Nuts a day keep the doctor away.

[EdEarl]

Large study links nut consumption to reduced death rate

 

"In all these analyses, the more nuts people ate, the less likely they were to die over the 30-year follow-up period," explained Ying Bao, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women's Hospital, first author of the report. Those who ate nuts less than once a week had a seven percent reduction in mortality; once a week, 11 percent reduction; two to four times per week, 13 percent reduction; five to six times per week, 15 percent reduction, and seven or more times a week, a 20 percent reduction in death rate.

 

Smile while you eat a few nuts, and you will be happier, too.

 

They did not report a causal relationship, merely a correlation that is consistent with other similar studies. They did not report any specific nut as superior in this study.

[Phi for All]

 

They did not report any specific nut as superior in this study.

 

I love almonds and cashews most, and oddly enough I picked up from somewhere that almonds are very healthful, while I view cashews as an indulgence. Cashews have a rich taste and texture that make them seem like a less healthy choice, but I don't think that's true.

[CaptainPanic]

I always get a little angry when I see these kind of messages. There is no way anyone can possibly keep track of all the things that are healthy or that will cause cancer and kill you. There is no way that anyone can keep track of all the honest scientific publications. And in addition, there are lots of 'sponsored' investigations which are about as objective as asking a used car salesman about the reliability of his cars. And the mainstream popular media often just won't even mention which research was independent, and which was sponsored.

 

Even though the link provided suggests this was an honest research, I generally just ignore messages like this. A varied diet is a healthy diet. In my case, it includes a bit of pretty much everything.

[john5746]

I would be more likely to overeat cashews, so almonds probably would be a better choice for me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I always get a little angry when I see these kind of messages. There is no way anyone can possibly keep track of all the things that are healthy or that will cause cancer and kill you. There is no way that anyone can keep track of all the honest scientific publications. And in addition, there are lots of 'sponsored' investigations which are about as objective as asking a used car salesman about the reliability of his cars. And the mainstream popular media often just won't even mention which research was independent, and which was sponsored.

Of course you can keep track -- just read the Systematic Cookbook Review:

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/1/127.abstract

 

 

We selected 50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook. ... Forty ingredients (80%) had articles reporting on their cancer risk. Of 264 single-study assessments, 191 (72%) concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk; 75% of the risk estimates had weak (0.05 > P ≥ 0.001) or no statistical (P > 0.05) significance. ... The [relative risks] from the meta-analyses were on average null (median: 0.96; IQR: 0.85, 1.10).

 

If you get the full paper, most ingredients had studies saying they caused cancer, along with competing studies saying they reduced cancer risks. Except for bacon, which uniformly caused cancer.

 

Even though the link provided suggests this was an honest research, I generally just ignore messages like this. A varied diet is a healthy diet. In my case, it includes a bit of pretty much everything.

I should point out that the article was

 

Supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (UM1 CA167552, P01 CA055075, P01 CA87969, R01 HL60712, R01 CA124908, P50 CA127003, and 1U54 CA155626-01) and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.

 

For anyone interested, the article full text is available:

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352#t=article