What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Definitive Guide To Nuts (1 Viewer)

Jack White

Footballguy
By all means, let the jokes about ####, insane people and metal fasteners begin.

If, however, you're interested in health food, check out Mark Sisson's Definitive Guide To Nuts.

For each nut, he lists a description, nutritional values per ounce, benefits, concerns and soakability.

 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.

 
Sisson puts legumes in the "OK category."

I don't avoid them religiously (still enjoy organic peanut butter with apples and pears once or twice a week), but they're not a regular part of my diet, mainly owing to a poor protein to carb tradeoff.

Legumes offer nutritional benefits, but what they offer can be found in equal to greater amounts within other foods that have lower carb content.
 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.
LINK

 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.
LINK
Clever, but making a snide remark about people who choose to follow a lifestyle that you don't is not an argument at all.

 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.
LINK
Clever, but making a snide remark about people who choose to follow a lifestyle that you don't is not an argument at all.
You should start a newsletter.

 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.
LINK
Clever, but making a snide remark about people who choose to follow a lifestyle that you don't is not an argument at all.
Are people calling a diet a lifestyle now?

 
he doesn't mention peanuts!?
Not a nut.
Correct. The peanut is a legume, which is not considered among paleo/primal adherents to be healthy food.
And we all know there are mountains of evidence that what "paleo/primal adherents" believe is true.

Oh wait...
I'm sure you have mountains of evidence that the Standard American Diet and the USG's food pyramid is a better alternative.
LINK
Clever, but making a snide remark about people who choose to follow a lifestyle that you don't is not an argument at all.
Are people calling a diet a lifestyle now?
Apparently yes.

And a fad diet at that.

 
Of all Primal-approved food categories, none is more bedeviling to even seasoned followers of the lifestyle than nuts. The questions never end. What is a nut? When you’ve got all these nut-like gymnosperms, drupes, and legumes masquerading as nuts, what even qualifies as an actual nut? Does it even matter? Or phytic acid. Is it or isn’t it a problem? And soaking — am I supposed to soak every type of nut, just some nuts, or none of them? Aren’t nuts really high in omega-6s, which we’re supposedly trying to limit or at least balance with our omega-3 intake? How do we reconcile that conflict? Why is “hazelnut” one word, while “pine nut” is two?
First paragraph makes me want to punch anyone who bothers this much about food in the face.

 
Legumes are absolutely paleo.

"There is a large body of evidence that Homo sapiens and even Homo neanderthalensis consumed legumes regularly at a variety of archaeological sites, and we know that modern hunter-gatherers continue to consume wild legumes today. Legumes are frequently found at sites of Paleolithic human habitation, they're often cooked, and they're even present in dental plaque. Did humans harvest and cook legumes only to use them as mouthwash, or might they have swallowed these calorie-rich seeds? The evidence for wild legume consumption by humans is as strong as it is for any plant food consumed during the Paleolithic." -- Stephan Guyenet

The reason paleo gurus think legumes aren't paleo is because Loren Cordain said they aren't (based on evidence concerning grains, not legumes -- he just lumped them together inexplicably) and then all the other paleo gurus took his word for it without looking into the matter for themselves.

Fuller explanation in the attached doc.

166-468-1-PB.pdf

 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing more annoying than an obsessive Paleo are the strange angry detractors.
I'm not angry. But obsessive Paleo people are like any other group that gloms onto some idea and becomes fervent about it, despite a lack of factual basis for the idea.

It appears, by an large, that the Paleo diet is actually a pretty good one.

But it isn't the only way to eat healthy. And to the extent it is a healthy diet, it likely isn't for the reason that it claimed.

 
The only thing more annoying than an obsessive Paleo are the strange angry detractors.
I'm not angry. But obsessive Paleo people are like any other group that gloms onto some idea and becomes fervent about it, despite a lack of factual basis for the idea.

It appears, by an large, that the Paleo diet is actually a pretty good one.

But it isn't the only way to eat healthy. And to the extent it is a healthy diet, it likely isn't for the reason that it claimed.
I know for many people (myself included) in order to eat healthy it's an all or nothing proposition. Because of the availability of and marketing for unhealthy foods for many it takes a total commitment to a nutritional paradigm to make lasting change. Paleo has some tricks up its sleeve (mainly that strict adherence will almost always result in a caloric deficit while simultaneously keeping its adherent feeling full) that lend quick credibility to its main tenets. And it's also healthier to restrict processed foods, wheat-based carbs and sugars which do lead to energy regulation, insulin regulation etc. So while I agree that 1. Paleo isn't the only way to eat healthy and 2. Paleo provides quick results due primarily to a basic caloric deficit, for many people having a clear paradigm helps them stay on track.

TL;DR Say what you want about the tenants of Paleo, at least it's an ethos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing more annoying than an obsessive Paleo are the strange angry detractors.
I'm not angry. But obsessive Paleo people are like any other group that gloms onto some idea and becomes fervent about it, despite a lack of factual basis for the idea.

It appears, by an large, that the Paleo diet is actually a pretty good one.

But it isn't the only way to eat healthy. And to the extent it is a healthy diet, it likely isn't for the reason that it claimed.
I know for many people (myself included) in order to eat healthy it's an all or nothing proposition. Because of the availability of and marketing for unhealthy foods for many it takes a total commitment to a nutritional paradigm to make lasting change. Paleo has some tricks up its sleeve (mainly that strict adherence will almost always result in a caloric deficit while simultaneously keeping its adherent feeling full) that lend quick credibility to its main tenets. And it's also healthier to restrict processed foods, wheat-based carbs and sugars which do lead to energy regulation, insulin regulation etc.So while I agree that 1. Paleo isn't the only way to eat healthy and 2. Paleo provides quick results due primarily to a basic caloric deficit, for many people having a clear paradigm helps them stay on track.

TL;DR Say what you want about the tenants of Paleo, at least it's an ethos.
Clear paradigm.. did you read the link?

A graduate thesis to explain how nuts work in a paleo diet. Just nuts.

 
can we also use this thread to talk about how best to carry nuts around as a snack to eat on the go? eating nuts in public is one of my favorite things. myself, I have a little sack I use. I can post pictures if anyone wants to see.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top