Almonds: Weight, Satiety and Calories

Table of Contents

1. The Calorie Question Behind the Research
2. Fewer Calories Absorbed Than the Label Counts
3. Whole, Roasted, Chopped and Almond Butter
4. Why: Fat Sealed Inside Cell Walls
5. Chewing, Particle Size and Fat in the Stool
6. Hunger, Fullness and Gut Hormones
7. Almonds Added With No Other Instructions
8. Almonds Inside Weight-Loss Programmes
9. Belly Fat, Waist and Body Composition
10. What the Pooled Studies Show
11. “No Weight Gain” Is Not “Weight Loss”
12. What Is Not Known
13. Who the Research Raises Concerns For
14. Connections
15. Key Research Papers
16. Featured Videos

The Calorie Question Behind the Research

Calorie figures on food labels are not measured by feeding the food to people. They are calculated with the Atwater factors, a system worked out in the late nineteenth century that assigns about 9 calories to every gram of fat and about 4 to every gram of protein and carbohydrate, and then adds them up. For most foods the arithmetic is close enough. The question researchers asked about almonds was whether it holds for a food whose fat sits inside tough plant cells that the gut may not fully open.

The worry the research set out to test is simple. Almonds are about half fat by weight, so a daily handful adds a meaningful number of calories. If the body absorbed all of them and people ate nothing less elsewhere, a daily handful would, over months, add body weight. Three things could break that chain: the body might absorb fewer calories than the label says; the almonds might fill people up so they eat less of other foods; or the extra fat might be burned rather than stored. The trials below test each of these in turn.

The broader question of how calorie density relates to weight is covered on the site’s energy density and calorie counting pages.

Fewer Calories Absorbed Than the Label Counts

The first direct measurement came from a controlled feeding study at the US Department of Agriculture’s human nutrition research centre, published by Novotny, Gebauer and Baer in 2012. Eighteen healthy adults ate diets in which every food was supplied and weighed. In a crossover design (each person rotated through every diet), they ate three versions of the same diet for 18 days each: no almonds, 42 grams of almonds a day, or 84 grams a day. During the last 9 days of each period the volunteers collected all of their urine and stool, and the laboratory measured the energy in the diet, the stool and the urine. The energy the body kept from the almonds is called their metabolizable energy.

• Measured value: 4.6 calories per gram (give or take 0.8), which works out to 129 calories per 28-gram serving.
• Atwater value: 6.0 to 6.1 calories per gram, or 168 to 170 calories per serving.
• Size of the gap: the authors reported that the Atwater factors overestimated the measured energy of almonds by 32 percent.

In plain terms, about a quarter of the calorie value printed for a serving of whole almonds was not taken up by the body in this study. The study measured almonds eaten as part of a mixed diet by healthy adults, which is the realistic setting, but it was small, and its result applies to the whole almonds it tested. The next study showed that the form of the almond changes the answer.

Whole, Roasted, Chopped and Almond Butter

In 2016 the same USDA group, with a food engineer, repeated the method with different forms of almond. Eighteen healthy adults went through five diet periods in random order: no almonds, or 42 grams a day of whole natural (raw) almonds, whole roasted almonds, chopped almonds, or almond butter. Each period had 9 days of adaptation and 9 days of complete urine and stool collection. The measured energy per gram was:

• Whole natural almonds: 4.42 calories per gram — the lowest.
• Whole roasted almonds: 4.86 calories per gram.
• Chopped almonds: 5.04 calories per gram.
• Almond butter: 6.53 calories per gram — statistically similar to the value the Atwater factors predict.

Multiplying those figures by 28 grams gives roughly 124 calories for an ounce of whole natural almonds, 136 for roasted, 141 for chopped and 183 for almond butter. (That multiplication is ours, not the paper’s; the paper reports calories per gram.) Whole natural, whole roasted and chopped almonds were all significantly lower than the Atwater prediction. Whole natural almonds were lower than whole roasted ones, and both whole roasted and chopped almonds were lower than almond butter.

The authors also measured how hard the nuts were to break. Whole roasted almonds fractured at a lower force (about 298 newtons) than whole natural almonds (about 345 newtons), and natural almonds broke into fewer, larger pieces. Their interpretation: the more an almond has already been broken down before it reaches the gut — by roasting, chopping or grinding into butter — the more of its fat the body can reach. Their concluding line was that the number of calories absorbed from almonds depends on the form in which they are eaten. For almond butter, the label figure appears to be close to what the body actually keeps.

Why: Fat Sealed Inside Cell Walls

An almond kernel is made of tightly packed plant cells. The oil sits inside those cells as tiny droplets, and each cell is enclosed by a wall made largely of fibre (in technical terms, non-starch polysaccharides). Human digestive enzymes cannot break those walls down. If a cell is not torn open, the enzymes that digest fat cannot reach the oil inside it.

Ellis and colleagues showed this directly in 2004. They analysed almond cell walls, broke almond tissue by machine and by chewing, and looked at the result under the microscope. Only the first layer of cells at a broken surface was ruptured and able to release its oil; the cells behind it stayed intact. They also collected stool from healthy volunteers who had eaten almond-containing diets and found intact almond cells, still holding their fat, in the faeces. Fat inside those cells appeared open to fermentation by bacteria in the large intestine once bacteria had broken through the walls — which is one reason the same cell-wall material comes up again on the almond gut microbiome page.

Grundy and colleagues put numbers on this in 2015. In a randomised, crossover study, 17 healthy people (15 finished) chewed natural or roasted almonds and spat them out so the particles could be measured. Using a mathematical model based on particle size and cell size, checked against measured release, they estimated that chewing released only 8.5 percent of the fat from natural almonds and 11.3 percent from roasted almonds. The low figure came from the large share — 35 to 40 percent — of chewed particles bigger than half a millimetre. Under the microscope, most of the fat stayed in unbroken cells. The authors concluded that this “lipid encapsulation” explains both the low measured calorie value of almonds and their smaller effect on blood fats after a meal.

Chewing does not decide everything: fat that escapes during chewing is only the starting point, and more is released further down the gut. A 2023 review by Mandalari and colleagues lists cell-wall integrity, cell size and particle size after chewing as the main factors in how much energy is released from nuts, alongside cell-wall thickness and porosity and the stability of the membranes around the oil droplets. The undigested part travels on to the colon, where it meets the gut bacteria.

Chewing, Particle Size and Fat in the Stool

If broken cells release fat and intact cells do not, then how thoroughly a person chews would be expected to change both the calories absorbed and the appetite response. Cassady and colleagues tested exactly that in 2009. Thirteen healthy, normal-weight adults chewed 55 grams of almonds either 10, 25 or 40 times per mouthful, in random order. Blood and appetite were tracked for three hours, and then, for four days, all food was supplied, including 55 grams of almonds a day chewed the same way, and complete stool samples were collected.

• Fat in the stool was significantly higher after 10 chews than after 25 or 40 chews.
• Energy lost in the stool was higher after 10 and 25 chews than after 40 chews, in every participant.
• Appetite: after 40 chews, hunger stayed below its starting level, and fullness above it, for longer than after 25 chews. Two hours after eating, fullness was lowest and hunger highest after 25 chews.
• Gut hormones: early levels of GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1, a gut hormone that signals fullness and helps regulate blood sugar) were lower after 25 chews than after 40. Insulin fell faster after 25 and 40 chews than after 10.

The result cuts both ways. Fewer chews meant more fat passing through unabsorbed; more chews meant a longer-lasting feeling of fullness. The trial was very small and short, and it shows that “the calorie content of almonds” is not one fixed number: it depends on the form of the nut and on the person eating it. The site’s animation of GLP-1 and the incretin hormones shows how these gut signals work.

Hunger, Fullness and Gut Hormones

Satiety is the feeling of fullness that holds off the next meal. The appetite trials asked two questions: do almonds make people feel fuller, and does that translate into eating less of something else?

A mid-morning snack (Hull and colleagues, 2015)

Thirty-two healthy women ate a standard breakfast, then 0, 28 or 42 grams of almonds as a mid-morning snack on three separate test days, and then ate as much as they wanted at lunch and dinner. Lunch and dinner intake fell in step with the size of the almond snack. Overall, the women ate a similar total amount of energy on all three days, which means they compensated for the 173 and 259 calories supplied by the 28- and 42-gram snacks. Appetite ratings between the snack and lunch showed greater fullness with larger snacks; between lunch and dinner, the snack no longer made a difference.

Meals versus snacks (Tan and Mattes, 2013)

One hundred and thirty-seven adults at increased risk of type 2 diabetes were randomised to five groups for four weeks: 43 grams of almonds a day with breakfast, with lunch, as a morning snack, as an afternoon snack, or no almonds. Almonds eaten as snacks reduced hunger and the desire to eat during a test meal session. With no instructions about the rest of their diet, participants ate less of other foods, enough to make up for the energy in the almonds, and after four weeks body measurements did not differ from the no-almond group. The trial reported that almonds “did not increase the risk for weight gain” — it did not report weight loss.

Hunger hormones during weight loss (Carter and colleagues, 2026)

Within a larger weight-loss trial described below, 140 adults with overweight or obesity ate either almonds or carbohydrate-rich snack bars through a weight-loss diet and then a weight-maintenance diet. Appetite hormones and ratings were measured fasting and for two hours after a test meal, followed by a buffet.

• Ghrelin (the hormone that rises before meals and drives hunger) fell in the almond group and rose in the snack-bar group while fasting.
• Leptin (a hormone made by fat tissue that signals energy stores) rose more in the almond group after weight maintenance.
• Glucagon and pancreatic polypeptide were consistently higher in the almond group; after the test meal, GIP and GLP-1 responses were also higher with almonds.
• Subjective hunger rose in both groups after weight loss, and buffet intake fell in both groups over time (by 16 percent after weight loss and 25 percent after maintenance).

So the hormone pattern differed between groups, but the feeling of hunger and the amount eaten at the buffet moved the same way in both. The authors described the almond group’s hormonal changes as more favourable; whether those hormone differences change body weight over years was not tested. The site’s leptin and ghrelin animation and science of satiety page explain these signals.

Almonds Added With No Other Instructions

The hardest test of the calorie worry is to hand people almonds every day, give them no advice about the rest of their diet, and weigh them. If nothing compensates, the expected result is weight gain in proportion to the extra calories. Several trials did this.

• Fraser and colleagues, 2002: 81 men and women were followed for two six-month periods, without almonds and then with a free daily supply of almonds (described in the paper’s title as 320 calories a day), with no dietary advice. Average body weight rose by 0.40 kg, a change that did not reach statistical significance. Only people in the lower body-mass-index groups showed small gains. The authors estimated that 54 percent (by recall) or 78 percent (by food diary) of the almond energy was offset by eating less of other foods.
• Hollis and Mattes, 2007: 20 women ate a daily almond serving supplying 1,440 kilojoules (about 344 calories) for 10 weeks, and followed their usual diet for another 10 weeks, in counterbalanced order. Body weight did not change. The authors attributed this mainly to eating less of other foods, and they also measured incomplete absorption of energy from the almonds. Resting metabolic rate, the heat produced by digesting food, and total energy expenditure did not change — so in this trial the almonds were not “burned off” by a faster metabolism.
• Tan and Mattes, 2013: as described above, 43 grams a day for four weeks; energy from other foods fell to compensate and body measurements did not differ from controls.
• Hunter, Considine and Mattes, 2022: 134 adults with overweight or obesity were randomised for six months to eat 1.5 ounces of almonds with breakfast and as an afternoon snack, or to keep their usual routine. The almond group ate about 816 kilojoules (about 195 calories) a day more than controls, yet weight change did not differ (−0.3 kg with almonds, −0.4 kg in controls).
• Smith and colleagues, 2022: in a 30-day trial comparing French fries with almonds, 180 adults were each given 300 extra calories a day of almonds, French fries, or French fries with a herb and spice mix. The almond group gained 0.49 kg on average, the plain-fries group lost 0.24 kg and the herb-and-spice fries group gained 0.47 kg; the difference across the three groups was statistically significant. Fat mass rose by about 231 grams with almonds and 124 grams with potatoes, a difference that was not statistically significant. This trial is a useful counterweight: over one month, 300 calories of almonds a day did not come out ahead of 300 calories of French fries for weight.

Taken together, these trials found that adding almonds without other changes produced little or no weight gain — smaller than the extra calories alone would predict — mostly because people ate less of other foods, with a smaller contribution from incomplete absorption. None of them showed weight loss from simply adding almonds.

Almonds Inside Weight-Loss Programmes

A different question is whether almonds help when people are deliberately cutting calories. Here almonds replace other foods within a reduced-calorie plan, and the comparison is with a plan of the same calorie level without nuts. Three trials give three different answers.

Wien and colleagues, 2003: almonds ahead

Sixty-five adults with overweight or obesity followed a formula-based low-calorie diet for 24 weeks. One group’s plan included 84 grams of almonds a day; the other group’s included self-selected complex carbohydrates, with calories and protein matched. The almond group had larger reductions in weight and BMI (18 percent versus 11 percent), waist circumference (14 versus 9 percent) and fat mass (30 versus 20 percent). One finding went the other way: HDL (“good”) cholesterol fell 6 percent with almonds and rose 15 percent in the carbohydrate group. The trial was small and the almond dose was large.

Foster and colleagues, 2012: almonds behind at six months, equal at 18

One hundred and twenty-three adults with overweight or obesity (average BMI 34) were randomised to an almond-enriched or a nut-free reduced-calorie diet within an 18-month behavioural weight-management programme. At six months the almond group had lost slightly but significantly less weight (−5.5 kg versus −7.4 kg). At 18 months there was no difference between the groups, and body composition did not differ at either point. The almond group had greater improvements in total cholesterol, the total-to-HDL ratio and triglycerides at six months, which had disappeared by 18 months.

Carter and colleagues, 2023: almonds equal

One hundred and forty adults aged 25 to 65 with a BMI of 27.5 to 34.9 followed a diet cut by 30 percent in energy for three months, containing either almonds or carbohydrate-rich snacks, then six months of weight maintenance. Both groups lost the same amount of weight in the first phase (−7.0 kg each) and a little more in the second (−1.1 kg with almonds, −1.3 kg without). Blood glucose, insulin, blood pressure and blood fats improved in both. The almond diet produced larger reductions in certain small cholesterol-carrying particles, although medium-sized LDL particles fell more in the nut-free group. The authors concluded that weight loss and its maintenance were comparable between the two diets.

The pattern across these trials is that, within a calorie-controlled plan, almonds did not stop people losing weight, and in the two larger and longer trials they did not produce more weight loss than a nut-free plan either. For the broader picture of what weight-loss programmes achieve, see realistic expectations for weight loss.

Belly Fat, Waist and Body Composition

Body weight is a blunt measure. Several trials also looked at where fat is carried, because fat around the abdomen — especially visceral fat, the fat packed around the internal organs — is the kind most linked to metabolic disease. Scans such as DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) can measure fat in different regions of the body.

• Berryman and colleagues, 2015: 48 adults with raised LDL cholesterol ate a cholesterol-lowering diet for two six-week periods, once with 1.5 ounces of almonds a day and once with a muffin of equal calories instead. With almonds, abdominal fat fell by 0.07 kg and leg fat by 0.12 kg compared with the muffin diet, with no difference in total body weight. Because every food was supplied and only the snack differed, this is one of the cleaner tests of a single food swap — but the changes are small and lasted six weeks.
• Hunter and colleagues, 2022: in the six-month trial above, the subgroup of people with a lot of fat under the skin of the abdomen saw android (abdominal-region) fat percentage fall by 1.0 point with almonds and rise by 1.1 points in controls. Visceral fat mass tended to fall with almonds (−13 g versus +127 g), a difference that did not reach statistical significance. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c, a long-term blood-sugar measure) did not differ, and the authors concluded that long-term almond intake had limited ability to improve cardiometabolic health in otherwise healthy people with overweight or obesity.
• Li and colleagues, 2011: 20 Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes ate a control diet or one in which about 60 grams of almonds a day replaced 20 percent of calories, for four weeks each. Body fat measured by bioelectrical impedance (a scale that estimates fat from electrical resistance) was slightly lower on the almond diet, 29.6 versus 30.4 percent.
• Beaver and colleagues, 2025: 77 adults with metabolic syndrome ate 2 ounces of dry-roasted almonds or crackers of equal calories as a daily snack for 12 weeks. Waist circumference improved modestly at week 4; total body weight and calorie intake were not altered. The paper’s disclosure states that two authors received financial support from an almond-industry body.

These are small regional shifts, measured in grams or fractions of a percentage point, in short trials. They are consistent with almonds replacing a refined-carbohydrate snack, but they do not show that almonds remove belly fat in any amount a person would notice. The site’s metabolic syndrome page explains why waist size and visceral fat are tracked.

What the Pooled Studies Show

A meta-analysis combines the results of many trials to estimate an average effect. The results are given as a weighted mean difference (WMD) — the average difference between the nut and control groups — with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI), the range within which the true value probably lies. If that range crosses zero, the result is not statistically significant.

Almond trials only

Chahibakhsh and colleagues, 2024, pooled 37 randomised trials (43 treatment arms) of almonds:

• Body weight: −0.45 kg (95% CI −0.85 to −0.05) — significant, and less than half a kilogram.
• Waist circumference: −0.66 cm (−1.27 to −0.04). Fat mass: −0.66 kg (−1.16 to −0.17). Hunger score: −1.15 mm on a rating scale (−1.98 to −0.32).
• Not significant: BMI (−0.20), body fat percentage (−0.39 percent), fat-free mass, waist-to-hip ratio, visceral fat, fullness, desire to eat and expected food intake.
• Subgroups: the reductions were larger in trials using 50 grams a day or more, lasting 12 weeks or more, in people with a BMI under 30, and when the comparison was a nut-free diet rather than other snacks or other nuts.
• Certainty of evidence (rated with the GRADE system) was moderate for weight, waist and fat mass and very low for the appetite measures, body fat percentage, fat-free mass, visceral fat and waist-to-hip ratio. The authors called for better-designed trials.

All nuts

• Flores-Mateo and colleagues, 2013 (33 trials): nut-enriched diets had no significant effect on body weight (−0.47 kg, 95% CI −1.17 to 0.22), BMI (−0.40) or waist circumference (−1.25 cm, −2.82 to 0.31). Their conclusion was that nuts did not increase these measures.
• Li and colleagues, 2018 (6 cohorts with 420,890 people and 62 trials with 7,184 participants): in the trials, nuts were linked to a small significant reduction in body weight (−0.22 kg, −0.40 to −0.04), BMI (−0.16) and waist (−0.51 cm). In the cohorts, each extra serving a week was associated with a 3 percent lower risk of overweight or obesity (relative risk 0.97, 0.95 to 0.98).
• Nishi and colleagues, 2021 (6 cohorts with 569,910 people and 86 trials with 5,873 participants): in cohorts, nut eating was associated with a lower incidence of overweight or obesity (relative risk 0.93, 0.88 to 0.98; moderate certainty). In trials, nuts showed no adverse effect on body weight (+0.09 kg, −0.09 to 0.27; high certainty). The authors concluded that concern about nuts increasing body fat appears unwarranted. Several authors disclosed past research support or fees from nut-industry and other food-industry bodies.
• Freisling and colleagues, 2018 (EPIC-PANACEA, 373,293 adults in 10 European countries, followed 5 years): participants gained an average of 2.1 kg. Those in the highest quarter of nut intake (peanuts included) gained slightly less than non-eaters (−0.07 kg) and had a 5 percent lower risk of becoming overweight or obese. This is an observational finding: nut eaters may differ in other ways.
• Kristoffersen and colleagues, 2025 (an umbrella review — a review of meta-analyses — across 14 food groups): the nut data drew on 520,331 participants and 91,256 cases, and high nut intake was associated with a reduced risk of overweight and obesity, alongside whole grains, legumes and fruit.

The two kinds of evidence say slightly different things. The trials, pooled, find nuts and almonds weight-neutral or associated with a loss of a few hundred grams. The cohort studies find nut eaters gain a little less weight over years. Neither shows a large effect.

“No Weight Gain” Is Not “Weight Loss”

Much of the almond literature is easy to misread, because many trials were designed to test whether almonds cause weight gain, and their conclusions are worded around that question. “Almonds did not increase body weight” and “almonds reduced body weight” are different findings, and most of the evidence on this page supports the first.

• The added-almond trials (Fraser, Hollis, Tan, Hunter) found little or no gain despite extra calories. One (Smith) found a gain of about half a kilogram in a month that was no better than French fries.
• The weight-loss programmes found almonds ahead in one small trial (Wien), behind at six months and equal at 18 in one (Foster), and equal in the most recent (Carter).
• The almond meta-analysis found an average of 0.45 kg less weight than controls, with larger effects in some subgroups — a real but small number, with moderate certainty.
• The cohorts found slightly less weight gain over time in nut eaters, which cannot separate the nuts from everything else those people do.

A fair summary of the research is that a daily portion of almonds, in the amounts tested, has generally been found not to add the weight its label calories would predict, and in some trials and subgroups has been associated with a small loss. The evidence does not show almonds as a weight-loss food in their own right.

What Is Not Known

• How results change with form in real life. The calorie measurements used whole, roasted and chopped almonds and almond butter. Almond flour, almond milk, almond-based snack bars and sweetened or coated almonds were not tested in these feeding studies, and almond butter’s measured value was close to its label value.
• How long compensation lasts. The added-almond trials lasted from four weeks to six months. Whether people keep eating less of other foods over years is not known from trials.
• Who absorbs more and who absorbs less. The chewing trial showed large effects of how thoroughly people chew, and calorie studies involved fewer than 20 people each. How much these figures vary with age, dental health, gut transit time or gut bacteria has not been well measured.
• Whether the hormone differences matter. Differences in ghrelin, leptin, GLP-1 and other hormones were seen in one trial, while hunger and food intake moved the same way in both groups. Their long-term meaning for weight is untested.
• Visceral fat. The almond meta-analysis rated the visceral-fat evidence as very low certainty, and the single-trial findings were small or not statistically significant.
• Funding and design. Some trials in this field disclose funding from almond-industry bodies, and many of the comparison diets used refined-carbohydrate snacks. The almond meta-analysis found that the weight effect appeared against nut-free diets but not against other snacks or other nuts, which makes the choice of comparison food important when reading any single trial.

Who the Research Raises Concerns For

• People with tree-nut allergy. Almonds are a tree nut, and almond allergy can cause severe reactions. None of the weight research applies to people who react to them.
• People eating almond butter or ground almonds for weight reasons. The lower calorie figures come from whole and roughly broken almonds. In the USDA study almond butter delivered close to its full label energy, about 6.5 calories per gram.
• Amounts beyond those tested. The trials used roughly 28 to 84 grams a day. The compensation findings describe those amounts and do not show what happens with larger, unmeasured portions.
• Sweetened, coated and heavily salted almonds. The trials used plain almonds; their findings do not carry over to products with added sugar, chocolate or large amounts of salt.

Questions about weight-loss plans, especially alongside medicines for diabetes or blood pressure, belong with a clinician.

Connections

• Nuts — the nuts landing page
• Almonds — the main topic page
• Almonds — Benefits Deep Dive — the hub for this series
• Almonds: Nutrient Profile — the full composition table
• Almonds: Blood Sugar and Diabetes
• Almonds: Gut Microbiome and Prebiotic — where the unabsorbed fat and fibre go
• Almonds: Heart Health and LDL
• Almonds: Vitamin E and Skin
• Almonds: Magnesium and Bone
• Almonds: Soaking and Phytic Acid
• Pistachios: Weight and Mindful Eating — the parallel pistachio page
• Peanuts: Protein and Satiety
• Obesity
• Metabolic Syndrome — the group in the Beaver trial
• Type 2 Diabetes — the group in the Li trial
• Weight Loss — the site’s weight-loss section
• The Science of Satiety
• Energy Density
• Calorie Counting — where label calories come from
• Appetite: Leptin and Ghrelin — animation
• GLP-1 and the Incretins — animation
• Dietary Fiber — the material of almond cell walls

Key Research Papers

1. Novotny JA, Gebauer SK, Baer DJ. Discrepancy between the Atwater factor predicted and empirically measured energy values of almonds in human diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(2):296-301. PubMed PMID: 22760558
2. Gebauer SK, Novotny JA, Bornhorst GM, et al. Food processing and structure impact the metabolizable energy of almonds. Food Funct. 2016;7(10):4231-4238. PubMed PMID: 27713968
3. Ellis PR, Kendall CW, Ren Y, et al. Role of cell walls in the bioaccessibility of lipids in almond seeds. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(3):604-13. PubMed PMID: 15321799
4. Grundy MM, Grassby T, Mandalari G, et al. Effect of mastication on lipid bioaccessibility of almonds in a randomized human study and its implications for digestion kinetics, metabolizable energy, and postprandial lipemia. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(1):25-33. PubMed PMID: 25527747
5. Cassady BA, Hollis JH, Fulford AD, et al. Mastication of almonds: effects of lipid bioaccessibility, appetite, and hormone response. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(3):794-800. PubMed PMID: 19144727
6. Mandalari G, Gervasi T, Rosenberg DW, et al. Effect of Nuts on Gastrointestinal Health. Nutrients. 2023;15(7). PubMed PMID: 37049572
7. Hull S, Re R, Chambers L, et al. A mid-morning snack of almonds generates satiety and appropriate adjustment of subsequent food intake in healthy women. Eur J Nutr. 2015;54(5):803-10. PubMed PMID: 25182142
8. Tan SY, Mattes RD. Appetitive, dietary and health effects of almonds consumed with meals or as snacks: a randomized, controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67(11):1205-14. PubMed PMID: 24084509
9. Carter S, Hill AM, Buckley JD, et al. Appetite regulation following energy restriction with almond-enriched vs. nut-free diets - a randomised controlled trial. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2026;20(3):244-251. PubMed PMID: 42014246
10. Hollis J, Mattes R. Effect of chronic consumption of almonds on body weight in healthy humans. Br J Nutr. 2007;98(3):651-6. PubMed PMID: 17445351
11. Fraser GE, Bennett HW, Jaceldo KB, et al. Effect on body weight of a free 76 Kilojoule (320 calorie) daily supplement of almonds for six months. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21(3):275-83. PubMed PMID: 12074256
12. Hunter SR, Considine RV, Mattes RD. Almond consumption decreases android fat mass percentage in adults with high android subcutaneous adiposity but does not change HbA1c in a randomised controlled trial. Br J Nutr. 2022;127(6):850-861. PubMed PMID: 33955348
13. Smith DL, Hanson RL, Dickinson SL, et al. French-fried potato consumption and energy balance: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;115(6):1626-1636. PubMed PMID: 35179193
14. Wien MA, Sabaté JM, Iklé DN, et al. Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003;27(11):1365-72. PubMed PMID: 14574348
15. Foster GD, Shantz KL, Vander Veur SS, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of an almond-enriched, hypocaloric diet in the treatment of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(2):249-54. PubMed PMID: 22743313
16. Carter S, Hill AM, Mead LC, et al. Almonds vs. carbohydrate snacks in an energy-restricted diet: Weight and cardiometabolic outcomes from a randomized trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2023;31(10):2467-2481. PubMed PMID: 37621033
17. Berryman CE, West SG, Fleming JA, et al. Effects of daily almond consumption on cardiometabolic risk and abdominal adiposity in healthy adults with elevated LDL-cholesterol: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(1):e000993. PubMed PMID: 25559009
18. Li SC, Liu YH, Liu JF, et al. Almond consumption improved glycemic control and lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism. 2011;60(4):474-9. PubMed PMID: 20580779
19. Beaver LM, Leonard SW, Uesugi SL, et al. Beneficial changes in total cholesterol, LDL-C, biomarkers of intestinal inflammation, and vitamin E status in adults with metabolic syndrome consuming almonds as snack foods: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Nutr Res. 2025;139:50-65. PubMed PMID: 40409246
20. Chahibakhsh N, Rafieipour N, Rahimi H, et al. Almond supplementation on appetite measures, body weight, and body composition in adults: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2024;25(5):e13711. PubMed PMID: 38351580
21. Flores-Mateo G, Rojas-Rueda D, Basora J, et al. Nut intake and adiposity: meta-analysis of clinical trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(6):1346-55. PubMed PMID: 23595878
22. Li H, Li X, Yuan S, et al. Nut consumption and risk of metabolic syndrome and overweight/obesity: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized trials. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2018;15:46. PubMed PMID: 29977320
23. Nishi SK, Viguiliouk E, Blanco Mejia S, et al. Are fatty nuts a weighty concern? A systematic review and meta-analysis and dose-response meta-regression of prospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2021;22(11):e13330. PubMed PMID: 34494363
24. Freisling H, Noh H, Slimani N, et al. Nut intake and 5-year changes in body weight and obesity risk in adults: results from the EPIC-PANACEA study. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57(7):2399-2408. PubMed PMID: 28733927
25. Kristoffersen E, Hjort SL, Thomassen LM, et al. Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on the Consumption of Different Food Groups and the Risk of Overweight and Obesity. Nutrients. 2025;17(4). PubMed PMID: 40004990

PubMed Topic Searches

1. PubMed: almond metabolizable energy
2. PubMed: almond lipid bioaccessibility and cell walls
3. PubMed: almonds, satiety and appetite in randomised trials
4. PubMed: almonds and body weight in randomised trials
5. PubMed: nut consumption and adiposity meta-analyses

Featured Videos