PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Archer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:17:53 +1100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
At 6:02 PM -0800 22/11/03, Neil Abrahams wrote:

>Thank you for the link.  I learned from it that walnuts, although they
>have a lower 6:3 ratio than most nuts,

English Walnuts are listed in the USDA database as being 38% n-6 and
9% n-3. Black Walnuts have less n-3.


>still has almost six times the
>omega-6, per gram, as almonds.

and almonds are 12% n-6 which is 3 times, according to that dataset.


>  It's that almonds lack omega-3 entirely
>that make the ratio bad.

Yup.


>I like almonds, and they are relatively
>inexpensive, there aren't in the same class as sugar, and I don't think
>the research they've sponsored is shoddy.

Almonds are also higher in salicylates than other nuts. I know
several people who get nasty adverse reactions to them. I read
somewhere once that a handful of almonds contains the active
ingredient from one Aspirin. (And no, I don't believe everything
I read.)

And any research published by "industry" has to be suspect. I mean,
they are hardly likely to commission a report on the adverse
reactions of eating almonds, are they?

 ...R.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2