27 replies to this topic

[renfr]

I'm wondering about these, my main concern is that they contain phytates which are said to be anti-nutrients. I'm overall concerned by zinc absorption, phytates seem to inhibit zinc absorption.
Plus it increases fecal excretion (due to fiber) which causes more nutrients to be eliminated.
Should I switch to refined grains or keep taking whole grains? I'm taking whole grains because I think it's healthier but are refined grains really unhealthy?

[misterE]

Harnessing grains gave humans a huge evolutionary advantage and allowed for civilization. No more hunting and gathering... now, since humans collected and stored grains, we could stockpile an energy source and feed thousands and millions of people, which was recorded and documented throughout all recorded history. Grains are what allowed the human race to multiply so rapidly and are referred to commonly as "the pillars of humanity"; for without grains... we would not be having this discussion. All the ancient armies ruled throughout history like the ones by Alexander the Great and Gengis Khan, all those soldiers wearing heavy armor and marching into battle to fight to the death, what do you think they were eating? Grains of course, they were not eating the turkey-leg. That was eaten by the fat royalty up in the castle. The roman soldiers were known to eat oats and wheat. The gladiators were known to eat barley!





The whole question of whether or not whole-grains are healthy is ridiculous; the answer is obvious. When people stop fueling their bodies with fat, protein and sugar and begin to fuel their bodies with starch or complex-carbohydrate... everything works and the arteries begin to clear, insulin-sensitivity is restored, and hormones involved with cancer growth are contained. Eating this way reduces your food bill, it reduces your exposure to dioxins, it helps sustain the planet’s resources and it reduces the slaughter of billions of animals annually. Everyone is a winner here… except the evil forces that have a lot to loose and tend to mislead the masses with misinformation.

Edited by misterE, 14 June 2013 - 05:31 AM.

[platypus]

The whole question of whether or not whole-grains are healthy is ridiculous; the answer is obvious.

No it is not. As you said grains are necessary to feed millions or billions of people, but that does not imply in the slightest that individuals are going to thrive on grains. Humans are apex predators by ancestry, I have a feeling that should be reflected in our diet.

[DePaw]

Dr William Davis, author of Wheat belly, says that whole grains are like filtered cigarettes, better than refined grains (unfiltered cigarettes) but still bad for you. Studies only ever compared whole grains with refined grains, never no grains, so of course filtered cigarettes would look healthy even when they're not...

[misterE]

The scientific-literature is crystal clear that whole-grains are protective against numerous western-diseases... while red-meat and saturated-fat is implemented in promoting western-diseases.
The issue that gets people into trouble is that they determine what to eat based on their palate… not their logic. People would much rather convince themselves that oatmeal is bad for them and that bacon and eggs is a healthy breakfast. People would much rather eat a steak for supper than a bowl of barley or rice. The main reason why grains are so maligned is because it’s much easier to give up grains than it is to give up meat, cheese or eggs.

[zorba990]

Dr William Davis, author of Wheat belly, says that whole grains are like filtered cigarettes, better than refined grains (unfiltered cigarettes) but still bad for you. Studies only ever compared whole grains with refined grains, never no grains, so of course filtered cigarettes would look healthy even when they're not...

Yup. When people are switched from junk to whole grains they may initially see a benefit -- if they have no allergies or gluten problems (that many people do). However, the benefit soon wears off and they are back to blood sugar problems land. When you take a group of animals and control tightly for diet (not some questionaire about what did you eat last week) -- you can see that whole grains don't end up doing any better than any other high carbohydrate nonsense:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21733309

Now maybe whey protein, a big handful of green leafy, olive oil, and 25 grams of carbs from Barley might make a decent life extension meal if you want to spend your carbs that way.

[Kevnzworld]

Whole grains are fine in limited amounts. Their fiber content is probably their greatest strength. It's best to eat them with a protein and/or a healthy fat to reduce blood glucose spikes.

Edited by Kevnzworld, 14 June 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[misterE]

J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Jun;19(3 Suppl):300S-307S. Mechanisms for the impact of whole grain foods on cancer risk. Slavin JL.

“Epidemiologic studies find that whole grains are protective against cancer.”



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


Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Nov 15;166(10):1174-85. Whole grains and risk of pancreatic cancer in a large population-based case-control study in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Chan JM, Wang F, Holly EA.

“Epidemiologic data suggest that consumption of whole-grain products may be inversely associated with risk of pancreatic cancer.”



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


Nutr Cancer. 1997;27(1):14-21. Whole-grain consumption and chronic disease: protective mechanisms. Slavin J, Jacobs D, Marquart L.

“Epidemiologic studies support the belief that whole grains are protective against cancers, especially gastrointestinal cancers such as gastric and colonic, and cardiovascular disease.”



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


Proc Nutr Soc. 2003 Feb;62(1):143-9. Epidemiological support for the protection of whole grains against diabetes. Murtaugh MA, Jacobs DR Jr, Jacob B.

“Risk for incident type 2 diabetes was 21-27% lower for those in the highest quintile of whole-grain intake.”


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


J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Oct;19(5):578-90. Health advantages and disadvantages of weight-reducing diets: a computer analysis and critical review. Anderson JW, Konz EC, Jenkins DJ.

“While high fat diets may promote short-term weight loss, the potential hazards for worsening risk for progression of atherosclerosis override the short-term benefits. Individuals derive the greatest health benefits from diets low in saturated fat and high in carbohydrate and fiber: these increase sensitivity to insulin and lower risk for CHD.”


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


Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Aug;76(2):390-8. Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. McKeown NM, Meigs JB, Liu S.

“Whole-grain intake and metabolic risk markers were assessed in a cross-sectional study of 2941 subjects. Whole-grain intake was inversely associated with body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and fasting insulin.”


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


Am J Cardiol. 1998 Nov 26;82(10B):18T-21T. Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: the Cornell China study. Campbell TC, Parpia B, Chen J.

“In rural China, fat intake was less than half that in the United States, and fiber intake was 3 times higher. Animal protein intake was very low, only about 10% of the US intake. Coronary artery disease mortality was 16.7-fold greater for US men and 5.6-fold greater for US women than for their Chinese counterparts.”


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


Eur J Nutr. 2006 Feb;45(1):52-4. No evidence of insulin resistance in normal weight vegetarians. A case control study. Valachovicová M, Krajcovicová-Kudlácková M, Blazícek P.

“Vegetarians had a significantly higher consumption of whole grain products, pulses, products from oat and barley. Glucose and insulin concentrations and IR (HOMA) values were significantly lower in vegetarians.”


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


Mutat Res. 1998 Jun 18;402(1-2):331-7. Worldwide prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases based on knowledge of mechanisms. Weisburger JH.

“In the Western world, heart disease and cancer of the breast, colon, rectum, prostate, pancreas, ovary and endometrium relate to a nutritional tradition too high in total fat-- Decreasing total fat intake, from 40 to 20% of calories and a greater use of starches such as rice, pasta, potatoes and whole grain bread, as well as daily intake of five to nine vegetables and fruits would be beneficial.”


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


Proc Nutr Soc. 2003 Feb;62(1):135-42. Whole grains protect against atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Anderson JW.

“Epidemiological studies indicate that individuals with higher levels of whole-grain intake have a 29 % lower risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than individuals with lower levels of whole-grain intake.”


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


J Am Diet Assoc. 1981 Dec;79(6):668-72. Dietary-atherosclerosis study on deceased persons. Moore MC, Guzman MA, Schilling PE.

“Researchers found lesser lesions to be related to intakes of legumes, grains, and vegetables, while higher lesions were related, but to a lesser degree, to intakes of beef, milk, and fruit.”


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


Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Sep;90(3):647-54. Dietary patterns and incident cardiovascular disease in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Nettleton JA, Polak JF, Tracy R.

“The Fats and Processed Meat dietary pattern was associated with a greater risk, and the Whole Grains and Fruit dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of CVD”


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


Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1495-502. Whole-grain intake and carotid artery atherosclerosis in a multiethnic cohort: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Mellen PB, Liese AD, Tooze JA.

“Whole-grain intake is inversely associated with common carotid artery intimal medial thickness.”


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


J Am Diet Assoc. 1976 Mar;68(3):216-23. Dietary-atherosclerosis study on deceased persons. Relation of selected dietary components to raised coronary lesions. Moore MC, Guzmán MA, Schilling PE.

“Starch and vegetal protein were associated with less atherosclerotic lesion involvement in the coronaries, while animal protein and fat, regardless of source, were associated with greater atherosclerotic lesion involvement.”


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


Diabetes Care. 1979 Mar-Apr;2(2):161-70. Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii. Kawate R, Yamakido M, Nishimoto Y.

“Consumption of animal fat and simple carbohydrates (sucrose and fructose) were at least twice as high in Hawaiian as in Hiroshima Japanese. Conversely, Hiroshima Japanese consumed about twice the amount of complex carbohydrate as the Hawaiian Japanese. These observations support the hypothesis that a high fat, high simple carbohydrate, low complex carbohydrate diet and/or reduced levels of physical activity increase risk of diabetes.”


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


Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

“Since 1950, intake of milk, meat, eggs and fat/oil has increased, while that of rice and potatoes has gradually decreased”



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


Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004 Apr;13(2):127-32. Secular trend of colon cancer incidence and mortality in relation to fat and meat intake in Japan. Kono S.

“Although figures for the consumption of red meat was not available in the early years, red meat accounted for 70-80% of the total meat intake in the mid 1960s and thereafter. Cereal consumption showed a continuous decrease even after the 1970s, that of vegetables showing no marked change. The current observation adds to evidence that red meat intake is an important determinant of colon cancer risk.”


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


J Am Coll Nutr. 2010 Apr;29(2):81-91. Imbalanced dietary profile, anthropometry, and lipids in urban Asian Indian adolescents and young adults. Gupta N, Shah P, Goel K.

“High total fat and SFA intake-- could be responsible for the increasing prevalence of obesity and insulin resistance in urban Asian Indian adolescents and young adults.”


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


Nutr J. 2011 Jan 28;10:12. A cross-sectional investigation of regional patterns of diet and cardio-metabolic risk in India. Daniel CR, Prabhakaran D, Kapur K.

“dietary patterns characterized by animal products, fried snacks, or sweets appeared to be positively associated with abdominal adiposity -- the "pulses and rice" pattern was inversely related to diabetes”


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


Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2004 Spring;2(1):14-23. The Metabolic Syndrome in Asian Indians: Impact of Nutritional and Socio-economic Transition in India. Wasir JS, Misra A.


“The diets in the urban and semi-urban areas contain more calories and saturated fats, and less fibre as compared to the traditional frugal diets”


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


J Diabetes. 2011 Dec;3(4):278-92. Nutrition transition in India: secular trends in dietary intake and their relationship to diet-related non-communicable diseases.
Misra A, Singhal N, Sivakumar B.

“Nutrition transition over the past 30 years (1973-2004), has resulted in a 7% decrease in energy derived from carbohydrates and a 6% increase in energy derived from fats. A decreasing intake of coarse cereals, pulses, fruits and vegetables, an increasing intake of meat products and salt, coupled with declining levels of physical activity due to rapid urbanization have resulted in escalating levels of obesity, atherogenic dyslipidemia, subclinical inflammation, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and coronary heart disease in Indians.”

Edited by misterE, 15 June 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Cris Barrows]

Whole grains are only healthy in the sense that our digestive system is unable to penetrate the hard outer shell and gain access to the poisonous contents. Refining grains simply removes the indigestible husks and even Colin T Campbell (leader of the current vegan militancy) does not support the consumption of such refined foods.

As for the fiber aspect: The husks present to the gut an irritant that results in a strong peristaltic reaction to expel them - the false observation is that such fiber is good for bowel regularity when in fact the intestines are being slowly damaged over time leading to a long list of gut related illnesses.

My gut health and overall health improved once I removed all wheat and grain based food from my diet.

Modern wheat for example is very different from the past. Nearly all modern wheat based foods come from dwarf wheat that has been genetically hybridized to maximize profits. The wheat is short so it can withstand high winds and bad weather and is resistant to pesticides and similar. It has some 46 chromosomes compared to the original ancient wheat that only had 13, and most of these new additions only arrived in recent decades - none of which were assessed for their impact on human health. Modern wheat is quite alien to human digestion relative to our 2+ million year evolutionary history or even the past few hundred years.

Grains in general do contain phytates that do bind with important minerals and remove them, so grains are to some extent anti-nutrients. You would simply need to consume more of the removed nutrients from other sources to compensate. For those who consume large quantities of grains and legumes then these anti-nutrient effects could be serious, typically some vegans and vegetarians.

Since grains have no nutritional value apart from raising glucose but do have anti-nutrient properties then on balance it would make sense to avoid them and use other healthier whole foods like vegetables for any carbohydrate needs you might have.

[Chupo]

Was just watching a video by Dr. Furhman.

At 4:30, he points out that vegans who ate nuts and seeds lived seven to eight years longer than low fat vegans. Was it the displacement of grains? Burning more fat over glucose? Did they also use olive oil? was it vitamin E?

http://youtu.be/LpzFomUegSQ




Fish eaters as a group, lived the longest though.

Edited by Chupo, 16 June 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Mind]

IMO, whole grains are less evil than refined grains. That being said, I keep my grain consumption very low.

[misterE]

The role of phytic-acid in grains causing mineral deficiency is overstated and is not a compelling reason to completely cut them out. Phytic-acid is actually a phytonutrient that poses antioxidant activity and beneficial metabolic effects.

Most industrialized nations don’t need to worry about “not enough”, but rather “too much”. Whole-grains, beans and vegetables are loaded with minerals, and they don’t contain the harmful type of iron found in meats.

Certain grains, like oats, barley, rye and wheat (all those evil gluten containing grains) actually contain a very beneficial fiber called beta-glucan which has the ability to regulate the immune-system, improve insulin-sensitivity and strongly decrease blood-lipids.

I think we need to stop worrying about the phytic-acid in our food and worry more about the fat and fructose content of foods, that’s the true culprit in modern diseases.

When folks take grains out of the diet they alter the macronutrient ratio dramatically. Grains, beans, and potatoes are the only sources of complex-carbohydrate and are a great source of fiber. When you remove grains from your diet, the percentage of fat, simple-sugar and protein increase, while that of complex-carbohydrate and fiber decrease.

Without adequate complex-carbohydrate the body produces less insulin, which then forces the body to undergo increased lipolysis (which decreases insulin-sensitivity and glucose uptake into cells and causes fat to migrate inside and around vital organs) and proteolysis (which catabolizes the muscle mass and uses the amino-acids as glucose substrate for the brain in a process called gluconeogenesis).

Yes, restricting complex-carbohydrates causes weight loss, due to a reduced cellular stimulation of insulin. But that also causes you to become temporarily diabetic and catabolic.



Free Radic Biol Med. 1990;8(1):61-9.
Antioxidant functions of phytic acid.
Graf E, Eaton JW.
Abstract
Phytic acid is a natural plant antioxidant constituting 1-5% of most cereals, nuts, legumes, oil seeds, pollen and spores. By virtue of forming a unique iron chelate it suppresses iron-catalyzed oxidative reactions and may serve a potent antioxidant function in the preservation of seeds. By the same mechanism dietary phytic acid may lower the incidence of colonic cancer and protect against other inflammatory bowel diseases. Its addition to foods inhibits lipid peroxidation and concomitant oxidative spoilage, such as discoloration, putrefaction, and syneresis. A multitude of other industrial applications are based on the antioxidant function of phytic acid.


Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2012 Jul;33(193):43-7.
Phytic acid: anticancer nutriceutic.
Nawrocka-Musiał D, Latocha M.
Abstract
Phytic acid (IP6) is an inositol-derivative that has undergone phosphorylation and belongs to nutraceuticals of the high-fiber diet. This compound has a broad spectrum of biological activities, though the in vitro and in vivo anticancer activity was described. There has been observed an inhibition of tumor growth and induction of cell differentiation in the presence of IP6 in a few cancer cell lines including colon, nipple, breast, prostate, cervix, liver, pancreas, melanoma and glioblastoma. Molecular mechanisms of the IP6 mediated anticancer activity have not been fully specified. According to the current state of knowledge there can be only assumed a few ways of action. Antioxidant properties, participation in signal transduction, ability to enhance NK-cells, inhibiting influence on cell cycle, induction of differentiation in transformed cells and activation of programmed death pathways are taken into consideration.


Malays J Nutr. 2011 Dec;17(3):367-75.
Antioxidant and cytotoxicity effect of rice bran phytic acid as an anticancer agent on ovarian, breast and liver cancer cell lines.

Norhaizan ME, Ng SK, Norashareena MS, Abdah MA.
Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Phytic acid (PA) has been shown to have positive nutritional benefits. There are also claims that it is able to prevent cancer through its antioxidant capability. This study investigated antioxidant activity and cytotoxic effect of PA extracted from rice bran against selected cancer cell lines (i.e. ovarian, breast and liver cancer).
METHODS:

Cytotoxicity activity of PA was investigated using MTS [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)]-2H-tetrazolium, inner salt] assay while the antioxidant activity of PA extract, commercial PA and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) was determined by using five different assays: ferric thiocyanate (FTC) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) assay, beta-carotene bleaching method, DPPH radical scavenging assay and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay.
RESULTS:

PA extracted from rice bran induced marked growth inhibition in ovary, breast and liver cancer cells with 50% growth inhibition concentration (IC50) values of 3.45, 3.78 and 1.66 mM, respectively but exhibited no sensitivity towards a normal cell line (3T3). The PA extract was also found to exert antioxidant activity when tested using the FTC, TBA, FRAP and beta-carotene bleaching methods but antioxidant activity could not be attributed to scavenging free radical species as measured by DPPH radical scavenging assay.
CONCLUSION:

The PA extract from rice bran displayed safe and promising anticancer properties in selected cancer cell lines and it is believed that its antioxidant capability is the likely contributor to the observed anticancer properties.

Edited by misterE, 16 June 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Cris Barrows]

MisterE,

Looks like you have collected quite a bit of vegetarian propaganda. I am aware from tracking this field for some years that I could locate counter-arguments and supporting papers - my experts vs your experts, but from numerous past debates from the past 20 years plus, I know such an approach would become tiresome. Debating from entrenched positions is just not productive.

I'll refrain to some extent from involving third parties here and rely on my own 45+ years (about twice your total lifetime) of personal bio hacking. I was vegetarian for close to 20 years and vegan for several of those years. My objective was to improve my overall health and I was convinced that meat products were the cause of my various digestive ailments. The experiment was probably the worst mistake of my life. My health declined and I had not resolved my digestive disorders - i.e. meat products were vindicated. For the following 10 years approximately I ate a low fat high carb whole grain based high fiber regimen - that was the best official dietary advice for optimum health. The result was obesity, hypertension, and by 2003 I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes. My doctor suggested I reduce my carb intake and that led me to Atkins and the low carb community. That research for the past 10 years was simply an epiphany. Losing 75 lbs in 2004 was relatively effortless and sustainable, no further need for blood pressure drugs and I have reversed my pre-diabetes. In the past few years as my several decades of fat phobia indoctrination subsided I looked deeper into nutritional ketosis and embraced the higher fat and lower protein approaches. My digestive issues from my past entire life have been resolved, but more important my mental alertness and energy have become quite remarkable. So now at 60 I feel more healthy than at any other time in my life.

Strictly from my perspective using fat as my primary energy source is remarkably effective and healthy. One critical factor I have discovered is that while as humans we all have the same basic physiology we do differ quite dramatically in individual traits. The differences in gene expressions for certain digestive enzymes and sensitivities to various hormones, leads to significant differences and tolerances for a variety of dietary disciplines. While I appear to be highly sensitive to carbohydrates resulting in degraded health, I see that others are almost capable of mainlining tons of sugar with no harmful effect. While vegetarianism may work well for some, it doesn't for me, and that while nutritional ketosis appears optimal for me it might perhaps be harmful to others. The point is that there doesn't appear to be a one rule fits all regarding nutrition.

Understanding the differences of various optimal approaches while avoiding preaching a specific dogma maybe the best advice I would offer. Our objective here should be a sharing of knowledge for a common objective - longevity.

My parents were long lived - father died at 92 and ultimately from head wounds sustained during WW2, my mother lasted to 97 and died of old age (official diagnosis, and almost not accepted by the registrar of deaths). Their diet for the majority of their lives - lots of red meat, eggs and bacon for breakfasts, lard and saved meat fats as the main fat for cooking. They were forced to change their ways in their final years from pressure from doctors - the low fat high carb dogma - I suspect that bad advice hastened their "early" endings.

[misterE]

Chris Barrows: I’m not going to comment on your anecdotal evidence


All I really need say about this issue is:

1. Without grains… civilization would not exist.

2. Epidemiological studies clearly show that as populations of people change their diet from grains to meat… disease soon follows.

3. Clinical studies show that animal-fats do indeed cause many modern diseases and infertility.

4. Animal-fats are the number one source of dioxins; chemicals with carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects.

5. A meat-based diet (like the kind most Americans and people on their forum eat) is not sustainable and leads to environmental decay.

6. Low-carb diets are popular because the rich foods that Americans eat on a daily basis (like bacon, sausage, eggs, cheese, butter, beef, chicken, etc.) are all low-carb, therefore you really don’t have to change your diet much… all you have to do is just throw away the bun and eat your double-bacon cheese-burger full of that “heart-healthy” grease.


Now if folks want to ignore my advice… that is fine, but I’m not going to sit back and let all this nonsense go unchallenged!

Edited by misterE, 19 June 2013 - 12:10 AM.

[Cris Barrows]

MisterE,

All I really need say about this issue is:

1. Without grains… civilization would not exist.

2. Epidemiological studies clearly show that as populations of people change their diet from grains to meat… disease soon follows.

3. Clinical studies show that animal-fats do indeed cause many modern diseases and infertility.

4. Animal-fats are the number one source of dioxins; chemicals with carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects.

5. A meat-based diet (like the kind most Americans and people on their forum eat) is not sustainable and leads to environmental decay.

6. Low-carb diets are popular because the rich foods that Americans eat on a daily basis (like bacon, sausage, eggs, cheese, butter, beef, chicken, etc.) are all low-carb, therefore you really don’t have to change your diet much… all you have to do is just throw away the bun and eat your double-bacon cheese-burger full of that “heart-healthy” grease.

1. Without grains… civilization would not exist. - Perhaps but at what price?

http://www.greenmedi...erance-sayer-ji

Quote - the unparalleled rise of wheat as the very catalyst for the emergence of ancient civilization has not occurred without a great price. While wheat was the engine of civilization’s expansion and was glorified as a "necessary food," both in the physical (staff of life) and spiritual sense (the body of Christ), those suffering from celiac disease are living testimony to the lesser known dark side of wheat. A study of celiac disease and may help unlock the mystery of why modern man, who dines daily at the table of wheat, is the sickest animal yet to have arisen on this strange planet of ours.

2. Epidemiological studies clearly show that as populations of people change their diet from grains to meat… disease soon follows. Really? You've got to be kidding....

http://www.mercola.c..._low_grains.htm

Generally, in most parts of the world, whenever cereal-based diets were first adopted as a staple food replacing the primarily animal-based diets of hunter-gatherers, there was a characteristic reduction in stature, a reduction in life span, an increase in infant mortality, an increased incidence of infectious disease, an increase in diseases of nutritional deficiencies (i.e., iron deficiency, pellagra), and an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects.

In a review of 51 references examining human populations from around the earth and from differing chronologies, as they transitioned from hunter-gathers to farmers, one investigator concluded that there was an overall decline in both the quality and quantity of life.

There is now substantial empirical and clinical evidence to indicate that many of these deleterious changes are directly related to the predominately cereal-based diets of these early farmers. Since 99.99% of our genes were formed before the development of agriculture, from a biological perspective, we are still hunter-gathers.

Thus, our diet should reflect the sensibilities of this nutritional niche: lean meats; fish; seafood; low glycemic vegetables and fruit, (modern agriculture has significantly increased the sugar and starch content of vegetables and fruits over their Paleolithic counterparts), nuts and seeds - the evolutionary diet.

3. Clinical studies show that animal-fats do indeed cause many modern diseases and infertility. Hogwash and nonsense.

http://www.healingna...cles/meat2.php/

The accusation that beef causes impotence is a tactic that can definitely be described as "below the belt." Beef causes impotence by "clogging arteries, limiting blood flow to the extremities." So goes the argument proffered by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Nothing could be more unethical than the implied suggestion that vegetarianism is good for your sex life. We know that vegetarianism–the practice of not eating animal foods–can lead to many deficiencies that directly contribute to impotence, infertility and reproductive difficulties—deficiencies in protein, zinc, vitamins B6 and B12, and fat-soluble vitamins A and D.

4. Animal-fats are the number one source of dioxins; chemicals with carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects.

Yes - http://www.who.int/m...heets/fs225/en/

Dioxins are mainly by products of industrial processes but can also result from natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires. Dioxins are unwanted by products of a wide range of manufacturing processes including smelting, chlorine bleaching of paper pulp and the manufacturing of some herbicides and pesticides. In terms of dioxin release into the environment, uncontrolled waste incinerators (solid waste and hospital waste) are often the worst culprits, due to incomplete burning. Technology is available that allows for controlled waste incineration with low emissions.

Although formation of dioxins is local, environmental distribution is global. Dioxins are found throughout the world in the environment. The highest levels of these compounds are found in some soils, sediments and food, especially dairy products, meat, fish and shellfish. Very low levels are found in plants, water and air.

Answer - always check the source of animal foods, restrict consumption to organic and grass fed meats as proposed by all the paleo advocates. The issue is not that animal foods or fats are bad it is that man is causing issues by his incompetence. The answer is not to stop eating animal products but to fix the underlying issue. Education is the answer.

5. A meat-based diet (like the kind most Americans and people on their forum eat) is not sustainable and leads to environmental decay.

Perhaps, but that doesn't relate to a meat based diet as being unhealthy or that vegetarianism is somehow superior for human health. Your proposal would perhaps save the planet but we all die of B12 deficiencies instead. Past human history has been full of doomsday talk about the sustainability of our food supply and we have always found solutions. Humans, tend to be creative that way. Compromising by condemning mankind to an inferior low energy vegetarian regimen is not the optimum solution. At this time most of our planet surface has not been utilized - i.e. the vast oceans, and vast desert areas. We have a long way to go with our creativity for these areas yet.

6. Low-carb diets are popular because the rich foods that Americans eat on a daily basis (like bacon, sausage, eggs, cheese, butter, beef, chicken, etc.) are all low-carb, therefore you really don’t have to change your diet much… all you have to do is just throw away the bun and eat your double-bacon cheese-burger full of that “heart-healthy” grease.

Haha - now you are revealing a total ignorance of the low carb community. Get yourself educated before spouting this gibberish. The effort is in fact significant. All those things you say people eat are also accompanied by heapings of french fries, high sugar sodas, potatoes, pasta, rice, pizza, potato chips, breads/cakes/coookies, condiments all with sugar added, packaged foods all with sugar added, etc etc. It is actually quite hard to avoid carbohydrates. I dare you to try it - lol.

And "...full of that “heart-healthy” grease" - unusually emotive and unprofessional for you, although if one were to remove the carboxylic group from a fatty acid one could obtain a hydro-carbon - grease, but we don't actually eat those, we fuel our cars with those.

For those who take low carb seriously the quality and source of the meats and fats are are of primary concern, although the current Atkins diet is dominated by low starch vegetables. Don't forget avocados, macadamia nuts, coconut oil, and similar. It is conceivable although harder to construct a vegetarian based low carb diet. My youngest daughter (27) has suggested starting a low carb vegetarian restaurant - but that's another story.

My own diet tends to be wild caught salmon or sardines (both very frequent), grass fed butter, coconut oil, MCT oil, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, bok choy, brusell sprouts, avocados, a few nuts, liver, kidneys, eggs, occasional bison, occasional chicken, occasional beef. I render my own grass-fed fat (tallow) occasionally from beef fat given to me free from whole-foods.

[platypus]

1. Without grains… civilization would not exist.

But today grains are produced by agriculture, the largest destroyer of ecosystems in the world. Grain-eaters have blood on their hands..

[platypus]

Everyone should see this:

Loren Cordain - Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century.


https://www.youtube....h?v=5dw1MuD9EP4

Edited by platypus, 19 June 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[DePaw]

Agriculture is destroying the plant's ecosystem. Just look at 'the fertile crescent', a desert now!

What can reverse this though is lots and lots of cattle (sounds crazy I know but just watch the video):

[Cris Barrows]

Agriculture is destroying the plant's ecosystem. Just look at 'the fertile crescent', a desert now!

What can reverse this though is lots and lots of cattle (sounds crazy I know but just watch the video): https://www.youtube....h?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Superb.

[Cris Barrows]

I like Mark Sisson's comment -

Grains aren’t just little morsels of protein, carbs, and fiber bred for our enjoyment. They are baby plant eggs. Those macronutrients are there to sustain the seed’s growth and those micronutrients are there to protect it. They are the plant’s lifeline to immortality. They are literally shaped by the hand of evolution to survive and ravage the digestive tract of the poor sap that swallows them and discourage further consumption. Grain is only food because we deemed it so.


ref - http://www.marksdail.../#axzz2Wmk4klYv

[renfr]

Whole grains are only healthy in the sense that our digestive system is unable to penetrate the hard outer shell and gain access to the poisonous contents. Refining grains simply removes the indigestible husks and even Colin T Campbell (leader of the current vegan militancy) does not support the consumption of such refined foods.

As for the fiber aspect: The husks present to the gut an irritant that results in a strong peristaltic reaction to expel them - the false observation is that such fiber is good for bowel regularity when in fact the intestines are being slowly damaged over time leading to a long list of gut related illnesses.

My gut health and overall health improved once I removed all wheat and grain based food from my diet.

Modern wheat for example is very different from the past. Nearly all modern wheat based foods come from dwarf wheat that has been genetically hybridized to maximize profits. The wheat is short so it can withstand high winds and bad weather and is resistant to pesticides and similar. It has some 46 chromosomes compared to the original ancient wheat that only had 13, and most of these new additions only arrived in recent decades - none of which were assessed for their impact on human health. Modern wheat is quite alien to human digestion relative to our 2+ million year evolutionary history or even the past few hundred years.

Grains in general do contain phytates that do bind with important minerals and remove them, so grains are to some extent anti-nutrients. You would simply need to consume more of the removed nutrients from other sources to compensate. For those who consume large quantities of grains and legumes then these anti-nutrient effects could be serious, typically some vegans and vegetarians.

Since grains have no nutritional value apart from raising glucose but do have anti-nutrient properties then on balance it would make sense to avoid them and use other healthier whole foods like vegetables for any carbohydrate needs you might have.

My question isn't about whether I should take grains or not but I take your advice.
GM grains isn't much of my concern since in my country it's forbidden (even though with the new EU-US agreements it might enter the market I'm afraid), I would sure avoid them if they ever come out.
However I would like to see your references when you say that grains have no nutritional value.
What would you call a grain? I call grain things such as pasta, rice, bread, potatoes, etc... these sure have some nutritional values such as potatoes containing high amounts of potassium.
Also I think rice and grains in general are good for the thyroid.

Agriculture is destroying the plant's ecosystem. Just look at 'the fertile crescent', a desert now!

What can reverse this though is lots and lots of cattle (sounds crazy I know but just watch the video): https://www.youtube....h?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Problem is large scale agriculture which has been proven to be no more effective than local and small scale agriculture which is common in Russia for example. Nothing on earth even justifies the massive use of large-scale agriculture, deadly pesticides and of course GMOs.

[Cris Barrows]

renfr,

However I would like to see your references when you say that grains have no nutritional value.
What would you call a grain? I call grain things such as pasta, rice, bread, potatoes, etc... these sure have some nutritional values such as potatoes containing high amounts of potassium.
Also I think rice and grains in general are good for the thyroid.

I was thinking mainly about wheat when talking grains. Grains and seeds appear to come in two styles, those that have a synergistic dependence on animal life to spread, and those that resist such consumption. Many seeds come in fruit which is attractive to other wildlife who consume the fruit and the resultant seeds are deposited later. Grains like wheat are of the defensive type that cause damage to animal digestive tracts.

Try eating whole raw wheat grain - it is quite unpalatable. To make wheat grains into a food it needs to be processed - iow - the wheat products we eat are artificial man-made foods, e.g. pasta, bread, flour, etc. The whole grains are indigestible to humans and hence have no nutritional value. If they are crushed then you will be presented with a range of proteins and acids that have some nutritional value and some with anti-nutritional value together with carbohydrate that results in a high glycemic load. When such grains were originally refined to just leave white flour many people became ill through malnutrition. Since that time I believe most if not all governments have mandated that wheat based products must be enhanced with suitable nutrients. Look on your packages of bread, pasta, or cereals and you will find the words - fortified or enriched - these are legally required. In essence any useful nutrients in these foods have been added as part of the manufacturing processes to make fundamentally unhealthy products into something governments find acceptable as food.

As a basic rule I try to avoid all manufactured foods. I believe all healthy nutrients can be obtained from whole real foods as would be consistent with the 99% of our evolutionary history.

Potatoes are not grains but starchy tubers from the nightshade family (often associated with poisons). If you tolerate starch well when these can be relatively healthy. Potatoes have only been in widespread use for around 400 years so relatively new to human digestive systems. Sweet potatoes have a slightly different nutrient profile and I would consider them superior.

I have yet to consider thyroid issues.

[deeptrance]

Grains and seeds appear to come in two styles, those that have a synergistic dependence on animal life to spread, and those that resist such consumption.

This is an interesting and compelling point to me. I'm not a fan of meat-centric diets and mostly eat an ovo-vegetarian diet, and I dropped gluten years ago. But I'm still eating a lot of teff, amaranth, quinoa, buckwheat, and millet. I recognize that millet isn't a very healthy grain, and teff probably not a whole lot better, but the others aren't really grains at all, correct? I'm thinking of a definition where grain = the seed of grass (monocots), while other seeds are dicots.

So what are your thoughts about the various seeds, and can any of the healthier seeds be used as grain replacements?

What about cooked vs. raw foods --- I know that it's best to cook certain foods and am not asking about raw diets but rather am wondering if my heavy reliance on huge salads is a good way to go or if I need to eat more cooked veggies.

Thanks.

[DePaw]

Grains need to be soaked, sprouted, or fermented to neutrilise the phytic acid and enzyme inhbitors they contain, to be properly edible. All traditional cultures would do one of these to their grain, legumes, nuts, and other seeds.

[deeptrance]

Grains need to be soaked, sprouted

My routine is I mix equal parts of the 5 grains/seeds I listed, and let it all soak for about 24 hours. I rinse it a couple times because I buy from bulk bins and... yeah. Then I cook for about 15 minutes, then use the grains cold in salads for dinner and in the morning I heat some up and add tofu, avocado, spirulina, and an egg. Yummy.

[Mike C]

simple dilemma:

All these studies are comparing one group eating modern industrialized foods with another group doing the same albeit vegan or otherwise. For instance a meat eating group is consuming modern anti-biotic-hormonized grain fed beef and chicken raised on processed chicken feed etc. The vegans could be eating special K and cap'n crunch cereal for all we know. Whole grains may look good when comparisons are made with people who eat refined grain-but what if we compared a group who replaced refined grains with grass fed beef and vegetables to a group who replaced refined grains with whole grains. That might be a start in getting to the truth. But that has not happened and so we speculate.

Mike C.

[Hebbeh]

http://www.ergo-log....-free-diet.html

Put on less weight with gluten free diet


Even if you don't have a gluten allergy, but your fat mass is higher than you'd like, you may benefit from a diet containing less – or no – grains. Researchers at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil came to this conclusion after doing an experiment with mice. The Brazilians discovered that it's more difficult to build up fat reserves on a gluten-free diet.

According to paleo diet proponents, the introduction of agriculture was a colossal blunder. As a result we now eat many products that our body is not really suited to digesting, including grains.

The paleo proponents avoid grain products, not only because they contain lots of carbohydrates, but also because they contain gluten proteins. These are not only bad for people who are allergic to gluten, they say, but for everyone.

The human digestive system is not good at dealing with gluten and only half digests it. After a meal containing grains, all sorts of peptides circulate around the body, which our immune system regards as alien intruders and tries to fight with inflammatory reactions. One of the results of these inflammatory reactions is that the body's insulin metabolism works less well, increasing the risk of diabetes and making us put on weight more easily. That's the paleo proponents' view.

That's a load of rubbish, say conventional nutritionists, who by the way earn most of their money from a. large food manufacturers, b. agricultural organisations or c. ministries of agriculture.

The Brazilians decided to test the controversial paleo theory in lab animals. They put two groups of mice on a high-fat diet for eight weeks. One group was given food consisting of 4.5 percent gluten; the other group was given gluten-free food.

At the end of the eight weeks, the gluten-free mice had put on less weight than the mice in the control group. This was because the fat reserves of the gluten-free mice had grown less.




The insulin system in the gluten-free mice had deteriorated less than in the mice in the control group. Compared with the control mice, the glucose level in the gluten-free mice was a little lower and their Homa-IR [a measurement of insulin resistance] had increased by less.




In the gluten-free mice the production of the fat sensor PPAR-gamma increased by more than in the control mice. The same happened with the production of GLUT4 [a protein in cells that glucose absorbs out of the bloodstream].

In the gluten-free mice the production of inflammatory proteins such as TNF-alpha increased less. TNF-Alpha inhibits the effectiveness of insulin. The more insulin is hampered in its work, the fewer nutrients your muscle cells absorb, the more easily you put on weight and the more likely you are to develop diabetes-2.

The Brazilians also discovered why the gluten-free mice had fewer inflammatory proteins circulating in their bodies. There were less inflammatory reactions going on in their fat cells. Under the microscope these appear as 'crown like structures' [CLS].




In the photo above on the left you can see fat tissue from the control animals; the tissue in the photo on the right is from the gluten-free mice. The black stripes are immune cells that break down fat cells. This happens if fat cells are overloaded and have to store so many fatty acids that they can no longer function properly. The fat cells die, the immune cells clear them away and producte inflammatory proteins that inhibit the insulin from functioning and at the same time stimulate the growth of new fat cells.

"The removal of wheat gluten from the diet exerts a protective effect against body weight and adiposity gains", the Brazilians write. "Our data support the beneficial effects of gluten exclusion in reducing body weight and adiposity gain, inflammation and insulin resistance."

"Diet gluten exclusion should be tested as a new dietary approach to prevent the development of obesity and metabolic disorders."

Source:
J Nutr Biochem. 2013 Jun;24(6):1105-11.

Edited by Hebbeh, 30 June 2013 - 11:21 PM.

[TheFountain]

My only question is why does Dean Ornish look like this?