is there a matrix with all the low carb diets?
Options
Replies
-
retirehappy wrote: »LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?
Because peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes, and high in carbs.
Cashews are very high in carbs as true nuts go. Of the two, nutritionally, cashews win, if it fits into your carb count/macros, go ahead and have a few.
My husband has told me there is no such thing as a few cashews. I don't eat them because of that, when I did eat them I ended up gaining weight (pre keto/lchf life) YMMV.
Same with most all nuts... "a few" becomes a few lbs. before even realizing it.1 -
Not a matrix, but a page that provides details about many popular low carb diets. Worth a browse.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/atkins-diet-and-low-carb-plans/1 -
baconslave wrote: »LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »I understand why Paleo would not eat peanuts but I’m talking purely on the LCHF sideThere are many reasons, but I am not the best person to ask. I am anti-plants in general. When we wrote the Launchpad, we went for the broad definition of LCHF. As you are aware, we didn't feel that peanuts were worth excluding specifically. If people wanted to include them or not include them, it would be their choice.
- peanuts have a ton of omega-6 fatty acids and virtually no omega-3s
- they are higher carb (both net and total) than real nuts
- peanuts have anti-nutrients like phytic acid which binds with the few nutrients in peanuts and make them less available
- they are highly palatable and cause over-consumption issues for a lot of people
There are probably more, but these are just off the top of my head. I'm anti-plants across the board and would be just as quick to tell you that spinach is bad for you. If you like peanuts, have at them. There are LCHF diets that do not encourage them (https://thenoakesfoundation.org/nutrition-network/nuts-on-the-lchf-diet-can-you-eat-peanuts-on-a-low-carb-diet), but it isn't universal.
Goat hit it pretty well.
Coming from a former IIFYM-Keto person, at sub-20g total, I stayed away from them because they had too many carbs so I couldn't get as many veggies in. At 20 or 30g net, I allowed them in, but I had to be careful with them. They are calorie bombs, a bit higher in carbs (like those damn devil cashews), and they are hard to moderate for some people. If I don't watch it, I'm like a effin cracked-out squirrel. It's ugly. Nut-apocalypse. All the nuts, in my mouth, cheeks puffed out like a hamster.
That's about it for me too.
And cheese... Gotta be careful about cheese. It fits my macros but I can eat waaay too much of it.
Okay guys, so ever since I have read this post, I have TOTALLY & UTTERLY immersed myself in research regarding peanut butter, and Omega 3s and Omega 6s.
I will share with you all what I have learned:
First of all, 99% of peanut butter out there is junk. This is because they mix the nuts with partially hydrogenated oils and sugar. Now, what is "good" peanut butter? Organic, natural, peanut butter. The only thing the label should read is "peanuts, (and salt)." Valencia peanuts are the best forms of peanuts since they are grown in bushes and not in the ground.
Second of all, on the topic that nuts are looked down upon because they cause over consumption for many people, I honestly don't know what to say to that...? If you have a problem with eating nuts, then don't eat them. This does not mean that they are evil...or people in general shouldn't eat them. I know I can eat way, way too many nuts in one sitting if I'm not careful. This goes for all nuts: almonds, peanuts, macadamia, etc.
Thirdly, yes peanuts are high in Omega 6 and Omega 6 is considered "the bad fat." The reason the average American has a significantly high Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio is due to the way the food is processed and cooked. Most Omega 6 is coming from cooking oils and processed foods. This means most omega-6 consumed is highly oxidized and rancid.
But did you know that almost ALL foods have omega-6 in them? As soon as I read the inflammatory precautions on omega-6 foods, I wanted to find out what foods contained them. Turns out chicken, beef, eggs, coconut oil, avocadoes, ALL HAVE OMEGA-6.
It's frankly impossible to eliminate omega-6 in the diet, and there's no need to. What one needs to be aware of is raising your intake of omega-3s, which in turn raises your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. This is what we want, our goal is to have a 2:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3.
Now, this is where it gets tricky... you can't just consume flaxseed oil to get your omega-3s in. Because as it turns out, there's 3 different types of Omega-3s: ALA, DHA, and EPA.
ALA is the parent compound of Omega-3 and it turns out that we are very inefficient at converting ALA to EPA and converting ALA to DHA....AND EPA and DHA are where we get those awesome benefits everyone talks about when they think of Omega-3s. Depending on the individual, it can range from .5%-4% for DHA conversion and 8%-20% EPA conversion. The best way to ensure you are receiving sufficient amounts of DHA and EPA is to consume foods with DHA and EPA. This means fatty fish or fish oil supplements! You can't get it anywhere else.
Now I went off on a tangent...but going back to what I was saying about all foods containing Omega-6, the best solution to lower your intake is to consume organic, grass-fed food and aim for foods rich in DHA and EPA to increase your ratio. Did you know 3oz of ground beef has 670mg of omega-6 and 103mg of omega-3?
Grass-fed ground beef has 162mg of omega-6 and 74mg omega-3.
Ever since I started prepping last year, I made sure to make the switch to organic everything. I know the effects of getting stage lean all around are pretty negative. I figured the one way to ensure my hormones don't go down the gutter is to at least organic...(they probably will go down the gutter, but hey I'm keeping my hopes up). I eat 2oz of spinach, 5oz of arugula, 1 can of tuna (wild caught), coconut oil and chicken everyday. I am keeping my organic full of omega 6 unsalted peanut butter dammit. I also take a high quality fish oil supplement and get in 2400mg of DHA+EPA per day.
Pretty eye opening stuff. I hope I enlightened a few people regarding Omega-3s and Omega-6s....
Links below:
https://draxe.com/peanut-butter-nutrition-facts/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943064/
http://www.dhaomega3.org/Overview/Conversion-Efficiency-of-ALA-to-DHA-in-Humans
http://paleozonenutrition.com/2011/05/10/omega-6-and-3-in-nuts-oils-meat-and-fish-tools-to-get-it-right/
https://www.healthcentral.com/article/reducing-omega6-and-meat
https://www.livestrong.com/article/501579-percentage-of-omega-6-in-coconut-oil/
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-the-omega-3omega-6-ratio-may-not-matter-after-all/6 -
I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.
All the points you brought up have some validity.
1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.
Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.
Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.3 -
I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.
All the points you brought up have some validity.
1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.
Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.
Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.
I don't understand how my points have "some validity"? Sure the grain fed beef had 30mg more omega-3 than grass-fed, but we both agree that the omega-6:omega-3 ratio is what's important. People should aim for 2:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3. And what's 30mg more, when grain fed beef has a ratio of 670:103 and grass fed has a ratio 162:74? The grass fed beef has almost a perfect 2:1 ratio.
Organic is a fun word, and honestly I'm not 100% certain how "clean" our USDA Organic foods are. I still need to dive into more research about that. If you find anything, please post some links.
Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.
We both agree that peanuts are high in omega-6, but everything in moderation. If your diet is well balanced and you're including enough DHA and EPA, then I don't see anything wrong with including natural, unprocessed nut butters?0 -
"some validity" == "Your points aren't wrong, but the conclusion that peanuts should be universally more accepted isn't justified by them." Is that better?
It is better to have 15 ounces of commercially raised ground beef and no peanuts (3.4g:0.5g -- ~7:1), than it is to have 21 ounces of grass-finished beef and 3 ounces of peanuts (15g:0.5g -- ~30:1), despite the fact that you get the same amount of omega-3s. In general, lowering levels of omega-6 makes it easier to get closer to an ideal ration than attempting to raise omega-3s to balance out over-consumption of n-6s. Cutting out plant/seed oils and processed foods goes a very long way to reducing those n-6s that dominate the normal ratio. With that in play, you might be just fine with some high-ish sources like nuts.
Dairy is definitely a problem food. It's the first thing I ask about when people have trouble with the carnivore diet. It gets plenty of hate.
Keto, in particular, tends to be very pro-nuts. Lots of keto friendly faux foods, fat bombs, and other treats involve nuts, nut butters, or nut flours. As keto trends upwards and has become the dominant face of LCHF, the varying levels of intolerance for nut products in other LCHF diets does tend to be a shock. Nuts, along with dairy and artificial sweeteners, should be in a "your mileage may vary" disclaimer for most diets. Some forms skipped the ambiguity and just restricted or banned them from the start.
I, personally, don't believe in supplementing my diet with things that make up for deficiencies in food. For that reason, I don't attempt to artificially raise my intake of n-3s. I think it has a high probability of being like other things that we have been told to supplement, where the item we're supplementing isn't the effective agent in the actual studies but is a symptom of eating better foods that are closer to their natural state.2 -
LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.
All the points you brought up have some validity.
1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.
Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.
Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.
I don't understand how my points have "some validity"? Sure the grain fed beef had 30mg more omega-3 than grass-fed, but we both agree that the omega-6:omega-3 ratio is what's important. People should aim for 2:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3. And what's 30mg more, when grain fed beef has a ratio of 670:103 and grass fed has a ratio 162:74? The grass fed beef has almost a perfect 2:1 ratio.
Organic is a fun word, and honestly I'm not 100% certain how "clean" our USDA Organic foods are. I still need to dive into more research about that. If you find anything, please post some links.
Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.
We both agree that peanuts are high in omega-6, but everything in moderation. If your diet is well balanced and you're including enough DHA and EPA, then I don't see anything wrong with including natural, unprocessed nut butters?
As far as I can tell from a quick glance, we've already addressed the some of the why upthread. I mean other than many plans don't count calories necessarily and so "hello calorie bombs." Upthread I'm pretty sure that someone mentioned legumes. And anti-nutrients.
Ah..here it was:LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?
There are forms of keto/LCHF that allow peanuts. In general, they are not preferred. They are higher in antinutrients, carbs, and a lot of things that people try and avoid. If they fit into your macros and other goals, then there is nothing that says you can't have them.
Noakes, Paleo, and Primal on the chart upthread are all variations on the same argument. To elaborate check out Noakes's arguments below.
Noakes says: " Nuts are lower in carbs and great snack foods, but you must not go overboard. Nuts may cause weight gain in some individuals. That’s why we’ve also limited them during Transformation, the weight loss phase. Macadamias are best as they are loaded with healthy fat and almonds are packed with fibre and goodness. Always choose raw nuts in preference to commercially roasted nuts (which are actually deep fried – unless they are specified as ‘dry-roasted’)." "Don’t lie to yourself. Watch out for carbs disguised as proteins. Eating carbs that are perceived to be proteins, like legumes, baked beans, peanuts (allowed during Restoration) and quinoa (Preservation only), will undermine your attempts to burn fat. Pay attention to which lists you are allowed to eat from and in which phase.
For more on Noakes's why on peanuts: https://realmealrevolution.com/real-thinking/peanut-more-pea-or-nut/
A quick skim looks like anti-nutrient argument, possible mold and pesticide contamination. Omega 6 vs. Omega 3s. And this is all tied to gut health disruption. But it looks like high quality ones are ok in moderation in different phases of his plan.
TL;DR-To them peanuts are beans/legumes. So higher in carbs and anti-nutrients, maybe have mold and too many bad chemicals on them, and are often roasted in bad oils.
Atkins is no nuts or peanuts. In some phases. But Atkins allows nuts in later phases. Not ok for induction. Because carbs. As they are trying to encourage you to build the habit of using your carbs on green veggies.Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.
I started my low-carb WOE with keto in June of 2014. In the regular plain ol' run-of-the-mill keto, peanuts are fine IIFYM. Diet Doctor is cool with them in moderation AFAIK. Atkins is cool with a little bit later on. It's those who are doing Noakes's Banting, and the paleo/primal keto people who are discerning regarding the nuts. No one else really cares besides. Other than the degree to which I care-that other people share, which is my hands become Evil Dead around them and start cramming them in my eat-hole. That's why they are the devil. A lot of people just say no nuts or peanuts period and are against them because of this. I eat them anyway; I just have to find ways to moderate them.
All all keto is LCHF but not all LCHF is keto. The difference is emphasis on a low-carb high fat plan to achieve ketosis vs. no emphasis on ketosis just on the LC and HF parts. You throw in paleo keto or paleo LCHF, then you start hating on the peanuts.
There really is no consensus on this across the board at all. So you can't really say LCHF is against peanuts. They're against too much of certain carbs. Some versions of LCHF are due to paleo/primal leanings and arguments. Some are just against it because calories, and they feel it's wasting carbs (as in they are taking away the place where the nutrients from green veggies belong.)3 -
I am curious. Is there hard science behind the omega ratios? I understand there are probably a dozen people with TED talks who use this trope, but I am not so interested in the fact that it is widespread. I am just interested in your basic peer-reviewed, double blind study of omega-3 and omega-6 ratios and the measurable impact on health, well-being, whatever.
Having asked that, I am totally good with the answer that it is one of those things to be on your radar when there are issues with symptom x. Presumably all of us are in n=1 mode sometimes. You make a change and see what it does. This is the YMMV thing because it is common enough to note while the hard science does not really seem to weigh in.1 -
As far as I'm aware the omega-3/6 ratio originates from conventional sources - the whole eating fish/plants/whole grains (and limiting meat, red especially) being heart healthy belief. Harvard Nutrition is probably as good a place as any to start looking for the quality of evidence being used to support those recommendations:
Most Americans take in far more of another essential fat—omega-6 fats—than they do omega-3 fats. Some experts have raised the hypothesis that this higher intake of omega-6 fats could pose problems, cardiovascular and otherwise, but this has not been supported by evidence in humans. (4)
Omega-3 Fatty Acids: An Essential Contribution0 -
baconslave wrote: »All all keto is LCHF but not all LCHF is keto. The difference is emphasis on a low-carb high fat plan to achieve ketosis vs. no emphasis on ketosis just on the LC and HF parts. You throw in paleo keto or paleo LCHF, then you start hating on the peanuts.
There really is no consensus on this across the board at all. So you can't really say LCHF is against peanuts. They're against too much of certain carbs. Some versions of LCHF are due to paleo/primal leanings and arguments. Some are just against it because calories, and they feel it's wasting carbs (as in they are taking away the place where the nutrients from green veggies belong.)
Thank you.
And regarding hard science on the omega-6/omega-3 ratio, I found this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/
Conclusion and Recommendations from the author:
"A balance existed between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids during the long evolutionary history of the genus Homo [34]. During evolution, omega-3 fatty acids were found in all foods consumed: particularly meat, fish, wild plants, nuts and berries [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Recent studies by Cordain et al. [51] on the composition of the meat of wild animals confirm the original observations of Crawford and Sinclair et al. [36,52]. However, rapid dietary changes over short periods of time as have occurred over the past 100–150 years is a totally new phenomenon in human evolution (Figure 1). A balance between the omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids is a physiological state that is less inflammatory in terms of gene expression [53], prostaglandin and leukotriene metabolism, and interleukin-1 (IL-1) production [3].
Modern agriculture, by changing animal feeds as a result of its emphasis on production, has decreased the omega-3 fatty acid content in many foods: animal meats, eggs, and even fish [39,40,41,42]. Foods from edible wild plants contain a good balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Purslane, a wild plant, in comparison to spinach, red leaf lettuce, buttercrunch lettuce and mustard greens, has eight times more ALA than the cultivated plants [46]. Modern aquaculture produces fish that contain less omega-3 fatty acids than do fish grown naturally in the ocean, rivers and lakes [41]. The fatty acid composition of egg yolk from free-ranging chicken has an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of 1.3 whereas the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) egg has a ratio of 19.9 [42]. By enriching the chicken feed with fishmeal or flaxseed, the ratio of omega-6:omega-3 decreased to 6.6 and 1.6 respectively.
•Human beings evolved on a diet that was balanced in the omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids.
•A high omega-6 fatty acid intake and a high omega-6/omega-3 ratio are associated with weight gain in both animal and human studies, whereas a high omega-3 fatty acid intake decreases the risk for weight gain. Lowering the LA/ALA ratio in animals prevents overweight and obesity.
A balanced omega-6/omega-3 ratio 1–2/1 is one of the most important dietary factors in the prevention of obesity, along with physical activity. A lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio should be considered in the management of obesity."2 -
@2t9nty I need to do more research, but the article states that there is a rather large association between health factors and the ratio. He is not stating that a high omega 6/omega 3 ratio causes anything. He states when there are diseases and cancers and other metabolic disorders, the high omega 6 to omega 3 ratio is always present and lowering the ratio cures or improves these disorders.2
