Monday, May 10, 2010

Lady reporter angry! Lady reporter smash nuts!


For some reason, Reuters has it in for nuts.

A new study out of Loma Linda University pooled 25 nut studies from across the globe to confirm that, yes, nuts are good for you! With the chirpy headline "Eating Nuts Lowers Cholesterol," WebMD reported it on it with blissful objectivity:
Patients in the trials ate an average of 67 grams, or about 2.4 ounces, of nuts daily.

This dietary practice resulted in an average 5.1% reduction in total cholesterol concentration, a 7.4% reduction in LDL or bad cholesterol, and an 8.3% reduction in the ratio of LDL to HDL (“good” cholesterol) levels.

In addition, triglyceride measurements declined by 10.2%, but only among people with initially elevated triglyceride readings. The cholesterol effects of nut consumption were similar in men and women, and were dose related.

The only thing in the article even vaguely suggesting controversy was their note that moderation is key due to the caloric nature of nuts. They suggested 3 ounces a day was plenty.

Reuters News, however, took a more cynical tone with the foreboding headline: "Nuts' anti-cholesterol effects stronger for some." They then noted:

Eating nuts had the biggest effect on people who started out with LDL cholesterol levels above 160 milligrams per deciliter, people with lower body weight, and those who were eating more "Western" diets (meaning more saturated fats and refined carbohydrates), the researchers found.

So, basically, if you're unhealthy and you include nuts in your diet, it might make you healthier. HOWEVER, if you're already healthy, including nuts in your diet will only cause you to stay healthy -- and nothing more, damnit.

My guess is that Anne Harding, the reporter on this article, was hedging her bets that eating nuts would give her the super powers she's wanted since childhood -- perhaps strength, invisibility or super stretching powers. Sadly, the harsh reality of, well, reality proved a bitter pill. I suppose we should commend her for taking her anger out in this needlessly slanted article instead of walking into the newsroom with her homemade Wonder Woman magic lasso or Incredible Hulk Smash Hands and doing some serious damage.

3 comments:

  1. According to Reuters: "Sabate and one co-author on the study have received funding from several different trade groups for nut producers, and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation helped fund the new analysis." Hmmmm . . .

    /michm

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a good point, but shouldn't that be her beef with the study then? Her attack still doesn't make any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're right about the journalist's take. I just get suspicious of studies funded by those who would benefit most (monetarily) from a positive outcome. I'll be interested to read the whole thing if/when it is released publically (right now, I can only find it for a fee).
    /michm

    ReplyDelete