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!
That felt better!
Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 09-26-2011 at 02:46 PM.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.