What seed/coffee grinder do you use?

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
I'm starting to use flax seed in my diet, but need a good grinder to grind it up into a fine powder.

Would this work?

Or should I go with something like this?

Any input is appreciated. I want to keep this under 40 bucks, and preferably around/under 30 if possible.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I use a http://www.buythebullet.com/ for flax... throw a bunch of stuff in there actually...fish oil, vitamins, berries, etc What kind of diet? Mine is not a diet. It's to get all nutrients back from running and more.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
that cheap one on newegg will work for what you want

i thought this was gonna be about coffee. i have a burr grinder
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
Flax loses its nutritional value pretty quickly after it is ground. Much better to get it whole and grind it before each use.
 

Delita

Senior member
Jan 12, 2006
931
0
76
I've used both of those and kinda prefer the cheaper one. For some reason the Cuisinart cup would always get stuck in the machine and it pissed me off so much.
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,628
7
81
that cheap one on newegg will work for what you want

i thought this was gonna be about coffee. i have a burr grinder

Same here. I used to use a blade grinder for coffee, and now I use it to grind seeds. I have a burr grinder for coffee.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
I use starbucks beans and sometime local store brand. I have elcheapo Wal-Mart grinder, $11.
 

kalrith

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2005
6,628
7
81
It's funny to see people post who obviously didn't read the OP :). This thread has nothing to do with coffee!
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
I have two, one for coffee and one for other things. They are both cheapies and do their jobs just fine, so don't worry about spending dough, just get whichever one you think looks better or has the better price.

KT
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Diet fad...

While it's getting more attention than before, there is no reason it should be seen as a fad.

Flax seed = excellent source of ALA, a short-chain Omega-3 fatty acid. Most important, essential fatty acid of the EFAs. Body cannot make it, but the body can take the ALA that is consumed and turn some of it into the long-chain Omega 3s, DHA and EPA (the latter two can also be found in other food sources, like fish).

Absolutely critical to get a good amount of ALA, especially more than the typical American diet. You need to strive for a relatively equal ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s. A good amount of ALA, as well as the EPA and DHA (your body is rather ineffective at converting ALA to long-chain, though some is better than none for sure).

The reason it's really just getting into the "craze" right now is because studies is due to the fact that research studies have concluded only somewhat recently (past decade or two), and the results are just beginning to be made sense of.
The potential health bonus of a far better than average consumption of Omega 3s is thought to be basically all over the body. Better memory and cognitive capability, the prevention of mental health disorders (and treatment of certain ones), better blood pressure and many potential circulation improvements, such as reduction of triglycerides and LDL (LDL may be linked to the Omega 6s or 9s, cannot remember specifically)... inflammation reduction for various disorders like arthritis and other things.

My personal theory as to why it can help so many things is because we aren't given enough of it from the beginning, the modern diet lacks most of the quantities necessary (and the wrong ratio of 3s to 6s). Our cattle aren't given the same diet as they had been given long ago, so they aren't providing the same level of EFAs as they are theorized as to have done so previously.
Pre-natal vitamins now include Omega 3s, and that wasn't always the case... the food given to youth isn't as rich with the proper ratios of fatty acids as is ideal... all of that add ups to a lifetime of improper nutrition/improper ratio of fatty acids consumed, which can impact the body in potentially many of the ways we see commonly. Correct that error, and many of the relatively recent large increases in various disorders may drastically decline.
Just my theory, of course. But the timing of it all is quite intriguing.
 

SphinxnihpS

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
8,368
25
91
While it's getting more attention than before, there is no reason it should be seen as a fad.

Flax seed = excellent source of ALA, a short-chain Omega-3 fatty acid. Most important, essential fatty acid of the EFAs. Body cannot make it, but the body can take the ALA that is consumed and turn some of it into the long-chain Omega 3s, DHA and EPA (the latter two can also be found in other food sources, like fish).

Absolutely critical to get a good amount of ALA, especially more than the typical American diet. You need to strive for a relatively equal ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s. A good amount of ALA, as well as the EPA and DHA (your body is rather ineffective at converting ALA to long-chain, though some is better than none for sure).

The reason it's really just getting into the "craze" right now is because studies is due to the fact that research studies have concluded only somewhat recently (past decade or two), and the results are just beginning to be made sense of.
The potential health bonus of a far better than average consumption of Omega 3s is thought to be basically all over the body. Better memory and cognitive capability, the prevention of mental health disorders (and treatment of certain ones), better blood pressure and many potential circulation improvements, such as reduction of triglycerides and LDL (LDL may be linked to the Omega 6s or 9s, cannot remember specifically)... inflammation reduction for various disorders like arthritis and other things.

My personal theory as to why it can help so many things is because we aren't given enough of it from the beginning, the modern diet lacks most of the quantities necessary (and the wrong ratio of 3s to 6s). Our cattle aren't given the same diet as they had been given long ago, so they aren't providing the same level of EFAs as they are theorized as to have done so previously.
Pre-natal vitamins now include Omega 3s, and that wasn't always the case... the food given to youth isn't as rich with the proper ratios of fatty acids as is ideal... all of that add ups to a lifetime of improper nutrition/improper ratio of fatty acids consumed, which can impact the body in potentially many of the ways we see commonly. Correct that error, and many of the relatively recent large increases in various disorders may drastically decline.
Just my theory, of course. But the timing of it all is quite intriguing.

I think paying CLOSE attention to what you eat is mentally self-destructive bordering on insane. It's pretty easy to consume 1500-2000 kilo-calories of mostly plants daily. Past that the body doesn't care much. The body makes what it needs so long as it has the atoms to do it with. Not one thing you consume is left in its original form; it is all ripped into tiny bits. Even if your body decides it needs fats and you eat nothing but fats, your body will break them all down and build all the fats from scratch.
 
Last edited:

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I think paying CLOSE attention to what you eat is mentally self-destructive bordering on insane. It's pretty easy to consume 1500-2000 kilo-calories of mostly plants daily. Past that the body doesn't care much. The body makes what it needs so long as it has the atoms to do it with.

Have you heard of these things called Essential nutrients?

They are things the body cannot manufacture.

You can generally not pay attention to what you eat, going by calories alone, and survive through old age.

How healthily you do so, what condition you are in when you are older, is a whole different matter.

You must know where nutrients come from, in general, and make a decent attempt to get the proper amount (and specific nutrients have a cap, consuming too much can cause problems too!).

To understand the basics of nutritional science is to give yourself the best chance of having a healthy, capable body when you are older.

Bordering on insane? If you are OCD about it, sure. It's easy to know what you eat and where.

I barely pay attention to calorie content. I could definitely stand to better mind what types of food and the amounts of each food I consume over the period of a few days, but you definitely don't need to go nuts about it.

It obviously appears human nutrition definitely needs to have more weight in the classroom during schooling.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
The body makes what it needs so long as it has the atoms to do it with. Not one thing you consume is left in its original form; it is all ripped into tiny bits. Even if your body decides it needs fats and you eat nothing but fats, your body will break them all down and build all the fats from scratch.

I caught your post before your edit.

You really just made yourself look even more foolish. You could not be more wrong. Your body cannot make everything it needs, in the amounts it needs to maintain the proper balance of all the systems in your body (neurotransmitter balances, brain cell growth and function, nutrients for cell repair and construction, balance of necessary lipids in serum (ldl, hdl, trigs, all necessary. wrong balances cause terrible health problems).

Your body cannot just stir up all the fatty acids to make the ones it needs. Absolutely cannot. Some saturated fatty acids are somewhat helpful at the right level, and in general not as harmful as some, and some can be crafted into good unsaturated fats. Not all. And the body cannot turn 100% of any fatty acid into the ones it needs more.

Your body can function at low levels of key nutrients for a typical human lifespan. It's not a good idea to force the body to do so.

It can mean the difference between being able to do little or nothing active and physical and requiring a host of pills and medical treatments, versus being able to stay active, how low pain, and have a body generally as capable as ever well past the age of retirement.

Which would you prefer?
 

Heller

Diamond Member
Jul 10, 2006
6,551
0
0
if you go to walmart theres a white one there for $10 bucks. i use it for my herb and it works great