81 replies to this topic

[dunbar]

Once a doctor told me about a patient who got a liver tumor and who used to eat a lot of nuts.
This got me worried. I also read that aflatoxins are basically impossible to avoid and to even test
in nuts. 1 charge can be fine, the next charge can be totally infested.

Due to this I worry, is it rather dangerous if you for example often eat nuts like peanuts, walnuts,
pistachios?

I really don't know if it makes sense to regularly eat nuts for health benefits.

In the past months I have been eating peanuts for example every now and then. I buy rather cheap ones from the supermarket which are salted and roasted. I noticed that every now and then there are peanuts which taste strange. Does this mean that such a nut contains toxins? Could you smell or taste it if a nut is bad?

For me the whole worrying about toxins basically ruins the fun of eating nuts. When I eat them I feel guilty somehow.

[Jeoshua]

Look at the nuts before you eat them. If they're discolored or fuzzy, they are infected with fungus or mold. Don't eat those ones, they do, in fact, contain mycotoxins which are not good for your health.

Peanuts are not really a nut. They're actually more closely related to beans. And like beans, they do contain some compounds used by the plant to discourage herbivores from eating them. They won't kill you, but they do interfere with digestion and can make you sick.

Stick with actual nuts, I think.

[dunbar]

I wasn't aware of this. I always thought peanuts are considered healthy.

What I noticed is that peanuts often are darker in color at the gap in the middle. But I don't know if this is normal
or due to roasting. I really have no idea how to spot a foul peanut.

What about cashews are they better than peanuts? And can basically any nut contain fungus? Or are there nuts which are
especially dangerous? I think I read pistachios are often infested.

[Jeoshua]

Yeah I've read the same thing. The "woodier" nuts are often less susceptible to infection, so Cashews, Chestnuts, Almonds, Walnuts, Brazil Nuts, etc are usually a lot better, even if they are more expensive due to the higher amounts of processing necessary to remove them from their hard shells. But that's okay because they tend to fill you up faster and have higher amounts of the nutrients you're looking for anyways.

And as far as healthy/unhealthy, you will find that each and every vitamin, food, beverage, etc has conflicting opinions. Even oxygen is dangerous in amounts too high. It is the weight of evidence that is the important thing. If 200 studies prove something one way, and 10 prove the opposite, it's likely that the 200 studies are correct and those 10 were flawed in some way, or otherwise were just misleading.

Edited by Jeoshua, 21 February 2014 - 08:49 PM.

[dunbar]

Yes the question is wether eating stuff like almonds daily for health benefits would really be worth it.
I mean imagine you're doing this and spending a lot of money on those nuts thinking it's healthy and then it turns
out to be rather detrimental because of fungus. This would suck especially since nuts are quite expensive, too.
Eating them for taste wouldn't be worth it imo. I'd rather eat crackers or sweets. Eating them would only make sense
if it's absolutely clear that they're beneficial. But if for example eating nuts regularly would not be a good idea because you
can never know if they contain fungus then it wouldn't make sense to eat them. I mean either they're good then you could
eat them daily or they're too risky and then eating them every now and then also wouldn't make sense.

[Jeoshua]

I do know a few people that eat Brazil Nuts like a supplement, 2 a day. I don't know what they were intending for it to provide tho, although it might have been for easilly absorbable mineral contents if my guess is correct.

Basically any food eaten, in great excess, for any kind of effects whatsoever is going to be expensive and counterproductive. Nobody from the CILTEP crowd is likely to eat a pound of artichoke hearts per day for the Luteolin.

Better to just eat "good food" as a rule, and worry about the specifics later if you notice a problem.

Edited by Jeoshua, 21 February 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[dunbar]

I think brazil nuts contain selenium which is probably why they eat them.

I basically would just like to have a list of healthy foods which could be eaten daily.
This would make it easy for me to simply come up with a good diet. But if for example there are foods
which are healthy but still not good when eaten daily then this makes everything complicated.

I'm not good at managing things or putting much thought into what I want to do.This is why I need routines.
I'd rather eat the same stuff every day instead of having to think about what I want to eat every day.

[bracconiere]

I think brazil nuts contain selenium which is probably why they eat them.

I basically would just like to have a list of healthy foods which could be eaten daily.
This would make it easy for me to simply come up with a good diet. But if for example there are foods
which are healthy but still not good when eaten daily then this makes everything complicated.

I'm not good at managing things or putting much thought into what I want to do.This is why I need routines.
I'd rather eat the same stuff every day instead of having to think about what I want to eat every day.

Yes brazil nut are reported to be VERY high in selenium. Nuts and seeds supply a lot of essential fatty acids if you pick the right ones. Cashews are high in mono fats, but that's not actually essential. Vit E also comes strongly from nuts and seeds, sunflower being the best, wheat germ second.


If you want to eat the same stuff everyday....use cron-o-meter, and www_nutritiondata_com to search, build a meal plan. I doubt if anything like microtoxins will actually mater if your eating right. ALL FOOD has something wrong with it, but we can handle it.

[niner]

Peanuts are a bigger risk than tree nuts by far. For what it's worth, wikipedia has the following reference:

Medical research indicates that a regular diet including apiaceous vegetables, such as carrots, parsnips, celery and parsley, may reduce the carcinogenic effects of aflatoxin.^[17]

[blood]

Nut consumption is linked with reduced disease and increased life expectancy. This is true even for peanuts, aflatoxin notwithstanding.

The ergo-log site often has interesting articles on nuts, such as this one:

http://www.ergo-log....ive-longer.html

Eat nuts or peanuts and live longer

If you eat nuts or peanuts regularly your risk of dying is lower than if you don't. According to a study published by epidemiologists at Harvard Medical School in the New England Journal of Medicine, a diet that is high in nuts and peanuts extends your life expectancy by offering protection against almost all kinds of fatal disease.

The Harvardians used data on over one hundred thousand people – 76,464 women and 42,498 men – for their study. The researchers asked them to keep a record of the amount of nuts or peanuts they ate every 2-4 years from the 1980s up to 2010.

A high peanut and nut intake reduced the subjects' mortality risk by about twenty percent the researchers discovered.

The protective effect of nuts had already been shown in similar epidemiological studies, but this one produced even more intriguing results. Nuts and peanuts reduced not only the chance of dying from cardiovascular problems, but also the chance of dying from cancer, diabetes, infectious diseases, lung and kidney diseases and 'non-classified' diseases.

It was also noticeable that consuming nuts and peanuts protected pretty much everyone in the group: young and old, men and women, light and heavy, drinkers and non-drinkers, supplements users and non-users, athletes and non-athletes.

Peanuts are not nuts, but when the researchers split the results up between 'tree nuts' and 'peanuts', there was no noticeable difference.

Edited by blood, 22 February 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[Chupo]

It was also noticeable that consuming nuts and peanuts protected pretty much everyone in the group: young and old, men and women, light and heavy, drinkers and non-drinkers, supplements users and non-users, athletes and non-athletes.

This seems to show that it isn't because of a "healthy user" effect. Also peanuts aren't generally considered a health food yet they also showed benefits.


Nut-eating Seventh Day Adventists live quite a bit longer than their nut-eschewing brethren but it doesn't get much attention.





http://archinte.jama...88/ioi00635.pdf

[chemicalambrosia]

I think brazil nuts contain selenium which is probably why they eat them.

I basically would just like to have a list of healthy foods which could be eaten daily.
This would make it easy for me to simply come up with a good diet. But if for example there are foods
which are healthy but still not good when eaten daily then this makes everything complicated.

I'm not good at managing things or putting much thought into what I want to do.This is why I need routines.
I'd rather eat the same stuff every day instead of having to think about what I want to eat every day.

"The World's Healthiest Foods. 100 foods that can serve as the basis of your Healthiest Way of Eating."
http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

The above would be a good place to start. Really though, avoid processed foods, eat lots of fruits and vegetables, and don't worry so much.

[blood]

Eating them for taste wouldn't be worth it imo. I'd rather eat crackers or sweets. Eating them would only make sense
if it's absolutely clear that they're beneficial.

Perhaps the concerns over aflatoxin are overstated. I mean, we're not seeing an epidemic of peanut eaters dying of liver cancer. The opposite is true - peanut eaters appear to be healthier (if you accept the findings of that Harvard study).


Crackers & sweets aren't very good for your health...

Do you not enjoy the peanuts that you occasionally eat? I don't mind raw walnuts & pecans in small amounts. I don't eat huge amounts - I just crumble a small amount over my breakfast oats.

Seeds could be an alternative option. For example sunflower seeds or pumpkin seeds. They are inexpensive, and probably offer some of the benefits of nuts. You can sprinkle them on breakfast cereals.

[Gerrans]

There is no end to the theoretical problems with nut eating. High calories, aflatoxins, too many polyunsaturates, too much selenium, too much Vitamin E, etc. But the problems seem to be theoretical only. As some have said already, the research stacks up in favour of nut eating. Apart from not being associated with weight gain in any study, they are associated with a remarkable range of positive health outcomes, including lowered mortality. Really.

[Darryl]

To my knowledge, aflatoxin contamination is primarily a concern in peanut butter produced in nations with poor food safety regulations.

In the developing world, cosmetically attractive peanuts are sold whole, while moldy peanuts (especially those stored under humid conditions) are made into peanut butter.

Aflatoxin contamination is also observed in pistachio paste, fig paste, and paprika, and again storage conditions are the primary culprit.

[timar]

All epidemiological data and as of last year even one large-scale (sort-of) RCT, the PREDIMED trial provide unequivocal evidence for the remarkable health benefits of nut consumption, which have been thourougly discussed in this forum. If there were any dentrimental effects due to aflatoxins in whole nuts, they would have to be largely outweighed by the beneficial effects.

We have an infamous food chemist here in Germany, his name is Udo Pollmer. He is a complete moron and doesn't know a thing about nutritional science, but unfortunately he's very popular and regularly presents himself as a phony "nutritional expert" in the media, because he tells people exactly want they want to hear (his basic reactionary message is: "nutritional science is all a mess, you can't trust those eggheads, just keep on eating your trusted diet of meat and refined junk food").

Some time ago, I heard him argue against the consumption of whole grain and his basic "argument" (besides the usual paleo theme of the evil lectins) was that there are aflatoxins on the grains which are removed during the mlling of refined flour. Such preposterous fearmongering always goes by the same scheme: take one isolated concern out of context, blow it way out of proportion and let it spuriously overrule all the real epidemiological evidence on the health benefits of the food you want to scare people away from. Be wary of such fearmongering, it usually serves a political agenda (not surprisingly, Pollmer's institute is financed by the meat industry).

I do know a few people that eat Brazil Nuts like a supplement, 2 a day. I don't know what they were intending for it to provide tho, although it might have been for easilly absorbable mineral contents if my guess is correct.

Selenium. Two Brazil nuts provide about the RDA of selenium.

Basically any food eaten, in great excess, for any kind of effects whatsoever is going to be expensive and counterproductive. Nobody from the CILTEP crowd is likely to eat a pound of artichoke hearts per day for the Luteolin.

Brazil nuts are one the very rare examples where a whole plant food contains such large amounts of an essential mineral, that you actually should consume it in limited amounts only (the only other one I can think of are certain algae for their idodine concent).

I basically would just like to have a list of healthy foods which could be eaten daily.
This would make it easy for me to simply come up with a good diet. But if for example there are foods
which are healthy but still not good when eaten daily then this makes everything complicated.

Almost every single plant food can be eaten on a daily basis as part of a varied diet, without worrying about the amount you eat. As I've said, brazil nuts and algae are the rare exceptions to that rule and are not representative at all.

Just try for once to simply enjoy your food instead of worrying about it, dunbar. That would be the single most important thing for your health...

Edited by timar, 24 February 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Gerrans]

There are hundreds of studies reporting the benefits of eating nuts, but I keep meaning to mention the following one. (It should be said the researchers are not unconnected with nut interests, as is often the case.)

*

Effect of nut consumption on oxidative stress and the endothelial function in metabolic syndrome

López-Uriarte et al, Clinical Nutrition, 2010

Patients and methods

A randomized, controlled, parallel feeding trial was conducted on 50 MetS adults who were recommended a healthy diet supplemented or not with 30 g of mixed nuts (Nut and Control groups, respectively) every day for 12 weeks. The plasma antioxidant capacity (AC), oxidized LDL (oxLDL), conjugated diene (CD) formation, urine 8-isoprostanes, DNA damage assessed by yield of urine 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG), and EF assessed by peripheral artery tonometry (PAT) and biochemical markers, were measured at baseline and the end of the intervention.

Results

No significant differences in changes between groups were observed in AC, oxLDL, CD, 8-isoprostanes or EF during the intervention, whereas the reduction in DNA damage was significant in the Nut group compared to Control group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Nut consumption has no deleterious effect on lipid oxidation. The decrease in DNA damage observed in this study could contribute to explain the beneficial effects of regular nut consumption on some MetS features and several chronic diseases.

*

How many foods are there that have been shown to actively decrease DNA damage?

Edited by Gerrans, 28 February 2014 - 08:40 PM.

[TheFountain]

Eating them for taste wouldn't be worth it imo. I'd rather eat crackers or sweets. Eating them would only make sense
if it's absolutely clear that they're beneficial. 

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 

 

I would say the problem is not nuts. 

[LaViidaLocaa]

Nuts should be in everyone's staple diet if you're looking for healthy, cheap and tasty foods.

Nonetheless, I have often wondered: isn't the omega-6 content of nuts too high to consume a lot of them each day?

[nupi]

 

Eating them for taste wouldn't be worth it imo. I'd rather eat crackers or sweets. Eating them would only make sense
if it's absolutely clear that they're beneficial. 

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 

 

I would say the problem is not nuts. 

 

 

It would say the problem is nuts. Just of a different kind.
 

[TheFountain]

 

 

Eating them for taste wouldn't be worth it imo. I'd rather eat crackers or sweets. Eating them would only make sense
if it's absolutely clear that they're beneficial. 

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 

 

I would say the problem is not nuts. 

 

 

It would say the problem is nuts. Just of a different kind.
 

 

My thoughts exactly. 

[Jeoshua]

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 
 
I would say the problem is not nuts.

 
It would say the problem is nuts. Just of a different kind.

You really should be punished for that comment.

 

The only risk I am aware of from eating Nuts are their phytate content and lack of phytase, which pretty much nullifies their ability to supply the mineral content that they are so highly prized for. Minerals are useless if they are irreversibly bound to phytate. It would be possible to soak and cook your nuts in a starter culture, but nobody really does that. Most people eat them raw (other than pistachios).

There is a similar problem with beans, but they are definitely soaked and cooked and contain a decent enough amount of phytase, which will break down the phytic acid and unbind the minerals. Wheat and Rice have this problem, too, but again its phytase content and the fact that they're always consumed cooked ameliorate this to a degree.

Actually, Phytates are a big reason behind some of the philosophy of the Paleo diet, which speaks against eating Grains and Legumes for this very reason.

[TheFountain]

 

 

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 
 
I would say the problem is not nuts.

 
It would say the problem is nuts. Just of a different kind.

 

You really should be punished for that comment.

 

The only risk I am aware of from eating Nuts are their phytate content and lack of phytase, which pretty much nullifies their ability to supply the mineral content that they are so highly prized for. Minerals are useless if they are irreversibly bound to phytate. It would be possible to soak and cook your nuts in a starter culture, but nobody really does that. Most people eat them raw (other than pistachios).

There is a similar problem with beans, but they are definitely soaked and cooked and contain a decent enough amount of phytase, which will break down the phytic acid and unbind the minerals. Wheat and Rice have this problem, too, but again its phytase content and the fact that they're always consumed cooked ameliorate this to a degree.

Actually, Phytates are a big reason behind some of the philosophy of the Paleo diet, which speaks against eating Grains and Legumes for this very reason.

 

 

Most nuts on the market are roasted, not raw. 

 

I think the phytate discussion is a little overdone. All things equal, balanced diet? Mild phytate consumption won't mean much. With raw non-sprouted grains I see it as being more of an issue than with nuts. 

[niner]

I agree with TheFountain on both counts. If I want raw nuts, I have to seek them out, while roasted nuts seem to be the default. Maybe that's a regional phenomenon? (I'm in the Northeast) Phytates are really only a problem in people who are subsisting on minimal diets and who are at the brink of mineral deficiencies. For the typical American, a bit of phytates from nuts or grain might even do more good than harm, by tying up oxidation-promoting transition metals that we tend to get too much of.

[Chupo]

 

 

You actually need to ask if nuts are healthier than crackers and sweets? 
 
I would say the problem is not nuts.

 
It would say the problem is nuts. Just of a different kind.

 

You really should be punished for that comment.

 

The only risk I am aware of from eating Nuts are their phytate content and lack of phytase, which pretty much nullifies their ability to supply the mineral content that they are so highly prized for. Minerals are useless if they are irreversibly bound to phytate. It would be possible to soak and cook your nuts in a starter culture, but nobody really does that. Most people eat them raw (other than pistachios).

There is a similar problem with beans, but they are definitely soaked and cooked and contain a decent enough amount of phytase, He points out that gut bacteria nullify anti-nutrients and shows that gut bacteria have the ability to convert phytate to inositol.which will break down the phytic acid and unbind the minerals. Wheat and Rice have this problem, too, but again its phytase content and the fact that they're always consumed cooked ameliorate this to a degree.

Actually, Phytates are a big reason behind some of the philosophy of the Paleo diet, which speaks against eating Grains and Legumes for this very reason.

He points out that gut bacteria nullify anti-nutrients and shows that gut bacteria have the ability to convert phytate to inositol.

 

You might be interested in this video by Dr. Greger:

 

Sources can be found here: http://nutritionfact...f-osteoporosis/

 

Here is a recent and interesting post about gut bacteria by Mark Sisson. There is a significant part about phytic acid and anti-nutrients in general:

 

 

They improve our bone mineral density.

 

Feeding fermentable fibers to our gut bacteria isn’t just about the short chain fatty acids they produce in response. It’s also about the improved bone health, which occurs through numerous gut bacteria-mediated mechanisms: “increased solubility and absorption of minerals because of increased bacterial production of short-chain fatty acids from prebiotic fermentation; the enlargement of the absorption surface by lactate and butyrate; increased expression of calcium-binding proteins; improvement of gut health; degradation of mineral complexing phytic acid; release of bone-modulating factors such as phytoestrogens from foods; stabilization of the intestinal flora and ecology, also in the presence of antibiotics; stabilization of the intestinal mucus; and impact of modulating growth factors such as polyamines.”

 

They nullify anti-nutrients.

 

Phytic acid is an anti-nutrient found in seeds, grains, legumes, nuts, and many other foods. It binds to and prevents the absorption of various minerals, and high phytic acid diets have the potential to cause nutrient deficiencies. Unless you have the right gut flora.

Certain gut flora can actually turn phytic acid into inositol, preventing mineral-binding and releasing a nutrient involved in mood regulation and insulin sensitivity. The more phytate-rich foods you eat, the better your gut bacteria get at breaking it down (they learn, remember?).

There’s also evidence that the right gut flora can reduce the allergenicity of gluten and dairy proteins.

Read more: http://www.marksdail.../#ixzz302A4YKn3

[sthira]

Thanks, Chupo. Isn't it interesting that the phytic acid and anti-nutrient meme that nuts and legumes are potentially unhealthy developed around a puppy study from the 1940s and a later rat study? Keep eating raw nuts and beans if you want to maintain your healthy bones.

[xEva]

Here is a recent and interesting post about gut bacteria by Mark Sisson. There is a significant part about phytic acid and anti-nutrients in general:

 

 

Alas Mark Sisson is no expert on gut bacteria. Just skimming his post you can't miss the heading that "they [ bacteria! ] represent a second brain" lol Then he says that "gut flora produce a ton of neurotransmitters, about 95% of our serotonin and half of our dopamine" and as a ref links to another blogger's article that talks about the enteric nervous system, which in fact produces all those neurotransmitters -- NOT the bacteria.

 

I know Mark's blog is very popular and maybe rightly so, but in this particular post his "second brain" got the best of him and made him talk out of his ass. 

Edited by xEva, 27 April 2014 - 12:57 AM.

[Jeoshua]

Good points, xEva. It doesn't take more than a scratch on the surface to prove Mark Sisson's post about the digestive system was really just full of crap.

Edited by Jeoshua, 27 April 2014 - 01:41 AM.

[timar]

I agree with niner and Chupo on the phytate issue. I haven't seen a single good argument that one has to be concerned of phytates when eating a varied diet, but some compelling arguments (which are nicely summarized by Dr. Greger) that moderate amounts of phytates may actually be beneficial and not an "anti-nutrient" at all. All the studies paleo bloggers bring up to demonize phytates are either animal studies where insanely high doses of phytates were administered or case reports from third world countries, were people relied on a single staple crop like sorghum, which is exceptionally rich in phytates and poor in minerals and had literally nothing else to eat.

 

Another point is that evidence regarding a whole food always trumps evidence regarding its constituents. It doesn't make much sense to be concerned because of isolated constituents of the nuts when we have conclusive evidence - now even from a large-scale RCT - that eating whole nuts (which - believe it or not - are not just a mixture of of phytates and omega-6 linolic acid spiced up with some mycotoxins ) is indeed highly beneficial.

Edited by timar, 27 April 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[nupi]

 

I know Mark's blog is very popular and maybe rightly so, but in this particular post his "second brain" got the best of him and made him talk out of his ass. 

 

 

 

I had been reading MDA for quite a while but ultimately decided he was a quack. While he was basing a lot of his stuff on science and a lot of his recommendations would be a definite improvement for the average American, reporting was invariably very biased.

 

His own line of supplements is actually pretty horrible once you look at it.

Edited by nupi, 27 April 2014 - 10:13 AM.