"I agree. Plants, whether they be sweet or bitter almonds (Prunus dulcis) or even wheat berries will only produce noticeable harm if eaten in sufficient quantity given the sensitivity of the individual consuming them. Also, sweet almonds are much less toxic than wild (bitter) almonds. Based on what I've read so far, I don't recommend eating a bunch of wild almonds, but if you have sources that contadict that, please do share them. As I mentioned, I only just learned of this stuff myself and I'm hoping that the sources that claimed all traces of amygdalin are absent from sweet almonds are correct. Unfortunately, none of those sources had scientific references. The most scientific source I found reported that there IS amygdalin in almonds. There are likely other antinutrients as well, as most plant reproductive organs seem to contain multiple antinutrients. Yes, as I mentioned, antinutrients can even be medicinal--in limited quantities, for limited times, depending on the person's sensitivity and the amount of any detoxicants consumed with them, and who knows what other variables."
Again, not all anti-nutrients in their natural form are harmful because many plants have other chemical compounds that deactivate these anti-nutrients within it's natural biochemical sequence, as I have already showed with the biochemical activity of the amygdalin molecule. So, it's not a question of whether a certain nut/seed has amygdalin or not. The simple fact is, amygdalin is not toxic to the human body, therefore it does not matter. In general, most bitter nuts/seeds have the highest concentration of amygdalin, whereas the less bitter fruits and nuts/seeds usually have a much lower concentration of the molecule. Sweet almonds probably contain a very small amount of amygdalin, but not enough. Obviously, you can eat too much fruit, but that really means nothing, since we all know that too much of anything can be harmful, including animal products (ever ate too much fat back?). For example, I do very well on raw honey and fruit because I am very active. Without it, I would ruin my health and fitness goals. Some people may be more carb-sensitive from decades of eating highly refined, unnatural carbs and probably do better on a high fat diet. That's fine and if that works, then they should keep at it. But I am not concerned about the healthy sugar in fruits and honey (yes, it is healthy, at least for me, due to my highly active lifestyle, not to mention the fact that they still contain very healthy nutrients) or the "anti-nutrients" because, from my background in science, I know that most of it is not a big deal, nor does it negatively affect my health, therefore I will keep eating it and setting new fitness goals.
Here is another source I found: nevertheless, I currently have a hard time believing it because
"Oil of bitter almonds, which is used in cooking, contains enough cyanide to be lethal, and people have committed suicide by drinking it.
First of all, that statement can't be true because if it contained a 'concentrated source' of cyanide then it would be illegal. Also, this just goes to show you how poor the authors biochemistry is if he calls it "concentrated" because, once again, the cyanide can only become harmful or "concentrated/isolated" when unlocked outside of the amygdalin molecule or broken down via beta-glucosidase/rhodanese (enzymatic activity). In other words, you can think of the amygdalin molecule being a bird cage with a bird in it. In order for that bird to get out of the cage, you need a key. Without the key, the bird will NOT get out. Beta-glucosidase/rhodanese is the key. The bird is cyanide. I cannot find the source that you cited. Please give me a link. I also forgot to mention that, from what you have given me, the author does not list any names or actual records. So far, not factual.
"Two cases of accidental poisoning with cyanide reported in 1981 involved groups of children in Israel who ate apricot kernels, which are, apparently, 'sweet and tasy'. In the first, involving a group of thirteen children, three died about half an hour after eating the 'sweets'. In the other case, which involved eight children, one died and the others were ill within two hours of eating the kernels."
A major problem here. Apricot kernels are NOT 'sweet and tasty'. They are VERY bitter. I eat them on a regular basis. In fact, most kids will not eat them in their natural state because of how bitter they are. This is because amygdalin is bitter, NOT sweet. If this is true, then this is really good evidence that shows you they were poisoned by something else. Nevertheless, I am currently having a hard time believing this because no kid will run around calling apricot kernels "sweet and tasty" after consuming them.
Apricot and almond kernels contain a substance called amygdalin, a sugar-like molecule which has a cyanide group within it. The cyanide is released when the kernel is chewed because an enzyme in the kernel is released and becomes active when it is chewed in the presence of saliva. The enzyme breaks down the amygdalin to release the cyanide. The exact number of apricot kernels that need to be eaten before adverse effects appear depends on the individual and on the type of kernel. Fifty or more kernels will certainly have adverse effects, but as few as twelve bitter almond kernels have been reported to cause serious toxic effects in an individual." --John A. Timbrell, toxicologist, The poison paradox: chemicals as friends and foes, pp. 218-219"
Another major problem here. Once again, only a small amount of amygdalin is hydrolyzed by the body or somatic cells. When this molecule is broken down, cyanide is not just "released" and you die. It does not work out that way. As soon as the very small amount of amygdalin is hydrolized by the body or somatic cells, the rhodanese enzyme, which is found in abundance within the human body, quickly converts the HCN to thiocyanate, which is relatively non-toxic. The author got all his biochemistry wrong on this one too. And once again, no sources were established. No records, no names, nothing. I need a link showing records of these events. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this sounds a lot like anti-amygdalin, big pharma propaganda (like the kind that went on in the early 70's when they tried to get it banned). Many different tribes still consume plenty amygdalin and they're not all dying off. In fact, the Hunza diet is pretty high in amygdalin.
"You almost convinced me about almonds until you reminded me that some people soak them. I get a bit suspicious if a food should be processed before it's eaten, and if sweet almonds are "not toxic whatsoever," what is the point of soaking them? If soaking is to get toxins out, how does one know that all the toxins are gone?"
Almonds, like most nuts, become more digestible when soaked (enzyme inhibitors are released), although some higher fat nuts, like macadamia nuts, don't really need to be soaked.
"Many people, including some scientists, claim that the toxin levels in domesticated grains, legumes, etc. are negligible after processing (soaking, cooking, etc.), but when Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg and others investigated, they found significant levels of toxins remain after processing and millions of people claim to react to these foods. Interestingly, tree nuts (including the fruit seeds called almonds) are one of the more commonly reported food allergies."
I don't eat grains, so that does not apply to this post. Actually, the most commonly reported plant food allergies stem from certain plant foods in their cooked form, just like how most dairy allergies stem from pasteurized dairy, not raw dairy (no matter what your position is on raw dairy, that's a simple fact).
"As I mentioned, all primates that eat diets heavy in antinutrient-rich plants (which basically means all the primates who aren't frugivores or faunivores) eat at least some clay or other detoxicant."
Yes, but 1. they do not consume clay on a regular basis and 2. you also forget the fact that fruit contains plenty of fiber, which pull toxins out of your body.
"I posted info in at least one other thread from a book that goes into this in some depth. I find the nonhuman primates more convincing than humans on such matters because they don't have allegiances to any dietary doctrines."
I agree. Humans can be rather dogmatic and ignorant in their approach. I have experimented with many different macronutrient ratios (low/zero carb, higher carb, etc.) and I just found what works best for me and my athletic goals. Like I said before, if someone finds a way of eating that works best for them, then that's great - after all, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. So, if you want to make the whole arguement about antinutrients or amygdalin being harmful, although I have debunked the unfounded claims, then you also have to say that red meat is unhealthy because Vitamin B-12 contains cyanide.
"The problem with this is, less antinutrients/insecticides means higher susceptibility to predation by insects, worms and other animals. So pesticides were developed, first natural ones and then synthetic ones made from petrochemicals."
No, not exactly. Less MINERALS/natural plant toxins usually means more pesticides, etc. Plants that grow in minerally depleted soil need more pesticides, etc.
"So the question is, have humans had enough time to adapt to the antinutrients in almonds and/or have the antinutrient levels in raw almonds been reduced so low that they can be eaten fairly regularly without problems? So far what I've been finding is reminiscent of what I read about grains and legumes. Oh, sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that grains and legumes are healthy if soaked and sprouted or cooked, but their claims didn't pan out for me. My own experience found them to be toxic for me and tons of accumulating science suggests they are toxic for many people, possibly all."
Once again, it's not that plants contain some antinutrients/natural toxins, but it's how those antinutrients/plant toxins digest and affect our bodies. That's why I talked about amygdalin. Yes, it has cyanide, but how does this molecule digest in our bodies? Pretty well. After all, I consume amygdalin on a regular basis and I am not dead. The fact is, once again, if you want to make an arguement for amygdalin being harmful/deadly, then you would have to say that Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) is harmful because, after all, Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) contains cyanide too. Why aren't we dead? Because our bodies are well adapted to handle Vitamin B-12 (cyanocobalamin) like it is amygdalin, not to mention the fact that it is not in it's concentrated form. Plant toxins/anti-nutriets, once absorbed by our bodies, can become BENEFICIAL toxins/chemical compounds because they are MODIFIED through the biochemical actions of enzymatic activity, etc., therefore they are no longer the same molecule that they once were before they entered the body. So, yes, there can be a natural plant toxin that is used to protect the plant, but once it enters our body it might be broken down into beneficial chemical compounds, etc. The fact is, ALL FOODS, both plant and animal, contain toxins and bacteria. Plants contain natural toxins that can be beneficial to our health, including cyanide. Animal meat/fat too contains natural bacteria and toxins that can be beneficial to our health, INCLUDING cyanide (vitamin B-12).
"My experience with almonds was that by eliminating them and all other nuts from my diet, my health improved a bit further. Even if soaking almonds eliminated all problems, if I have to do that I can't be bothered with them. Besides, I found raw nuts to be rather bland and I don't really miss them. They were very tasty with some dried dates or mangoes mixed in, but I'll bet even you would admit that adding dried fruit would not be optimally healthy. So I'm not convinced that I should add them back into my diet, but I'd still like to explore their toxicity or lack thereof, since friends and relatives do eat them and ask me questions about foods from time to time."
And that's great. If you experience good health by doing so, then keep on doing it, but I have experienced better health since I added in some raw plant fats and fruits/raw honey because my body REQUIRES it for my level of fitness. I need an insulin spike after I finish working out to promote protein synthesis and pull my body out of catabolism. I have done zero carb long enough to 'adapt' to it (for about a year when I properly calculate it) and my health WAS declining, along with my fitness goals. I am a big believer in raw animal food and that is the foundation of my diet, but my body requires fruit and honey in order to function. Nuts are not essential, but every now and then I will take a handful and there is nothing wrong with that. As far as dried fruit goes, well, it depends on what kind of dried fruit you're eating. I consume goji berries almost daily (it is one of my main sources of plant antioxidants), which are sun dried and they don't spike my blood sugar violently. In fact, many people find that they actually help balance blood sugar levels, as I too have found. Other than that, the only dried fruit I consume is right before or after powerlifting. Dried fruit won't harm me because, like I said above, I NEED to spike my insulin levels after exercising in order to hault catabolism. A heavy, high fat, no/very low carb meal will NOT immediately pull your body out of a catabolic state by spiking insulin levels, driving glucose and amino acids into muscle cells (this can happen because 1. insulin sensitivity is increased after heavy exercises and 2. glycogen stores are depleted, so nutrients will go to muscle cells rather than fat cells). The fact is, for very active athletes like me, sugar from fruit and honey IS needed. I would have to question some of the raw paleo dieters who believe all sugar is evil, if they are truly active, like our raw paleo ancestors were, because it is hard as hell to lift huge rocks and logs and hike/run up mountains on a zero carb diet. I am saying this from first hand experience. Anyway, I don't want to come across as some hard-head who is bashing other peoples diets. I am just raising some interesting questions.
Cthulhu
