Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kit

Peanuts vs Almonds - I am confused

Recommended Posts

Kit

You know, I never really bothered to look into this until recently and it has confused me.

 

People seem to say all over the place that peanuts are bad.  Specifically don't use peanut butter, use almond butter instead.

 

But, according to the nutritional information for 1oz of each

 

Peanuts

    Fat - 14g

    Carbs - 4.6g

    Fiber 2.4g

    Protein - 7g

 

Almonds

    Fat - 14g

    Carbs - 6g

    Fiber - 3.5g

    Protein - 6g

 

If you look at total or net, peanuts are actually slightly better than almonds with it comes to carbs.  Fat total is identical.  Peanuts are 1g higher in protein.

 

Yes, peanuts are higher in Omega6, but then so are Almonds.

 

So why do people say that peanuts are bad and almonds are good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dowling gram

I have never heard that peanuts are bad. I have always eaten natural peanut butter as part of my LCHF diet as well as other nuts. Actually if you want to compare nuts Walnuts are the best in nutrition and the lowest in carbs. They also contain Omega 3 fatty acids.

 

I think the reason Almonds are mentioned so much is their versatility. They can be used in many ways that other nuts can't be used. Anything from almond milk to almond flour and lots of ways in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ant hill

It goes in Personal perfernce, as i love peanut butter and Almond too. Some are fussier than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TX_Clint

I also have not heard anything about peanuts being bad. The only thing about peanuts is they aren't a nut. Other than that the nutrition is similar to almonds. Macadamia and brazil nuts are lowest in carbs. Walnuts and pecans are so close it's a wash. They are all good for the diet and useful in cooking. 

 

Just watch the nut count... it can get away from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carfree

I always thought peanuts had more carbs than almonds too. I have heard that peanuts seem to affect BG more for some people.

Peanuts are very susceptibility to a bad mold called aflatoxin.  Apparently we cannot see or taste the mold, and it's toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit

I'm well aware that portion size is always important.

 

It really pinged to my attention when a new member recently stated that he read on here to avoid peanuts.  A quick search finds these various quotes

 

"Peanuts are legumes and they have more carbs than true nuts"

"<in reference to peanuts> they are really legumes, and are known to spike BG for many diabetics."

"Since peanuts  are a legume and some of us don't do well with legumes (beans, etc.), almond butter is another choice."

 

There's also the

"I cant eat peanuts , they send by BG values into a blast off."

 

I've also seen similar comments on various recipe sites or discussion sites, though for the life of me I can't remember where I first ran across the information.

 

To be honest, up until a recent post got me interested in compiling a list of the nutritional breakdown of the various nuts, etc, I was also under the impression that peanuts were significantly higher in carbs than most other nuts, though as I mentioned above, I can't remember where I first ran across it.

 

 

Re walnuts:  pecans, macadamia nuts, and brazil nuts are all lower in carbs.  Hazel nuts might be.  I don't have my list with me and I'm too lazy to look it all up again.

 

I was wondering if this is a piece of misinformation that got propagated, or if there was another piece of info I was not aware of.  Or perhaps a combination of the two factors.  Avoid for one reason which, over time, got misremembered and propagated as carbs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rad Warrier

And what about coconut, the nut that I eat everyday as a prominent ingredient in our curries?   Coconut has a sweet flavor and so may not be as low carb as the other nuts discussed here.  But almond and pecan too have a mild sweetness associated with them although they are low carb.  Peanuts and walnuts don't have that mild sweet taste.

 

Regards,

Rad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit

The point of my question isn't really to discuss the pros or cons of every nut out there but to see if anyone knows why people often say that peanuts are higher can and almonds are better. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dowling gram

I never thought of peanuts of being a legume but if you think of how they grow you can guess that they are not a true nut. Not that I've ever thought much about the matter. I've eaten them in moderation and they don't spike my BG so their classification has never been an issue.

 

The difference in classification makes the matter clearer for me and the answer is that every diabetic is different.I can eat a few beans in chili without spiking my BG past my acceptable level but others can't. For some all legumes are a no no including peanuts.

 

Thanks Kit for bringing the matter up so we can let our meters tell us if we can eat peanuts. Some may wonder why they spike their BG and now we know why. Peanuts are not a nut even though they have the name and appearance of being one

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit

For myself, its always been more of an issue with carb content than the source of the carbs.

 

The reason I avoid grains and most root vegetables isn't because I can't absolutely ever eat them at all.  But with a per meal carb limit of around 10g total (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less), the portion size allowed would be so tiny as to make it utterly worthless and eliminate my ability to have any vegetables with the meal.

 

Its possible beans may be more of an odd factor due to fiber content.  For example, around one third of the carb content of pinto beans are fiber (black beans a little higher).  A very tiny fraction of the carb content in a potato is fiber.  The same goes for brown rice.  Fiber is also a small fraction of the carb content in whole wheat bread and steel cut oats.  (And yet they tell us to eat grains because of the fiber content.)

 

So legumes might be an issue with some people and not others due to how their bodies react to fiber, which can also be affected by the ratio of soluble to insoluble fiber in the particular legume, which isn't usually on nutritional labels and can be difficult to find at times.

 

Since my by 30g a day allotment of carbs includes my fiber allotment, I likely don't eat enough fiber for it to make a huge variability in my response.  When I say I've been bad and eaten beans, its usually because its taking me above and beyond what I would normally eat in terms of total carbs for that meal and perhaps even day.

 

But mostly I'm curious on the statements because peanuts are not higher carb than almonds, so that statement is wrong.  And also because its my nature to need to understand the whys.  Otherwise it drives me batty.  Or, more accurately, battier than usual.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dowling gram

Kit It's not just the carb count but the source of the carbs. I agree that the carb count for almonds is slightly higher but almonds are a nut and peanuts are a legume. While nuts may not raise your BG for some people all legumes will including peanuts.

 

It just goes to show that all diabetics are different and what effects one may not effect another. The number of carbs you eat daily is different for everyone too. I eat 100 carbs a day and subtract the fiber from the carbs because my meter says that I can without exceeding my acceptable limit yet certain grains are off limits for me because 1 bite will send my BG soaring. That's why I eat to my meter.

 

So There you have the WHY! The why is the source of the carbs not the carb count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit
15 minutes ago, dowling gram said:

Kit It's not just the carb count but the source of the carbs. I agree that the carb count for almonds is slightly higher but almonds are a nut and peanuts are a legume. While nuts may not raise your BG for some people all legumes will including peanuts.

 

My question though is Why? (I mentioned my obsession.)  What is it about legumes as compared to nuts.  Nuts have magic carbs that don't affect us like other carbs?  I don't seriously think that's the case.  Nuts naturally contain more fat, where as beans have very little fat of their own and so would require more added fat, which would have to be added and so might not often happen?  Both almonds and peanuts contain more protein than the same serving size as black beans, so I don't think its more protein inherent in legumes.

 

A 1oz serving size of cooked black beans has 6.6g carbs, 2.4g fiber.  A little higher than peanuts in carbs, just barely higher than almonds.  Though honestly I doubt many people out there would be content with a 1oz serving of cooked black beans.  That equates to around 2 Tbsp in estimate.  1oz of almonds is more like

 

Peanuts, at least peanut butter doesn't affect me any differently than almond butter.  Now granted I don't eat either one in anything other than smaller quantities.  If I keep my meal consumption within my limits and include beans (not very much sadly) I don't see any major differences in my numbers.  Its only when I try to eat more or include them with vegetables so that I go over where I start to run into problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kit
59 minutes ago, stevenal said:

Some of the paleo crowd demonize legumes, citing toxins they contain. In my opinion, paleo-humans probably ate every legume they could find along with things having faces.https://healthyhappysmart.com/paleo-flowchart-guide/

 

Some foods contain antinutrients and sometimes even poisons, in their raw states.  Its very unlikely many of these would have been eaten in quantity before humans started cooking.  I keep thinking legumes may be one of these, but I'm too lazy to look up the information right now.

 

I do know that raw spinach contains an antinutrient that is destroyed in the cooking process.  Good thing I adore cooked spinach.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.