Note that these results are not the results of controlled experiments. The people who were eating nuts had other attributes that could have accounted for their better health:<p><i>Specifically, several confounding variables in the data could have accounted for part of the “nut effect”. The confounding variables included BMI, smoking, and exercise. Those that consumed nuts and ate a Mediterranean diet also had a lower BMI, a lower waist circumference, were less likely to smoke, and were more physically active. These factors may have “skewed” the results in favor of the “nut eaters.”</i><p>Also, the people who eat more nuts are probably eating <i>less</i> of something else. Since nuts are frequently eaten as snacks, it's likely that they're eating nuts instead of sugary, processed food like cookies or candy. So the improved health could be the result of what they're <i>not</i> eating rather than what they <i>are</i> eating.<p>Edit: Reading the article reminded me of this paper:<p>"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2005)<p>By John P. A. Ioannidis<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/</a><p>There's also a discussion of Ioannidis' work here:<p>"Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" (2010)<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/?single_page=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...</a>
If this is true, squirrels should be immortal. Seriously though, nuts are quite hard to digest - you shouldnt really eat a lot of them especially when you are old - digesting nuts puts excessive strain on your liver, etc.
Not even having read the article, I just want to express my disgust towards the often used "up to x" type statistics and their deceptive misguiding nature.
Then nutella is healthy ? I can put back <a href="http://www.nutelladay.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nutelladay.com/</a> in my bookmarks ?