top | item 22579571

(no title)

flexblue | 6 years ago

> It's been my breakfast for decades, I'm quite healthy, and eat a diet almost entirely composed of raw produce. The rest is nuts/seeds/legumes and canned fish.

You get virtually all of your macronutrients from the nuts, seeds, legumes and the fish - not the produce.

> I rarely ever cook, and if I didn't go for organic produce this would be a very cheap diet except for the nuts.

So it would be cheap if it was something else, but it's not.

In any event, I consider any diet high in grains/legumes a science experient which may or may not work out. I don't consider it a healthy diet.

discuss

order

pengaru|6 years ago

> So it would be cheap if it was something else, but it's not.

By volume most of the "nuts" are roasted unsalted peanuts, which are very cheap, and as you know actually legumes.

I just have a taste for expensive walnuts and cashews, and like organic produce, but I'm not poor.

Everyone can afford peanuts, or peanut butter. I prefer roasted intact peanuts since there's less opportunity for fuckery like replacing peanut oil with palm oil and adding sugar.

jfritsch1984|6 years ago

People eat beans for decades. Why should this be an experiment? Because people like Dr. Gundry want to sell books? He‘s even admitted on TV that cooking mitigates the whole problem. And who eats raw beans? I think it‘s pure hysteria. In observational studies „anti-nutrients“ are mostly associated with better health outcomes.

flexblue|6 years ago

> People eat beans for decades. Why should this be an experiment?

People also eat donuts for decades, that means nothing.

People didn't eat beans for hundreds of thousands of years. They're not a "natural" part of the diet. They contain poorly researched plant toxins and anti-nutrients, which can are known to cause issues in sensitive people.

Can you "mitigate" the problem with proper preparation? Apparently, but that doesn't mean we know they are actually healthy as opposed to "sustainable". Populations across the world which have no choice but to rely on grains and legumes as a staple do suffer from malnutrition.

> In observational studies „anti-nutrients“ are mostly associated with better health outcomes.

Observational studies are mostly useless, because anybody who buys into "legumes are healthy" will focus on living a healthy life in other aspects as well. As I said, swapping in legumes in place of donuts is going to be a benefit. That doesn't mean it's optimal.