Re: Grains Good as Gold

[Guest guest]

>Everything we advocate increases the simple sugars in grains. Sprouting

>clearly makes grains nutritionally superior in many senses, yet converts most

of

>the starch to simple sugars. Just taste Manna bread-- it tastes like cake, yet

>the only ingrediets, literally, are sprouted rye kernels and water.

>

>Chris

" Everything " we advocate? I think it depends.

Sprouted grains, I tend to agree that is true. It increases

malt content. Is malt as bad as fructose? I don't know.

The malt I used to eat was all in beer, converted to alcohol ... ;--)

But FERMENTING grains makes lactic acid and alcohol, not sugar. Sourdough

bread should be less glycemic (plus lactic acid seems

to make the body handle high glycemic food better).

Also I don't think the issue with high carb foods is

as simple as the glycemic factor. I think a lot

of it has to do with microbes ... bacterial overgrowth

is what kills cows fed grain, not blood sugar. Cultures that

eat a lot of rice tend to eat stuff like pickles and kimchi,

which might prevent the wrong kind of overgrowth.

(and also tend to change how insulin is produced so

it's a tough call ...).

So sprouting grain might cause the formation of enzymes

or decrease in lectins or whatever that would make the

grain more digestible and less likely to cause bacterial

overgrowth, even though it has more sugar.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

>> and only the wheat family has devastating effects

>> on health ... and then usually only after 20 years of eating

>> it (and Paleo folks didn't live very long on average).

>

>Are buckwheat and rye the only grains in the wheat family? Where

>did you get your information that only the wheat family grains have

>devastating effects on health? That's an interesting bit of

>information if indeed it is true.

>

>Robin L.

Buckwheat isn't in the wheat family ... barley and rye are.

They have been studying grains for a long time, but only the WBR

grains are associated with celiac, which has been studied

extensively for the last 20 years. Celiac is ONE form of

gluten intolerance, which is a WBR IgA immune reaction. They

are basically deadly ... folks who have celiac are known to

have twice the death rate per year as others if they eat wheat.

(which makes it hard to get insurance ...). Mostly they die

of cancer and heart disease, but depression and mental

illness are in there too. Folks with WBR IgA reactions but

not celiac are now thought to be similarly at risk, but no

one knows the exact numbers.

The other issues with grains ... phytates, high carbs, lack

of vitamins ... hold true for all grains mostly, but are not

nearly as fatal, and you can handle the grains to work

around those issues.

As for info ... the book Dangerous Grains gives a very

in depth rundown of the issues.

It is thought that all the IgA immune reactions might

be rather nasty, but the wheat one seems to be the

most common. Again, this is a genetic issue ... people

with the " right " genes don't get the IgA reaction. But

the reaction itself is usually symptomless, like

high blood pressure, so you don't know you are having

it until a fair bit of damage has been done.

The other thing about wheat is that it has been bred

to be high-gluten. The gliadin in gluten binds to the

villi in the upper intestine in ALL people, and it is

thought to cause damage in high doses. Gliadin seems

to be the only protein that does this, or the only

one anyone talks about. By binding to the villi, it probably

affects intestinal absorption.

Anyway, the science is still in it's infancy.

There will be more news in the next few

years, I'm sure!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> > >Elainie & Katja,

> > >

> > >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved

into their

> area

> > >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to

other

> food,

> > >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher

grain,

> > >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous

peoples.

> > >

> > >Wanita

> > >

> > > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and

updated

> with

> > > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2

years it's

> been

> > >found

> > > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

> > > >

> > > > Elainie

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The wild grains were not better than domestic. The wild were only 

healthy for ruminants, that is one of the reasons why they were 

domesticated. When they were domesticated they increased dramatically 

in nutrition. Second, grains are not the cause of a decline in health. 

Most of the research on pre-agricultural peoples and health is based on 

primates of some sort, not always homo sapiens and what is based on 

humans (agricultural) has not taken into consideration- although now it 

is getting more attention-the extreme climactic changes the early 

agriculturists had to endure. Drought, floods and numerous other 

problems contributed greatly to the decline in humanity in general, not 

grains. There are cultures today who eat grains and vegetables as the 

majority of their diet and thrive, Weston Price acknowledged some of 

these people in his book. Also, more current findings are revealing 

paleo man as not having the great health we once thought him to have. 

Of course, that all depends on what diet paleo man was eating and that 

all depended on where and when he lived as he too suffered many health 

disorders just like many modern day hunter/gatherers  do today.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Impeccable logic? Facts as we know them? There is no logic here and

there are no facts, only hypothisis based on a model of cultural

evolution and that is only a theory-one that has and is getting more

and more criticism as of late because of it's lack of substantial

evidence, especially in the area of transitionals in the " fossil

record. "

Elainie

[Guest guest]

The Inuit are just one group of modern day hunter gatherer's. What about the

rest? That's what I'm talking about. Look into their diets and you will find

this high plant food %.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Has anyone seen videos of the !Kung San? The women get just a bite of meat

if they're lucky.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Suze,

Not sure about the first question and to answer the second question, their

health is not so great.

In fact none of the hunter gatherer's groups I've seen on video or read

about are in great health.

Their diet is void of refined foods, yet their teeth are rotten, falling out

etc.. and these are the ones that don't eat grain. What about traditional

peoples who appear in better health, have beautiful teeth and eat grain?

These traditional people's eat more protein though.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

It's in West Germany! up the Rhine from Cologne.

Neander is the name of the local river and tal in German means valley. So

Neandertal means the " valley of the river Neander " .

in Germany

Re: " Grains Good as Gold "

>

> > > >Elainie & Katja,

> > > >

> > > >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved

> into their

> > area

> > > >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to

> other

> > food,

> > > >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher

> grain,

> > > >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous

> peoples.

> > > >

> > > >Wanita

> > > >

> > > > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and

> updated

> > with

> > > > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2

> years it's

> > been

> > > >found

> > > > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

> > > > >

> > > > > Elainie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

>I live in the Neandertal. !!

oh how wild! LOL! i take it, it's in germany? where specifically?

and i live in cro magnon. <weg> just kidding :-D

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>

>The Inuit are just one group of modern day hunter gatherer's. What

>about the

>rest? That's what I'm talking about. Look into their diets and you

>will find

>this high plant food %.

according to cordain in this article:

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Final%20Fatty%20Acid%20PDF.pdf typical

HG ratio of animal to plant food was 60-something percent animal foods to

30-something percent plant foods. but as others have pointed out, it really

depends on various factors, including proximity to the equator. it also has

to do with ice ages. our paleo ancestors lived through a very long ice age

(was it 100,000 years?) in which most of europe was not conducive to plant

growth EXCEPT grasses. large game consumed the grasses, and they were the

primary food source for paleos during that extensive period. that ice age

ended about 10,000 years ago which was followed by the beginnings of grain

cultivation in that area, and also accompanied the die-off of a significant

portion of large game. eventually the grain cultivators took over land that

was hunted by HGs, populations boomed and the HGs traditional food sources

began to diminish (maybe related to agricultural spread, maybe related to

large game die-off, or both).

price studied modern day HGs, some of whom probably were no longer able to

obtain the full diet of their ancestors, but they did the best they could

obtaining animal foods. it would be interesting to know what type of

environment the bantu lived in. IIRC they ate grains/plants in higher ratio

to animal foods than his more carnivorous groups. why? did they prefer

grains over animal foods? or were animal foods scarce in their region?

according to price - ALL the groups SOUGHT out animal foods especially. were

all these dispersed primitive cultures from many corners of the globe

anomalous in the history of human nutrition? or has the availability of

preferred foods changed over time?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>Has anyone seen videos of the !Kung San? The women get just a

>bite of meat

>if they're lucky.

two questions:

1. does their environment provide an abundance of animal foods that they

could readily consume if they choose?

2. what is their health like?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The marker for the deterioration in health is the domestication of

>grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has any idea

>how long

>humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without reason that

>grain consumption began with grain domestication.

Not at all. However, many people do accept that grain consumption shot up

dramatically with their domestication, and that's aside from the fact that

any grains you find today, including heirloom strains, are radically

different from their wild ancestors in many ways.

-

[Guest guest]

>Chris-

>

>>The marker for the deterioration in health is the domestication of

>>grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has any idea

>>how long

>>humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without reason that

>>grain consumption began with grain domestication.

>

>Not at all. However, many people do accept that grain consumption shot up

>dramatically with their domestication, and that's aside from the fact that

>any grains you find today, including heirloom strains, are radically

>different from their wild ancestors in many ways.

>

>-

It is not " without reason " they assume that. Wild grains, when they ripen, fall

to

the ground. Moreover, they don't have a very high yeild. Go out into any

grassland

and try to collect grains and you'll see what I mean. You CAN get some grain,

and no doubt people did ... but they got a variety and not in huge amounts.

Hunter gatherers do eat a lot of plants, and a huge variety. On scientist in

Arizona

was trying to replicate the old Indian diet, and they ate about 200 varieties of

local

plants (he is living off them now as an experiment, with some locally grown

meat).

If you read some of those " eat wild plants " books ala Euell Gibbons or

read some of the settler's accounts of what Indians ate, you'll see they

ate a lot of plant foods in wide variety -- but it includes stuff like wild

greens, tiny roots, the layer of a tree under the bark, pine needles boiled

in water. Berries in season. And some grains and legumes. But roots were

a more common starch source, because they stay there all year, ready

to dig up, but grains are only harvestable for a short time, and they rot

easily in wet climates unless you build buildings to store them. The Indians

did learn to store dried corn, but that was when corn became " domesticated "

and they became less nomadic.

Try " eating wild " for a bit and you'll see what I mean. It is darn hard

to eat grains in any quantity, and even starches are difficult.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 9:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

deweyli@... writes:

> >Yes. The marker for the deterioration in health is the

> domestication of

> >grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has

> any idea how long

> >humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without

> reason that

> >grain consumption began with grain domestication.

> >

> >Chris

>

> So, are you saying that the grains they ate were most likely

> domesticated grains?

No, I'm saying that humans ate grains both before and after grain

domestication, while people who pinpoint diseases to grain-eating are assuming

that

humans ate grains only after domestication. Before humans domesticated grain,

they

ate undomesticated grain; afterwards, they ate domesticated grain.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 10:46:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Everything " we advocate? I think it depends.

Oops-- I meant the grain-treatments we advocate.

> Sprouted grains, I tend to agree that is true. It increases

> malt content. Is malt as bad as fructose? I don't know.

> The malt I used to eat was all in beer, converted to alcohol ... ;--)

No, it isn't. But more to the point, fructose's " badness " has nothing

whatsoever to do with its glycemic index. In fact, fructose has a very low

glycemic

index, and is lower than many starches, which is why rice cakes and potatoes

have higher glycemic indexes than table sugar.

Yet fructose is uniquely harmful to glucose tolerance in a way that

higher-glycemic sugars are not.

> But FERMENTING grains makes lactic acid and alcohol, not sugar. Sourdough

> bread should be less glycemic (plus lactic acid seems

> to make the body handle high glycemic food better).

It should have simpler carbs, since the bacteria will digest them. The acid

might slow the glycemic index, so overall perhaps it's the same. But it's

still simpler carbs. Anyway, do you have any basis to believe sourdough bread

is

healthier than sprouted bread? I suspect sprouted bread is healthier, since

it should be considerably more nutritious.

>

> Also I don't think the issue with high carb foods is

> as simple as the glycemic factor. I think a lot

> of it has to do with microbes ... bacterial overgrowth

> is what kills cows fed grain, not blood sugar. Cultures that

> eat a lot of rice tend to eat stuff like pickles and kimchi,

> which might prevent the wrong kind of overgrowth.

> (and also tend to change how insulin is produced so

> it's a tough call ...).

I do too, in which case you want to eat simpler sugars, not starches, ala

SCD.

Also, it makes more sense to me that the reason finely ground flours are

worse is because of this issue, rather than glycemic index. At some point your

enzymes are going to reach a saturation point, and feeding them substrate faster

by increasing the surface area isn't going to quicken digestion. But it WILL

make more surface area for *bacteria* to digest, if they are catching the

overflow from what you're enzymes can't handle.

> So sprouting grain might cause the formation of enzymes

> or decrease in lectins or whatever that would make the

> grain more digestible and less likely to cause bacterial

> overgrowth, even though it has more sugar.

Right. But you can find many more examples. Raw honey would certainly cause

less bacterial overgrowth than table sugar, or starches, even though it's a

simpler sugar than either. Fructose is more harmful to glucose tolerance than

other sugars and starches, even though it has a *much* lower glycemic index.

I really don't see a reason to emphasize glycemic index.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/04 8:03:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> The Inuit are just one group of modern day hunter gatherer's. What about

> the

> rest? That's what I'm talking about. Look into their diets and you will find

>

> this high plant food %.

Not according to anthropologists. The conventional wisdom in, say, an intro

to anthro textbook is that plant food % is directly proportional to

lattitudinal proximity to the equator.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/04 10:28:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> Their diet is void of refined foods, yet their teeth are rotten, falling

> out

> etc.. and these are the ones that don't eat grain. What about traditional

> peoples who appear in better health, have beautiful teeth and eat grain?

Interesting. This entirely conflicts with everything I learnt about the

!Kung in anthropology.

What I learnt is this:

Their diet is lacking in refined foods, but they smoke cigarettes. They are

immune to tooth decay, hearing loss, and high blood pressure, but do get

tuberculosis and venereal diseases. Their diet is 37% animal products, and much

of

the plant products are mongongo nuts, which are the closest approximation to

animal protein in the plant kingdom, that humans eat.

These tribal groups usually have many subsections. Perhaps the video of the

ones you saw were an abberation from the norm of the group, and perhaps the

low amount of animal products they were apparently eating have something to do

with their bad teeth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/04 12:30:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It is not " without reason " they assume that. Wild grains, when they ripen,

> fall to

> the ground. Moreover, they don't have a very high yeild. Go out into any

> grassland

> and try to collect grains and you'll see what I mean. You CAN get some

> grain,

> and no doubt people did ... but they got a variety and not in huge amounts.

> Hunter gatherers do eat a lot of plants, and a huge variety. On scientist in

> Arizona

> was trying to replicate the old Indian diet, and they ate about 200

> varieties of local

> plants (he is living off them now as an experiment, with some locally grown

> meat).

I agree that they would be eating much less, as pointed out, but you

can't assume that lack of domestication is the same as " wild. " Domestication is

defined as influencing the gene pool. That doesn't mean they didn't modify

the environment in any way. Hunter gatherers, for example, will root out

certain plants to give more room for the proliferation of the ones they want,

which

*isn't* domestication, but is certainly modifcation of the environment

enabling them to more easily and reliably consume a given thing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Not at all. However, many people do accept that grain consumption

shot up

> dramatically with their domestication, and that's aside from the

fact that

> any grains you find today, including heirloom strains, are

radically

> different from their wild ancestors in many ways.

If I'm understanding Elainie correct (correct me if I'm wrong,

Elainie), the domesticated grains are better for us. Do you

agree/disagree? why? Whether the grains are heirloom or

domesticated, it seems that at least a large part of the problem

with grain in the human diet is that, as Heidi pointed out, we are

eating way too much of it. Domestication and large scale harvesting

have given us the ability to consume more than maybe we should...too

much of a good thing?

As this conversation evolves, I'm coming to think that it boils down

to each person eating the grains, etc. that work well for them.

It's hard to know if you have a problem from eating a particular

grain that you've eaten all your life because you would be used to

how you feel. Feeling crummy would seem normal to you until you

kept it out of your diet and then reintroduced it so that you could

see and feel the difference between how you feel while off the grain

and how you feel while eating the grain; you just wouldn't

know/see/feel the difference otherwise. This is why I'm cutting out

all grains, beans/legumes, nuts/seeds, and adding them slowly back

(as I explained earlier) to see which ones I have any negative

reactions to, and which ones I do well with. I do think that

according to one's gene's and adaptation, grains, beans/legumes, and

nuts/seeds can be a healthy addition to one's diet.

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>It is not " without reason " they assume that. Wild grains, when they ripen,

>fall to

>the ground. Moreover, they don't have a very high yeild. Go out into any

>grassland

>and try to collect grains and you'll see what I mean.

I think this is just a misunderstanding. I said that people ate some grain

before domestication just because it's obvious they wouldn't have gone to

the extensive trouble of domesticating grains without first trying them and

deciding they were tasty and filling enough for the effort to pay

off. That doesn't mean they ate _much_ grain, though. In fact, as you say

(and as I've said before) they _couldn't_ have eaten more than a minute

fraction of what people eat today, and moreover what wild grains they did

eat wouldn't have much resembled modern grains, which have been heavily

bred for starch and protein content and head size.

>Try " eating wild " for a bit and you'll see what I mean. It is darn hard

>to eat grains in any quantity, and even starches are difficult.

Which is exactly why I think starchy diets run contrary to what we evolved

to eat. Any adaptations are very recent and likely to be grossly incomplete.

-

[Guest guest]

Yep, I think we are saying the same thing!

-- Heidi

>I think this is just a misunderstanding. I said that people ate some grain

>before domestication just because it's obvious they wouldn't have gone to

>the extensive trouble of domesticating grains without first trying them and

>deciding they were tasty and filling enough for the effort to pay

>off. That doesn't mean they ate _much_ grain, though. In fact, as you say

>(and as I've said before) they _couldn't_ have eaten more than a minute

>fraction of what people eat today, and moreover what wild grains they did

>eat wouldn't have much resembled modern grains, which have been heavily

>bred for starch and protein content and head size.

>

>>Try " eating wild " for a bit and you'll see what I mean. It is darn hard

>>to eat grains in any quantity, and even starches are difficult.

>

>Which is exactly why I think starchy diets run contrary to what we evolved

>to eat. Any adaptations are very recent and likely to be grossly incomplete.

>

>-

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > IIRC, all archaeological sites averaged around the world have a 30%

hunted,

> > 70% gathered ratio. 20% animal not that much less.

>

> There's no accurate way to distinguish this archeologically. There's too

> many kinds of foods that just don't leave archeological traces, so any

estimation

> is almost *entirely* speculation.

>

> Based on the study of hunter-gatherers, there is a direct correlation with

> latitudinal distance from the equator and percentage animal product

consumption.

> The !Kung San were found to have 37% of calories from animal products,

and

> they're pretty close to the equator. The Inuit, of course, have much more

> animal products.

Points you've made and I'm aware of, make more accuracy than an

average based on whats being believed presently. Archaeology is a very

conservative and protected science filled with many anamolies and very

little new coming out from those anomalies.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Both of these fall in line with some of Mercola's reasoning for no grain and

his featuring of the book Infective Diabetes. A chicken or egg first theory.

Does the grain introduce the bacteria that can lead to insulin resistance?

> bacterial overgrowth

> is what kills cows fed grain, not blood sugar.

> So sprouting grain might cause the formation of enzymes

> or decrease in lectins or whatever that would make the

> grain more digestible and less likely to cause bacterial

> overgrowth, even though it has more sugar.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/04 9:17:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Isn't bacteria in honey the reason why children under 1 shouldn't eat it?

There's tiny amounts of bt toxin, but neither of us are children under 1, so

it's irrelevant to us. Honey is very, very antibacterial.

Chris