Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just found out one is supposed to soak them before eating, and I quote:

 

 

A porcupine has quills, opossums act dead when threatened, and newts turn their ribs into spikes when in danger.

Talk about defense mechanisms!

But, did you know? Nuts have similar mechanisms, too? No spikes or death rays… but they do have a natural component that repels predators so that they can grow to full maturity. From almonds, walnuts, hazelnuts, brazil nuts and everything in between.

 

The major defense mechanism in nuts is phytic acid. When something that contains phytic acid is eaten, the acid binds to minerals like zinc, iron, magnesium, calcium, chromium, and manganese in the gastrointestinal tract, which inhibits our digestive systems’ ability to break the nut down properly. (That’s why when you eat nuts you often see undigested bits in your stool the very next day…)

 

 

When eating nuts that haven’t been soaked, the phytic acid binds to minerals in the gastrointestinal tract and can not be absorbed in the intestine and too many bound minerals can lead to mineral deficiencies. By soaking, you are breaking down the phytic acid so it can be absorbed properly.

Nuts also have high amounts of enzymes inhibitors. This is another reason why un soaked nuts are hard to digest. Soaking nuts neutralizes the enzymes allowing for proper digestion.

 

Apparently 6-12 hours will do the trick.

 

Sounds a bit over the top to me, but are you guys soaking your nuts?  :Pxyz

Edited by The Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds a bit over the top to me, but are you guys soaking your nuts?  :Pxyz

 

Not usually, it is not practical when taking them at work. Also, to keep the convenient property of a food which can be stored for months without trouble, you should soak them and subsequently dry them. Sometimes though I soak very briefly almonds in boiling water (30 seconds) and then peel them. I wonder if it destroys phytates and likewise enzymes.

Another aspect: some people have been eating nuts and seeds as  substantial part of their diet for decades. I, for example, have been doing it for 40 years. Does it make sense that the body develops an adaptive mechanism to phytates (within limits of course)? My usual dose of nuts is at least 3 ounces, up to 6 ounces and can feel no digestive problems. In another thread the adaptive mechanism of gut microbioma is being discussed related to legumes.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, the issue of phytic acid is complicated, but not hard to decide on. I don't soak for a very simple reason: the studies showing benefits of nut consumption are overwhelmingly done in people who don't do any soaking. If the results are positive for them, phytic acid and all, why should I do anything to alter that behavior on the speculative mechanistic theory of how things are supposed to work? If I soak, how do I know that I am not removing part or all of the benefit of nut consumption? The soaking idea is speculation about how the benefits work - there is absolutely no guarantee that this specualtion is correct (and indeed, we've seen very often such speculation to be wrong). The studies prove benefits without soaking - that's the key to me. I am not going to risk those benefits by altering the nuts on the speculation that somehow everyone who is not soaking is doing it wrong, and that soaking will give better results. There is no proof that soaking will give better results - show me the studies. So why do it? The fact is that we are dealing with extremely complex dynamic systems and altering any variable (such as soaking vs not soaking), might have unanticipated consequences - phytic acid might be part of the benefit, through long consumption of phytic acid we might have adaptations in our microbiome, and a thousand other variables interacting dynamically. Isolating some effect such as "phytic acid binds to minerals" in vitro guarantees nothing. The best way for us laypersons to approach this is to treat our bodies as black boxes - food goes in and we obtain results through all cause mortality. If UNsoaked nuts show good results in all cause mortality by going into the black box, that's enough for me, and I leave the exact workings of the black box to the scientists (as I'm not one) - and how the black box works inside is a work in progress with many red herrings and wrong turns. I'm not going to stake my health on unproven speculation about the insides of the black box - unless I have absolutely no choice. In the case of nuts we do have a choice - to consume them unsoaked based on proven benefits; for kidney beans, we have evidence that soaking is beneficial. So I act accordingly. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do it?

Maybe you've come across this one about Brazil nuts (which I avoid):

 

Arrus, K, Blank, et al. Microbiological and Aflatoxin Evaluation of Brazil NuPods and the Effects of Unit Processing Operations. J Food Prot. 2005;68(5): 1060-5

 

Like you and your stated reasons, I mostly don't soak them either. But I sometimes will if for no other reason than the rancid nuts and seeds tend to rise to the surface, so I toss those. Who wants an unnecessary battle between my chemicals versus rancidity?

 

Also the observation that soaked nuts begin to sprout is a beautiful reminder of the miracle of life, that sounds woo, but wouldn't it seem that certain chemicals within the soaked ones come alive and these may be beneficial? Or not, haha.... Finally, soaking the things makes them softer and perhaps easier on my teeth. Ever experienced tooth pain from eating soft rocklike almonds? Then again, chewing hard nuts might strengthen jaw muscles, so.... But, like you say, it seems like soaking benefits are speculations since the nut industry is doing just fine financially, thank you, so why soak the crop with nabobs of nutty negativity?

Edited by Sthira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the context in which soaking was discussed was phytic acid. I continue to regard that as a fraught issue when it comes to nuts. Who knows, maybe there are contexts in which phytic acid is a net positive for health rather than net negative. Studies on health outcomes seem to indicate that unsoaked nuts are just fine. But does that mean that there aren't different contexts where soaking might be beneficial - apart from impact on phytic acid - of course not. A friend of mine had his dentist recommend that he soak his almonds (which my friend consumes daily), because it would lessen the stress on his teeth. That might be a legitimate issue for my friend - I am not 100% sure it applies to everyone, as it might be benficial for teeth roots and the ridge bones to experience stress (from chewing non-soaked almonds). Then again, it might - perhaps - be beneficial to lessen the stress through soaking if you have a lot of tooth wear from eating tons of F&V (like many of us here do). It's a balancing act. Perhaps for some soaking might be just the ticket, for others less so. It comes down to the individual and their needs. I tend to buy my nuts from reliable places like Trader Joe's almonds that I can be reasonably sure of the provenance of their products, storage and transportation practices and high turnover - so I don't need to soak in order to get rid of rancid nuts/seeds. But if you have an issue with that, and soaking solves it - more power to you. Ultimately, YMMV. But in these posts my concern was more with the phytic acid claims.

 

For those who strongly believe in the benefits of soaking, you can always use the old Dean trick: split the difference. Eat some of each: soaked and non-soaked! That way you cover your bases (assuming one does not interfere with the other!).

Edited by TomBAvoider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom and ALL!

 

I agree pretty with Tom. 

 

Perhaps also noteworthy:  Al posted a brief note, on a (very small, in vitro) study, that suggested that those eating a plant based diet (which we all do, whether we eat a small amount of animal food as well), develop a gut microbiota that contains bacteria (or other microorganisms) that thoroughly digest phytic acid.  More research in that directions would be interesting.

 

But, no way will I soak my nuts.  In fact, I keep them raw, in my freezer -- most of my nuts are eaten very hard, and cold, directly from the freezer.

 

Good for my teeth!

 

  :)xyz

 

      --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 6:46 AM, Saul said:

Al posted a brief note, on a (very small, in vitro) study, that suggested that those eating a plant based diet (which we all do, whether we eat a small amount of animal food as well), develop a gut microbiota that contains bacteria (or other microorganisms) that thoroughly digest phytic acid.

Regular Consumption of a High-Phytate Diet Reduces the Inhibitory Effect of Phytate on Nonheme-Iron Absorption in Women with Suboptimal Iron Stores.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good find, Ron. That's very interesting. Speaking just for myself, I eat a very high phytate diet, and I suspect many on this board do too. The study is in women, but I'd think this would apply to men too(?). Also, speculatively one would think this might apply to more minerals too, perhaps things like zinc. One big rap against mineral rich veggies, such as spinach, is that the minerals are often bound up in all sorts of compounds, oxalate and so forth. So, it is recommended that you get your zinc f.ex. from animal sources. But what if those who habitually consume F&V rich diets have a digestive system that's adapted (microbiome) in such a way that it can extract those minerals from the various matrixes and so need not resort to intake of animal products (vegans). No doubt there are some limitations as you can't adapt to absolutely everything, but various panics over "phytate" and so forth might only apply to those who are unadapted to such a diet. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TomBAvoider said:

...Also, speculatively one would think this might apply to more minerals too, perhaps things like zinc. ...

This is totally anecdotal, since it applies only to me and it may be a fluke:

I have been taking vitamin K (both 4 and 7), but when I had a microbiome test, it showed that I had heaps of vitamin K producing bacteria, a lot more than base. If the results were accurate, it's likely due to my mostly plant-based diet.

Also, I don't normally take supplements such as zinc (I just started) or iron, yet my test results for both were fine (it's apparently good to be on the low end for iron). I get most of  from legumes, nuts, cacao nibs and greens like spinach. Which would support the argument you make and the claims made by the above study and Saul.

In fact, I didn't have any deficiencies other than low-normal B-12 and high folate, which I brought within norm by starting B-12 supplementation (now I take 1 tablet of 1000mcg every three days). I've had only one blood test done since I joined here and started using Cronometer, but will see how things look when I go next, now that I have been tracking intake pretty meticulously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ron Put said:

This is totally anecdotal, since it applies only to me and it may be a fluke:

I have been taking vitamin K (both 4 and 7), but when I had a microbiome test, it showed that I had heaps of vitamin K producing bacteria, a lot more than base. If the results were accurate, it's likely due to my mostly plant-based diet.

Also, I don't normally take supplements such as zinc (I just started) or iron, yet my test results for both were fine (it's apparently good to be on the low end for iron). I get most of  from legumes, nuts, cacao nibs and greens like spinach. Which would support the argument you make and the claims made by the above study and Saul.

In fact, I didn't have any deficiencies other than low-normal B-12 and high folate, which I brought within norm by starting B-12 supplementation (now I take 1 tablet of 1000mcg every three days). I've had only one blood test done since I joined here and started using Cronometer, but will see how things look when I go next, now that I have been tracking intake pretty meticulously.

This is somewhat off-topic, but can you post or private message me the brand you use for cacao nibs?

I go for the cheapest non-alkalized 100% cacao powder I find in my local grocery stoe, but they don't list the flavanol or polyphenol content on the container, so I have to assume the content of the mainstream cacao powder I'm purchasing is somewhat close to the content of these phytochemicals present in the studies I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Afraid to Use my Real Name said:

...can you post or private message me the brand you use for cacao nibs?

I've been using Navitas cacao nibs, primarily because according to ConsumerLab they appear to have the best ratio of flavanols (blue) to cadmium (red):

100534417_ScreenShot2020-04-10at16_26_52.png.4fdfd285452270717782796c7e151e85.png

I like the taste of the cacao nibs with a banana, some almonds and walnuts. I also tested myself for heavy metals over the last couple of years and I have no measurable levels of any, despite the fact that I have been consuming quite large amounts of cacao for about a decade (I had a 50lbs bin of powder and almost finished it :)  I've scaled back significantly nowadays, mostly because I am trying to keep protein and methionine low, so I eat about 15-20g per day. Usually with a banana, 15g of walnuts and 20-25g of almonds, plus one Brazil nut.

Most supplements have no significant heavy metals, but I not only like the taste, but also believe that it is better to eat as whole as possible (in this particular case, with no strong proof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2020 at 9:02 PM, Afraid to Use my Real Name said:

go for the cheapest non-alkalized 100% cacao powder I find in my local grocery stoe, but they don't list the flavanol or polyphenol content on the container, so I have to assume the content of the mainstream cacao powder I'm purchasing is somewhat close to the content of these phytochemicals present in the studies I've read.

I'm a huge consumer of cacao powder. There have been a couple of previous thread on flavanols in cacao powders, which you may search. The conclusions are that flavanols and (-)-epicatechin, the beneficial monomer in cacao powder, vary widely across crops, but their average concentration is about 3 times in non-alkalized cacao powders with respect to the 'dutched' varieties. To that I'm going to add that, even among non-alkalized products, some are more bitter and astringent (Like El Ceibo) and probably contain even more flavanols.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with nuts is that the fats contained are all omega-6, and it's generally seen as a good thing to get fewer amounts of omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids. I dont see nuts as being a magic bullet to health but definitely deserve to be part of a balanced diet. 

Edited by dallas470
didn't include enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallas470 said:

The thing with nuts is that the fats contained are all omega-6, and it's generally seen as a good thing to get fewer amounts of omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids. I dont see nuts as being a magic bullet to health but definitely deserve to be part of a balanced diet. 

This is completely false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dallas470 said:

The thing with nuts is that the fats contained are all omega-6, and it's generally seen as a good thing to get fewer amounts of omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids. I dont see nuts as being a magic bullet to health but definitely deserve to be part of a balanced diet. 

I was going to ask about the omege 6:3 issue as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elatedsquirrel said:

I was going to ask about the omege 6:3 issue as well.

I will give you my (humble) response - I am not a biologist, doctor or nutritionist - rather an engineer.

Nuts are one of the foods I (personally) consider to be one of the best tools we have to reduce all cause mortality (ACM).  Along with cruciferous vegetables, intermittent fasting, proper sleep, and exercise - a mix of both some resistance training and even low-impact cardio or walking.  Dean just recently added a great post about the reduction of ACM from walking.

Read this entire article and at the end - just see if you aren't 'Nuts over nuts':

https://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2013/12/01/nuts-over-nuts/

By the way - keeping an eye on omega 6:3 ratio is important, just like keeping an eye all your intake of ALL micronutrients. 

If your 6's are moderate due to 1-2 ounces (1 ounce is about 1/4 cup) of nuts each day, then ensure you up your O3 intake with some ground flaxseeds and some fish oil capsuls and/or sardines/salmon 3x per week.

Fwiw the article noted that the most protective nuts were walnuts.

Edited by Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've been wondering about - what kind of nuts were used in PREDIMED?  I remember trying to track that down (unsuccessfully) long ago, could not found the specifics in the study publication itself (maybe I missed it).  There is a comment in the above mentioned link from Clinton along these lines:

Quote

Did the PREDIMED study look at whether the nuts were raw or roasted? And were any roasted nuts oil-roasted or dry-roasted? Raw nuts are full of anti-nutrients and leaky gut-inducing toxins and oil roasted nuts use toxic Omega-6. The devil is in the details.

I would also add "salted"? To the above.

The reason I ask - I'm a huge fan of nuts, pretty much all types, and I eat lots of them daily.  But I've been wondering if I should tweak the specific kinds I eat (including how they are processed).  I normally just buy the large tubs of mixed nuts (roasted and salted) from Aldi, plus the large tubs of (roasted and salted) cashews, roasted and salted almonds, roasted and salted pistachios, plus peanuts (dry roasted and salted), plus walnuts (not roasted OR salted).

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally just buy the large tubs of mixed nuts (roasted and salted) from Aldi, plus the large tubs of (roasted and salted) cashews, plus peanuts (also roasted and salted), plus walnuts (I don't think they are roasted OR salted).

I eat nuts daily. Raw, blanched - almonds, and raw walnuts and salted roasted peanuts (which are not nuts, but legumes). Almonds are excellent when it comes to micronutrient content, vitamins (E), minerals, and very good FA profile (depending a bit on which variety of almond). Walnuts have an excellent FA profile and energy to benefits ratio, plus the literature on the benefits is so overwhelming, it seems like walnuts are a must have. Peanuts - the literature is surprisingly positive (I say surprisingly, because there have been concerns about impact on artheriosclerosis), and I like the "salted" part, because there are otherwise very few sources of salt in my diet, and I need salt because I exercise (that said, my consumption of peanuts is pretty modest).

I worry slightly about buying "tubs" of mixed nuts because of concerns over expiration (FA go rancid) and less control over what you get, but it's probably OK if you trust the source (Aldi seems fine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I eat raw unpasteurized almonds (30g)  and raw walnuts (15g) daily.  I order organics on Amazon (click on the links if you'd like to see what I buy).  I also eat unsalted peanuts and cashews about once a week or so.

Walnuts keep popping up in studies as promoting arterial elasticity and promoting relatively constant blood pressure.  Take a look at this:

Xiao et al. found that the beneficial effect of improving vascular reactivity was limited to walnuts [21]. This may be due to the small sample of studies of other nuts compared to walnuts. Another reason may be due to the fatty acid profile of walnuts containing higher amounts of plant-derived omega-3 α-linoleic acid compared to other nut types [41]. This fatty acid has been associated with cardioprotective benefits, such as being antithrombotic, anti-atherogenic and anti-inflammatory [42]. The current review, however, failed to find consistent results from walnuts, with only two of the chronic studies showing an improvement in vascular function. The nutrient profile of nuts may be influenced by seasonal variability and climate conditions in different growing regions, which could contribute to different responses across studies [43,44]. There has been one study assessing changes in baroreflex sensitivity with consumption in walnuts and cashews compared with a control diet [45]. Whilst not a direct measure of vascular function (hence this study was not included in Table 2), baroreflex sensitivity is an important mechanism in the regulation of blood pressure and hence this study warrants highlighting [46]. Schutte et al. [45] found that walnuts and cashews both significantly altered baroreflex sensitivity in people with metabolic syndrome following 8 weeks of supplementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 10:16 PM, TomBAvoider said:

This is completely false.

This is false just because you say so?   Interesting.  I also made an assertion with nothing backing it up, and you could say that doing so might have been intellectually lazy but just because you aren't convinced yet, i'm going to reply with a response that has more meat on it so to speak.  The wiki article that i'm referencing gives the ideal ratio of omega 6 to omega 3, and like my post presupposes, directly states that one shouldn't get too high of a ratio of omega 6 to omega 3's.  It also mentions that the typical american diet actually does have way too many omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acids.  Furthermore, as I said earlier, the ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 in nuts is listed in a convenient table, and the table says that this can be 2 or 300 hundred omega 6 fatty acid ratio to omega 3's.  I like nuts just as much as you do, buddy, but this article shows exactly why they might not be a great pick if you're worried about nutrition.  I can also find further sources if you don't like wiki, so just post again if i need to do that and have read all of the above elsewhere as eating nuts will upset the ideal ratio that many nutriotionists prescribe, thanks

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_ratio_in_food#Optimal_ratio_of_omega-6_to_omega-3_fats

Edited by dallas470

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with nuts is that the fats contained are all omega-6,[...]

This is the part of your statement that I highlighted - yes? And not any other part. That part is unquestionably FALSE. Which is exactly what my contention was.

 I didn't get into the whole n6:n3 issue, so I don't know why you're dragging that in, in the context of what I highlighted as false. I didn't say squat about the n6:n3 ratio - I underlined the part I said was false, and only that part. And what I highlighted as false is indeed FALSE - for example almonds:
 

 https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3085/2

As you'll notice that the largest - BY FAR - proportion of fats contained in almonds are MONOUNSATURATED fats which absolutely tower over all polyunsaturated fats combined! 29.3 grams (in a 100g of almonds) monounsaturated vs 11.5 grams of ALL polyunsaturated fatty acids. So it's FALSE to claim that "the fats contained are all omega-6". 

Had you said "of the polyunsaturated fats in nuts, n6 are highly prevalent compared to n3", nobody would've raised an eyebrow. But you did not. You said "fats" without any qualification - and that is not even remotely true.

And I'm not sure why you're all bent out of shape regarding n6:n3 ratio anyway:

[...]The wiki article that i'm referencing gives the ideal ratio of omega 6 to omega 3, and like my post presupposes, directly states that one shouldn't get too high of a ratio of omega 6 to omega 3's.[...]

[...]I like nuts just as much as you do, buddy, but this article shows exactly why they might not be a great pick if you're worried about nutrition.[...]

I see nothing in that link that bears out those assertions. In fact, to cite from that link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_ratio_in_food#Optimal_ratio_of_omega-6_to_omega-3_fats

"To date, "no one knows what the optimal ratio in the diet is for these two families of fats."[5] [emph. mine TA] 

Boom. That's from your very link. So we can stop right there with the "ratio" as to what it's "supposed" to be. 

This is factual. Studies are all over the place, and there is absolutely no consensus about the n6:n3 ratio in humans. So, that right there settles it. Now, if you want SPECULATION, then yes, the link provides a lot of it - but keep in mind it's SPECULATION and speculation can go both ways. If there was any firm recommendation to be made, it would be made - and no nutritional authority, including the WHO cited in that link gives such a recommendation based on scientific studies; if you disagree, please provide the proof - the WHO recommends absolute amounts of EFA but not the ratio. So making the kind of strong statements that you made, replete with the "buddy" addressed to me (when I didn't even address the ratio question), is unwarranted, k?

Allrighty, then.

Next time, instead of copping an attitude, it's best to get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomb just beat me to the punch,  as I  was typing this (and formatting the damn tables--if you think there's a mistake, could be, check the original in the article):

On 5/8/2020 at 9:00 AM, dallas470 said:

The thing with nuts is that the fats contained are all omega-6

That is simply false.

Please look over at the following data (better yet, read the whole articles) and make particular note of MUFA levels ( eg oleic acid). A simple omega 6/omega 3 ratio completely ignores that key factor.

Health Benefits of Nut Consumption

 

Quote

Table 1. Average nutrient composition of nuts (per 100 g).

Nuts Energy (kJ)  Fat(g)   SFA (g)  MUFA(g)   PUFA(g)   LA(g)   ALA(g)   Protein(g)   Fiber(g)   Folate (μg)   PS(mg)

Almonds      2418   50.6    3.9         32.2            12.2         12.2     0.00         21.3            8.8              29                120

Brazil nuts    2743  66.4   15.1       24.5              20.6         20.5     0.05           14. 3         8.5             22                 NR

Cashews      2314  46.4    9.2         27.3              7.8           7.7       0.15            18.2         5.9              25               158

Hazelnuts    2629  60.8   4.5          45.7               7.9          7.8        0. 09           15.0      10.4            113                 96

Macadamia   3004  75.8   12.1        58.9                1.5          1.3        0.21              7.9         6.0             11               116

Peanuts      2220  49.2    6.8          24.4                15.6       15.6      0.00             25.8         8.5          145               220

Pecans       2889  72.0    6.2          40.8                 21.6       20.6     1.00              9.2           8.4            22               102

Pine nuts   2816   68.4    4.9         18.8                 34.1        33.2     0.16             13.7         3.7             34              141

Pistachios 2332  44.4     5.4         23.3                 13.5       13.2      0.25             20.6         9.0              51             214

Walnuts     2738  65.2    6.1          8.9                   47.2        38.1     9.08             15.2          6.4              98               72

SFA, saturated fatty acids;  MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids;  PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids;  LA, linoleic acid;   ALA, a-linolenic acid;  PS, plant
sterols;   NR, not reported

Nut Bioactives: Phytochemicals and Lipid-Based Components of Almonds, Hazelnuts, Peanuts, Pistachios, and Walnuts

Quote

Table 9.1 [abbreviated]

Fatty Acid Composition of Selected Nuts and Selected Oils as Percentage of Total Fat by Weigh

                                                                    Fatty Acid

                    Total Fat    14:0    16:0     18:0      18:1      18:2      18:3

                                                           % of total fat by wt

Nuts

Almonds       52.2          0.6       6.6        1.9        63.7       20.1       0.7

Hazelnuts     62.6          0.2       5.0        2.0        77.7        9.3        0.2

Peanuts        49.2          0.1      10.5       2.2        48.1       31.6       0.0

Pistachios    50.0           0.0       9.9        2.1        69.6       15.4       0.5

Walnuts       56.6           0.0       3.7        2.5        21.0       59.2       5.8

Mean           54.1           0.2       7.1         2.1       56.0       31.7       1.4

 

Oils

Olive           100            0.0     11.0       2.2         72.5        7.9         0.6

Canola        100            0.0      4.0        1.8         56.1       20.3         9.3

Safflower   100            0.0      4. 8       1.3         75.3       14.2         0.0

[14:0  myristic acid,  16:0 palmitic acid,  18:0 stearic acid,  18:1 oleic acid ,  18:2 linoleic acid,  18:3 α-linolenic acid]

 

I agree with you that the omega 6 to omega 3 ratio is  could be important, but the ideal ratio, if one exists, is not entirely clear.  In any case,   the whole  nutritional value of a food must be  considered, and put in the context of the  whole diet of an individual.

There's been a lot of discussion about nuts (and oils) in this forum which the search engine will easily bring up for you.
Here's an exchange between the renowned CR expert Michael Rae and our prodigious poster from Italy,  Mccoy:

Quote

 

On 2/17/2017 at 4:17 AM, mccoy said:

 

  Quote

And I would certainly not be increasing my intake of sunflower and/or pumpkin seeds, especailly if you're still planning to consume walnuts. Trying to "balance" excessive omega-6 with excessive omega-3 is a bad strategy: you want to get your RDA for both and not more, keeping them in balance within those constraints. See here and here. And, quoting again my previous post:

 

Now, and I just checked, my present 1-week cronometer average for omega6 is 18 grams (130% based on 14 g minimum), whereas average for omega3 is 2.5 grams (156% based on 1.6 g minimum). Hence, based on cronometer minima, an advised omega6/3 ratio would be about=9, whereas you suggest as low as 1/1 in previous posts. An ideal 1/1 ratio would entail that I consume 14 grams of omega3s, 9 times the minimum reccomended. Which you strongly disadvise.

What am I missing here?

 

I don't know ;)xyz. I'm surprised that your n6 isn't higher, based on what sounded like a lot of sunflower nuts and some walnuts and others, but in any case, my point is: your n6 is too high, and you are still proposing making up for excessive n6 with excessive n3; I am saying you should instead be bringing your n6 down.

We really don't know the ideal ratio, but the actual requirements (something less than 14 g for linoleic and less than 4 g for α-linoleic) are within the range of (squishily) recommended ratios of ≈4:1 to ≈1:1.

Also:

Quote

[Michael R:] I would avoid roasted peanuts because they're roasted oily protein: glycotoxins, peroxidized fats, etc. On the other hand, I wouldn't ignore them as part of your nut count if you're eating them: no, they aren't actually nuts, but they function just like them in the diet and are included in the "nuts" category in the epidemiology for which we're largely consuming them.

I would be careful Brazil nuts. As I noted earlier in this thread,  [selenium issue]

 

Quote

[Michael R:]pre-shelled, and as you know, walnuts are exceptionally prone to oxidation.

 

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×