1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2018 »
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

Carb content of Almonds

Discussion in 'Low-carb Diet Forum' started by Flora123, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. Flora123

    Flora123 Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I’ve noticed that my best days are when I haven’t eaten nuts. I snack on Waitrose Almonds and pecans. Both packs are very low state 4.7 g carbs per 100g for almonds and I think3.8g for the pecans (that is the weight of the pack too). Just checked online and googled carbs of almonds and depending on how they are prepared it’s between 18-22g carbs for 100? I have a nagging doubt about the accuracy of the packaging. Anyone got any almonds to compare please? I thought 4.7 was too good to be true....
     
  2. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    9,270
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    198
    I'm guessing like many you are looking at a US site and a UK site which will give very different answers for carb content. The US site (or usually google) will include fibre in the total carb count whereas a UK site won't (it doesn't matter if its google.co.uk most of the data will come from the US.
    I downloaded the UK food database from which I think most supermarkets get their info and find that toasted almonds have 7g of carbs per 100g Pecans come out at 5.8g of carb per 100g.
    I think in future i'll use that one.
    here's a link to it
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/composition-of-foods-integrated-dataset-cofid
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Flora123

    Flora123 Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ahhh. I hadn’t thought of that! Thank you so much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. miahara

    miahara Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Here's the Diogenes (UK/EU) data for almonds. Low in carbs and very low GL too.
    upload_2018-10-7_20-38-11.png

    Pecans are a tad lower in CHO and GL.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BibaBee

    BibaBee · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Whilst we're on the subject....I notice there are a lot of fans of almond milk on here. I've just realised that some brands have added maltodextrin, which apparently is a no-no for blood sugar spikes. For a small home-made cappuccino we use 100ml which is around 1.5g of carbs. My husband hasn't tested with this in isolation, so unsure if it has much impact. Anyone tried one brand with (Blue Diamond Barista Blend) vs one without (Alpro)?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Bananas 2

    Bananas 2 Parent · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Diogenes GI of 24 is not correct. Cashews are around GI=22, and that is the highest of the tree nuts (highest carb count as well). Other sources report almonds at GI=0, but that is also incorrect. Based on my research, almonds' GI appears from 5 to maybe 10 max. Lots fat, fiber and protein buffer the small amount of carbs. If eating a lowcarb diet, we must also be aware of protein -- and almonds have plenty. This can result in gluconeogenesis if a significant amount are eaten, however that is a very slow process that equates to about a GI of 5.
     
  7. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    9,270
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Probably more fans of double cream to be fair...which is far nicer too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. miahara

    miahara Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    654
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Here's the Diogenes data for cashews - not too far from your data as far as GI goes.
    What data sources is your research based on?

    upload_2018-10-7_22-48-39.png
     
  9. Bananas 2

    Bananas 2 Parent · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    28
    @miahara -- Diogenes GI=24 is applied to almonds, walnuts, pecans.... all the same.
    That is because...if you look at column "L" this number is based on "mixed nuts" -- not individual studies of each. What does "mixed nuts"entail? not specified.

    My assessment of almonds is based on multiple sources. Just google -- you'll find "zero" all over the place. This cannot be the case, as they do have carbs. I did find several that list them between 5 and 10, which makes far more sense based on the macronutritional data.... but I'd have to do some digging to retrieve.

    Edit: compare the carbs of almonds to cashews. GI 24 vs 27 does not quite jive.
     
    #9 Bananas 2, Oct 7, 2018 at 11:19 PM
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  10. Bananas 2

    Bananas 2 Parent · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We have tested almond milk, walnut milk and even pistachio milk. None had a significant impact on BG, which surprised us as the pistachio milk had listed twice the carbs of almond (1 carb for 180ml vs 2 carbs...still not much). The surprise was due to my boy accidentally drinking pistachio when almond was intended. Turned out to not be an issue as the extra carb was so slow -- we just reduced 1 carb next snack time and all was fine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. BibaBee

    BibaBee · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm inclined to agree, but it doesn't froth if you want a cappuccino.
     
  12. Indy51

    Indy51 Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,876
    Likes Received:
    5,928
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Interesting info from Twitter:

    almonds.PNG
     
  13. Brunneria

    Brunneria Other · Moderator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    29,692
    Trophy Points:
    298
    I think the important thing (with ANY food, not just almonds) to to test and find out what that food is doing to YOUR blood glucose.

    Doesn't matter whether an almond has a GI of 2 or 92, if a 'portion' of it spikes you, you need to avoid it, and it if doesn't spike you, then you can eat it.

    Testing is how I found out that grains are terrible for my blood glucose, but equivalent carb amounts of potato, generate much lower numbers. And (oddly) I am much better on sugar (yes, the real white stuff that comes from sugarcane) than on starchy root or cereal anything.

    We are all different, and relying on numbers on an internet page just tells us a fraction of the story.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    9,270
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Thin it down with water maybe..? never tried it,, an experiment for my first morning coffee... I'll be back!
     
  15. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Expert

    Messages:
    9,270
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Ok it kinda does froth.. I didn't do it very scientifically just put some double cream (20ml?) into my nespresso aeroccino and topped up with water then wizzed it up. Certainly had some froth. I reckon a 50:50 cream and water mix may be better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. BibaBee

    BibaBee · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'll give it a go.......
     
  17. karen8967

    karen8967 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    12,599
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Love almonds me and walnuts dont spike me at all
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Bananas 2

    Bananas 2 Parent · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yes, the tested individual food GI is not the whole story, but an essential part, and starting point. Much in the same way as velocity (as with GI) is a necessary component to calculating momentum or impact in physics, but mass (as with carbs) also must be considered, as well as resistance/friction/drag (as with buffering and weighted average GI). Once must consider all of the above to get predictability.

    Context of other foods/condiments typically eaten along with these foods makes a difference - and can make a huge difference if significantly proportionate. There are two effects from other foods: weighted average GI (foods with some carbs and lower GI) and buffering (from non-carby fats, protein, and any isolated fiber). Qty of these mitigate when in combo with the carby items (potato, grains, sugars, starches, etc) and will affect (lower) the resulting meal-GI. This is predictable. Not accounting for the interactions with other foods is what makes them seem "unpredictable".

    1. Almonds are not going to "spike" anyone, so long as you dont eat a large amount and account for the slow carbs (and they're are not candied or covered in chocolate, etc). If a large amount is eaten, it would result in more of a "slow tsunami" as opposed to a fast "spike".

    2. It is not necessary to "trial and error" grains, as most have high GI in the 70's or more, and those with mid-GI range, tend to still have high carbs, with a few more well-known exceptions. This can be looked up in databases. Look up the carbs and GI, and they can be managed and predicted. If you research, you may find low-carb but high-GI items (like pumpkin and other squash, rutabaga, etc), as well as high-carb low-GI items (like coconut palm sugar). These can often be managed down with buffering and wt-avg. Those to really be wary of are high-carb-high-GI items (wheat flour, starches, etc).

    3. You do better with cane sugar as opposed to starches because, although sugar is pure carb, cane sugar has a GI of 65. If you are counting your carbs, this is better than carb-for-carb starches, which most pure starches have GI of 85, and grains tend to be high in starches.

    4. Potatoes can have high GI when baked, but slightly lower when peeled and boiled (starch comes out in the water). Adding fatty condiments such as sour cream, butter, cheese, mayo, etc all can buffer potatoes' GI down. In the case of hashbrowns, which are squeezed of their "potato juice" (which carries starch along and out with it) have lower GI due to the starch removal as well as the significant amount of oil used, which buffers.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    #18 Bananas 2, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:50 AM
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  19. Brunneria

    Brunneria Other · Moderator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    29,692
    Trophy Points:
    298
    @Bananas 2

    I absolutely respect your decision to prioritise GI and GL. I am very familiar with both concepts and know my way round the calculations and the theories. It may work like a charm for you. But your comments do not accurately cover my experiences.

    I found focusing on GI and GL an impediment to my glucose control, and extremely frustrating when one teaspoon full of brown rice or a tablespoon of flageot beans affected my blood glucose more than an entire large jacket potato. Or when eating grains made my blood glucose unstable for days, while eating a sugary dessert barely blipped my meter. So I gave up on GI/GL and turned to methods of blood glucose control that I have found, through years of personal experience, to be much more effective.

    There are, as described above, eating to my meter, understanding that there is a great deal more to blood glucose control than number crunching, and choosing to eat only foods that my body can eat without glucose spikes.

    I am happy to admit that there are autoimmune issues at work, and other food intolerances. Also happy to admit that some people get on very well with GI/GL. However, GI/GL does not work for me as its proponents claim it should, and for some of us (many?) focusing on GI/GL is actually an impediment to glucose control, and does more harm than good. It is certainly the case for me.
     
    #19 Brunneria, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:47 AM
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  20. Bananas 2

    Bananas 2 Parent · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Well, ok then....
    But to clarify, my focus isnt on GL or individual GI. Actually I never mentioned GL.
    GL is useless for type-1, and merely a quick "rule of thumb" that may work for some type-2s.

    My focus is on accurately counting carbs and meal-GI -- not the same GL. Meal-GI is a much more complicated calculation than GL, as it considers buffering in addition to weighted avg of carb-GI, neither of which is captured by GL.
     
    #20 Bananas 2, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:11 AM
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook