Q. about walnuts

nanner <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| But really we need to be careful with nuts right?
||

Yes, we have a number of them in the newsgroup
from time to time. :-)

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nanner said:

I have package of walnuts that lists the carbs as 3 per ounce. The fiber
is
also 3 per ounce, technically this would become a 0 carb food, right? But
really we need to be careful with nuts right?

As long as you deduct fiber, yes. But figure the numbers are
rounded to make the net come out zero and count them as
0.5 per ounce anyways if you wish to be conservative.

that's about what i figured. i knew it had to add up somehow if it was
multiple servings

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember eating walnuts as a snack, and Macadamia nuts on Atkins
pre-"net
carbs" because they were low in carbs and I think, high in protien.

And fat as well. Nuts are both very filling and seem to keep folks
from getting hungry for a long time. On the minus side they are
high in calories and calories count.

Quoted message said:

What's really the story here? I love nuts in salads and would love to eat
them daily but don't want to go overboard!

I avoid the types I do go over board with and have the ones I don't
tend to go over board with. I did a simple experiment to figure out
which was which - I poured a bowl of X, ate a coupe of handfulls,
set the bowl down next to me, watched TV for an hour, checked
the bowl. Turns out with peanuts and cashews the bowl was
empty. I had eaten them without paying attention. Other types
of nuts that didn't happen. So I have other types of nuts around.

I don't really use them that way so it's not so tempting or easy to lose
control. I like to put slivered almonds or walnuts ona salad or eat a
handful of almonds as a snack at night. I won't sit there with a bag or bowl
and i wont buy salted nuts either.

One thing I find helpful is to buy a huge bag of raw nuts and bag them
separately into 2 oz. portions. I freeze them, but I do have 2 oz. of
nuts most days. I'm on maintenance, so I can afford to do that, but I
had to be careful with the nuts during OWL (I'm on Atkins).

Anyway... portion control really helps. Bag them immediately. There's
no temptation, then, to just dig in and keep eating.

Nicole

The USDA database lists an oz of walnuts as having 3.9g carb, 1.9
fiber, which seems more consistent with other nuts than the info on
that label.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The USDA database lists an oz of walnuts as having 3.9g carb, 1.9
fiber, which seems more consistent with other nuts than the info on
that label.

i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c (30g) has
210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g, fiber = 3g

hmmm

nanner said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The USDA database lists an oz of walnuts as having 3.9g carb, 1.9
fiber, which seems more consistent with other nuts than the info on
that label.

i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c (30g) has
210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g, fiber = 3g

hmmm

It wouldn't be the first time one of these labels was wrong. I'd also
check some other brands and see how they compare. All the nuts I've
seen, the net carb count has never been zero.

nanner said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The USDA database lists an oz of walnuts as having 3.9g carb, 1.9
fiber, which seems more consistent with other nuts than the info on
that label.

i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c (30g) has
210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g, fiber = 3g

hmmm

If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely error for
rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for rounding errors
in counting carbs) and then, oddly, adding on for the fiber 3 g = anoter
12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for rounding) give a total calories of 180
Cal + 24 = 204 plus or minus 4 four rounding .... eventually giving as
much as 208 Cal (or even 210 Cal if one allows a little rounding error
in the fat gram numbers).

ODD Intrepretation of how to count grams and Calories .... but it is
probably the way that was somehow used.

It is better to assume an ODD intrepretation of the labeling
requirements than outright stupidity in not having the numbers more or
less toatal correctly.

This is nothing unusual. This kind of confusion of intrepretation does
happen here once in a while too.

And if the people designing nutrition labels are recent college grads,
they deserve extra credit for trying hard. This is now the American way
in Education.

:-)

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

[email hidden] wrote:
:: nanner wrote:
::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]...
:::: The USDA database lists an oz of walnuts as having 3.9g carb, 1.9
:::: fiber, which seems more consistent with other nuts than the info on
:::: that label.
::::
:::
::: i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c
::: (30g) has 210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g,
::: fiber = 3g
:::
::: hmmm
::
::
:: It wouldn't be the first time one of these labels was wrong. I'd
:: also check some other brands and see how they compare. All the nuts
:: I've seen, the net carb count has never been zero.

the label info on nuts is a complete mess, if you ask me. You won't find
any agreement whatsoever on carb/fiber content. Might as well take a
running average.... But yeah, the net carb count surely isn't zero...you
can be absolutely sure of that.

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't be the first time one of these labels was wrong. I'd also
check some other brands and see how they compare. All the nuts I've
seen, the net carb count has never been zero.

I concur. I don't know of any nuts with 0 carbs.

For a whole food, like nuts, there's not some secret low-carb recipe
that's going to allow the manufacturer to make lower-carb nuts than the
UDSA database has. The label is simply wrong.

nanner said:

I have package of walnuts that lists the carbs as 3 per ounce. The
fiber is also 3 per ounce, technically this would become a 0 carb
food, right? But really we need to be careful with nuts right?

I remember eating walnuts as a snack, and Macadamia nuts on Atkins
pre-"net carbs" because they were low in carbs and I think, high in
protien.

What's really the story here? I love nuts in salads and would love to
eat them daily but don't want to go overboard!

Are the nuts imported? It sounds as if the fiber has already been deducted.
Walnuts are low carb but certainly higher than a trace per ounce.

"Jeri" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nanner said:

I have package of walnuts that lists the carbs as 3 per ounce. The
fiber is also 3 per ounce, technically this would become a 0 carb
food, right? But really we need to be careful with nuts right?

I remember eating walnuts as a snack, and Macadamia nuts on Atkins
pre-"net carbs" because they were low in carbs and I think, high in
protien.

What's really the story here? I love nuts in salads and would love to
eat them daily but don't want to go overboard!

Are the nuts imported? It sounds as if the fiber has already been
deducted.
Walnuts are low carb but certainly higher than a trace per ounce.

not impoted. they are from CA and I am in NY

Jbuch said:

Quoted message said:

i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c (30g) has
210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g, fiber = 3g

hmmm

If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely error for
rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for rounding errors
in counting carbs) and then, oddly, adding on for the fiber 3 g = anoter
12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for rounding) give a total calories of 180
Cal + 24 = 204 plus or minus 4 four rounding .... eventually giving as
much as 208 Cal (or even 210 Cal if one allows a little rounding error
in the fat gram numbers).

ODD Intrepretation of how to count grams and Calories .... but it is
probably the way that was somehow used.

It is better to assume an ODD intrepretation of the labeling
requirements than outright stupidity in not having the numbers more or
less toatal correctly.

This is nothing unusual. This kind of confusion of intrepretation does
happen here once in a while too.

And if the people designing nutrition labels are recent college grads,
they deserve extra credit for trying hard. This is now the American way
in Education.

:-)

Wouldn't 30g of fat be 270 calories?
(or 180 calories be 20g of fat?)

Not being picky.....just observing... :-)

Roger Zoul said:

Nomad wrote:
:: On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:07:54 -0500, Jbuch <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
:::: i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4 c
:::: (30g) has 210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb - 3g,
:::: fiber = 3g
::::
:::: hmmm
::::
::::
:::
::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely error
::: for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for
::: rounding errors in counting carbs) and then, oddly, adding on for
::: the fiber 3 g = anoter 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for rounding)
::: give a total calories of 180 Cal + 24 = 204 plus or minus 4 four
::: rounding .... eventually giving as much as 208 Cal (or even 210 Cal
::: if one allows a little rounding error in the fat gram numbers).
:::
::: ODD Intrepretation of how to count grams and Calories .... but it is
::: probably the way that was somehow used.
:::
::: It is better to assume an ODD intrepretation of the labeling
::: requirements than outright stupidity in not having the numbers more
::: or less toatal correctly.
:::
::: This is nothing unusual. This kind of confusion of intrepretation
::: does happen here once in a while too.
:::
::: And if the people designing nutrition labels are recent college
::: grads, they deserve extra credit for trying hard. This is now the
::: American way in Education.
:::
::: :-)
::
:: Wouldn't 30g of fat be 270 calories?

that's the weigh of the serving...which doesn't imply all fat calories.

:: (or 180 calories be 20g of fat?)

That's what he said....
::
:: Not being picky.....just observing... :-)

Try harder! 🙂

This is the part I was referring to:

Quoted message said:

::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely error
::: for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for

The statement says 30g fat......not 30g weight.
If it's 30g fat it would be 270 calories, not 180.
On the other hand, if it's 180 calories, it would be 20g fat.

Wouldn't it????

Again, not trying to be picky......just observing.

Nomad wrote:
:: On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:02:02 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Nomad wrote:
::::: On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:07:54 -0500, Jbuch <[email hidden]>
::::: wrote:
:::::
::::::: i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4
::::::: c (30g) has 210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb -
::::::: 3g, fiber = 3g
:::::::
::::::: hmmm
:::::::
:::::::
::::::
:::::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely
:::::: error for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal
:::::: for rounding errors in counting carbs) and then, oddly, adding
:::::: on for the fiber 3 g = anoter 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for
:::::: rounding) give a total calories of 180 Cal + 24 = 204 plus or
:::::: minus 4 four rounding .... eventually giving as much as 208 Cal
:::::: (or even 210 Cal if one allows a little rounding error in the
:::::: fat gram numbers).
::::::
:::::: ODD Intrepretation of how to count grams and Calories .... but
:::::: it is probably the way that was somehow used.
::::::
:::::: It is better to assume an ODD intrepretation of the labeling
:::::: requirements than outright stupidity in not having the numbers
:::::: more or less toatal correctly.
::::::
:::::: This is nothing unusual. This kind of confusion of intrepretation
:::::: does happen here once in a while too.
::::::
:::::: And if the people designing nutrition labels are recent college
:::::: grads, they deserve extra credit for trying hard. This is now the
:::::: American way in Education.
::::::
:::::: :-)
:::::
::::: Wouldn't 30g of fat be 270 calories?
:::
::: that's the weigh of the serving...which doesn't imply all fat
::: calories.
:::
::::: (or 180 calories be 20g of fat?)
:::
::: That's what he said....
:::::
::::: Not being picky.....just observing... :-)
:::
::: Try harder! 🙂
::
:: This is the part I was referring to:
::
:::::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely
:::::: error for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal
:::::: for
::
:: The statement says 30g fat......not 30g weight.

It's obvious it's a typo...because above there it says 30g = 1/4 c. So, 20g
fat = 180 cals, as he said.

:: If it's 30g fat it would be 270 calories, not 180.
:: On the other hand, if it's 180 calories, it would be 20g fat.
::
:: Wouldn't it????

But he did the calculation using 20g fat...he just typoed the 30g fat...

::
:: Again, not trying to be picky......just observing.

Observe harder! 🙂

Roger Zoul said:

Nomad wrote:
:: On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:02:02 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Nomad wrote:
::::: On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:07:54 -0500, Jbuch <[email hidden]>
::::: wrote:
:::::
::::::: i have it here now- it's Diamond of California brand. says: 1/4
::::::: c (30g) has 210 cal, 180 = fat cal, 20g total fat, total carb -
::::::: 3g, fiber = 3g
:::::::
::::::: hmmm
:::::::
:::::::
::::::
:::::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely
:::::: error for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal
:::::: for rounding errors in counting carbs) and then, oddly, adding
:::::: on for the fiber 3 g = anoter 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal for
:::::: rounding) give a total calories of 180 Cal + 24 = 204 plus or
:::::: minus 4 four rounding .... eventually giving as much as 208 Cal
:::::: (or even 210 Cal if one allows a little rounding error in the
:::::: fat gram numbers).
::::::
:::::: ODD Intrepretation of how to count grams and Calories .... but
:::::: it is probably the way that was somehow used.
::::::
:::::: It is better to assume an ODD intrepretation of the labeling
:::::: requirements than outright stupidity in not having the numbers
:::::: more or less toatal correctly.
::::::
:::::: This is nothing unusual. This kind of confusion of intrepretation
:::::: does happen here once in a while too.
::::::
:::::: And if the people designing nutrition labels are recent college
:::::: grads, they deserve extra credit for trying hard. This is now the
:::::: American way in Education.
::::::
:::::: :-)
:::::
::::: Wouldn't 30g of fat be 270 calories?
:::
::: that's the weigh of the serving...which doesn't imply all fat
::: calories.
:::
::::: (or 180 calories be 20g of fat?)
:::
::: That's what he said....
:::::
::::: Not being picky.....just observing... :-)
:::
::: Try harder! 🙂
::
:: This is the part I was referring to:
::
:::::: If you work it backwards 30 g fat = 180 Cal (with some likely
:::::: error for rounding) and 3 g carb = 12 Cal (plus or minus 2 Cal
:::::: for
::
:: The statement says 30g fat......not 30g weight.

It's obvious it's a typo...because above there it says 30g = 1/4 c. So, 20g
fat = 180 cals, as he said.

:: If it's 30g fat it would be 270 calories, not 180.
:: On the other hand, if it's 180 calories, it would be 20g fat.
::
:: Wouldn't it????

But he did the calculation using 20g fat...he just typoed the 30g fat...

::
:: Again, not trying to be picky......just observing.

Observe harder! 🙂

Yeah, I made a typo bobo. Calculated with 20 grams fat, typed 30 grams fat.

I do that more and more these days.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

=

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are the nuts imported? It sounds as if the fiber has already been
deducted.
Walnuts are low carb but certainly higher than a trace per ounce.

not impoted. they are from CA and I am in NY

In general, it's safer to use USDA figures for carbs and fiber. Their
website is so easy to use these days that there is little reason not
to check on basic foods, and when label info seems funky.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html

By the way, I like your idea of putting nuts on salads. I always enjoy
that. Sunflower seeds, too. I've had the idea of glazing walnuts or
pecans with splenda, or another AS. Similar to how some restaurant use
glazed nuts on their salads. Anyone ever tried that?

HG

yes, i have glazed pecans in butter with splenda.................delicious!

--

http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1DFqNh7uKnv8zcULsHeXFtQ8TV6rqT1

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

=

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are the nuts imported? It sounds as if the fiber has already been
deducted.
Walnuts are low carb but certainly higher than a trace per ounce.

not impoted. they are from CA and I am in NY

In general, it's safer to use USDA figures for carbs and fiber. Their
website is so easy to use these days that there is little reason not
to check on basic foods, and when label info seems funky.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html

By the way, I like your idea of putting nuts on salads. I always enjoy
that. Sunflower seeds, too. I've had the idea of glazing walnuts or
pecans with splenda, or another AS. Similar to how some restaurant use
glazed nuts on their salads. Anyone ever tried that?

HG

readandpostrosie wrote:
:: yes, i have glazed pecans in butter with
:: splenda.................delicious!

How is that done?

Hannah Gruen said:

By the way, I like your idea of putting nuts on salads. I

always enjoy

Quoted message said:

that. Sunflower seeds, too. I've had the idea of glazing walnuts or
pecans with splenda, or another AS. Similar to how some restaurant use
glazed nuts on their salads. Anyone ever tried that?

HG

I make spiced almonds or pecans from time to time with a mix of
splenda, salt, cinnamon and cayenne to put on the nuts.

-put nuts in a skillet
-warm them in the oven
-remove the skillet when you just start to smell the nuts
-put a couple of pats of butter in the pan to melt
-toss/coat the nuts with the butter
-then add the mix, toss/coat
-let cool

You could also try Dana Carpenters book on slow cookers, there
were a couple of recipes in there for glazed nuts. I tried one
that tasted good, but I didn't like the clean-up time it made.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm