Nuts High in Protein Low in Cals

kennyb3

Okay I dont think I get enough protein (milk with cereal and fish/chicken for dinner only), so I ve read all over here about nuts being a good source.

Problem is every time I go to buy (which admittedly is in dunnes) them I get turned off by the amount of claories in a small pack (up to 500). I want to use them as an 11 o clock snack in work. So some questions:

Can anyone recommend:

1. Which nuts are high in protein but low in calories (or should i just forget thsi bit)
2. what make would be best to go for (kelkin etc)
3. where i might get them?
4. what size portion to be taking daily?

Do Dunnes sell any ones that are useful?

Thanks

BK

nhg

I'd be interesed in the answers you get also, all I can add is that Aldi do nice packs of nuts in resealable packs, there are different assortments available, ideal for work.

bp1989

All nuts are high in calories. You just need to eat small portions. 25g will have in or around 100 calories.

Thoushaltnot

kennyb3 wrote: »

1. Which nuts are high in protein but low in calories (or should I just forget thsi bit)

Pretty much. Best protein to calories ratio, iirc is Almonds, which should be available anywhere. Aldi recently sold packs of organic nuts at a decent enough price.

What about cottage cheese with a flavoring of your choice? You can go sweet or savoury. Lo-fat yoghurt?

Health food stores might be able to provide you with protein shakes sachets or protein bars or maybe you could investigate preparing your own? I've seen salted & roasted soy beans and they'd be good - just can't think of any other obvious asian snacks.

Or maybe, turns things around and have a high protein brekkie like a boiled egg or an omlette and just have a cereal bar for elevenses?

Do you have any dietary restrictions? Are you just trying to lose weight? Do you live/work near a big city or is Dunnes the only decent store around?

kennyb3

Will take on the above and go with almonds most likely. Not trying to lose huge amount of weight (11st 7 @ 5ft 9) but would like to lose a few pounds and lower my body fat which would help with running and cycling which im into. id mainly like to get more protein as some days i get little if i dont have meat for dinner and adding nuts might help. i really want to do it via foods and not sachets or even bars.

Dunnes aint the only store around but where i currently do my large shop (live in malahide).


thanks for the help.

EileenG

No nuts are low in calories. Where they excel is the amount of excellent fat they have, combined with lots of fiber.

There was a study which found that some of the calories in almonds were not absorbed fully, so people eating a portion of almonds a day didn't put on extra weight, although they were eating extra calories.

A typical portion is around 25-30g. This involves a fair bit of self-discipline. Split the pack as soon as you buy it into portions, or you'll nibble your way through the whole thing.

All nuts have things going for them. Walnuts have omega 3 fats, brazil nuts have selenium, pistachios have iron, peanuts have protein etc.

Before you eat nuts, smell them. If they are in the least dubious or rancid smelling, bin them. Buy your nuts in places with a high turnover, so they are fresh, and not if they are near sources of heat like overhead or shelf lights. Ideally, keep them in the fridge.

eclectichoney

bp1989 wrote: »

All nuts are high in calories. You just need to eat small portions. 25g will have in or around 100 calories.

Just to clear up any confusion - 25g of nuts is actually usually about 150-180 kcals depending on the type.

Mellor

I never understand why nuts are given as a source of protein.

Yes they have some protein. But this is far outweighed by the level of fats. They are all around 50% fat. Luckily this is all good fats. Essential fats.

If you are low in protein, there are better options than nuts.
If you want to increase you consumption of healthy fats, nuts are ideal.

kennyb3

Mellor wrote: »

If you are low in protein, there are better options than nuts.

Any specific suggestions?particularly snack wise in between meals?

Mellor

Eggs whites are pretty much all protein, but are hard to snack on if you are out and about.
Cottage cheese is another good source, and is one of the lowest cal cheeses. Slightly easier to bring a small tub and carrot sticks to work in a tub.

Jerky is imo one of best protein snacks. It gets a bit of a bad rep as there are products like pepperami that get grouped with jerky and are very processed.
Some jerkies are full or artificial flavours, sugars, salt etc. But this is just like good vrs bad peanut butter.
A natural jerky can be 50%, or even 0% protein, and very low fat. Try to get one that has little or nothing add, vinegar, teriaki, chillis are all fine.
Biltong is african jerky, generally made to a traditional recipie so less likely to be full of additives,

Berst advice, check labels and fine a good brand, buy in a health store, online or make your own

corkcomp

Mellor wrote: »

I never understand why nuts are given as a source of protein.

Yes they have some protein. But this is far outweighed by the level of fats. They are all around 50% fat. Luckily this is all good fats. Essential fats.

If you are low in protein, there are better options than nuts.
If you want to increase you consumption of healthy fats, nuts are ideal.

well said .. nuts have their place but you would have to consume a hell of a lot of get any decent level of protein

rubadub

Mellor wrote: »

I never understand why nuts are given as a source of protein.

Yes they have some protein. But this is far outweighed by the level of fats. They are all around 50% fat. Luckily this is all good fats.

Unluckily many people do not believe there is such a thing as good fat, a mate of mine is on WW and you would want to hear the terror & disgust in his voice when he mentions fat. So I think people neglect to mention the fat on purpose as it would put many people off.

metamorphosis

Kenny - lidls 200gm pots of cotage cheese at 200cals or so for the tub and 26gms protein win!

They're low fat cottage cheese has the same protein levels roughly at 70cals less.

Tesco 300gms cottage cheese is over 36gmns protein for the tub at around 250ish cals i think.

Ciaran500

ULstudent wrote: »

Kenny - lidls 200gm pots of cotage cheese at 200cals or so for the tub and 26gms protein win!

They're low fat cottage cheese has the same protein levels roughly at 70cals less.

Tesco 300gms cottage cheese is over 36gmns protein for the tub at around 250ish cals i think.

Is there anyway to make cottage cheese taste nice? Not this rank lumpy mush with a strong after taste :pac: I goes well in a sandwich but I could never eat a tub of it.

metamorphosis

you mean you don't like the taste!! i do a few things might mix in some a little flavoured protein powder if you have some - just for taste or a spoon of cocoa or heat a little peanut butter and put it in and mix them together or a little cinnamon or a drop of almond/vanilla essence or maybe a tiny bit of jam for flavour instead. Thats all the tricks from my sleeves anyway.

EileenG

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Is there anyway to make cottage cheese taste nice? Not this rank lumpy mush with a strong after taste :pac: I goes well in a sandwich but I could never eat a tub of it.

Dissolve a sachet of sugar-free jelly in 1/3 of a pint of hot water.
Throw a tub of cottage cheese into the blender, add half the hot jelly mixture.
Blend until there are no curds left.
Put a tray of ice cubes into the rest of the hot jelly mixture, stir, then add to the blender.
Blend until you can't hear any ice rattling.
Pour into about four dishes and chill.

Tastes like dessert, I promise.

kennyb3

ULstudent wrote: »

Kenny - lidls 200gm pots of cotage cheese at 200cals or so for the tub and 26gms protein win!

They're low fat cottage cheese has the same protein levels roughly at 70cals less.

Tesco 300gms cottage cheese is over 36gmns protein for the tub at around 250ish cals i think.

Ta UL will have a look into them

Davei141

Try mixing cottage cheese with some spring onions and eat it on some ryvita, see what you think

anigheh

I'm with u on that topic!! What can u do to make cottage cheese taste edible???? I love most food (actually all food) and would love to be able to eat cottage cheese, but cannot do it?

EileenG

Dissolve a sachet of sugar-free jelly in 1/3 of a pint of hot water.
Throw a tub of cottage cheese into the blender, with half the hot liquid and blend till it's completely smooth, with no curds.
Add a tray of icecubes to the rest of the hot jelly mixture and stir.
Add to the blender and blitz everything until you can't hear ice rattling.
Pour into about four containers and chill.
Makes a lovely fluffy sort of mousse dessert that doesn't taste of cottage cheese.

Mellor

EileenG wrote: »

Dissolve a sachet of sugar-free jelly in 1/3 of a pint of hot water.
Throw a tub of cottage cheese into the blender, add half the hot jelly mixture.
Blend until there are no curds left.
Put a tray of ice cubes into the rest of the hot jelly mixture, stir, then add to the blender.
Blend until you can't hear any ice rattling.
Pour into about four dishes and chill.

Tastes like dessert, I promise.

EileenG wrote: »

Dissolve a sachet of sugar-free jelly in 1/3 of a pint of hot water.
Throw a tub of cottage cheese into the blender, with half the hot liquid and blend till it's completely smooth, with no curds.
Add a tray of icecubes to the rest of the hot jelly mixture and stir.
Add to the blender and blitz everything until you can't hear ice rattling.
Pour into about four containers and chill.
Makes a lovely fluffy sort of mousse dessert that doesn't taste of cottage cheese.

Did you forget you already gave us this bad boy.
Care to estimate the cals per batch. What size tub do you use

EileenG

Sorry, it didn't come up on my computer, so I thought I had posted it somewhere else.

I generally use 100-200g of CC per batch, so the calories are pretty much the 25-50g cottage cheese plus about 10 cals per portion for jelly.

Mellor

EileenG wrote: »

Sorry, it didn't come up on my computer, so I thought I had posted it somewhere else.

I generally use 100-200g of CC per batch, so the calories are pretty much the 25-50g cottage cheese plus about 10 cals per portion for jelly.

I might give it a shot. Don't have a blender though, fork and vigorous hand whisk do the trick

EileenG

Don't think it would work well without some sort of blender. Pulverising those curds takes seconds in a blender but could be a long job without it. I don't think you'd get the frothy effect either.

Iristxo

Where do you get sugar-free jelly and does that have a sweetener in it I presume? Also, why is cottage cheese so good? We do buy it we eat it just as is (we like it just like that) but apart from calcium is there any other remarkable nutrients in it? I know it is cultured milk or whatever so it does not have all the disadvantages of lactose

corkcomp

Iristxo wrote: »

Where do you get sugar-free jelly and does that have a sweetener in it I presume? Also, why is cottage cheese so good? We do buy it we eat it just as is (we like it just like that) but apart from calcium is there any other remarkable nutrients in it? I know it is cultured milk or whatever so it does not have all the disadvantages of lactose

you can buy sugar free jelly in dunnes, tesco or any shop really. cottage cheese packs a lot of calcium and protein and very little fat .. if you like it on its own its the best way to eat it..

EileenG

Sugar free jelly is easy to get. Most supermarkets have it. It justed to be made by Birds, now Hartleys I think. Comes in a double sachet.

Cottage cheese is cheap, low fat, low carb, high protein. Also, the type of protein in it is particularly slow to digest, so it fills you up for longer.

nhg

I love lidl l/fat cottage cheese on an aldi oatcake with a slice of tomatoe and black pepper on top... delicious.... don't know about calories though...

Thats usually lunch for me or else a tin of tuna with some chopped scallions/onion and a little mayo on oatcakes or on its own or wrapped in a leaf of lettuce.

I add a few almonds to my porridge along with a few dried cranberries... getting hungry now

Lornen

Almonds: 6-8 calories per nut. Almonds have a bad rep for being "fattening" but it's proven the fat in them actually helps lower cholesterol and even helps in weight loss. You just can't eat a heap of them. A small handful is enough for a snack, and if that doesn't fill you just pair them with a natural low fat yogurt. Almonds are very high in protein also!

Mellor

If a food is fattening or not has nothing to do with the fat content.
Most people would eat more than a few nuts. Which is why I don't like suggesting them.
They aren't that high in protein. 50% fat, 22% Protein, 20% carbs, this combined with the fact that you should eat too many means that you won't get more than a few grams of protein

ANSI

EileenG wrote: »

No nuts are low in calories. Where they excel is the amount of excellent fat they have, combined with lots of fiber.

There was a study which found that some of the calories in almonds were not absorbed fully, so people eating a portion of almonds a day didn't put on extra weight, although they were eating extra calories.

A typical portion is around 25-30g. This involves a fair bit of self-discipline. Split the pack as soon as you buy it into portions, or you'll nibble your way through the whole thing.

All nuts have things going for them. Walnuts have omega 3 fats, brazil nuts have selenium, pistachios have iron, peanuts have protein etc.

Before you eat nuts, smell them. If they are in the least dubious or rancid smelling, bin them. Buy your nuts in places with a high turnover, so they are fresh, and not if they are near sources of heat like overhead or shelf lights. Ideally, keep them in the fridge.

I have slightly elevated cholesterol and was looking at nuts in supermarket and the all seem a bit high in sats fat around 4-5g which is said to be highish. can you suggest any nuts for me please?

rubadub

ANSI wrote: »

can you suggest any nuts for me please?

I think they will all be around the same sat fat levels.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Heart_Letter/2009/July/Ask-the-doctor-Why-is-peanut-butter-healthy-if-it-has-saturated-fat

Ask the doctor


Why is peanut butter "healthy" if it has saturated fat?

Q. I keep reading that peanut butter is a healthy food. But it contains saturated fat and has more sodium than potassium. That doesn't sound healthy to me.

A. The presence of saturated fat doesn't automatically kick a food into the "unhealthy" camp. Olive oil, wheat germ, and even tofu — all "healthy" foods — have some saturated fat. It's the whole package of nutrients, not just one or two, that determines how good a particular food is for health.

Let's take a look at the peanut butter package. One serving (about 2 tablespoons) has 3.3 grams of saturated fat and 12.3 grams of unsaturated fat, or about 80% unsaturated fat. That puts it up there with olive oil in terms of the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fat. Peanut butter also gives you some fiber, some vitamins and minerals (including 200 milligrams of potassium), and other nutrients. Unsalted peanut butter, with 5 milligrams of sodium, has a terrific potassium-to-sodium ratio. Salted peanut butter still has about twice as much potassium as sodium. That profile compares quite favorably with bologna, roast beef, and many other sandwich fixings.

Over the years, numerous studies have shown that people who regularly include nuts or peanut butter in their diets are less likely to develop heart disease or type 2 diabetes than those who rarely eat nuts. Although it is possible that nut eaters are somehow different from, and healthier than, non-nutters, it is more likely that nuts themselves have a lot to do with these benefits.

Saturated fat isn't the deadly toxin it is sometimes made out to be. The body's response to saturated fat in food is to increase the amounts of both harmful LDL and protective HDL in circulation. In moderation, some saturated fat is okay. Eating a lot of it, though, promotes artery-clogging atherosclerosis, the process that underlies most cardiovascular disease. In contrast, unsaturated fats, which make up the majority of the fat content in peanut butter, help reduce LDL cholesterol and lower the risk of heart disease.

I try to eat as healthful a diet as I can. It includes all kinds of nuts, as well as peanut and other nut butters.

— Walter C. Willett, M.D.
Professor of Nutrition
Harvard School of Public Health

coconut oil is about 86% sat fat and some people eat tablespoons of it for its health benefits.

ANSI

rubadub wrote: »

I think they will all be around the same sat fat levels.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Heart_Letter/2009/July/Ask-the-doctor-Why-is-peanut-butter-healthy-if-it-has-saturated-fat



coconut oil is about 86% sat fat and some people eat tablespoons of it for its health benefits.

Thanks i am looking at sat fats from the point of view of cholesterol

moonage

ANSI wrote: »

Thanks i am looking at sat fats from the point of view of cholesterol

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

nice_guy80

beans are a much better alternative to nuts for snacking (though nuts are handier)
if you couple nuts with fruit then its a great snack

buy plain uncooked beans, cook and add homemade sauce. put in a small container. great for snacking on, with a fork

ANSI

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

very selective history

EdoErgoSum

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

I love Toms videos, a lot of useful info.

His blog: Fat Head

Thomas Magnum

moonage wrote: »

You might want to look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

Ahh yes, the Cholesterol Confusionists favourite whipping boy Ancel Keys. He is persona non grata amongst the lovers of saturated fat. Tom Naughtons Broscience is a joke.

The premise that saturated fat contributes to heart disease did not start with the seven country study. A link between heart disease and saturated fat was suspected in the 1930's. This planted the seed for Keys work years later. Keys first turned his attention to cholesterol and heart disease in 1948. He was not convinced there was a connection. He first made public his suspicion of the American high-fat diet in 1952. He was not concerned about dietary chlosterol at this point and the following year he made a landmark speech blaming dietary fat for its contribution to heart disease yet he did not believe it deserved full blame.

This 1953 address and the paper associated with it are what most of the Cholesterol Confusionists are actually criticising although they apparently don't understand that. The seven country study was begun 5 years later in 1958 to investigate Keys concerns. In 1961 Keys first makes the distinction that it is saturated fat and not dietary fat in general that increases blood cholesterol. By 1964 it was a common belief that saturated fat contributed to heart disease and in 1968 it was shown that lowering saturated fat lowered risk factors for heart disease and finally it was in 1970 that the Seven Country Study was presented.

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Ahh yes, the Cholesterol Confusionists favourite whipping boy Ancel Keys. He is persona non grata amongst the lovers of saturated fat. Tom Naughtons Broscience is a joke.

The premise that saturated fat contributes to heart disease did not start with the seven country study. A link between heart disease and saturated fat was suspected in the 1930's. This planted the seed for Keys work years later. Keys first turned his attention to cholesterol and heart disease in 1948. He was not convinced there was a connection. He first made public his suspicion of the American high-fat diet in 1952. He was not concerned about dietary chlosterol at this point and the following year he made a landmark speech blaming dietary fat for its contribution to heart disease yet he did not believe it deserved full blame.

This 1953 address and the paper associated with it are what most of the Cholesterol Confusionists are actually criticising although they apparently don't understand that. The seven country study was begun 5 years later in 1958 to investigate Keys concerns. In 1961 Keys first makes the distinction that it is saturated fat and not dietary fat in general that increases blood cholesterol. By 1964 it was a common belief that saturated fat contributed to heart disease and in 1968 it was shown that lowering saturated fat lowered risk factors for heart disease and finally it was in 1970 that the Seven Country Study was presented.

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

Just when i thought it was safe to go back to the ice cream and take the video to the doc and ask him why is he torturing me;) I am not sure what you mean are you saying sat fat is bad as I thought?

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

Just when i thought it was safe to go back to the ice cream and take the video to the doc and ask him why is he torturing me;) I am not sure what you mean are you saying sat fat is bad as I thought?

The problem with using the data from the 22 countries to argue against the 7 country study, as it seems the confusionists insist on doing, is that that data came from a statistical compilation by the FAO. That was not data used in the 7 country study. The 7 country study was a prospective cohort study. Researchers were dispatched within 7 countries to collect their own data using uniform standards. Naughton, and his ilk, are being intellectually dishonest.

EdoErgoSum

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

The problem with using the data from the 22 countries to argue against the 7 country study, as it seems the confusionists insist on doing, is that that data came from a statistical compilation by the FAO. That was not data used in the 7 country study. The 7 country study was a prospective cohort study. Researchers were dispatched within 7 countries to collect their own data using uniform standards. Naughton, and his ilk, are being intellectually dishonest.

ok, forget about history and political issues....

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Thomas Magnum

EdoErgoSum wrote: »

ok, forget about history and political issues....

Don't leave me in suspense... care to elaborate?

EdoErgoSum wrote: »

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

The National Dairy Council in financing a study that found no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD shocker.

And in other news water is wet.

ANSI

What about this? Seems to be a lot of people saying sat fat is not related to cholesterol

rubadub

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

The Cholesterol Confusionists say he didn't use/left out the data for 22 countrys but the 22 country data refers to his 1953 study, not the Seven Country Study which was presented in 1970, some 17 years later.

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

Thomas Magnum

rubadub wrote: »

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

Naughton and the rest of the Cholesterol Confusionists want you to believe that 40 years ago the whole medical profession was hoodwinked by Ancel Keys and that they have all marched in lockstep ever since. They try to portray the 7 country study and the 1953 22 country paper as the same thing. This is intellectually dishonest. They fail to present the cautious and gradual development of Keys' ideas leading to his concerns over saturated fat and instead parrot a bogus critique that you will see all over the internet.

ANSI

rubadub wrote: »

Reading this I am guessing some might have said he looked at the previous study of 22 and cherry picked 7 to go with in his new study(?)

That is what wiki says

Criticism

The Seven Countries Study had weak points[31], including how the populations were selected (in part for reasons of convenience), and how the population correlations were carried out; there was no random selection of a great numbers of units. Also, this study included only men. Hence, generalisability of the findings to women should be done with caution.

The study began with a great many more countries - Australia, Italy, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Holland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain, USA - but Keys deleted the countries whose results did not match his pre-conceived conclusions, leaving him with only Japan, Italy, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the US. Full disclosure would have made a great deal of difference. [32]

One of the major conclusions of the study, that dietary saturated fat correlates with increased risk of heart disease, has come under criticism

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

That is what wiki says

I have already explained that the 22 country paper and the 7 country study are not the same thing. It wasn't one study where at the end he whittled it down to seven. A lot of the data collected for the 22 country paper wasn't useful. However if you think otherwise then please explain.

ANSI

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I have already explained that the 22 country paper and the 7 country study are not the same thing. It wasn't one study where at the end he whittled it down to seven. A lot of the data collected for the 22 country paper wasn't useful. However if you think otherwise then please explain.

wiki apears to say they are. What is yur reference? Have you read the greats cholesterol con? He says no link between cholesterol and CHD was ever found. Can you link me to where there is such a relationship

Thomas Magnum

ANSI wrote: »

wiki apears to say they are. What is yur reference?

And as we all know wiki is infallible.

The data for the 22 country's was presented as part of his address at the Annual Health Conference of New York at Lake Placid, N. Y., June 3, 1953.

Here is the accompanying paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1620415/


The 7 country study wasn't begun for another 5 years. It was presented in 1970.

rubadub

ANSI wrote: »

That is what wiki says

That is not what I was saying though. I was saying if indeed they are 2 completely separate studies he still could have used info he gained in the first study to carefully select which 7 he picks for the second. I don't know enough about them, just made sense to me if they were both different studies I would imagine they might have similar info, enough to make an educated guess as to which 7 would skew results his way.

Thomas Magnum

rubadub wrote: »

That is not what I was saying though. I was saying if indeed they are 2 completely separate studies he still could have used info he gained in the first study to carefully select which 7 he picks for the second. I don't know enough about them, just made sense to me if they were both different studies I would imagine they might have similar info, enough to make an educated guess as to which 7 would skew results his way.

The data for the 22 country study was from a statistical compilation by the FAO. Much of this data was flawed. The 7 country study was begun to investigate Keys' concerns, data was collected using uniform standards unlike the 22 country paper, and was the first study of its kind so it was not as refined as those that followed.