[WillPostForFood]

Nuts are not a calorie crop, they are a relatively high-cost garnish/flavouring.

Honestly not sure if you are joking or just being glib? Nuts are extremely calorie dense.

Almonds - 165 calories per oz

Iceberg - 4 calories per oz

Romaine - 5 calories per oz

[tsimionescu]

They are, but outside things like almond milk almond flour, which are not often consumed, people don't base their diets on almonds, they are used as flavoring much more than they are eaten for their nutritional value (unlike rice or wheat or even lettuce).

[WillPostForFood]

I would have agreed a decade ago, but with the rise of low carb and keto diets, almonds and other nuts have become a major part of diets for a lot of people.

[tuatoru]

I'm saying that mosts nuts (almonds, walnuts, cashews, etc.) are not consumed purely for their calorific value. We have potatoes, grains, and vegetable oils for that.

Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice, or as snacks rather than full meals.

[dragonwriter]

> I'm saying that mosts nuts (almonds, walnuts, cashews, etc.) are not consumed purely for their calorific value.

Most food isn’t consumed purely for its caloric value, but the calorie density of nuts means that they are often a major source of calories as consumed.

> Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice

Arguably, preference for the flavor is a result of them being used for a long time to add additional fat and protein calories to a meal based on rice. They don’t have to be the major component to be significant that way, since rice has little protein and less fat and is far less calorie dense than nuts are.

> or as snacks rather than full meals.

Snacks tend to be eaten largely to fill a caloric demand (not necessarily need, as it can be in people habituated to surplus) and a nut-based snack may be a bigger calorie chunk than a “full meal” of less calorie dense foods the same person eats.