Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Well, maybe not in Hawaii but one can dream?! It's a pleasant day, warmish and windy-ish in Kansas... we'll take them as they come.
Was reading this article and thought I'd share. It's one of those "scientific studies" paid for by the Almond Growers, so there is a bias there.
Just for sake of argument, I tried to find some other articles or results, to see if any had their own bias one way or another. Admittedly I haven't spent the entire afternoon perusing many articles. Actually, just one...
This article kinda goes off on a different but similar tangent, and mentions that a calorie isn't always a calorie - and that some foods just really don't take much effort to chew up or to digest (calories burned) and so the body gets more of the calories from that food. Evidently this is the case with smoother or slicker foods... and then the article mentions various nuts, including Almonds, as burning a lot of calories in the efforts of chewing and digesting the nuts. And it says that the US Department of Agriculture confirms that finding. (but I didn't go off hunting for the official US Department of Agriculture article on same. That can be your science project of the day, if that's of interest to you. I need to go jump on my rebounder right now because my legs are aching, and it will be much more fun then taking the dog to the vet for her rabies shot.).
I have noticed that just a small amount of almonds really does give me saity (sp?) in my breakfast cereal....
So it appears to me that a small portion of almonds will be sufficient to boost the protein levels and really not increase the calories that much, as long as you are doing most of the work chewing it up. Probably Almond butter will be a straight transfusion of calories though...
(this might look like peanut butter or Nutella, but today, I will suspend disbelief and call it Almond butter, since I couldn't find any emoticons for almonds in SparkPeople. The very idea!!!).