Is peanut butter healthy?

UK Limey runner wrote:

I browsed his blog too. The man's a rambling quack. I'll shove broccoli up my ass before I'll be watching any more of those videos.

He has some great stuff. Taubes has nothing but pseudoscientific nonsense.

fguy1 wrote:

He has some great stuff.

I'm speechless that you can watch his videos and believe that. I've flicked through a few more and all he does is make nitpicking little ad hominems against people he disagrees with and acts like he is destroying their arguments since he has found a minor piece of ambiguity that he chooses to interpret in the most negative way.

I'm assuming that you already agreed with everything he says before having watched him. I take it that you are in the "fat is bad, saturated fat is very bad, eat lots of whole grains, evolution never happened" camp? I'm not in that one.

Cheers, Limey.

UK Limey runner wrote:

I take it that you are in the "fat is bad, saturated fat is very bad, eat lots of whole grains, evolution never happened" camp? I'm not in that one.

Cheers, Limey.

I think we garnered that by now. But you are apparently in the "Gary Taubes is decent source of nutrition science info" camp. He isn't, not by a very long shot. You are going to have to trust me on this. Or you will force me to spend way too many hours proving that point (to anyone truly reading what I write) all in order for you to say: well, maybe, but I still think Taubes is okay.

By the way, Gary has gone from stating definitively, and unequivocally that there are "GOOD CALORIES (fat, sat fat, protein)", and there are "BAD CALORIES (carbs)" to saying this:

"Everyone has a theory. The evidence doesn’t exist to say unequivocally who’s wrong.

we’re only guessing whether we know the truth.

Obesity and diabetes are epidemic, and yet the only relevant fact on which relatively unambiguous data exist to support a consensus is that most of us are surely eating too much of something. (My vote is sugars and refined grains; we all have our biases.)"

So he admits; he has NO IDEA if his past books are correct that too much carb intake is the root of our health problems, and that if sat fat is not really an issue for people, and that the KEY REALLY IS that people are EATING TOO MANY CALORIES. (what happened to the "good" ones and the "bad" ones???). Lastly he admits has has been "biased" all along in his views.

So in conclusion, even Gary Taubes now says: 'ignore everything Gary Taubes has ever said about nutrition, except for when he's simply said: it would be better to have more evidence on these topics. Other than that.... he's got nothing.'

That's a white flag if I've ever seen one.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:However, peanut butter is also high in INFLAMMATORY n-6 Polyunsaturated fat. That is bad news. Therefore I would stay away from them.

You're so dumb you can't keep your paleo talking points straight.

Peanuts are not "paleo" because as legumes they are high in lectins.

Yes, peanuts are high in n-6 PUFAs but so are the "true" tree nuts you and your paleo cult buddies scarf down after your pathetic little 5 minute WODs.

If this were about n-6 PUFAs we wouldn't have the paleo pod people fetishizing tree nuts.

It's the lectins idiot.

UK Limey runner wrote:

fguy1 wrote:

He has some great stuff.

I'm speechless that you can watch his videos and believe that. I've flicked through a few more and all he does is make nitpicking little ad hominems against people he disagrees with and acts like he is destroying their arguments since he has found a minor piece of ambiguity that he chooses to interpret in the most negative way.

I'm assuming that you already agreed with everything he says before having watched him. I take it that you are in the "fat is bad, saturated fat is very bad, eat lots of whole grains, evolution never happened" camp? I'm not in that one.

Cheers, Limey.

I have wathched his videos a lot. I am not a vegan and I do not agree on everything but there is a lot of pure scientific information. Fat is not always bad, healthy fat can be healthy. Saturated fat is bad. That is a scientific fact. Evolution never happened? What? There's also a lot of information about how wrong the paleo people are about human evolution and the real paleolithic diets.

Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

Christina Warinner is an expert on ancient diets.

DO you think a single Kenyan runner would read this thread and wonder what to eat and if PB is good or bad..or even care?

You folks put way too much thought into this sort of thing. Eat some PB, its GOOD for you, then eat lots of other stuff that's also good for you. See, no videos/articles necessary and not complicated.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

DO you think a single Kenyan runner would read this thread and wonder what to eat and if PB is good or bad..or even care?

You folks put way too much thought into this sort of thing. Eat some PB, its GOOD for you, then eat lots of other stuff that's also good for you. See, no videos/articles necessary and not complicated.

Are Kenyan runners known for their health and longevity? I do not think them as health authorities. :)

This thread was about more than just PB.

A Kenyan runner on a western diet has a high risk for disease no matter how fast he/she is. :)

fguy1 wrote:

Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

Christina Warinner is an expert on ancient diets.

I saw that video some time ago. It's such a joke. She essentially makes the argument "data on the diet of our ancestors does not exist: here is some data on the diet of our ancestors". She is clearly butt-hurt that others in her field have got media attention and she wants a piece of the action.

Thank you for your response though. I agree that there is no shortage of crap when it comes to 'paleo'. In one of the videos by your vegan man he accepts that Cordain does not overextend on available evidence but of course there are plenty who do. I'm sure I cringe as much as you do when I read some wannabe paleo expert give his two-bits and proceed to completely mess it up.

Rexing, it looks like we're in the same camp with regards to humans generally eating too much sugar and refined grains (although I don't think enough attention is paid to how much it varies as per lineage. Africans are more tolerant of wheat. Mexicans are good at corn. Asians are good at rice. It's not that surprising). Thanks for the link and I'll have a read later. I have stuff to do today.

The red flag on the other hand is you, pretending to be an authority and having all the answers. Lol.

UK Limey runner wrote:

I saw that video some time ago. It's such a joke. She essentially makes the argument "data on the diet of our ancestors does not exist: here is some data on the diet of our ancestors". She is clearly butt-hurt that others in her field have got media attention and she wants a piece of the action.

No, she is just saying that the paleo diet advertised in the media is bullshit. Those people have normal western or even higher cholesterol levels for example. Real paleo people had LDL cholesterol levels less than 70. The physiological level is less than 60.

This is another good video:

The paleo people have eaten a lot of starch.

2 tablespoonfuls of peanut butter contains just 16% of the recommended daily intake of saturated fat (which is 20g).

Peanut butter is crushed peanuts. There's no dairy, which is why it doesn't need to be refrigerated in stores.

I add 1 tablespoonful of unsalted, crunchy peanut butter to my oatmeal. That's about it for me.

Hey, Tyrannosaurus Rexing--

I know there are people on here who like to push your buttons, but I gotta say, I love reading what you write on here. Thanks for sharing, and please keep it up.

I just read that article (NB: In your post I thought only the first sentence was a quotation and attributed the subsequent two to yourself. I should have known as I was very surprised when I thought you had just said people were eating too many refined grains.)I think you've put the worst possible spin on that article to be perfectly honest my man. He is trying to communicate the simple message that dietary disease prevention is not at the same maturity as say for example, smoking or alcohol, and his core message as I see it is that he wants trials to be done of the necessary standard.

We’re going to have to stop believing we know the answer, and challenge ourselves to come up with trials that do a better job of testing our beliefs

As for him saying "ignore everything I've said previously", he said nothing of the sort; he reiterated that he stands by his belief that sugar and grains are being consumed in too high a dose. He is saying something similar to what Matt said above about the importance of being open-minded (Matt actually said 'agnostic' but I assume he meant 'open-minded' as it would be pretty silly to encourage a stance of being 'without knowledge/opinion').

"White flag"? I have time for you dude and enjoy these exchanges but I think you've allowed your objectivity to be compromised and completely misconstrued his message. I don't want to be overly critical but you do have a very bad habit of assuming the absolute worst whenever there is a slight bit of ambiguity or where there is something you are unclear about.

And by the way please don't "spend hours" on attacks against public figures in the field. Attack ideas: not people (I have no problem with 'filtering' out people whose objectivity is clearly compromised e.g. vegans with moral objections, or indeed people who clearly have zero knowledge or ability in critical thinking). You and that other dude paint Taubes as some know-nothing journalist. He studied physics and take it from me, that shit is hard and with that qualification he has in my books earned the right to be heard.

Thanks again for the link.

Optional wrote:The paleo people have eaten a lot of starch.

I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that humans can thrive on a diet rich in starch. I eat quite a bit of it myself as if only by my experiments, trying to do a snotload of running appears to go quite badly when starch is reduced to very low levels.

UK Limey runner wrote:

You and that other dude paint Taubes as some know-nothing journalist. He studied physics and take it from me, that shit is hard and with that qualification he has in my books earned the right to be heard.

Thanks again for the link.

He had bad grades and was not a successful physicist. His brother is a gifted mathematician.

Studying physics does not make you a health and nutrition expert.

Optional wrote:Studying physics does not make you a health and nutrition expert.

Studying the physical sciences/nature induces humility, and humility is necessary for the scientific process. Nature is awesome and if you study it properly you suffer an existential crisis when it dawns upon you how insignificant your existence is. This hurts like a b*stard but you get over it with time and the plus side is that you become less of a slave to your ego. [Any non-scientists reading this will completely dismiss this, but I know the scientists amongst you will be silently sitting there nodding your heads].

When you study a man-made subject such as medicine/nutrition you empower the man and inflate ego. This destroys objectivity and makes the scientific method impossible.

Anyone who studies nature (physics/chemisty/biology) has my respect. Anyone who studies a man-made subject (medicine/nutrition/french literature, whatever) has work to do. I'll listen to a physical scientist over a medical doctor any day. Medical doctors can't think critically or problem-solve for toffee. They do tend to have bloody good memories though.

UK Limey runner wrote:

Studying the physical sciences/nature induces humility, and humility is necessary for the scientific process.

When you study a man-made subject such as medicine/nutrition you empower the man and inflate ego. This destroys objectivity and makes the scientific method impossible.

Anyone who studies nature (physics/chemisty/biology) has my respect. Anyone who studies a man-made subject (medicine/nutrition/french literature, whatever) has work to do. I'll listen to a physical scientist over a medical doctor any day. Medical doctors can't think critically or problem-solve for toffee. They do tend to have bloody good memories though.

Taubes is arrogant. No humility whatsoever.

He maybe has studied physics, but he is no physicist. He is a journalist and gets his money by writing unscientific and controversial books