Re: Whole grains

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Thanks for those links. Good stuff. Let me address a couple of

issues on the whole grains (WG) topic which I have never seen

examined anywhere. And they need to be examined, imo:

First issue: Given the relative quantities of WG products available

in grocery stores (there isn't much of it compared with the white

stuff ....... WG bread is easy enough to find if you really want

it, but I do not often see WG pasta or rice) we can draw the

conclusion that comparatively few people eat these products.

Now what are the characteristics of those who DO eat the WGs? I

suggest to you that anyone who goes to the trouble to ferret out WG

products and pay the extra to buy them is a member of that

microscopically small contingent of health-conscious consumers. Are

we to suppose that buying WG products is the ONLY thing they do to

preserve their health? Not likely. I suggest that if they go to the

trouble to find WG products, then the vast majority of them do LOTS

of other things also that they hope will be healthy.

For example, I bet if we did a survey of those who buy WG products we

would find a very much lower percentage of smokers among them. So my

first suggestion is that I would like to see a study that

convincingly demonstrates that the studies showing the apparent

benefits of WGs are not confounded by the people who not only eat WG

products but also do all kinds of other things they hope will benefit

their health. With these other things accounting for the apparently

better health of WG eaters.

Second issue: WGs are made up of three components, the eighty-

something percent starch component that is used to make white bread;

the germ; and the bran. Now since there do seem to be some

indications that starch may not be helpful, does it not seem more

likely that if there truly IS a benefit to WGs (i.e. the apparent

benefit is not a result of confounding as outlined above) the benefit

is in the bran or the germ, or possibly both? I.E. NOT in the

starch.

We can buy, and eat, the germ and the bran separately, without having

to eat the starch. My bet is that if the apparent benefit is not

confounded, then the benefits of eating the bran and the germ without

the starch would be much greater than eating the whole grain.

There are some who think there may be some magical combination

between the starch component and the germ and bran. But I have never

seen evidence for such a position. If anyone has, please post.

Indeed, if anyone knows of studies that clear up any of these points

it would be great to know about them.

In the meantime, if I was a food scientist I would be trying to set

up a study that would definitively show whether the benefit (assuming

it is not a confounding error) is:

A) From the starch, or

From the bran, or

C) From the germ, or

D) From the bran and germ, but not the starch, or

E) From some combination including the starch.

There is good reason to consume WGs ONLY if the answer is E). If the

answer is A) one should be eating white bread. If it is or C) or

D) then one should be eating either the germ or the bran, whichever

has the benefit. In cases , C) and D) eating the WG would entail

consuming a considerable quantity of empty calories, over and above

the beneficial components.

Do we have good answers to any of the above questions?

Rodney.

PS: If I had to bet today I would place my money on the view that

the starch offers no benefits. But I would readily accept the

results of a well oranganized study to determine the answer (at least

until it got contradicted by the next study examining the same issue).

; ^ )))

============================

>

> > OTOH we do have an entire file with good studies extolling the

benefits of

> > whole grains and their correlation with long life. So they do

have a place

> > in my diet.

> >

> > Moderation in all things.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I don't know about any " magical combination " , but I have seen demonstrated

over and over that as soon as Man thinks he is smarter than Nature he gets

embarassed almost every time.

Whether you think that these plants were designed specifically to feed us,

or whether you think we have evolved to glean the most benefit from existing

plant-life, I'm inclined to think that what is tried and tested over

thousands of years carries slightly more weight than mere speculation.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, so just because there is no study

pointing to a benefit in consuming whole grain including the starch doesn't

mean that no benefit exists.

I'm not trying to promote starch per se, just pointing out another point of

view.

(|-|ri5

> There are some who think there may be some magical combination

> between the starch component and the germ and bran. But I have never

> seen evidence for such a position. If anyone has, please post.

> Indeed, if anyone knows of studies that clear up any of these points

> it would be great to know about them.

> >

[Guest guest]

Rod: whole grain products (a wide assortment of pastas for example) are easy

to find nowadays.

Lots of people must be buying them (not just a few health conscious) because

they used to be only found in health food stores. Now however, main stream

chain supermarkets (at least around where I live) carry them.

Whole grain bread without harmful additives is a bit more difficult to find.

I buy pita whole wheat which has little else but whole wheat flour and

water.

on 9/6/2004 6:21 AM, chris at motjuste@... wrote:

> Rodney,

>

> I don't know about any " magical combination " , but I have seen demonstrated

> over and over that as soon as Man thinks he is smarter than Nature he gets

> embarassed almost every time.

>

> Whether you think that these plants were designed specifically to feed us,

> or whether you think we have evolved to glean the most benefit from existing

> plant-life, I'm inclined to think that what is tried and tested over

> thousands of years carries slightly more weight than mere speculation.

> Absence of proof is not proof of absence, so just because there is no study

> pointing to a benefit in consuming whole grain including the starch doesn't

> mean that no benefit exists.

>

> I'm not trying to promote starch per se, just pointing out another point of

> view.

>

> (|-|ri5

>

>

>> There are some who think there may be some magical combination

>> between the starch component and the germ and bran. But I have never

>> seen evidence for such a position. If anyone has, please post.

>> Indeed, if anyone knows of studies that clear up any of these points

>> it would be great to know about them.

>>>

[Guest guest]

I don't know of any magical relationship between various components whole wheat, etc.... and I have questioned the need for whole grains myself. Privately, not publicly. However, Harvard University, speaking through Walt Willett refers to clear evidence through the Nurses Study that some whole grain each day reduces risk of death by about 20%.

As far as the cron/cran subject is concerned, the evidence so far supports cran. During the earlier discussions of cran versus cron, I observed (on the other list) that almost all of the discussion on the list was about optimal nutrition and the various means, etc of discovering and following it. Optimal exercise was in there, too. From that point on, the discussion of cran/cron faded even though minds much superior to mine ( comes to this less astute mind as a prime example) felt that the evidence supported cran and not cron, even if we had some clear idea of what cron is. Using dwidp, it's pretty easy to get "optimal nutrition" more or less every day and have a few calories left to fool around with. In spite of my own continuing questions about the need for "optimal" nutrition, it is fun to do, and it might make a difference. My own problems, as I've expressed before, lie in the area of self control.

Another note re: 15% calorie deficit might be enough. The Brothers Willcox who were cited as being key contributors to this information are authors, along with with Suzuki, of the Okinawa plan and it's recent sequel, the Okinawa Diet. They point out in one of these that the pre-westernization of the Japanese diet (I suspect this is the baseline they are using) was substantially less than the American caloric intake. The figure 20% less comes to mind. The Okinawa centenarians (as my 72 year old memory informs me) ate about 15% less than that. If that 's the case, or something like that, then the formlula would be 85% of 80% of the standard american caloric intake...not 15% of the average American intake. Around 30% less than the American diet.

As "Monk" says in his song..."I could be wrong, now..."

Anyway, Willett's book is below. It's an interesting read. By this time, most libraries would have it.

Willett, WC. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2001.

I have one more comment for those who question the value (as you should) of cr. At age 72 I am pretty faithful to a reduced calorie diet, although not faithful enough to lose weight very fast. Sometimes I get way off. The almost immediate difference in the way I feel...you know, pain, stiffness, ability to think clearly, energy...strikingly better when I stay with my complete program. It is worth doing for the immediate benefits in and of themselves. If I don't gain a single day of lifspan, still my lifetime will have been better for Roy and Walford and cr, not to mention the many wonderful contributors to the lists.

Today I am fasting, for tomorrow I go in for my first colonoscopy. The procedure sounds terrible. There is always the possibillity of bad news, which I am convinced would then negatively impact the quality of the remainder of my life. I am a little fearful. I have so far evaded invasive procedures. I don't think I can get out of this one.

Ed S

----- Original Message -----

From: chris

Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Whole grains

> There are some who think there may be some magical combination> between the starch component and the germ and bran. But I have never> seen evidence for such a position. If anyone has, please post.>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ed:

I have had two colonoscopies. The second time I asked them to reduce

the sedation. The whole thing was a breeze. And it was fascinating

watching the insides of my intestines on a TV screen! Really! They

found a polyp. Fortunately a small one, with no subsequent

consequences.

But the second time was much better than the first. The reason was

the laxative I used. The FLEET was great. The other stuff ('Kleen-

Prep' I think it was) required me to drink such huge quantities of

water it was really very very unpleasant.

Good luck. But if you have been into nutrition and CR for a while I

very much doubt you will need it.

Rodney.

--- In , " Ed Sullivan " <Sully@i...>

wrote:

> I don't know of any magical relationship between various components

whole wheat, etc.... and I have questioned the need for whole grains

myself. Privately, not publicly. However, Harvard University,

speaking through Walt Willett refers to clear evidence through the

Nurses Study that some whole grain each day reduces risk of death by

about 20%.

> As far as the cron/cran subject is concerned, the evidence so far

supports cran. During the earlier discussions of cran versus cron,

I observed (on the other list) that almost all of the discussion on

the list was about optimal nutrition and the various means, etc of

discovering and following it. Optimal exercise was in there, too.

From that point on, the discussion of cran/cron faded even though

minds much superior to mine ( comes to this less astute mind as

a prime example) felt that the evidence supported cran and not cron,

even if we had some clear idea of what cron is. Using dwidp, it's

pretty easy to get " optimal nutrition " more or less every day and

have a few calories left to fool around with. In spite of my own

continuing questions about the need for " optimal " nutrition, it is

fun to do, and it might make a difference. My own problems, as

I've expressed before, lie in the area of self control.

> Another note re: 15% calorie deficit might be enough. The Brothers

Willcox who were cited as being key contributors to this information

are authors, along with with Suzuki, of the Okinawa plan and it's

recent sequel, the Okinawa Diet. They point out in one of these that

the pre-westernization of the Japanese diet (I suspect this is the

baseline they are using) was substantially less than the American

caloric intake. The figure 20% less comes to mind. The Okinawa

centenarians (as my 72 year old memory informs me) ate about 15% less

than that. If that 's the case, or something like that, then the

formlula would be 85% of 80% of the standard american caloric

intake...not 15% of the average American intake. Around 30% less

than the American diet.

> As " Monk " says in his song... " I could be wrong, now... "

>

> Anyway, Willett's book is below. It's an interesting read. By

this time, most libraries would have it.

> Willett, WC. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School

Guide to Healthy Eating. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2001.

>

>

> I have one more comment for those who question the value (as you

should) of cr. At age 72 I am pretty faithful to a reduced calorie

diet, although not faithful enough to lose weight very fast.

Sometimes I get way off. The almost immediate difference in the way

I feel...you know, pain, stiffness, ability to think clearly,

energy...strikingly better when I stay with my complete program. It

is worth doing for the immediate benefits in and of themselves. If I

don't gain a single day of lifspan, still my lifetime will have been

better for Roy and Walford and cr, not to mention the many

wonderful contributors to the lists.

>

> Today I am fasting, for tomorrow I go in for my first

colonoscopy. The procedure sounds terrible. There is always the

possibillity of bad news, which I am convinced would then negatively

impact the quality of the remainder of my life. I am a little

fearful. I have so far evaded invasive procedures. I don't think I

can get out of this one.

>

> Ed S