4

The article Surprising side effects of eating too many almonds claims:

Kidney stones can be a health issue one can face if too many almonds are consumed. Kidney stones are formed when there's a high level of calcium oxalates left in the body and do not get secreted. Almonds, for one, are rich in oxalates and you'll be surprised to know that the oxalate levels through nuts are better absorbed by the body than any other food source. That being said, the risk of developing painful kidney stones and bladder problems should keep you away from having too many almonds in a go. Moderation should be practised, especially for those who are prone to kidney problems, have a history of kidney stones or continence issues.

But other sources like 5 steps for preventing kidney stones, mention eating many nuts is problematic if you already had stones in the past (if I correctly understood the Harvard article).

To what extent is the original claim from times of India correct? If someone never had stones in the past does it also apply to them?

1
  • Why is the 'but'-part necessary? It exactly complements the last sentence from the quote? The claim here seems to be 'oxalates are bad, nuts have lots of it, oxalates are 'bad for' stones. Not in all, but if stones showed up before, then it is extra that too much of em is bad for you'? (It partly reads as if the two links would be in contradiction.Since they are not, it looks like there is no notable 'strange' claim in question, but nuances of interpreting medical science?) Dec 17 '21 at 4:30

You must log in to answer this question.