Nut consumption (>0 to 1 serving of 30 g/day) associated with a 17% lower risk of depression during a 5.3-year follow-up compared with no nut consumption in...
I always feel like these studies are basically useless. It's so hard to draw a causative relation from them. An equal, if not more, likely hypothesis as to why this correlation exists is that...
I always feel like these studies are basically useless. It's so hard to draw a causative relation from them. An equal, if not more, likely hypothesis as to why this correlation exists is that people who are less depressed have better diets. Who knows, really.
This part of the abstract only makes me more suspicious
In stratified analyses, a decreased risk of depression was more clearly observed in UK adults with adequate weight control, a healthy lifestyle, and better health status than in their counterparts (p < 0.05).
Waiting for this to show up on sci-hub so I can provide a more useful analysis, but observational findings are super common in nutrition and while they are often extremely circumspect in terms of...
Exemplary
Waiting for this to show up on sci-hub so I can provide a more useful analysis, but observational findings are super common in nutrition and while they are often extremely circumspect in terms of findings/reproducibility, sometimes studies do have a good amount of adjustment factors. Given the hazard ratio and a confidence interval which is close to including 1, I don't think these findings are particularly strong (which is fairly usual in nutrition based studies).
However, in the context of what we already know about nutrition, we know that hitting a certain amount of dietary fat is associated with reducing the risk of depression. Other nutritional factors are likely important, and studies like this can help when we do meta-analysis to deduce what factors play a role even when our science isn't as controlled as we'd like it to be.
Some meta-studies on dietary factors of depression: 12
I don't think the purpose of these studies or what we should be taking out of them is "this is causative and absolute science" so much as something more akin to "if you already struggle with depression and you enjoy eating nuts, this is just an excuse or a little nudge/reminder that it probably won’t hurt to do so and might have a minor positive effect." I think that’s useful information to many individuals and we shouldn’t focus too heavily on whether we fully understand the science at this time. It's useful in the personal context and in the context of contributing to narrowing hypothetical possibilities or mechanisms of action and as a contributor to meta-studies which happen down the line.
The quote you selected makes the evidence of a causal relation more plausible. It says that when adjusting for weight, lifestyle and health status, the group with better indicators and that...
The quote you selected makes the evidence of a causal relation more plausible. It says that when adjusting for weight, lifestyle and health status, the group with better indicators and that consumed nuts had larger benefits The stratified analysis found that those doing well will do better if they consume nuts.
I feel like another important thing to consider is nuts are expensive. If you can regularly snack on almonds or pecans, you are probably better-off financially than average. Not meaning money...
I feel like another important thing to consider is nuts are expensive. If you can regularly snack on almonds or pecans, you are probably better-off financially than average. Not meaning money cures depression of course, but not having constant financial stress certainly goes a long way
Nuts are pretty cheap, compared to things like meat. Unfortunately a lot of markets sell some “premium” nuts which are indeed very overpriced, and which usually have things added to them like salt...
Nuts are pretty cheap, compared to things like meat. Unfortunately a lot of markets sell some “premium” nuts which are indeed very overpriced, and which usually have things added to them like salt and sugar. Keep in mind that nuts are very calorie dense and therefore a serving is tiny.
But that also depends on what nuts you’re talking about, where you are in the world, and what the local market is like.
“…a decreased risk of depression was more clearly observed in UK adults with adequate weight control, a healthy lifestyle, and better health status than in their counterparts (p < 0.05).” This bit...
“…a decreased risk of depression was more clearly observed in UK adults with adequate weight control, a healthy lifestyle, and better health status than in their counterparts (p < 0.05).”
This bit seems quite significant. Is it that increased nut consumption tends to correlate with a healthier overall diet? And are they using the scientific or colloquial definition of nuts? As it’s a self reported questionnaire (notoriously unreliable but often the best tool we’ve got for long term nutrition studies) I’m assuming it’s the colloquial definition, so peanuts etc included.
This abstract is frustratingly light on important details, but it’s missing from SciHub. Would be interesting to read the full thing. This is something that’s been “folk medicine” for a while - “feeling depressed? Eat a handful of cashews!” is one of those pithy phrases which get tossed around but perhaps there is something to it. Hard to say without seeing more of the study.
I wonder how they're classifying nuts, though? Technically peanuts are legumes, and a number of other 'nuts' have some technical differences, too-- cashews and almonds apparently come up under...
I wonder how they're classifying nuts, though? Technically peanuts are legumes, and a number of other 'nuts' have some technical differences, too-- cashews and almonds apparently come up under somewhat different headings as well.
Wondering the same thing. If peanuts, cashews, and almonds don't count as "nuts" in the particular case, then a lot of the US population is eating close to no nuts.
Wondering the same thing. If peanuts, cashews, and almonds don't count as "nuts" in the particular case, then a lot of the US population is eating close to no nuts.
Many nuts are high in omega-3 also so that isn’t a coincidence :) I had a really fascinating lecture at uni about fats and our brains, and the lecturer talked about a theory that humans evolved...
Many nuts are high in omega-3 also so that isn’t a coincidence :)
I had a really fascinating lecture at uni about fats and our brains, and the lecturer talked about a theory that humans evolved not in the savannahs, but by the ocean. He referenced the fact that our brains thrive so much on omega-3s, which are most readily found from the sea. Whether that theory has legs now (this was 13 or so years ago) I don’t know, but it was very interesting and a really impactful lecture for me.
I always feel like these studies are basically useless. It's so hard to draw a causative relation from them. An equal, if not more, likely hypothesis as to why this correlation exists is that people who are less depressed have better diets. Who knows, really.
This part of the abstract only makes me more suspicious
Waiting for this to show up on sci-hub so I can provide a more useful analysis, but observational findings are super common in nutrition and while they are often extremely circumspect in terms of findings/reproducibility, sometimes studies do have a good amount of adjustment factors. Given the hazard ratio and a confidence interval which is close to including 1, I don't think these findings are particularly strong (which is fairly usual in nutrition based studies).
However, in the context of what we already know about nutrition, we know that hitting a certain amount of dietary fat is associated with reducing the risk of depression. Other nutritional factors are likely important, and studies like this can help when we do meta-analysis to deduce what factors play a role even when our science isn't as controlled as we'd like it to be.
Some meta-studies on dietary factors of depression: 1 2
I don't think the purpose of these studies or what we should be taking out of them is "this is causative and absolute science" so much as something more akin to "if you already struggle with depression and you enjoy eating nuts, this is just an excuse or a little nudge/reminder that it probably won’t hurt to do so and might have a minor positive effect." I think that’s useful information to many individuals and we shouldn’t focus too heavily on whether we fully understand the science at this time. It's useful in the personal context and in the context of contributing to narrowing hypothetical possibilities or mechanisms of action and as a contributor to meta-studies which happen down the line.
The quote you selected makes the evidence of a causal relation more plausible. It says that when adjusting for weight, lifestyle and health status, the group with better indicators and that consumed nuts had larger benefits The stratified analysis found that those doing well will do better if they consume nuts.
I feel like another important thing to consider is nuts are expensive. If you can regularly snack on almonds or pecans, you are probably better-off financially than average. Not meaning money cures depression of course, but not having constant financial stress certainly goes a long way
Nuts are pretty cheap, compared to things like meat. Unfortunately a lot of markets sell some “premium” nuts which are indeed very overpriced, and which usually have things added to them like salt and sugar. Keep in mind that nuts are very calorie dense and therefore a serving is tiny.
But that also depends on what nuts you’re talking about, where you are in the world, and what the local market is like.
Yeah, I never buy nuts in supermarkets, they're overpriced. Only local markets, local stores.
Perhaps people who avoid nuts because they are, or think they are allergic are also more prone to depression.
“…a decreased risk of depression was more clearly observed in UK adults with adequate weight control, a healthy lifestyle, and better health status than in their counterparts (p < 0.05).”
This bit seems quite significant. Is it that increased nut consumption tends to correlate with a healthier overall diet? And are they using the scientific or colloquial definition of nuts? As it’s a self reported questionnaire (notoriously unreliable but often the best tool we’ve got for long term nutrition studies) I’m assuming it’s the colloquial definition, so peanuts etc included.
This abstract is frustratingly light on important details, but it’s missing from SciHub. Would be interesting to read the full thing. This is something that’s been “folk medicine” for a while - “feeling depressed? Eat a handful of cashews!” is one of those pithy phrases which get tossed around but perhaps there is something to it. Hard to say without seeing more of the study.
I already eat a ton of peanut butter, but this can only fuel my addiction!
I wonder how they're classifying nuts, though? Technically peanuts are legumes, and a number of other 'nuts' have some technical differences, too-- cashews and almonds apparently come up under somewhat different headings as well.
Wondering the same thing. If peanuts, cashews, and almonds don't count as "nuts" in the particular case, then a lot of the US population is eating close to no nuts.
This reminds me of the association between omega 3 consumption (primarily from fatty fish like salmon) and less depression:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/omega-3-fatty-acids-for-mood-disorders-2018080314414
Many nuts are high in omega-3 also so that isn’t a coincidence :)
I had a really fascinating lecture at uni about fats and our brains, and the lecturer talked about a theory that humans evolved not in the savannahs, but by the ocean. He referenced the fact that our brains thrive so much on omega-3s, which are most readily found from the sea. Whether that theory has legs now (this was 13 or so years ago) I don’t know, but it was very interesting and a really impactful lecture for me.
Came here for the "deez nuts" jokes, but nice to see civil discussion and legitimate responses. Such a great community here