Almond fatty acid bioavailability in hyperlipidemia: A randomized controlled crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Almond intake is associated with reduced coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, yet concern remains that weight gain may occur due to their high fat content and subsequent energy density. Our aim was to assess fatty acid bioavailability of almond intake, using linoleic acid (18:2n‐6) as a marker of fat absorption, in individuals with hyperlipidemia as part of a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods In a randomized crossover study, 27 hyperlipidemic men and women incorporated 3 isoenergetic (mean 423 kcal/d) supplements into a NCEP Step 2 diet each for 1 month. Supplements provided 22.2% of energy and consisted of full‐dose almonds (73±3 g/d), half‐dose almonds plus half‐dose muffins, and full‐dose muffins (control), matched for linoleic acid content. Fecal samples were collected at the end of each treatment period. Fatty acids were measured in the dietary supplements and freeze‐dried fecal samples using gas chromatography. Results Twenty‐two participants had fecal fatty acid data available from all 3 dietary phases for analyses. In the control supplement, linoleic acid comprised of 5.4 mg/g (536 mg/d), comparable to the linoleic acid content of the almond supplement of 5.7 mg/g (428 mg/d). There was a significantly greater amount of fecal linoleic acid following almond intake (7201±1147 mg/d) compared with the control (1802±1102 mg/d), adjusted for linoleic intake (P<0.01). For every half dose increase in almond intake (i.e. approximately 37.5 g almonds/day) there was a 2693 mg/day increase in linoleic acid excreted in the feces (P‐trend = 0.0024). Conclusions A dose‐response was observed with increasing linoleic acid excretion with increased almond intake. The fat content of almonds may not be as bioavailable as predicted by Atwater factors as suggested by the increased linoleic acid excretion with almond intake compared to the control. With less fat being bioavailable, meaning less kilocalories may be absorbed by the body, the concern of the ‘high energy density’ of almonds and risk of weight gain may be overstated. Protocol registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier, [NCT00507520] Support or Funding Information Source of Research Support: Almond Board of California; PSI Foundation; Banting and Best Diabetes Centre; Canadian Diabetes Association
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".