Hemp seeds very nutritious

[Geremia]

The cannabis plant from which hemp seeds and hemp fiber are obtained is closely related to the plant that provides the narcotic drug hashish. But hemp seeds do not cause any drug-induced "high," and you can safely use them as a high-quality raw food. It is one of the few plant sources of complete protein. Moreover, all of the essential amino acids come in the right ratio for maximum benefit. On top of that, hemp seeds come loaded with fiber and minerals such as iron, potassium, and magnesium. It is an excellent source of vitamin E, too. [cf. hemp seeds's nutrition facts]

You can eat hemp seeds raw or sprinkle them on breakfast cereals and salads to enjoy their best benefits. In addition, you can bake them into breads and cakes. When soaked in water and ground, they yield hemp milk, a great alternative to dairy.

[Insanis]

It is one of the few plant sources of complete protein.

Actually, that is not true. Many plants contain all the essential amino acids.

Moreover, all of the essential amino acids come in the right ratio for maximum benefit.

The ratios don't really matter. The only thing that really matters is getting enough of them, and it doesn't really matter how or when.

But seeds are a great source of nutrition. I don't think I ever saw hemp seeds for sale though. I wonder what they taste like?

[mikemac]

I'd try the hemp milk.

[Geremia]

Many plants contain all the essential amino acids.

Quinoa, soy, and what else?

[Insanis]

Many plants contain all the essential amino acids.

Quinoa, soy, and what else?

Unless one is going to have a really restricted diet, it doesn't matter. Eating one food to the exclusion of others is almost always a very unhealthy thing to do (eg, Rabbit Starvation).

There is usually no need to micromanage macronutrients with a whole foods varied diet.

As to your question, most vegetables. However, most people when discussing this focus on vegetables with a relatively high protein content.

Peas and potatoes are common top ones though.

Protein is usually not a concern for people who are not on a very restricted diet, and any nutrient can be a concern on a very restricted diet.

[Jayne]

Unless one is going to have a really restricted diet, it doesn't matter. Eating one food to the exclusion of others is almost always a very unhealthy thing to do (eg, Rabbit Starvation).

The main exception to this that I can think of is fatty meat.  People can go years thriving on a carnivore diet. 

[Insanis]

The main exception to this that I can think of is fatty meat.  People can go years thriving on a carnivore diet.

Thrive is a strong word. They can survive. The shorter a timespan given, the more flexibility we have for extreme diets. A fully grown healthy person tends to have a lot more leeway for the short term at least. Even grossly unhealthy diets take a long time to cause permanent damage.

[Jayne]

The main exception to this that I can think of is fatty meat.  People can go years thriving on a carnivore diet.

Thrive is a strong word. They can survive. The shorter a timespan given, the more flexibility we have for extreme diets. A fully grown healthy person tends to have a lot more leeway for the short term at least. Even grossly unhealthy diets take a long time to cause permanent damage.

I meant to use a strong word.  Animal fats and animal proteins are the most nutritionally dense and bioavailable source of nutrients possible for humans.  For some people, such as those who have problems with carbohydrates or the anti-nutrients in plant foods, a meat-only diet is the healthiest way for them to eat.  No matter how long people eat this way it will not cause damage.  On the contrary, it can reverse damage.  Thrive is an accurate word for the typical human response to meat.

[mikemac]

The main exception to this that I can think of is fatty meat.  People can go years thriving on a carnivore diet.

Thrive is a strong word. They can survive. The shorter a timespan given, the more flexibility we have for extreme diets. A fully grown healthy person tends to have a lot more leeway for the short term at least. Even grossly unhealthy diets take a long time to cause permanent damage.

I meant to use a strong word.  Animal fats and animal proteins are the most nutritionally dense and bioavailable source of nutrients possible for humans.  For some people, such as those who have problems with carbohydrates or the anti-nutrients in plant foods, a meat-only diet is the healthiest way for them to eat.  No matter how long people eat this way it will not cause damage.  On the contrary, it can reverse damage.  Thrive is an accurate word for the typical human response to meat.

The Inuit of northern Canada would be a good example of this.  For centuries they survived on a meat diet.  Now that they have switched to a western diet they are all getting diabetes.  I think diabetes is the number one killer in the indigenous community now; alcoholism is up there too.

[Insanis]

The Inuit of northern Canada would be a good example of this.  For centuries they survived on a meat diet.  Now that they have switched to a western diet they are all getting diabetes.  I think diabetes is the number one killer in the indigenous community now; alcoholism is up there too.

Modern health concerns aside, a survey of historical health might show a different picture, but it wasn't exactly thriving: they had problems.

Masai and Inuit diets are promoted as demonstrating alternative diets, but they gloss over the actual end results.

For example, in the olden days when everybody smoked, everybody seemed fine, right? Everybody was seemingly fit and lean and quite functional.

But smoking isn't healthy. It has very bad effects. It just takes a long time for it to really come to an end.

The same goes for heart disease and most cancers that are caused by lifestyle. It takes a long time for them to show symptoms and then to result in death or disability.

That doesn't mean it is healthy.

A modern diet full of refined carbs is usually harmful a lot faster for many reasons. I think the most reasonable explanation is that humans are not really meant to be able to consume that many carbohydrates so frequently in such high quantities. It causes damage a lot faster.

But that doesn't mean everything else is healthy.

[Jayne]

The Inuit of northern Canada would be a good example of this.  For centuries they survived on a meat diet.  Now that they have switched to a western diet they are all getting diabetes.  I think diabetes is the number one killer in the indigenous community now; alcoholism is up there too.

Modern health concerns aside, a survey of historical health might show a different picture, but it wasn't exactly thriving: they had problems.

Masai and Inuit diets are promoted as demonstrating alternative diets, but they gloss over the actual end results.

What evidence do you have that these people were not healthy?   What problems did they have?

The same goes for heart disease and most cancers that are caused by lifestyle. It takes a long time for them to show symptoms and then to result in death or disability.

That doesn't mean it is healthy.

The claims that meat causes heart disease and cancer come from bad science and have been debunked.  There is a lot of information available on this.  I can give you links.  How technical do you want them?

[Insanis]

The claims that meat causes heart disease and cancer come from bad science and have been debunked.  There is a lot of information available on this.  I can give you links.  How technical do you want them?

I never claimed any particular thing caused heart disease and cancer. I said lifestyles can cause it (and do cause it), but that they take a long time to show symptoms.

[Jayne]

The claims that meat causes heart disease and cancer come from bad science and have been debunked.  There is a lot of information available on this.  I can give you links.  How technical do you want them?

I never claimed any particular thing caused heart disease and cancer. I said lifestyles can cause it (and do cause it), but that they take a long time to show symptoms.

This is why it is helpful to look at cultures, like the Inuit, with a primarily meat diet to see what effect it had.  What evidence is there that it caused any problems?

[Insanis]

This is why it is helpful to look at cultures, like the Inuit, with a primarily meat diet to see what effect it had.  What evidence is there that it caused any problems?

I do not have the references  on hand, but it doesn't matter.

Just because a somewhat isolated population seemed to do well on an extreme diet, it doesn't mean other people can.

Consider: in some cultures, consuming milk (cow, goat, etc) is an essential staple. However, humans in general are about 70% lactose intolerant. What is perfectly digestible and beneficial to some humans, is undigested and disruptive (at best) to the majority of humans alive.

A seal and whale based diet of a given population might not be useful for another.

Human diversity what it is, it can be dangerous to take a singular population and use it as a paradigm.

After all, one could easily pick a population that is actually quite unique.

What is a "disorder" in one population, is a norm in another.

Nature will fix this on its own: the people who cannot are impeded from life and flourishing on a given diet will naturally become a smaller minority or even disappear entirely. Some people cannot eat wheat, or at least, certain types of it. Other people (most people) cannot consume milk after infancy. Some populations are known to handle extremely low carbohydrate diets without harm, other populations can thrive on eating almost an all carbohydrate diet.

Traditional diets of geographically and socially isolated people's are dangerous to take as universally applicable.

In fact, the most extreme and isolated, I suspect the less applicable it is to others.

One thing I would say: in general, whole foods are better than processed foods and most people would do well to have a whole foods based diet, and just avoid the whole foods that cause issues.

Also, diets must match activity. I know myself that having a constant diet but drastically altered circumstances cause a huge and rapid imbalance.

We must match the diet to the individuals and their circumstances.

A blanket "eat lots of high fat meat" recommendation will probably lead to severe problems in most people just as an "eat lots of bananas" will cause problems in others.

(The all banana diet is actually something some people recommend and it usually doesn't end well with most people, besides being logistically difficult.)

EDIT: I am aware that people with unregulated diets that are causing problems usually resolve many problems by making some drastic change in their diet, but almost all extreme diets have severe flaws, and the more special the population is that is cited for demonstrating the feasibility, the more likely it requires their genes and environment.)

[GiftOfGod]

Hemp seeds can be very profitable...if planted.