nuts as a snack

Dave198lbs

the fat goal given by MFP is LOW and the carb goal given by MFP is HIGH. Assuming your total calories are in check, almonds, cashews, pistachios are not over rated as a snack. Peanuts on the other hand are not really a nut and should be limited. I love peanuts but the other real nuts are better.

I disagree. This is completely dependent on your insulin sensitivity. As someone that is lean and exercises, I often eat more carbs than is recommended and less fat. I found that the "Paleoish" High fat/low carb approach didn't suit me well in my goals. However, it may be a great choice for others.

well...ok...but I am lean and I exercise quite a bit so ...

So what? Research as well as anecdotal evidence suggests that high fat foods (including nuts) tend to be not very satiating and easy to overeat (especially when palatability is increased by salt or other seasonings). Hence my opinion that nuts tend to be overated as a weight loss food.

On top of that, volume of food has also been shown to contribute to satiety, for 100g of almonds you get approx. 578 calories, while for 100g of potato you get 74 calories. Potatoes have been shown in clinical research to be more satiating than almonds.


Blundell, J.E., and MacDiarmid, J.I., "Fat as a risk factor for overconsumption: satiation, satiety, and patterns of eating," J Am Diet Assoc 1997 97(7): S63-S69

Holt, S.H., et al., "A satiety index of common foods," Eur J Clin Nutr 1995 Sep; 49(9): 675-690

so what? the original question did not mention satiety. you said nuts were over rated as a snack. they arent. the question isnt about satiety or insulin or carbs.

rxj22

the fat goal given by MFP is LOW and the carb goal given by MFP is HIGH. Assuming your total calories are in check, almonds, cashews, pistachios are not over rated as a snack. Peanuts on the other hand are not really a nut and should be limited. I love peanuts but the other real nuts are better.

I disagree. This is completely dependent on your insulin sensitivity. As someone that is lean and exercises, I often eat more carbs than is recommended and less fat. I found that the "Paleoish" High fat/low carb approach didn't suit me well in my goals. However, it may be a great choice for others.

well...ok...but I am lean and I exercise quite a bit so ...

So what? Research as well as anecdotal evidence suggests that high fat foods (including nuts) tend to be not very satiating and easy to overeat (especially when palatability is increased by salt or other seasonings). Hence my opinion that nuts tend to be overated as a weight loss food.

On top of that, volume of food has also been shown to contribute to satiety, for 100g of almonds you get approx. 578 calories, while for 100g of potato you get 74 calories. Potatoes have been shown in clinical research to be more satiating than almonds.


Blundell, J.E., and MacDiarmid, J.I., "Fat as a risk factor for overconsumption: satiation, satiety, and patterns of eating," J Am Diet Assoc 1997 97(7): S63-S69

Holt, S.H., et al., "A satiety index of common foods," Eur J Clin Nutr 1995 Sep; 49(9): 675-690

so what? the original question did not mention satiety. you said nuts were over rated as a snack. they arent. the question isnt about satiety or insulin or carbs.

I just explained why nuts are overated as a snack and gave you research based evidence to support this position. You counter with satiety/overconsumption not being related to the original question. A vast majority of people on this site are seeking weight/fat loss, correct? Fat loss is dependent on a caloric deficit, correct? Caloric intake of your average person is dependent on satiety, correct? So how is satiety not relevant to the original question? Unless you are compulsively weighing your food, I would not recommend regularly snacking on nuts simply because based on evidence they are likely to be overconsumed, hence overrated.