Go Nuts

[Guest guest]

" HSI - Jenny Thompson " <HSIResearch

 

HSI e-Alert - Go Nuts

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:16:11 -0400

HSI e-Alert - Go Nuts

 

Health Sciences Institute e-Alert

****************************************************

April 18, 2005

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then, and we have evidence

that the FDA actually found a nut (both literally and figuratively)

when agency officials gave almonds a nod of approval.

 

In a 2003 " Letter of Enforcement Discretion, " companies that supply

products made of five varieties of nuts - almonds, hazelnuts, pecans,

pistachios, and walnuts - were given the OK to make this claim:

" Scientific evidence suggests but does not prove that eating 1.5

ounces per day of most nuts, as part of a diet low in saturated fat

and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease. "

 

Fast-forward to March 2005: A study in the Journal of the American

Dietetic Association reports on a trial of 16 adults who consumed

three controlled diets; a diet without almonds, a diet in which 10

percent of the calories were supplied by almonds (low-almond diet),

and a diet in which almonds accounted for 20 percent of the calories

(high-almond diet).

 

When blood levels were checked for tocopherol (vitamin E), researchers

found that levels of the vitamin were increased by nearly 14 percent

by the low-almond diet, and nearly 20 percent by the high-almond diet.

Those in the high-almond group also had a 7 percent drop in the LDL

cholesterol level.

 

Of course, HSI members have known for years that nuts provide good

nutrition. But what about those other nuts (cashews, macadamia nuts,

Brazil nuts, and pine nuts) that the FDA says have too much saturated

fat? Are these four outlaws unhealthy?

 

You'd have to be nuts to believe it.

 

-----------

Fat chance

-----------

 

During America's low-fat mania of the 80s and 90s, nuts got a bad rap.

" Too high in fat, " went the thinking. And the over-simplified, flawed

logic followed: fat intake raises cholesterol, cholesterol causes

heart disease, therefore; nuts contribute to heart disease. Verdict:

Nuts are bad for you. Case closed.

 

The irony is that anyone who paid attention to that misguided advice

was rejecting a natural method to help prevent heart disease, and an

excellent source of fiber, protein, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals.

 

Fortunately, long-term studies were underway that would eventually

dispel the nonsense. Research from the Iowa Women's Study (more than

40,000 postmenopausal women followed for eight years) showed that

subjects who ate nuts on a regular basis reduced their heart disease

risk by 40 percent. And in the similar Nurses' Health Study, those who

ate five or more ounces of nuts each day had a 39 percent lower risk

of a fatal heart attack than women who never ate nuts at all.

 

These are just two of many studies that refuted the idea that fat

content automatically upped the risk of heart disease.

 

In his Real Health Breakthroughs newsletter, William Campbell Douglass

II, M.D., summed up the situation, stating, " It is simply wrong to

blame fats for degenerative conditions. The scientific research and

the historical data of tribal eating habits simply don't support the

saturated fat/atherosclerosis theory of heart disease. "

 

And addressing nuts specifically in the same newsletter, Dr. Douglass

said, " What the nutrition experts won't admit is that nuts keep you

slimmer because they're 'fattier' than other snacks. Their fat content

fills you up on much less than you would eat of other foods like

pretzels. "

 

Dr. Douglass' recommendation: " Forget the past 30 years of nutritional

hogwash: fat does NOT make you fat! So go ahead, eat all the nuts you

want. "

 

-----------

The carb issue

-----------

 

As is typical of the mainstream, the tunnel vision focus of nuts has

been on fat.

 

So...what about carbohydrates?

 

Because nuts have good fiber, carbohydrate content isn't a serious

issue (unless you're on a zero-carb diet). But if you're trying to

curb the carbs, the nut to avoid is the cashew. One ounce of cashews

(about a handful) contains 9 grams of carbs, but only one gram of

fiber. That's 8 net carbs, and no other nut comes close to that

amount. The next highest in the carb category is the pistachio with 5

net carbs. Most of the others have only two or three net carbs.

 

The lowest on the carb-o-meter is the pecan, with just 1 net carb per

ounce.

 

-----------

The good stuff

-----------

 

In the e-Alert " The Fix is In " (7/22/03), I told you that walnuts are

an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids. But walnuts also deliver

vitamin B-6 and folate. And this packaging of multiple nutrients is

typical among all the nuts.

 

If you want more calcium in your diet, almonds are a good source. They

also deliver magnesium, which helps the absorption of calcium. If

you're not an almond-lover, you can choose hazelnuts to boost vitamin

E levels. Pecans have copper and potassium (as do hazelnuts). The

ubiquitous peanut contains good amounts of niacin, folate, vitamin E,

and a rich combination of minerals. And in several e-Alerts I've

mentioned the high selenium content of Brazil nuts, which also deliver

linoleic acid and zinc.

 

****************************************************

 

....and another thing

 

Your average Joe probably doesn't give much thought to the difference

between systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements. If you

happen to be one of those Joes, here's your chance to enjoy a quick

Introduction to BP 101, courtesy of HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D.

 

On an HSI Forum thread, a member named Rob posted this question:

 

" Someone mentioned that the difference between your systolic and

diastolic measurements were more critical to predicting a heart attack

than the BP reading alone. They went on to say that if the difference

is 65 or more, you're in for a heart attack. There are times when this

difference for me is above 65 (73 was the worst). Should I get my will

in order? Actually, Jenny, I was hoping you'd be able to get one of

your experts to comment on this and save me from worrying myself into

ulcers. "

 

Between systolic and diastolic, your systolic pressure (the first

number in the blood pressure reading) is generally considered the more

important indicator of heart health - especially for those age 50 or

older. As for the importance of the difference between the two

pressures, I asked Dr. Spreen to explain and here's how he answered

Rob's question:

 

" What you're talking about is called 'pulse pressure', or the

differential between the high reading and the low one. Nothing

guarantees that you'll have (or not have) a heart attack. Many heart

attacks occur with low serum levels of cholesterol, for example, so

don't head into ulcer state yet! Also, the powers-that-be are now

telling us that any pressure above 120/80 up to 140/90 is 'pre-

hypertension' and they're even suggesting that we get started early on

drug therapies, which sounds suspiciously like an attempt to bail out

the drug companies to me.

 

" However, physiologically a high pulse pressure may indicate that the

blood vessels are not as 'elastic' as they might be, implying that

they are not in peak condition (healthy, elastic arteries stretch to

handle pressure changes and therefore lower the 'tops' and 'bottoms'

of big peaks). Therefore, you do want to respect pulse pressures

hitting 75, not by worrying yourself into ulcers but by getting

educated on actual ways to treat the situation.

 

" Get a serum homocysteine level and a C-reactive protein, then talk

with your doc. Those are the most sensitive tests, and can give a good

baseline of where you are as you take steps to improve. Then, if they

indicate a problem, get started on what can fix 'em...folic acid,

vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, maybe some magnesium, vitamin C (gram

doses), and a good multi withOUT iron, for a start. Then, go to

www.acam.org and learn about IV chelation.

 

" That way you'll have a proactive avenue of attack against a

defeatable enemy, instead of sitting home swallowing antacids and

worrying yourself to death! "

 

To Your Good Health,

 

Jenny Thompson

Health Sciences Institute

 

****************************************************

 

Sources:

 

" Almonds in the Diet Simultaneously Improve Plasma Alpha-Tocopherol

Concentrations and Reduce Plasma Lipids " Journal of the American

Dietetic Association, Vol. 105, No. 3, March 2005, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

" Qualified Health Claims: Letter of Enforcement Discretion - Nuts and

Coronary Heart Disease " Food and Drug Administration, Office of

Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, 7/14/03,

vm.cfsan.fda.gov

" Should You Give Up Nuts, Steak - or Both? Try Neither! " William

Campbell Douglass, M.D., Real Health newsletter, 8/1/02 " Nutrients in

1 Ounce of Tree Nuts and Peanuts " USDA National Nutrient Database for

Standard Reference, Release 15, August 2002, nuthealth.org

 

************