plant foods, without the danger of excessive fat.

Cheers,
Scott

[Skip]

To summarize, no one has to eat nuts and seeds for long term health. All of the health to be had can be obtained in other plant foods, without the danger of excessive fat.

No one has to eat any one food item for long term health. Each food item is just a part of a symphony of plant based whole foods which are beneficial for long term health. To me, nuts are just another one of those plant based whole foods that are beneficial, if consumed wisely.

[Ltldogg]

To summarize, no one has to eat nuts and seeds for long term health. All of the health to be had can be obtained in other plant foods, without the danger of excessive fat.

No one has to eat any one food item for long term health. Each food item is just a part of a symphony of plant based whole foods which are beneficial for long term health. To me, nuts are just another one of those plant based whole foods that are beneficial, if consumed wisely.

I'm glad you agree with the experts of this site!

[healthyvegan]

that video was a blast! I feel like Jeff had some coaching

[GeoffreyLevens]

removed by me

[PotatoPotahto]

For me it ALL comes down to caloric density. I track everything I eat in Chronometer so that gives me a very direct experience of CD. For example, I bought some chopped English walnuts a month or more ago, just a small bag. I was putting in 14oz on my rice which is a half serving and that's 95 calories and 9 grams of fat! 14g is just 10-15 little pieces of walnut, not even a real handful! It felt like I was eating bottom of the bag walnut crumbs!

In contrast, last night I had 450g or about a pound of mixed veg - broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots which was just 148 calories. The walnuts are just 3% of the weight of the veg yet contain 64% of the calories they do!

With the potato and soup I mixed in it was a whopping bowl of food (over 1.7 pounds!). It always shocks me that I get so much food for so few calories eating starch based. It also shocks me how so few nuts/seeds can cost me so many calories.

To me nuts/seeds just are not worth the caloric cost for so little benefit (nothing conclusive that I've ever seen anyway). Plus I know that a lot of the foods I eat contains a surprising amount of fat - someone mentioned oats, and there's fat in buckwheat, brown rice, etc. My diet is low in fat but certainly not no fat (Chronometer says I eat an average of 11% fat over the past six months and I eat very few added nuts/seeds)!

I might limit nuts/seeds to maybe 1oz a day but then I think, at that point, why bother? 28g/1oz of walnuts is equal in calories to 595g/1.3lbs of that veg blend I ate last night and 695g/1.5lbs of broccoli! Once I finish the nuts and flax seed I have I probably won't get any more. It just isn't worth it for me.

I've been explaining this to my non-WFPB friends and I get no arguments about it, in fact it piques their interests. One of the doctors always says "the more vegetables you eat the more weight you will lose" and that really appeals to people who struggle with losing esp. that last 15-20 pounds.

I've gotten hardcore meat/egg/cheese eaters to eat more veg (including soups with kale) just because they want to lose weight so desperately (without starving). Even if they're not 100% WFPB, to me any movement toward WFPB is a tremendous success for everyone even if we have to appeal to vanity to help people get there. Beyond this, CD is practical and makes sense and most people I've talked to really seem to get that.