Re: How healthy are beans and legumes?

[Guest guest]

Legumes are indeed as starchy as grains, i.e. 70-80%. They *have* to

be soaked and cooked in order to neutralize most of the allergenic

phytochemical (antinutrients) which are toxic raw.

Legumes, as hard as it's to swallow for many people for cultural

reasons and peer traditions, being a starch I would not classify it

as a health food. It's a good supplemental food for developing

countries to beef up an otherwise paltry meal, and to increase

survival rates thus. But if health and longevity and slowed aging are

your goal, I would minimize them, only eat them as condiments in

small portions, and only occassionally. By occassionally, I mean once

a week or less a small serving of beans, and once a week or less a

small serving of lentils or peas.

Being a high-glycemic food (= starch), they will spike your insulin

and cause a high amount of insulin to properly assimilate in the

body. High insulin is in my view a definitive factor in accelerated

aging, and wear and tear in the body.

Starches, for better or worse, have helped us grow to a world

population of now 7 billion human beings, but most of whom living in

subpar conditions and having health and vitality issues. Starches are

by no means a " bad " or " evil " food (I don't believe in classifying

foods that way), and they have served their evolutionary purpose in

making us grow to this population and having helped us survive

through centuries of less-than-optimal food choices, food shortages,

wars, famines, etc.

However, we here having this online discussion, one can assume, have

all access to any choice of foods we may want. And all of us, just by

being member of this user group, have some degree of consciousness

about what choices in nutrition to make. So, one may assume most of

us seek health, vitality and longevity, perhaps also fertility in the

case of some (?). In all those cases I would put starches far at the

bottom of the priority table of most beneficial foods with highest

nutritional density.

I would completely refrain from eating peanuts, a highly allergenic

legume (not a nut, despite the misleading name which is a misnomer).

Even if you don't get symptoms, the chemical appeals to certain

immune receptors that I would believe are better left alone. Eat good

high-omega-3 nuts such as walnuts, almonds.

So, in a nut-shell (pun only coincidental, while the spelling is on

purpose): If health, longevity and vitality are your goal, limit or

eliminate legumes, as well as grains, and most root vegetables (which

usually are highly starchy) with the exception of carrots occasionally.

Boris

On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:55 AM, wrote:

> Grains should probably be eliminated from most or everyone's diet

> because of the high levels of antinutrients they contain as well as

> other problems. Aren't beans and legumes a problem for the same

> reasons? Don't they contain high levels of antinutrients also?

> Also, isn't the fact they humans lack or have insufficient levels

> of the enzymes required to digest grains a significant problem too?

> Grains are 70-80% starch and therefore are fattening. Aren't beans

> and legumes starchy too? Thanks for any replies.

[Guest guest]

First off, please do not email me directly but address the group.

This is a user-list, and the topics are of interest to many.

The China Study is a deeply flawed report, with inconsistencies and

false premises. It has been thoroughly debunked in many areas, and I

need not re-phrase it here.

My previous email was informed and had nothing in it to deserve your

implication of the contrary. If you don't like my findings or they

don't fit your belief system, just disregard them.

Best,

Boris

On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Kurt Fischer wrote:

> Ever heard of Colin 's findings in China Report?

> If so, why do you deny his results. If not, why don't you

> bother to get informed?

> Kurt Fischer

[Guest guest]

Starch is not inherently fattening. It is metabolically stimulating and lowers

cortisol. Resistant starch in particular (high in beans, legumes and potatoes)

selectively feeds the good bacteria in your digestive tract, which then produce

the short-chain fatty acids propionate, butyrate and acetate from the resistant

starch. These fatty acids increase both leptin and insulin sensitivity and help

heal/repair the lining of the colon.

I have experienced increased energy, lowered stress, and weight loss from eating

more *unrefined* starch. If someone continually gets fatter eating starch (or

fat, or calories) then something is wrong with their metabolism, namely

carbohydrate metabolism in this case. There is nothing inherently wrong with

starch. (Yes, I read Stephan Guyenet and Matt Stone.)

I don't think anti-nutrients are that big of a deal. If you eat a varied diet

that is otherwise plentiful in minerals and other nutrients I wouldn't worry.

But if they are a regular staple of the diet, especially a vegetarian diet, then

they can definitely cause problems.

>

> Grains should probably be eliminated from most or everyone's diet because of

the high levels of antinutrients they contain as well as other problems. Aren't

beans and legumes a problem for the same reasons? Don't they contain high

levels of antinutrients also? Also, isn't the fact they humans lack or have

insufficient levels of the enzymes required to digest grains a significant

problem too? Grains are 70-80% starch and therefore are fattening. Aren't

beans and legumes starchy too? Thanks for any replies.

>

[Guest guest]

I'd say, after we soak and cook them, we can eat legumes the way we eat

potatoes. They're not the sole component of our diet but a regular staple.

Soybeans are another matter entirely. Their anti-nutrients are so high they

belong in another category. Grains should be eaten like legumes. We shouldn't

have regular, daily legumes AND grains.

LAURA.

>

> Grains should probably be eliminated from most or everyone's diet because of

the high levels of antinutrients they contain as well as other problems. Aren't

beans and legumes a problem for the same reasons? Don't they contain high

levels of antinutrients also? Also, isn't the fact they humans lack or have

insufficient levels of the enzymes required to digest grains a significant

problem too? Grains are 70-80% starch and therefore are fattening. Aren't

beans and legumes starchy too? Thanks for any replies.

>

[Guest guest]

Grains and legumes do in fact have anti-nutrients, but this does not mean they

should be avoided. This is the message from the WAPF as well as Dr. Price

himself. In fact he wrote that the most robust people were those that eat grains

and fish.

The proper way to prepare grains and legumes is sprouting (8-12 hr soak, 8-24

hour sprouting) and souring. Legumes requiring longer souring periods than

grains.

Starch isn't fattening. In fact it appears to behave in the exact opposite

manner. I would recommend checking out Matt Stone's blog 180 Degree Nutrition.

There is a lot of good data out there supporting the notion that starch is not

fattening. The Japanese eat huge amounts of starch and are some the thinnest

people on earth for example.

Cheers,

>

> Grains should probably be eliminated from most or everyone's diet because of

the high levels of antinutrients they contain as well as other problems. Aren't

beans and legumes a problem for the same reasons? Don't they contain high

levels of antinutrients also? Also, isn't the fact they humans lack or have

insufficient levels of the enzymes required to digest grains a significant

problem too? Grains are 70-80% starch and therefore are fattening. Aren't

beans and legumes starchy too? Thanks for any replies.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Starch isn't fattening.

To the body, starch is pure sugar. Eat more of it than you'll burn up in

activity and it will turn to fat.

> In fact it appears to behave in the exact opposite manner. I would

> recommend checking out Matt Stone's blog 180 Degree Nutrition.

Back when Matt Stone was eating 400 grams of carbs every day, mostly in the form

of white rice, he ballooned up into a doughy mess.

In my own case, starch in sufficient quantity makes me voraciously hungry a

couple hours after eating it, causing me to binge uncontrollably. That's why I

got fat on a predominantly vegetarian diet that was heavily based on whole

grains and beans. It also crashes my blood sugar, making me tired and lethargic.

Beans have much less of that effect on me, but grains and tubers are a nightmare

if I eat them in quantities exceeding half a cup. I don't know if it's

carbohydrate sensitivity, reactive hypoglycemia, or what, but some of us just

aren't cut out for diets loaded with starch.

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Lana M. Gibbons " <lana.m.gibbons@...>

wrote:

>

> None of what you're blaming on starches is clear cut as their

> " fault " .

Actually, in my case, starch is absolutely to blame. Even in the context of my

current low-ish carb, paleo/primal diet, with plenty of fat and protein, a large

portion of starch has the same negative consequences. The last time I had a

sweetpotato, it accompanied a nice fatty steak, and I binged all afternoon. The

last time I had sushi out of town, my wife had to drive us all the way home

because the rice crashed my blood sugar, and I was fast asleep in the passenger

seat at 4pm. When fruit and non-starchy veggies make up the 100-150 grams of

carbs I eat every day, I have none of those issues.

[Guest guest]

This is EXACTLY me before RRARF. I thought I was incurably carb-sensitive and it

was getting worse and worse. With RRARF, I found out that the problem wasn't too

much starches, the problem was that I had been denying my hungry body the

starches it wanted. All the time my body had been pushing me to overeat carbs,

but I had always denied it what it needed because I thought I was smarter than

my body. Or I had given in to my cravings and satisfied them with sugary-fatty

sweets which messed up my digestion. But unless I eat too little for over 1-2

days, I don't get any cravings anymore.

> Actually, in my case, starch is absolutely to blame. Even in the context of my

current low-ish carb, paleo/primal diet, with plenty of fat and protein, a large

portion of starch has the same negative consequences. The last time I had a

sweetpotato, it accompanied a nice fatty steak, and I binged all afternoon. The

last time I had sushi out of town, my wife had to drive us all the way home

because the rice crashed my blood sugar, and I was fast asleep in the passenger

seat at 4pm. When fruit and non-starchy veggies make up the 100-150 grams of

carbs I eat every day, I have none of those issues.

>

[Guest guest]

I'd been eating a starchy diet for decades, and even after going WAPF and

ditching the PUFA oils, the situation still continued to get worse. It was only

after I cut out most of the starch that I started losing weight and enjoying

metabolic evenness, greater energy levels, and a life without craving and

binging. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much did the Matt Stone approach

during the WAPF phase, and it didn't help. I've been doing paleo-ish, low-ish

carb (150 grams or less per day) for 7+ years, and I still feel great.

--- In , " doublethink03 " <doublethink03@...>

wrote:

>

> This is EXACTLY me before RRARF. I thought I was incurably carb-sensitive and

it was getting worse and worse. With RRARF, I found out that the problem wasn't

too much starches, the problem was that I had been denying my hungry body the

starches it wanted. All the time my body had been pushing me to overeat carbs,

but I had always denied it what it needed because I thought I was smarter than

my body. Or I had given in to my cravings and satisfied them with sugary-fatty

sweets which messed up my digestion. But unless I eat too little for over 1-2

days, I don't get any cravings anymore.

>

>

> > Actually, in my case, starch is absolutely to blame. Even in the context of

my current low-ish carb, paleo/primal diet, with plenty of fat and protein, a

large portion of starch has the same negative consequences. The last time I had

a sweetpotato, it accompanied a nice fatty steak, and I binged all afternoon.

The last time I had sushi out of town, my wife had to drive us all the way home

because the rice crashed my blood sugar, and I was fast asleep in the passenger

seat at 4pm. When fruit and non-starchy veggies make up the 100-150 grams of

carbs I eat every day, I have none of those issues.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

7 years is a long time. Seems like low carb is really working well for you...

Are you sure you followed Matt's protocol at the time, i.e. eating like 4,000

kcal a day and resting, and that for a month or two? I mean it's rather

counter-intuitive imho, nothing someone would do by accident.

>

> I'd been eating a starchy diet for decades, and even after going WAPF and

ditching the PUFA oils, the situation still continued to get worse. It was only

after I cut out most of the starch that I started losing weight and enjoying

metabolic evenness, greater energy levels, and a life without craving and

binging. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much did the Matt Stone approach

during the WAPF phase, and it didn't help. I've been doing paleo-ish, low-ish

carb (150 grams or less per day) for 7+ years, and I still feel great.

[Guest guest]

I generally overate foods that Matt would approve of. I did not follow his exact

prescribed protocol.

--- In , " doublethink03 " <doublethink03@...>

wrote:

>

> 7 years is a long time. Seems like low carb is really working well for you...

Are you sure you followed Matt's protocol at the time, i.e. eating like 4,000

kcal a day and resting, and that for a month or two? I mean it's rather

counter-intuitive imho, nothing someone would do by accident.

>

>

>

> --- In , " Stanley " <j_alexander_stanley@>

wrote:

> >

> > I'd been eating a starchy diet for decades, and even after going WAPF and

ditching the PUFA oils, the situation still continued to get worse. It was only

after I cut out most of the starch that I started losing weight and enjoying

metabolic evenness, greater energy levels, and a life without craving and

binging. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much did the Matt Stone approach

during the WAPF phase, and it didn't help. I've been doing paleo-ish, low-ish

carb (150 grams or less per day) for 7+ years, and I still feel great.

>