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

[Guest guest]

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 ...............

> >