Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confused on nuts book vs recent post by mark

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • confused on nuts book vs recent post by mark



    the book says nuts and seeds should be consumed liberally walnuts being high in omega 3's,(page 125) but the recent post seemed to says opposite regarding nuts that they are high in omega 6

    and should be consumed rarely.

    so was there new information?

    im confused...


  • #2
    1



    I don't think the book ever says consume them liberally. They should not be the bulk of your diet anyway. I consider them a snack and you shouldn't even feel the need to snack if you're "doing it right." Just sayin'!

    Comment


    • #3
      1



      i picked up on that too stryker, i put it down to confusion about ratio order, sometimes its written as (3)6) and sometimes the opposite... ?


      I think the latest is just go with macadamias...

      Comment


      • #4
        1



        It's my understanding that walnuts are among the highest in omega 6's.


        For myself, I eat a small hand full (about 15) of macadamias (the highest in omega 3's and fat) before I go to the gym - if you are going to eat nuts, I wouldn't suggest consuming them liberally - especially if you are on a weight loss path of any kind.


        In fact, macadamia nut oil is one of the top 3 best oils to consume. Unrefined virgin coconut & extra virgin olive oil are the other two!

        ZC - 100% Carnivore

        I EAT VEGANS

        Comment


        • #5
          1



          Actually, the book does use the word "liberally": "Nuts and seeds and their derivative butter products are filling and nutritious and may be consumed liberally in place of high-carbohydrate snacks" (p125). Obviously not in the case of trying to lose weight, and, as mentioned in the recent "Nuts and Omega-6s" post referred to, that shouldn't be taken to mean nuts should constitute the bulk of your diet or even eaten continually throughout the year for that matter.


          And yes, that same "Nuts" post indicated that walnuts were the highest in O6's among the nuts, but I thought the main point of the post was to not worry about it, as opposed to stay away from walnuts... As to walnuts, they are also one of the highest sources of O3s (up there with flaxseed): "Walnuts are known for their high omega-3 levels." (p126)


          And lastly, "Walnuts offer the best Primal health value; almonds, macadamias, pecans, and nut butters (except peanut) are great, too." (p127)


          Okay, that really wasn't quite "lastly"... :-) If I'm understanding correctly, it's the O6:O3 ratios that are most important, and if I'm reading the nutritional charts and doing my math correctly, walnuts have about a 4:1 ratio vs macadamia's 6:1 (hence maybe the "best Primal health value" of walnuts?).


          I'm definitely not slamming macadamia nuts here, and I've just recently started to have a few of these AND walnuts occasionally, I just don't think it's accurate to say the macadamias are a "better" choice (at least not in accordance with PB guidance). And also to quote the "Nut" post: "Making sure you ask the waiter to cook your omelet in butter rather than vegetable oil is worth the trouble; stressing over the Omega-6 content of the twenty walnuts in front of you is decidedly not."

          Comment


          • #6
            1



            schadowrider,

            thank you, those were all the points I had found in the book that has me confused. But I did not take the time to transfer them to the post. My morning snack, not really a breakfast has been one or two handfulls of walnuts and berries of some sort..

            When i read they were high in omega 3 and i love them it was easy to add them in to the morning routine.

            Comment

            Working...
            X