FWIW, I read somewhere, a long time ago, that when squirrels were offered a selection of different tree nuts, they showed a clear preference for walnuts. Based on that, I've included walnuts in my diet. Does that seem nuts? 🤪
I was excited when I saw the post title, because I'm a fan of walnuts, pecans, and mixed nuts myself, but all the meta-analyses typically never find any meaningful positive effects (not for glycemic factors, blood pressure, total triglycerides, etc).
Still, those are almost always survey based rather than RCT based, so we have to laud the researchers here for going to the trouble of doing a real RCT, albeit with a fairly difficult and noisy end point and for a short time period. The overall results are probably expected.
Another factor to consider is that 1 week isn't really a large amount of time - there's plausible biochemical reasons that there could be positive effects over the long term that are noisier to surface in the short term (especially if they displaced some on-average worse food in the diet), although I'd put the probablity there relatively low.
With diet studies so noisy and multiply confounded, I agree with your advice for any individual - all we can do is try different things and track our own personal micro-associations.
I was excited too. This was such a well-designed RCT. Not just rigorous, but inclusive of EEG and blood serum measures that could've accounted for changes in cognitive test performance.
I feel bad for the researchers that the data didn't turn out well. I agree with you that this is to be expected.
I didn't want to burden readers, but some of the concerns I raised in the post - especially the multiple comparisons problem - are more nuanced than I let on. I think there's a sensible rebuttal to what I wrote, and a sensible counter-rebuttal, etc.
You mentioned that the meta-analyses don't consistently find meaningful positive effects. In my (limited) experience with this literature, part of the reason may be that some of the studies are extremely weak, methodologically speaking, regardless of how the meta-analysts rate the quality of evidence. A few bad apples in the barrel.
Suppose you spend one hour per week reading about, reacting to, and planning for dietary strategies. That's 8-9 minutes per day. One hour would allow you to run six miles at 10:00 pace. (e.g two 3-milers). Five miles if you're slow, seven if you're faster. In addition to the 500-700 calories burned, add in the psychological and physiological benefits. Which is a better use of your weekly hour? Now factor in the abject failure of the vast majority of diet studies. How about eating whatever you want and instead committing to exercising?
Lol, good point! However.... (1) Eating whatever we want may cause us to overdo the fats and sugars, because our brains evolved to prefer high-calorie foods. Meanwhile... (2) Manufacturers of processed/ultra-processed foods like Frito-Lay spend literally millions of dollars per year on research that has no purpose other than to make their products more palatable. It doesn't matter how nature and nurture together shape our food preferences - in the end, we're contending with scientists who use incredibly sophisticated techniques to hack those preferences and get us to crave more or less unhealthy foods.
For breakfast? "Eating fish for breakfast is common in various parts of the world, particularly in coastal regions and countries with strong fishing traditions. In Portugal and Spain, breakfast tacos with canned fish like sardines are popular.
In Japan, a traditional breakfast often includes rice, miso soup, fish, and an omelet.
In Norway and other Scandinavian countries, fish for breakfast is a common practice.
Additionally, in the United States, bagels with lox are a popular breakfast option, especially in New York City. Some people also enjoy smoked salmon with scrambled eggs or smoked trout on toast." (Brave search engine)
Thank you. It's too bad that so many kinds of fish can have dangerous levels of heavy metals, because they tend to be a great source of omega-3 PUFAs. Walnuts are too, so if a person doesn't like them, or they're allergic to them (like your wife), then they may need to choose their diet carefully - fish (but not too much) plus other sources of omega-3s, like soybeans.....
FWIW, I read somewhere, a long time ago, that when squirrels were offered a selection of different tree nuts, they showed a clear preference for walnuts. Based on that, I've included walnuts in my diet. Does that seem nuts? 🤪
https://www.birdtipper.com/can-squirrels-eat-walnuts/
Sounds squirrely to me. :)
But good choice with the walnuts!
I was excited when I saw the post title, because I'm a fan of walnuts, pecans, and mixed nuts myself, but all the meta-analyses typically never find any meaningful positive effects (not for glycemic factors, blood pressure, total triglycerides, etc).
Still, those are almost always survey based rather than RCT based, so we have to laud the researchers here for going to the trouble of doing a real RCT, albeit with a fairly difficult and noisy end point and for a short time period. The overall results are probably expected.
Another factor to consider is that 1 week isn't really a large amount of time - there's plausible biochemical reasons that there could be positive effects over the long term that are noisier to surface in the short term (especially if they displaced some on-average worse food in the diet), although I'd put the probablity there relatively low.
With diet studies so noisy and multiply confounded, I agree with your advice for any individual - all we can do is try different things and track our own personal micro-associations.
I was excited too. This was such a well-designed RCT. Not just rigorous, but inclusive of EEG and blood serum measures that could've accounted for changes in cognitive test performance.
I feel bad for the researchers that the data didn't turn out well. I agree with you that this is to be expected.
I didn't want to burden readers, but some of the concerns I raised in the post - especially the multiple comparisons problem - are more nuanced than I let on. I think there's a sensible rebuttal to what I wrote, and a sensible counter-rebuttal, etc.
You mentioned that the meta-analyses don't consistently find meaningful positive effects. In my (limited) experience with this literature, part of the reason may be that some of the studies are extremely weak, methodologically speaking, regardless of how the meta-analysts rate the quality of evidence. A few bad apples in the barrel.
Suppose you spend one hour per week reading about, reacting to, and planning for dietary strategies. That's 8-9 minutes per day. One hour would allow you to run six miles at 10:00 pace. (e.g two 3-milers). Five miles if you're slow, seven if you're faster. In addition to the 500-700 calories burned, add in the psychological and physiological benefits. Which is a better use of your weekly hour? Now factor in the abject failure of the vast majority of diet studies. How about eating whatever you want and instead committing to exercising?
Lol, good point! However.... (1) Eating whatever we want may cause us to overdo the fats and sugars, because our brains evolved to prefer high-calorie foods. Meanwhile... (2) Manufacturers of processed/ultra-processed foods like Frito-Lay spend literally millions of dollars per year on research that has no purpose other than to make their products more palatable. It doesn't matter how nature and nurture together shape our food preferences - in the end, we're contending with scientists who use incredibly sophisticated techniques to hack those preferences and get us to crave more or less unhealthy foods.
This is interesting and thanks. My wife is allergic to walnuts, so am missing it. I do love Walnuts. Also your comment about omega-3 fatty acids, I'm sure you have heard of fish is brain food. Well, there is good documentation. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-science-diets-food-health-supplements-you-asked/you-asked-fish-really-brain-food
What about mercury? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2484683
For breakfast? "Eating fish for breakfast is common in various parts of the world, particularly in coastal regions and countries with strong fishing traditions. In Portugal and Spain, breakfast tacos with canned fish like sardines are popular.
In Japan, a traditional breakfast often includes rice, miso soup, fish, and an omelet.
In Norway and other Scandinavian countries, fish for breakfast is a common practice.
Additionally, in the United States, bagels with lox are a popular breakfast option, especially in New York City. Some people also enjoy smoked salmon with scrambled eggs or smoked trout on toast." (Brave search engine)
Thank you. It's too bad that so many kinds of fish can have dangerous levels of heavy metals, because they tend to be a great source of omega-3 PUFAs. Walnuts are too, so if a person doesn't like them, or they're allergic to them (like your wife), then they may need to choose their diet carefully - fish (but not too much) plus other sources of omega-3s, like soybeans.....