Is this some rendering problem, or is it possible that the very first line of the text (actually the second word) of this paper is a typo? "Background: Alow carbohydrate diet..."
Conclusions: A-LCD (low carbohydrate diet) could exert a beneficial effect on depression and glycometabolism in patients with T2DM. We speculate that the role of a-LCD in improving depression in patients with T2DM may be associated with it stimulating the growth of SCFAs-producing bacteria, increasing SCFAs production and GPR43 activation, and further maintaining GLP-1 secretion. In future studies, the SCFAs and GPR43 activation should be further examined.
Last time I looked water use wasnt much more than a tomato when compared on a per calorie basis. I'd love to be shown evidence to the contrary however.
As already mentioned you don't eat tomato for calories. Main use is flavor (caveat: cheap application of tomato is the "Holländische Wasserbomben" as the Germans call it which is good sale if you sell per weight. Works with ignorant customers who require just "tomatoes").
3 almonds are equivalent to 1 tomato according to this Mother Jones article (2014) [1].
AFAIK our almonds here in NL are imported, while we are known for our tomato export.
Almonds are ~9% or so of our ag water supply, feed for meat and meat products use 50%+ of our ag water supply.
Note that agricultural water use is ~40% of water use.
Also note that California produces 80% of the world's almonds, but something like 1% of the world's meat.
It's not even sensible to discuss almonds in the face of water use for meat production. As long as your calories are filtered through another mammal, it will always be extremely inefficient.
> It would make more sense as a water-to-calorie comparison of almonds vs meat.
Alfalfa uses a metric crapton more water per calorie, and is the main source of feed for many cattle & hogs. I think if you do the water-to-calorie comparison, the numbers will only get much much worse for meat due to the mammal's energy that needs to be fed, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.
Sure, but I've never seen a farmer watering their hayfield, and I live in the country so I would have.
I personally don't consider it "water usage" for a plant to soak up rain; it only becomes a problem when we're pulling water out of non-replenishing sources, or those that don't replenish as quickly as we use them up. Aquifers etc. Or diverting entire streams & rivers, things like that.
My garden "uses" a lot of water each year, but it's all rainwater. I don't pump any water onto it from anywhere. If it weren't my garden, it would be some native plants in their stead.
>Almonds are ~9% or so of our ag water supply, feed for meat and meat products use 50%+ of our ag water supply.
Is this in all of the US, or...?
Water supply is a very localized thing, so comparing water usage in say, Iowa to water usage in California isn't really apple-to-apples. You won't solve California droughts by reducing water usage in Iowa, for example.
>Also note that California produces 80% of the world's almonds, but something like 1% of the world's meat.
If these numbers are accurate, it seems like it's more sensible to discuss almonds in the face of water usage and eschew talking about meat, since California in the midst of its many droughts is specifically using a lot of its local water supply on almonds, not meat.
edit: the numbers I found from a quick Wikipedia search are that 11% of Cali's Ag water is used on pasture forage (though this doesn't necessarily mean it's for meat; from other information on the Wiki page it looks like a lot of this pasture forage is for horses), and 18% on Alfalfa which is exported as cattle feed. So that's anywhere from 18% - 29% on "meat and meat products", whereas 34% is "fruit and nuts" (it's unstated how much of that is almonds).
Interestingly and a bit off-topic, Michael Burry (of The Big Short movie/Scion Capital fame) had a few plays on almond farms regarding water scarcity. It seems that he left his positions a few years ago, but the whole California water wars thing is quite unsettling.
Israeli almond production requires 1/20th the water used in California. Their big secret? A pipe inserted to 3 feet of depth, next to each tree, and watering into the pipe instead of spraying it on the ground.
Almond production does not require a lot of water. California almond growers use a lot of water because they're allowed to get away with it.
The amount of propylene oxide remaining on the almond after pasteurization and whether or not it would have substantial effects on humans after consumption doesn't seem clear, but I didn't know that before. Apparently organic or specialty almonds be pasteurized with steam and other non-chemical techniques.
Pleasantly surprised to see someone already mentioned this. With 10x as many people developing kidney stones in their lifetimes compared to having celiac disease, it would be great if foods came with an oxalate warning as needed.
There are compounds in almonds that bind to testosterone, and that would sure do it. But also get all of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs sorted-out to reduce resting BP, LDL, triglycerides:
- Lose weight
- Eat better - eat what bodybuilders do, but in SMALLER quantities - more lean/simple protein, more vegetables, less simple carbs, better fats - more water before meals
- Workout almost like a goddamn gym rat (cardio, strength, flexibility, yoga)
- Sleep hygiene - get outside more, remove screens/TV/mobiles from all bedrooms, exercise in the morning, strict bed time
They compared a low FAT diet to a low CARB diet. The almond angle looks like a gimmick. We already know how bad sugar is. It seems like this study is trying to attribute all of the benefits of going low-carb to almond supplementation.
I'm guessing it is more to do with depression, as there seem to be a lot of studies related to depression posted here. Perhaps a lot of developers are stressed and depressed.
HN loves any health article with a slightly weird premise. It helps to validate their own health beliefs that have a slightly weird premise (bulletproof coffee, IF, etc.).
I don't know about the gut microbiome conclusions the article reaches, but if you're type 2 diabetic you're generally overweight and people generally become overweight because they overconsume carbs, which don't satiate you as much as fats and proteins (i.e., you consume more and more carbs in order to feel full/not hungry).
If you start dropping weight you start feeling better because you are fueling your body better, you have more energy, you have a sense of accomplishment from dropping weight, etc. It's not exactly rocket science. I don't think it's a coincidence that high levels of obesity and depression are both extremely high in the United States.
If people lifted weights, engaged in cardiovascular activities, and tracked the calories they consumed depression levels would fall off a cliff. You wouldn't put sugar water into your high performance car, but apparently we have no problem consuming absolutely gnarly things regularly.
Not an expert but I don't think this is a great paper for a few reasons:
- there's quite a lot of variation in carbohydrate intake in LCD and fat intake in LFD group (even though there are statistically significant differences between the groups).
- they did not control for protein.
- they could have made things a lot simpler by stating macros for each diet in grams instead of in terms of ancient Chinese measurement units. Simply replacing almonds for part of the "staple food" (admittedly high carb) was also strange, although understandable to improve compliance.
- we know simply losing weight improves metabolic markers. People in the LCD lost weight. It is hard not to ascribe the improvements to that. That could say something about the potential of LCD for weight loss given the difference in calories between groups wasn't statistically significant.
42 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] thread[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond#Sustainability
3 almonds are equivalent to 1 tomato according to this Mother Jones article (2014) [1].
AFAIK our almonds here in NL are imported, while we are known for our tomato export.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-calif...
Note that agricultural water use is ~40% of water use.
Also note that California produces 80% of the world's almonds, but something like 1% of the world's meat.
It's not even sensible to discuss almonds in the face of water use for meat production. As long as your calories are filtered through another mammal, it will always be extremely inefficient.
It would make more sense as a water-to-calorie comparison of almonds vs meat.
Alfalfa uses a metric crapton more water per calorie, and is the main source of feed for many cattle & hogs. I think if you do the water-to-calorie comparison, the numbers will only get much much worse for meat due to the mammal's energy that needs to be fed, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.
I personally don't consider it "water usage" for a plant to soak up rain; it only becomes a problem when we're pulling water out of non-replenishing sources, or those that don't replenish as quickly as we use them up. Aquifers etc. Or diverting entire streams & rivers, things like that.
My garden "uses" a lot of water each year, but it's all rainwater. I don't pump any water onto it from anywhere. If it weren't my garden, it would be some native plants in their stead.
Edit: Also, I got curious and googled this topic, came up with this: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=1772...
Is this in all of the US, or...?
Water supply is a very localized thing, so comparing water usage in say, Iowa to water usage in California isn't really apple-to-apples. You won't solve California droughts by reducing water usage in Iowa, for example.
>Also note that California produces 80% of the world's almonds, but something like 1% of the world's meat.
If these numbers are accurate, it seems like it's more sensible to discuss almonds in the face of water usage and eschew talking about meat, since California in the midst of its many droughts is specifically using a lot of its local water supply on almonds, not meat.
edit: the numbers I found from a quick Wikipedia search are that 11% of Cali's Ag water is used on pasture forage (though this doesn't necessarily mean it's for meat; from other information on the Wiki page it looks like a lot of this pasture forage is for horses), and 18% on Alfalfa which is exported as cattle feed. So that's anywhere from 18% - 29% on "meat and meat products", whereas 34% is "fruit and nuts" (it's unstated how much of that is almonds).
Almond production does not require a lot of water. California almond growers use a lot of water because they're allowed to get away with it.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/faqs.h...
Do you have any sources on that specific 1/20th water usage claim?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/19/407760579/wh...
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Propylene_oxide#se...
The amount of propylene oxide remaining on the almond after pasteurization and whether or not it would have substantial effects on humans after consumption doesn't seem clear, but I didn't know that before. Apparently organic or specialty almonds be pasteurized with steam and other non-chemical techniques.
Buy organic almonds.
There are compounds in almonds that bind to testosterone, and that would sure do it. But also get all of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs sorted-out to reduce resting BP, LDL, triglycerides:
- Lose weight
- Eat better - eat what bodybuilders do, but in SMALLER quantities - more lean/simple protein, more vegetables, less simple carbs, better fats - more water before meals
- Workout almost like a goddamn gym rat (cardio, strength, flexibility, yoga)
- Sleep hygiene - get outside more, remove screens/TV/mobiles from all bedrooms, exercise in the morning, strict bed time
- Have more sex
Maybe get off your ass and workout than writing pointless comments, eh? Exercise is as effective, or more effective than medication. Good luck to you.
Source?
PS: I am sorry, I am very bad correspondant.
If you start dropping weight you start feeling better because you are fueling your body better, you have more energy, you have a sense of accomplishment from dropping weight, etc. It's not exactly rocket science. I don't think it's a coincidence that high levels of obesity and depression are both extremely high in the United States.
If people lifted weights, engaged in cardiovascular activities, and tracked the calories they consumed depression levels would fall off a cliff. You wouldn't put sugar water into your high performance car, but apparently we have no problem consuming absolutely gnarly things regularly.
- there's quite a lot of variation in carbohydrate intake in LCD and fat intake in LFD group (even though there are statistically significant differences between the groups).
- they did not control for protein.
- they could have made things a lot simpler by stating macros for each diet in grams instead of in terms of ancient Chinese measurement units. Simply replacing almonds for part of the "staple food" (admittedly high carb) was also strange, although understandable to improve compliance.
- we know simply losing weight improves metabolic markers. People in the LCD lost weight. It is hard not to ascribe the improvements to that. That could say something about the potential of LCD for weight loss given the difference in calories between groups wasn't statistically significant.