Sorry about my last post going off before I'd responded. Here is what I intended to post...


> What sources are you getting your oil omega ratios
> from?


Do you think I haven't noticed that you switched the topic of our conversation, which you started, by talking about omegas ingested and just now, after the fact, switched over to talking about omegas assimilated? Very slick but cheesy move on your part.

And why do you leap to assume I get all my omegas from oils?

Is assimilation always perfect? Of course not but that can be said of all nutrients, can't it? I have gone on and on elsewhere of what I do to compensate and adjust my fat intake to insure as much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is chronometer comprehensive and always right in it's data? Of course not but it gives a pretty good idea of nutrients ingested but if you've found a better site please let us know which one you are using. I highly doubt you are using anything to track your intake from the way you talk though, quite honestly.

I just checked and last month my daily average omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which most people would say is good enough. I aim at 2:1 but last month I had too much going on to get too anal about the ratios.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry about my last post going off before I'd
> responded. Here is what I intended to post...
>
>
> > What sources are you getting your oil omega
> ratios
> > from?
>
>
> Do you think I haven't noticed that you
> switched the topic of our conversation, which you
> started, by talking about omegas ingested and just
> now, after the fact, switched over to talking
> about omegas assimilated? Very slick but cheesy
> move on your part.
>
> And why do you leap to assume I get all my
> omegas from oils?
>
> Is assimilation always perfect? Of course not
> but that can be said of all nutrients, can't it? I
> have gone on and on elsewhere of what I do to
> compensate and adjust my fat intake to insure as
> much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is
> chronometer comprehensive and always right in it's
> data? Of course not but it gives a pretty good
> idea of nutrients ingested but if you've found a
> better site please let us know which one you are
> using. I highly doubt you are using anything to
> track your intake from the way you talk though,
> quite honestly.
>
> I just checked and last month my daily average
> omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which most
> people would say is good enough. I aim at 2:1 but
> last month I had too much going on to get too anal
> about the ratios.


What are you talking about? Everything I've mentioned had the same topic... omega ratios. So you use a website to track your omega ratios? By the way, I don't need to track every single nutrient I eat, I know the nutrition in the foods I'm eating, I don't know what bizarre idea you have where you think tracking your intake on a website gives you any type of authority on anything lol

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry about my last post going off before I'd
> > responded. Here is what I intended to post...
> >
> >
> > > What sources are you getting your oil
> omega
> > ratios
> > > from?
> >
> >
> > Do you think I haven't noticed that you
> > switched the topic of our conversation, which
> you
> > started, by talking about omegas ingested and
> just
> > now, after the fact, switched over to talking
> > about omegas assimilated? Very slick but cheesy
> > move on your part.
> >
> > And why do you leap to assume I get all my
> > omegas from oils?
> >
> > Is assimilation always perfect? Of course
> not
> > but that can be said of all nutrients, can't it?
> I
> > have gone on and on elsewhere of what I do to
> > compensate and adjust my fat intake to insure
> as
> > much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is
> > chronometer comprehensive and always right in
> it's
> > data? Of course not but it gives a pretty good
> > idea of nutrients ingested but if you've found
> a
> > better site please let us know which one you
> are
> > using. I highly doubt you are using anything to
> > track your intake from the way you talk though,
> > quite honestly.
> >
> > I just checked and last month my daily
> average
> > omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which
> most
> > people would say is good enough. I aim at 2:1
> but
> > last month I had too much going on to get too
> anal
> > about the ratios.
>
>
> What are you talking about? Everything I've
> mentioned had the same topic... omega ratios.


Clearly I was talking about your slick transition off of commenting on "intake" of omegas in your post I responded to. Now you add to that slickness a new slick disingenuousness by pretending you weren't really talking about only omega intake when you made that outrageous comment which I responded to.

So
> you use a website to track your omega ratios? By
> the way, I don't need to track every single
> nutrient I eat, I know the nutrition in the foods
> I'm eating, I don't know what bizarre idea you
> have where you think tracking your intake on a
> website gives you any type of authority on
> anything lol


I'm not claiming any authority I am stating the hard core facts of my carefully documented experiences. Yes I use a website to keep track of my intake. A lot of people who are serious about learning what is really going on in their diet do use computer programs for this purpose. That, and such things as lab testings, help in the task of dividing the wheat from the shaff in what works and what doesn't.

If everything you have read and sounds kinda good to you is good enough for you continue on your unexamined untested path I sure don't care until you make crazy statements based on nothing as though they had substance when they don't. When you do that, and I know better, I will tell it.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sorry about my last post going off before I'd
> > > responded. Here is what I intended to post...
> > >
> > >
> > > > What sources are you getting your oil
> > omega
> > > ratios
> > > > from?
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you think I haven't noticed that you
> > > switched the topic of our conversation, which
> > you
> > > started, by talking about omegas ingested and
> > just
> > > now, after the fact, switched over to talking
> > > about omegas assimilated? Very slick but
> cheesy
> > > move on your part.
> > >
> > > And why do you leap to assume I get all
> my
> > > omegas from oils?
> > >
> > > Is assimilation always perfect? Of course
> > not
> > > but that can be said of all nutrients, can't
> it?
> > I
> > > have gone on and on elsewhere of what I do to
> > > compensate and adjust my fat intake to insure
> > as
> > > much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is
> > > chronometer comprehensive and always right in
> > it's
> > > data? Of course not but it gives a pretty
> good
> > > idea of nutrients ingested but if you've
> found
> > a
> > > better site please let us know which one you
> > are
> > > using. I highly doubt you are using anything
> to
> > > track your intake from the way you talk
> though,
> > > quite honestly.
> > >
> > > I just checked and last month my daily
> > average
> > > omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which
> > most
> > > people would say is good enough. I aim at 2:1
> > but
> > > last month I had too much going on to get too
> > anal
> > > about the ratios.
> >
> >
> > What are you talking about? Everything I've
> > mentioned had the same topic... omega ratios.
>
>
> Clearly I was talking about your slick
> transition off of commenting on "intake" of
> omegas in your post I responded to. Now you add to
> that slickness a new slick disingenuousness by
> pretending you weren't really talking about only
> omega intake when you made that outrageous comment
> which I responded to.
>
> So
> > you use a website to track your omega ratios?
> By
> > the way, I don't need to track every single
> > nutrient I eat, I know the nutrition in the
> foods
> > I'm eating, I don't know what bizarre idea you
> > have where you think tracking your intake on a
> > website gives you any type of authority on
> > anything lol
>
>
> I'm not claiming any authority I am stating
> the hard core facts of my carefully documented
> experiences. Yes I use a website to keep track of
> my intake. A lot of people who are serious about
> learning what is really going on in their diet do
> use computer programs for this purpose. That, and
> such things as lab testings, help in the task of
> dividing the wheat from the shaff in what works
> and what doesn't.
>
> If everything you have read and sounds kinda
> good to you is good enough for you continue on
> your unexamined untested path I sure don't care
> until you make crazy statements based on nothing
> as though they had substance when they don't. When
> you do that, and I know better, I will tell it.


Unexamined? More like I already know the types of foods I am eating and their nutritional content, I don't need a website to tell me what I already know or to remind me what I ate. You supplement with omega-3's, don't you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2014 11:42PM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jtprindl Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > SueZ Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Sorry about my last post going off before
> I'd
> > > > responded. Here is what I intended to
> post...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > What sources are you getting your
> oil
> > > omega
> > > > ratios
> > > > > from?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think I haven't noticed that you
> > > > switched the topic of our conversation,
> which
> > > you
> > > > started, by talking about omegas ingested
> and
> > > just
> > > > now, after the fact, switched over to
> talking
> > > > about omegas assimilated? Very slick but
> > cheesy
> > > > move on your part.
> > > >
> > > > And why do you leap to assume I get all
> > my
> > > > omegas from oils?
> > > >
> > > > Is assimilation always perfect? Of
> course
> > > not
> > > > but that can be said of all nutrients,
> can't
> > it?
> > > I
> > > > have gone on and on elsewhere of what I do
> to
> > > > compensate and adjust my fat intake to
> insure
> > > as
> > > > much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is
> > > > chronometer comprehensive and always right
> in
> > > it's
> > > > data? Of course not but it gives a pretty
> > good
> > > > idea of nutrients ingested but if you've
> > found
> > > a
> > > > better site please let us know which one
> you
> > > are
> > > > using. I highly doubt you are using
> anything
> > to
> > > > track your intake from the way you talk
> > though,
> > > > quite honestly.
> > > >
> > > > I just checked and last month my daily
> > > average
> > > > omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which
> > > most
> > > > people would say is good enough. I aim at
> 2:1
> > > but
> > > > last month I had too much going on to get
> too
> > > anal
> > > > about the ratios.
> > >
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? Everything I've
> > > mentioned had the same topic... omega ratios.
> >
> >
> > Clearly I was talking about your slick
> > transition off of commenting on "intake" of
> > omegas in your post I responded to. Now you add
> to
> > that slickness a new slick disingenuousness by
> > pretending you weren't really talking about
> only
> > omega intake when you made that outrageous
> comment
> > which I responded to.
> >
> > So
> > > you use a website to track your omega ratios?
> > By
> > > the way, I don't need to track every single
> > > nutrient I eat, I know the nutrition in the
> > foods
> > > I'm eating, I don't know what bizarre idea
> you
> > > have where you think tracking your intake on
> a
> > > website gives you any type of authority on
> > > anything lol
> >
> >
> > I'm not claiming any authority I am
> stating
> > the hard core facts of my carefully documented
> > experiences. Yes I use a website to keep track
> of
> > my intake. A lot of people who are serious
> about
> > learning what is really going on in their diet
> do
> > use computer programs for this purpose. That,
> and
> > such things as lab testings, help in the task
> of
> > dividing the wheat from the shaff in what works
> > and what doesn't.
> >
> > If everything you have read and sounds
> kinda
> > good to you is good enough for you continue on
> > your unexamined untested path I sure don't care
> > until you make crazy statements based on
> nothing
> > as though they had substance when they don't.
> When
> > you do that, and I know better, I will tell it.
>
>
> Unexamined? More like I already know the types of
> foods I am eating and their nutritional content, I
> don't need a website to tell me what I already
> know or to remind me what I ate. You supplement
> with omega-3's, don't you?

So then you tally it all up and remember everything for future reference so it can be analyzed? You've proven many times you don't have a photographic memory which is what you'd need to be capable of that. Who are you trying to fool with your so called "examinations".

No I don't supplement with omega 3's. They are my foods and I plan them into my days to keep them in balance.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > jtprindl Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > SueZ Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Sorry about my last post going off before
> > I'd
> > > > > responded. Here is what I intended to
> > post...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > What sources are you getting your
> > oil
> > > > omega
> > > > > ratios
> > > > > > from?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think I haven't noticed that
> you
> > > > > switched the topic of our conversation,
> > which
> > > > you
> > > > > started, by talking about omegas ingested
> > and
> > > > just
> > > > > now, after the fact, switched over to
> > talking
> > > > > about omegas assimilated? Very slick but
> > > cheesy
> > > > > move on your part.
> > > > >
> > > > > And why do you leap to assume I get
> all
> > > my
> > > > > omegas from oils?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is assimilation always perfect? Of
> > course
> > > > not
> > > > > but that can be said of all nutrients,
> > can't
> > > it?
> > > > I
> > > > > have gone on and on elsewhere of what I
> do
> > to
> > > > > compensate and adjust my fat intake to
> > insure
> > > > as
> > > > > much omega 3 assimilation as possible. Is
> > > > > chronometer comprehensive and always
> right
> > in
> > > > it's
> > > > > data? Of course not but it gives a pretty
> > > good
> > > > > idea of nutrients ingested but if you've
> > > found
> > > > a
> > > > > better site please let us know which one
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > > using. I highly doubt you are using
> > anything
> > > to
> > > > > track your intake from the way you talk
> > > though,
> > > > > quite honestly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just checked and last month my
> daily
> > > > average
> > > > > omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1
> which
> > > > most
> > > > > people would say is good enough. I aim at
> > 2:1
> > > > but
> > > > > last month I had too much going on to get
> > too
> > > > anal
> > > > > about the ratios.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What are you talking about? Everything I've
> > > > mentioned had the same topic... omega
> ratios.
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly I was talking about your slick
> > > transition off of commenting on "intake" of
> > > omegas in your post I responded to. Now you
> add
> > to
> > > that slickness a new slick disingenuousness
> by
> > > pretending you weren't really talking about
> > only
> > > omega intake when you made that outrageous
> > comment
> > > which I responded to.
> > >
> > > So
> > > > you use a website to track your omega
> ratios?
> > > By
> > > > the way, I don't need to track every single
> > > > nutrient I eat, I know the nutrition in the
> > > foods
> > > > I'm eating, I don't know what bizarre idea
> > you
> > > > have where you think tracking your intake
> on
> > a
> > > > website gives you any type of authority on
> > > > anything lol
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not claiming any authority I am
> > stating
> > > the hard core facts of my carefully
> documented
> > > experiences. Yes I use a website to keep
> track
> > of
> > > my intake. A lot of people who are serious
> > about
> > > learning what is really going on in their
> diet
> > do
> > > use computer programs for this purpose. That,
> > and
> > > such things as lab testings, help in the task
> > of
> > > dividing the wheat from the shaff in what
> works
> > > and what doesn't.
> > >
> > > If everything you have read and sounds
> > kinda
> > > good to you is good enough for you continue
> on
> > > your unexamined untested path I sure don't
> care
> > > until you make crazy statements based on
> > nothing
> > > as though they had substance when they don't.
> > When
> > > you do that, and I know better, I will tell
> it.
> >
> >
> > Unexamined? More like I already know the types
> of
> > foods I am eating and their nutritional content,
> I
> > don't need a website to tell me what I already
> > know or to remind me what I ate. You supplement
> > with omega-3's, don't you?
>
> So then you tally it all up and remember
> everything for future reference so it can be
> analyzed? You've proven many times you don't have
> a photographic memory which is what you'd need to
> be capable of that. Who are you trying to fool
> with your so called "examinations".
>
> No I don't supplement with omega 3's. They
> are my foods and I plan them into my days to keep
> them in balance.


Why would I need to have a future reference about the food I've eaten? Sounds like that's only needed if you suffer from health issues and are forced to try and figure out what went wrong. It's pretty simple... know the nutrient content of the foods you eat and don't rely on USDA RDA's which are extremely misguiding. Many of their "100%" requirements are far below what you actually need.

> Why would I need to have a future reference about
> the food I've eaten?

I suppose if you don't bother to get a yearly physical and lab work and aren't interested in much of anything scientific about diet you'd have no need of or use for records. You can just follow the much beaten frugivore path and go on your merry way obliviously. For a while.

Sounds like that's only
> needed if you suffer from health issues and are
> forced to try and figure out what went wrong.

I am so happy that I had the foresight to buy a gram scale, get a cronometer account, and to get serious before I started the hclf diet. I actually made those investments to have something to show my MD and other neighsayers how the diet really worked once I got my next lab results which I was expecting to be great since I was bouncing of the walls happy with that diet. My lab work, however, showed it was destroying me. As I have said before my lab work from the previous years were MUCH better than the test results after having been on the hclf diet for 11 months.

So, anyway, sure my efforts did help in figuring out what went wrong following the hclf vegan diet but that was not why I put forth those efforts. I am far more interested in discovering the truth than being a waterboy for this or that diet anyway. Facts are facts and if you have an interest in understanding what the facts are you have to keep good records and get lab tests, etc. or be a goof. Everyone has to choose which approach they want to take.
Now that I take my blood sugar, too, in addition to the other forms of measure, it adds a nice early warning system which has come in really handy for testing foods and knowing the results quickly. I wish everyone was so well equipt but I realize that is not going to happen too often before people run into trouble.



> pretty simple... know the nutrient content of the
> foods you eat and don't rely on USDA RDA's which
> are extremely misguiding. Many of their "100%"
> requirements are far below what you actually need.

Everything is pretty simple, on paper, before you've been anywhere and done anything.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Why would I need to have a future reference
> about
> > the food I've eaten?
>
> I suppose if you don't bother to get a yearly
> physical and lab work and aren't interested in
> much of anything scientific about diet you'd have
> no need of or use for records. You can just follow
> the much beaten frugivore path and go on your
> merry way obliviously. For a while.
>
> Sounds like that's only
> > needed if you suffer from health issues and are
> > forced to try and figure out what went wrong.
>
> I am so happy that I had the foresight to buy
> a gram scale, get a cronometer account, and to get
> serious before I started the hclf diet. I actually
> made those investments to have something to show
> my MD and other neighsayers how the diet really
> worked once I got my next lab results which I was
> expecting to be great since I was bouncing of the
> walls happy with that diet. My lab work, however,
> showed it was destroying me. As I have said before
> my lab work from the previous years were MUCH
> better than the test results after having been on
> the hclf diet for 11 months.
>
> So, anyway, sure my efforts did help in
> figuring out what went wrong following the hclf
> vegan diet but that was not why I put forth those
> efforts. I am far more interested in discovering
> the truth than being a waterboy for this or that
> diet anyway. Facts are facts and if you have an
> interest in understanding what the facts are you
> have to keep good records and get lab tests, etc.
> or be a goof. Everyone has to choose which
> approach they want to take.
> Now that I take my blood sugar, too, in
> addition to the other forms of measure, it adds a
> nice early warning system which has come in really
> handy for testing foods and knowing the results
> quickly. I wish everyone was so well equipt but I
> realize that is not going to happen too often
> before people run into trouble.
>
>
>
> > pretty simple... know the nutrient content of
> the
> > foods you eat and don't rely on USDA RDA's
> which
> > are extremely misguiding. Many of their "100%"
> > requirements are far below what you actually
> need.
>
> Everything is pretty simple, on paper, before
> you've been anywhere and done anything.


Lol who said I was a frugivore? I get a yearly physical but admit that it doesn't really mean much, I got great results on all of them even when I was on a Standard American Diet. You're obsession with keeping track of your food sounds like somewhat of a psychological problem, OCD-like. You really think making a log of everything you consume is necessary and that if you don't do it you're putting yourself in danger? Speak for yourself. How do you explain the thousands who follow a low-fat high carb diet and are thriving? They are lying and are really in bad shape? Delusional.

You're
> obsession with keeping track of your food sounds
> like somewhat of a psychological problem,
> OCD-like. You really think making a log of
> everything you consume is necessary and that if
> you don't do it you're putting yourself in danger?
> Speak for yourself. How do you explain the
> thousands who follow a low-fat high carb diet and
> are thriving? They are lying and are really in bad
> shape? Delusional.

OK, so be a goof. No one can stop a goof from being a goof.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're
> > obsession with keeping track of your food
> sounds
> > like somewhat of a psychological problem,
> > OCD-like. You really think making a log of
> > everything you consume is necessary and that if
> > you don't do it you're putting yourself in
> danger?
> > Speak for yourself. How do you explain the
> > thousands who follow a low-fat high carb diet
> and
> > are thriving? They are lying and are really in
> bad
> > shape? Delusional.
>
> OK, so be a goof. No one can stop a goof from
> being a goof.


Right, anyone who doesn't follow yours and Tavis Bradley's regimen is a "goof". Gotcha.

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so this is just grass roots?

They are the bulb of a grass so yep. 22% fructose from what I've read.

> I just checked and last month my daily average
> omega 6 to omega 3 intake was 3.345:1 which most
> people would say is good enough.

I just wanted to add, for people who are serious enough to want to learn more about what their dietary intakes and nutrient ratios really are and mean, it only will take two minutes out of each of your days to accomplish that and have a record of it. Yes, that's all the time it takes! It couldn't be easier to do and you will always have your stats at hand.

The only thing you will need to spend money on is an accurate scale that can measure down to a tenth of a gram which is important for weighing foods such as dried seaweeds and leafy greens. A basic account at websites such as chronometer.com costs nothing.

If you choose to hire professionally trained people to help you design an optimal diet you can share your records on line with them which is very cost effective and convenient. If, for instance, my MD wants to know what I'm eating, all I have to do is give him my chronometer password to my account and he can view a summary, with nutrient ratios, right there in his office during my appointment time.

[www.nature.com]

Neanderthals ate their greens

Tooth analysis shows that european hominins roasted vegetables and may have used medicinal plants.

The plaque contained a range of carbohydrates and starch granules, hinting that the Neanderthals had consumed a variety of plant species. By contrast, there were few lipids or proteins from meat.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.nature.com]-
> greens-1.11030
>
> Neanderthals ate their greens
>
> Tooth analysis shows that european hominins
> roasted vegetables and may have used medicinal
> plants.
>
> The plaque contained a range of carbohydrates and
> starch granules, hinting that the Neanderthals had
> consumed a variety of plant species. By contrast,> there were few lipids or proteins from meat.

I have my doubts that lipids and proteins would even be found in meat-eating people's tooth plaque today.

From the level of the understanding in the conversation in the article it seems that anthropology has suffered no less than a bunch of other professions in being dumbed down. I'm embarrassed for them.

Dont people in North Korea eat grass? To survive? I saw this video hearbreaking. I thought about it. I would eat grass too if I had to. I love when you pull the stem out and that white juicy part is?

[www.youtube.com]

NOrth Koreans picking grass to eat

[www.youtube.com]

I have been drinking corn and barley grass juices daily and it made a huge difference.

And they are so easy to grow indoor.

Life is simple.

If you are not drinking grass juices you are missing out on something special.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2014 02:55PM by CommonSenseRaw.

"it made a huge difference"

In what ways?

1. Better sleep
2. More stamina
3. Less food

How much barley grass juice each day? I haven't tried barley grass yet, but I usually do about 3-4 oz. of wheatgrass juice per day. Making another purchase soon so I can grow way more sprouts/grass at one time.

I have been growing wheatgrass for years until recently when I tried barley grass.
There is something in it that is different from wheatgrass.

I do not know what it is but it make me feel better and more energetic.

The juice is bitter like dandelion juice so I can keep in my mouth for a long time.

I drink about 4 oz once or twice a day.
[www.phporder.com]

THeSt0rm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to say, the tiger nuts I tried the other
> day were Very good. Extremely good. They made me
> feel a surge of energy quite similar to having
> sprouts.


Just yesterday I got a postcard in the mail from the company I guess I bought those organic tigernuts from on Amazon. They say they have a website, OrganicGemini.com. Here's their discount code if you want to buy more tigernuts at 30% off their regular price - FirstTime30 - they say you can also use this code to join their TigerNut Club and get fresh TigerNut Horchatas every two weeks with free shipping.

SueZ, do you have any experience with sacha inchi seeds (jungle peanuts)? I'm thinking of buying some soon, soaking them at home and adding a small amount to salads. They're absolutely loaded with omega-3's and have lots of protein and minerals. I think they're richer in ALA than flax.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ, do you have any experience with sacha inchi
> seeds (jungle peanuts)? I'm thinking of buying
> some soon, soaking them at home and adding a small
> amount to salads. They're absolutely loaded with
> omega-3's and have lots of protein and minerals. I
> think they're richer in ALA than flax.


I can't stand jungle peanuts. Is that all Sancha Inchi is? I'm disappointed if it is as I will have to scratch it off my 'to try' list.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ, do you have any experience with sacha
> inchi
> > seeds (jungle peanuts)? I'm thinking of buying
> > some soon, soaking them at home and adding a
> small
> > amount to salads. They're absolutely loaded
> with
> > omega-3's and have lots of protein and minerals.
> I
> > think they're richer in ALA than flax.
>
>
> I can't stand jungle peanuts. Is that all Sancha
> Inchi is? I'm disappointed if it is as I will
> have to scratch it off my 'to try' list.


Yes they're the same thing. What about them don't you like and did you ever eat them after soaking?

The jungle peanuts I had tasted like chalky raw peanuts only greasy. They didn't have stripes on them. I didn't try soaking them.

Tigers are making a major comeback in many countries.

[www.bbc.com]

Tiger nuts are grass bulbs? and its a raw vegan delicacy?

I looked them up



Looks...rough

coconutcream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tiger nuts are grass bulbs? and its a raw vegan
> delicacy?
>
> I looked them up
>
> [www.k-1baits.com]
> uts.jpg
>
> Looks...rough

Yeah. When I tried them last year it took several days of soaking to get them to even start to soften back up.

Modern humans too are discovering the wonders of the grasses.
Grass is really a super food, the super food.
You can have it grow by your bedside.
I am discovering that I can drink more of it every day as my body cleanse itself.
More grass juices, less of any other foods.
Life is wonderful
As for tiger nuts they were readily available where I grew up.
We had this rich food around us but waited for the cooked rice we considered the real food.
Ignorance is the original sin.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2015 02:27PM by CommonSenseRaw.

grass smoothie

[www.youtube.com]

According to some translations of the bible grass was the first plant created
"God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so"
It was the third day



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2015 06:55PM by RawPracticalist.