RE: The Case for Grains (NOT)

[Guest guest]

The information in the article quoted about grains

has a lot of factual errors and is quite opinionated.

For example,

> Certainly, many of our plates are overloaded with the wrong

> kinds of carbs: white flour, white rice and snack foods.

White flour and white rice have nearly as much nutrition

as their whole grain counterparts, at least in many regards.

And when supplemented can actually have more.

> But complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, are crucial

> to a healthful diet:

This is fishy false. Simply not true.

> They provide a broad range of essential nutrients such as

> Vitamins B and C,

On a per calorie basis, they are poor relative to other

choices (eg, veggies and fruits).

> are rich in minerals and,

On a per calorie basis, they are again poor.

> ... Their antioxidant activity is on par with many fruits

> and exceeds most vegetables.

Simply not true, neither on a per unit weight basis,

nor on a per calorie basis. Grains are actually the worst.

Of all plant food types, grains rank the very lowest

on a per weight basis for anti-oxidants. There was

at least one recent message clearly pointing this out,

based on published anti-oxidant scientific research.

The message noted how inferior grains are relative to

all other possible plant food choices -- the worst.

Maybe someone can find it and post it (or a link to it).

Sorry to be contrarian. Grains are the big losers in the

food bazaar of possible CRON food choices.

However, there is certainly nothing wrong with consuming

a limited amount in small quantity on a CR diet, just to

to cover all your bases. Maybe there is some hidden secret

essential something hidden in grains that is absent from

all other foods?

-- Warren

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

> This article not only gives recipes, but discusses why grains

> should be included in a healthful diet:

>

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12377-2004Jan13.html

>