While not specifically CLL related, I found Dr Koffman's recent blog covering the paper "Association of Nut Consumption with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality" published in the New England Journal of Medicine well worth reading:
Association of Nut Consumption with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality
"In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death."
There was a 17% reduction in the risk of dying in the study period for those that included nuts in their diet. "The reductions for heart disease was even bigger, 29% and for kidney disease it was a whopping 39%. Cancer deaths were cut by respectable 11%"
As Dr Koffman correctly points out, correlation doesn't mean causation; your health may not be improved because you eat nuts, but because you have chosen to live a healthier lifestyle: "Do nuts eaters tend to avoid more junk food, do they make better health and food choices overall and that is the reason for their improved survival?"
Also, note that this study was "funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation."
Dr Koffman also covers some not so well known dangers associated with eating nuts. While I was well aware of the risk of aflotoxin poisoning from eating peanuts, I wasn't aware that a handful of brazil nuts may contain as much as 10 times the daily recommended dose of selenium!
I started adding a wider variety of nuts to my diet after a nutritionist suggested almonds could help reduce CLL related fatigue. I don't know if that has helped, but a variety of nuts are certainly now a enjoyable part of my diet.
Neil
I don't think that even Dr Koffman would enjoy eating gum nuts, but I see he does enjoy Australian native Macadamia nuts which have to be one of the best if not the best nut variety available.
And what Aussie doesn't remember with fondness May Gibbs' gumnut babies Snugglepot and Cuddlepie and the big bad banksia men from their childhood days:
Given the above study showing nut consumption benefited our health was "funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.", it is reassuring to find a new meta-analysis of Twenty studies (29 publications) which confirms that while 'Previous research had established that those who ate just a handful of nuts (around 20 grams) a day could slash their risk of coronary heart disease by nearly 30 percent, compared to those who did not eat them at all. The findings of the new analysis now reveals that these subjects also lowered their risk of cancer by 15 percent and their risk of dying prematurely of any cause by 22 percent. It also suggested that the same amount might reduce the risk of dying from respiratory disease and diabetes by close to 50 and 40 percent respectively, though researchers note that there is less data about these diseases than the others.'
It's interesting to see an update to this post with "this study by Brown and colleagues adds to the current stance taken by most nutrition experts that 1 to 2 oz per day of almonds is compatible with long-term health and weight control." (or about 30 to 60 grams for non-US residents)
"Hypothesizing that almonds would displace some less healthy snacks in current diets, the researchers compared consumption of almonds vs. biscuits — a mix of sweet cookies and savory crackers and a popular discretionary snack food — on body weight and other health outcomes in a population of regular snackers of discretionary foods.
Brown and colleagues randomly assigned 136 people who were not obese but were habitual discretionary snack consumers to receive almonds or biscuits daily for 1 year. These isocaloric snacks, they wrote, provided either 10% of participants’ total energy requirements or 1030 kJ — which was equivalent to 42.5 g almonds — whichever was greater.
The researchers assessed appetite, anthropometry, blood biomarkers, diet, physical activity and sleep at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, they evaluated body composition and resting metabolic rate.
Although there were no statistically significant differences in body composition changes or other non-dietary outcomes (geometric means 67.1 kg and 69.5 kg for almonds and 66.3 kg and 66.3 kg for biscuits), Brown and colleagues found that absolute nutrient intake did appear to improve."
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Is Bendamustine better than FCR?
Vitamins for immune health
online access to health records
Ivig therapy and health insurance
Health Insurance Advice
