Still nuts

[Vegan-Vegan]

These two studies were posted on Dr Fuhrman's forum and his reply
http://www.ajcn.org/content/96/2/249.full http://www.ajcn.org/content/96/2/296.full

"Nuts induce weight loss, especially when substituted for high carb calories like white potato. It is fascinating that they increase the absorption of micronutrients and phytonutrients from other foods while at the same time decreasing the absorption of macronutrients from other foods.

The reason the first study did not show as much continued weight benefits is the nature of the unhealthy diet they gave them overall, and the snacking of the nuts and lack of compliance as the study went on."
Seems like they are trying to counter Chef AJ's recent blog.

[patty]

I hope Chef AJ does a third book, that is inclusive of her whole journey. She looks so great:)

Aloha, patty

[Mark Simon]

Hey vegan vegan:

What you're posting (from Dr. Fuhrman) makes no sense. I don't understand how Dr. Fuhrman is trying to use these studies in relation to AJ. I have read all these nut studies over the past 10 years and this is not rocket science. There is a very good review on nuts that just went up on vegsource, see:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/c ... -nuts.html

And it deconstructs what the major studies say, the ones which are used to hype the false idea that nuts are a weight loss food or somehow super foods. Nuts are good, and it's good to include some since variety is helpful, but as Dr. McDougall says, really dial them down if you need to lose weight.

The first study that Dr. Fuhrman is citing is covered in the vegsource article and they actually have a pdf of the full study. I am going to paste what they wrote at vegsource about this:

= = = = =
Here is a brand new study looking at nuts and weight loss, along with a link to the full study itself:

A randomized trial of the effects of an almond-enriched, hypocaloric diet in the treatment of obesity. Foster GD, Shantz KL, Vander Veur SS, Oliver TL, Lent MR, Virus A, Szapary PO, Rader DJ, Zemel BS, Gilden-Tsai A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun 27. [Epub ahead of print] PMID:22743313 Free PMC Article http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2012/ ... 5.full.pdf

This is a study where individuals were put on a calorie-restricted diet in order to lose weight. There were two groups: one ate an almond-enriched diet, the other ate a nut-free diet. 

At the end of 18 months, the almond-enriched dieters lost an average of 8 pounds (3.7 kg), while those who had no nuts in their diets lost an average of 13 pounds (5.9 kg – see Table 2 of study).

So the dieters who didn't add nuts lost 62% more weight than the nut-eaters. 



Interestingly, the study's authors concluded: “There were no differences in weight loss or cardiovascular disease risk factor outcomes between groups at 18 mo.”

But as you can clearly see yourself, the data shows that non-nut-eaters lost 5 pounds more the nut-eaters lost.

It's important to note that this study was paid for by the Almond Board of California and the study's principal author, Gary Foster, serves as an advisory member of the Almond Board. The study is currently being used to promote Almond sales (along with sales of other “healthy snacks” like canned tuna and low-fat milk) through press releases and “news” posts such as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 01850.html
= = = = =

Nowhere in this study does it say, as Dr. Fuhrman claims, anything like, “The reason the first study did not show as much continued weight benefits [in the nut-eating group] is the nature of the unhealthy diet they gave them overall, and the snacking of the nuts and lack of compliance as the study went on.”

What? He posts a study, it disproves his point, and he's claiming that it somehow is the fault of the diet that both of the groups were fed, so it doesn't count? Give me a break. His response makes no sense and he references something not even in the study, as you can see for yourself. If in fact the researchers felt the study was a failure because the participants didn't comply, why would they even publish it?


If Dr. Fuhrman is pointing to that first study, he is correct in the sense that this study helps explain why AJ lost weight when she stopped eating nuts for a period – because nuts can promote weight gain, as the study data clearly shows. They do in just about every study out there, not just the ones that the nut industry pays for. You can read several other nut studies. Most of the nut industry-funded studies on nuts and weight loss are garbage, but unfortunately some researchers like Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Greger seem to only read the abstracts and don't look at the details.

(And in fact, if you look at the studies and the data tables, you will see that the non-nut-eaters end up with lower cholesterol and better biomarkers for heart disease than those eating the nuts.)

As for Dr. Fuhrman writing: ""Nuts induce weight loss, especially when substituted for high carb calories like white potato. It is fascinating that they increase the absorption of micronutrients and phytonutrients from other foods while at the same time decreasing the absorption of macronutrients from other foods."

Dr. Fuhrman is making up the fact that substituting nuts for potatoes produces weight loss, unless he means French fries. But not whole potatoes, just another thing he is making up. There's a study that showed that diabetic numbers were slightly improved when nuts were substituted for a junky muffin, that's the only "carbohydrate" that's been tested.

The second study Dr. Fuhrman mentions is something already well known. We don't absorb all the calories in nuts. That is true and it's in a number of studies. This second study talks about eating whole nuts, but if you process nuts into salad dressing or nut butter, then the absorption increases and you do get some more calories. The authors of that second study state this as well.

In the many “nuts might be good for weight loss” studies done, the authors all note in the studies that the nut-eaters do not gain AS MUCH weight as would be expected based on the calories from the nuts, but they do gain weight, even in calorie-restricted diets.

Here is someone with Loma Linda (where a lot of the nut research is done) talking about this in her own blog:

http://lindsaywestbrook.wordpress.com/tag/nuts/

Quoting from her page:

= = = =
"When participants replaced a food item and ate a serving of nuts each day while maintaining the same caloric intake, weight did not change"

"Then, when participants were simply asked to add nuts to their regular food intake, there was weight gain, but less than expected (only 0.6 kg instead of 3.6 kg)."
= = = =

So it's well known that all the calories in whole nuts aren't absorbed. That's nothing new. But rather than gaining 8 pounds in six months based on nut consumption in that study the blogger is citing, participants only gained 1.5 pounds. So from the review she's citing, nuts add around 3 pounds a year on average when added to your diet, unless you're controlling for calories or exercising a lot. And that's what the Loma Linda nut research experts found.

(You see the same phenomena when someone switches to a low-fat, high fiber diet, about 15% of calories they would be expected to absorb using the Atwater calorie estimating system, are not actually absorbed, see: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/6/1649.full )

So now here is what is new and not part of any study: Dr. Fuhrman seems to have a personal theory that goes like this: If you eat nuts (which contain fat), since fat helps absorb nutrients, and since with nuts you are not absorbing all the calories, only maybe 60 to 70% of them, by eating nuts you are increasing your absorption of nutrients without increasing net calories (and that's assuming you control your hunger and not eat to satiety as in the McDougall diet).

Now, Dr. Fuhrman's theory continues, vegans are probably lacking in absorption of adequate nutrients. Huh? Says who? Healthy vegans are eating nothing but nutrient-rich plant foods, and are eating as much or more than what the longest-lived populations around the world have eaten. How would they be lacking in nutrients? What is the evidence? (Dr. Fuhrman has none.)

And then Dr. Fuhrman makes another leap, that if there is an alleged “lack of absorption” in the vegan diet, this lack must inevitably contribute to some potential ill health of vegans, down the road. (Again, he's just making that up, no evidence for it.)

To put Dr. Fuhrman's theory another way, a way he might see as most effective: “You won't absorb enough nutrients on a McDougall diet, so you will end up dying prematurely as a result! And the solution is to eat my particular brand of diet, buy my books, buy my supplements, add nuts, follow all my instructions, and then you will absorb more nutrients and live longer!”



The only problem with that is that, as I said, there is zero evidence for it. It's something someone might make up to try to compete in the marketplace, and convince possible customers who don't actually check the studies you post, that you are a Diet Guru who has The Truth, and all others should be ignored.

Isn’t that Dr. Fuhrman's message? He keeps talking about all his patients that he has helped but the only study on weight he's gotten published was very poorly done, and of no real value. Dr. Colin Campbell actually REMOVED his name from Dr. Fuhrman's weight loss study in a retraction published this winter in the same scientific journal Dr. Campbell got it published in.

Dr. Campbell's reason for “disassociating” himself from Dr. Fuhrman's study was that the study contains “major errors that discredit the otherwise impressive health benefits of a whole food plant-based dietary lifestyle,”

Got that? So if Dr. Campbell is running away from Dr. Fuhrman's “science” as fast as he can, are the rest of us all supposed to just believe Dr. Fuhrman when he comes up with these kooky, self-serving theories?

But again, there's no science behind Dr. Fuhrman's theory. And in fact, there is science showing that if you add nuts to your diet, you will have higher cholesterol and other increases in biomarkers associated with heart disease, and one of the nut studies showed higher glucose levels, which is bad for diabetics. This is in the data tables in those studies.


Nuts are okay in moderation, if you don't need to lose weight. But the theories that you're hearing from Dr. Fuhrman on this aren't grounded in any science, at least no science that he's cited publicly at this point.

If you have to choose, stick with McDougall. He doesn't make stuff up to try to make his diet look better than someone else's. He doesn't have to.

[Vegan-Vegan]

great post Mark. Just to be clear Dr Fuhrman didn't post the study in his forum. Other posters put them up and were asking about them. The quote in my post was his response

[carbs-and-plants]

Hey vegan vegan:

What you're posting (from Dr. Fuhrman) makes no sense. I don't understand how Dr. Fuhrman is trying to use these studies in relation to AJ. I have read all these nut studies over the past 10 years and this is not rocket science. There is a very good review on nuts that just went up on vegsource, see:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2012/07/c ... -nuts.html


= = = = =

Nowhere in this study does it say, as Dr. Fuhrman claims, anything like, “The reason the first study did not show as much continued weight benefits [in the nut-eating group] is the nature of the unhealthy diet they gave them overall, and the snacking of the nuts and lack of compliance as the study went on.”

What? He posts a study, it disproves his point, and he's claiming that it somehow is the fault of the diet that both of the groups were fed, so it doesn't count? Give me a break. His response makes no sense and he references something not even in the study, as you can see for yourself. If in fact the researchers felt the study was a failure because the participants didn't comply, why would they even publish it?


If Dr. Fuhrman is pointing to that first study, he is correct in the sense that this study helps explain why AJ lost weight when she stopped eating nuts for a period – because nuts can promote weight gain, as the study data clearly shows. They do in just about every study out there, not just the ones that the nut industry pays for. You can read several other nut studies. Most of the nut industry-funded studies on nuts and weight loss are garbage, but unfortunately some researchers like Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Greger seem to only read the abstracts and don't look at the details.

(And in fact, if you look at the studies and the data tables, you will see that the non-nut-eaters end up with lower cholesterol and better biomarkers for heart disease than those eating the nuts.)

As for Dr. Fuhrman writing: ""Nuts induce weight loss, especially when substituted for high carb calories like white potato. It is fascinating that they increase the absorption of micronutrients and phytonutrients from other foods while at the same time decreasing the absorption of macronutrients from other foods."

Dr. Fuhrman is making up the fact that substituting nuts for potatoes produces weight loss, unless he means French fries. But not whole potatoes, just another thing he is making up. There's a study that showed that diabetic numbers were slightly improved when nuts were substituted for a junky muffin, that's the only "carbohydrate" that's been tested.

The second study Dr. Fuhrman mentions is something already well known. We don't absorb all the calories in nuts. That is true and it's in a number of studies. This second study talks about eating whole nuts, but if you process nuts into salad dressing or nut butter, then the absorption increases and you do get some more calories. The authors of that second study state this as well.

In the many “nuts might be good for weight loss” studies done, the authors all note in the studies that the nut-eaters do not gain AS MUCH weight as would be expected based on the calories from the nuts, but they do gain weight, even in calorie-restricted diets.

Here is someone with Loma Linda (where a lot of the nut research is done) talking about this in her own blog:

http://lindsaywestbrook.wordpress.com/tag/nuts/

Quoting from her page:

= = = =
"When participants replaced a food item and ate a serving of nuts each day while maintaining the same caloric intake, weight did not change"

"Then, when participants were simply asked to add nuts to their regular food intake, there was weight gain, but less than expected (only 0.6 kg instead of 3.6 kg)."
= = = =

So it's well known that all the calories in whole nuts aren't absorbed. That's nothing new. But rather than gaining 8 pounds in six months based on nut consumption in that study the blogger is citing, participants only gained 1.5 pounds. So from the review she's citing, nuts add around 3 pounds a year on average when added to your diet, unless you're controlling for calories or exercising a lot. And that's what the Loma Linda nut research experts found.

(You see the same phenomena when someone switches to a low-fat, high fiber diet, about 15% of calories they would be expected to absorb using the Atwater calorie estimating system, are not actually absorbed, see: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/6/1649.full )

So now here is what is new and not part of any study: Dr. Fuhrman seems to have a personal theory that goes like this: If you eat nuts (which contain fat), since fat helps absorb nutrients, and since with nuts you are not absorbing all the calories, only maybe 60 to 70% of them, by eating nuts you are increasing your absorption of nutrients without increasing net calories (and that's assuming you control your hunger and not eat to satiety as in the McDougall diet).

Now, Dr. Fuhrman's theory continues, vegans are probably lacking in absorption of adequate nutrients. Huh? Says who? Healthy vegans are eating nothing but nutrient-rich plant foods, and are eating as much or more than what the longest-lived populations around the world have eaten. How would they be lacking in nutrients? What is the evidence? (Dr. Fuhrman has none.)

And then Dr. Fuhrman makes another leap, that if there is an alleged “lack of absorption” in the vegan diet, this lack must inevitably contribute to some potential ill health of vegans, down the road. (Again, he's just making that up, no evidence for it.)

To put Dr. Fuhrman's theory another way, a way he might see as most effective: “You won't absorb enough nutrients on a McDougall diet, so you will end up dying prematurely as a result! And the solution is to eat my particular brand of diet, buy my books, buy my supplements, add nuts, follow all my instructions, and then you will absorb more nutrients and live longer!”



The only problem with that is that, as I said, there is zero evidence for it. It's something someone might make up to try to compete in the marketplace, and convince possible customers who don't actually check the studies you post, that you are a Diet Guru who has The Truth, and all others should be ignored.

Isn’t that Dr. Fuhrman's message? He keeps talking about all his patients that he has helped but the only study on weight he's gotten published was very poorly done, and of no real value. Dr. Colin Campbell actually REMOVED his name from Dr. Fuhrman's weight loss study in a retraction published this winter in the same scientific journal Dr. Campbell got it published in.

Dr. Campbell's reason for “disassociating” himself from Dr. Fuhrman's study was that the study contains “major errors that discredit the otherwise impressive health benefits of a whole food plant-based dietary lifestyle,”

Got that? So if Dr. Campbell is running away from Dr. Fuhrman's “science” as fast as he can, are the rest of us all supposed to just believe Dr. Fuhrman when he comes up with these kooky, self-serving theories?

But again, there's no science behind Dr. Fuhrman's theory. And in fact, there is science showing that if you add nuts to your diet, you will have higher cholesterol and other increases in biomarkers associated with heart disease, and one of the nut studies showed higher glucose levels, which is bad for diabetics. This is in the data tables in those studies.


Nuts are okay in moderation, if you don't need to lose weight. But the theories that you're hearing from Dr. Fuhrman on this aren't grounded in any science, at least no science that he's cited publicly at this point.

If you have to choose, stick with McDougall. He doesn't make stuff up to try to make his diet look better than someone else's. He doesn't have to.

Wow, Great info. I wrote a little short thing about Fuhrman the other day on here but you really fleshed things out a lot.

Here's the little post I put up. I'm sure you will agree with it.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30922

[Mark Simon]

Hey carb-and-plants:

I read your post, very well done. We are basically saying the same thing. Dr. Fuhrman has a lot to offer, but he's also a bit of a PT Barnum, and a sucker is born every minute.

You can keep it simple like McDougall suggests, and have "nutritional excellence." Or you can follow a bunch of rules that are just untested theories by a guy who Colin Campbell says is prone to "major error" (I think that's a nice word for it).

[Adrienne]

At the last ASW Dr Fuhrman said nuts induced weight loss in his patients because more fatty acids equals more fatty acid oxidation which leads to more weight loss. Or something like that. Never made any sense to me.

It's more likely that his patients were simply cutting calories, as he also mentioned they were cutting out the refined carbs and other junk.

[Theodore]

I must say, I had no idea that the Adventist studies were funded by the nut industry. That was a revelation to me.

[Theodore]

The thing that also confuses me is that I don't think Dr McD has ever forbidden nuts in the first place.

[Mark Simon]

That of course is true. McDougall is not anti-nuts, he has them in many recipes, Mary uses peanut butter in some recipes. He simply warns that nuts can cause weight gain, people trying to lose weight need to know that nut consumption could slow or even prevent in some cases.

Also, McDougall is not the "super food" or "silver bullet" food mentality, which is what the nut hype is all about. Whether you eat regular nuts or not will not effect whether you're healthy or not. But that seems to be what Dr. Fuhrman contends, based on his unproven theories.

[Theodore]

I take your points, Mark.

Thanks.

[fostermom3]

Great post, Mark. Thanks.
Dr. Esselstyn is also very much against nuts for those of us with high cholesterol. Yet I hear frequently that nuts are GOOD for cholesterol lowering by Dr. Greger. You mentioned Dr. Greger in your post ("Dr. F. and Dr. Greger seem to only read the abstracts and don't look at the details.") --could you elaborate more? I love watching Dr. Greger, but sometimes he quotes a study that seems to contradict Dr. McDougall or Jeff N. at times. I recently watched his "Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death" at nutritionfacts.org and he recommends eating two handfuls of nuts (in the shell), weekly, for optimal health.

[Mark Simon]

Nuts can be good for lowering cholesterol about 7%, but only if you are eating nuts to replace meat or junk food. Otherwise there is little to no cholesterol-lowering benefit for people on plant-based diets. And in some studies cholesterol was worse in the nut-eating group than the non-nut eating group.

Regarding Dr. Greger... Dr. Greger is an odd bird. On the one hand he says there is no evidence to support a low-fat diet and it's an "outmoded" and "ego-based diet" (I could provide links to where he actually says that). And then other times he cites research by Dr. McDougall and Pritikin that shows the low-fat diet can combat heart disease and lower PSA, fighting cancer. He highlights the work of McDougall and Pritikin -- a number of studies -- in his new video, because that's the research that shows a healthy vegan diet can save your life.

He doesn't really have a point of view about diet but is just a guy who reads some studies and likes to talk about them. But he is by no means in a class like McDougall or Jeff N when it comes to diet or health. Not even close.

For example, today he has a video about nuts and makes the point that magnesium is needed for proper heart function. He goes on to say that nuts have magnesium and concludes therefore, nuts are crucial to stopping heart disease.

Well the part about magnesium being important is nothing new. It's crucial to every system in the body, not just the heart.

And why is magnesium low in so many Americans (most of whom have heart disease)? Because they eat the SAD diet. It's not because they don't eat enough nuts!

The way to get magnesium is to eat grains and greens. They pack more magnesium than nuts, calorie per calorie. Have some oatmeal, kale, swiss chard, beans, squash, zuchini, strawberries...all of them have more magnesium than nuts.

It's not like nuts are the only source or even the best source of magnesium. Contrary to Dr. Lightweight (Greger), heart disease is not a nut-deficiency disease.

So why would Greger try to make nuts out to be the answer for heart disease, when the real answer is to eat a low-fat plant-based diet, which is naturally high in magnesium? Replace meat and dairy with whole grains, veggies and legumes and you have way more magnesium than you'll need. Want to eat some nuts? Go ahead. But he is confusing the evidence for a plant-based diet and trying to make it into an advertisement for the nut industry.

It shows how reductionist and backward Greger's thinking is. He wants to reduce things to an individual food. In this case nuts. If he knew what he was talking about, he would be advising a whole food plant-based approach and the many health benefits, most especially when it is low-fat (if you want the full cancer and heart disease protection). Instead he focuses on green tea and kiwis and "heart healthy" foods like peanut butter and olive oil... Some find him entertaining maybe, but I wouldn't say much of what he presents on his site is very useful, and a lot of it is just wrong.

[rickfm]

Mark, thank you for your analysis and thoughtful expositions. Very helpful.

[patty]

Great post Mark!!!

Aloha, patty