In a perfect world, enjoying a daily serving of French fries instead of almonds would be a simple option, and there would be no negative consequences to selecting the salty and fried option.
But a Harvard expert says we should take the findings of a new study supporting this scenario with, er, a grain of salt. This potato industry-funded research suggests there is no significant difference between eating a 300-calorie serving of potato chips and a 300-calorie serving of almonds every day for a month, in terms of weight gain or other markers diabetes risk.
Eating potato chips instead of protein-packed almonds may not add to the scales in the short term, but that doesn’t make the decision as healthy, says Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard TH. Chan School of Public Health. Crunchy, satisfying almonds provide health benefits, including lowering “bad” LDL cholesterol. In the long term, they are a much better option to help prevent chronic diseases, including diabetes, or delay its complications.
“We’ve learned from many studies over the last two decades that weight loss studies lasting less than a year are likely to give misleading results, so a study lasting only 30 days is less than useless,” says Dr. Willett . “For example, studies lasting six months or less show that low-fat diets reduce body weight, but studies lasting a year or longer show the opposite.”
What health-related factors did the study measure?
The study was published in the American journal of clinical nutrition. Researchers randomly divided a group of 165 adults (average age 30; 68% women) into three groups for 30 days and assigned them to eat a daily 300-calorie serving of one of the following:
- almonds, toasted and salted (about 1/3 cup)
- plain fries (medium portion)
- Fries seasoned with herbs and spices (medium portion).
The researchers provided participants with 30 single-day servings of their food, telling them to incorporate it into their daily diet, but offered no additional instructions to change diet or activity levels to compensate for the 300-calorie intake.
The amount of fat on the participants’ bodies was measured, along with total weight, blood sugar, insulin, and hemoglobin A1C (a longer-term reflection of blood sugar levels) both at the beginning like at the end of the month. Five participants from each group also underwent post-meal testing to assess short-term blood sugar responses.
Weight is not all that matters for health
After 30 days, changes in the amount of body fat and total body weight were similar between the potato chips and almond groups. Glucose and insulin levels were also measured through blood tests after fasting.
However, one key difference emerged: Participants in the potato chip subgroup had higher blood glucose and insulin levels right after eating their potato chips compared to those who ate almonds.
It’s tempting to conclude that there’s not much difference between potato chips and almonds: it’s the calories that count. But a closer reading reinforces the notion that two items generally located at opposite ends of the health food spectrum are even further apart than the study’s findings might lead us to believe.
“The only clear finding was that eating potato chips increased blood glucose and insulin secretion much more than almonds,” says Dr. Willett. “This is consistent with long-term studies showing that potato consumption is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, especially when compared to whole grains.”
.
