Almonds vs biscuits

[Eddy Edson]

... for "habitual snackers".

Conclusions​

Almonds can be incorporated into the diets of habitual snackers to improve diet quality, without evidence for changes in body weight, compared to a popular discretionary snack food.

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)48908-3/fulltext

This may seem like a big nothing, but it's a bit interesting for me for the body-weight context. I'm an habitual almond-snacker - lots & lots of almonds! - and when I eat too many my weight goes up & vice versa. In fact controlling almond intake is my main body weight control-lever, sad to admit 🙂

And the result in this study is contra a lot of low-rent dietary jibber-jabber which says that somehow or other almonds are less fattening than other food with the same energy characteristics.

Obviously, nutrition outcomes are better with almonds than biscuits:

Results​

The difference in changes for body weight from baseline to 12 months was not statistically significant (geometric means 67.1 kg and 69.5 kg for almonds and 66.3 kg and 66.3 kg for biscuits, P = 0.275). There were no statistically significant differences in changes for body composition or other non-dietary outcomes (all P ≥ 0.112). Absolute intakes of protein; total, polyunsaturated, and monosaturated fat; fibre; vitamin E; calcium; copper; magnesium; phosphorous; and zinc, and % TE from total monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat statistically significantly increased from baseline (all P ≤ 0.033), while % TE from carbohydrate and sugar statistically significantly (both P ≤ 0.014) decreased from baseline, in the almond compared to the biscuit group.

 

[Dragonheart]

There are so many ways this trial could be more jibber jabber, and their own intro pretty much admits that. Not least small # participants, assumptions they followed the method for a year (unsupervised) accurately, assumptions they reported their intakes accurately of the unmeasured balance of the rest of the diet (I’m assuming it was self reported but it doesn’t actually say how intakes were assessed).

Not to mention the insulin and carb sensitivity of participants is unmentioned. The same calories have different effects in the body depending which macro it is. I know for sure the same calories from a carb heavy diet v a protein heavy diet do not have the same effect on my weight. If I’m such an anomaly maybe I could get rich selling my body to science.

 

[Eddy Edson]

There are so many ways this trial could be more jibber jabber, and their own intro pretty much admits that. Not least small # participants, assumptions they followed the method for a year (unsupervised) accurately, assumptions they reported their intakes accurately of the unmeasured balance of the rest of the diet (I’m assuming it was self reported but it doesn’t actually say how intakes were assessed).

Where is there admission of jibber jabber-risk? Certainly nowhere in the abstract. I don't have access to the full paper, but there's also no jibber-jabber-admision in the trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375610&isReview=true

You can see there that the satanic California Almond Board funded the trial so there's a perfect warrant to ignore the study without engaging with the science, if you so desire.

Do you have any actual argument that the study was underpowered or that compliance was inadequately monitored, or is this just generic opinionating?

 

[Admiral Benbow]

... for "habitual snackers".

Conclusions​

Almonds can be incorporated into the diets of habitual snackers to improve diet quality, without evidence for changes in body weight, compared to a popular discretionary snack food.

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)48908-3/fulltext

This may seem like a big nothing, but it's a bit interesting for me for the body-weight context. I'm an habitual almond-snacker - lots & lots of almonds! - and when I eat too many my weight goes up & vice versa. In fact controlling almond intake is my main body weight control-lever, sad to admit 🙂

And the result in this study is contra a lot of low-rent dietary jibber-jabber which says that somehow or other almonds are less fattening than other food with the same energy characteristics.

Obviously, nutrition outcomes are better with almonds than biscuits:

Results​

The difference in changes for body weight from baseline to 12 months was not statistically significant (geometric means 67.1 kg and 69.5 kg for almonds and 66.3 kg and 66.3 kg for biscuits, P = 0.275). There were no statistically significant differences in changes for body composition or other non-dietary outcomes (all P ≥ 0.112). Absolute intakes of protein; total, polyunsaturated, and monosaturated fat; fibre; vitamin E; calcium; copper; magnesium; phosphorous; and zinc, and % TE from total monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat statistically significantly increased from baseline (all P ≤ 0.033), while % TE from carbohydrate and sugar statistically significantly (both P ≤ 0.014) decreased from baseline, in the almond compared to the biscuit group.

I heard to keep nuts around 45 grams a day. Most bags are 100g so I split one a day with my Mrs, even though I want the whole bag.

 

[Dragonheart]

Where is there admission of jibber jabber-risk? Certainly nowhere in the abstract. I don't have access to the full paper, but there's also no jibber-jabber-admision in the trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375610&isReview=true

You can see there that the satanic California Almond Board funded the trial so there's a perfect warrant to ignore the study without engaging with the science, if you so desire.

Do you have any actual argument that the study was underpowered or that compliance was inadequately monitored, or is this just generic opinionating?

Actually the funding would expect that nuts would come out with an even more favourable outcome. I’m not anti nuts or anti studies. Just try to see where potential flaws might be so I can decide how much weight (for or against my own position) to assign anything like this.
A key word in my post was “could” be. The jibber jabber comment was a reflection of the lack of detail included. A small study of just 136 is hardly meta analysis. There is nothing whatsoever about compliance in the abstract so we can’t say if they monitored well or not. It seems likely it might have been a self reported food study as so many nutritional studies are, but again we can’t tell from the abstract. This type of study is inherently of low quality and widely accepted as being so.

In summary the study is saying, whilst knowing nothing about the rest of a participants diet or health status (eg were they insulin resistant or not) other than they were not obese or how they were monitored, replacing an unspecified biscuit with almonds improves a fair number of nutritional profiles, reduces carbs and sugar but has no statistically significant effect on weight. Much as they anticipated at the start of the trial.

 

[bulkbiker]

Where is there admission of jibber jabber-risk? Certainly nowhere in the abstract. I don't have access to the full paper, but there's also no jibber-jabber-admision in the trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375610&isReview=true

You can see there that the satanic California Almond Board funded the trial so there's a perfect warrant to ignore the study without engaging with the science, if you so desire.

Do you have any actual argument that the study was underpowered or that compliance was inadequately monitored, or is this just generic opinionating?

Full paper here.

Snacking on Almonds Lowers Glycaemia and Energy Intake Compared to a Popular High-Carbohydrate Snack Food: An Acute Randomised Crossover Study

Consuming nuts may have advantages over other snack foods for health and body-weight regulation. Suggested mechanisms include increased satiety and lower glycaemia. We used an acute randomised crossover trial to assess glycaemic and appetite responses to consuming two isocaloric snacks...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Eddy Edson]

Full paper here.

Snacking on Almonds Lowers Glycaemia and Energy Intake Compared to a Popular High-Carbohydrate Snack Food: An Acute Randomised Crossover Study

Consuming nuts may have advantages over other snack foods for health and body-weight regulation. Suggested mechanisms include increased satiety and lower glycaemia. We used an acute randomised crossover trial to assess glycaemic and appetite responses to consuming two isocaloric snacks...

www.mdpi.com

That's a different, earlier paper, arising from the same trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375610&isReview=true

The abstract I linked is for a paper looking at primary outcomes from the trial; yours looks at some of the secondaries. No idea why a secondary outcomes paper gets published before the primary paper.

 

[bulkbiker]

No idea why a secondary outcomes paper gets published before the primary paper.

Possibly because the primary didn't quite fit with their "findings" .. or maybe I'm too cynical when human nutrition studies are involved..