Nuts are very good for heart health!
(66 posts) (17 voices)-
bobbylight
MemberI have looked through MDA and these forums quite a bit. I would like to argue the point that nuts are good for you even after messing up the omega 3:6 ratio. First of all, I have yet to find any conclusive evidence that this ratio is as important as many sources claim. I understand the rationale that we evolved eating a certain ratio, so this is best. But to be honest our estimates of grok's 3:6 ratio is just hearsay. Anyway, if anyone has any conclusive studies stating the importance of this ratio to heart health (or health in general) please prove me wrong. The only thing I have found is someone looking at a study and guessing that positive results came from improving this ratio. I might not have looked hard enough though. So please prove me wrong.
One thing that is VERY well documented is nuts being heart healthy. First let us look at worker bee's post on almonds. It is extremely pro almond. Also, just to clarify, this post was made after Mark's own "guide to fats" where he first (first to my knowledge at least) addressed the issue of the omega 3:6 ratio. Also, on a side note, in Mark's own primal blueprint sample menu, he ate a serving of almonds and states "If I’m hungry mid to late afternoon and dinner looks to be a ways off I’ll often grab a handful of nuts. Macadamias, walnuts and pine nuts are great, but I usually reach for almonds." Anyway here is the article on almonds.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/almonds/
But there is a TON of research basically proving that nuts are great for heart health. Some researchers at Mcmaster University did a systematic review on the causes of heart disease. Anyway, here is a link to the abstract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
I unfortunately cannot access the full version, but Dr Briffa did and analyzed it. Here is a link to that.
According to Dr. Briffa "Of all of these factors, the ones that fulfilled 4 Bradford Hill criteria (i.e. those where there was most evidence of cause-and-effect) were:
Mediterranean diet
Vegetable consumption
Nut consumption
Trans-fatty acid consumption
Consumption of foods of high GI or GL"Obviously the trans fats and high GI or GL foods caused it, and vegetable consumption, mediterranean diet, and nut consumption prevented it.
The only factors that were shown to be effective in randomized studies were
"Adherence to a ‘Mediterranean’ type of diet
Increased intake of marine (fish and seafood derived) omega-3 fat "
So in randomized studies omega 3's show heart health benefits. You could say "Well this is because it gives a better omega 3 to omega 6 ratio." Or, what most people would say, is that it is just that omega 3's are heart healthy and adding them to your diet is good for heart health, regardless of omega 6 intake.
Anyway, it is an interesting review and study, and if anyone could get the whole thing and send it my way it would be greatly appreciated. :)
Anyway, nuts were one of the three factors that were most associated with reduced rate of heart disease. I could go through and post some of the studies that this review looked at, but I don't even think there is much of a need to do so.
So the question is, if the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 is so important for heart health, why are nuts that are raising the ratio proven to be heart healthy. Actually I challenge any of you to find me a study that suggests nuts are correlated with the onset of heart disease. I can almost guarantee that you cannot fine one.
Basically, what I am saying is that this is a website dedicated to beliefs based on science and reviewing studies. So why is everyone telling people to stop eating nuts due to the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio when nuts are basically proven to be beneficial to heart health? Nuts are extremely well researched where as the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio is not. Also Mark eats nuts and agrees they are part of a healthy diet.
Basically, I challenge any of you to prove to me that the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio is associated with heart disease through studies (I don't doubt that people will do this to be honest). But the main challenge is then showing that this heart risk outweighs the HUGE PROVEN heart benefit of eating nuts.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
My thoughts are that not all nuts are created equal.
Some have a high % of omega 6, and others have very small numbers.
Personally, I think it matters more about the total omega 6 consumed, rather than just the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 within the individual nuts.
Because of this, I stick with macadamia, cashews, and almonds. (In that order.)
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberWell maba, I do believe it is true. And to be honest, I think that the evidence really backs my argument. Go to pubmed and do a search for "almonds" or any other type of nut and you will get studies telling you that they are correlated with reduced heart disease. As I said in my original post, they are so correlated with reduced risk of CHD that they are most likely the cause of it, judging by the Bradford Hill criteria. To be honest, I do not know anything about the Bradford Hill criteria but I would imagine it is reasonably valid.
I just believe that if the o3:o6 ratio was so important, nuts wouldn't be so correlated with reduced risk of heart disease and there would be more research on the effects of having a bad o3:o6 ratio.
Really, what I want to see is a study done where people eat quite a bit of omega 3's but then eats a lot of omega 6's so their ratio is bad, say 10:1. Then I want to see another group of people eat almost 0 polyunsaturated fats, but have a better ratio of say 3:1. To be honest, who do you really think is going to be heart healthier? I would guess the people eating the extra omega 3's with the worse ratio just because that is what the research supports. If you eat more omega 3's (especially from fish), you are less likely to get heart disease, and that is what the research states. The ratio to omega 6 isn't even considered.
I don't know, this whole ratio thing just doesn't add up considering all the research that is out there.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
PrimalK
MemberSometimes,I think we can all get too tied up in uber-analysis of every single thing that we eat. According to some, I dn't eat enough fatty meat. But to be honest, I love eating acan of tuna, tomatoes, cucumber and dressed with olive oil, White balsamic, garlic and pepper. And of course others would poo-poo the tomatoes. But at the end of the day, I feel good on what I eat - and that also includes a good dose of nuts every day. In my world, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Niklas
Member@PrimalK
I'm like you. Consciously reaching for the fattest foods making an effort to add even extra fat doesn't work for me as it causes me nausea, irregular blood sugar and a sense of heaviness. A more natural approach, eating whatever is healthy and handy and with its natural occurring fat is what works best for me. And I eat nuts as well. After all we can't do worse than eating SAD and not even people eating SAD are dropping dead like flies because of the junk they eat, why should I with a 99% better than theirs diet.Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
Regarding the neglect of research on omega 3 to omega 6 ratio, I think that the real "gems" that you have to look at and read between the lines are related to increased Omega 3 consumption.
People tend to only look at increasing your Omega 3 fatty acids.
And you can do that by supplementing, or eating more fish, etc.
Increasing Omega 3's can help reduce heart risk right?
Well, people don't tend to look at the fact that increasing your Omega 3's generally just brings a better balance to their Omega 3 to 6 ratio.
I believe that the same could be done by reducing Omega 6's.
Most research is done by people pushing a pill.
And Omega 3 comes in pill form.
"Just take our pills, and you'll be fine!" :)
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
OnTheBayou
MemberBobby, 10:1 6:3 is the average for Americans. And there is a huge laboratory of high Omega 6 eaters: The Jews of Israel. They eat massive amounts of "vegetable" oils and have massive amounts of CHD. The non-Jews eat more Mediterranean and have less CHD.
I don't have time to read your links, but something that often is not accounted for is how the nut eaters live vs. the fewer nut eaters. It's like the evidence that vegetarians live longer is skewed because vegetarians are typically better educated (which correlates with longer life), don't smoke, and generally make healthier decisions. The nut eater might be likewise.
I believe macadamias have the best omega ratio, is that right? It's STILL 6:1! (Just checked) We whine about that when it's CAFO beef, but it's OK when it's a nut?
I think justifying the consumption of nuts beyond small amounts, cuz they ARE good, is like our long distance running conversation here. Neither, really, can be justified. Both have proponents trying to justify. The bottom line is that if one wants to run marathons or eat nuts, that's fine. Doing some running or eating some nuts is also fine.
But don't pretend that they are good for you when the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. There are a lot of more successful ways of having less CHD than loading up on O6 nuts, like just kill the sugar and carbs.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
OTB,
Here's a quote from a previous post of mine related to Omega ratios in nuts.
And for some nuts, the ratio really does not matter much.
"It's been mentioned on this forum that Almonds have a *horrible* omega-3 to 6 ratio of 1 to 2010!
That sounds horrendous! 2010 times more omega 6 than omega 3?? Stay *away* from those devil inducing omega 666 almonds!
So maybe we should eat the all mighty Walnut, which as a favorable 1 to 4 ratio of omega 3 to 6. (Four times more omega 6 than 3.)
And you could go down your entire food list and eliminate the foods with the worst ratios, and only pick the ones with the best ratios.
So you could get rid of Olive oil because it has about a 1 to 10 ratio, and keep walnut oil because it has a 1 to 4 ratio, etc.
But at the end of the day... You're headed for trouble, why?
Check out the TOTAL omega 6 count you're getting from those "favorable" omega ratios.
Lets say you ate 1 handful of walnuts:
That would give you about 3 grams of Omega 3.
And about 14 grams of Omega 6.
(Pretty good ratio)
But compare that to Almonds: (One handful)
Almonds = very little Omega 3 (almost none)
But only 5 grams of Omega 6.
So by choosing almonds (with the horrible 1:2010 ratio) we've reduced our Omega 6 intake by almost 10 grams.
And if you want to "balance" that back into a better ratio, all you'd have to do is get a gram or two of Omega 3 to get yourself back into balance. (Fish oil tabs would prob do the trick.)
You could even go for nuts with even less Omega 6 in them such as cashews at about 4 grams per handful, or macadamia nuts at about .5 grams per handful. Even though they have *bad* ratios."
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
erik.cisler
MemberHere's a pretty conclusive post showing that tissue ratios of O6:O3 are incredible predictors of cardiovascular disease: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-disease.html
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Jess
MemberI don't think primals condemn nuts in small amounts (an ounce or two a day, for example.) I think the MAIN POINT that they're trying to get across is that you shouldn't be eating a cup or so of ANY nut a day. (I'll say it again...MODERATION...) Nuts are a SNACK and should be treated like one...Moderately, and on occasion...
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberOTB, you said "But don't pretend that (nuts) are good for you when the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. "
Can you find me some of this evidence, because all the evidence I can find says that nuts are good for your health. I have yet to find any evidence that says otherwise. You could say that every person that eats nuts in all these different studies just live healthier lifestyles, but that is far more of an unlikely assumption that nuts are good for you and the omega 3:6 ratio isn't as important as some people believe it to be.
And as for the jews in israel, how do you know that they don't eat otherwise unhealthy diets. That is a far easier assumption to make than the claim that everyone that eats nuts just are healthier in general. Also, I am willing to bet that someone that has a high omega ratio due to nuts is going to be in a lot better shape than someone who is going to have a high omega ratio due to vegetable oils...many of which contain some trans fats that have been proven to be detrimental to heart health.
I just find it funny that you say the evidence points to nuts being unhealthy, yet I can't find any of this evidence. Can you point me to it?
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
MariaNYC
MemberWhile we're on the topic of nuts, has anyone ever developed a nut allergy that they previously did not have?
About a month ago, my entire body broke out in hives about 2 hours after eating a handful (8-10) almonds. Since then, I've tested the hypothesis that almonds were in fact the culprit, and they definitely are. Needless to say, I was really bummed because I loved snacking on almonds! I don't think I over did it, either. I'd only have them a few times a month and would often go months without having any. Anyway, just wondering if anyone else out there had a similar experience.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
maba
MemberMariaNYC, someone else just posted saying the exact same thing:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/topic/introduction-and-allergy-concerns
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Niklas
MemberNuts were not a seasonal treat to grok, humans have always stored all the nuts they could and nut shells have been found in almost all european paleo sites.
nuts comprise also the 70% of what certain primitive healthy population eat. Many studies reveal people who eat nuts have better hematic profile and cardiovascular conditions. Some were just old boring epidemiology but others were interventional.nuts in mark's diet are more than a snack as they're a main part of his most important meal: the giant salad.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma
MemberI don't know, this whole ratio thing just doesn't add up considering all the research that is out there.
Read wholehealthsource blog. Basically does what you are asking. The brilliant guy there has taken all of the past research and cast in the light of O6:O3 ratio. The results are pretty convincing.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma
Membermark doesn't treat nuts as simple snack as they're a component of its main most important meal: the giant salad.
The main player in the BAS is leafy greans, the nuts are like croutons. I wouldn't use a green salad to prove that the Primal diet should be 70% nuts.
Also, I am willing to bet that someone that has a high omega ratio due to nuts is going to be in a lot better shape than someone who is going to have a high omega ratio due to vegetable oils.
And I think this is where the "health benefits" of nuts come in. When compared with people who snack on corn chips with people who snack on nuts, the nut eaters win in health. To really prove that nuts are responsible for the good health and it's not the seed-oils that are responsible for the bad health, you really need a intervention study. I haven't read one of those for nuts. I have seen those with seed-oils.
I'm not sure where the emotion came from for this thread, I thought nuts were on the good list?
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberSir Grandma, here is another guy that did a review on the effects of omega 6 on heart disease. He seems to think otherwise.
Here is another review that suggests that lowering omega 6 intake could cause heart problems
Here is a quote from the abstract:
"Lower linoleic acid content was associated with increased risk for non-fatal events." So this means that people that ate less omega 6 were more likely to have heart attacks or other CHD that did not result in mortality. Well at least they didn't die, right?
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberHere is another study about the omega 3 and omega 6 relation.
A quote from the study:
"For example, men with > or = median long-chain n-3 PUFA intake (> or =250 mg/d) had a reduced risk of sudden death whether n-6 PUFA intake was below (<11.2 g/d; hazard ratio [HR]=0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.34 to 0.79) or above (> or =11.2 g/d; HR=0.60; 95% CI=0.39 to 0.93) the median compared with men with a < median intake of both."
So this is suggesting that if you are eating more omega 3's it will is related to heart health even if you are eating more than average omega 6's. This seems to make sense.
And for the conclusion in the abstract:
"CONCLUSIONS: n-3 PUFAs from both seafood and plant sources may reduce CHD risk, with little apparent influence from background n-6 PUFA intake. Plant-based n-3 PUFAs may particularly reduce CHD risk when seafood-based n-3 PUFA intake is low, which has implications for populations with low consumption or availability of fatty fish."
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
Sir Grandma
Memberhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/circulationaha;109/13/1609
This one is interesting too, it says that ALA is better for you than MUFA.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberSir Grandma, you said "I'm not sure where the emotion came from for this thread, I thought nuts were on the good list? "
I have read a lot of these forums recently and a lot of people are saying cut out the nuts or keep the nuts to a bare minimum because of the omega 3:6 ratio. I just think that this isn't smart because there is a ton of evidence that people that eat nuts are much less likely to develop CHD. You could claim that every person that eats nuts are living healthier lifestyles, but that is a huge assumption to make.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
I don't have time to go through all your examples. But in the last one you gave... Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630029?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9
They only compare people who take 250mg of Omega 3 and then those who take 11.2g of Omega 6.
And then they just blanket state that whatever range between greater than or equal to 250mg and less than or equal to 11.2g there was no difference.
That's a HUGE amount of distance between 250mg and 11.2 GRAMS a day.
Where were people in the middle? I don't think you can just say that *anywhere* in between there there is no change... That's way to big of a range.
That could include people who have a ratio of 1:44 to 1:1, or lower.
My guess is that they didn't even have anyone who ate close to the "recommended" 1:4 or lower ratio.
So *any* increase in Omega 3 would bring them closer, and therefore decrease their likelihood of heart disease.
Not the best study to use in supporting that a ratio *doesn't* matter.
I have similar issues with the other studies, but don't want to type all day...
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberSean, what you are not seeing is the fact that an increase of omega 3's being equal to or above 250mg per day (which is a tiny amount) correlated with better heart health regardless (both higher or lower than 11.2 grams) of omega 6 intake compared to men that had less than the average of both.
If the ratio was so important, people that ate equal to or more omega 3's would not see a benefit if they were eating more omega 6's as well. Right? Well this study states that this is not the case. If the ratio was so important there would be a direct correlation between the people eating the most omega 6 and heart disease, but that is not the case. The correlation is between omega 3 and prevention of heart disease, regardless of omega 6 consumption. I don't see how this does not hurt the argument for the ratio being so important.
Judging from your post I will guess that you missed the fact that the people that ate equal to or more omega 3's AND ate more than average omega 6's reduced their risk of heart disease as well.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
You state this:
"If the ratio was so important, people that ate equal to or more omega 3's would not see a benefit if they were eating more omega 6's as well."
But they didn't actually have any data on anyone who actually ate close to "equal or more omega 3's" they just had a range of 1:44 to 1:0.
It states it in the study with these remarks:
n-3 PUFA intake (> or =250 mg/d) PUFA intake was below (<11.2 g/d) or above (> or =11.2 g/d)
Actually come to think of it, they only compared those people who had a ratio of 1:44 or below, to those who had 1:44 and above.(At the extreme limits)
I'm sure there were people in the middle, but... they don't talk about those.
So what is this study really comparing?
All I can figure out is that an increase in O-3 would be helpful to *anyone* in this study, because their ratios are so out of whack anyhow that any increase in O-3 would probably bring them closer to a good ratio.
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight
MemberI sent a question to mark about this yesterday. I said that I was eating up to 500 calories worth of almonds a day and I was eating 5 (120/180) fish oil pills a day, and was wondering if I should tone back my almond intake for fear of a bad ratio. This was his (speedy) response:
With the fish oil supplements you're taking, you should be fine with the hefty amount of almonds. While 1:1 is an excellent ratio, the problems really start with a diet that is all but void in omega 3's.
Posted 2 weeks ago # -
bobbylight,
While I do think you should pay attention to your omega 3 to 6 ratio, I don't think 500 calories a day of almonds is going to hurt you.
That's only about 10 grams of O-6.
If you have 2 grams of 0-3, then you've got a 1:5 ratio right there.
Not anywhere near the 1:20, or 1:44 (as in the study you cited above.)
The real problem is when people start using cooking oils, and packaged foods, fast food, etc, that has huge amounts of O-6, and they don't balance it with any O-3. (And that happens more than you'd think.)
My 2 cents,
-SeanPosted 2 weeks ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.