64 replies to this topic

[Eruditus]

1. Organ meats

2. Fats. i.e. coconut milk/butter

3. Dark green leafy/cruciferous vegetables

4. Fatty fish (if not able to afford grass fed meats)

5. Fruits

 

This would be my personal top five pick

 

[misterE]

1. Sweet Potato

2. Spinach

3. Kale

4. Flaxseed

5. Barley

 

(6) Garlic

[misterE]

 

But a lot of starchy, grainy foods consist of empty calories. Why is that optimal? 

 

 

Because these are perfect fuels for the body.
 

[misterE]

I also think people eat too many nuts, which increases their overall calories, fat and omega-6 fats. Almonds and peanuts, for example, have some of the highest omega-6 to omega-3 ratios. Whearas a diet based on starch and vegetables has a ratio of 4 to 1.

Edited by misterE, 09 June 2014 - 03:23 AM.

[TheFountain]

I think a little Omega 6 is fine. But the SAD provides way too much. I think the practical upper limit is like 20 grams a day. 

[Gerrans]

I also think people eat too many nuts, which increases their overall calories, fat and omega-6 fats. Almonds and peanuts, for example, have some of the highest omega-6 to omega-3 ratios. Whearas a diet based on starch and vegetables has a ratio of 4 to 1.

 

Not all the calories in nuts count, though. Lots of research shows that adding nuts to a diet does not produce the expected gain in weight. Many explanations for this have been advanced; but I think it remains an enigma.

 

While it is only too easy to overeat salted nuts, I doubt the same can be said of raw nuts. I eat nuts every day, but there is a limit to how many I can eat. Nut consumption--in my case at least--seems self-limiting.

 

I have come to the conclusion the O-6 : O-3 ratio in nuts is irrelevant, since I cannot find evidence that nuts are associated with increased mortality risk--in fact, the contrary.

 

Nuts fascinate me ... the most mysterious food of all.

Edited by Gerrans, 09 June 2014 - 02:53 PM.

[Darryl]

Nuts are perhaps less of a mystery once one considers how many are consuming magnesium deficient diets (link to a prior post). I strongly suspect, given how well nut consumption benefits accord with those of dietary Mg (in both observational epidemiology and dietary/supplement trials), that the major part of nut benefits is simply resolving subclinical magnesium deficiencies in about half the population. Plus some benefits of fiber, and of phytosterols and E/mixed tocopherols (though these are perhaps adequate in regular vegetable oil consumers).

 

A trial of nuts vs. wheat germ (which are remarkably similar in micronutrient profile, but lower in fat) might help resolve whether there's anything mysterious about nut fats or nuts themselves. It'll never be funded. I can keep shelled raw nuts in the house, but cocktail nuts destroy any hope of dieting. On the other hand, I can measure out the wheat germ in the morning smoothie without going overboard.

[APBT]

Good post, Darryl. Nutrient density is important, but one does not want everything one eats to be nutrient dense. Nutrients require dilutants.

 

Incidentally, even short-chain fatty acids do not get off scot free:

 

In conclusion, we found that higher intakes of SMSFAs and SMSFA-rich foods were associated with shorter peripheral leukocyte TL among postmenopausal women. These findings suggest the potential roles of SMSFAs in the rate of biological aging.

 

 

A couple of observations about the aforementioned study, post #17.

First, it was based on questionnaire, which isn't necessary bad, particularly in the context of other methodology.  But, people are notorious for inaccurately recalling and reporting what they ate, when and in what quantity.

Second, it was based on post-menopausal females.  How does this extrapolate to anyone not in that category?

Third, small to medium chain saturated fatty acid consumption was evaluated (whole milk, butter, whole milk cheese).  Darryl was referring to plant-based short-chain fatty acids in his post #16.

Interestingly, lauric acid (food source - coconut oil) was not inversely associated with telomere length. 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/23616516#

No significant associations were found with long-chain saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids.

[Gerrans]

I am sure you are right, APBT, but I just mentioned that paper in the spirit of Darryl's view that you can dredge up evidence against most supposedly beneficial nutrients. (Darryl seems so well informed that I imagine a whole wall of his house covered in scientific papers, like a crime investigation, while he paces up and down scratching his chin. I just wanted to help fill in one of the only blank spots.)

 

Edited by Gerrans, 10 June 2014 - 12:08 PM.

[Gerrans]

Nuts are perhaps less of a mystery once one considers how many are consuming magnesium deficient diets (link to a prior post). I strongly suspect, given how well nut consumption benefits accord with those of dietary Mg (in both observational epidemiology and dietary/supplement trials), that the major part of nut benefits is simply resolving subclinical magnesium deficiencies in about half the population. Plus some benefits of fiber, and of phytosterols and E/mixed tocopherols (though these are perhaps adequate in regular vegetable oil consumers).

 

A trial of nuts vs. wheat germ (which are remarkably similar in micronutrient profile, but lower in fat) might help resolve whether there's anything mysterious about nut fats or nuts themselves. It'll never be funded. I can keep shelled raw nuts in the house, but cocktail nuts destroy any hope of dieting. On the other hand, I can measure out the wheat germ in the morning smoothie without going overboard.

 

I am never quite sure what the definition of a nut is. For my amateurish purposes, I think of nuts and seeds in the same category.

 

*

 

I once carried out a slightly nauseating series of experiments on myself in which I ate my whole daily calories in the form of one fat or another. I had hoped to find out which were the most fattening. In fact they all had a very similar effect (butter, lard, olive oil, coconut oil, etc.), and all made me lose weight. The two that lost me the most weight were virgin peanut oil and virgin walnut oil. I lost my fear of the fats in nuts after that.

[Eruditus]

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

IMO fats beat carbs any day depending on your nutritional type. But if you want to use plant fats like raw nuts then try using traditional methods to reduce phytate like soaking in salt water for 24 hours and then roasting them. This method will still not completely eliminate phytate but will at least make nuts somewhat more nutritious. 

 

EDIT: apparently magnesium and calcium absorption is only limited to a lesser extent by phytate so it's not quite as bad as I thought. But I still wouldn't combine a handfull of nuts with my main meals of the day nor would I have more then one handfull per day.

Edited by Eruditus, 11 June 2014 - 12:45 PM.

[Gerrans]

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

IMO fats beat carbs any day depending on your nutritional type. But if you want to use plant fats like raw nuts then try using traditional methods to reduce phytate like soaking in salt water for 24 hours and then roasting them. This method will still not completely eliminate phytate but will at least make nuts somewhat more nutritious. 

 

EDIT: apparently magnesium and calcium absorption is only limited to a lesser extent by phytate so it's not quite as bad as I thought. But I still wouldn't combine a handfull of nuts with my main meals of the day nor would I have more then one handfull per day.

 

I take exactly the opposite view to you. I regard phytate as good for me, and so I am happy to eat it. If it stops me absorbing too much of particular minerals, all the better. If there are people in western societies with mineral deficiencies, it will not be from eating nuts. It is normal for a fraction of nuts to resist digestion, whether you can see them in the stool or not: this has been documented. This should be a good thing if it spares us consumption of superfluous calories or fats. Also the phytate absorption and the non-absorption of nut particles are mutually exclusive, in the sense that the phytates in an undigested nut particle will not be absorbed.

 

Having said this, I would not eat 100g of nuts a day. I eat 50g, which is plenty.

 

[Gerrans]

 

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

IMO fats beat carbs any day depending on your nutritional type. But if you want to use plant fats like raw nuts then try using traditional methods to reduce phytate like soaking in salt water for 24 hours and then roasting them. This method will still not completely eliminate phytate but will at least make nuts somewhat more nutritious. 

 

EDIT: apparently magnesium and calcium absorption is only limited to a lesser extent by phytate so it's not quite as bad as I thought. But I still wouldn't combine a handfull of nuts with my main meals of the day nor would I have more then one handfull per day.

 

 

 

I take the opposite view to you. I regard phytate as good for me, and so I am happy to eat it. If it stops me absorbing too much of particular minerals, all the better. (Fibre is regulatory--it is no bad thing if it binds out unwanted excesses of nutrients.) If there are people in western societies with mineral deficiencies, it will not be from eating nuts, I am sure. It is normal for a fraction of nuts to resist digestion, whether the particles are big enough to see in the stool or not--this has been documented. That is a bonus if it spares us absorption of superfluous calories or fats. Anyway, the phytate absorption and the nut-particle non-absorption are mutually exclusive, in the sense that phytates in an undigested nut particle have no effect.

 

As for the O3:O6 ratio, I have never seen a jot of evidence that the polyunsaturates in nuts are bad for us, whatever their ratio. Nuts contain compounds that counteract oxidative potential, or they would not be able to last on the ground before germinating.

 

Having said this, I would not eat 100g of nuts a day. I eat 50g, which is plenty. All the same, I do not see why eating excess nuts would lead to ever-increasing mineral deficiencies, because phytates do not act in a disproportionate manner. (Phytates or not, one absorbs more minerals from two ounces of nuts than from one.)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gerrans, 11 June 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[Gerrans]

You make a good point about eating nuts separately from meals (or mineral supplements) if you want to get round nutrient loss from binding with phytate. I eat my nuts as a snack at work. Unless I am imagining it, they help me think and concentrate.

 

Edited by Gerrans, 11 June 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[Darryl]

Phytates have more complicated effects than once thought, a recurring theme for many plant compounds. Think of the turnabouts on isothiocyanates, polyamines, or oligofructans in the past two decades. 

 

Phytates appear protective against cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney stones, HIV-1.  A good though slightly dated review:

 

Kumar, V., Sinha, A. K., Makkar, H. P., & Becker, K. (2010). Dietary roles of phytate and phytase in human nutrition: A review. Food Chemistry, 120(4), 945-959.

 

Suprisingly (given phytate's mineral chelation), osteoporosis can now be added to this list: 

 

López-González, A. A., Grases, F., Roca, P., Mari, B., Vicente-Herrero, M. T., & Costa-Bauzá, A. (2008). Phytate (myo-inositol hexaphosphate) and risk factors for osteoporosis. Journal of medicinal food, 11(4), 747-752.

del Mar Arriero, M., Ramis, J. M., Perelló, J., & Monjo, M. (2012). Inositol hexakisphosphate inhibits osteoclastogenesis on RAW 264.7 cells and human primary osteoclasts. PloS one, 7(8), e43187.

López-González, Á. A., Grases, F., Monroy, N., Marí, B., Vicente-Herrero, M. T., Tur, F., & Perelló, J. (2013). Protective effect of myo-inositol hexaphosphate (phytate) on bone mass loss in postmenopausal women. European journal of nutrition, 52(2), 717-726.

Freixedas, Felix Grases, et al. "Use of phytate as agent inhibiting dissolution of crystals of calcium salts for the prevention of osteoporosis." U.S. Patent No. 8,377,909. 19 Feb. 2013.

Edited by Darryl, 11 June 2014 - 07:12 PM.

[Gerrans]

Phytates appear protective against cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney stones, HIV-1.  A good though slightly dated review:

 

Kumar, V., Sinha, A. K., Makkar, H. P., & Becker, K. (2010). Dietary roles of phytate and phytase in human nutrition: A review. Food Chemistry, 120(4), 945-959.

 

Suprisingly (given phytate's mineral chelation), osteoporosis can now be added to this list: 

 

 

It is one thing to measure absorption of minerals in the presence of phytate in the small intestine, but I do not think the whole picture is shown by that method, which has led some nutritionists and gurus astray.  Because often the phytate releases more minerals in the lower bowel, once the fibre within which it is embedded ferments. In my opinion, this is not random. I believe phytate binds a proportion of minerals in order to escort them through to the lower bowel. It is the way our digestive system is intended to work, I suspect, because, after all, we have co-evolved with edible plants that contain phytates. We absorb a proportion of calcium this way.

Edited by Gerrans, 11 June 2014 - 09:43 PM.

[timar]

If I really had to choose 5 foods I had to nourish myself on exclusively I would put my bet on:

 

1. Oats - providing carbohydrates, B vitamins, β-glucans

2. Flax Seed - providing essential fatty acids, vitamin E, lignans

3. Cale - providing vitamins A and K, carotenoids

4. Apples - providing vitamin C, flavonoids, pectins

5. Yogurt - providing protein, calcium, B12

 

I was curious if these five foods alone could really form a nutritionally adequate diet (I had my doubts if any five foods can) so I quickly put them into the SELF Nutrition Data Tool and was pleasantly surprised to see that it is quite possible to have an almost adequate diet with a combination of these foods at 1800 kcal*. The only nutrients somewhat lacking** are niacin and pantothenic acid, so a cup of coffee would be nice as a 6th item to make up for those

 

*  TotalConsumptionReport.zip   1.99KB   10 downloads - contains a CVS table

 

**Vitamin E is only lacking because the USDA database doesn't account non alpha-tocopherol forms of vitamin E. B12 is only lacking because of the sterile conditions under which milk is produced today...

Edited by timar, 11 June 2014 - 09:49 PM.

[timar]

1. Organ meats

 

I hope you enjoy the retinol intoxication and the iron and copper overload you'll get from that
 

[Gerrans]

If I really had to choose 5 foods I had to nourish myself on exclusively I would put my bet on:

 

1. Oats - providing carbohydrates, B vitamins, β-glucans

2. Flax Seed - providing essential fatty acids, vitamin E, lignans

3. Cale - providing vitamins A and K, carotenoids

4. Apples - providing vitamin C, flavonoids, pectins

5. Yogurt - providing protein, calcium, B12

 

I was curious if these five foods alone could really form a nutritionally adequate diet (I had my doubts if any five foods can) so I quickly put them into the SELF Nutrition Data Tool and was pleasantly surprised to see that it is quite possible to have an almost adequate diet with a combination of these foods at 1800 kcal*. The only nutrients somewhat lacking** are niacin and pantothenic acid, so a cup of coffee would be nice as a 6th item to make up for those

 

*TotalConsumptionReport.zip - contains a CVS table

 

**Vitamin E is only lacking because the USDA database doesn't account non alpha-tocopherol forms of vitamin E. B12 is only lacking because of the sterile conditions under which milk is produced today...

 

You have left out the big question: could I sit down and eat these five every day? I mean, what would you eat the kale with? (Other than a shovel?)
 

[timar]

You have left out the big question: could I sit down and eat these five every day? I mean, what would you eat the kale with? (Other than a shovel?)
 

 

Probably not, nor would I advice anyone to do so. I just took it as one of those "deserted island questions"...

 

Yet this list comes probably pretty close to the diet simple Northern European farmers essentially sustained on for centuries, long before potatoes and other fancy foodstuff arrived from the New World: Porridge made out of oats, sourdough bread, stews made out of kale, turnips and onions and only occasionally some meat, seed of flax and hemp (which were grown to produce cloth), seasonal fruits and herbs and milk in all its varieties.
 

Edited by timar, 11 June 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[timar]

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

What do you define as "excess nut consumption"? Anyway, the actual evidence refutes such highly speculative arguments. In the epidemiological literature, nut consumption is consistently and dose-dependently (remarkably linearly, actuallly) associated with health benefits.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

OK, 100 g really seems a bit excessive. You can always have too much of a good thing. But you should really forget that Paleo folklore about phytates. There is no evidence at all that phytates do any harm as long as you eat a somewhat varied diet (which should include more than 5 foods of course). In fact, they may have very beneficial effects, as Darryl and Gerrans have mentioned.

 

[TheFountain]

 

 

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

IMO fats beat carbs any day depending on your nutritional type. But if you want to use plant fats like raw nuts then try using traditional methods to reduce phytate like soaking in salt water for 24 hours and then roasting them. This method will still not completely eliminate phytate but will at least make nuts somewhat more nutritious. 

 

EDIT: apparently magnesium and calcium absorption is only limited to a lesser extent by phytate so it's not quite as bad as I thought. But I still wouldn't combine a handfull of nuts with my main meals of the day nor would I have more then one handfull per day.

 

 

 

I take the opposite view to you. I regard phytate as good for me, and so I am happy to eat it. If it stops me absorbing too much of particular minerals, all the better. (Fibre is regulatory--it is no bad thing if it binds out unwanted excesses of nutrients.) If there are people in western societies with mineral deficiencies, it will not be from eating nuts, I am sure. It is normal for a fraction of nuts to resist digestion, whether the particles are big enough to see in the stool or not--this has been documented. That is a bonus if it spares us absorption of superfluous calories or fats. Anyway, the phytate absorption and the nut-particle non-absorption are mutually exclusive, in the sense that phytates in an undigested nut particle have no effect.

 

As for the O3:O6 ratio, I have never seen a jot of evidence that the polyunsaturates in nuts are bad for us, whatever their ratio. Nuts contain compounds that counteract oxidative potential, or they would not be able to last on the ground before germinating.

 

Having said this, I would not eat 100g of nuts a day. I eat 50g, which is plenty. All the same, I do not see why eating excess nuts would lead to ever-increasing mineral deficiencies, because phytates do not act in a disproportionate manner. (Phytates or not, one absorbs more minerals from two ounces of nuts than from one.)

 

 

 

 

 

Plus if you're eating roasted nuts as opposed to raw nuts that pretty much eliminates most of the phytate concerns anyway. 

[TheFountain]

If I really had to choose 5 foods I had to nourish myself on exclusively I would put my bet on:

 

1. Oats - providing carbohydrates, B vitamins, β-glucans

2. Flax Seed - providing essential fatty acids, vitamin E, lignans

3. Cale - providing vitamins A and K, carotenoids

4. Apples - providing vitamin C, flavonoids, pectins

5. Yogurt - providing protein, calcium, B12

 

I was curious if these five foods alone could really form a nutritionally adequate diet (I had my doubts if any five foods can) so I quickly put them into the SELF Nutrition Data Tool and was pleasantly surprised to see that it is quite possible to have an almost adequate diet with a combination of these foods at 1800 kcal*. The only nutrients somewhat lacking** are niacin and pantothenic acid, so a cup of coffee would be nice as a 6th item to make up for those

 

*TotalConsumptionReport.zip - contains a CVS table

 

**Vitamin E is only lacking because the USDA database doesn't account non alpha-tocopherol forms of vitamin E. B12 is only lacking because of the sterile conditions under which milk is produced today...

 

Perhaps breaking it down to food groups makes it less complicated.

 

For example

 

1-Vegetables (I.E salads consisting of a diverse and colorful array of vegetables).

 

2-Meats. This can mean anything from steak to tipalia. 

 

3-Anti-oxidant foods. Berries, cocoa, Tea? (See what I mean?)

 

4-Maybe dairy? Not sure. 

 

5-I suppose nuts can be placed here. 

 

This would seem to fill most nutritional requirements without getting too extraneous with the nut butters and the oils (besides cooking). 

[Eruditus]

 

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

What do you define as "excess nut consumption"? Anyway, the actual evidence refutes such highly speculative arguments. In the epidemiological literature, nut consumption is consistently and dose-dependently (remarkably linearly, actuallly) associated with health benefits.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

OK, 100 g really seems a bit excessive. You can always have too much of a good thing. But you should really forget that Paleo folklore about phytates. There is no evidence at all that phytates do any harm as long as you eat a somewhat varied diet (which should include more than 5 foods of course). In fact, they may have very beneficial effects, as Darryl and Gerrans have mentioned.

 

 

 

I would personally rather eat a whole bar of dark chocolate for tastier health benefits and limit my nut consumption to macadamias for the lower amounts of PUFAS; but if one limits their nut consumption to one or two ounces a day nobody should be running into any of the issues I had. Problem for me was that one ounce barely counts as an appetizer and so I had much more. I wasn't bashing on nuts with my earlier post, yet merely attempting to point out possible issues with relying too much on nuts as the largest source of one daily calories. 

[TheFountain]

 

 

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

What do you define as "excess nut consumption"? Anyway, the actual evidence refutes such highly speculative arguments. In the epidemiological literature, nut consumption is consistently and dose-dependently (remarkably linearly, actuallly) associated with health benefits.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

OK, 100 g really seems a bit excessive. You can always have too much of a good thing. But you should really forget that Paleo folklore about phytates. There is no evidence at all that phytates do any harm as long as you eat a somewhat varied diet (which should include more than 5 foods of course). In fact, they may have very beneficial effects, as Darryl and Gerrans have mentioned.

 

 

 

I would personally rather eat a whole bar of dark chocolate for tastier health benefits and limit my nut consumption to macadamias for the lower amounts of PUFAS; but if one limits their nut consumption to one or two ounces a day nobody should be running into any of the issues I had. Problem for me was that one ounce barely counts as an appetizer and so I had much more. I wasn't bashing on nuts with my earlier post, yet merely attempting to point out possible issues with relying too much on nuts as the largest source of one daily calories. 

 

 

Who does that though? Who relies on nuts for the majority of their daily calories? Chimpanzees? 

[Chupo]

The majority of my calories come from nuts.  

[sthira]

And the majority of my calories come from nuts and olive oil.

[Eruditus]

 

1. Organ meats

 

I hope you enjoy the retinol intoxication and the iron and copper overload you'll get from that

 

So in your opinion everyone consuming even the slightest amounts of organ meats will run into these problems? That seems highly presumptuous; furthermore did I write I ate only the liver and kidneys? I actually eat brains, tongues, hearts and whatever else takes my fancy.

 

The reason I put organ meats number one is not because I eat them daily, but because eating them twice weekly provides way more nutrients then several plates of most vegetables/fruits put together.

[Eruditus]

 

 

 

Excess nut consumption will lead to two eventual problems. One being the disproportional ratio of omega 6 : 3. Two being high amounts of phytate eventually leading to ever increasing mineral deficiencies.

 

What do you define as "excess nut consumption"? Anyway, the actual evidence refutes such highly speculative arguments. In the epidemiological literature, nut consumption is consistently and dose-dependently (remarkably linearly, actuallly) associated with health benefits.

 

Anti nutrients like phytate and phytic acid are stored in many plant foods like grains, seeds and nuts as a defense mechanism to prevent the minerals contained from being released from its storage form untill growing conditions are ideal. This means that even though the nutritional value for iron/magnesium/zinc of nuts may be decent, yet only a marginal portion will be absorbed. Adding in phytate rich foods with mineral rich foods that do not contain any phytate also results in a reduced absorption of the other mineral dense foods by up to 90% depending on howmuch phytate. So Don't Go Nuts on Nuts. You know you've eaten too many nuts in a day when they start coming out the other end in undigested chunks; this happened to me when I decided nuts contained healthy fats and I was going to add in 100g nuts every day.

 

OK, 100 g really seems a bit excessive. You can always have too much of a good thing. But you should really forget that Paleo folklore about phytates. There is no evidence at all that phytates do any harm as long as you eat a somewhat varied diet (which should include more than 5 foods of course). In fact, they may have very beneficial effects, as Darryl and Gerrans have mentioned.

 

 

 

I would personally rather eat a whole bar of dark chocolate for tastier health benefits and limit my nut consumption to macadamias for the lower amounts of PUFAS; but if one limits their nut consumption to one or two ounces a day nobody should be running into any of the issues I had. Problem for me was that one ounce barely counts as an appetizer and so I had much more. I wasn't bashing on nuts with my earlier post, yet merely attempting to point out possible issues with relying too much on nuts as the largest source of one daily calories. 

 

 

Who does that though? Who relies on nuts for the majority of their daily calories? Chimpanzees? 

 

Why so derogatory? Did I not  make apparent that I too have by now realized that it was a mistake to overconsume nuts. If you feel the need to insult me based on me admitting I made dietary errors in the past then that really says more about how you attempt to ascertain superiority then  it does about my stupidity.

[timar]

 

If I really had to choose 5 foods I had to nourish myself on exclusively I would put my bet on:

 

1. Oats - providing carbohydrates, B vitamins, β-glucans

2. Flax Seed - providing essential fatty acids, vitamin E, lignans

3. Cale - providing vitamins A and K, carotenoids

4. Apples - providing vitamin C, flavonoids, pectins

5. Yogurt - providing protein, calcium, B12

 

I was curious if these five foods alone could really form a nutritionally adequate diet (I had my doubts if any five foods can) so I quickly put them into the SELF Nutrition Data Tool and was pleasantly surprised to see that it is quite possible to have an almost adequate diet with a combination of these foods at 1800 kcal*. The only nutrients somewhat lacking** are niacin and pantothenic acid, so a cup of coffee would be nice as a 6th item to make up for those

 

*TotalConsumptionReport.zip - contains a CVS table

 

**Vitamin E is only lacking because the USDA database doesn't account non alpha-tocopherol forms of vitamin E. B12 is only lacking because of the sterile conditions under which milk is produced today...

 

Perhaps breaking it down to food groups makes it less complicated.

 

For example

 

1-Vegetables (I.E salads consisting of a diverse and colorful array of vegetables).

 

2-Meats. This can mean anything from steak to tipalia. 

 

3-Anti-oxidant foods. Berries, cocoa, Tea? (See what I mean?)

 

4-Maybe dairy? Not sure. 

 

5-I suppose nuts can be placed here. 

 

This would seem to fill most nutritional requirements without getting too extraneous with the nut butters and the oils (besides cooking). 

 

 

I think you took that question way too seriously (and so did the one who downvoted my post above - either a paleo or a vegan true believer, I suppose, offended by not including meat/including milk...). I thought of it as fun idea to see if you could actually devise a nutritionally adequate diet including just five foods and was surprised to see that with the foods I came up with it is (almost) possible (although I chose them very carefully for their overall nutritional value). I would never suggest to actually restrict your diet to those five foods! Why on earth would anyone do that by choice?

 

 

 

 

1. Organ meats

 

I hope you enjoy the retinol intoxication and the iron and copper overload you'll get from that

 

So in your opinion everyone consuming even the slightest amounts of organ meats will run into these problems? That seems highly presumptuous; furthermore did I write I ate only the liver and kidneys? I actually eat brains, tongues, hearts and whatever else takes my fancy.

 

The reason I put organ meats number one is not because I eat them daily, but because eating them twice weekly provides way more nutrients then several plates of most vegetables/fruits put together.

 

 

Well, listing organ meat as the #1 of five foods to sustain yourself on exclusively does actually suggest to eat substantial amounts of it, doesn't it? Nothing against organ meat in general - I eat some liver from organically raised animals occasionally (I wouldn't eat brain by any means though, as it is not worth the minor risk of dying driveling with your own brain rotten away from bovine spongiform encephalopathy). I think in small amounts it can make a valuable supplement to the diet, but it is certainly not a dietary staple, or even an essential contribution to a healthy diet. That's just nonesense. You can eat a perfectly healthy vegetarian (or even vegan) diet without any kind of meat.

 

Hmm. Maybe I should repeat that so that everyone gets it: You can eat a perfectly healthy vegetarian (or even vegan) diet without any kind of meat. Well, it's easier with a vegetarian or flexitarian diet including some fermented milk at least, or even better, some fish and maybe small amounts of meat (Mediterranean diet, anyone?). As a vegan you have to be more thoughtful regarding certain nutrients and depend at least on a B12 supplement. Anyway, to suggest that meat is an indispensable part of a healthy diet runs contrary to pretty much all the evidence there is...

 

OK, I'm ready for the paleo downvotes now

Edited by timar, 14 June 2014 - 03:32 PM.