It’s possible that the fine grinding of almonds means we absorb more calories from them. Some almond flour has the skins removed as well (blanched.) “Some of the fat remains intact within the almonds’ rigid cell walls” the studies conclude, so that makes sense that you’d get more cals if those cells walls are broken down.
Still, not a big worry. I want those calories. I want those healthy fats. I want those satiating, filling effects. I don’t want wheat flour or a blood sugar crash.
This is true with all nuts BTW. Pistachios are the same way, having around 5% fewer calories than listed in labels. Almonds, whole at least, were about 20% lower. But to me, fat loss, long term leanness, and health are all about overall food selection, not counting calories for life. For example, maybe one food is lower calorie than the other, but the lower calorie food also triggers cravings later in the day, or spikes insulin when you don’t want it to, or targets the opiate receptors in the brain with exorphins making it very hard to stop eating the lower calorie food. The higher calorie alternative may have none of those effects, depending on the source. So it all comes out in the wash in the long run.
I think the blogger missed a lot basically. Demonizing almond flour in favor of coconut flour is silly, and profit driven in her case. Both are great in different applications; neither are evil.