Re: gluten intolerant

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>right, but try to come up with an alternative explanation as to why

>those who've been eating wheat for the shortest period of time have a much

>higher incidence of the genes associated with gluten intolerance...

To get back to my previous analogy, this is like dunking the entire human

race under water for some amount of time until a percentage of people die

and then saying the problem is a water intolerance gene and therefore

drowning is a genetic disorder. Sure, genes are involved, but that's just

part of the picture. Different people, by dint of different levels of

training, nutrition, health, and other environmental factors, and yes,

genes, will be able to hold their breath for different amounts of time.

------>i don't find this analogous at_all. if the people dying are from the

same_geographic_region or same_family, then it might be *slightly* more

analogous. but with celiac sprue, we're talking about clear *patterns*

within relatively homogenous groups. that is hugely different than random

people being able to withstand dunking under water. remember too, that

celiac sprue also runs in families, not just geographic regions. there is a

clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed. not to say that

genetics is *everything* because i agree that nutrition and other factors

play a part in many diseases that are generally considered to be genetic in

origin. and in some cases, i imagine that genetics play only a minor part,

but so far in my readings on celiac's disease, i find the evidence

compelling that the genetic component is powerful.

also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to diet...do

you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble anything

in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine? it seems

to be a given in every other species that they do best on their " natural "

evolutionary diet, so why would humans be any different than the rest of

the mammalian kingdom? why do you insist on grass-fed beef/dairy? because

that is their natural diet which produces healthy cows/steer which in turn

produces healthy meat/milk, right? so we know that cows do best on their

natural evolutionary diet, and even insist on only eating beef/milk from

cows/steer fed this way, AND we know that corn which is not a natural part

of a cow's evolutionary diet *damages* them. so, my question is...why

should we be any different???

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>there is a

>clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't mean to

suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic multi-generation

series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over time

you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the fastest, but

populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher incidence

of the " drowning gene " .

The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats gluten-containing

foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

susceptibility. This is why I think my drowning analogy is actually very

apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the percentage of

them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and everyone's

dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains and

problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat them to

neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining health of each

successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing incidence of

infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not exactly that

far off from unity even now.

>also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to diet...do

>you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble anything

>in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of evolutionary theory

and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate evolution-determined diet?

>why

>should we be any different???

We're not. Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains as we

think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though the

species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some populations

much more than others, obviously) they're still just that -- adjustments to

handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal suitability.

-

[Guest guest]

The gluten grains also contain starches that are harmful in excess, which I

got the impression was getting at-- I think. Anyway, it's not true that

the " foods of modern commerce " that Price identified were limited to white

flour and white sugar. Price also inicted syrups too, which are in a sense

refined, but are not refined to strip all the nutrients like flour and white

sugar.

They do, however, displace much more nutrient dense-foods and probably more

importantly cause all sorts of problems with various homeostatic balances such

as blood sugar and calcium-phosphorus.

I think you are right that none of Price's groups ate wheat. It is true

though that the high-grain folks had more tooth decay than those who didn't. At

the same time, the Swiss, for example, were more likely to travel, and Price

found that most of those who had tooth decay had gotten the cavity while they

were gone and eating a modern diet, and that the cavity had, since returning,

become inactive. So it's hard to say whether their consumption of grains had a

negative effect on their health or not.

Chris

In a message dated 6/21/03 5:26:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

biophile410@... writes:

> , if you're correct that gluten is bad news for everyone (to

> varying degrees) that suggests a new interpretation of Price's work.

> The common thread in the " foods of modern commerce " that cause

> deterioration are white flour and white sugar. Price attributed the

> problematic nature of these 'foods' to their being refined and

> therefore stripped of nutrients. But -- maybe the gluten in flour

> played a major role in the deterioration?

>

> But -- a blanket condemnation of all grains is not consistent with

> Price's work. The traditional, thriving Swiss group he studied ate

> rye, the s ate oats, and many African tribes ate millet.

>

> Now rye contains gluten, and oats contain some form of gluten too

> (gluten actually comprises more than one protein). Maybe the Swiss

> and s has adapted toward those glutens?

>

> But I don't believe Price's native peoples ate wheat. (As an aside, I

> don't recall any of them eating white potatoes, either.)

>

> Just some fodder for thought.

>

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

, if you're correct that gluten is bad news for everyone (to

varying degrees) that suggests a new interpretation of Price's work.

The common thread in the " foods of modern commerce " that cause

deterioration are white flour and white sugar. Price attributed the

problematic nature of these 'foods' to their being refined and

therefore stripped of nutrients. But -- maybe the gluten in flour

played a major role in the deterioration?

But -- a blanket condemnation of all grains is not consistent with

Price's work. The traditional, thriving Swiss group he studied ate

rye, the s ate oats, and many African tribes ate millet.

Now rye contains gluten, and oats contain some form of gluten too

(gluten actually comprises more than one protein). Maybe the Swiss

and s has adapted toward those glutens?

But I don't believe Price's native peoples ate wheat. (As an aside, I

don't recall any of them eating white potatoes, either.)

Just some fodder for thought.

> Suze-

>

> >there is a

> >clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

>

> OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't mean to

> suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic

multi-generation

> series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over time

> you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the fastest, but

> populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher

incidence

> of the " drowning gene " .

>

> The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats

gluten-containing

> foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

> susceptibility. This is why I think my drowning analogy is actually

very

> apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the

percentage of

> them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and everyone's

> dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains and

> problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat them to

> neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

> incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining health

of each

> successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing incidence of

> infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not exactly

that

> far off from unity even now.

>

> >also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to

diet...do

> >you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble

anything

> >in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

>

> Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of evolutionary

theory

> and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate

evolution-determined diet?

>

> >why

> >should we be any different???

>

> We're not. Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains as we

> think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though the

> species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some

populations

> much more than others, obviously) they're still just that --

adjustments to

> handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal suitability.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

paul,

sorry if i am jumping in and thus missing a lot of the previous conversation.

what you say about grains interests me. i have been eating a pseudo (pseudo

because i eat small amounts of legumes and dairy) paleo diet as of late. i am

simply experimenting, but feeling like i'm the only one on earth not eating

grains.

heather

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Suze-

>there is a

>clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't mean to

suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic multi-generation

series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over time

you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the fastest, but

populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher incidence

of the " drowning gene " .

The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats gluten-containing

foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

susceptibility. This is why I think my drowning analogy is actually very

apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the percentage of

them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and everyone's

dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains and

problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat them to

neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining health of each

successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing incidence of

infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not exactly that

far off from unity even now.

>also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to diet...do

>you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble anything

>in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of evolutionary theory

and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate evolution-determined diet?

>why

>should we be any different???

We're not. Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains as we

think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though the

species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some populations

much more than others, obviously) they're still just that -- adjustments to

handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal suitability.

-

[Guest guest]

>there is a

>clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't mean to

suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic multi-generation

series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over time

you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the fastest, but

populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher incidence

of the " drowning gene " .

------>well, that sounds closer :-) the oft-dunked eventually get selected

for the dunking-tolerant genes, right? the only possible difference i can

see, with the data on gluten intolerance to date, is that it is the

*intolerant* that have specific genes known to be associated with the

intolerance, as opposed to vice versa. so maybe they need to be dunked over

many generations for that gene to get selected out....and maybe the

dunking-tolerant groups *used to* have those genes prior to all the dunking.

The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats gluten-containing

foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

susceptibility.

-------->right, but i don't think the people/researchers in this field are

trying to solve *all* the riddles of human nutrition. there is a clear

genetic pattern to who can and who can't digest *wheat* gluten in

particular. you agree, i agree - it's there. beyond that, you and i are

looking at human nutrition from a much broader perspective than simply the

presence of the gluten intolerance genes, and we can point to other

potential problems with grains. that doesn't detract from the gluten gene

intolerance theory, it just puts it in perspective.

This is why I think my drowning analogy is actually very

apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the percentage of

them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and everyone's

dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains and

problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat them to

neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining health of each

successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing incidence of

infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not exactly that

far off from unity even now.

--------->this water gets muddy, imo. price found that there were human

populations eating a significant amount of properly_treated_heirloom_grains

that enjoyed an extraordinary state of good health - above and beyond what

probably most of us know. he specifically said that populations can be

healthy with grains in their diets as a result of his findings. were the

swiss " dunked " ? were the gaelics " dunked " ? it sure doesn't seem like it

considering the extraordinary state of health that price found them in.

maybe their distant ancestors were " dunked " at some point, but the

population didn't drown, it *flourished*.

but of course modern americans are already damaged from so many things in

our modern processed diets and our toxin load from environmental

contaminants as well as polluted food and water all stressing our system,

and then most folks eat highly refined, UNtreated modern, high gluten

grains...so it's like dunking a bunch of half-dead people, anyway, in which

case you'll get lots of drowning.

>also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to diet...do

>you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble

anything

>in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of evolutionary theory

and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate evolution-determined

diet?

----->oh...wast that *you*? i thought that was the *other* paul idol on the

list ;-)

Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains as we

think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though the

species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some populations

much more than others, obviously) they're still just that -- adjustments to

handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal suitability.

--------->well, that seems to be the paleo perspective on grain consumption.

and for all i know it may be correct. but considering the good health of the

nonindustrialized grain-eating populations price documented, it seems almost

moot. some people cleary CAN eat grains and be healthy. are healthy

nonindustrialized peoples the only ones who can maintain a high state of

health with grains in the diet?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Hello ......... you are not alone!!!!

I gave up all grains a year ago or so.

I can't even eat blue corn chips, oats, millet, amaranth, nothing that

is a grain, fermented or not.

The only non fermented dairy I can eat is bread cheese which all the

whey is cooked out.

So here I am 250 ft from the only NT/slanted bakery in NW Wi and can't

eat a thing......

I am about to contact a alternative doctor well versed in candida and

other plagues of the human condition to narrow down what it is I have

and get on the road to fixing it.

Good luck..

Tim

heather coy wrote:

> paul,

> sorry if i am jumping in and thus missing a lot of the previous

> conversation. what you say about grains interests me. i have been

> eating a pseudo (pseudo because i eat small amounts of legumes and

> dairy) paleo diet as of late. i am simply experimenting, but feeling

> like i'm the only one on earth not eating grains.

>

> heather

>

> Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Suze-

>

> >there is a

> >clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

>

> OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't mean to

>

> suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic

> multi-generation

> series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over

> time

> you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the fastest, but

>

> populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher

> incidence

> of the " drowning gene " .

>

> The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats

> gluten-containing

> foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

> susceptibility. This is why I think my drowning analogy is actually

> very

> apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the

> percentage of

> them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and everyone's

> dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains and

> problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat them to

>

> neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

> incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining health of

> each

> successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing incidence

> of

> infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not exactly

> that

> far off from unity even now.

>

> >also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to

> diet...do

> >you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't resemble

> anything

> >in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

>

> Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of evolutionary

> theory

> and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate

> evolution-determined diet?

>

> >why

> >should we be any different???

>

> We're not. Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains as

> we

> think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though the

> species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some

> populations

> much more than others, obviously) they're still just that --

> adjustments to

> handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal suitability.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>------>well, that sounds closer :-) the oft-dunked eventually get selected

>for the dunking-tolerant genes, right?

" Dunking-tolerant " isn't exactly accurate, I think, since no matter how

" tolerant " you are, if you get dunked long enough, you're dead. In the

dunking analogy, it's more like people get selected for " able to hold

breath for a really long time " genes. More generally, populations exposed

to insults to their health wind up favoring " able to withstand insults " genes.

>-------->right, but i don't think the people/researchers in this field are

>trying to solve *all* the riddles of human nutrition.

No, the researchers in this field are mostly looking to enhance

megacorporation profits, line their own pockets and bolster their own careers.

>were the

>swiss " dunked " ?

Certainly they were, though much less than just about everyone alive today.

>it sure doesn't seem like it

>considering the extraordinary state of health that price found them in.

>maybe their distant ancestors were " dunked " at some point, but the

>population didn't drown, it *flourished*.

ly I wouldn't look to Price's Swiss as any kind of model of health

except as an improvement over ours. IIRC the Swiss had the most cavities

of all his " healthy " peoples. Compared to us, Price's Swiss were paragons

of vitality and health. But on an absolute scale, compared to some

theoretical ideal that we fallen sugar-guzzling grain-eating people can

barely even imagine, I suspect the health of those Swiss was

lamentable. Why should a truly healthy people have _any_ cavities? Even

the healthiest people Price found had some, as I recall, which suggests to

me that _none_ of their diets were fully ideal.

>but considering the good health of the

>nonindustrialized grain-eating populations price documented, it seems almost

>moot.

I don't think so. Those people were eating heirloom grains (lower in

protein AND lower in starch) and they were preparing them correctly. They

were also eating plenty of correct animal foods. AND they'd been in

something resembling good health for generations, so they didn't start out

with the incredible burden that most of us, even most of the relatively

healthy ones, do. Furthermore, as I said before, I don't think any of them

can be held up as a true ideal. They were merely dramatically better off

than we are.

>are healthy

>nonindustrialized peoples the only ones who can maintain a high state of

>health with grains in the diet?

Maybe, maybe not. Some modern people (like me) simply can't eat grains at

all. Others can tolerate them somewhat, particularly if they're prepared

properly. Others can attain and maintain a pretty high degree of health,

at least relative to modern standards, by eating properly prepared

grains. But precious few of us start out with the sort of constitution

Price found less than a century ago.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>i am simply experimenting, but feeling like i'm the only one on earth not

>eating grains.

You're not alone. Most Atkins dieters eschew grains, all Specific

Carbohydrate Diet followers avoid grains like the plague, and plenty of

paleo and NT types do too.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The gluten grains also contain starches that are harmful in excess, which I

>got the impression was getting at-- I think.

Yup!

I don't think there's a single starch food out there (by which I mean

grains and potatoes, mainly) which isn't basically a pile of empty calories

compared to more nutrient-dense replacements, including virtually all the

animal foods and some vegetables and berries. And that's aside from the

whole digestibility issue.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim and , I have been researching all the info about celica

disease (gluten intolerance) this week because as you know I started

this list looking for info. I found that the best and most accurate

way to test for GI is a stool sample done by this lab

http://www.enterolab.com

Visit this web site and go all over and see what you think. You guys

know Heidi that comes here and helps so many people with this? She is

the one that helped me discover it and she got this test (Heidi is on

vacation right now). I haven't done it because it is quite expensive.

So I am just going to self diagnose for the time being. Which means

to be a detective and start calling manufactures to find the gluten

in order to take it out of the diet. Easy for me because I have had

lots of issues with food sensitivities in my lifetime and already

close to being a purist in my eating habits anyway.

Also this site was helpful

http://www.celica.com

Del

> > Suze-

> >

> > >there is a

> > >clear genetic *pattern* that simply can't be dismissed.

> >

> > OK, you're right, I should have extended my analogy. I didn't

mean to

> >

> > suggest a one-time dunking under water, but a systematic

> > multi-generation

> > series of both successful and attempted drownings. Obviously over

> > time

> > you're going to tend to weed out the people who drown the

fastest, but

> >

> > populations which had less exposure to dunking will have a higher

> > incidence

> > of the " drowning gene " .

> >

> > The problem with the gluten gene theory is that it treats

> > gluten-containing

> > foods as completely value-neutral except for people with a genetic

> > susceptibility. This is why I think my drowning analogy is

actually

> > very

> > apt. The longer you dunk people under water, the higher the

> > percentage of

> > them you'll drown until at some point you reach unity and

everyone's

> > dead. Dunking is not value-neutral. Similarly, the more grains

and

> > problem starches you feed a people, and the less you pre-treat

them to

> >

> > neutralize anti-nutrients, the more people will get sick -- and,

> > incidentally, the more people will die. Given the declining

health of

> > each

> > successive generation we see today and the ever-increasing

incidence

> > of

> > infertility, obesity, syndrome X, etc. etc. etc., we're not

exactly

> > that

> > far off from unity even now.

> >

> > >also, you didn't answer my question re evolutionary adaptation to

> > diet...do

> > >you think a given species can eat a substance that doesn't

resemble

> > anything

> > >in their evolutionary diet and automatically digest it just fine?

> >

> > Obviously not. Have I not been a staunch proponent of

evolutionary

> > theory

> > and of the necessity of eating a species-appropriate

> > evolution-determined diet?

> >

> > >why

> > >should we be any different???

> >

> > We're not. Grains are extremely alien to our physiology. Grains

as

> > we

> > think of them didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, and though

the

> > species has made some evolutionary accommodation to them (some

> > populations

> > much more than others, obviously) they're still just that --

> > adjustments to

> > handle a hostile substance, not the development of ideal

suitability.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/22/03 10:39:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> ly I wouldn't look to Price's Swiss as any kind of model of health

> except as an improvement over ours. IIRC the Swiss had the most cavities

> of all his " healthy " peoples. Compared to us, Price's Swiss were paragons

> of vitality and health. But on an absolute scale, compared to some

> theoretical ideal that we fallen sugar-guzzling grain-eating people can

> barely even imagine, I suspect the health of those Swiss was

> lamentable. Why should a truly healthy people have _any_ cavities? Even

> the healthiest people Price found had some, as I recall, which suggests to

> me that _none_ of their diets were fully ideal.

>

,

You are overlooking the fact that Price found most of the cavities were in

people who had travelled out of the area. So you can't compare the raw data on

the Swiss and expect it to reflect their primitive diet, when we know a good

many of them at least got cavities while on modern diets.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/22/03 3:41:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

biophile410@... writes:

> It *may* be true that Price's grain eating peoples did not attain the

> highest level of health and the 'meat-and-veggie only' peoples

> attained a higher level. (Although I think his s contradict even

> that theory.) However the differences in these types were not

> dramatic. I think the conclusion which Price himself reached is

> valid: properly prepared grains can be part of a healthy diet. (I'm

> taking about millet, corn and rice, not wheat, which I've sworn off.)

I guess it is implicit given what's now known about tradition diets and grain

preparation, but I don't remember Price emphasizing proper grain preparation

at all. I remember him noting the difference between preparation betwen two

(I think) Polynesian groups, one of whom fermented a particular grain, and one

who didn't. Don't remember much aside from that. Don't remember him soaking

his own wheat gruel either.

WAPF's emphasis on this and lacto-fermentation is more rooted in post-Price

research into traditional diets than Price's own research, if I'm not mistaken.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Eating no starch is a very expensive diet, which most people simply

cannot afford. Especially if you're only eating good quality animal

products.

It *may* be true that Price's grain eating peoples did not attain the

highest level of health and the 'meat-and-veggie only' peoples

attained a higher level. (Although I think his s contradict even

that theory.) However the differences in these types were not

dramatic. I think the conclusion which Price himself reached is

valid: properly prepared grains can be part of a healthy diet. (I'm

taking about millet, corn and rice, not wheat, which I've sworn off.)

Also aren't the Japanese the longest lived people in recorded history?

And they eat rice for energy, along with a lot of nutrient dense

foods of course.

Daphne

> -

>

> >i am simply experimenting, but feeling like i'm the only one on

earth not

> >eating grains.

>

> You're not alone. Most Atkins dieters eschew grains, all Specific

> Carbohydrate Diet followers avoid grains like the plague, and plenty of

> paleo and NT types do too.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Expensive, not so...

We buy what's called a 50/50 trim.

It is a 80/20 mix of fat and meat.

It is the perfect match for us because we as humans eat protein for the

fat in my opinion but given the fact that cattle are bred for lean meat

it is very hard to get the fat content where it should be.

This 50/50 trim is very inexpensive less than $2.00 alb and probably

less in large amounts.

You must know your source a small butcher shop that kills its its local

cattle would be best, organic would be the ultimate.

It is the staple of my diet with eggs and spring salad mix and a fatty

steak once a week.

chicken now and then and veggies to an extent but none with any starch

or natural sugar.

Fairly cheap, boring but cheap....

Tim

biophile410 wrote:

> Eating no starch is a very expensive diet, which most people simply

> cannot afford. Especially if you're only eating good quality animal

> products.

>

> It *may* be true that Price's grain eating peoples did not attain the

> highest level of health and the 'meat-and-veggie only' peoples

> attained a higher level. (Although I think his s contradict even

> that theory.) However the differences in these types were not

> dramatic. I think the conclusion which Price himself reached is

> valid: properly prepared grains can be part of a healthy diet. (I'm

> taking about millet, corn and rice, not wheat, which I've sworn off.)

>

> Also aren't the Japanese the longest lived people in recorded history?

>

> And they eat rice for energy, along with a lot of nutrient dense

> foods of course.

>

> Daphne

>

>

>

> > -

> >

> > >i am simply experimenting, but feeling like i'm the only one on

> earth not

> > >eating grains.

> >

> > You're not alone. Most Atkins dieters eschew grains, all Specific

> > Carbohydrate Diet followers avoid grains like the plague, and plenty

> of

> > paleo and NT types do too.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tim,

How do you prepare the trim? Is it cooked or raw?

When I've eaten raw steak, I hate the taste of the raw fat (this is

from a grass-fed cow), but I force myself to eat it. I can't imagine

eating something raw that's 80% fat!

And, if you cook it, I'm wondering what you do exactly.

Thanks for your help. I want to add more fat to my diet, so this

trim might be a good way.

> Expensive, not so...

> We buy what's called a 50/50 trim.

> It is a 80/20 mix of fat and meat.

> It is the perfect match for us because we as humans eat protein for

the

> fat in my opinion but given the fact that cattle are bred for lean

meat

> it is very hard to get the fat content where it should be.

> This 50/50 trim is very inexpensive less than $2.00 alb and probably

> less in large amounts.

> You must know your source a small butcher shop that kills its its

local

> cattle would be best, organic would be the ultimate.

> It is the staple of my diet with eggs and spring salad mix and a

fatty

> steak once a week.

....

> Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi ....

I have it course ground which is much easier to cook.

You can get it in the natural state but it cooks harder and burns easy

and if it is course ground it will break down to where you can drain the

excess of and use it for other purposes.

If you just get the trim as is I cut it down into thin strips and it

doesn't drain off which means I don't have to eat as much.

Tim

Note there is a bit of waste given some tendons and such end up in the

trim.

coarse grinding breaks these down but at some point you will get a bite

that is too tough to chew, but it is a very small amount of the total.

kili94 wrote:

> Tim,

>

> How do you prepare the trim? Is it cooked or raw?

>

> When I've eaten raw steak, I hate the taste of the raw fat (this is

> from a grass-fed cow), but I force myself to eat it. I can't imagine

> eating something raw that's 80% fat!

>

> And, if you cook it, I'm wondering what you do exactly.

>

> Thanks for your help. I want to add more fat to my diet, so this

> trim might be a good way.

>

>

>

>

> > Expensive, not so...

> > We buy what's called a 50/50 trim.

> > It is a 80/20 mix of fat and meat.

> > It is the perfect match for us because we as humans eat protein for

> the

> > fat in my opinion but given the fact that cattle are bred for lean

> meat

> > it is very hard to get the fat content where it should be.

> > This 50/50 trim is very inexpensive less than $2.00 alb and probably

>

> > less in large amounts.

> > You must know your source a small butcher shop that kills its its

> local

> > cattle would be best, organic would be the ultimate.

> > It is the staple of my diet with eggs and spring salad mix and a

> fatty

> > steak once a week.

> ...

> > Tim

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tim,

Why's it called 50/50 trim if it's 80/20? What part of the animal

does it come from?

Thanks,

Daphne

> Expensive, not so...

> We buy what's called a 50/50 trim.

> It is a 80/20 mix of fat and meat.

> It is the perfect match for us because we as humans eat protein for the

> fat in my opinion but given the fact that cattle are bred for lean meat

> it is very hard to get the fat content where it should be.

> This 50/50 trim is very inexpensive less than $2.00 alb and probably

> less in large amounts.

> You must know your source a small butcher shop that kills its its local

> cattle would be best, organic would be the ultimate.

> It is the staple of my diet with eggs and spring salad mix and a fatty

> steak once a week.

> chicken now and then and veggies to an extent but none with any starch

> or natural sugar.

> Fairly cheap, boring but cheap....

> Tim

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Daphne...

I don't know, its one of those quirky butcher phrases.....

it is basically the fat between the meat and the hide.

Tim

biophile410 wrote:

> Tim,

>

> Why's it called 50/50 trim if it's 80/20? What part of the animal

> does it come from?

>

> Thanks,

> Daphne

>

>

> > Expensive, not so...

> > We buy what's called a 50/50 trim.

> > It is a 80/20 mix of fat and meat.

> > It is the perfect match for us because we as humans eat protein for

> the

> > fat in my opinion but given the fact that cattle are bred for lean

> meat

> > it is very hard to get the fat content where it should be.

> > This 50/50 trim is very inexpensive less than $2.00 alb and probably

>

> > less in large amounts.

> > You must know your source a small butcher shop that kills its its

> local

> > cattle would be best, organic would be the ultimate.

> > It is the staple of my diet with eggs and spring salad mix and a

> fatty

> > steak once a week.

> > chicken now and then and veggies to an extent but none with any

> starch

> > or natural sugar.

> > Fairly cheap, boring but cheap....

> > Tim

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Hmm, fair point, though do we know that the Swiss traveled more than other

groups? At any rate, none of Price's groups were cavity-free, which

suggests to them that even though they enjoyed tremendous vigor and health

compared to us, none of them reached the ideal.

>So you can't compare the raw data on

>the Swiss and expect it to reflect their primitive diet, when we know a good

>many of them at least got cavities while on modern diets.

-

[Guest guest]

Daphne-

>I think the conclusion which Price himself reached is

>valid: properly prepared grains can be part of a healthy diet.

They can -- for some people. However, I think that the worse off your

health is to begin with, the less likely it is that you can reach anything

even approaching ideal health while eating a lot of grain.

>Also aren't the Japanese the longest lived people in recorded history?

> And they eat rice for energy, along with a lot of nutrient dense

>foods of course.

The Japanese (and Asians generally) are often misrepresented as

ideals. For one thing, have you taken a gander at their old people?

-

[Guest guest]

Daphne-

>, if you're correct that gluten is bad news for everyone (to

>varying degrees) that suggests a new interpretation of Price's work.

To a degree, yes, but partly this is because the nature of foods has

changed since Price's time.

>The common thread in the " foods of modern commerce " that cause

>deterioration are white flour and white sugar.

And syrups, and other " displacing foods of modern commerce " , and the

incorrect preparation of potentially problematic foods like grains.

>But -- a blanket condemnation of all grains is not consistent with

>Price's work. The traditional, thriving Swiss group he studied ate

>rye, the s ate oats, and many African tribes ate millet.

True, but these people had generations of health to draw upon, AND they ate

grains which were both prepared properly and which didn't really resemble

our modern staples.

>Now rye contains gluten, and oats contain some form of gluten too

>(gluten actually comprises more than one protein). Maybe the Swiss

>and s has adapted toward those glutens?

Their grains probably contained less starch than modern strains, and they

definitely contained less protein. The protein content of grains today is

sometimes stunningly high, unprecedented in nature.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>>Hmm, fair point, though do we know that the Swiss traveled more than

other

groups?

----->i think price made that point, but am not certain.

>>>>At any rate, none of Price's groups were cavity-free,

----->not true, i think there was at least one group that was completely

free of cavities...dang! i can't remember which one though! it stuck in my

mind as i read it recently...i think it might have been one of the african

tribes...but i just can't remember.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/24/03 11:19:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Hmm, fair point, though do we know that the Swiss traveled more than other

> groups?

Not necessarily, but we do know that Price found that most cavities were in

those who travelled, which is much more relevant, because where they travelled

*to* and what the diet was like *there* makes the bigger difference.

At any rate, none of Price's groups were cavity-free, which

> suggests to them that even though they enjoyed tremendous vigor and health

> compared to us, none of them reached the ideal.

>

True, as populations anyway. Though there were plenty of individuals who

were cavity free, and populations where most of them were. I wonder what would

account for the cavities in those who lived in populations where most people

had none?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/24/03 11:27:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->not true, i think there was at least one group that was completely

> free of cavities...dang! i can't remember which one though! it stuck in my

> mind as i read it recently...i think it might have been one of the african

> tribes...but i just can't remember.

i believe sally said the masai and also the h & g's in africa had no cavities,

but don't recall from price's book, so they may have had a positive but

negligible cavity balance which she rounded off.

chris