Nuts High in Protein Low in Cals

rubadub

ANSI wrote: »

can you suggest any nuts for me please?

I think they will all be around the same sat fat levels.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Heart_Letter/2009/July/Ask-the-doctor-Why-is-peanut-butter-healthy-if-it-has-saturated-fat

Ask the doctor


Why is peanut butter "healthy" if it has saturated fat?

Q. I keep reading that peanut butter is a healthy food. But it contains saturated fat and has more sodium than potassium. That doesn't sound healthy to me.

A. The presence of saturated fat doesn't automatically kick a food into the "unhealthy" camp. Olive oil, wheat germ, and even tofu — all "healthy" foods — have some saturated fat. It's the whole package of nutrients, not just one or two, that determines how good a particular food is for health.

Let's take a look at the peanut butter package. One serving (about 2 tablespoons) has 3.3 grams of saturated fat and 12.3 grams of unsaturated fat, or about 80% unsaturated fat. That puts it up there with olive oil in terms of the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fat. Peanut butter also gives you some fiber, some vitamins and minerals (including 200 milligrams of potassium), and other nutrients. Unsalted peanut butter, with 5 milligrams of sodium, has a terrific potassium-to-sodium ratio. Salted peanut butter still has about twice as much potassium as sodium. That profile compares quite favorably with bologna, roast beef, and many other sandwich fixings.

Over the years, numerous studies have shown that people who regularly include nuts or peanut butter in their diets are less likely to develop heart disease or type 2 diabetes than those who rarely eat nuts. Although it is possible that nut eaters are somehow different from, and healthier than, non-nutters, it is more likely that nuts themselves have a lot to do with these benefits.

Saturated fat isn't the deadly toxin it is sometimes made out to be. The body's response to saturated fat in food is to increase the amounts of both harmful LDL and protective HDL in circulation. In moderation, some saturated fat is okay. Eating a lot of it, though, promotes artery-clogging atherosclerosis, the process that underlies most cardiovascular disease. In contrast, unsaturated fats, which make up the majority of the fat content in peanut butter, help reduce LDL cholesterol and lower the risk of heart disease.

I try to eat as healthful a diet as I can. It includes all kinds of nuts, as well as peanut and other nut butters.

— Walter C. Willett, M.D.
Professor of Nutrition
Harvard School of Public Health

coconut oil is about 86% sat fat and some people eat tablespoons of it for its health benefits.

ANSI

rubadub wrote: »

I think they will all be around the same sat fat levels.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Heart_Letter/2009/July/Ask-the-doctor-Why-is-peanut-butter-healthy-if-it-has-saturated-fat



coconut oil is about 86% sat fat and some people eat tablespoons of it for its health benefits.

Thanks i am looking at sat fats from the point of view of cholesterol

moonage

ANSI wrote: »

Thanks i am looking at sat fats from the point of view of cholesterol

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

nice_guy80

beans are a much better alternative to nuts for snacking (though nuts are handier)
if you couple nuts with fruit then its a great snack

buy plain uncooked beans, cook and add homemade sauce. put in a small container. great for snacking on, with a fork

ANSI

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

very selective history

EdoErgoSum

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

I love Toms videos, a lot of useful info.

His blog: Fat Head

Thomas Magnum

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

Ahh yes, the Cholesterol Confusionists favourite whipping boy Ancel Keys. He is persona non grata amongst the lovers of saturated fat. Tom Naughtons Broscience is a joke.

The premise that saturated fat contributes to heart disease did not start with the seven country study. A link between heart disease and saturated fat was suspected in the 1930's. This planted the seed for Keys work years later. Keys first turned his attention to cholesterol and heart disease in 1948. He was not convinced there was a connection. He first made public his suspicion of the American high-fat diet in 1952. He was not concerned about dietary chlosterol at this point and the following year he made a landmark speech blaming dietary fat for its contribution to heart disease yet he did not believe it deserved full blame.

This 1953 address and the paper associated with it are what most of the Cholesterol Confusionists are actually criticising although they apparently don't understand that. The seven country study was begun 5 years later in 1958 to investigate Keys concerns. In 1961 Keys first makes the distinction that it is saturated fat and not dietary fat in general that increases blood cholesterol. By 1964 it was a common belief that saturated fat contributed to heart disease and in 1968 it was shown that lowering saturated fat lowered risk factors for heart disease and finally it was in 1970 that the Seven Country Study was presented.

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Ahh yes, the Cholesterol Confusionists favourite whipping boy Ancel Keys. He is persona non grata amongst the lovers of saturated fat. Tom Naughtons Broscience is a joke.

The premise that saturated fat contributes to heart disease did not start with the seven country study. A link between heart disease and saturated fat was suspected in the 1930's. This planted the seed for Keys work years later. Keys first turned his attention to cholesterol and heart disease in 1948. He was not convinced there was a connection. He first made public his suspicion of the American high-fat diet in 1952. He was not concerned about dietary chlosterol at this point and the following year he made a landmark speech blaming dietary fat for its contribution to heart disease yet he did not believe it deserved full blame.

This 1953 address and the paper associated with it are what most of the Cholesterol Confusionists are actually criticising although they apparently don't understand that. The seven country study was begun 5 years later in 1958 to investigate Keys concerns. In 1961 Keys first makes the distinction that it is saturated fat and not dietary fat in general that increases blood cholesterol. By 1964 it was a common belief that saturated fat contributed to heart disease and in 1968 it was shown that lowering saturated fat lowered risk factors for heart disease and finally it was in 1970 that the Seven Country Study was presented.

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

Just when i thought it was safe to go back to the ice cream and take the video to the doc and ask him why is he torturing me;) I am not sure what you mean are you saying sat fat is bad as I thought?

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

Just when i thought it was safe to go back to the ice cream and take the video to the doc and ask him why is he torturing me;) I am not sure what you mean are you saying sat fat is bad as I thought?

The problem with using the data from the 22 countries to argue against the 7 country study, as it seems the confusionists insist on doing, is that that data came from a statistical compilation by the FAO. That was not data used in the 7 country study. The 7 country study was a prospective cohort study. Researchers were dispatched within 7 countries to collect their own data using uniform standards. Naughton, and his ilk, are being intellectually dishonest.

EdoErgoSum

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

The problem with using the data from the 22 countries to argue against the 7 country study, as it seems the confusionists insist on doing, is that that data came from a statistical compilation by the FAO. That was not data used in the 7 country study. The 7 country study was a prospective cohort study. Researchers were dispatched within 7 countries to collect their own data using uniform standards. Naughton, and his ilk, are being intellectually dishonest.

ok, forget about history and political issues....

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Thomas Magnum

EdoErgoSum wrote: »

ok, forget about history and political issues....

Don't leave me in suspense... care to elaborate?

EdoErgoSum wrote: »

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

The National Dairy Council in financing a study that found no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD shocker.

And in other news water is wet.

ANSI

What about this? Seems to be a lot of people saying sat fat is not related to cholesterol

rubadub

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

Thomas Magnum

rubadub wrote: »

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

Naughton and the rest of the Cholesterol Confusionists want you to believe that 40 years ago the whole medical profession was hoodwinked by Ancel Keys and that they have all marched in lockstep ever since. They try to portray the 7 country study and the 1953 22 country paper as the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. They fail to present the cautious and gradual development of Keys' ideas leading to his concerns over saturated fat and instead parrot a bogus critique that you will see all over the internet.

ANSI

rubadub wrote: »

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

That is what wiki says

Criticism

The Seven Countries Study had weak points[31], including how the populations were selected (in part for reasons of convenience), and how the population correlations were carried out; there was no random selection of a great numbers of units. Also, this study included only men. Hence, generalisability of the findings to women should be done with caution.

The study began with a great many more countries - Australia, Italy, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Holland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain, USA - but Keys deleted the countries whose results did not match his pre-conceived conclusions, leaving him with only Japan, Italy, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the US. Full disclosure would have made a great deal of difference. [32]

One of the major conclusions of the study, that dietary saturated fat correlates with increased risk of heart disease, has come under criticism

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

That is what wiki says

I have already explained that the 22 country paper and the 7 country study are not the same thing. It wasn't one study where at the end he whittled it down to seven. A lot of the data collected for the 22 country paper wasn't useful. However if you think otherwise then please explain.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I have already explained that the 22 country paper and the 7 country study are not the same thing. It wasn't one study where at the end he whittled it down to seven. A lot of the data collected for the 22 country paper wasn't useful. However if you think otherwise then please explain.

wiki apears to say they are. What is yur reference? Have you read the greats cholesterol con? He says no link between cholesterol and CHD was ever found. Can you link me to where there is such a relationship

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

wiki apears to say they are. What is yur reference?

And as we all know wiki is infallible.

The data for the 22 country's was presented as part of his address at the Annual Health Conference of New York at Lake Placid, N. Y., June 3, 1953.

Here is the accompanying paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1620415/


The 7 country study wasn't begun for another 5 years. It was presented in 1970.

rubadub

ANSI wrote: »

That is what wiki says

That is not what I was saying though. I was saying if indeed they are 2 completely separate studies he still could have used info he gained in the first study to carefully select which 7 he picks for the second. I don't know enough about them, just made sense to me if they were both different studies I would imagine they might have similar info, enough to make an educated guess as to which 7 would skew results his way.

Thomas Magnum

rubadub wrote: »

That is not what I was saying though. I was saying if indeed they are 2 completely separate studies he still could have used info he gained in the first study to carefully select which 7 he picks for the second. I don't know enough about them, just made sense to me if they were both different studies I would imagine they might have similar info, enough to make an educated guess as to which 7 would skew results his way.

The data for the 22 country study was from a statistical compilation by the FAO. Much of this data was flawed. The 7 country study was begun to investigate Keys' concerns, data was collected using uniform standards unlike the 22 country paper, and was the first study of its kind so it was not as refined as those that followed.

ANSI

rubadub wrote: »

That is not what I was saying though. I was saying if indeed they are 2 completely separate studies he still could have used info he gained in the first study to carefully select which 7 he picks for the second. I don't know enough about them, just made sense to me if they were both different studies I would imagine they might have similar info, enough to make an educated guess as to which 7 would skew results his way.

ok

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

The data for the 22 country study was from a statistical compilation by the FAO. Much of this data was flawed. The 7 country study was begun to investigate Keys' concerns, data was collected using uniform standards unlike the 22 country paper, and was the first study of its kind so it was not as refined as those that followed.

That does not mean he could not have used the data from the 22 to put a spin on the second
have you read the great cholesterol con?
Do you have qualification in this area to contradict what you call confusionists

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

That does not mean he could not have used the data from the 22 to put a spin on the second

How could he have used the data from the 22 to put a pin on the 7 country study? Explain why you think this is so.

ANSI wrote: »

have you read the great cholesterol con?

No I have not read Colpo's book.

ANSI wrote: »

Do you have qualification in this area to contradict what you call confusionists

What I have written here in respects of Ancel Keys is historical fact and not opinion. The Confusionists are the ones who have misled.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

How could he have used the data from the 22 to put a pin on the 7 country study? Explain why you think this is so.




No I have not read Colpo's book.



What I have written here in respects of Ancel Keys is historical fact and not opinion. The Confusionists are the ones who have misled.

so you have no qualifications to contradict Colpo? Maybe you should read his book

Why call them confusionists then....?

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

so you have no qualifications to contradict Colpo?

Nice appeal to authority there.

ANSI wrote: »

Maybe you should read his book

If it's anything like cholesterol skeptic-in-chief Uffe Ravnskov's work then no thanks.

ANSI wrote: »

Why call them confusionists then....?

Because they're being dishonest.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Nice appeal to authority there.

you have no autgority and so i am not interested in your claims. My own interest is personal and not int in your confusionist talk when you have no education is this area

Between Colpo and you i would favour Colpo and will not respond until you state your qualifications.. which you do not appear to have

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

you have no autgority and so i am not interested in your claims. My own interest is personal and not int in your confusionist talk when you have no education is this area

Once again, what I have written here in respects of Ancel Keys is historical fact and not opinion or claims.

ANSI wrote: »

Between Colpo and you i would favour Colpo and will not respond until you state your qualifications.. which you do not appear to have

Your confirmation bias is showing.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Once again, what I have written here in respects of Ancel Keys is historical fact and not opinion or claims.




Your confirmation bias is showing.

you have no qualifications and your bias shows. Bye you are on my ignore

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

you have no qualifications and your bias shows. Bye you are on my ignore

I thought you weren't going to respond again?

So you couldn't tell me where I was wrong ( must be those pesky facts ) and now you've spit the dummy and run.