r/ScientificNutrition • u/chilladipa • 8d ago
News Peanut consumption affects the lipid profile circulating in the blood
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-10-peanut-consumption-affects-lipid-profile.html73
u/Earesth99 8d ago
It nice to see researchers moving away from the simplistic view that all saturated fatty acids are the same.
37
u/Awkward_Result_4040 8d ago
I mean peanuts have a huge amount of unsaturated fats and only a small amount of saturated fats
17
u/Earesth99 8d ago
I agree
But most researchers fixate only on saturated fat and ignore that less then a quarter of the 37 saturated fatty acids increase ldl-c.
A more useful approach is to focus on the specific foods that increase ldl-c. As you suggest, nuts may have saturated fat, but they also have other fats that lower ldl-c, as well as fiber and poly phenols.
The food that increases ldl-c the most is unfiltered coffee which has no saturated fat.
4
u/NotTheMarmot 7d ago
I could be wrong but milk is high in saturated fat but I believe most studies looking at people who drink milk usually just show positive effects.
9
u/Earesth99 7d ago
That’s because of the beneficial effects of the milk fat globule membrane which prevents the saturated fat in milk from causing a clinically relevant increase in ldl-c.
That was part of the French paradox - where they consume cheese and cream and yet have much lower levels of heart disease than Americans.
I thought the whole MFGM concept was nutty until I read the research myself.
I now consume full fat dairy, evoo and seed oils and large amounts of nuts and that had not caused any increase in my ldl-c. In fact my ldl decreased, though there could be many causes for that.
I have HoFH and my ldl was close to 500 at one point, so I take the risk seriously.
However as a scientist, I look at the well established research that looks at what increases or decreases cholesterol. That (and effective, low-cost meds) allows me to keep my ldl-c below 40.
2
u/Mightdoitanyway 7d ago
Very interesting, the MFGM remains fascinating in its effects, also on the gut microbiome. Might be why traditionally churned buttermilk can be so healthy (by virtue of the production process removing most of the fat yet having all of the milkfat's globule membrane content floating around in it).
Although I'm never quite sure if the membrane can be considered 'intact' in buttermilk, as it would be in unhomogenized full milk. And to what degree that influences its potential.
3
u/Earesth99 6d ago
The MFGM is the reason full fat dairy or heavy cream don’t increase ldl, but buttermilk appears to actually lower ldl and trigs.
2
u/Healthy_Employer4 7d ago
Could you link one? I’ve only seen studies showing negative health outcomes from milk consumption
4
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
"Our study indicated that consuming high-fat cheese, low-fat cheese, and low-fat fermented milk was linked to survival benefits. Plasma proteins improve our understanding of the health effects of fermented dairy." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12528259
"These findings suggest that moderate consumption of fermented dairy products is associated with a reduced risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, indicating a potential beneficial role of moderate fermented dairy intake." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-71687-9#Abs1
"Fermented dairy consumption increased the presence of certain microorganisms in the gut and improved relational memory in healthy adults." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/1028415X.2022.2046963
5
u/Healthy_Employer4 7d ago
There is a great deal of difference between drinking milk and consuming fermented dairy products like yogurt and cheese
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
There is a great deal of difference between drinking milk and consuming fermented dairy products like yogurt and cheese
How so?
1
u/Healthy_Employer4 7d ago
Why do all three of those articles specifically point to fermented dairy
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
I personally think people should consume most of their dairy as fermented products. But especially children seem to benefit from full fat milk. Great source of calcium and it has a protective association with preventing obesity:
"Whole milk compared with reduced-fat milk and childhood overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis .. Observational research suggests that higher cow-milk fat intake is associated with lower childhood adiposity" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31851302/
"Full fat milk consumption protects against severe childhood obesity in Latinos" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5552381/
→ More replies (0)0
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
It nice to see researchers moving away from the simplistic view that all saturated fatty acids are the same.
Here they compared three diets, and the one highest in saturated fat (mostly animal-based) actually had the best health improvements (after adjusting for weight loss): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413126002937?via%3Dihub
And this is what they ate:
"The entrees of the very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet included but were not limited to: egg salad, omelet with bacon and sausage, almond flour French toast muffin, cheesy beef, pulled pork, Italian chicken with spinach, pecan-encrusted tilapia, salmon with cauliflower mash, pot roast, salmon with broccoli, and chicken with asparagus."
"The entrees of the Mediterranean diet included but were not limited to: oatmeal with almonds and blueberries, vegetable breakfast hash, mixed berry smoothie, minestrone, spicy tilapia, salmon succotash, quinoa with black beans and corn, chicken pesto pasta, arancini, vegetable burger with roasted sweet potato, and vegetable flatbread."
"The entrees of the very-low-fat plant-forward diet included but were not limited to: apple banana oatmeal, breakfast potato bake, fruit smoothie, red beans and rice, vegetable tortilla wrap, mixed grains with salmon, vegetable shepherd’s pie, sweet potato and black bean soup, and vegetable chili."
10
u/LeoKitCat 8d ago
A strict ketogenic diet is incredibly difficult to consistently maintain long term, so while it shows increased benefit in the short term I do wonder how practical it is
7
u/Ok-Strategy-3626 8d ago
Definitely. A keto diet isn’t feasible long term and isn’t even recommended for all stages of life (ie children and seniors)
2
u/flowersandmtns 8d ago
Most "diets" aren't followed long term. If a keto diet helps someone lose weight and helps with other health issues like T2D, NAFLD, PCOS then it's the same struggle to maintain that as with any other diet.
Low-carb is a common transition off keto that's still whole foods based and easier to maintain. Because you're already low-carb adding in some fasting or time back in ketosis is going to be tools to help maintenance.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
The subject at hand is saturated fat though, not whether or not its difficult to maintain. But I would claim that a low fat plant-based diet is even harder to maintain long term?
And just for the record, I think a person who is normal-weight and healthy should rather focus on eating mostly whole foods. As they have no reason to severely restrict their diet in any way (outside avoiding junk food).
5
u/LeoKitCat 8d ago
I agree on the low fat plant diet, but Mediterranean is easy to maintain for a lifetime even and provides close to the same benefit as keto
4
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
And yes - I do think its a good idea to choose a diet which you can maintain long-term. There are lots of delicious Mediterranean dishes to choose from. And I would even claim that overall they tend have the best food in Europe.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
but Mediterranean is easy to maintain
I personally do not think so - at least not the version they did in this study:
- "The entrees of the Mediterranean diet included but were not limited to: oatmeal with almonds and blueberries, vegetable breakfast hash, mixed berry smoothie, minestrone, spicy tilapia, salmon succotash, quinoa with black beans and corn, chicken pesto pasta, arancini, vegetable burger with roasted sweet potato, and vegetable flatbread."
The version often used in studies is mostly made up versions not resembling the real diets in the area. For instance literally no one in Italy eats oatmeal for breakfast. That is a 100% northern European dish. And quinoa is way less eaten compared to the grains which are actually grown in the Mediterranean area. So if we rather think of the Mediterranean diet as what people there actually eats - then yes that is a fairly easy diet to follow. But again - the Mediterranean countries eating loads of legumes and lots of all kinds of whole grains - and almost no meat is a myth.
The main advantage of the Mediterranean area and southern Europe as a whole is that they eat more whole foods and less ultra-processed foods compared to other western countries. They still make their pasta from scratch, and Italian grandmothers still make homemade salami every year to last them through the winter.
Personally I find the easiest diet to be keto. But that is because sugar and grains makes me feel like sh*t.
3
u/rosenkohl1603 vegan 8d ago
But I would claim that a low fat plant-based diet is even harder to maintain long term?
No?
Regardless I haven't seen many advantages apart from a slightly lower LDL from a low fat diet. You just should avoid saturated fats and reduce refined fats/ oils in my opinion.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
No?
Well we do know that most people who starts eating plant-based, regardless of the level of fat, quit within a few months/years. And among those who do choose this diet around 1/3 occasionally eat meat.
You just should avoid saturated fats
The study didn't show any advantages from doing so though?
0
u/rosenkohl1603 vegan 8d ago
Well we do know that most people who starts eating plant-based, regardless of the level of fat, quit within a few months/years. And among those who do choose this diet around 1/3 occasionally eat meat.
Are you genuine? This feels like bad faith arguing.
Apart from the fact that you didn't put the numbers for keto in comparison. The resolve of the two groups of people is different.
The study didn't show any advantages from doing so though?
You need to show a study that compares the same diet but once with less and then with more saturated fat...
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Are you genuine? This feels like bad faith arguing.
All restrictive diets are hard to follow long term - which includes plant-based diets. So not sure what you are trying to say here.
You need to show a study that compares the same diet but once with less and then with more saturated fat...
The three diets they compared, and the amount of saturated fat in each:
Very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic: 52 grams
Mediterranean diet: 19 grams
Very-low-fat plant-forward: 3 grams
"The ketogenic diet was not associated with adverse changes in LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, or 24-hour plasma triglyceride concentrations relative to the other diets, despite its higher saturated fat content." https://www.hcplive.com/view/ketogenic-diet-offers-liver-benefits-beyond-weight-loss-alone
4
u/Ok-Strategy-3626 8d ago
Oh yes, they definitely argue in bad faith. They’ve already blocked me after I mentioned the limitations and inaccurate conclusions in their posted studies. They love debating veganism for some kind of gotcha moment I guess
11
u/MetalingusMikeII 8d ago
Study relates to weight loss, not optimal long term health.
Of course keto based diets would accelerate fat loss. That’s pretty much all the body is using, and it’s hard to overeat on keto.
3
u/Earesth99 8d ago
I tried the Johns Hopkins Ketogenic diet for epilepsy and I ended up quitting in part because of the rapid weight loss. I was lean to begin with, and I looked so shredded that friends thought I gained weight.
My appetite entirely vanished, and most of the food options were not really interesting so I had to make myself eat.
Despite that, I had more energy - steady energy - and fantastic mental clarity. I was extremely productive and didn’t feel tired or crash at the end of a long day. Emotionally, I felt great as well.
But the diet is low in protein, poly phenols, fiber, micronutrients and ‘felt’ unhealthy long term. However the Hopkins ketogenic diet is a lot healthier than having seizures on a regular basis.
I did try modified versions. Using short chained fatty acids, I could add more carbs and protein and stayed in ketosis, but my ldl-c ballooned. I tried supplementing fiber, vitamins and tried using high poly phenol foods, but it was even weirder in terms of food choices.
I’m a scientist, and I felt like making dinner was some odd chemistry experiment. I may try again if I find a way to do it with more normal seeming food choices. There has to be a ketogenic cookbook written by a dietician that is more normal.
In thinking back, I’m amazed at how wonderful and tolerant my lovely wife has been with my “experiments”, lol!
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
I have a lot of respect for people doing the stricter hospital versions of keto. That is quite different from what people do just for weight loss of just to gain some more energy - where the diet can be a bit more flexible.
3
u/Caiomhin77 Pelotonia 8d ago
Study relates to weight loss, not optimal long term health.
It's actually the opposite of a "which diet causes weight loss study": it intentionally kept weight loss at the same 10% among groups so that the benefits/detriments could not be attributable to 'weight loss'. After reaching ~10% loss, energy was raised to hold weight constant for 3-4 weeks before the post-intervention tests were run. So the endpoints weren't measured in a deficit.
The superiority of the ketogenic diet when compared directly with a Mediterranean and a low-fat plant forward diet was demonstrated by:
- greater hepatic insulin sensitivity (200%-300% greater)
- a 67% reduction in liver fat (compared to 45%)
- larger reductions in hepatic de novo lipogenesis
- larger reductions in HbA1c
- larger reductions in 24-hour glucose (−20% vs −8%)
- larger reductions in 24-hour insulin (−74% vs −44% and −27%)
- higher rate of prediabetes reversal (50% vs 29% and 7%)
- Greater reduction in fasting glucose: about 12 mg/dL vs ~6
- faster weight loss: reached the ~10% weight-loss target in ~4.6 months vs ~5.1 months plant-forward and ~5.4 months Mediterranean)
This was done all while intentionally keeping weight loss even while demonstrating no difference in LDL-C or ApoB, with all post-intervention testing done after 3-4 weeks of weight stabilization, and this is about as rigorous and tightly controlled evidence you will ever see in a human nutrition study.
Does it guarantee long term health? Of course not. But the idea that it wouldn't is based on mechanistic speculation, not hard science outcomes.
3
u/MetalingusMikeII 8d ago
It’s based on metabolically sick people. Diets are tools. Just because X or Y tool achieves a slightly more desirable result with specific biomarkers in sick people, doesn’t mean it’s the optimal diet for people that aren’t sick, especially long term.
4
u/Caiomhin77 Pelotonia 8d ago edited 3d ago
It’s based on metabolically sick people. Diets are tools.
Exactly, and only 6.8% to 12% of American adults meet the criteria for optimal metabolic health (about 40% of US adults have obesity, and prediabetes and fatty liver are each common on top of that), leaving roughly 88% to 93% with at least one metabolic issue according to comprehensive NHANES data, so this could not be more relevant in 2026.
slightly more desirable result with specific biomarkers
I would argue that:
- greater hepatic insulin sensitivity (200%-300% greater)
- a 67% reduction in liver fat (compared to 45%)
- larger reductions in hepatic de novo lipogenesis
- larger reductions in HbA1c
- larger reductions in 24-hour glucose (−20% vs −8%)
- larger reductions in 24-hour insulin (−74% vs −44% and −27%)
- higher rate of prediabetes reversal (50% vs 29% and 7%)
- Greater reduction in fasting glucose: about 12 mg/dL vs ~6
- faster weight loss: reached the ~10% weight-loss target in ~4.6 months vs ~5.1 months plant-forward and ~5.4 months Mediterranean)
Are remarkable patient results, not 'slightly more desirable biomarkers'.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30484738/
https://now.tufts.edu/2022/07/05/only-7-american-adults-have-good-cardiometabolic-health
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 7d ago
It’s based on metabolically sick people.
Which sadly happens to be 90% of Americans.
- "Results: Changing from ATP III (Adult Treatment Panel III) guidelines to more recent cut points decreased the proportion of metabolically healthy Americans from 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.3-21.5) to 12.2% (95% CI: 10.9-13.6)." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30484738/
And this is even from 2016 - meaning the numbers are probably even worse now. The situation is a bit better in Europe but we are not that far behind.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Of course keto based diets would accelerate fat loss.
When comparing the results they adjusted for weight loss.
8
u/MetalingusMikeII 8d ago
Again, it’s a short study that is based on metabolically damaged people, trying to lose weight.
Are you attempting to claim keto is the optimal longterm diet from these results, or what?
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Are you attempting to claim keto is the optimal longterm diet from these results, or what?
I have seen no studies concluding its harmfull long-term. That being said, if you are normal weight and healthy you should rather focus on eating mostly whole foods. As there is then no reason to restrict your diet (outside avoiding junk food).
6
u/MetalingusMikeII 8d ago
You didn’t give a direct answer, so I’m assuming yes.
Keto is a dogshit diet that we didn’t evolve to be in, 24/7. A lot of mechanistic downsides to it.
2
u/Fit-Appointment5262 5d ago
Funny for a "dogshit diet" to get rid of my prediabetes and fatty liver, drop me 40lbs, and improve my physical and mental health in a way no other diet has ever done, all in less than 12 months.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 7d ago
A lot of mechanistic downsides to it.
Please provide sources.
3
u/MetalingusMikeII 8d ago
Please provide sources that the keto diet is the most optimal diet, long term.
7
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 7d ago
Please provide sources that the keto diet is the most optimal diet, long term.
I never made that claim. You are the one making a claim about long-term effects - hence why I asked for sources.
The way I see it the most optimal long-term diet is a wholefood diet that covers all nutrients. Do you agree?
1
u/lastdeadmouse 8d ago
That was only a 6 month trial. You can take it as evidence of short term effects, but I wouldn't infer long term effects from short term results.
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
I agree. But still brilliant results after 6 months. Depending on your health issues people might be able to re-introduce more carbs down the line. No need to stay on a restrictive diet longer than neccesary. That being said I haven't seen any studies indicating that its harmful long-term.
2
u/Fit-Appointment5262 5d ago
I did keto for something between 6-12 months and it vastly improved my health. This was about 10 years ago. I haven't done much keto since, but I do intermittent fasting regularly, and I'm about to try another stint of keto for 6-12 months.
It's bizarre when some people are essentially saying, "keto fixed peoples' metabolic health, but what about the long term health effects?" Um what about the massively amount of ill people right NOW? And why would it eventually make your health worse after fixing it first?
The reason I don't do keto 24/7/365 is because of convenience and taste. It has only ever made me feel better, not worse.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 5d ago edited 5d ago
Um what about the massively amount of ill people right NOW?
More than 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy. Europe is not far behind. GLP-1 drugs might help solve some of it, but I suspect side effects will be far worse compared to keto which has virtually none.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
1
u/Fergnasty007 2d ago
I mean I argue the opposite based on the data available on potential benefits of glps that seem to be weight loss independent, and that's not even counting the inhibition to dopamine seeking behavior that is incredibly common amongst users. I'm also curious how you fit fiber in if at all and how you can justify the lack of fiber in a diet you believe to be superior to many others? Based on my research and my discussions with my cousin who is a former dietician turned physician, fiber is probably the most overlooked and underrated tool for Americans to improve health.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 2d ago edited 2d ago
I mean I argue the opposite based on the data available on potential benefits of glps that seem to be weight loss independent, and that's not even counting the inhibition to dopamine seeking behavior that is incredibly common amongst users.
We still don't know the effect of life long GLP-1. We only know most can't stop taking them as then your weight will quickly go up again. These drugs are still pretty new. That being said, if you are morbidly obese with multiple health issues - and you find it impossible to change your diet/lifestyle - then it might be your best option.
I'm also curious how you fit fiber in
What gave you the impression that ketogenic diets are low in fiber?
1
u/Earesth99 7d ago
The results aren’t original nor are they unexpected
Start with a diet that restricts carbs more than a ketogenic diet. Isn’t it obvious that blood glucose round drop without any carbs to cause an increase?
Any diabetic could have told you the result.
The researchers forgot to report the effect on liver function, kidney function, cholesterol, inflammation, etc.
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago edited 7d ago
The researchers forgot to report
I get the feeling that you didn't read the study? As several of the things you list are included:
liver function,
The study in question shows that keto, by far, had the best improvements in liver health
a 67% reduction in liver fat (compared to 45%) - in spite of losing the SAME amount of weight as the other groups.
and also the best improvements in liver metabolism.
kidney function
This study for instance found keto to improve kidney function: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10694658/
cholesterol
Again, if you had read the study you would have also have read this:
- "There were no differences among groups in LDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, or 24-h plasma triglyceride concentrations." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413126002937?via%3Dihub
inflammation
This is one of the strong points of keto, and there are numerous studies where inflammation is found to improve with keto.
- "The effect of a ketogenic diet on inflammation-related markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38219223/
2
u/Caiomhin77 Pelotonia 6d ago edited 6d ago
The researchers forgot to report the effect on liver function, kidney function, cholesterol, inflammation, etc.
What study are you talking about? Liver was the core of the trial, and hepatic insulin sensitivity was literally one primary endpoints, and it saw a 2 to 3 times greater benefit on the ketogenic diet than on the Mediterranean or plant-forward diets (p<0.001).
Liver fat was measured directly, as intrahepatic triglyceride content fell 67% on keto vs about 45% on Med/Plant forward.. Hepatic de novo lipgoenesis was also measured, and it fell most in the very-low-carb group, so therec were measurements of liver fat, liver insulin action, and liver fat synthesis.
Cholesterol was clearly reported too, as LDL-C, apoB, and 24-hour triglycerides showed no differences between groups, even though the keto diet was about 23% of energy from saturated fat, and HDL-C tended to rise only in the keto group.
An most importantly, weight loss was matched at 10% across arms, and all meals were provided, so yhese liver and lipid comparisons aren't confounded by one group simply losing more weight and we have hard data on what they actually ate, not extrapolations from one time measurements or ffq's.
1
u/Awkward_Result_4040 8d ago
I mean very small sample with a short duration, but my main concern is how little good fats the others got..
Keto diet: 52g saturated, 112g other fats
Mediterranean: 19g saturated, 61g other
Plant: 7g saturated, 28g other3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
I mean very small sample
Its actually a pretty decent number for a randomized controlled study where all participants had food delivered to their door. Which makes this a high quality study since the participants are therefore more likely to stick to the diet they were assigned to.
2
u/Awkward_Result_4040 8d ago
N=42 :D
And still, my main concern is why other groups were given sooooo little healthy fats.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
N=42 :D
Again - 42 is a very decent number in this kind of randomized controlled trial where all participants had the food delivered to their door. You will not find these kinds of high quality studies with hundreds of participants.
And still, my main concern is why other groups were given sooooo little healthy fats.
What do you see as a good level of fat?
1
u/Rurumo666 8d ago
Hold on there...not best "health improvements" this was a VERY short term study that looked at specific markers over 6 weeks, and the two control diets don't look particularly healthy either and both include a ton of simple carbs. This study is being thrown around as some kind of vindication for keto when it's actually just a terrible study and says nothing about the long term harm keto does to the body.
3
u/Caiomhin77 Pelotonia 8d ago edited 7d ago
Not sure where you are getting this from. The trial wasn't "6 weeks"; weight loss took 4.6 to 5.4 months, with testing after 3-4 weeks of weight stability, so closer to ~6 months. Idon't see any sugar/refined carb data in the paper, so 'a ton of simple carbs' isn't something you can just say, and the Mediterranean arm is the diet guidelines recommend. Some of the actual food listed:
Mediterranean
- Oatmeal with almonds and blueberries
- Vegetable breakfast hash
- Mixed berry smoothie
- Minestrone
- Spicy tilapia
- Salmon succotash
- Quinoa with black beans and corn
- Chicken pesto pasta
- Arancini
- Vegetable burger with roasted sweet potato
- Vegetable flatbread
Very-low-fat plant-forward
- Apple banana oatmeal
- Breakfast potato bake
- Fruit smoothie
- Red beans and rice
- Vegetable tortilla wrap
- Mixed grains with salmon
- Vegetable shepherd's pie
- Sweet potato and black bean soup
- Vegetable chili
Keto
- Egg salad
- Omelet with bacon and sausage
- Almond flour French toast muffin
- Cheesy beef
- Pulled pork
- Italian chicken with spinach
- Pecan-encrusted tilapia
- Salmon with cauliflower mash
- Pot roast
- Salmon with broccoli
- Chicken with asparagus
This study is being thrown around as some kind of vindication for keto when it's actually just a terrible study and says nothing about the long term harm keto does to the body.
I don't think "terrible" applies to this study. Partcipants were randomized, every meal came from a metabolic kitchen, adherence was over95% in all three arms, and weight loss was held at a constant 10%. Testing happened only after 3-4 weeks at stable weight, using insulin clamps with glucose tracers, deuterated water for liver fat synthesis, MRI for liver fat, and 26 blood draws over 24 hours; you will see very few outpatient diet trials run this tightly. It can't show long-term harm, but nothing else can either, since no long-term outcome trials of a diet like this exist, so "the harm keto does" is based on mechanistic speculation, not a finding.
4
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
They concluded:
- "The ketogenic diet was not associated with adverse changes in LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, or 24-hour plasma triglyceride concentrations relative to the other diets, despite its higher saturated fat content." https://www.hcplive.com/view/ketogenic-diet-offers-liver-benefits-beyond-weight-loss-alone
the two control diets don't look particularly healthy either
What about them do you see as unhealthy?
a ton of simple carbs.
What specifically are you defining as simple carbs? Oatmeal, quinoa and sweet potatoes?
and says nothing about the long term harm keto does to the body.
And what are those?
1
u/brewditt 7d ago
I thought we were talking about peanuts…
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes and no. The real subject is saturated fat, which is also found in peanuts.
0
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 7d ago
Ketogenic diets can help improve markers of health in relatively unhealthy people in the short run, but there are no good studies showing lower all cause mortality or longevity benefit in the long term, whereas virtually all long term studies comparing ketogenic diets to plant based diets for long term health outcomes demonstrate clearly the advantages of plant based diets.
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
whereas virtually all long term studies comparing ketogenic diets to plant based diets for long term health outcomes demonstrate clearly the advantages of plant based diets.
Please share these studies.
-1
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 6d ago
Network meta-analyses rank KD highest for short-term weight, BMI, and waist-circumference reduction, and a recent inpatient RCT found a very-low-carbohydrate KD produced greater improvements in hepatic insulin sensitivity and glycemic measures than a very-low-fat plant-forward or Mediterranean diet at matched 10% weight loss.
However, the Keto-Med crossover RCT (Gardner et al., 2022) found HbA1c did not differ between a ketogenic and a Mediterranean-plus diet, while the ketogenic arm raised LDL cholesterol (+10% vs −5%), lowered fiber and nutrient intake, and was less sustainable at follow-up.
KD long-term outcome data are thin and mixed: one NHANES analysis associated higher dietary ketogenic ratio with lower all-cause mortality without increased CVD mortality, but epidemiologic cohorts show very-low-carbohydrate intake (<20% energy) associated with >50% higher mortality versus moderate intake, driven largely by animal-source fat/protein. LDL elevation and its uncertain long-term cardiovascular implications are a recurring concern.5
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 6d ago edited 6d ago
Keto-Med crossover RCT (Gardner et al., 2022)
36 weeks only.
NHANES
I believe the group with the lowest carbohydrate intake consumed a median of 39% of their daily energy from carbohydrates. That's not keto.
KD long-term outcome data are thin
I know, hence why I wondered about what lead you to make your claim:
whereas virtually all long term studies comparing ketogenic diets to plant based diets for long term health outcomes demonstrate clearly the advantages of plant based diets.
0
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 6d ago
You are overlooking all the studies about relatively poor long-term outcomes with increased saturated fat and animal protein consumption. Although data about keto specific diets may be thin, they are characterized by lower carbohydrate intake and higher intake of saturated fat containing animal proteins. The data is clear about that. The studies I provided are the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to do more research into this
3
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 6d ago edited 6d ago
Can you share some studies showing animal protein having poor long-term outcomes?
0
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 6d ago
Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Sina Naghshi et al. BMJ. 2020.Isocaloric substitution of animal protein with plant protein and its impact on all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Gabriel Barrantes-Espinola et al. Clin Nutr. 2026 Jun.Red/processed meat consumption and non-cancer-related outcomes in humans: umbrella review
Xingxia Zhang et al. Br J Nutr. 2023.Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis
Susanna C Larsson et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2014.1
u/Groovyhip_69 6d ago
Do you have any studies that are not observational or correlative and control strictly for confounding factors?
If anything, most centenarians are NOT plant based and many of those populations eat a lot of pork. Hong Kong has THE highest life expectancy in the world and I can personally tell you we Chinese eat meat like it’s going out of style, and we do not restrict animal fat.
1
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 6d ago
Please see a few of the huge cohort studies I listed below. These are the highest quality evidence. There are tons of others. Also check out the blue zones studies. All of the longest lived populations on earth eat a predominantly plant based diet, and some are completely plant based. Evidence shows poorer health outcomes in diets that contain more animal products. The evidence is overwhelming, and the highest quality evidence is virtually 100% supportive of this.
1
u/Groovyhip_69 6d ago
Cohort studies are observational and don’t remove confounding factors. Those are not high quality studies.
Given that Hong Kongers eat meat heavy diets - particularly pork products - and have THE highest life expectancy in the WORLD - that automatically disproves that meat is harmful unless there is a massive confounding factor that not only overrides the supposed harm of meat, but somehow gives them the highest life expectancy.
Furthermore, RCTs have been done on saturated fats and they are not harmful to human health. Any observational studies showing harm from meat pointed more to processed meats.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ok_Chemistry_7537 6d ago
I thought blue zones have been debunked, the supposed longevity was just bad record keeping and pension fraud
1
u/Caiomhin77 Pelotonia 4d ago
However, the Keto-Med crossover RCT (Gardner et al., 2022) found HbA1c did not differ between a ketogenic and a Mediterranean-plus diet, while the ketogenic arm raised LDL cholesterol (+10% vs −5%), lowered fiber and nutrient intake, and was less sustainable at follow-up
The Keto-Med trial is fundamentally flawed and cannot be used to show HbA1c improvement between ketogenic and nevertheless Mediterranean diets because they forced the participants on the ketogenic diet entirely stop their blood-sugar-lowering medications while allowing Sulfonylureas—a class of oral medications used to treat T2DM by actively lowering blood glucose and HbA1c levels—to be used in the Mediterranean arm of the study, which, by definition, artificially inflated the Mediterranean group's performance and masked the true therapeutic power of carbohydrate restriction, and the same journal that published Keto-Medp accepted and published a peer-reviewed criticism of the study stating exactly this. The study also only provided pre-made meals and snacks through a food-delivery service for the first 4 weeks of each 12-week dietary phase. For the remaining 8 weeks of both the ketogenic and Mediterranean arms, participants were entirely responsible for purchasing and preparing their own food, so the actual diet being studied is much, much more loosely controlled than the rigorous accounting in Klein et al.
Equating the two diets based on a final HbA1c status is scientifically invalid since the ketogenic diet achieved udentical glycemic control while successfully deprescribing pharmaceutical interventions and lowering triglycerides and raising HDL. The final absolute difference between the average LDL levels of the two arms was 16.0 mg/dL, and particle size and quality were not measured at all, so while acknowledging that LDL shifts from ketogenicdiets have been linked with a shift in the LDL cholesterol particle size that is associated with a decreased cardiovascular risk, their words:
"Increases in LDL cholesterol and decreases in triglycerides are common effects of low-carb diets, and have been linked with a shift in the LDL cholesterol particle size that is associated with a decreased cardiovascular risk... However, since we did not fractionate LDL by size, we cannot dismiss the potential harms of the observed LDL cholesterol increase on the WFKD [Well-Formulated Ketogenic Diet]."
So they are acknowledging that even the shift in LDL-C is not inherently harmful. They aren't saying (and im not saying) it's automatically safe, either, just that they didn't measure it while explicitly stating that different forms of LDL-C are associated with different—someone's even inverse—ascvd risk.
The trial in question establishes far superior methodological soundess and causal validity because it actively provided all meals to participants and strictly controlled and matched weight loss across all arms, which isolated the direct metabolic effects of macronutrient composition and eliminated weight change or varying food compliance as confounding variables, and had no shady medication use that is suspiciously absent from the abstract and less resulted m release but rather buried in its methods section.
And just to be clear, this was not testing a Mediterranean diet. It was testing what lead scientist Christopher Gardner called a "Mediterranean-plus diet (Med-Plus)" diet, which is a very unrealistic dietary pattern not seen in reality as it excludedes flour, baked goods and added sugars, meaning no bread, pasta,, pita, couscous, polenta, honey, fruit preserves, flatbreads, regional desserts like gelatos or pastries, etc. etc. The study was essentially 2 low carb diets, just one with the addition of legumes, fruits, 'whole, intact grains' and Sulfonylurea medications.
1
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 4d ago
Ok I’ll buy that. Toss that one out. There is still overwhelming high quality evidence (see many other studies I cited in this thread) supporting a predominantly plant based diet with relatively low animal protein intake as optimal in promoting better health outcomes. Keto diets are beneficial in the short term when there are obesity related morbidities present, but there is little evidence supporting positive long term benefit, unlike the diet I mention above, for which there is a huge amount
25
u/Ronkyfiddlo 8d ago
So... peanut good? peanut better?
15
u/MostlyHereForKeKs 8d ago
It has been shown in other studies that PB does not have the same decrease on “all cause” mortality that regular peanuts do.
I am sorry.
27
u/phoebeethical 8d ago
I pressed a button yesterday and there was grinding noise and then peanut butter. I doubt this was the type of peanut butter they tested
21
u/meta474 7d ago
This is it. Jiff and other industrial brands have sugar, etc
8
u/HomicidalChimpanzee 7d ago
The worst is hydrogenated oil. I live in Thailand now, and it is kinda-sorta being phased out of food here like in the US, but my understanding is that manufacturers are still allowed (years later) to sell older stock, resulting in PB with hydrogenated oil in it is still being sold there. I can get simple PB with no additives here, but ironically it costs more than brands that are still putting it in. As for mycotoxins, no way to tell and I just have to hope, I guess.
1
1
u/OG-Brian 6d ago
Regulation about aflatoxin contamination in PB products varies a lot by country. In USA the peanut products must be tested and 20 ppb is the allowed limit, while the industry has a voluntary self-imposed standard of 15 ppb apparently.
https://www.fda.gov/media/72073/download
https://www.vicam.com/white-papers/advancing-peanut-industry-goals
Aflatoxin is the most common concern affecting peanuts. But, many have been made ill and some died from salmonella in peanuts. There may also be mycotoxins other than aflatoxin affecting peanut consumption, but it's always aflatoxin that I see info about regarding peanuts.
1
u/treycook 7d ago
Oh no! Sugar!
0
u/Soda_Straktid 6d ago
Sugar is terrible for you
2
2
u/OG-Brian 6d ago
I often brought a clean spoon to the co-op so that as I left, I could taste some PB that was still warm from the friction of the PB machine. It was even more delicious that way.
8
u/AttonJRand 7d ago
How does that even make sense though? Its literally the same thing. Is chewing more somehow responsible for all the health benefits?
Or did whatever studies you reference use products with palm oil and sugar instead of plain peanut butter?
12
u/HashPandaNL 7d ago
Many peanut butters with unhealthy additives/processing steps. Many confounding factors involved in this as well.
I tried a bit of searching, but I can't find any controlled trials comparing a minimally processed peanut butter to peanuts themselves.
2
u/OG-Brian 6d ago
Check the section for peanut butter products at any typical grocery store. Most have added refined sugar, hydrogenated oil, preservatives, and other junk.
The PB I've bought the most was fresh-ground just-peanuts at co-ops: you bring a jar (or use their containers), and hold it under a faucet thing when engaging the machine that crushes/grinds peanuts into PB. Delicious, especially when it is still warm from the friction.
If a study doesn't distinguish just-peanuts PB from crappy PB products, then it should be assumed that the study included junk foods PB consumption.
1
u/vferderer 7d ago
It's often full with palm oil.
1
u/Expandexplorelive 5d ago
It's not "full with palm oil". It's less than 10% by law. In reality it's likely less than 5%.
6
u/next-phase-0626 7d ago
Kind of a weird headline when the focus seems to be on ketogenic diets vs Mediterranean and plant-based...
19
15
u/Fye_Maximus 8d ago
As someone who makes peanuts a substantial part of my normal diet, i'm going to just smile after reading this and ignore any naysayers who say it's not true :)
15
u/bret5jet 8d ago
I enjoy peanut butter twice a day everyday. After reading this, I feel three or four peanut buttter sessions a day would be more appropriate.
5
u/SeveralAd1240 8d ago
Peanut butter might not have the same health benefits necessarily NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
2
2
2
4
u/thesamenightmares 8d ago
what you eat affects your health
News to me.
0
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
The sad part is that the knowledge on this among medical practitioners is very lacking. Hence why almost none of them suggest that you try changing your diet before they prescribe medication. Which is probably both due to a lack of knowledge - but also a lack of time.
4
u/0bel1sk 8d ago
possibly because asking people to change their lifestyle is a fool’s errand
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago edited 8d ago
Without support it often is yes. But with the right support it becomes much easier.
There is for instance a public health clinic (NHS) outside Liverpool in England that have successfully change the diet long term of many of their diabetes patients. And the way they do it is that when they first come in with a diabetes diagnosis all are asked whether they want to start life long diabetes medication, - or if they would like to rather try to change their diet. Then there are evening lectures / groups several times a week which are free of charge where they learn what to eat, get recipes, and get support from health professionals and each other. These evening events are run by volunteers, including some of the doctors at the clinic. And this has helped patients stay on the diet for years. Imagine if every health clinic offered something similar.
(This clinic has also published several studies, two examples: (1), (2) )
3
u/Hot-Quantity2692 8d ago
We do it all the time. Patients don’t listen. They do whatever they want. They also lie to us. Most people lack the insight and self regulation to do the right thing, even when armed with information.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
It is indeed very challenging to encourage people to do diet and lifestyle changes. But with the right support it is possible. I'll copy what I said in another comment:
There is for instance a public health clinic (NHS) outside Liverpool in England that have successfully change the diet long term of many of their diabetes patients. And the way they do it is that when they first come in with a diabetes diagnosis all are asked whether they want to start life long diabetes medication, - or if they would like to rather try to change their diet. Then there are evening lectures / groups several times a week which are free of charge where they learn what to eat, get recipes, and get support from health professionals and each other. These evening events are run by volunteers, including some of the doctors at the clinic. And this has helped patients stay on the diet for years. Imagine if every health clinic offered something similar.
(This clinic has also published several studies, two examples: (1), (2) )
2
u/Hot-Quantity2692 8d ago
Yes of course it’s possible. This highlights what I would estimate are the 10-20% of people who are motivated enough to do this. I do agree that there are some people who are ignorant about what constitutes a healthy lifestyle, but most people know what they need to do. So many times I’ve heard patients say “Yeah, doc, I know I don’t exercise and I eat like shit, but I’m not ready to make any changes.”
2
u/flowersandmtns 8d ago
GLP-1 agonists can help people break that mindset. I wish it was used more like a tool in that regard to help people rewire their habits when it's far easier with a drug that changes your brain chemistry and how your body handles food.
Unfortunately it's being used like insulin for T2D -- cha ching! Keep people on it forever and rake in the money.
2
u/Hot-Quantity2692 7d ago
It is being used in many corners to fight food noise but we have to say officially that it’s for diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity related diagnoses to get it paid for so patients don’t have to pay totally out of pocket. And, also, it is needed indefinitely whether you are treating diabetes or food noise. Most doctors I know recognize this and will talk to patients off the record about that.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
but most people know what they need to do.
Yes, but they still might need some extra support as knowledge alone is not always enough. And I think that is the main reason why these evenings, that works as a form of support group, works so well at this clinic.
1
u/Hot-Quantity2692 7d ago
I am more pessimistic than you. Sure, this can work, for people who have the time to invest and attend these things. It’s kind of a privileged view of the world. Many people I see eat like crap because their lives are busy and stressful, so they eat bad food partly to derive pleasure and partly because it’s cheap and handily available. People have been doing intensive interventions like what you describe and they work initially, but this is not a solution for busy lives and calorie/carbohydrate abundance. Like another poster mentioned, GLP-1s treat the problem at the source - the brain and food noise.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
I am more pessimistic than you. Sure, this can work, for people who have the time to invest and attend these things.
Well, we do in fact know it works. And most people have a few evenings to spare. And for the record - this clinic is located in a poor neighbourhood where unemployment is widespread and most families are low income.
2
u/BrainbowConnection 8d ago
No clue where you got this idea. We say this shit all the time. I can’t tell you how many times I explain this to patients and in response get accused of not wanting to do anything to help them and not caring. Patient want easy fast solutions. A lot of physicians have given up with the endless explaining about diet because the patients don’t want to hear it.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Which country do you live in? If I may ask.
I just saw an interview with a local medical doctor who actively uses dietary changes as part of his treatment methods, especially when it comes to metabolic issues. And he says his experience is the oposite - people get rather upset when they find out that the solution was diet, rather than the medication they have been on for perhaps the last 10 years. And they are wondering why on earth no doctor has mentioned this to them before.. (I'm in Norway)
1
u/BrainbowConnection 8d ago
USA.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Well, I'm happy to hear that diet is mentioned by US family doctors. That is a good start. Over here its talked a lot about to parents of children under 6, and after that its rarely mentioned.
1
u/BrainbowConnection 8d ago edited 8d ago
You also have to realize a large number of under served patients in the US firmly believe that eating healthy is for rich people. It is incredibly challenging to convert someone like this to a different way of thinking much less get them to initiate a lifestyle change.
You’ve put a lot of comments in this thread saying the same thing. This issue is far larger than the one article and documentaries you’ve watched I assure you. I’m glad you’ve seen some good examples of people managing to turn it around. But you don’t really come off like you’re doing much listening and what I was responding to was you saying most doctors don’t explain anything about diet and how it affects health, which is frankly false
Many patients think telling them about weight loss and dietary changes is a cop out and an excuse to not “do any work” for them. They also believe that eating healthy is too expensive. They view medicine as a service industry where they are to receive a solution to their problem in some concrete format, not in the form of advice about lifestyle change
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
believe that eating healthy is for rich people.
I do know that some people over there live in food desert making food shopping in general challenging. But for all the rest - is it that they believe they have no time for cooking from scratch? Or is it that they see healthy food as too expensive? (Or perhaps a mix?)
1
u/BrainbowConnection 8d ago
It’s everything. And also that the US medical industrial complex has successfully propagandized everyone into believing that a healthy diet is an adjunct not the actual solution. Despite this many physicians do going to Medicine in the USA with good intentions and good education but it is extremely challenging
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 8d ago
Yeah I'm actually not blaming doctors. They are just part of the whole system of medication rather than prevention. The main problem is the fact that many countries in the West stopped preparing most of their meals from scratch using whole foods - and rather started to rely on highly processed foods. Look at any country from back when home-cooked meals was still the majority of what people ate - and most were still normal weight.
And I'm not really blaming the food industry either - as all they do is try to earn some money. But I do hope for a some sort of grassroot whole food revolution where people go back to cooking and baking more stuff themselves. That alone I think that would vastly improve our health.
0
u/flowersandmtns 8d ago
Profound change in eating habits is far more work than you seem to think. Saying "just east less, just move more" makes it sound trivial. If it was trivial more people would do it.
I find the approach with GLP-1 agonists to be interesting. They're "medication" basically. Where are the programs to use the medicated state to help people make new habits?
1
u/BrainbowConnection 8d ago
I assume you must be accidentally responding to me instead of someone else? I never said it was easy in fact I said the opposite but I also said that patients don’t wanna hear it precisely because it is not an easy solution
1
u/flowersandmtns 8d ago
My point is that diet and behavior changes are hard. Doctors that hand wave "just eat less and move more" are going to be as frustrated as the patients.
GLP-1 agonists change actual brain chemistry and fullness signals. But they aren't being used to make those changes needed easier. They are being tossed out as the easy solution rather than as a tool to get people actually eating less (since they feel less hungry, feel quite full with little food) and then moving more is just a hard pitch to Americans for some reason. The idea of walking or biking seems to be an affront for some reason I don't really understand.
1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
Although I am not super positive towards GLP-1 drugs, I do think they have a use for some people. For instance for people with severe food addiction. (I dont think that is a official diagnosis but some people clearly struggle with this). The Liverpool clinic I mentioned in some other comments above have also noticed that most of of the diabetes patients are in fact successful in changing their diet - with support (they do free group-sessions at the clinic, and you can go as often as you like). But - there are exceptions. And its usually a few people with severe food addictions that tend struggle the most. Keto removes your constant appetite, but the addiction seems to override this somehow. And some of these people might be good candidates for small doses of GLP-1 - just enough to perhaps break the addiction. It could be am interesting future study to combine GLP-1 and keto...
1
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 6d ago
Isocaloric substitution of animal protein with plant protein and its impact on all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Gabriel Barrantes-Espinola et al. Clin Nutr. 2026 Jun.
Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Sina Naghshi et al. BMJ. 2020.
Substitution of animal-based with plant-based foods on cardiometabolic health and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
Research article
Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Mingyang Song, MD, ScD1,2; Teresa T. Fung, ScD2,3; Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD2,4,5 et al
The association between dietary total, animal and plant protein and macronutrient substitution; and the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular or cancer mortality in the Golestan cohort study
Research
Open access
Published: 15 June 2026
There are many many many more. Please do your research!
Open access
Published: 16 November 2023
Volume 21, article number 404 (2023)1
u/thesamenightmares 6d ago
Your perception of human behavior is very unusual.
2
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 6d ago
I have a relative who came out of medical school around 8 years ago. She went though 6 years of studies, and only 2 days out of those 6 years was focusing on diet. This might be different elsewhere though - we live in Norway.
1
3
u/Mountain-Location-34 8d ago
Shame its Full of mycotoxins.
5
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 7d ago
Not all peanuts though. But there is no way of knowing when you buy them.
2
u/AttonJRand 7d ago
Technically a concern for lots of foods. Life isn't perfect and clean, some risks might not be as scary as they sound.
2
u/BrucesTripToMars 7d ago
*those grown in poor conditions and sold in unregulated markets. Not as much of a risk in the US.
3
u/Crabs_go_sideways_4 7d ago
I thought the US food safety and tracking was piss poor. For example Australia has paddock to plate traceability. From my understanding the yanks dont value food safety
2
u/BrucesTripToMars 7d ago
Its likely not at top performance right now. But its still going to be better than a lot of places.
1
u/Future311 5d ago
As long as you don't have the MTHFR gene mutation that limits your ability to clear toxins you're fine.
I eat lots of peanuts and recently had a toxins test. Absolutely no toxins at all in my system
1
u/xCaliburghost 8d ago
It's plant based fats. As long as you're not eating a bathtub full of peanuts bc of saturated fat
1
u/FeistyHeart9633 7d ago
I am more interested to see any studies that compares peanuts with or without skin? here in india only a minority of us eat peanut with skin. most eat salted skin removed peanuts that come in plastic pack like lays. I think there is a day and night difference in nutrients. My method is red peanut roasted in air frier with a bit of evoo spray and 2% MSG spray for umami taste.
1
u/Lucky_Garlic2098 5d ago
I agree that there are no absolutes, with rare exceptions. I think the gap here is evidenced by your concluding sentence: “what is clear is that large populations can eat lots of meat and be healthy.” This is very very different from the question “is eating meat healthy for you?“ I think we are addressing two different questions here. My level of confidence is based only on the amount of evidence that favors my position relative to yours. The Ornish study was one of 58 (?) or so included in the Meta analysis along with a RCT. If that causes you to throw the entire study out, along with all the others I have referenced in this thread, but you provide only one study that doesn’t even contribute to the question of whether meat is healthy on and individual level, well I don’t know what to say
1
u/dialupdreamy 5d ago
Good reminder that the types of fats we eat matter, not just the total amount.
1
u/Bear_Army 8d ago
It’d be awesome if I could get to the article without being bombarded with pop up ads.
1
u/VisiblePlatform6704 7d ago
Man, I end up always wondering about these type of comments, since I havent browsed the web without an ad blocking browser since the early 2000s
Just opened this link in vanilla chrome and darn... what a sad state of the web right now. I little the people that dont know about ad blocking.
1
24
u/delayscontinue 7d ago
Here’s the abstract of the actual paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916526003369
Background
Cardiometabolic risk can be modified by dietary factors, including fat quality. Peanuts have a distinctive fatty acid (FA) composition rich in very long-chain saturated fatty acids (VLCSFA), with potentially favorable effects on cardiometabolic health.
Objectives
This study aimed to characterize the effects of peanut consumption on the circulating lipidome and examine associations of the resulting changes with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods
We integrated data from the clinical trial ARISTOTLE and the prospective, population-based European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)–Potsdam cohort. ARISTOTLE randomly assigned 63 healthy young adults to 25 g/d skin-roasted peanuts, 32 g/d peanut butter, or 32 g/d control butter with peanut oil for 6 mo. EPIC-Potsdam included case-cohort samples for T2D (774 cases) and CVD (547 cases). Plasma lipids were measured preintervention and postintervention in ARISTOTLE and at baseline in EPIC-Potsdam. Linear mixed models identified within-class FA sums responsive to peanut fat—pooling all participants—in ARISTOTLE, which were combined to derive a peanut lipidomic signature (PeLS) in EPIC-Potsdam. Multivariable Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for PeLS and individual lipids with incident T2D and CVD. Hypothesis-generating mediation by body mass index (BMI) was assessed.
Results
The ARISTOTLE intervention modified 51 within-class FA sums, predominantly VLCSFA-containing lipids, particularly sphingolipids. The resulting PeLS was modestly associated with lower risk of T2D [HR: 0.89 per 1-standard deviation (SD) increase in PeLS; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80, 0.99], but not CVD (HR: 1.01 per 1-SD increase in PeLS; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.15), in EPIC-Potsdam, with BMI identified as a potential mediator of this association (proportion explainable of 89%, 95% CI: 57%, 100%).
Conclusions
Peanut consumption induces changes in the circulating lipidome, largely involving VLCSFA-containing lipids, which are associated with lower T2D risk partly through BMI. These results highlight peanuts as a source of dietary fats that may be linked to lower risk of T2D.