Re: presoaked-not presoaked grains

[Guest guest]

Hallo,

I have a question for you all (maybe somebody knows an answer :-)

I've often read in many books (Nourishing Traditions and other, but maybe the

source is always the same?) that grains, and seeds in general, need to be

presoaked or fermented, in order to deactivate phytic acid and enzymes

inibitors; and it is said, that all traditional cultures act like that. Now, I

actually do believe that phytic acid and inhibitors do exist and must be

deactivated, but on the other side, as far as I could inquiry, it doesn't seem

to be really true that all traditions call for presoaking or fermenting of

seeds. While it seems to be true for pulses (in Italy, where pulses are often

eaten, they are in fact always presoaked, at least traditionally), it doesn't

seem to be always true for grains: in Italy, traditionally homemade pasta

(noodles) is made by mixing flour with water (just enough to make a hard dough),

kneading the dough till well amalgamated, then forming the noodles and then

letting them dry for about one day. For sure, one could say that Italy is not an

example of healthy, long living people (although probably also not the complete

opposite), and that traditions which I can know now, are probably not such old

traditions anylonger. But I've found that another example of not presoaked

grains is among northern Indians and Hunza people, that is, actually, the better

formed, healthier and longer living peoples of India (and not only). Now, their

basic grain food was chapati, which is a not yeasted, whole wheat bread, made by

grinding the grains, kneading it with water, making it in a thin sheet and than

" baking " it on a hot stone or similar. An english doctor who lived in India for

a long time (Mc. Carrison, maybe many of you know his work; for those who don't,

you can find some of his papers at the www.soilandhealth.org) in the 30ies (the

same years of Price), made many experiments with rats, and proved that the diets

of these northern indian people (based on chapatis, pulses, milk products, some

meat, fresh vegetables and, for the

Hunzas, also a lot of fruit) provided very healthy rats (compared with control

groups). Now, although rats are not humans (maybe they have a different

digesting system, that allows them to destroy phytic acid or so?), the first

proof of this diet were the human people who were traditionally using it:

exactly, these healthy indians and long living hunzas.

So, does anybody has an answer to that? For instance, would it be possible that

grinding the grains and kneading the dough deactivate the phytic acid and

enzymes inhibitors? I've also found that another traditional italian recipe,

pastiera, a very traditional cake from Napoli, which uses a " paste " made of

whole wheat berries, calls for them to be presoaked for 8 days (changing the

water every day). Maybe there is a difference if the grains are whole or ground?

..

I hope nobody takes my questions as a provocation. I'm just trying to really

understand, beyond every kind of food religion. So, it can also be that my

sources of information are not correct, and I would accept any correction to

them.

On my side, I can just say that I've sometimes the impression that, although

very interesting, Nourishing Traditions is sometimes not so traditional, at

least when I have the possibility to compare it with traditions I'm aware of.

Some examples:

if there is a country in which chestnuts are traditional, it is Italy, and in

Italy the most traditional way (I'm sure of that) to prepare chestnuts is to

roast them, which is not mentioned in NT's recipes;

I'm almost sure that traditionally made mayonaise is made only with egg yolk

(and, I would say, without any kind of whey) while in NT they call for the whole

egg, which is something made possible only by the (very new) use of electric

blenders;

about nuts, they call in NT for the same practice as for other grains, that is

presoaking and then drying. Now in Italy, where almonds, hazelnuts and walnut

are widespread and traditional, I would say that the way to prepare them is by

roasting (in order to make them more digestible: maybe roasting has a similar

effect as presoaking?), and I've never heard of a traditional presoaking of

them.

I would be happy to hear any possible answer.

Thanks, Valeria

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

: 6MB di spazio gratuito, 30MB per i tuoi allegati, l'antivirus, il

filtro Anti-spam

[Guest guest]

>So, does anybody has an answer to that? For instance, would it be possible that

grinding the grains and kneading the dough deactivate the phytic acid and

enzymes inhibitors? I've also found that another traditional italian recipe,

pastiera, a very traditional cake from Napoli, which uses a " paste " made of

whole wheat berries, calls for them to be presoaked for 8 days (changing the

water every day). Maybe there is a difference if the grains are whole or ground?

..

If you look in the archives, SOMEWHERE Suze posted a great link to a PDF that

had a good overview of phytate handling in a lot of cultures, done by the WHO or

some such. The answer, of course, as in most things, is that it varies a lot. I

just can't find the article now. Grains do traditionally get a lot of soaking

and fermenting, but not universally. Also the kind of grain makes a big

difference. Also there is a lot of food combining that is done (wine/bread/olive

oil, as I mentioned in a previous post). It seems that phytase is not always

fully inhibited, at least in that one article, except in beer -- it mentioned

that in some cultures, a LOT of the daily calories come from alcoholic drinks,

and it was thought that a lot of this had to do with health (the fermentation

got rid of some of the bad stuff). But if we could just find that PDF ... it was

very indepth and they actually tested to foods to see the levels of residual

phytates etc.

>I hope nobody takes my questions as a provocation. I'm just trying to really

understand, beyond every kind of food religion. So, it can also be that my

sources of information are not correct, and I would accept any correction to

them.

Provocation? In this group? We thrive on good arguments ...

--- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the answer; just what is a PDS ? :-) And do you know how could I look

for it?

Valeria

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>So, does anybody has an answer to that? For instance, would it be possible that

grinding the grains and kneading the dough deactivate the phytic acid and

enzymes inhibitors? I've also found that another traditional italian recipe,

pastiera, a very traditional cake from Napoli, which uses a " paste " made of

whole wheat berries, calls for them to be presoaked for 8 days (changing the

water every day). Maybe there is a difference if the grains are whole or ground?

..

If you look in the archives, SOMEWHERE Suze posted a great link to a PDF that

had a good overview of phytate handling in a lot of cultures, done by the WHO or

some such. The answer, of course, as in most things, is that it varies a lot. I

just can't find the article now. Grains do traditionally get a lot of soaking

and fermenting, but not universally. Also the kind of grain makes a big

difference. Also there is a lot of food combining that is done (wine/bread/olive

oil, as I mentioned in a previous post). It seems that phytase is not always

fully inhibited, at least in that one article, except in beer -- it mentioned

that in some cultures, a LOT of the daily calories come from alcoholic drinks,

and it was thought that a lot of this had to do with health (the fermentation

got rid of some of the bad stuff). But if we could just find that PDF ... it was

very indepth and they actually tested to foods to see the levels of residual

phytates etc.

>I hope nobody takes my questions as a provocation. I'm just trying to really

understand, beyond every kind of food religion. So, it can also be that my

sources of information are not correct, and I would accept any correction to

them.

Provocation? In this group? We thrive on good arguments ...

--- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi

Perhaps the way the grain is harvested is the missing link. I seem to

recall reading about traditional harvesting including a certain amount of

time the grain is left in the field in sheaths stood upright. The grain is

subject to rain etc giving the appropriate circumstances for breakdown of

enzyme inhibitors. Modern agriculture leaves this step out.

What do you think

Joanne

[Guest guest]

>Thanks for the answer; just what is a PDS ? :-) And do you know how could I

look for it?

>Valeria

A PDF is a document that you can read on any computer with Acrobat Reader. It

stands for " Portable Document Format " . A lot of stuff is published on the Web

that way (including my writups) and they are neat because they include a little

index and you can add notes to them, and they don't carry viruses (Word docs

do).

The pointer to the document would be in the archives, on this group or in

Beyond_Price. But I don't remember what it was called. Hopefully I'll run across

it ... the subject keeps coming up.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi

>

>Perhaps the way the grain is harvested is the missing link. I seem to

>recall reading about traditional harvesting including a certain amount of

>time the grain is left in the field in sheaths stood upright. The grain is

>subject to rain etc giving the appropriate circumstances for breakdown of

>enzyme inhibitors. Modern agriculture leaves this step out.

>

>What do you think

>

>Joanne

It probably DID get wet more, and I'm sure that affects things. It also causes

more

funguses and the old harvesting methods caused more ergot outbreaks and higher

mycotoxin content.

However, when researchers have gone out to what is left of traditional

societies, fermented foods and standing grain and all, there are STILL

phytates left over. It is exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the phytates,

so if you are eating grain, you need more calcium etc. to offset it.

(Soaking oats in milk, I'd guess the calcium in the milk binds to the

phytates before you eat them, and there is plenty of leftover milk,

so your overall health wouldn't suffer, for instance).

And that doesn't even address the other problems

with grains (immune system and mycotoxins and glycemic issues).

The fact is, when humans started living off grain, their health deteriorated

in many ways, and this is borne out by studies of mummies and bones.

I forget how many inches of height they lost, but they went from about

our current height to being short people, and suddenly developed

arthritis and osteoporosis. This happened in the West, to the Romans

and Middle-East folks, and to the American Indians who ate more corn.

Treating grains HELPS but it doesn't cure the problem. Grains are just

not very good for human beings, even though we have made them

a staple of our society. They aren't good for cattle either, and Dr.

Lutz had an interesting experiment that showed that chicken heart

disease (arthlerosclerosis) was directly porportional to the amount

of wheat in their diet.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Wouldn't sprouting be the most effective way to eliminate phytates? And

shouldn't it eliminate *most* phytates?

I don't think eating grains would make much of a difference, considering

vegetables tend to be high in oxalates, which are much harder to get rid of than

phytates.

Chris

In a message dated 10/7/03 3:17:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> However, when researchers have gone out to what is left of traditional

> societies, fermented foods and standing grain and all, there are STILL

> phytates left over. It is exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the

> phytates,

> so if you are eating grain, you need more calcium etc. to offset it.

> (Soaking oats in milk, I'd guess the calcium in the milk binds to the

> phytates before you eat them, and there is plenty of leftover milk,

> so your overall health wouldn't suffer, for instance).

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>

>Wouldn't sprouting be the most effective way to eliminate phytates? And

>shouldn't it eliminate *most* phytates?

Probably. But if you *really* sprout them, they aren't grains anymore. Anyway,

the writup didn't talk about sprouting, just soaking and fermenting.

>I don't think eating grains would make much of a difference, considering

>vegetables tend to be high in oxalates, which are much harder to get rid of

than

>phytates.

Actually, if you have the right gut flora, you can digest oxalates (and most

humans do, apparently, unless they've been on antibiotics). Anyway, people who

eat lots of vegies tend to be healthy -- there is no correlation between high

vegie diets and any bad health issues, rather the contrary.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

The fact is, when humans started living off grain, their health deteriorated

in many ways, and this is borne out by studies of mummies and bones.

I forget how many inches of height they lost, but they went from about

our current height to being short people, and suddenly developed

arthritis and osteoporosis. This happened in the West, to the Romans

and Middle-East folks, and to the American Indians who ate more corn.

--------------Actually, I've read that humans had started eating grains,

although I don't know at which extent, long before they started with agriculture

(i've read it in an article in Beyondveg, and they are for sure not

grains-supporters). Maybe all these illnesses were due to decreased animal food

consumption, due to population increment? (it is just a suggestion, maybe

completely wrong :-/

Treating grains HELPS but it doesn't cure the problem. Grains are just

not very good for human beings, even though we have made them

a staple of our society.>Heidi

------------but how do you explain, then, that there are so many very very

healthy and long living people who actually do have grains as a staple of their

diet? That Louis Cornaro, who, in 1600, at the age of 40 was so ill that

everybody thought he would soon die, got on the contrary to live a very healthy

life till the age of 102 by turning to a very moderate diet of BREAD, meat,

vegetable soup, the yolk of an egg an young, red wine? And that, as far as I've

read, Price also, following his researches, did suggest to eat grains?

They aren't good for cattle either, and Dr.

Lutz had an interesting experiment that showed that chicken heart

disease (arthlerosclerosis) was directly porportional to the amount

of wheat in their diet.

---------I've read something of Lutz. He suggested eating not more then 70 gr.

carbs per day, as far as I remember, and he wrote the book Life without bread.

My question is, if his experience was with whole or with refined grains (he

wrote in the 60ies, I think, and maybe at that time nobody was eating whole

grains anylonger?); with presoaked or fermented or not presoaked nor fermented

grains and so on. I've sometimes the impression that all these things against

grains are not that different from those against milk, but actually some of the

longer and healthier living people I've heard of (Hunza people and Abkhasians)

have (at least as far as I've read) as staples of their diet grains and milk!!

On the other hand, I've also read of an experiment made in the late 20ies by

Mellanby, which showed that: " 1) the addition of vitamin D [in a diet containing

grains] greatly diminished the spreas of caries and caused increased arrest of

this process; 2) the REMOVAL of cereals [although the diet included a moderate

amount of carbs, for plenty of milk, jam, sugar!!, potatoes, and vegetables were

eaten] together with the addition of vitamin D virtually suppressed all dental

caries and increased the healing process. " Which seems to support the idea that

grains are not that good, although the question could be once again which kind

of cereals did they use. What is interesting, is also that I've found these

experiments quoted in the article " cod liver oil, number one super food " in the

WestonAPrice foundation, and the article states: " Mrs. Mellanby then went on to

prove that no matter how much cereal is fed, if vitamin D is adequate tooth

formation is normal " . Just to say how many

" misquotation " there are, and how confusing everything is (at least to me). I'm

sooo confused!

Valeria

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> --------------Actually, I've read that humans had started eating grains,

although I don't know at which extent, long before they started with agriculture

(i've read it in an article in Beyondveg, and they are for sure not

grains-supporters). Maybe all these illnesses were due to decreased animal food

consumption, due to population increment? (it is just a suggestion, maybe

completely wrong :-/

They probably ate some. It takes 20 YEARS of a high grain diet, typically,

to cause major issues (except for young kids -- but until 1950, no one

made the connection between " sick kid " and " grain " .

------------but how do you explain, then, that there are so many very very

healthy and long living people who actually do have grains as a staple of their

diet? That Louis Cornaro, who, in 1600, at the age of 40 was so ill that

everybody thought he would soon die, got on the contrary to live a very healthy

life till the age of 102 by turning to a very moderate diet of BREAD, meat,

vegetable soup, the yolk of an egg an young, red wine? And that, as far as I've

read, Price also, following his researches, did suggest to eat grains?

A lot of it is genetic. If you are not sensitive to grains, you can eat them

just fine.

A lot of those very long-lived people are also very in-bred and eat the SAME

DIET

year after year. Under those conditions, a lot of genes die out. Now, my

grandfolks did NOT get wheat much, nor did their ancestors.

Another issue is the age of onset. If a kid is exposed at 6 months, they have a

lot more problems.

Another issue is survival. In Prices' time, modern researchers feel that most

people with major gluten intolerance died in babyhood. Later, with the help of

antibiotics and other " modern medicine " , those babies survived. But in 1900 or

so, babies died of " the flux " constantly. Many of those babies were gluten

intolerant, many reacting to breast milk. Gluten intolerance as an ADULT disease

used to be extremely rare, and is only now being recognized as a real condition.

The reason is mainly that a lot of us survived, who didn't used to.

About 1/3 of the US has the genes that react to wheat. That means 2/3 DON'T have

the genes. If you don't react, you probably won't get major health issues from

it (you might get SOME problems from it, depending ...).

>They aren't good for cattle either, and Dr.

>Lutz had an interesting experiment that showed that chicken heart

>disease (arthlerosclerosis) was directly porportional to the amount

>of wheat in their diet.

>

>

>---------I've read something of Lutz. He suggested eating not more then 70 gr.

carbs per day, as far as I remember, and he wrote the book Life without bread.

My question is, if his experience was with whole or with refined grains (he

wrote in the 60ies, I think, and maybe at that time nobody was eating whole

grains anylonger?); with presoaked or fermented or not presoaked nor fermented

grains and so on. I've sometimes the impression that all these things against

grains are not that different from those against milk, but actually some of the

longer and healthier living people I've heard of (Hunza people and Abkhasians)

have (at least as far as I've read) as staples of their diet grains and milk!!

Right, and they are also very inbred people living off the same diet for

centuries. I think whole grains ARE less harmful, and grains combined with oil

or wine or cultured milk are much better too. But for me, a very small trace

amount makes me feel AWFUL, and that is true for millions of people in the US.

Researchers are trying to find some magic cure so I can eat " real " bread again,

but frankly, I can't see what the issue is. There are LOTS of different grains,

and only 3 of them have major problems. I just avoid those 3.

A lot of people living off " grains " , btw, are not living off wheat/barley/rye,

and of these, barley and rye are not nearly as problematic as wheat. My grandad

lived off hot cereal, but it turns out

to be oats.

>On the other hand, I've also read of an experiment made in the late 20ies by

Mellanby, which showed that: " 1) the addition of vitamin D [in a diet containing

grains] greatly diminished the spreas of caries and caused increased arrest of

this process; 2) the REMOVAL of cereals [although the diet included a moderate

amount of carbs, for plenty of milk, jam, sugar!!, potatoes, and vegetables were

eaten] together with the addition of vitamin D virtually suppressed all dental

caries and increased the healing process. " Which seems to support the idea that

grains are not that good, although the question could be once again which kind

of cereals did they use.

That's what interested me about Price too. If you are gluten intolerant, you

likely have really bad teeth -- the calcium doesn't form enamel correctly. Also

you have severe lack of nutrients. Adding nutrients *really* helps, but it

doesn't address the underlying issue. The experiment you mention is interesting

.... most just concentrate on macronutrients and don't even MENTION the source of

nutrients. One mag I read mentioned that researchers are " just now " beginning to

realize that it isn't the macronutrient, but the SOURCE of the macronutrient,

that may be key.

> What is interesting, is also that I've found these experiments quoted in the

article " cod liver oil, number one super food " in the WestonAPrice foundation,

and the article states: " Mrs. Mellanby then went on to prove that no matter how

much cereal is fed, if vitamin D is adequate tooth formation is normal " . Just to

say how many

> " misquotation " there are, and how confusing everything is (at least to me). I'm

sooo confused!

That may be true. Gluten intolerance doesn't, by itself, cause many symptoms.

The symptoms come from 1. Bacterial overgrowth in the colon and 2. Malabsoption

of nutrients. You address those two, and you can mask the symptoms. I think

taking extra vitamins will help a lot! And even if people give up gluten, they

may well need extra nutrients, because it takes up to 2 years to heal, and some

people never do, fully.

There is an easy answer -- in some countries they give a simple blood test which

shows the worst cases, at any rate. Kind of like we routinely test for diabetes.

The problem is, 1/5 of the population would show " reactive " , and what do you do

with that? If I were king I'd start making nice GF brownies and pizzas and bread

available at the groceries, and go ahead with testing.

For now ... everyone makes thier choices. I say, if you find out it makes you

not feel good, don't eat it!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>>>>If you look in the archives, SOMEWHERE Suze posted a great link to a

PDF that had a good overview of phytate handling in a lot of cultures, done

by the WHO or some such.

------>i'm guessing you're referring to the UN Food and Ag publication on

fermented foods? (although it's not an PDF)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0560e/x0560e00.htm

they do explain that fermentation was an ancient tradition, and

interestingly say that some anthropologists suggest that *alcohol*

production is what made hunter/gatherers become agriculturalists. hic. LOL

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0560e/x0560e05.htm#Fer

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

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

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

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

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

>------>i'm guessing you're referring to the UN Food and Ag publication on

>fermented foods? (although it's not an PDF)

><http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0560e/x0560e00.htm>http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0560e\

/x0560e00.htm

That one is interesting, but no, it's not the one I recall.

>they do explain that fermentation was an ancient tradition, and

>interestingly say that some anthropologists suggest that *alcohol*

>production is what made hunter/gatherers become agriculturalists. hic. LOL

Hee hee. I've heard others say that. Makes sense. Did you ever

read " Pitcairn's island " ? Story of the Bounty mutineers. They

reach an unspoiled tropical paradise, complete with some

nice women a local chief has given them, plenty of food, nice

weather. They got it made! All went well, then they built

a still and proceeded to get drunk and get into fights and

killed each other until only one was left ... he got all the

women and gave up drinking.

If it wasn't a true story I'd say they were moralizing!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>i'm guessing you're referring to the UN Food and Ag publication on

fermented foods? (although it's not an PDF)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0560e/x0560e00.htm

-----------thanks, it seems very interesting :-)

valeria

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

: 6MB di spazio gratuito, 30MB per i tuoi allegati, l'antivirus, il

filtro Anti-spam