How many of you guys soak every nut you eat? If not, where do you draw the line? Is chewing very well sufficient? Thoughts are appreciated..

I don't soak nuts. I just eat them raw.

In the old school of raw, where nuts were a major component raw diets, soaking the nuts made them easier to digest.

However, if you don't eat many nuts, this is not an issue.

I only soak (almonds) when I am making nut milk. Oh, and if I decide to make a nut butter (rarely) I will soak them beforehand. As Bryan, I eat them raw as well.

Ditto, but I do chew them really really well.

I soak all nuts I use for recipes. I generally don't soak the ones I put on salads or something.

Although, I hear if you soak them then dehydrate them, it removes the inhibitors, keeps them crispy, and might even improve the flavor.

I soak my nuts, but I'm new to this and just doing what I'm reading to do! Now that I've read the posts in this thread though, I'm wondering if I really need to soak them. I don't eat more than a palm full of nuts a day, if that many.

Well how do you define "need"? If need=what's best, then you should soak them. However just eating a few unsoaked per day probably won't make you feel much different vs. soaked.

eecho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well how do you define "need"? If need=what's
> best, then you should soak them. However just
> eating a few unsoaked per day probably won't make
> you feel much different vs. soaked.


If I can get more nutrition out of the soaked nuts, which is what I thought soaking them was doing (it breaks down the enzyme inhibitors (did I get that right?), then I'll keep soaking them. Its a no big deal kind of thing to me -- I keep small quantities of soaked nuts in my fridge!

I soak all of the nuts I use in recipies and confine unsoaked nuts to trail mix... that sort of thing. I generally don't eat loose nuts (i.e. those not in a recipe) as I prefer the nutrional value of seeds over nuts (I don't generally eat both as it's too much fat). Soaking indicates planning, thinking about your diet which in general is a good thing. Nuts in general are a great and limited portion addition to a raw vegan diet. Best to you in your search.

Paul

Ah, you are right, I do not know exactly the nutritional differences. I just know that they are easier to digest soaked, which makes me feel less tired later. And they mix better in recipes.

One of the problems with nuts, as Mango the fruitarian talks about in his blog, is that there is very little (as French philosophers have called it) "instinctive stop" with them.

If you eat fruit or vegetables, even ones on the lower end of carbs, there's that instinctive stop. With nuts however there isn't much, just like with cooked/processed foods. Perhaps later on after a few hours your body feels more full, but honestly I haved eaten 500grams of salted peanuts together in a few hours (and felt fine after them strangely enough).

You can try eating peanuts with the shells as other primates do, that will make the instinctive stop far better. However the manufacturer and health standards authoraties will not be expecting you to so you might want to check out whether or not they'll do harm from pesticides etc.

How do we know that in general we have more self-control in stopping the eating of sweet fruits than we do nuts?

Kref

Krefcenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do we know that in general we have more
> self-control in stopping the eating of sweet
> fruits than we do nuts?
>
> Kref

When's the last time you ate over 1000calories of fruit together? And how long would that take you?

That does not answer my question.

I don't want to change the subject too much, but my understanding is that peanuts are not actually nuts, but legumes (sort of like a bean), and are therefore toxic when raw (as are most beans). That is why you can't purchase raw peanuts in the store as you can raw almonds, walnuts, etc. Even the ones you buy in shells are rosted. Is this correct, or no?

eecho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't want to change the subject too much, but
> my understanding is that peanuts are not actually
> nuts, but legumes (sort of like a bean), and are
> therefore toxic when raw (as are most beans).
> That is why you can't purchase raw peanuts in the
> store as you can raw almonds, walnuts, etc. Even
> the ones you buy in shells are rosted. Is this
> correct, or no?

No it's not correct at all. Roasting peanuts is mainly an American thing, in europe roasted are only a small part of the peanuts range, like a flavour of them. The rest are raw, or maybe lightly dried/heated as some suspect.

Peanuts are also not "legumes and are therefore toxic when raw", that is complete nonsense and a faddish way of putting it. Peanuts are from the earth. There are many problems with peanuts, but they're not "toxic" or that much worse than other nuts, they're just not ideal.

Krefcenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That does not answer my question.


Your question was frankly unanswerable to begin with. What do you mean "how do we know we get fuller on fruits faster"? That's been the experience of everyone I have heard.

What kind of an answer did you expect, a mathematical proof? It was a stupid question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 07:47PM by SuperInfinity.

eecho,

Peanuts aren't toxic, per se; it's the endemic aflatoxin fungus on them that is, very much so. They may be flash pasteurized or irradiated to destroy the fungus, which in turn partly, imperceptibly "cooks" the nut. Bummer.

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eecho Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't want to change the subject too much,
> but
> > my understanding is that peanuts are not
> actually
> > nuts, but legumes (sort of like a bean), and
> are
> > therefore toxic when raw (as are most beans).
> > That is why you can't purchase raw peanuts in
> the
> > store as you can raw almonds, walnuts, etc.
> Even
> > the ones you buy in shells are rosted. Is this
> > correct, or no?
>
> No it's not correct at all. Roasting peanuts is
> mainly an American thing, in europe roasted are
> only a small part of the peanuts range, like a
> flavour of them. The rest are raw, or maybe
> lightly dried/heated as some suspect.
>
> Peanuts are also not "legumes and are therefore
> toxic when raw", that is complete nonsense and a
> faddish way of putting it. Peanuts are from the
> earth. There are many problems with peanuts, but
> they're not "toxic" or that much worse than other
> nuts, they're just not ideal.
>
> Krefcenz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That does not answer my question.
>
>
> Your question was frankly unanswerable to begin
> with. What do you mean "how do we know we get
> fuller on fruits faster"? That's been the
> experience of everyone I have heard.
>
> What kind of an answer did you expect, a
> mathematical proof? It was a stupid question.


You made the assertion that there is an instinctive stop for eating fruits and vegetables that there isn't for nuts. I simply asked how you know that. And I don't appreciate your calling me names.

Krefcenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You made the assertion that there is an
> instinctive stop for eating fruits and vegetables
> that there isn't for nuts. I simply asked how
> you know that. And I don't appreciate your
> calling me names.

Because it's a very commonly known fact.

The best answer I can possibly give is when was the last time you ate 800+ calories of fruit, which is super easy to do with nuts. If you can't work that out then I can't help you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2009 07:57PM by SuperInfinity.

I don't know about the science, but I think most people agree that its hard to "feel" how much nuts is enough. They are not as immediately satisfying as fruit or greens. It could be difficult to make a meal of them. Most, I think, would tend to overeat on them but not be able to feel it until later. I personally cannot be satisfied with just nuts. They are great on a salid though, or at the end of a meal as the finale.

SuperInfinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krefcenz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You made the assertion that there is an
> > instinctive stop for eating fruits and
> vegetables
> > that there isn't for nuts. I simply asked how
> > you know that. And I don't appreciate your
> > calling me names.
>
> Because it's a very commonly known fact.
>
> The best answer I can possibly give is when was
> the last time you ate 800+ calories of fruit,
> which is super easy to do with nuts. If you can't
> work that out then I can't help you.


Ok, you've answered my question. You aren't citing evidence. You are stating your opinion based on your personal experience. Ok.

Kref

eecho,

That seems to be true, as evidenced by SuperInfinity's "peanut problem." It's especially weird when we consider how mainstream nutrition is constantly harping on how fat is satiating and how eating a small amount should signal satisfaction--Hah!

SuperInfinity,

I think it is possible to eat 800 kcal worth of bananas in a sitting, if one is very hungry after a workout, for example. And remember, nuts are calorie dense because they are fatty, not because they are nuts : )

I re-read the initial question, and saw another part about chewing that I don't believe has yet been addressed.

"Chewing sufficiently" would not be the same as soaking. Soaking mimics the natural process of the nut/seed entering moist soil and beginning to grow. Up until that point, its inhibitors have been preventing growth but once in the ground they are shed. Its a process. Likewise, sufficiently chewing an unripe fruit would not make it the same as eating a ripe fruit. Right?

YIKES !!! And the claws come out !!! I would prefer that other posters on this forum not call the sincere questions of others "stupid" or "unaswerable." Just mho. I've appreciated everyones' kind and helpful information and input on this forum and hope to always return the favor to the best of my ability.

BTW:

Yes. Peanuts, along with beans and peas, belong to the single plant family, Leguminosae. Legumes are edible seeds enclosed in pods. As a group, they provide the best source of concentrated protein in the plant kingdom. While their physical structure and nutritional benefits more closely resemble that of other legumes, their use in diets and cuisines more closely resembles that of nuts.

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson