Todd Moody wrote:
>
> It's interesting (to me, anyway) that despite the fact that
> almost all commercially available nuts are roasted, which would
> presumably damage the PUFAs, epidemiological studies still show a
> strong inverse correlation between nut consumption and heart
> disease.
>
That *is* a fascinating statistic.

One problem with epidemiological studies, of course, is correlations.
People who eat more nuts have what else in common? Do they eat more
healthily in general? Or less sugar (because they like salty foods).
Or do they exercise more and are more weight conscious? I saw one
epidemiological study in which it was shown that sunlight causes
weight loss, so you should get sun every day. Of course, what the
study showed was that people in sunnier areas of the country weighed
less. Well, duh, they also exercise more because its warmer outside!

Now there may *be* a relationship between sunlight and weightloss.
But an epidemiological study only shows a correlation, not a
cause/effect relationship. I always use such studies as a guide, and
then look for the deeper biological explanation of why. If a
reasonable explanation can be found, I tend to accept it. If not, I
tend to look for other causative factors that are equally correlated.

Frankly, though, I'm *still* looking for the definitive word on nuts.
There are all these anti-germination enzymes that only go away after
soaking. So you have to soak nuts overnight before you eat them?
But then, are those enzymes on the surface only? If not, how does the
water get inside? And if you heat them, doesn't that make trans fats?

It seems to me that when it comes to nuts and seeds, there is something
major that we do not understand.