Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi folks: This appears to be consistent with anecdotal 'evidence' noted here previously (perhaps two months ago) that eating a lot of almonds seems to have a noticeably smaller impact on body weight than expected. So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. Not absorbed and therefore excreted? Elevated body temperature? An induced involuntary increase in exercise activity (lol)? More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. It is often said, although I have not seen serious evidence demonstrating it, that a small amount of fat is more satiating than an equivalent number of calories from protein or carbohydrate. Also anecdotal, but I have observed it in my own behaviour a number of times, and in the opposite direction, is oatmeal (fifteen percent of calories from fat). If I eat more oatmeal my weight increases astonishingly rapidly. I assume the reason is that it does little to induce satiety and I eat the other foods as well. Just a personal observation. Rodney. --- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Might the below not yet in Medline not pdf-available paper suggest that going > through cycles of eating and not eating nuts result in net CR? > > ¡°Does regular walnut consumption lead to weight gain?¡± Maybe, yes, but, ¡°The > weight gain from incorporating walnuts into the diet ... was less than the weight > loss from withdrawing walnuts from the diet¡±? > > Does regular walnut consumption lead to weight gain? > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, Setareh; Haddad, > Ella > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, pp. 859-864 > > Abstract: > > Studies consistently show the beneficial effects of eating nuts, but as high-energy > foods, their regular consumption may lead to weight gain. We tested if daily > consumption of walnuts (approximately 12% energy intake) for 6 months would modify > body weight and body composition in free-living subjects. Ninety participants in a > 12-month randomized cross-over trial were instructed to eat an allotted amount of > walnuts (28¨C56g) during the walnut-supplemented diet and not to eat them during the > control diet, with no further instruction. Subjects were unaware that body weight > was the main outcome. Dietary compliance was about 95% and mean daily walnut > consumption was 35 g during the walnut-supplemented diet. The walnut-supplemented > diet resulted in greater daily energy intake (557 kJ (133 kcal)), which should > theoretically have led to a weight gain of 3¡¤1 kg over the 6-month period. For all > participants, walnut supplementation increased weight (0¡¤4 (se 0¡¤1) kg), BMI (0¡¤2 > (se 0¡¤1) kg/m2), fat mass (0¡¤2 (se 0¡¤1) kg) and lean mass (0¡¤2 (se 0¡¤1) kg). > But, after adjusting for energy differences between the control and > walnut-supplemented diets, no significant differences were observed in body weight > or body composition parameters, except for BMI (0¡¤1 (se 0¡¤1) kg/m2). The weight > gain from incorporating walnuts into the diet (control¡ú ¨C>walnut sequence) was > less than the weight loss from withdrawing walnuts from the diet (walnut¡ú > ¨C>control sequence). Our findings show that regular walnut intake resulted in > weight gain much lower than expected and which became non- significant after > controlling for differences in energy intake. > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > > > > __________________________________ > - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi folks: This appears to be consistent with anecdotal 'evidence' noted here previously (perhaps two months ago) that eating a lot of almonds seems to have a noticeably smaller impact on body weight than expected. So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. Not absorbed and therefore excreted? Elevated body temperature? An induced involuntary increase in exercise activity (lol)? More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. It is often said, although I have not seen serious evidence demonstrating it, that a small amount of fat is more satiating than an equivalent number of calories from protein or carbohydrate. Also anecdotal, but I have observed it in my own behaviour a number of times, and in the opposite direction, is oatmeal (fifteen percent of calories from fat). If I eat more oatmeal my weight increases astonishingly rapidly. I assume the reason is that it does little to induce satiety and I eat the other foods as well. Just a personal observation. Rodney. --- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Might the below not yet in Medline not pdf-available paper suggest that going > through cycles of eating and not eating nuts result in net CR? > > ¡°Does regular walnut consumption lead to weight gain?¡± Maybe, yes, but, ¡°The > weight gain from incorporating walnuts into the diet ... was less than the weight > loss from withdrawing walnuts from the diet¡±? > > Does regular walnut consumption lead to weight gain? > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, Setareh; Haddad, > Ella > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, pp. 859-864 > > Abstract: > > Studies consistently show the beneficial effects of eating nuts, but as high-energy > foods, their regular consumption may lead to weight gain. We tested if daily > consumption of walnuts (approximately 12% energy intake) for 6 months would modify > body weight and body composition in free-living subjects. Ninety participants in a > 12-month randomized cross-over trial were instructed to eat an allotted amount of > walnuts (28¨C56g) during the walnut-supplemented diet and not to eat them during the > control diet, with no further instruction. Subjects were unaware that body weight > was the main outcome. Dietary compliance was about 95% and mean daily walnut > consumption was 35 g during the walnut-supplemented diet. The walnut-supplemented > diet resulted in greater daily energy intake (557 kJ (133 kcal)), which should > theoretically have led to a weight gain of 3¡¤1 kg over the 6-month period. For all > participants, walnut supplementation increased weight (0¡¤4 (se 0¡¤1) kg), BMI (0¡¤2 > (se 0¡¤1) kg/m2), fat mass (0¡¤2 (se 0¡¤1) kg) and lean mass (0¡¤2 (se 0¡¤1) kg). > But, after adjusting for energy differences between the control and > walnut-supplemented diets, no significant differences were observed in body weight > or body composition parameters, except for BMI (0¡¤1 (se 0¡¤1) kg/m2). The weight > gain from incorporating walnuts into the diet (control¡ú ¨C>walnut sequence) was > less than the weight loss from withdrawing walnuts from the diet (walnut¡ú > ¨C>control sequence). Our findings show that regular walnut intake resulted in > weight gain much lower than expected and which became non- significant after > controlling for differences in energy intake. > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > > > > __________________________________ > - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi All, But, " diet resulted in greater daily energy intake (557 kJ (133 kcal)) " . --- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > Setareh; Haddad, > > Ella > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > pp. 859-864 Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________ FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi All, But, " diet resulted in greater daily energy intake (557 kJ (133 kcal)) " . --- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > Setareh; Haddad, > > Ella > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > pp. 859-864 Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________ FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi Al: Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 calories of walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133 calories daily for six months. That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, but in reality only increased it by 0.4 kg. So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOT a result of food substitution, as I had suggested. Any thoughts? Rodney. > > > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. > > > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > > Setareh; Haddad, > > > Ella > > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > > pp. 859-864 > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > > > __________________________________ > FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 Hi Al: Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 calories of walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133 calories daily for six months. That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, but in reality only increased it by 0.4 kg. So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOT a result of food substitution, as I had suggested. Any thoughts? Rodney. > > > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead. > > > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > > Setareh; Haddad, > > > Ella > > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > > pp. 859-864 > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... > > > > __________________________________ > FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I have seen studies regarding some nuts (almonds, IIRC), that suggest that the true amount of absorbed energy via fats is less than that calculated. i.e. one doesn't really absorb all the calories expected from nuts, due to their structure or components (fiberous elements?, polyphenolic componds?, sterols?) On 11/9/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: Hi Al:Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 caloriesof walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133calories daily for six months.That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, butin reality only increased it by 0.4 kg. So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOTa result of food substitution, as I had suggested.Any thoughts?Rodney.>> > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearingto? .............> >> > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foodswhich, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead.>> > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian,> > Setareh; Haddad,> > > Ella> > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005,> > pp. 859-864>> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...>>>> __________________________________> FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 I have seen studies regarding some nuts (almonds, IIRC), that suggest that the true amount of absorbed energy via fats is less than that calculated. i.e. one doesn't really absorb all the calories expected from nuts, due to their structure or components (fiberous elements?, polyphenolic componds?, sterols?) On 11/9/05, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: Hi Al:Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 caloriesof walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133calories daily for six months.That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, butin reality only increased it by 0.4 kg. So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOTa result of food substitution, as I had suggested.Any thoughts?Rodney.>> > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearingto? .............> >> > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foodswhich, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead.>> > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian,> > Setareh; Haddad,> > > Ella> > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005,> > pp. 859-864>> Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y...>>>> __________________________________> FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Also known that vegetarians can and do eat more calories, without weight gain, for some reason. Maybe a transit time issue? But there's another issue, I noticed yesterday a friend who is now ~39yo and skinny as a rail - you'd think her sick. About 5'8", 110# max. She can eat/ does eat more than I, and clean up other's plates as well. Why are some eternally skinny - not thin - skinny? I think there must be an enzyme availability issue. The system simply can't digest/absorb all the intake. Regards. [ ] Re: Nut diet cycles > CR? Hi Al:Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 calories of walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133 calories daily for six months.That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, but in reality only increased it by 0.4 kg.So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOT a result of food substitution, as I had suggested.Any thoughts?Rodney.> > > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead.> > > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > > Setareh; Haddad,> > > Ella> > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > > pp. 859-864> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Also known that vegetarians can and do eat more calories, without weight gain, for some reason. Maybe a transit time issue? But there's another issue, I noticed yesterday a friend who is now ~39yo and skinny as a rail - you'd think her sick. About 5'8", 110# max. She can eat/ does eat more than I, and clean up other's plates as well. Why are some eternally skinny - not thin - skinny? I think there must be an enzyme availability issue. The system simply can't digest/absorb all the intake. Regards. [ ] Re: Nut diet cycles > CR? Hi Al:Thanks for that correction. You are right. They added ~230 calories of walnuts daily which, having the effect of displacing some of the other foods, resulted in increased caloric intake of only 133 calories daily for six months.That 133 calories should have added 3.1 kg of additional weight, but in reality only increased it by 0.4 kg.So, where *did* that 2.7 kg of body weight disappear to? It was NOT a result of food substitution, as I had suggested.Any thoughts?Rodney.> > > So where is the energy discrepancy disappearing to? ............. > > > > More likely it is because of reduced appetite for other foods which, > > in the absence of the nuts, would have been eaten instead.> > > > Sabate, Joan; Cordero-MacIntyre, Zaida; Siapco, ; Torabian, > > Setareh; Haddad,> > > Ella> > > British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 94, Number 5, November 2005, > > pp. 859-864> > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@y... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.