Nut guru

[Jonn]

How common are nut allergies?​

Australia has a high rate of peanut allergies. At one year of age, about 3 in 100 children are allergic to peanuts.

By comparison, tree nut allergies are much rarer. About 1 in 500 children have a reaction to tree nuts at 5 years of age.

About 1 in 10 children will grow out of their tree nut allergy.

Nut allergies

I am allergic to almonds and cashews, also.
Call me "special".

Spoiler

Why is an almond not a nut?

Because they grow in a pod, they're technically a legume, a family of plants that produce their fruit (often beans) in a pod, and have more in common with snow peas than actual nuts. Almonds, cashews and pecans, on the other hand, are actually seeds inside a drupe, or a stone fruit.

 

[Jonn]

Noted. It was a hyperbolic-ly phrased and reactive post. I was irritated about the assumption that "meat is bad" and I took it out on the poor nuts. Thanks for weighing in with some actual science.

Both casual and clinical discussions are acceptable, imo.
We simply need to define the context used.

I use hyperbole all the time, and it does get me into trouble, particularly in an autistic community, apparently.
Sheldon Lee Cooper is a prime example of a literal autistic.

Spoiler

Yes, I know is a made up character.

 

[DrBadStrings]

I have an allergic reaction to most, maybe all nutz.
As a layman, I would call nutz "toxic" for me.

BTW,
I do take in your qualifier referring to degrees of consumption.

I think the problem here is, once again, context.
1. A general/layman discussion...
2. A professional/scientific one...
This clash/mixing is common in many situations, causing confusion.

These ain't fighting woids, pardner.
I am simply being an annoying pedantic aspie.

Allergies I would tend to put into it's own category. As it stands outside of the normal response and should most certainly always be taken seriously.

I full well see your point regarding context of groups 1 and 2 your pointed out above. It is a good point. It's sort of a self assigned task to teach people the true meaning of toxic. Because improving peoples knowledge is generally a good thing, I say generally because some people don't always use knowledge for good. A person need not be an ignorant layman all their lives.

And I know those weren't fighting words. I value your input John.

 

[Jonn]

I full well see your point regarding context of groups 1 and 2 your pointed out above. It is a good point. It's sort of a self assigned task to teach people the true meaning of toxic. Because improving peoples knowledge is generally a good thing, I say generally because some people don't always use knowledge for good. A person need not be an ignorant layman all their lives.

I am not offended, but that would be a rather offensive statement, to some.

 

[DrBadStrings]

I am not offended, but that would be a rather offensive statement, to some.

If someone is offended by a perfectly good term such as ignorant, that is on them. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. The only time ignorance becomes a problem is when someone chooses to stay that way. So if someone should get mad at me for pointing out their lack of knowledge on a topic and choosing the most accurate word, I'm not loosing any sleep.

 

[vergil96]

Yes, some nut allergies might not really be allergies, but reaction to toxins. If I can recall correctly, the nuts (cashews?) have to be correctly prepared for consumption, which many food companies and gastronomies don't do. Similarly, allergies to seafood might not be allergies, because seafood either contains neurotoxins to begin with or starts to have them easily compared to meat as a result of incorrect or too long starage. Ideally, seafood should be eaten fresh, not frozen and taken thousands of km away for many hours.

 

[vergil96]

maybe my digestive and health is so buggered and as celiac with ASD I am not surving vegetarian diet.

Celiac + vegetarianism is a very limiting combination, true.

I really liked the other video of his on rancid nuts and how he speaks of planting the seed as it knows what to do.
What I learnt from him is why nuts are poisonous in way westerners don't understand. If you have nut allergy do watch his videos.

He has few amazing things to say from time to time, I think it's down to earth approach I love so much, not everyone would understand.

In this thread I thought it interesting to discuss our allergies and any views welcome.

Interesting, all the nuts I was very allergic to might have not been fully peeled. Some weren't for sure. I don't buy fresh nuts, just packaged, so they should be soaked, but are they? Also in restaurants if it's a nut mousse, you have no clue what they did or didn't do wuth the nuts.

 

[Jonn]

If someone is offended by a perfectly good term such as ignorant, that is on them. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. The only time ignorance becomes a problem is when someone chooses to stay that way. So if someone should get mad at me for pointing out their lack of knowledge on a topic and choosing the most accurate word, I'm not loosing any sleep.

I was referring to the implied hubris in your post.

 

[Jonn]

Celiac + vegetarianism is a very limiting combination, true.

Diabetes + Histamine-sensitivity is a very limiting combination, also.
Hence, my largely protein diet.

Carbs, for us, is "toxic" in the sense that it promotes weight-gain, fatty liver, kidney disease, and lastly, but not in the least, dementia.

 

[Kayla55]

Yes, some nut allergies might not really be allergies, but reaction to toxins. If I can recall correctly, the nuts (cashews?) have to be correctly prepared for consumption, which many food companies and gastronomies don't do. Similarly, allergies to seafood might not be allergies, because seafood either contains neurotoxins to begin with or starts to have them easily compared to meat as a result of incorrect or too long starage. Ideally, seafood should be eaten fresh, not frozen and taken thousands of km away for many hours.

Had another bladder infections last 2 days, seems to be related to pink fish or snappers I bought. Now colour of fish is derived from the seafood/crustacean diet. So only silver fish for me. I have avoided tuna for long time since heavy metals which well known.

 

[Kayla55]

Diabetes + Histamine-sensitivity is a very limiting combination, also.
Hence, my largely protein diet.

Carbs, for us, is "toxic" in the sense that it promotes weight-gain, fatty liver, kidney disease, and lastly, but not in the least, dementia.

Ye, I'm thinking going over to carnivore diet, no grains. Oats or cornmeal is high risk. I mostly ever had peanuts, haven't noticed issue and I eat raw peanuts, but that's also deworming often.

 

[Kayla55]

Sorry this isn't nut related, I just want to eat chicken but since seeing factory farm, I vomit over any chicken.
Pray, I'm not a specimen of future as I really still throwing out occasional item with msg E....
Sure sort out what to eat

 

[DrBadStrings]

I was referring to the implied hubris in your post. .'

I think Pedantic would probably have been the better choice of words. Correcting folks misuse of a term isn't really hubris.

 

[Kayla55]

Just one tiny problem here, I remember what organic veg looked like, and not even Woolworths at that price stocks real organic.
Tomatoes - fried green version explains red colours are not real, perfect shape doesn't exist in nature.
Built in pesticides, like nut guru this is big problem.

Free choice exists less and less

 

[Kayla55]

Hydroponics, free range, organic

Let's say I want the real natural

 

[Boogs]

I do take in your qualifier referring to degrees of consumption.

Everything in the world is toxic. There's no such thing as a safe substance. Too much water will kill, too much oxygen will kill, too much of anything will kill. Some substances will kill some people while saving the life of another. All the absolutes about what's good and what's bad for us are often at best misleading.
It's more than a qualifier, it pretty much defines what 'toxic' refers to.

This clash/mixing is common in many situations, causing confusion.

It's usually quite simple - those who believe they know, often because it's something they've taken an interest in previously and leant more about it, are correcting what come across as clear misunderstandings.

All our discussions on this site (bar some rare one's I'm unaware of) are general/layman discussions.
To have a proper professional/scientific discussion we'd all need to be professional scientists (or equivalent) working in the same or related area's.
But some of us are particularly taken by scientific methodologies, and what science represents, even so far as to be as much a philosophy as anything (e.g. the importance of evidence). So just as you may correct me on some matter of art, music, literature, entertainment, theology, philosophy (etc) wherever you're interests/talents lie and reveal my ignorance and I'd have to accept that correction, but so I would do likewise to you in my sphere's of interest, without pre-judging you as a person.

From my side, and I suspect others here who do similar, it's got nothing to do with dissin' the person who has those misunderstandings, it's to do with a problem seeing a mistake and not correcting it. For me it's frankly disturbing seeing things like that, at a fundamental level it's anathema to me and limits engaging in the conversation.
Challenging these things is also an important part of learning things. Sometimes I'll challenge a statement, and be torn off a strip because I'd missed something and took an incorrect understanding. That can be a little 'ouch' when you think you knew it all, but it's also a correction of an error, one less mistake to make next time.

Ignorance is an essential part of knowledge and wisdom. Without ignorance we can learn nothing, without accepting our ignorance, we close ourselves to new knowledge. It's important to not take the word 'ignorant' as being a bad thing, life is about choosing what things to remain ignorant of, and what things to learn more about, because no-one can know everything. The very worse thing imaginable could well be omniscience.

Some philosophies state that the more one knows the less they can know (not just in the obvious sense of running out of things to learn), and too much knowledge can also blind us to other truths. But to reject it out of hand and without thought is an awful waste. To reject it because one doesn't wish to know about something is fair enough, but it terminates the conversation regards that topic.

 

[Jonn]

I think Pedantic would probably have been the better choice of words. Correcting folks misuse of a term isn't really hubris.

Time to:

Spoiler

In context,
"Agree to disagree."

 

[Boogs]

Time to:

Spoiler

In context,
"Agree to disagree."

If the hubris is implied, then it's the reader who took that meaning.
If it's inferred then it's the writer giving it that meaning.

I'm inclined to agree with the good doctor here, maybe because I feel compelled to correct things I see as, or believe are wrong as it's provoking and disquieting to see what I perceive as correctable mistakes, on an almost visceral level.
To call that hubris is equally disquieting because without corrections in a world of people's fantasies being taken as realities (in a general sense, not here specifically) we just sink deeper into a morass of unsubstantiated claims that lead to worse, not better. It it's hubris then I too must be labelled as such. When one has spent considerable time studying something, to have it rejected with an insult rather than a clear explanation is a little demeaning to that person, or can feel like it.

"A person need not be an ignorant layman all their lives."
Where is the hubris in that? Especially in the context of it being a general comment (not specifically directed at any one person) and of the paragraph approving some of your comments, i.e. showing his appreciation of your post and engaging in his opinion of it as a topic (not an insight into yourself)?
Or that's how I read it anyway, though I'm biased in my own direction too it must be said (in interpreting that).