RE: Re: Macronutrients for CR

[Guest guest]

Fiber one is one of a few things I eat that are processed by someone who likes to play in my food.

It just happens that a high % of fiber at a time will have more effect than say homogeneous mixture.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

Hi Jeff:Could I ask you to elaborate on how you differentiate between foods you define as naturally occuring from those that are not, please? Bran seems natural enough to me. If you are arguing that the whole food should be eaten, and that if it is not the whole food then it is not classified as "naturally occurring" then on what basis do you feel justified in excluding the root, stem, husk, and the bristles on the head of the wheat plant?Sincerely not trying to be argumentative here. I am just having difficulty with the proposition that 'bran' is not naturally occurring.I can see that it might be appropriate to advocate the consumption of bran and/or germ without the remainder of the plant on the basis that most of the rest of the plant is simply empty calories. And therefore BETTER, on the basis of this argument, than eating the 'whole food'.Rodney.> That's OK, But it fails my principle of natural occuring. The > fiber in it comes from "added" bran .

[Guest guest]

Maybe my choice of wording " naturally occuring " isnt the best, as there

are many arguments over what " natural " means.

However...

What I mean is that when the bran is extracted from the whole grain,

which normally also contains the germ (where certain fatty acids are)

and endosperm (other nutrients) . Than this extracted bran is added to

many refined processed foods, like cold cereals to raise their fiber

content. (some of this is done as they can make an Official health claim

based on fiber content). So, this gives a exaggerated fiber/calorie

ratio. Cereals, with such a high fiber/calorie ratio don't occur

naturally (oops, grow on trees, I mean).

If you were to get in 50 grams of fiber in a day from foods that don't

have any " extracted " fiber " added " to them, like fruits, veggies, whole

grains, legumes, you would not only get in plenty of fiber (both soluble

and insoluble), but also loads of nurtients that are also in those foods

that come along for the ride with the fiber.

If you ate 2 (or 3) servings of some of those high fiber dry cereals,

you would get in all the fiber, and some of the benefit of it (as it is

mostly added extracted insoluble fiber) but you would not get all the

benefit of it as you wouldn't get all the soluble fiber and you also

wouldn't get all the other nutrients that would have come along for the

ride, in the whole fruits, veggies, whole grains, legumes, etc.

Does that make more sense to you?

Also, if you apply the fiber/calorie ratio, those bran cereals may win,

but if you add in the calorie/pound ratio, they no longer win. Most

natural foods, are 100-600 calories per pound. Dried cereals are more

like 1200-1700 calories per pound.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Of course there's a long standing argument for bran for an anti-cancer effect:

CONCLUSION: inositol hexaphosphate (InsP(6) or phytic acid) can increase blood NK cell activity in DMH-induced colon tumor in rats and inhibit tumor growth and metastasis in rats. PMID: 16124063

Our findings suggest that IP6 has the potential to become an effective adjunct for pancreatic cancer treatment. Further in vivo and human studies are needed to evaluate safety and clinical utility of this agent in patients with pancreatic cancer. PMID: 15919420

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

Hi Rodney. I'm not 100% sure of this, but isn't wheat bran the part ofthe grain that contains large amounts of phytic acid? Are you takingdephytinized bran? Would not mineral absoption be a concern if youtend to concentrate dietary wheat bran? best regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney

I had to sleep on this one.

My daughter used to always ask me these kind of questions... " Ok Dad,

but what if you had to choose between...... "

I wouldn't consider either of the 5 choices " optimal " though I realize

you are asking it as a " addition " to a healthy diet. But, if all

nutrients needs are met, why the addition?

I am not fully up and running after Wilma and so don't have access to my

databae but I was going to run a comparisons.

In the meantime... I would choose whole wheat berries over any of the 5

you listed. Second, I would choose whole wheat (or other grain) pasta

(due to the much lower calorie density). Third, ... I cant answer as

this may come up in front of the court at a later date.

Thanks

Jeff

[ ] Re: Macronutrients for CR

Hi Jeff:

OK. Well let me word my question a little differently by putting it in

terms of a specific example:

Which of the five listed below, isocalorically, do you consider to be

the healthiest to eat as part of a healthy diet, presuming that the RDAs

of all the nutrients are satisfied by the overall diet which contains

other healthy foods:

1) Whole grain wheat bread;

2) Wheat bran;

3) Wheat germ;

4) Wheat germ+bran;

5) White bread or white pasta made from wheat.

In other words, I am taking the position (subject to change without

notice, lol) that the amount of micronutrients in the 'NON bran+germ'

part of whole grain bread, is small relative to the amount of calories

it contains. So that the nutrient values in the bran, and perhaps the

germ, is superior.

If my bias is correct then eating bran+germ is better in terms of

nutrients per unit of calories than eating whole grain bread.

Does this make sense, in your opinion? Or do you have a different

approach?

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

>

> Maybe my choice of wording " naturally occuring " isnt the best, as

there

> are many arguments over what " natural " means.

>

> However...

>

> What I mean is that when the bran is extracted from the whole grain,

> which normally also contains the germ (where certain fatty acids

are)

> and endosperm (other nutrients) . Than this extracted bran is

added to

> many refined processed foods, like cold cereals to raise their fiber

> content. (some of this is done as they can make an Official health

claim

> based on fiber content). So, this gives a exaggerated fiber/calorie

> ratio. Cereals, with such a high fiber/calorie ratio don't occur

> naturally (oops, grow on trees, I mean).

>

> If you were to get in 50 grams of fiber in a day from foods that

don't

> have any " extracted " fiber " added " to them, like fruits, veggies,

whole

> grains, legumes, you would not only get in plenty of fiber (both

soluble

> and insoluble), but also loads of nurtients that are also in those

foods

> that come along for the ride with the fiber.

>

> If you ate 2 (or 3) servings of some of those high fiber dry

cereals,

> you would get in all the fiber, and some of the benefit of it (as

it is

> mostly added extracted insoluble fiber) but you would not get all

the

> benefit of it as you wouldn't get all the soluble fiber and you also

> wouldn't get all the other nutrients that would have come along for

the

> ride, in the whole fruits, veggies, whole grains, legumes, etc.

>

> Does that make more sense to you?

>

> Also, if you apply the fiber/calorie ratio, those bran cereals may

win,

> but if you add in the calorie/pound ratio, they no longer win. Most

> natural foods, are 100-600 calories per pound. Dried cereals are

more

> like 1200-1700 calories per pound.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>