Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Inflammation rating? Anybody? page

  1. #1
    Monika's Avatar
    Monika is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    91

    Inflammation rating? Anybody?

    Shop Now
    Hello All,

    On a recent post I had asked about Almond Milk, which lead to other things like Nuts overall are an inflammatory food. And then someone in another post had mentioned the nutrition data site...so I went to Nutrition Data.com and it was interesting (logging etc) and found list of "IF" (inflammation) foods and their ratings. And now I'm a little confused...Coconut items are listed as highly inflammatory? Nuts, almonds etc are considers low inflammatory foods? I have got to be reading this wrong...it's weird..any body care to set me straight please...I was told that nuts and nut butters were in fact high inflammatory foods and should be limited because of that (and calorie density)..

    Nutrition Data provides IF Ratings for most foods in its database. IF Ratings appear on Nutrition Facts pages.


    IF Positives
    This food contains known anti-inflammatory nutrients, including monounsaturated fat, selenium, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and folate.

    IF Negatives
    This food contains known inflammatory nutrients, including arachidonic acid and saturated fat.

    The IF Rating™ provides an estimate of this food's effect on inflammation.

    A negative IF Rating™ means that the food is considered to be inflammatory (i.e. increases inflammation), and a positive IF Rating™ indicates that the food is considered to be anti-inflammatory (i.e. reduces inflammation). There is no upper or lower limit for the IF Ratings, so you'll see a wide range of values reported.


    Read More Inflammation & IF Rating™ – NutritionData.com

    Coconut stuff is all in the negative? Cream, milk, butters...all coconut and negative?

    P.S. I don't know why it says "page" in the header of this post...

  2. #2
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,128
    The inflammation rating is just an estimate based on some stuff that the author of the rating system thought was important. As far as I know, it just breaks fats down into saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated and doesn't differentiate between omega-6 and omega-3. Since almonds are high in monounsaturated fats, they show up as anti-inflammatory and since coconut is high in saturated it shows as inflammatory. This is based on the flawed view that saturated fat is inflammatory and unhealthy. The reason why nuts are inflammatory is that they are high in omega-6 fats. Read more here: http://chriskresser.com/how-much-ome...nds-on-omega-6

    Also, nuts contain phytic acid, which binds to minerals: http://chriskresser.com/another-reas...o-nuts-on-nuts

  3. #3
    Monika's Avatar
    Monika is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by yodiewan View Post
    The inflammation rating is just an estimate based on some stuff that the author of the rating system thought was important. As far as I know, it just breaks fats down into saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated and doesn't differentiate between omega-6 and omega-3. Since almonds are high in monounsaturated fats, they show up as anti-inflammatory and since coconut is high in saturated it shows as inflammatory. This is based on the flawed view that saturated fat is inflammatory and unhealthy. The reason why nuts are inflammatory is that they are high in omega-6 fats. Read more here: http://chriskresser.com/how-much-ome...nds-on-omega-6

    Also, nuts contain phytic acid, which binds to minerals: http://chriskresser.com/another-reas...o-nuts-on-nuts
    Yodiewan~ Thank you for the response...I am off to read my way to a better understanding.

    Much appreciation to you.

  4. #4
    jjones's Avatar
    jjones is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    48
    @yodiewan - unless I'm misreading the initial post, the IF rating thing must be more nuanced than that since they quite clearly mentioned DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid) and arachidonic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid). Perhaps the weighting they give each of these is askew.

  5. #5
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,128
    @jjones: Yeah, I guess I missed that part. Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the bias against saturated fat is what gives many Primal foods a negative rating.

  6. #6
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,535
    It's not really accurate. It's based on conventional wisdom. Like everything CW, it can be a decent starting point, but it's definitely not the final word. Nuts IMO are pretty horrible for you - they're higher in omega 6, phytic acid and lectins than grains and legumes, more calorically dense than chocolate and highly addictive. I really don't see any redeeming qualities. So what if they have vitamins and minerals? So do grains, and we seem to say around here how much more nutritionally dense greens are than grains per calorie, so we should displace grains with greens. Why can't we apply the same logic to nuts? They're crap, IMO. The only reason to eat them is because they taste good and you crave some, but the same could be said about grains, legumes and sugar, too.

    Don't even get me started on the people around here that bake with nut meals and flours. You're going to take almond meal, which is loaded with omega 6, and heat it to 400 degrees? So you're going to take in 5 times more calories, 10 times more highly oxidized omega 6, more phytic acid and more lectins than if you used whole wheat flour? All for a product that tastes inferior? Where is the logic in this? Just give me the damn wheat cake!

    [End rant/]

    That felt better!
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 09-26-2011 at 01:46 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #7
    Monika's Avatar
    Monika is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    It's not really accurate. It's based on conventional wisdom. Like everything CW, it can be a decent starting point, but it's definitely not the final word. Nuts IMO are pretty horrible for you - they're higher in omega 6, phytic acid and lectins than grains and legumes, more calorically dense than chocolate and highly addictive. I really don't see any redeeming qualities. So what if they have vitamins and minerals? So do grains, and we seem to say around here how much more nutritionally dense greens are than grains per calorie, so we should displace grains with greens. Why can't we apply the same logic to nuts? They're crap, IMO. The only reason to eat them is because they taste good and you crave some, but the same could be said about grains, legumes and sugar, too.

    Don't even get me started on the people around here that bake with nut meals and flours. You're going to take almond meal, which is loaded with omega 6, and heat it to 400 degrees? So you're going to take in 5 times more calories, 10 times more highly oxidized omega 6, more phytic acid and more lectins than if you used whole wheat flour? All for a product that tastes inferior? Where is the logic in this? Just give me the damn wheat cake!

    [End rant/]

    That felt better!
    @ ChocoTaco...I'm so glad you feel better.
    And I'm so glad this all makes sense now...thank you...I have done my reading and my "listening"...and I appreciate the responses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •