Nuts-really!

deoxy4

Paleo experts condemn wheat with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition. I agree it is a food that is void of nutrient content, contains toxins like phytic acid, blocks mineral absorption, is inflammatory and causes insulin spikes. Well deserved!

Most Paleo experts recommend the consumption an ounce of nuts daily if the individual is not trying to loose weight as they are calorie dense. Nuts were eaten in the Paleo era. After reviewing the micro-nutrient content of most nuts I don't find them to be all that impressive. Most nuts contain the highest phytic acid content of any foods on the planet. After reviewing their omega-3 to omega-6 ratios I am not impressed. It also appears to be a food contaminated with toxins. Just because foods were eaten during the Paleo period does not mean it is a healthy food to eat. I may eat a nut here and there in the future but it is not a food that I am going to make a staple.

Dragonwolf

Um...okay.... Was there supposed to be a question or conversation starter in there somewhere?

Paleo isn't just about "what early humans ate." That concept is only the springboard from which to focus our efforts on further study.

As for nuts, yes, we've eaten them our entire history, but like things like fruit and other plant material, for a lot of our population, nuts were only available seasonally. We'd get a few ounces' worth in a year's span, not daily, year-round.

The Paleo experts generally acknowledge the, and also acknowledge that they're generally high in Omega-6, often to the absence of Omega-3 entirely. This is why when nuts are mentioned, macadamias, Brazil nuts, and walnuts are the recommended ones to be consumed if one wants with any regularity, and why the recommendation is to limit them to about a handful a day.

Akimajuktuq

Yup, RAW nuts are a sometimes food for me. And I don't think the high omega 6 is any issue when the diet already contains adequate omega 3. The time when omega 6 from nuts is an issue is when that are adding to a diet already crazy high in omega 6 such as the Standard American Diet is. So the best way to address that is keep the nuts and dump SAD imo.

Some people sprout the nuts to make them more digestible. I have no problem with them as long as I keep them a sometimes food.

Also, nuts have essential micro-nutrients that make them well worth consuming from time to time. Not everything is just about omega 6/3 ratios.

deoxy4

Cordain is considered to be a leader in the Paleo community and is on record in his recommendation of daily consumption of nuts. I find he is more dogmatic in his approach of defending what early humans ate to the point of ignoring current science at times. Below is his take on nuts.

http://thepaleodiet.com/nut-fatty-acid-composition/

He slams peanuts in the article (not a nut but a legume) and grains (in other articles) for their anti-nutritive content but ignores the anti-nutrients in nuts. Search "walnuts, brazil nuts, phytic acid, mycotoxins". I think you will be very surprised. Brazil nuts, almonds, walnuts have orders of magnitude higher levels of phytic acid than grains. When you consider the mycotoxin load and unfavorable omega 6: omega 3 ratio-I will pass.

Kresser seems to have a better knowledge of nuts and has written about it, If you care to search.

I agree with the Paleo concept over a SAD diet. I just don't place nuts as a super food that many do. They look pretty similar to wheat to me-allergy potential, high phytic acid content, mycotoxin contamination.

Akimajuktuq

I see Dr. Cordain as a pioneer of Paleo, not leader. Mostly due to his initial anti-fat stance. I understand his reasoning for it but that kept me away from Paleo an extra 3 or 4 years unfortunately.

Nope, I don't think of nuts as a super food, just a sometimes food. When we consumed them historically it was probably very rarely and seasonal. It still comes down to: some can tolerate them, others do not, do what works for YOU.

My approach is generally to do a ton of research, contemplate what I've learned, try different things, and then form my own opinion based on the research AND personal experience. I don't take any one's opinion on anything as the only truth; certainly not Dr. Cordain either.

deoxy4

I totally agree with your last paragraph. RESEARCH and N=1 experience.

My issue is that every Paleo "expert" includes nuts as a "recommended" food. It is generally accepted as a healthy food in the Paleo community. I ate an ounce of almonds daily. My research tells me, N=1, otherwise.

Dragonwolf

Key word there is a. A leader, not the leader. I agree with Akima, though. Cordain's a pioneer less so than a leader.

Additionally, your link only talks about the fat content. Additionally, he says nothing about them being superfoods. In fact, he specifically mentions not to consume a ton, because you can throw off the Omega-6/3 balance, and they're very calorie dense.

I also consider Mark Sisson a leader in Paleo. Here's what he has to say about nuts:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/nuts-and-phytic-acid/

So what’s the deal? Why do nuts get a pass, while grains and legumes get condemned?

First of all, grains and legumes are generally seen as dietary staples. They form the foundation of meals. People don’t have a “small handful” of refried pinto beans (and not just because that’s an incredibly messy way to eat them) or “one or two” grains of brown rice. They eat plates of this stuff, they rely on them for protein and calories, and sure enough, cultures whose diets are based on (improperly prepared) grains and legumes often suffer the symptoms of widespread mineral deficiencies, like nutritional rickets.

Nuts, on the other hand, are an adornment to a meal or a snack in between. A condiment. They are not meals themselves. And though I hear stories of people going Primal and subsequently going crazy with nuts, eating almond flour bread with every meal and downing a pound of pecans each day, I just don’t see it. I could be mistaken, of course. If I am wrong, and you guys are indeed eating large quantities of phytate-rich nuts every day, don’t do that. Keep it to about a handful (which is between one and two ounces, depending on the hand) per day. But my general sense is that people aren’t eating copious amounts of nuts. They’re eating some nuts in between meals, on those days when they just need a snack. They’re making almond meal pancakes once or twice a month (cause let’s face it – they’re kind of a drag to make and clean up after).

In other words, Brazil nuts are prized for their selenium content, but you don't eat 100g of Brazil nuts. One or two a day fulfills your daily needs for selenium. That's about 5g. So while it has the highest phytate content per 100g, you're not going to be eating that much.

Which he elaborates with the following:

This is in stark contrast to the way most people eat their phytate. The average person out for Mexican food, who eats grains and legumes with relish, is having four corn tortillas (448 mg phytate) with a small scoop of refried beans (622 mg) and some brown rice to, ya know, be healthy (990 mg). He throws in a few hefty slices of carne asada, but the combined 2060 milligrams of phytic acid for that meal will impact its overall mineral contribution.

The average Primal person, who avoids grains and legumes, has an ounce, or a small handful of almonds as an afternoon snack (350 mg phytate) with a couple Brazil nuts (171 mg) for the selenium. Being snacks, they’re separate from his meals. Being separate from his meals, the antinutrient effect of the phytate on the other minerals is lessened. If he bumped that up to 100 grams of each nut for over 3000 mg of phytate and over 1200 calories, then, yeah, he’d have a phytate problem (and an omega-6 problem). But he’s not doing that.

There are also half a dozen other articles in the "related posts" section at the bottom of this one.

Also, it's not about just eating any kind of nut, or eating the same kind of nut all the time. As I mentioned, Brazil nuts are prized for their selenium content. Walnuts have a high level of Omega-3 fats. Cashews contain iron and zinc, pecans and antioxidants, macadamia nuts for their MUFA content. Most importantly, though, beyond eating a variety, is remembering that a) you don't eat them in large amounts, and b) you eat them rotationally, like our ancestors would. Like any other plant food source, nuts are only available for a couple of months out of the year. It makes no sense, then, to be eating them in large quantities all the time.

deoxy4

Lets talk about Sisson as a leader of PRIMAL diet lifestyle. You quote his views about the dose being the poison. From one side of his mouth he speaks about no one eating a pound of nuts. From the other side of his mouth he writes articles about almond flour being used for crackers and pie crusts. In another article titled The Many Uses of Almond Meal where he lists recipes for pancakes and cookies. In another article he outlines the procedure for making almond milk. Seems like Sisson can't make his mind up as to whether almonds are an occasional treat only to be eaten small quantities or used like white flour in the western diet. Let's stop defending foods just because our Paleo ancestors at them. Nuts aren't that great. Just saying.

Dragonwolf

Lets talk about Sisson as a leader of PRIMAL diet lifestyle. You quote his views about the dose being the poison. From one side of his mouth he speaks about no one eating a pound of nuts. From the other side of his mouth he writes articles about almond flour being used for crackers and pie crusts. In another article titled The Many Uses of Almond Meal where he lists recipes for pancakes and cookies. In another article he outlines the procedure for making almond milk. Seems like Sisson can't make his mind up as to whether almonds are an occasional treat only to be eaten small quantities or used like white flour in the western diet. Let's stop defending foods just because our Paleo ancestors at them. Nuts aren't that great. Just saying.

You seem to be deliberately missing my point -- no one is saying to consume them in the quantities in which grains are normally consumed. So yes, while 100g of Brazil nuts contains more phytic acid than 100g of brown rice, you're not going to be eating even 100g of Brazil nuts in a day, let alone the 300g+ that many people consume of wheat, rice, and other grains. The USDA recommends 6 servings of grain per day. The whole grains council defines "a serving" of brown rice to be 1/2 cup cooked, which is about 200g. That means that not only are people not consuming only 100g of grains per day, but more likely upwards of 1200g of grains a day.

Suddenly, that 900mg of phytic acid in that brown rice becomes 10 grams.

Therein lies the difference -- 100g of nuts is a huge amount to eat, so to consider how much you're actually taking in, you have to divide or multiply those numbers by the amount you actually eat. We'll use the Brazil nut for example -- 100g has 1719mg of phytic acid, but most people eat them for it selenium content, which only requires one nut, about 5g. 5 is 1/20 of 100, so 1719/20 = 85.95. Some people consider the benefits of the selenium content to outweigh this amount of phytic acid. Some don't and choose to soak or sprout their nuts, first, which reduces that number even farther. Some still don't and choose to abstain entirely. All of these choices are valid.

I am by no stretch "defending foods just because our Paleo ancestors ate them." There are a lot of things I don't eat that they did and a lot of things that I do eat that they didn't (in both cases, aside from the obvious matter of particular items that don't exist now or didn't exist then).

What I am saying is that your assertions that "every Paleo 'expert' includes nuts as a 'recommended' and healthy food" are not entirely correct. They recommend them as a healthy food in moderation. It's not just about what our ancestors ate, but also about when and how much was available to them. Every single one say not to go overboard with them, and even to not be afraid to exclude them entirely if you suspect that they don't work well for you. Bottom line? As with just about everything else about the Paleo diet make your own educated decisions about what works for you.

A good parallel is polyunsaturated fats. In large amounts, they're very, very bad. However, our body makes use of them in small amounts, and in fact, we can't get away from them entirely, because all of our sources of fat contain some amount of polyunsaturated fats. They're healthy fats if you treat them properly -- don't heat them, balance Omega-3 and Omega-6, get them in whole foods (not seed oils), etc. Likewise, nuts are healthy, if you treat them properly -- don't make them a large staple, favor whole form over milks, butters, or flours, eat a variety to make the most of the nutrients they have, etc.

Paleo isn't about blindly following a set of "eat this, don't eat that." It's about learning about what works best both generally and individually. If that means you choose to not eat nuts, then by all means, don't eat nuts.

Additionally, it also means that people's views may change over time. Cordain's view on fats is a prime example, but more relevant is what you pointed out with Sisson's posts. If you notice, the "Go nuts" post is dated 2008, while the "phytic acid" post is dated 2012. That's four years of additional research and experimentation, and learning that nuts shouldn't be a food that you consume with reckless abandon. These types of changes are a good thing, because it shows that they're open to learning and changing their stance should the evidence prove worthy. What you don't/ want to see in any leader is dogmatic adherence to an idea despite compelling and solid evidence to the contrary. If there were only four days between the two, then I would certainly agree that he "can't make up his mind," but four years? No. Things change, and that's a good thing.

As for the "go nuts" article itself, there's nothing that says you have to use them, nor is there anything that says you have to use all of them. Such resources are still good resources for when people could use an alternative to something, such as crackers for a party. He's not saying "make these a staple of your diet," he's saying "here are some options if you want to have a replacement for something." If you don't want that replacement, then don't use it, simple as that.

deoxy4

Let me refocus the discussion to what I see as a problematic trend in Paleo. The trend I see in the Paleo community is the inclusion of almonds, in its various forms, as a staple. Almonds may have been available to Paleo man in limited quantity and only in short season. Today almonds are available in great abundance throughout the year as a whole food and various processed almond foods. (Every Paleo food list I see includes 3 pounds of almonds and large jars of almond butter available from Costco.)

There has been an explosion of Paleo cookbooks in the last few years. The explosion of recipes that use the various forms of almonds and processed almond foods is disturbing to me. That suggests to me that almonds are being consumed at a much larger quantity than a handful every now and then, as you would advocate. For the Paleo newbie the change from the SAD diet to a Paleo diet is a dramatic change. The exclusion of wheat flour is at best difficult for most. The inclusion of grain free baked goods using almond flour is a temptation that I think most find too hard to resist. The inclusion of all these recipes subliminally or overtly give the impression that almonds are a Paleo staple.

For example, one of the recipes that I reviewed for Almond Flour Pancakes included 1 1/2 cups of almond flour for a serving size of 4. That equates to 33 almonds per serving. More than a handful and we can agree unless you are Shaq. Add a tablespoon or two of almond butter in a smoothie for lunch. Add an ounce of almonds as a snack mid afternoon. Add a cup of an almond based fruit cobbler at diner. Almonds as a whole food or processed almond foods is looking more like a staple for SOME. YOU would not make this consumption pattern. For the AVERAGE Paleo advocate I am not so sure. FEW Paleo eaters of nuts jump through the hoops of soaking or sprouting nuts for consumption.

MOST Paleo "experts" (except for Kresser and maybe Wolf) crucify beans (legumes) as a food to avoid or to be consumed only on occasion in small quantity. You would not find beans on many Paleo food lists. For many of the same reasons I would include almonds. I do think that nuts are given a free pass because we have evidence that Paleo man ate them in small quantities but there is little evidence for their consumption of beans.

You made reference to brazil nuts being a good source of selenium. They have a huge amount of phytic acid and may have a similar mycotoxin load. You may find it interesting that I eat two brazil nuts a day for their selenium content which is hard to duplicate in real food. Two brazil nuts is not an over consumption for me. I won't however be buying 3 pound bags of almonds from Costco.

Dragonwolf

You may find it interesting that I eat two brazil nuts a day for their selenium content which is hard to duplicate in real food. Two brazil nuts is not an over consumption for me.

I never said it was overconsumption. In fact, I said that such types of things are what I've seen advocated by the leaders in Paleo, and even mentioned several times that the amount of Brazil nuts needed for their selenium benefit is all of one or two a day.

For example, one of the recipes that I reviewed for Almond Flour Pancakes included 1 1/2 cups of almond flour for a serving size of 4. That equates to 33 almonds per serving. More than a handful and we can agree unless you are Shaq. Add a tablespoon or two of almond butter in a smoothie for lunch. Add an ounce of almonds as a snack mid afternoon. Add a cup of an almond based fruit cobbler at diner. Almonds as a whole food or processed almond foods is looking more like a staple for SOME.

This is why when I find the people that do this, I refer them to this site -- http://www.humansarenotbroken.com/youre-getting-too-good-at-paleo/ -- and recommend they do a Whole 30, because things like almond flour pancakes and cobbler tend to miss the point of Paleo and are indicative of a need to rethink one's approach.

Saying that nuts are bad, because some people who go Paleo have gone nuts with overconsumption is about like saying that going gluten free is bad, because some people just replace the gluten containing foods with "gluten free!" substitutes (or as I like to call it, fake-wheat).

If that was your usual day of eating, I'd say that your first mistake is going for those almond flour pancakes. For one, as I mentioned, it's missing the point of Paleo. For two, there are dozens upon dozens of other pancake recipes that don't even include almond flour, let alone a cup and a half of it (such as this list, where the largest quantity in 5 of the recipes is 1/2 cup, and most of the others don't use any at all -- http://dailyburn.com/life/recipes/paleo-recipes-pancakes/).

The inclusion of all these recipes subliminally or overtly give the impression that almonds are a Paleo staple.

This isn't the fault of Paleo itself, nor is it the fault of any of the leaders who have said anything other than "don't eat nuts because they contain phytic acid." It's a result of the lifestyle gaining popularity and some segments of those who follow it choosing to eat nuts more, for better or worse. That doesn't mean Paleo as a philosophy, nor any of its leaders advocate making a staple of them, and certainly not with just almonds.

I don't know what sources you're reading that's giving you such impressions (other than the presence of recipes that use almonds), but I haven't seen what you're seeing, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that front.

Also, I feel like you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, as neither I nor Akima have actually disagreed with you on the matter of phytic acid in nuts. The only part we don't seem to see completely eye to eye regarding nuts themselves, is that you seem to rather not include them at all, save the Brazil nuts for their selenium content, but even then, we're not saying you're wrong to choose not to consume much. That's what makes Paleo such a powerful tool, because it empowers you to customize it to your needs and priorities. Neither Akima nor I consume much in the way of nuts, either, and generally consider them "sometimes" or "occasionally" foods, and the same goes for most of the people we know, with the heaviest consumers that we personally know consuming only about a serving a day and not just eating almonds.

Akimajuktuq

Nuts should NOT be a "staple" and to that i completely agree. I am SO annoyed that many of my Paleo cookbooks are about 50% Paleo substitutes for grain-based foods. I feel like I've been ripped off when I buy those cookbooks. However, Well Fed, Nomnom Paleo, anything from Mark Sisson, and some others do NOT include a bunch of those types of recipes. Some people have really jumped on that bandwagon, but some only use them as occasional treats. For sure the spirit of Paleo gets diluted when people come to this lifestyle and expect to have their cake and eat it too. Literally.

I use Paleo substitutes for office treats (they all want sweet treats) and for my child's birthday cake and other OCCASIONAL treats. Many Paleo people do the same, but I've noticed that many people first starting out sometimes get a little distracted with the Paleo substitutes. I did at first too.

Btw: almonds are my LEAST favourite nut. I prefer macadamias, walnuts, and brazil nuts in that order. When I make a nut based granola bar for my child, it has some almond flour and the rest is a mix of different nuts. One serving usually has about 10 grams of carbs and I allow my child usually only one portion per day. Additionally, I order organic, raw, and SPROUTED nuts which makes them more digestible. Expensive but worth it.

deoxy4

First of all I do not eat almond flour, almond meal or drink almond milk in any form or in any recipe. I have eaten almonds in 1/2 ounce quantities on occasion and probably will in the future. Much like my inclusion of beans (not Paleo) in small quantities on occasion and probably will in the future.

You do miss my point. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am trying to make the point that whatever the Paleo leaders recommend in regards to almond consumption there has been an explosion of Paleo cookbooks, as the movement has gained popularity, that include almonds as a staple.

For example, I have Against the Grain, by Danielle Walker, a recent New York Times best seller in my hand. She lists 150 "paleo" recipes. Almond products are ingredients of 60 of those recipes. I am pretty sure you don't approve or feel that was not a strict Paleo intent. This is common place in the current releases of Paleo cookbooks. This is what is in the hands of people who have an interest in the Paleo diet.

What is the intent. You don't have to give up your SAD foods-look recipes substituting almond flour for your refined grain recipes. Comfort! Call it popular Paleo. Candy cigarettes. I don't look to recreate Western foods like pancakes, waffles, sticky buns, pretzels, and pizza, etc. with Paleo substitutes.

deoxy4

Akima - I could not agree with you more. I did not buy the Against the Grain cookbook but got it from the library. Recipes for roasts and vegetables were pretty appealing. But 60 recipes including Almond products were too much for me. I share your opinion in not recreating the Western diet in a paleo lifestyle.

Akimajuktuq

Again, as mentioned, many of my Paleo books are a complete disappointment due to all the Paleo substitutes in them. Against All Grain is one. Hence I use my other recipe books more. It would sure be nice to read a list of the recipes before buying a cookbook. I've been trying to judge on reviews and it seems that the worst ones (imo) have the best reviews.

You will find most Paleo people, especially those of us who've been doing it a long time and focused on it as a permanent lifestyle, agree that Paleo substitutes are a FAIL. I rarely use ground almonds (the 20 granola bar recipe only uses a quarter cup), no almond milk and do not even eat a serving every day (again, usually sprouted, greatly reduced phytates). I agree that some people have gotten distracted by the fact that nuts can be used to replace flours but there are no Paleo leaders that I am aware of that recommend them as anything other than a moderation food.

The increasing trend of popularizing Paleo doesn't impress me either and will create more people that barely try it, eat the substitutes and then don't get the full health benefits… and of course they will scream to high heaven that "Paleo didn't work".

deoxy4

Akima-Thanks for the recommendations. Nom Nom Paleo recipes look VERY GOOD. Very few attempts at duplication SAD foods.