RE: (Was Foods/Colon Cancer) White Flour vs Whole Grain

[Guest guest]

Rodney: why would anyone interested in nutrition eat white bread? Not only

Walford, but virtually everyone out there recommends against it.

on 2/15/2004 4:06 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> PS 2. I eat white breads as well as whole grain depending on which

> is conveniently available.

[Guest guest]

Nah, I don't think yer " all wet " !

Anyway, my perception of the evil of refined grains is the refinement is the

evil. There are significantly differences in nutritional value, glycemic

index, fiber content, etc. between whole and refined grain products.

With respect to risk factors for metabolic syndrome, cancer, etc. relating

to consumption of anything, my perception is quantity consumed is quite

important. Many have observed the Okinawan diet has pork as a constituent.

My perception is that, because they eat only sparing amounts of pork in

comparison low fat, high fiber, unrefined vegetable and grain foods, the

negative effects that might be observed with very high levels of pork

consumption are not present.

A little red meat is, in my opinion, unlikely to significantly adversely

affect one's health. A little bit of refined grains won't either, I suppose,

but I see less nutritional value coming from most refined grains than from a

morsel of pork or " red meat. "

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] (Was Foods/Colon Cancer) White Flour vs Whole

>Grain

>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:06:27 -0000

>

>OK :

>

>Here is the point I am hoping to make. Feel free to straighten me

>out if I am all wet on this. (It wouldn't be the first time!)

>

>Seeds, I believe, contain three basic components: first the husk,

>that keeps the seed safe while it is hibernation awaiting the right

>conditions to sprout; second the germ, which is the reproductive

>component; and third, by far the largest part (which I will call 'the

>third component'), the nutrition reserve for the new sprout that

>enables it to grow until its own roots and leaves can supply the

>nutrients it needs to flourish. (Is it called the endosperm? Trying

>to remember from biology classes fifty years ago!).

>

>I understand the term " white flour " to mean the third component only,

>devoid of the germ and the husk. When people say something

>like: " all the nutrents have been removed from white flour " what I

>thought they meant was that the husk and the germ had been removed.

>

>Whole grain flour, on the other hand, contains all three components.

>INCLUDING the third component, that so many people seem to regard as

>the next closest thing to poison.

>

>If they really believe the third component is so bad, why do they

>apparently think it is OK to eat it when it happens to be combined

>with comparatively small quantities of the husk and the germ?

>

>I realize some people also complain that white flour may be bleached

>to make it whiter. But the 'whole grain' versus 'white flour' debate

>doesn't make sense to me if the points I make above are accurate. It

>might make more sense to debate the relative merits of 'husk and

>germ' versus 'third component'.

>

>If the third component truly is as bad as many make it out to be,

>then no one should be eating whole grain which contains so much of

>it. But perhaps they could safely eat the germ and the husk on their

>own. They certainly do have different nutrient profiles.

>

>Rodney.

>

>PS 1. Since the plant depends entirely on the third component until

>its roots and leaves are functioning properly it must be a plant's

>equivalent of milk. This suggests it is not entirely devoid of

>nutrients. But yes, I acknowledge, we are not plants! Just very

>distant cousins of them.

>

>PS 2. I eat white breads as well as whole grain depending on which

>is conveniently available.

>

>

>Also, as regards the importance of frequency of consumption. I agree

>it is important. But there are some things I am more than happy to

>go out of my way to exclude completely, if the evidence seems

>sufficiently compelling. If pork was shown to be associated with a

>two-fold risk of a common form of cancer I would rarely eat it

>(instead of occasionally eating it as I do now). That is why I am

>interested to know what they had defined as red meat - an

>unfortunately ambiguous term. If they had meant just beef, then it

>would have been clearer if they had called that category 'beef'!

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: [ ] Re: Fodd groups and colon cancer

> > >Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:45:42 -0000

> > >

> > >Hi Al:

> > >

> > >I wonder what is included in their definition of " high refined

> > >carbohydrate " ? Sugar clearly. Pasta? White bread? White rice?

>It

> > >is their use of the word 'high' that causes me to wonder. It is

>also

> > >worth noting that unrefined whole grain products are 80+% white

> > >flour.

> >

> > Not following you here: what unrefined whole grain products are

>80+% white

> > flour. It would seem to me white flour is, by definition, refined,

>not

> > unrefined....

> >

> >

> > So if white flour is so bad, whole grain stuff is presumably

> > >not all that great either?

> > >

> > >Similarly with 'red meat'. Did they classify pork or veal as 'red'

> > >meat?

> >

> > I thought pork was " the other white meat "

> >

> >

> > How about ostrich? It is at least as 'red' as beef in

> > >appearance (I have some in the freezer), perhaps more so.

> >

> > I'd think ostrich would be quite different in composition than

>standard

> > issue typical American " red meat " (usually referring to corn/grain

>fed

> > cattle).

> > >

> > >This matters to those of us who do eat some 'meat', even if

> > >relatively infrequently.

> >

> > Why? I'd think the frequency of consumption would be a rather

>important

> > factor....

> >

> >

> > >

> > >Rodney.

> > >

> > >It also occurs to me that we need to see some studies of heavy

> > >chicken-eaters. Or, perhaps better worded would be: those who eat

> > >most of their 'meat' in the form of chicken. Are they noticeably

> > >heathier than those who do not eat chicken? Do they tend to suffer

> > >certain types of illnesses more often, or less often, than non-

> > >chicken-eaters? Does anyone know of any such studies?

> > >

> > >

> > >--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

> > >wrote:

> > >

> > >................... In Caucasians, high refined carbohydrate and

>red

> > >meat consumption

> > > > (amount and frequency) was associated with a statistically

> > > > significant 2-fold increased risk ...............

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Perhaps one reason is that I am very heavily motivated only by

**empirical** studies which seem to show **clear** benefits or

risks. A 20% benefit does not motivate me change my behaviour. A

100% improvement or a 50% reduction, certainly does.

I just haven't happened to have read the studies which say *something

like*: " our 100 people who ate white bread all keeled over before

age 55, while the whole grain eaters lived to be 110 " (!!!) (yes, I

am exaggerating, but do you see the point?) I am not saying such

studies do not exist. Just that I have not seen them, or had my

attention drawn to them.

In addition, the factors in my earlier post regarding the different

components of seeds, suggests to me that white flour cannot be half

as bad as the whole grain advocates suggest, otherwise they would be

just as negative about whole grains because the most part of whole

grains are, surely, the white flour component. They are, after all,

called 'WHOLE grain', which by definition I would have thought, must

contain the white flour component. Whole grain products are not

called 'all the grain except the white flour component'.

The upcoming study just posted by Al may help me to shift away from

both white AND whole grain products toward components one and two on

their own, once I have read it.

Rodney.

PS Notice that my soup does contain, in addition to a number of

grains, both germ and bran : ^ )))

>

> > PS 2. I eat white breads as well as whole grain depending on

which

> > is conveniently available.